Did Jesus Have Divine Powers As A Kid?

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
and all that has what to do with Jesus being God? Certainly you cannot be saying that because God elected to become human He is any less powerful or less God.
No that is not what I was saying. Jesus is and was God. End of.

But Kenotic theology posits that Jesus voluntarily gave up his divine attributes while he took on human form so that he could be human like everyone else.

The issue with the 'baby' God is that if this baby Jesus was omnipotent then it had no need of a mother. it had no need to grow up like normal children... in other words it wasn't human.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: paul1149
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
No that is not what I was saying. Jesus is and was God. End of.

But Kenotic theology posits that Jesus voluntarily gave up his divine attributes while he took on human form so that he could be human like everyone else.

The issue with the 'baby' God is that if this baby Jesus was omnipotent then it had no need of a mother. it had no need to grow up like normal children... in other words it wasn't human.

Kenosis stems from trusting Modern Translations or the original languages that nobody truly knows. The King James Bible does not teach such a thing on Philippians 2:6-9.

While Jesus suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience to grow in wisdom as a child, He clearly had power when He took on the flesh of humanity.

Jesus had power as God:
(During His Earthly ministry):

#1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).

Side Note:

Yes, I am aware Jesus operated by the Father and the Spirit, too. That does not negate His own natural attribute as God in having power.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,990
Pacific Northwest
✟200,679.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
No that is not what I was saying. Jesus is and was God. End of.

But Kenotic theology posits that Jesus voluntarily gave up his divine attributes while he took on human form so that he could be human like everyone else.

The issue with the 'baby' God is that if this baby Jesus was omnipotent then it had no need of a mother. it had no need to grow up like normal children... in other words it wasn't human.
Kenotic theology? which definition of this do you accept? Most of the theories of Kenotic theology such as Jesus giving up his powers are not orthodox. The orthodox believe is that Jesus subdued His glory not His powers. Also your view of Jesus appears to be based Nestorianism. There is one person Jesus and two natures God and Man as detailed in the council of Chalcedon in 451
 
Upvote 0

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
Jesus Christ had powers from his mother's womb. His mother used those powers to heal people and Jesus Christ healed people as a baby/child too. Anyone who held Jesus Christ as a baby,was healed. Read the Book of the infancy of Jesus Christ.
God Bless you

As interesting as the so-called "infancy gospels" are as historical curiosities, they shouldn't be taken even remotely seriously. These are works of pious fiction, basically ancient Christian fan fiction.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Kenosis stems from trusting Modern Translations or the original languages that nobody truly knows. The King James Bible does not teach such a thing on Philippians 2:6-9.

While Jesus suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience to grow in wisdom as a child, He clearly had power when He took on the flesh of humanity.

Jesus had power as God:
(During His Earthly ministry):

#1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).

Side Note:

Yes, I am aware Jesus operated by the Father and the Spirit, too. That does not negate His own natural attribute as God in having power.
'During His Earthly ministry'... in a thread about the child Jesus. In other words it is irrelevant to the point of the thread and irrelevant to Kenotic theology in respect of that.

Your link Phillippians is to NASB, not KJV and to be fair I don't care what the KJV says, I care what the Bible says and if that means going back to the original Greek I will do so. But the word is 'empty' and that is what Kenosis is about. It does not mean that Jesus was only human during his ministry, nor at any time, it just means that he chose not to access his divinity until his appointed time.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
As interesting as the so-called "infancy gospels" are as historical curiosities, they shouldn't be taken even remotely seriously. These are works of pious fiction, basically ancient Christian fan fiction.

-CryptoLutheran
I don't think they can be considered Christian.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Kenotic theology? which definition of this do you accept? Most of the theories of Kenotic theology such as Jesus giving up his powers are not orthodox. The orthodox believe is that Jesus subdued His glory not His powers. Also your view of Jesus appears to be based Nestorianism. There is one person Jesus and two natures God and Man as detailed in the council of Chalcedon in 451

This was an essay I wrote 18 years ago while at Bible College, I've changed since then but the essence of my argument is the same:

“A Gatecrasher at the Christian Party.” How far do you agree with this verdict on Kenotic Theories?

