Some claim Jesus had faith

[Daniel Marsh]

OP: Some claim Jesus had faith

They would be correct!

Jesus Himself say's it here:

Acts 26:18 To open their eyes, and to turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins, and inheritance among them which are sanctified by faith that is in me.
NOTE: Jesus say's FAITH is in Him)

Paul say's it here: Rom 3:22, Gal 2:16, 2:20, 3:22, Phil 3:9
(NOTE: By the faith "OF" Christ)

2 Timothy 3:16 (A) All scripture is given by inspiration of God

A Better translation is:

Acts 26:18
Easy-to-Read Version

18 You will make them able to understand the truth. They will turn away from darkness to the light. They will turn away from the power of Satan, and they will turn to God. Then their sins can be forgiven, and they can be given a place among God’s people—those who have been made holy by believing in me.’”

 

[Aussie Pete]

Do you have Scripture saying this ?

It's self evident. Lord Jesus committed his spirit to God. Also, quoting psalm 22, "He trusts in God. Let God deliver Him now if He wants Him. For He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ”

Also, "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 4:5

 

[JohnT]

And, do have Scripture saying its not?

Silence on an issue only proves silence on that particular issue. Trying to prove something on which there is only silence is impossible as well as being a logical error.

The onus is on the one making the affirmative statement to supply proof.

 

[JohnT]

You pushed back on my not including more verses around Philippians 2:7-9 in my argument (you included 2:6-11) and you proffered a different translation.

It is called CONTEXT. Without, it, we just have meaningless words.

I did the courtesy of using your "very good modern translation" of Philippians 2:6-11 and amplified my argument - so I don't know where you are coming from.

The words I supplied from the ESV provided more context than you provided. I could copy other translations, if you wish. But the point of my reply was to demonstrate the error of "emptied". The correct understanding is that before the beginning, Jesus ADDED unto Himself a second, human nature.

 

[John Mullally]

It is called CONTEXT. Without, it, we just have meaningless words.

The correct understanding is that before the beginning, Jesus ADDED unto Himself a second, human nature.

Philippians 2: 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
7 but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
8 And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

I included your ESV translation from another post. Note that Philippians 2:7 says "he made himself nothing" (AKA emptied himself) - that means he laid aside being "in the form of God" in verse 6. If he was ADDING a second nature onto being "in the form of God" before being highly exalted in verse 9 there would be no need to have had "made himself nothing".

Under the above reasoning I agree with Steven.

And I believe the miracles were done in his humanity, not in his deity.

If Jesus operated out of his deity, he could not have sent out his disciples to effect miracles and he would not have stated John 5:9 and he would not need to spend time in a uniquely human endeavor that angels are not recorded as sharing - prayer.

John 5:9 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

It's self evident. Lord Jesus committed his spirit to God. Also, quoting psalm 22, "He trusts in God. Let God deliver Him now if He wants Him. For He said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ”

Also, "However, to the one who does not work but trusts God who justifies the ungodly, their faith is credited as righteousness." Romans 4:5

Jesus didn't say those words the Mockers said He trusts in God.

Are you going to believe what the Pharisees said about Jesus too ?

They said He casts out demons by Beelzebub.

All who see me mock me; they sneer and shake their heads: 8“He trusts in the LORD, let the LORD deliver him; let the LORD rescue him, since He delights in him.”

 

[dms1972]

I included your ESV translation from another post. Note that Philippians 2:7 says "he made himself nothing" (AKA emptied himself) - that means he laid aside being "in the form of God" in verse 6. If he was ADDING a second nature onto being "in the form of God" before being highly exalted in verse 9 there would be no need to have had "made himself nothing".

Under the above reasoning I agree with Steven.

And I believe the miracles were done in his humanity, not in his deity.

If Jesus operated out of his deity, he could not have sent out his disciples to effect miracles and he would not have stated John 5:9 and he would not need to spend time in a uniquely human endeavor that angels are not recorded as sharing - prayer.

John 5:9 Then Jesus answered and said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner.

I agree with JohnT here because I see in Athanasius and also Calvin they held that the Incarnation of the Son of God was not a subtraction of deity, but an assuming or adding of a human nature. In the Incarnation there is one Person, the Son of God, Christ, with two natures human and divine.

I don't know if its incorrect to speak of the miracles being done in Jesus humanity, but to keep talking about that seems to miss the fact that when Christ cast out demons, was it was His authority as the Holy One of God the demons recognised and feared. Mark 1:24. When Jesus sent out his disciples he gave them a measure of authority, to act in His Name.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

I agree with JohnT here because I see in Augustine, Athanasius and also Calvin they all held that the Incarnation of the Son was not a subtraction of deity, but an assuming or adding of a human nature.

When Christ cast out demons, was it was His authority as the Holy One of God the demons recognised and feared. When Jesus sent out his disciples he gave them a measure of authority, to act in His Name. All this talk about was it in his humanity or his deity misses the point that the authority was given to do it in the name of Jesus.

Correct Jesus gets His Person from his Divinity as the Son. He is One Divine Person who assumed a human nature but He is not a human person that is Nestorianism known as a heresy rejected by the Church. Otherwise Jesus would be two persons. This is where some get into trouble with the humanity of Jesus.

hope this helps !!!

