Jesus was "made Lord" (Acts 2:36)

cjab

Well-known member
That is what 1 Kings 8:38-39 instructs me.
All OT references to God are to YHWH and to the Father (Ps 110:1). The Logos was invisible in the OT, hidden behind the YHWH name. I don't think you're going to score any points by alleging that anything in the OT makes a specifically Trinitarian claim. As John said 1:1c, "God was the Word." And yet, YHWH denotes the Father. The Logos was revealed in the NT, not the OT.
 

jamesh

Active member
I did not. Acts 2:21 means to call on Jesus as savior, not as God.
Well that's interesting because it means you do not know your Bible. 2 Peter 1:1, "Simon Peter a bond-servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST."

I would believe the Apostle Peter rather than you because you do not have the same faith, (what did Peter say)? as ours. So, since you deny the deity of Jesus Christ you are contradicting the Apostle Peter and you do not have the same faith as ours. Now it's your turn to come up with some "lame" excuse that Peter was, pst, pst, not teaching that Jesus is God our Savior. :rolleyes:

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

cjab

Well-known member
Well that's interesting because it means you do not know your Bible. 2 Peter 1:1, "Simon Peter a bond-servant and Apostle of Jesus Christ to those who have received a faith of the same kind as ours, by the righteousness OF OUR GOD AND SAVIOR, JESUS CHRIST."

I would believe the Apostle Peter rather than you because you do not have the same faith, (what did Peter say)? as ours. So, since you deny the deity of Jesus Christ you are contradicting the Apostle Peter and you do not have the same faith as ours. Now it's your turn to come up with some "lame" excuse that Peter was, pst, pst, not teaching that Jesus is God our Savior. :rolleyes:

IN GOD THE SON,
james
That's your Sharp's rule for you, per the Trinitarian dogmatism. Yet if Peter can and did make a clear distinction between God and Jesus in 2 Peter 1:2, then he surely did the same in 2 Peter 1:1. May be you should considerwhy Sharp's rule might not apply to 2 Peter 1:1.
 

jamesh

Active member
Let me put the issue to you in more simple language: Jesus ordered his disciples to pray to the Father, not himself.

Well cjab apparently Stephen never got the memo because at Acts 7:59 Stephen upon getting murdered prayed the following to Jesus, "And they went on stoning Stephen as he CALLED UPON THE LORD AND SAID, "LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT.! Suppose you explain why Stephen would as a man (who you believe is just that, a man) to receive his spirit? Why did he not specifically pray to God the Father?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

jamesh

Active member
That's your Sharp's rule for you, per the Trinitarian dogmatism. Yet if Peter can and did make a clear distinction between God and Jesus in 2 Peter 1:2, then he surely did the same in 2 Peter 1:1. May be you should considerwhy Sharp's rule might not apply to 2 Peter 1:1.
It's already been considered by Greek Scholar A.T.Robertson here:

"Of our God and Saviour Jesus Christ (του θεου ημων κα σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου). So the one article (του) with θεου and σωτηρος requires precisely as with του κυριου ημων κα σωτηρος Ιησου Χριστου (of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ), one person, not two, in 2 Peter 1:11 (NAS)
11 for in this way the entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ will be abundantly supplied to you."

So cjab, do you know more than A.T.Robertson? Notice 2 Peter 1:11 which is the exact same construction as vs1. Tell me, does Sharp's rule apply to this verse? I personally do not know Greek, do you?

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Our Lord's God

Well-known member
From a Unitarian:
The manuscript evidence supports the word “me” being in the original text. Modern textual scholars have concluded that some of the scribes copying the Greek text either thought that the wording, “ask me anything in my name” seemed strange, or they wanted to avoid what they thought was a contradiction to John 16:23, so they omitted the word “me” from the manuscripts they were copying (but in a couple of manuscripts scribes changed “me” to “the Father”). This explains why “me” is not in the King James Version—the manuscripts used in making the King James did not have the “me.” However, the weight of the manuscript evidence supports the word “me” being original, which is why almost all modern versions include it.
Very strong evidence that the word “me” is in the original text is that we can see from Acts and the Epistles that the early Christians did indeed ask Jesus for things, which is what the phrase “call upon the name of the Lord Jesus” refers to (1 Cor. 1:2). [For more information on John 14:14 not contradicting John 16:23 see commentary on John 16:23. For more information on talking to and praying to Jesus as well as a further discussion of the manuscript evidence that “me” is original, see Appendix 15: “Can We Pray to Jesus?”].
https://www.revisedenglishversion.com/commentary/John/14

And? This was your excuse for cherry picking what you like?
 

johnny guitar

Well-known member
All OT references to God are to YHWH and to the Father (Ps 110:1). The Logos was invisible in the OT, hidden behind the YHWH name. I don't think you're going to score any points by alleging that anything in the OT makes a specifically Trinitarian claim. As John said 1:1c, "God was the Word." And yet, YHWH denotes the Father. The Logos was revealed in the NT, not the OT.
To YHWH Yes, to The Father No.
 
Top