In his book, The Person of Christ, H. Brash Bonsall likens a group of ideas to guests at some great receptionhttps://www.christianforums.com/applewebdata://90EBD83A-0CDC-4547-8776-F8BE7DB9CAA9#_edn1. These ideas are the tools used to show that Jesus is both God and man. He later calls them bona fide scriptural ideas[ii]. Having identified the invited guests he then moves on to what he calls the gatecrashers. These he also calls ideas, but false unscriptural ones… Imitating a real Bible-idea[iii]

The first of these gatecrashers, Kenotic Theology or Kenosis, is derived from the Greek word meaning ‘to empty’. It appears in Philippians 2:7, where Christ Jesus is said to have ‘…emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.’ (NASB, my italics). Kenosis suggests that this literally means that he emptied himself of all or some of his divine attributes. At the heart of Kenosis is the idea ‘that the divine Logos limited itself in the act of Incarnation.’[iv]

In fact there are a number of different theologies all under the heading of Kenosis that advocate varying degrees of Jesus’ loss of power. Jac Muller identifies these as three levels of abandonment: Some divine attributes; all divine attributes or His deity[v]. This is the reason that there is such opposition to Kenotic Theory, as it could be construed as supporting Liberal Theological ideas. The aim of this essay is to examine to what degree, if any, Jesus emptied himself of his divine powers and determine whether there is any merit in Kenotic Theology.

Kenosis was conceived by a number of German Theologians during the Nineteenth century and developed by British Theologians at the turn of the Twentieth[vi]. For Wayne Grudem this is a telling factor as ‘no recognised teacher in the first 1,800 years of church history, including those that were native speakers of Greek’ would have agreed with Kenotic Theology[vii]. This argument has a lot of weight, however it is not strictly true as the Russian Orthodox church were developing Kenotic theory as far back as the turn of the 10th Century[viii]. In addition Ockham looked at the notion of divine self-limitation[ix] and there is every indication that some of the early church Fathers had some discussions on the subject.[x]

Much of the concern about Kenotic Theology revolves around its opposition to the Orthodox view that Jesus was both wholly God and wholly man. In particular Kenosis appears to contradict the Immutability of God, for if Jesus is unchanging, then he cannot have changed during the Incarnation. The problem with this view is that he clearly did change during the Incarnation – he became human. Bonsall does not see this as change, but rather addition – adding to his attributes, rather than changing them.[xi] However this is really an argument over semantics. Adding to a group of attributes does not change the original attributes, but it does change the whole being – in this case, God the Son.

As has already been stated many of the arguments that oppose Kenosis do so on the grounds that it denies Jesus’ deity. However not all of the Kenotic Theories do this, and it would be wise to ignore those that do as the product of Liberal Theology. Jesus clearly was God and there are numerous references to the fact, such as the beginning of John’s Gospel.

Removing this obstacle, leaves us with two options:

1. That Jesus left behind some or all of his divine attributes at the point of human birth, only to regain them upon his death. S. M. Smith makes the distinction between internal and external attributes.[xii] It is the latter, omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience, which most Kenotic Theologians consider that Jesus emptied himself of.

2. He had access to the divine attributes throughout his time on Earth, but denied himself the use of them.

At the heart of the argument is Philippians 2:7, which requires a careful examination in order to determine exactly what is being said. Grudem suggests that from the context of the rest of the chapter, it is implied that this is a humbling rather than an emptying, rendering the NIV text more accurate when it says ‘made himself nothing’. He points out that the text does not explicitly state that Jesus has emptied himself of the divine attributes.[xiii] On the other hand, the context does not deny Kenosis either, since it can be read that Jesus humbled himself to the point of becoming human, and giving up all the rights of being God – making himself a servant.

To use an analogy, if a man owns a coat, when he goes out he can take it with him or leave it behind. If it rains and he has taken it with him, then he has the option of putting on the coat, but if he did not take it with him then no such option exists. In the same way we have to ask the question did Jesus leave some of his divine attributes behind or did he have access to them at all times (and just choose not to use them)? To answer this question it becomes necessary to look closer at the way the Gospels portray the life of Jesus.

To start with it is necessary to tackle one of the most significant events in his life: The Baptism in the Holy Spirit. The Orthodox view might legitimately say that all of Jesus’ miracles can be attributed to his own power as Son of God, however these can equally be attributed to the Holy Spirit and this should be so, because if they are not, then Jesus words in John 14:12 take on a whole new meaning. ‘I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.’ If Jesus performed these miracles using his own power, then he seems to be implying that anyone can have a greater power – in essence they can set themselves above God! This is clearly not what is intended and none of Jesus miracles apart from the Resurrection were done in his own power, but through that of the Holy Spirit, which makes more sense in this context.

