Did Jesus Have Divine Powers As A Kid?

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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

I'm not sure I'd agree at all, if we are talking about the likes of Infant Gospel of Thomas. I've read it and can only say that it was written by someone who didn't understand Jesus and the reason for his presence on Earth. The same couldn't be said of Narnia, where the author clearly did understand and wrote something to allegorise it.

Some of the other early writings I have no problem with (Didache), but I'm not sure it is safe to say that, for example The Gospel of Judas was either well-meaning or "Christian".

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

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?

I took a look and I thought it quite hypocritical of you saying 'not wanting to hear the other side of the argument', when it looks very much like you didn't want to hear any other side of the argument (trying to ban posters who disagreed with you).

The reality is that we will never agree because you make KJV divine in the same way as the Muslim's make the Quran divine. I see the Bible as holy, but not a translation. Have you never considered what Christians who don't speak KJV English read to understand God's word? It certainly isn't the KJV!

 

[ViaCrucis]

I'm not sure I'd agree at all, if we are talking about the likes of Infant Gospel of Thomas. I've read it and can only say that it was written by someone who didn't understand Jesus and the reason for his presence on Earth. The same couldn't be said of Narnia, where the author clearly did understand and wrote something to allegorise it.

Some of the other early writings I have no problem with (Didache), but I'm not sure it is safe to say that, for example The Gospel of Judas was either well-meaning or "Christian".

The Gospel of Judas is clearly a heretical work.

Out of curiosity, are we talking about the same text? The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not the same as the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic, heretical work; while the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is simply a work of pious fiction about Jesus as a child and adolescent.

That's why I am saying that such pious works of fiction are not as bad as heretical works (such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and other Gnostic literature) but neither beneficial such as works such as the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, or the writings of the ancient fathers.

I think the worst that could be said about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is that its author wasn't a well educated Christian, but how many Christians do we know today who are lacking in good theological education? A lot I reckon. I wouldn't charge such a brother or sister of not being a Christian for simply not knowing better.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The Gospel of Judas is clearly a heretical work.

Out of curiosity, are we talking about the same text? The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not the same as the Gospel of Thomas. The Gospel of Thomas is a Gnostic, heretical work; while the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is simply a work of pious fiction about Jesus as a child and adolescent.

That's why I am saying that such pious works of fiction are not as bad as heretical works (such as the Gospel of Judas, the Gospel of Thomas, and other Gnostic literature) but neither beneficial such as works such as the Didache, the Epistle of Clement, or the writings of the ancient fathers.

I think the worst that could be said about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas is that its author wasn't a well educated Christian, but how many Christians do we know today who are lacking in good theological education? A lot I reckon. I wouldn't charge such a brother or sister of not being a Christian for simply not knowing better.

-CryptoLutheran

No I was talking about the Infancy Gospel of Thomas not the Gospel of Thomas - bear in mind the title of thread - one of those books has no bearing on the subject .

With regards to being 'well educated', the problem is that 'well educated' Christians decided to copy it rather than screwing it up and throwing it in the bin. So even the well-educated can be gullible!

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I took a look and I thought it quite hypocritical of you saying 'not wanting to hear the other side of the argument', when it looks very much like you didn't want to hear any other side of the argument (trying to ban posters who disagreed with you).

We have two different understandings on what banning means.
It needs to be clarified for the reader that banning posters on forums normally implies that a moderator bans a people from posting on the forums, or it means I am trying to get them into trouble so that moderators can eventually ban them. I will have the reader know that I did not do either one.

I asked for the thread to be closed because I felt outnumbered, and I felt that folks were not listening anymore.

I did not ban them from talking on the subject on another thread. Another Anti-KJV-Only poster had immediately started another thread, but it died out. But my post of 30 defense for the KJV still stands. All who are seeking the truth can read it for themselves. The funny thing is that their responses actually proves one of my points in defense for the KJV being God's perfect Word for today.

The reality is that we will never agree because you make KJV divine in the same way as the Muslim's make the Quran divine. I see the Bible as holy, but not a translation. Have you never considered what Christians who don't speak KJV English read to understand God's word? It certainly isn't the KJV!

Funny you mention the Muslims. Muslims use the Modern Translations against ex Muslims turned Christians as a way to convert them back to the Muslim faith. They point out how our Modern Bibles all do not say exactly the same thing and point out how God is not the author of confusion. This almost has ruined the faith of one, and what kept him in the faith was a pure Word (like the KJV). But believe as you wish. I cannot force you to see something you do not want to see.

Peace, and blessings be unto you in the Lord.

 

[fwGod]

Please read The Prologue (Chapter One, verses one through eighteen) to the Gospel of John. Clearly Jesus was the incarnation of the Word (2nd person of the Trinity) and clearly was God at His conception.

His birth is certainly divinely planned but Jesus was not anointed of God to do miracles until he'd reached the age of going into the ministry.

Jesus said "I can do nothing of myself, it's the Father within me that does the works." John 5:30; John 14:10.

Since He was, is, and will forever be God He need no anointing or any help from the Holy Spirit to use the powers He has as God.

The verse in Philippians states that Jesus emptied himself of his divine privileges and was a servant. (Phil.2:7-8). In each of the four gospels John the baptist witnessed the Spirit of God come upon him like a dove. And in Luke 4:18 Jesus quoted the Old Testament verse stating the the Spirit of God had come upon him., to do miracles. As it says in Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."

I have no idea why you ignore those very important verses and state instead that Jesus didn't need the Holy Spirit. Because that is not a scripturally accurate view.

