St. Peter thought that Jesus was "made" both Lord and Christ?

[MH84]

Perhaps what St. Peter meant was that by Jesus Christ’s resurrection from the dead and his ascension into heaven, God had made publicly manifest that Jesus is both Lord and Christ, had made publicly manifest that Jesus is the divine Messiah long-promised to Jews.

If I said that I had “made” a wooden table, that wouldnt mean I am making the table publically manifest. It would been that I formed it or designed and created it.

 

[MH84]

But not publicly - until His Resurrection - or perhaps His Crucifixion-Resurrection-Ascension.​

Until then, he was Messiah designate - Messiah in waiting. Afterwards, He was “constituted” (as St. Paul puts it in Rom. 1.3) Lord - see Psalm 110:

• Psa 110:1 The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
• **Psa 110:2**The LORD shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion: rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
• Psa 110:3 Thy people [shall be] willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
• Psa 110:4 The LORD hath sworn, and will not repent, Thou [art] a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek.
• Psa 110:5 The Lord at thy right hand shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
• Psa 110:6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill [the places] with the dead bodies; he shall wound the heads over many countries.
• Psa 110:7 He shall drink of the brook in the way: therefore shall he lift up the head.

• and Messiah. His Messianic identity was a secret during His ministry: which is why those episodes in the gospels which include recognitions of it, are so significant. The secrecy & mystery of His Messianic & royal identity is a very important NT theme.

So you are saying that when Jesus became Man, He wasnt “Lord” anymore until He was appointed to be so again after the Resurrection?

I don’t think that when God became Man, He would lose His Lordship because He was just adding another nature to His Person. It was impossible for Him to lose His divine nature.

 

[MH84]

Arians like Christadelphians and Jehovah’s Witnesses for example use Acts 2:36 as a proof text, trying to say that Jesus was “made” ( using English defintion ) God, LORD.

first using the English dictionary definition of “made” is just plain stupidity on their part because the book of Acts is written in Greek within a Hebrew context.

If you go to Strong’s Concordance, you will see that the word translated “made” here from the Greek has a wide range of meanings,

cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=4160

The natural meaning from context is to “appoint”, “declare” or “set up as” ( this is from a hebrew translation of the text that I read ). The meaning of a word like “Lord” comes from its context in the passage. The only reasonable understanding of “Lord” in this specific context is that of being declared to be a King.

You will see that Arians are fond of committing word study fallacies. Expect to see many of the following fallacies in their posts, writings, etc.,

If Jesus was “appointed” or “declared” or “set up as” Lord, that means He wasnt Lord before that occurred, doesnt it?

 

[MH84]

In addition to these, we might add one more:

1. Failure to properly distinguish tense, mood, and voice for meaning. The “mood” of a verb is a “distinction of form to express whether the action or state described is conceived of as fact or some other manner, as command, possibility, or wish (indicative, imperative, subjunctive, optative moods).” The “voice” of a verb is the “distinction of form to indicate the relation of the subject of the verb to the action the verb expresses-active (subject performs), middle (subject both performs and is subjected to the action, as in “I wash myself”), and passive (subject acted upon)” (Webster’s Third New International Dictionary). The actual meaning of a Greek word in any specific instance depends upon and is influenced by these things, which are generally quite out of the reach of common people.

Can someone give practical examples of the differences because this is a little complicated for me. Thanks.

 

[fellowChristian]

Maybe because the flesh of Jesus was made, through Mary, and in His flesh He became the Annointed when St. John the Baptist baptized Him?All the while His Spirit was one with His flesh?

I mean He was God before He became flesh and in His flesh He was /is God,but maybe Peter was talking about the human side of Jesus?

Can someone else explain in better words what I just said?
Without committing heresy?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 3
“HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
AND WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY”

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3.htm

ARTICLE 2
“AND IN JESUS CHRIST,
HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD”
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art2.htm

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST,
THE ONLY SON OF GOD
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2.htm

 

[MH84]

Maybe because the flesh of Jesus was made, through Mary, and in His flesh He became the Annointed when St. John the Baptist baptized Him?All the while His Spirit was one with His flesh?

I mean He was God before He became flesh and in His flesh He was /is God,but maybe Peter was talking about the human side of Jesus?

Can someone else explain in better words what I just said?
Without committing heresy?

Catechism of the Catholic Church

ARTICLE 3
“HE WAS CONCEIVED BY THE POWER OF THE HOLY SPIRIT,
AND WAS BORN OF THE VIRGIN MARY”

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art3.htm

ARTICLE 2
“AND IN JESUS CHRIST,
HIS ONLY SON, OUR LORD”
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art2.htm

CHAPTER TWO
I BELIEVE IN JESUS CHRIST,
THE ONLY SON OF GOD
usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2.htm

Jesus consists of two natures that are fused together into one Person (the human nature fused permanently to His divine Nature). Is that right? So then are you saying that the human nature had to take on Lordship as well? Doesnt that contradict my first sentence of this paragraph?

…41 Hence the true meaning of his kingship is revealed only when he is raised high on the cross.42 Only after his Resurrection will Peter be able to proclaim Jesus’ messianic kingship to the People of God: "Let all the house of Israel therefore know assuredly that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified."43

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt1sect2chpt2art2.htm

I few people here suggested something like this, but it doesnt seem to mean this in the actual verse.

455
The title “Lord” indicates divine sovereignty. To confess or invoke Jesus as Lord is to believe in his divinity. “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord’ except by the Holy Spirit” (1 Cor 12:3).

I have to admit, I can’t see that calling Jesus “Lord” must mean you are calling Him “God”. People call other men “lord”, or “lordship” but that doesnt mean that they are gods.

How do we know that in the above passage (1 Cor 12:3) St. Paul wasnt merely talking about accepting Jesus as the Messiah, and accepting the religion that he (Paul) was preaching?

The first clear assertion of Christ’s divinity can’t really be seen until John’s Gospel was written.