Further to this comes the idea of Jesus’ temptation. If Jesus had full access to his own powers, why was he not tempted until after his baptism? We are left with the ambiguous thought as to whether he was tempted in his own right, or through the power of the Holy Spirit (which lead him into the wilderness). In addition, Hebrews 4:15 states that Jesus ‘has been tempted in every way, just as we are – yet without sin.’ For Jesus to have been tempted in every way, his divine powers would have to have been included, but such a temptation would be much more than ‘just as we are’.

As a minimum those that advocate Kenosis would argue that the three attributes of omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence were given up by God the Son during the Incarnation. If this can be shown, then there is sufficient reason to believe that Kenotic Theology is a genuine guest at Bonsall’s Christian party.

It could be argued that if the baby Jesus was omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, he was probably a very unusual baby. For instance whenever he was hungry he wouldn’t have to cry for attention, but simply call out, or better yet, simply create milk out of thin air. Mary didn’t need to wrap him in swaddling clothes, for when he was cold, he could just heat up the atmosphere.

In fact if Jesus were omnipotent during his childhood then some of the apocryphal stories of Jesus, such as him making sparrows out of mud, become a lot more plausible, and yet the orthodox view is that these accounts are untrue.[xiv]

Clearly this is all getting a little silly, but it bears thinking about for this reason: Jesus was wholly human and therefore like all other babies and young children. If he had access to all of his divine powers then he would have had to use them in order to limit himself, otherwise some of the things mentioned above would happen. In other words he would have had to use his divine wisdom to voluntarily abstain from using other divine attributes, yet using divine wisdom means that he does not give up all of his divine powers. Bonsall calls this a paradox[xv], one that makes no logical sense, yet Kenosis, which makes perfect sense in this instance, is considered to be a false idea!

And when we look at the attributes it becomes clear that Jesus earthly ministry was not characterised by the use of the attributes. He was clearly not present everywhere at once, since he limited his ministry to Palestine. However it is difficult to determine whether this was because he couldn’t be omnipresent or whether he simply chose not to be.

Omniscience is also difficult to prove one way or another. For example when told of his friend Lazarus’ illness, Jesus says ‘This sickness will not end in death.’ (John 11:4). This could be read in two ways – that Jesus did not know that Lazarus would die, or that he knew that Lazarus’ would be resurrected.

There are plenty of other references to Jesus not knowing things. For example it says of the boy Jesus that he ‘grew in wisdom’ (Luke 2:52), but it is impossible to grow in wisdom when you are as wise as it is possible to be. Similarly, Jesus, when talking of the end-times states, ‘No-one knows about that day or hour, not even … the Son, but only the Father.’ (Matthew 24:36). This appears to be an admission of ignorance and certainly a lie if Jesus had full access to all knowledge.

Jesus’ omnipotence is the hardest attribute to define. He clearly manifests power during his ministry and talks about moving mountains, but this can be attributed to the Holy Spirit. Prior to the Holy Spirit there is not much reference to him doing anything that could suggest that he had access to such power. There is however the view that ‘if Christ put off and no longer had His… omnipotence… He not only ceased to be God but He never was God’[xvi]. However to argue that God could not give up his attributes, means that he is no longer omnipotent, and therefore the argument invalidates itself!

The Kenotic Theology that is considered by Bonsall to be a gatecrasher is one where the Son has given up all of his deity and therefore is in opposition to two of his ‘invited guests’, namely ‘Attributes’ and ‘Communion of Attributes’[xvii]. These two between them deal with the problem of Jesus being both wholly God and wholly man.

In this respect he is right to call Kenosis a gatecrasher, however, as has been shown, Kenotic Theologies encompass a wider field of study and as a consequence, upon examining the gatecrasher’s invitation more closely it can be seen to be the genuine article and thus Kenosis should be invited into the Christian Party.



https://www.christianforums.com/applewebdata://90EBD83A-0CDC-4547-8776-F8BE7DB9CAA9#_ednref1 Bonsall, H. B., The Person of Christ, London, Christian Literature Crusade, 1967, pp74-75.