 

[JohnT]

dms1972 said: ↑
I agree with JohnT here because I see in Augustine, Athanasius and also Calvin they all held that the Incarnation of the Son was not a subtraction of deity, but an assuming or adding of a human nature.

Thank you for that post--not because you agree with my reasons, but because you deal with the particulars of the issues

 

[John Mullally]

I agree with JohnT here because I see in Athanasius and also Calvin they held that the Incarnation of the Son of God was not a subtraction of deity, but an assuming or adding of a human nature. In the Incarnation there is one Person, the Son of God, Christ, with two natures human and divine.

I don't know if its incorrect to speak of the miracles being done in Jesus humanity, but to keep talking about that seems to miss the fact that when Christ cast out demons, was it was His authority as the Holy One of God the demons recognised and feared. Mark 1:24. When Jesus sent out his disciples he gave them a measure of authority, to act in His Name.

On earth, Jesus gave his disciples authority to cast out demons and heal all manner of disease and they had a lot of success. When his disciples experienced failure he gave correction - none of the recorded correction had to do with them not being the Son of God. In Mark 11:23-24, Jesus states that he has given his disciples authority to move mountains if necessary. As far as acting in Jesus Name, that is the Church's authority - so I agree with that.

I did not realize Christians are to reason from selective summations made in the dark ages over the unambiguous writings of the New Testament. Should have paid more attention during Catechism.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Jesus didn't say those words the Mockers said He trusts in God.

Are you going to believe what the Pharisees said about Jesus too ?

They said He casts out demons by Beelzebub.

All who see me mock me; they sneer and shake their heads: 8“He trusts in the LORD, let the LORD deliver him; let the LORD rescue him, since He delights in him.”

Lord Jesus lived and died as a man. He trusted God - that is obvious. I quoted the other verse because it confirms that trust and faith are one and the same.

 

[JohnT]

I did not realize Christians are to reason from selective summations made in the dark ages over the unambiguous writings of the New Testament.

MORE logical errors.

False dichotomy, and a poor usage of a historical term. That term is used anachronistically because the "dark ages" happened about 500 years after the Councils of Chalcedon in 451, and the second Ecumenical council held in the city of Constantinople in 533.

Why do you think that God gave us brains, and scholars to study to find truth?. If we were not supposed to use our brains, then the next time you get a headache, maybe you can ask the doctor or your priest to do some blood letting to get rid of that headache.

BTW, I am posting in this manner because I took many courses in church history in grad school. That is not bragging, nor does that make better than you. However, as a steward of that education, I am obligated to tell you the truth of the matter. If you keep on rejecting truth, then that is on you, not me.

Therefore, you are simply arguing against facts of history, and covering up your lack of knowledge with a veneer of pious-sounding pseudo spirituality.

 

[SkyWriting]

Did Jesus have Faith ?

1-Jesus used the word pistis or its derivatives a total of 41 times. Look it up in your concordance if you own one.
2- Every time Jesus used the word He was talking about someone else’s faith and not “ His Faith “
3- Jesus never used the faith in the first person referring to His “ Faith “.
4- No book in the entire NT ever refers to “ Jesus Faith “
5- Jesus is always the object of Faith never the recipient of faith
6- All the Apostles refers to their own faith in Christ .
7- Saving Faith is in Christ alone
8- God has no need for Faith
9- The Savior has no need for faith since He is not a sinner and He is God
10- Faith is needed for sinners alone and not the Holy Son of God who was / is Impeccable


Faith is the belief in things unseen. Remember the words of the Author of Hebrews: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (11:1).

hope this helps !!!

Jesus displayed Faith in the Father, and He did that by choice.

Luke 22:44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly; and his sweat became like great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

 

[John Mullally]

MORE logical errors.
Therefore, you are simply arguing against facts of history, and covering up your lack of knowledge with a veneer of pious-sounding pseudo spirituality.

Congratulations, you have proved my point. Wow you dropped "pious-sounding psuedo spirituality".

 

[dms1972]

On earth, Jesus gave his disciples authority to cast out demons and heal all manner of disease and they had a lot of success. When his disciples experienced failure he gave correction - none of the recorded correction had to do with them not being the Son of God. In Mark 11:23-24, Jesus states that he has given his disciples authority to move mountains if necessary. As far as acting in Jesus Name, that is the Church's authority - so I agree with that.

I did not realize Christians are to reason from selective summations made in the dark ages over the unambiguous writings of the New Testament. Should have paid more attention during Catechism.

Sorry i didn't understand your last paragraph. If you refer to my comments on Christology, there is a historical tradition from at least the time of the council of Chalcedon that understands Christ as one divine Person subsisting in two natures human and divine.

Participants in the thread however may be talking at cross purposes somewhat, discussing the works of Christ and how the miracles were done on the one hand (functional Christology), while others are discussing ontological Christology.

 

[JohnT]

Tread carefully when discounting quotes from Jesus (AKA The Word).

"Discounting" what do you mean by that?

