Did Jesus have faith ?

[bbyrd009]

I think that Christ's actions impart the same thing, they all imply faith. God exalted Jesus to His right-hand, as when the dove descended on Christ, as the plethora of other Scriptures that denote God's pleasure with Christ and Christ's obedience and passion. All these factors unequivocally and unanimously declare Christ's obedience and faith. This is the whole dynamic of the Atonement, Christ succeeded, where all men failed. The explicit statement of Christ's faith does not need to be denoted, for it is the over-arching principle of God's pleasure with him, and man's redemption.

well, now you are saying "Christ," instead of Jesus iow...and i wonder if Will He find faith when He comes? plays into this

 

[DNB]

"Implies" is a fancy word meaning "I am merely guessing".

"Attained to perfection" is a phrase meaning that at one time Jesus was not perfect. Therefore, your choice of words indicate that you may believe that at one time, Jesus was not God.

I say that because one of the Divine attributes of Divinity is perfection, and you seem to be stating that through some work of Divine merit, Jesus added that attribute unto Himself something that He never possessed. The terminus of such theology is a form of modalism.

There are several theories on the Atonement: 7 Theories of the Atonement Summarized - Stephen D. Morrison

1. The Moral Influence Theory This is favored by liberals because it enables humans to do good works unto others.
2. The Ransom Theory This says that Satan is a kidnapper, and Jesus gave him (a fallen, rebellious angel) something so we could be free.
3. Christus Victor This says that the Atonement gave victory over sin and death. (True, but not personally applicable).
4. The Satisfaction Theory (Anselm)
5. The Penal Substitutionary Theory
6. The Governmental Theory In the Governmental Theory, Jesus Christ does not take the exact punishment we deserve, He takes a punishment
7. The Scapegoat Theory This a philosophical and psychological approach,

Among the Western theologians, the most popular are # 4 and # 5. The Reformers took Anselm's theory that Jesus was the sin-bearer in that all of God's righteous anger at sin was satisfied because the death of Jesus a propitiation, and that horrid act made it so that everyone can go to heaven.

The Reformers made it more personal with the Penal Substitutionary Theory. That said that we who are all sinners (Romans 3:23) need to be punished individually and thus go to hell. Instead, Jesus paid for the sins of the elect, who fully trust Jesus and the work He did on the cross as sufficient to erase all our sins (we, who are believers) and therefore His penalty becomes our guarantee to enter heaven.

The difference between the theories 4 and 5 is that #4 us a universal application, and that #5 is a particular and personal application of the Atonement. As you may guess, I favor #5 as the most complete explanation of the Atonement.

Hope this helps things!

I do not believe at all, on any level whatsoever, in the deity of Jesus, ...nor the penal substitution theory (PSA), nor any of the Atonement theories that you enumerated above.
I meant every word that I stated in my post that you replied to. The implications of a suffering Messiah, are that he was not impeccable. There is no sacrifice or passion, when there is no threat of loss. If Christ were God, his temptations, plea for dismissal from the cross, and resurrection, were nothing more than an act of bravado, a contrived outcome, with no threat of failure or retention in the grave. God did not propitiate Himself, nor raise Himself from the dead. This is a mockery of God's judicial soundness.

PSA falls apart everywhere. The penalty for sin is eternal death, not just a one-time physical death ...that leads to exaltation at God's right-hand side. For all men still die once. Nothing is commensurate to eternal estrangement from God, outside of eternal estrangement from God. And even then, the 'weeping and gnashing of teeth' that will ensue in ghenna, will be sincere, and thus, not applicable to the perfected Christ who will have no reason to gnash his teeth at God - yes, your premise is so awry, that it is way too hypothetical to even entertain.

The proper Atonement theory is based on the principle of Covenant. The Atonement is effectuated by the abrogation of the Law, the final perfected sacrifice. It was the Law that held us in bondage and condemnation before God 'where there is no law, there is no sin'. God's Levitical Law was not going to fail, or fall by the wayside. It had to be fulfilled by someone, or God would be charged with austerity and impossible demands. Christ proved Adam and all men guilty, by succeeding in doing what none of us did, but should have done, and could have done.
Christ removed the penalty of the Law, and in doing so, justified God in rescinding it and establishing a new Covenant, one based on faith in Jesus' faith and consequent glory.

 

[DNB]

well, now you are saying "Christ," instead of Jesus iow...and i wonder if Will He find faith when He comes? plays into this

I use Christ & Jesus interchangeably? Will Jesus find faith when he comes, ...this refers to man's faith. I'm not sure how this verse plays into the question of whether or not Christ had faith, ...which he evidently did?