[ii] Ibid, p87.

[iii] Ibid, p87.

[iv] Foster, B. E., ‘Kenoticism’ in Ferguson, S. B. and Wright, D. F. (Editors), The New Dictionary of Theology, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1988, p364.

[v] Müller, J. J., The Epistles to the Philippians and to Philemon, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdemans, 1955, p83.

[vi] McGrath, A., Christian Theology – An Introduction, 2nd Edition, Oxford, Blackwell, 1997, p260.

[vii] Grudem, W., Systematic Theology, Leicester, Inter-Varsity Press, 1994, p550.

[viii] Beare, F. W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, USA, Harper & Row, 1959, p82.

[ix] McGrath, A., op. cit., p260.

[x] In particular Origen, as seen in Eugene R. Fairweather’s appended note on ‘the Kenotic Christology’ in Beare, F. W., A Commentary on the Epistle to the Philippians, pp162-163.

[xi] Bonsall, H. B., op. cit., p90.

[xii] Smith, S. M., ‘Kenosis, Kenotic Theology’ in Elwell, W. A. (editor), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker, 1984, p602.

[xiii] Grudem, W., op. cit., p550.

[xiv] No specific cases are cited as these stories are generally thought to be apocryphal by the majority of theologians.

[xv] Bonsall, H. B., op. cit., p78.

[xvi] Ibid, p90.

[xvii] Ibid, p87.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
'During His Earthly ministry'... in a thread about the child Jesus. In other words it is irrelevant to the point of the thread and irrelevant to Kenotic theology in respect of that.

Your link Phillippians is to NASB, not KJV and to be fair I don't care what the KJV says, I care what the Bible says and if that means going back to the original Greek I will do so. But the word is 'empty' and that is what Kenosis is about. It does not mean that Jesus was only human during his ministry, nor at any time, it just means that he chose not to access his divinity until his appointed time.

Well, if you lived during the time before the Modern Translations came out (Before Westcott and Hort lived), you would care what the KJV says. The KJV existed for hundreds of years long before the Modern Translations showed up.

The link in my post that contained the quotation to the portion of Scripture from Philippians is not a link I created, but it is an automated created link whenever I type a Scripture verse here on the forums. The NASB is a Catholic Bible, that is the Bible of choice used for this forum. Yet, I did not create this forum.

The problem is that Philippians 2:7 in the NLT says this:

“Instead, he gave up his divine privileges; he took the humble position of a slave and was born as a human being. When he appeared in human form,” (Philippians 2:7 - NLT).​

All other Modern Versions push the idea that Christ emptied himself. The Kenosis teaches that he emptied himself of his divine attributes. This is false.

As for your interest in knowing Biblical Greek:

I don't think we can 100% rely on a dead language that we did not grow up speaking and writing ourselves. We have to confirm this truth by other more recent sources based in our own language that cannot be so easily altered by those bent on having their own religious agenda or bias. It would be like trying to understand Brazillian Portuguese thousand of years from now by studying a book. I have tried studying Brazillian Portuguese today by a book, and my wife showed me the problems that have arisen by my doing so. One has to learn a language by speaking and writing it within that actual culture. Many things are lost if one does not do this.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
@Silly Uncle Wayne

Okay. Some quick biblical facts here.

A. Jesus did grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
B. Jesus operated by the power of the Father (John 14:10-11), and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28).

Jesus had power as God:
(During His Earthly ministry):

#1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).​

Conclusion:

On point A., Jesus most likely suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience, and gained access to a part of it when needed.
On point B., it is not a contradiction for Jesus to have power and also operate by the power of the Father, and the Spirit, too. Please look at the verses on Jesus having power during His earthly ministry. It is clear that Jesus always had power. For logic dictates that in order to be God, you have to have the power of God. Jesus (or the Living Word) never stopped being God. He may have suppressed His divine attributes or power, but He did not ever lose them.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
'During His Earthly ministry'... in a thread about the child Jesus. In other words it is irrelevant to the point of the thread and irrelevant to Kenotic theology in respect of that.

Your link Phillippians is to NASB, not KJV and to be fair I don't care what the KJV says, I care what the Bible says and if that means going back to the original Greek I will do so. But the word is 'empty' and that is what Kenosis is about. It does not mean that Jesus was only human during his ministry, nor at any time, it just means that he chose not to access his divinity until his appointed time.

