You made this comment earlier today, “I am not trying to prove that Jesus was no more than a man. I’ve made this point several times. My concern is rather that the lordship narrative is being misused.”
But in June of 2010 you made this comment re Acts 2 and Philippians 2: “In 2:34 Peter announces to all Israel that ‘God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified’. That makes no sense if ‘Lord’ denotes ‘God’. You would not want to say that God has made Jesus ‘God’, surely? ‘Lord’ in this context – a context very similar to Romans 1: 1-4 - must mean something other than ‘God’. In Philippians 2, of course, ‘lordship’ is something that is given to Jesus because he followed the path of obedience. It effectively presupposes that he was not God in his life of servanthood on behalf of Israel.”
Found in this thread: http://www.postost.net/2010/06/did-jesus-act-though-he-thought-he-were-god
I have wondered every since I read that the first time how you can even keep saying you are not trying to prove Jesus isn’t God, or how you can leave that possibility open at all if you really believe what you wrote here. You did say that these verses presuppose that He was not God. You seem to be saying two things at the same time here!