 

[quietthinker]

It's good to be cautious about such sweeping statements, as quoted...

What is it farouk that makes you such a people pleaser?

 

[DNB]

lets discuss His Deity over here as the OP is irrefutable.

Who is the One that is Coming ?

You're right, we're off topic.
I read through the posts of the link that you supplied. It's a bit too involved right now, and I believe that you and I have discussed this before. Thanks anyhow.

But, yes, Christ evidently had faith, for he constantly rebuked his disciples for lacking it, implying that he proved otherwise - all his power was based on his faith in God.

In all the below verses, all Jesus' affirmations about God's providence, required faith on his part to achieve. This is my point that the obvious has eluded you. You're straining out a gnat to find an explicit statement, when the predominant principle is ubiquitous throughout the NT.

John 11:41-42
11:41. So they removed the stone. Then Jesus raised His eyes, and said, "Father, I thank You that You have heard Me. 42. "I knew that You always hear Me; but because of the people standing around I said it, so that they may believe that You sent Me."

Matthew 26:52-53
26:52. Then Jesus said to him, "Put your sword back into its place; for all those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. 53. "Or do you think that I cannot appeal to My Father, and He will at once put at My disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

John 5:19-19
5:19. Therefore Jesus answered and was saying to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, unless it is something He sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.

Matthew 4:2-4
4:2. And after He had fasted forty days and forty nights, He then became hungry. 3. And the tempter came and said to Him, "If You are the Son of God, command that these stones become bread." 4. But He answered and said, "It is written, 'MAN SHALL NOT LIVE ON BREAD ALONE, BUT ON EVERY WORD THAT PROCEEDS OUT OF THE MOUTH OF GOD.'"

Matthew 4:7-7
4:7. Jesus said to him, "On the other hand, it is written, 'YOU SHALL NOT PUT THE LORD YOUR GOD TO THE TEST.'"

 

[bbyrd009]

Will Jesus find faith when he comes, ...this refers to man's faith.

ha ok ty

I'm not sure how this verse plays into the question of whether or not Christ had faith, ...which he evidently did?

as well Christ is Spirit, right, even if that title was appropriated from the Caesars for Jesus, the Christ.

 

[DNB]

ha ok ty

as well Christ is Spirit, right, even if that title was appropriated from the Caesars for Jesus, the Christ.

Well, I have no idea what his, or our, glorified bodies will be like, as to whether or not Christ is Spirit? Functionally speaking, he is simply our mediator between us and God, irrespective of his present constitution or ontology.
Maybe as far as the Romans were concerned, Jesus hi-jacked the title or competed with the Caesars or Herods for it. But, all Christian monotheists understand that Jesus, as ordained by God, is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, the Messiah, the Christ.

 

[bbyrd009]

Well, I have no idea what his, or our, glorified bodies will be like, as to whether or not Christ is Spirit? Functionally speaking, he is simply our mediator between us and God, irrespective of his present constitution or ontology.
Maybe as far as the Romans were concerned, Jesus hi-jacked the title or competed with the Caesars or Herods for it. But, all Christian monotheists understand that Jesus, as ordained by God, is Lord of Lords and King of Kings, the Messiah, the Christ.

well, i guess that is true as far as it goes, but i suggest that "Jesus of Nazareth" is rabbinic code for something, and after all, we cannot Quote "Jesus died for our sins." But we can Quote No son of man may die for another's sins; so apparently, a puzzle. Fwiw i doubt the Romans even knew that Christ would end up associated with those titles, but i dont know. What Christian monotheists understand i assume to be whacked anyway, based upon other Scripture and their professions, but that is just an educated guess; i say that bc most CMs believe in Death, More Abundantly

 

[john t]

And I hear the savior say
Thy strength indeed is small
Child of weakness, watch and pray
Find in me thine all in all

'Cause Jesus paid it all
All to Him I owe
Sin had left a crimson stain
He washed it white as snow

 

[john t]

But who can deny that Jesus was being faithful to the Father when he voluntarily went to the cross?

