K
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boxjobox
Concerning Acts/Stephen, I would say you are connecting dots that aren’t there- best Go back and reread that and notice that God is God, and Stephen sees Jesus at the “right hand of”.
John- look it up. But also ask yourself ¿where is the history of John preaching the gospel and raising up churches? And why does Luke- who writes about the history of what was believed not include the things “John” writes? We see John and Peter in the beginning of Acts and they definitely are not preaching Jesus as God! So why conclude that John had some kind of change in theology. Where is the history of the evolution of John’s thinking?
I think my Christianity is an attempt to match what the foundational church believed.
And, what do you mean by “ the divinity of Christ”?
|
I'm aware that historians say that the Gospel of John was written later. I'm asking you why you agree with them. Is it a matter of certainty? Or is it a theory based on historical plausibility which is not the same as statistical probability? If it's the latter, is it worthy of being part of your religion, if indeed you think of yourself as having one?
So in the book of Acts, the son of man is said to be standing at the right hand of God. What do you suppose the significance of that is? I think in the biblical cosmology, the higher up a being is said to be, the more power and authority that being has. So I think in Stephen's vision the son of man by being at the same level as God has the same power and authority. So in traditional language, the son of man is omnipotent. Now omnipotence is one of the defining attributes of God. You've heard the expression the Almighty God or God Almighty haven't you? That would mean the son of man is Almighty. So since you have the son of man next to God in the vision, what do you have? Two Almighties? Something like the cognitive dissonance these questions provoke is, I think, why those folks stoned Stephen to death with the approval of Saul. Oh and, whatever else divinity might mean, omnipotence would certainly imply it. Don't you think?