At his blog Cognitive Resonance, Ben Nasmith has some observations about the theology and christology of Acts:
…according to Acts, the God of Israel is the one who raised Jesus from the dead and exalted him. As such, Jesus is not the God of Israel. He didn’t raise and exalt himself. Rather, the God of Israel is the Father of Jesus. He is the God who “has made [Jesus] both Lord and Messiah” (Acts 2:36).
He goes on to observe that if Luke was right, then Marcion was wrong. Also,
…the theology of Acts closes the door on certain approaches to the Trinity.
How? Read the whole thing here.
Related posts:
podcast 124 - a challenge to "Jesus is God" apologists
podcast 235 - The Case Against Preexistence
Kermit Zarley on "My Lord and my God."
God the baby - Rama / Ram, avatar of Vishnu
proving that Bush = Sgt. Speedo
podcast 352 - Kegan Chandler - Jesus' Messianic Self-Awareness and "Early High Christology"
the evolution of my views on the Trinity - part 1
Origen: the Son is not the Father
When and How in the History of Theology Did the Triune God Replace the Father as the Only True God?
podcast 251 - Is the Trinity Biblical? Schumacher vs. Griffin
Ben & Mario,
Good points. 🙂
Here is the copy of the comment that I have posted at “Cognitive Resonance”:
There is no doubt that Acts identifies God as “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob”. So, obviously no to Marcionism. But I really do not understand that prudent “certain approaches to the Trinity”. Why? Can you see any “approach to the Trinity” that is compatible with Acts?
Comments are closed.