Everything past verse 7 in Mark 16 is highly suspect.

This is not tearing down Scripture; rather it is discussing a fact well-known among Bible students. Dan Wallace suggests that there a total of 5 different endings for Mark, and that three of them can be "easily eliminated".

He also stated:
.

In verse 17, ‘and these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak in new tongues, they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will be healed. After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.’ It is verses 17 and 18 especially that are problematic for a lot of Christians...

In terms of the external evidence. At least ninety five percent of all manuscripts versions and fathers have the long ending. That is very huge; that is a lot, but we have said all along that we don’t count manuscripts, but instead we weigh them. It is also found as early as the late 4th or early 5th century in Codex W...

For Codex Vaticanus, it has an entire blank column at the end for Mark and it is the only blank column in the New Testament of the manuscript. Does this indicate that the scribe knew of the longer ending and was making room for it? Unlikely, since there isn’t room for the long ending. It is also unlikely that this is what the scribe was doing as there are three Old Testament leafs that have a blank column...

Summary
So, why did this Gospel have such a major textual upheaval at the end of the book? It was because scribes weren’t comfortable with a Gospel ending without any resurrection appearances. This seems to make the most sense by far. If Mark 16:9-20 was original then why would the material be deleted? Why don’t any manuscripts delete the ending of Matthew, Luke or John? If the material was offensive, why would not they delete verses 17 and 18? So to conclude the external evidence, but I brought in the internal as well.​

Lecture 34: Some Famous Textual Problems: Mark 16:9-20 | Free Online Biblical Library

As for this, "quotes from Jesus (AKA The Word) " I have no idea what you mean. It is not wrong to discuss what now exists regarding the last part of Mark 16, and to propose some reasons for those 5 possible endings. Those variations are facts, and they will not go away because we may wish them to disappear.

Those variations do not demean Jesus Christ in any way nor do they change the text.

Britannica says this:

It is attributed to John Mark (Acts 12:12; 15:37), an associate of Paul and a disciple of Peter, whose teachings the Gospel may reflect. It is the shortest and the earliest of the four Gospels, presumably written during the decade preceding the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Most scholars agree that it was used by Matthew and Luke in composing their accounts; more than 90 percent of the content of Mark's Gospel appears in Matthew's, and more than 50 percent in the Gospel of Luke. Although the text lacks literary polish, it is simple and direct; and, as the earliest Gospel, it is the primary source of information about the ministry of Jesus.​

Mark, The Gospel According to. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica. Deluxe Edition. Chicago: Encyclopædia Britannica.

According to the above, Mark wrote his Synoptic Gospel c. 60 AD. That is about 30 years after the Crucifixion and Resurrection of Jesus Christ

Therefore, it was a few scribes who for one good reason or not changed that part of Mark 16. This is a matter of transmission of the Bible and in no way changes the central, core beliefs of Christianity.

It is my hope that this clarifies some things about the endings of Mark 16, and that it calms you.

 

[dms1972]

I did not realize Christians are to reason from selective summations made in the dark ages over the unambiguous writings of the New Testament. Should have paid more attention during Catechism.

You are correct that the NT is unambiguous about who Jesus Christ is. When Paul or Barnabas did miracles it wasn't to draw attention to themselves as miracle-workers, they decried any worship directed to themselves. When Jesus did miracles it was specifically because God was pointing out who Jesus was - the Incarnate Son of God (Acts 2:22)

After the miracle of Jesus walking on the waters, when he got into the boat, the disciples worshipped him and said "Truly you are the Son of God" (Matthew 14:22-33) - Jesus was doing what was ascribed to Yahweh in Job 9:8 the one who tramples on the waves. He was doing it as one Person - Christ in both his divine and human natures if I am understanding it correctly. Peter getting out of the boat to come to the Lord, doubted and began to sink, his request was perhaps more an indication of his impetuousness than his faith.

 

[John Mullally]

Sorry i didn't understand your last paragraph. If you refer to my comments on Christology, there is a historical tradition from at least the time of the council of Chalcedon that understands Christ as one divine Person subsisting in two natures human and divine.

Participants in the thread however may be talking at cross purposes somewhat, discussing the works of Christ and how the miracles were done on the one hand (functional Christology), while others are discussing ontological Christology.

Its great that you are blessed from Church History. I thought that the real currency in a "Controversial Christian Theology" forum would be scripture and logic. Hearing arguments based upon Early Church councils reminds me of going to a Latin mass in my youth (confounding).

2 Timothy 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,

 

[dms1972]

I'm sorry but the Son is Eternal and all doctrine begins with the nature and attributes of God shared between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Person of Christ is divine this is basic Christology 101.

I don't begin with man and his human wisdom and reasoning.

We have to do justice to the true humanity of Jesus also, and so while I would affirm Jesus Christ is one divine Person with two natures human and divine, I would say according to His human nature Jesus also could be said to have faith in God.

 

[Jesus is YHWH]

We have to do justice to the true humanity of Jesus also, and so while I would affirm Jesus Christ is one divine Person with two natures human and divine, I would say according to His human nature Jesus also could be said to have faith in God.

Does the Father have faith in the Son ?