Jesus was 100% man and 100% God. Your understanding of John 5:19 is not accurate.

That's rich, coming from you who so inaccurately describe Jesus and the role of the Holy Spirit without which Jesus could do nothing on his own.

Please read 13. Like Father, Like Son (John 5:19-30) | Bible.org or any Bible commentary.

Read it yourself again. The article has in it what I have quoted of John 5:19.. it agrees with how I have presented it.. it's you who reads it differently.

It is not enough to read the Bible you need to research what the meaning is of what you are reading and not rely on your own understanding.

I suggest that you look in a mirror at yourself as you repeat those very words.

 

[fwGod]

You misunderstand what Paul means.

Clearly the scriptures I have been using shows that I do not.

Christ did not empty Himself of His divinity, the point Paul is making is that Christ, even though He is God, humbled Himself.

Jesus lived a righteous and holy life without sin. His divine privileges, if he had any (I maintain as Phil.2:7 that he had none), but if he did, it would mean that he would operate on the earth as a superhuman and not as a human.

He did not exploit His Divinity, but gave Himself away in love, humility, as a servant.

You make it sound like he had divine privileges but he just didn't use them. That's like having the Holy Spirit's power but never using it.

Jesus said that he couldn't do anything without the Holy Spirit's power. Jesus couldn't even do amazing miracles because of people's unbelief.

But if he had his own divinity, he could've used it and easily overrode their unbelief and did a miracle irregardless of their lack of faith.

God became a servant. He did not cease to be God, He did not cease to be what He has always been.

Jesus in John 17 prayed to the Father that the glory he had with the Father be restored to him (after the crucifixion and resurrection).. so Jesus didn't have the God-glory while he was on earth.

Jesus on the earth lived as any man, he got hungry like any human, he got tired and needed to sleep like any human, he got thirsty like any human, he suffered pain like any human.. and he couldn't do miracles without the power or anointing of the Holy Spirit.

On the cross he stated that he was forsaken of God. Jesus took our sins upon him, Jesus was cursed. Jesus died.

Such things could not happen to an eternal, righteous, pure God.

I don't understand why there are Christians who won't let Jesus be human. But unscripturally insist that he did all of the mighty works and miracles because he was God.

The Incarnation is not about a man being divine, the Incarnation is about God being human.

God cannot be human unless he empties himself of that divinity that makes him God.

If he is God being human, then he is Hercules with his own fully intact power and ability to do things above what humans can do.

That's a distinction with a massive difference.

Jesus also said that the disciples would be able to do as He did.

So is that saying that the disciples had been given divinity in those times that miracles were done? Is that why some pagans compared them to their gods?

The answer of course is "no". The disciples could do miracles as Jesus had done because the Holy Spirit that Jesus ministered by was given to them and by such their deeds were wrought in God, even as Jesus said of the miracles that he performed "it's the Father within that does the works."

God gives Himself away.

God gave his Son as the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the world.

Again, that's Christianity, that's the radical, insane, foolish, absurd, wonderful, beautiful, and Hallelujah scandal of the Gospel.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[disciple Clint]

His birth is certainly divinely planned but Jesus was not anointed of God to do miracles until he'd reached the age of going into the ministry.

Jesus said "I can do nothing of myself, it's the Father within me that does the works." John 5:30; John 14:10.
The verse in Philippians states that Jesus emptied himself of his divine privileges and was a servant. (Phil.2:7-8). In each of the four gospels John the baptist witnessed the Spirit of God come upon him like a dove. And in Luke 4:18 Jesus quoted the Old Testament verse stating the the Spirit of God had come upon him., to do miracles. As it says in Acts 10:38 "how God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Spirit and power, and how he went around doing good and healing all who were under the power of the devil, because God was with him."

I have no idea why you ignore those very important verses and state instead that Jesus didn't need the Holy Spirit. Because that is not a scripturally accurate view.
That's rich, coming from you who so inaccurately describe Jesus and the role of the Holy Spirit without which Jesus could do nothing on his own.
Read it yourself again. The article has in it what I have quoted of John 5:19.. it agrees with how I have presented it.. it's you who reads it differently.
I suggest that you look in a mirror at yourself as you repeat those very words.

You may believe what ever pleases you, you have no authority to attack the orthodox views I have posted.

 

[hedrick]

Clearly the scriptures I have been using shows that I do not.

I think some of what you say is unfair to traditional theology. Traditional Christian theology is well aware that Jesus was fully human. That's why it rejected Arianism, which made him the Hercules-like figure you criticize. Orthodox theology maintains that Christ is a completely normal human, personally ("hypostatically") united to the Logos. But the union doesn't remove the differences between human and God.

Whether this is good enough to deal with the Jesus we meet in the NT is a question that CF rules don't really permit (in the sense that only one side of the debate is permitted).

 

[fwGod]

I think some of what you say is unfair to traditional theology. Traditional Christian theology is well aware that Jesus was fully human. That's why it rejected Arianism, which made him the Hercules-like figure you criticize. Orthodox theology maintains that Christ is a completely normal human, personally ("hypostatically") united to the Logos. But the union doesn't remove the differences between human and God.

Whether this is good enough to deal with the Jesus we meet in the NT is a question that CF rules don't really permit (in the sense that only one side of the debate is permitted).

If any posters who made their case was well aware that Jesus was fully human.. then it wasn't evident in their statements. I'd find that to be unfair to my presenting the traditional theology that Jesus IS fully human. Therefore you should be posting your objections to them and not me.