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 236 - Levine and Witherington on Luke - Part 1
As usual, the Holy Ghost gets the worst of it
SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 5 – BOWMAN – PART 3
Is God greater than any man?
One way apologists misunderstand theos in the New Testament
Want to sue yourself? Theology can help!
podcast 304 - The Absolute Basics of the Christian Faith
Hays on "God" in the New Testament
Jesus's argument in John 10
Flocanrib and the ambiguity of the word "Trinity"
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.