I know you do not put much stock in the KJV, but I did create 30 reasons in defense for the KJV being the Word of God for today.

30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
@Silly Uncle Wayne

Okay. Some quick biblical facts here.

A. Jesus did grow in wisdom (Luke 2:52).
B. Jesus operated by the power of the Father (John 14:10-11), and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:28).

Jesus had power as God:
(During His Earthly ministry):

#1. Jesus said He has power to raise the dead to life just as the Father had power to raise the dead (John 5:21).
#2. Hebrews 1:3 talks about how Christ held all things together by the word of His power when He purged us of our sins.
#3. Jesus said, He would raise up this Temple (His body) three days later (John 2:19).
#4. Jesus had the power to forgive sins and give eternal life (Mark 2:7) (Luke 7:44-50) (John 14:6).
#5 Jesus had power to take away the sins of the entire world (John 1:29).
#6. Jesus Christ said wherever two or three are gathered in my name, there I am among them (Matthew 18:20). This was said to the people he was around and not to just us today.
#7. Jesus knew men's thoughts (Matthew 9:4) (Matthew 12:25) (Mark 2:8) (Luke 5:22) (Luke 6:8) (Luke 9:47) (Luke 24:38).
#8. Jesus knew about the lives of others (John 2:24) (John 4:17-18) (John 4:29) (John 6:64).​

Conclusion:

On point A., Jesus most likely suppressed His divine attribute of Omniscience, and gained access to a part of it when needed.
On point B., it is not a contradiction for Jesus to have power and also operate by the power of the Father, and the Spirit, too. Please look at the verses on Jesus having power during His earthly ministry. It is clear that Jesus always had power. For logic dictates that in order to be God, you have to have the power of God. Jesus (or the Living Word) never stopped being God. He may have suppressed His divine attributes or power, but He did not ever lose them.
And I never said that he lost them (I had vision of this: Jesus is asking around for his divine attributes. "I know I had them yesterday, but I can't find them today. If only I had omniscience, I'd know where I put them, but I can't remember where I put them").

Nor is anyone saying that that Jesus in his ministry did not have access to them. The issue is DID THE CHILD JESUS HAVE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES?

And logically, I think the answer is no.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I know you do not put much stock in the KJV, but I did create 30 reasons in defense for the KJV being the Word of God for today.

30 Reasons why the KJV is the Divine and Pure Word of God for Today
Thank you, but it doesn't matter.

The apostles didn't read the KJV and to argue that it is the divine of word of God for today is fine, but the same could be said for most Bible translations and I'd give more warrant to those over KJV due to the better texts and scholarship available now that wasn't available 400 years ago.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
And I never said that he lost them (I had vision of this: Jesus is asking around for his divine attributes. "I know I had them yesterday, but I can't find them today. If only I had omniscience, I'd know where I put them, but I can't remember where I put them").

Nor is anyone saying that that Jesus in his ministry did not have access to them. The issue is DID THE CHILD JESUS HAVE DIVINE ATTRIBUTES?

And logically, I think the answer is no.

Then you have placed yourself into believing a contradiction, my friend. It is not possible for God to be God and yet not have a natural ability that is a part of His being. He could suppress these abilities (and still be God), but to have these powers stripped from Him would make Him no longer God.

Superman is no longer Superman if he lost his powers.
God is no longer God if He does not have any power.

The Living Word became flesh. He took on flesh. The Word (Who is God) added flesh. The Living Word did not subtract anything from Himself. The Scriptures do not say that.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Thank you, but it doesn't matter.

The apostles didn't read the KJV and to argue that it is the divine of word of God for today is fine, but the same could be said for most Bible translations and I'd give more warrant to those over KJV due to the better texts and scholarship available now that wasn't available 400 years ago.

Just look at the 30 points, and then decide. Deciding beforehand without even considering the points is not wanting to hear the other side of the argument. Can you honestly say that you can defend your view with the Bible? Do we see men of God looking to older more ancient languages to understand His Word?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
I don't think we can 100% rely on a dead language that we did not grow up speaking and writing ourselves. We have to confirm this truth by other more recent sources based in our own language that cannot be so easily altered by those bent on having their own religious agenda or bias. It would be like trying to understand Brazillian Portuguese thousand of years from now by studying a book. I have tried studying Brazillian Portuguese today by a book, and my wife showed me the problems that have arisen by my doing so. One has to learn a language by speaking and writing it within that actual culture. Many things are lost if one does not do this.

