JES

look at Acts 2?

I've asked a number of Christians about this and all I get is confused looks and answers.

Peter is is ready to give his great sermon to the 3,000 after they've seen the tongues of fire. Now one would think that Peter would describe Jesus as God, the actual Son of God, God incarnate, etc, etc. But no, here's how he describes Him.

22"Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know.

32God has raised this Jesus to life, and we are all witnesses of the fact. 33Exalted to the right hand of God, he has received from the Father the promised Holy Spirit and has poured out what you now see and hear.

36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

So does Peter believe that Jesus was actually God (insert your belief of the Trinity here) or did he believe that Jesus was a man whom God made Christ?

This seems, to me at least, to be a contradiction between Christians who say Jesus was God and Peter who appears to be saying that Jesus was a man made Christ.

Or am I missing something?

Godfather

I know some people who would say that your are quoting from a satanic version of the Bible and not the truly inspired KJV version. :banghead:

:devil3: However, I would simply say that you are satan himself. Whether "accredited by miracles" or incarnate in the flesh I cannot specifically say. I geuss it depends on which version of this reply you read or conform to. :huh:

Amlodhi

Hello JES,

There is ample attestation that there was an alternate tradition, (called the "adoptionist" tradition), which considered Jesus to be a fully human being (of normal birth) who was at some point in his life "chosen" by God to be the mashiach.

Some of the indications attesting to this show up in alternate readings of the earliest extant NT fragments/manuscripts; a few examples follow:

John 1:13 "Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God." (KJV)

Tertullian apparently knew of at least one copy in which, instead of the plural verb "were", the singular "was" was used here. Thereby changing the sense of the verse to refer to Christ's supernatural birth rather than the nature of Christian conversion. Tertullian accuses the Valentinians of tampering with the text and also cites the singular form. (de carne Christi, 19 & 24).

Irenaeus (Adv. Haer. III, 16,2 ; 19,2) and the orthodox forgery, the Epistula Apostolorum also cite the verse in the singular as support for the pre-existence and miraculous birth of Jesus.

And yet, out of every known Greek manuscript and all the versional evidence, the one solitary attestation to the singular reading is in the Old Latin manuscript 'b' (Veronensis).

Thus, rather than being a "heretical" alteration by the Valentinians, it appears more likely that it was one of the attempted orthodox corruptions that never made it into the TR.


Luke 9:35 (at the transfiguration), "This is my beloved Son; hear him." (KJV)

Most of the earliest and superior witnesses (p 45, p75, Sinaiticus, B, L, 892, 1241, etc.) and AV, NASB, NIV, read "this is my chosen Son", or "my Son, my chosen one".


Luke 3:22 (at the baptism), "Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased." (KJV)

Virtually all of the earliest witnesses read, "Thou art my beloved Son; today I have begotten you."


John 1:34 "And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." (KJV)

A range of early and significant manuscripts (p5, Sinaiticus, 77, 218, b, e, ff, syr) read, ". . . that this is the elect of God." or ". . . that this is God's chosen one."

References:

The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Bart D. Ehrman, Oxford Univ. Press, N.Y./Oxford, 1993.

The Text of the New Testament, Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, William B. Eerdmans pub., Grand Rapids Mich. 1995.

Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek, B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, Hendrickson pub., Peabody Mass., 1988.

The Scofield Reference Bible, Rev. C.I. Scofield, D.D., Oxford University Press, N.Y.

The Comparative Study Bible, the Lockman Foundation, Zondervan pub., Grand Rapids Mich., 1999.

The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Alexander Roberts, D.D. & James Donaldson, LL.D., 10 vol., Hendrickson pub., Peabody Mass., 1994.

Thus, whether original or a later tradition, it is evident that there was at least one doctrine that Jesus was a normal human who was chosen to be God's representative. The point in time of this choosing is usually reckoned to be at his baptism by John the Baptist, though a few seem to prefer the point of his resurrection.


P.S. Welcome to the forum JES.

Amlodhi

Chili

No you are not. A good general rule is that Christians have everything just backwards.

Steven Carr

No, you are not missing something. Adpotionism was an early Christian theme.

Take the early creed in Romans 1 '.... as to his human nature was a descendant of David, and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord'

This says clearly that Jesus was declared to be the son of God at the resurrection, and while Christians conflate all Paul's mentions of 'The Spirit of Holiness', 'The Spirit of the Father', 'The Spirit of the Son' into just one Holy Spirit (and distinct from Father or Son) , Paul does not seem to know of a Holy Spirit as a member of a Trinity.

Or the early creed in Philippians 2

8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death--
even death on a cross!
9Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
and gave him the name that is above every name,
10that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

This seems pretty clear that Jesus only became Jesus Christ and Lord at the crucifixion (or resurrection)

Philippians 2 says clearly that Jesus 'made himself nothing'.

So Jesus was empty of divinity, yet , of course, fully divine.

How anybody can think that somebody can work the signs that Jesus supposedly did in John's Gospel and yet have also 'made himself nothing' is beyond me.

JES

I am unfamiliar with this tradition. I'll need to do some more reading, Thanks for the information.

Do any current denominations still adhere to Adoptionism or was it declared a heresy and most Christian groups reject it, even though there appears to be ample support for it in the Bible?

CX

Although trinitarianism is fairly well established to be an early doctrine in the Xian movement, it is by no means the only Christology among early Xian groups. Is seems likely that the Acts 2 passage is an earlier thread of tradition.

CX

Aren't JW's adoptionist? They're definitely not trinitarian.

Amlodhi

Hi CX,

IIRC, JW's espouse Arianism rather than adoptionism. IOW, that Christ was begotten by God the Father at some point prior to creation, in contrast to the Trinitarian doctrine that Christ was eternally existent with the Father.

I'm not sure about the LDS, but I think they are "Corporate Ladderists".


Amlodhi

Toto

Adoptionism does not appear to have any modern adherents.