"Now therefore the whole nation of Israel must know beyond the shadow of a doubt that this Jesus, whom you crucified, God has declared to be both Lord and Christ."
... It seems that Peter is basing his arguments for Jesus being the messiah on two things - one, the prophesies from the OT, the other, the miracles J performed.
1)this is something which was predicted by the prophet Joel .... David .... He foresaw the resurrection of Christ, and it is this of which he is speaking.
... I find these references to the OT less than convincing, though I can understnad the necessity of it .... By stressing the continuity between Judaism and Christianity, Luke argues that Christianity is deserving of the same toleration accorded Judaism by Rome. - NAB. And Luke also uses this device to identifies Peter with jesus .... Peter preaches, quoting from the prophet Joel (2:16-36; quoting Joel 2:28-32) - Jesus preaches, after reading from the prophet Isaiah (4:14-30; quoting Isa 61:1-2) - Felix Just SJ
2)Jesus of Nazareth was a man proved to you by God himself through the works of power, the miracles and the signs which God showed through him here amongst you ...
... this I do find a fairly convincing proof of Jesus being God ... not so much the healings, which other Rabbis at the time also performed, but Jesus' ability to still a storm, walk on water, bring the dead back to life, etc. I know most don't believe in the existence of the miracles of the gospels, but I'm sticking with being a supernaturalist :-). An interesting tidbit on divine action/miracles can be read here at the Counterbalance Foundation.
2 comments:
But Crystal, belief in the possibility of miracles (being a "supernaturalist") is different from believing a particular miracle happened the way the scriptures portray.
You say the miracles serve as better evidence of Christ's divinity than Peter's interpretation of scripture.
Both Peter's speech and the miracles are recorded in scripture. So the scriptures are more trustworthy as records of historical events than in right interpretation of scripture?
Not sure that works for me.
David, it isn't that I distust the scriptures perse, it is the looking back, by Peter, to find some confirmation from the distant past to bolster his argument. Those scriptures he quoted seem non-specific and nebulous in meaning, to me anyway, and I don't find them "proof" that Jesus is the messiah.
The miracles, on the other hand, were acts that many people in the time of Peter actually experienced (according to the gospels) ... so they are more convincing to me.
Post a Comment