Which is precisely why the KJV is not going to be a good translation. It is 1600 years removed from the Bible as opposed to 2000 years for, say the ESV or CSB. In those 400 years, we have a better understanding of Greek based on other texts that were not available to the translators of the KJV. In addition we can be more certain of what has been added to the text than they were 400 years ago and on top of that words change their meaning and the purpose of the KJV was to make it readable to its current audience, much as most modern translations do. If you have a particular beef with any translation, you should be referring back to the Greek, not to the KJV.
 
Upvote 0

Bible Highlighter

Law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.
Supporter
Jul 22, 2014
41,433
7,859
...
✟1,187,903.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Which is precisely why the KJV is not going to be a good translation. It is 1600 years removed from the Bible as opposed to 2000 years for, say the ESV or CSB. In those 400 years, we have a better understanding of Greek based on other texts that were not available to the translators of the KJV. In addition we can be more certain of what has been added to the text than they were 400 years ago and on top of that words change their meaning and the purpose of the KJV was to make it readable to its current audience, much as most modern translations do. If you have a particular beef with any translation, you should be referring back to the Greek, not to the KJV.

Just look at the points I made in the thread. If not, then you have chosen to see only what you want to see. I do not see the Modern Translation View or the OAO (Original Autograph Only) View in Scripture. If we build a belief based on Scripture, we should have Scripture to back up our belief as such. Your view is biblically bankrupt compared to the KJV Only view. Proof? Check out the thread.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Then you have placed yourself into believing a contradiction, my friend. It is not possible for God to be God and yet not have a natural ability that is a part of His being. He could suppress these abilities (and still be God), but to have these powers stripped from Him would make Him no longer God.

Superman is no longer Superman if he lost his powers.
God is no longer God if He does not have any power.

The Living Word became flesh. He took on flesh. The Word (Who is God) added flesh. The Living Word did not subtract anything from Himself. The Scriptures do not say that.
You keep seeming to read into what I am saying something that I am not saying.

And to compare Jesus to Superman is a bit daft. It would be more accurate to say:

Clark Kent is no longer Superman if he lost his powers. But he is still Clark Kent and he would still be Clark Kent if he regained his powers.

At no point does God lose his powers or have them 'stripped' from him. That is not what is being proposed at all.

If you are into Superman, you should try reading 'The Nail' by Alan Davis an alternative version where the infant is found by Amish rather than the Kents and the resulting disasters that follow a world without Superman.

But that is an aside. Kenosis is about the Word becoming flesh and what that entails. Logos does not lose the divine attributes, nor have them stripped from him: he makes himself nothing - he chooses to be human, which must mean that he can't call on divine powers as a child to make clay sparrows fly or kill a bully or heal a scraped knee.

The issue is whether he had access to those powers when he had a toddler tantrum or not.
 
Upvote 0

Silly Uncle Wayne

Well-Known Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,332
598
57
Dublin
✟102,646.00
Country
Ireland
Faith
Charismatic
Marital Status
Single
Just look at the points I made in the thread. If not, then you have chosen to see only what you want to see. I do not see the Modern Translation View or the OAO (Original Autograph Only) View in Scripture. If we build a belief based on Scripture, we should have Scripture to back up our belief as such. Your view is biblically bankrupt compared to the KJV Only view. Proof? Check out the thread.
Its a side argument and not one I want to get into. If you read the KJV then fine, so do I, but I do not read it in exclusion nor do I expect others to and when I come up with things that are controversial I will ALWAYS go back to the original Greek text, not a text that was written 1600 years later.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
37,341
26,784
Pacific Northwest
✟728,105.00
Country
United States
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others
I don't think they can be considered Christian.

They were written by Christians, and I believe those Christian writers were well-meaning; I just don't think they have any theological or spiritual value. They are "Christian" in the same sense that the Chronicles of Narnia are "Christian", i.e. works of fiction produced by a Christian.

I wouldn't place them in the same category as the heretical books, but neither are they beneficial enough to be placed in the same category as the works of the holy fathers and non-canonical antilegomena. Hence I think describing them as a kind of ancient form of Christian fan-fiction is probably the best way I can think to describe them.

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0