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:
Ye Olde Trinity Diagram: The Shield of Faith
the concept of a triune God an anachronism in the first three centuries
podcast 129 – Ehrman and Bird on How Jesus Became God – Part 2
podcast 213 - Has Bauckham clarified his "divine identity" theory? - Part 1
Dr. Ryan Mullins on "the Trinity"
podcast 312 - Channing's "Likeness to God"
a conversation about the differences between God and Jesus
podcast 191 - Ware's Outline of the Testimony of Scripture Against the Trinity
SCORING THE BURKE – BOWMAN DEBATE – ROUND 5 – BURKE - Part 1
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.