Correct me if I am not understanding you, but it seems to me that in the above quote above, you are emphasizing the deeds of Jesus such as healing, and raising Lazarus, and feeding 5000 then 4000, all of which are outside of his dying for our sins on the cross more than His sinless, substitutionary penal Atonement

 

[Truman]

"But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." When we are standing in the New Jerusalem, looking into the eyes of our Savior, I don't think we'll be thinking about partial things or anything else. Except for the eyes we are looking into. I think I've heard this called, "Our blessed hope." And so it is.
Can you imagine the joy and the celebrating? Who will be the first to say, "Gimme a J, gimme an E, gimme an S, gimme a U, gimme another S." And all the angels of Heaven will join in, "Jesus," as all creation responds, "Jesus." And all together we cry, "Jesus." Our Father may say something like, "Thank you for listening to My Firstborn Son." We are all sons and daughters of our Heavenly Father.
"I am yours, you are mine, we are one with the Father, in the Spirit, by the Son. - excerpt from "Together" by John Wimber. Vineyard Music.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Correct me if I am not understanding you, but it seems to me that in the above quote above, you are emphasizing the deeds of Jesus such as healing, and raising Lazarus, and feeding 5000 then 4000, all of which are outside of his dying for our sins on the cross more than His sinless, substitutionary penal Atonement

I didn't say anything about that. What did you have in mind? What did I say that would lead you to this conclusion?

 

[CadyandZoe]

There is a big distinction between being faithful as God's son, vs, an unbeliever having faith in Christ.

Why would an unbeliever have faith in Christ?

Christ is God.
He does not need to have faith IN anyone or anything.
He IS Faith.

Paul the Apostle spent two entire chapters in his epistle to the Hebrews arguing that the messiah, the son of God, was a man. Why did he do that? I'm not denying the deity of Christ and neither is Paul. Nonetheless, he deems it very important that we constantly bear in mind that while Jesus was on earth, he was subject to the reality of earth. He walked, he ate supper, he grew in wisdom, he wept, he grew tired, and he died. Most importantly, Jesus suffered.

Hebrews 2:9-11
But we do see Him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely, Jesus, because of the suffering of death crowned with glory and honor, so that by the grace of God He might taste death for everyone.

For it was fitting for Him, for whom are all things, and through whom are all things, in bringing many sons to glory, to perfect the author of their salvation through sufferings. For both He who sanctifies and those who are sanctified are all from one Father; for which reason He is not ashamed to call them brethren . . .

We see that although Christ is God, while he was on earth, he humbled himself and suffered and died. And Paul says, through suffering Jesus was perfected. And because he who sanctifies (Jesus) and those who are sanctified (his followers) are all from one Father, he is not ashamed to call them brothers. The following verses assert that not only did Jesus suffer as a man, he was also tempted as a man.

Hebrews 2:17-18
Therefore, He had to be made like His brethren in all things, so that He might become a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. For since He Himself was tempted in that which He has suffered, He is able to come to the aid of those who are tempted.

We do not deny that Jesus was fully human, and as our brother, not only did he need to trust the Father in all things, he needed to believe what the scriptures have said. To suggest otherwise is to deny that he was not tempted in the same way we are tempted and that he is not a fitting high priest.

 

[CadyandZoe]

I believe that you may be looking more at the morphology than on the grammatical construction. Verse 16 is a third class conditional sentence, and when we decline Χριστοῦ as genitive, it may cause us to overlook the simple chronology and the promise of future justification.

15 We ourselves are Jews by birth and not Gentile sinners;
16 yet we know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, so we also have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.​

Notice the present conditions:

1. jews, not Gentile sinners
2. We are not justified by the Law
3. We are justified through πίστις Χριστοῦ
4. We HAVE BELIEVED in Christ (past action continuing to the present)
5. Purpose clause in order to be justified by [our] faith in Christ; Personal, not objective or universal
6. Repetition of "not by works".
7. Third iteration: because by works of the law no one will be justified.

Since the these clauses follow the "we are not, we will be..." formula I believe that that construction takes precedence. Also, while the πίστις Χριστοῦ is the subject of the means of justification, then the more viable understanding is that it is more a subjective genitive, rather than an objective (universal condition) genitive

Good point. Well argued. Thanks.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Precisely, that's been my contention from all along. Christophany created a false predicate. The proof of Christ's faithfulness is not in the endeavour of trying to find where the words 'Christ's faith' appear in the Bible, it is in understanding the principle and logistics of the Atonement. How, what was demanded of man, but without success, was actuated by Christ to perfection.

Yes, thank you. As we remember the deity of Christ we must always bear in mind that Jesus lived as a human being and as Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus was tempted/tested "in that which he suffered." In Luke's gospel we read about the temptations of Jesus and how he dealt with them, becoming a model for us.

 

[ChristisGod]

Yes, thank you. As we remember the deity of Christ we must always bear in mind that Jesus lived as a human being and as Paul says in his epistle to the Hebrews, Jesus was tempted/tested "in that which he suffered." In Luke's gospel we read about the temptations of Jesus and how he dealt with them, becoming a model for us.

DNB denies the Deity of Christ and the Trinity hence his doctrines are false. When a person is wrong about Gods nature and attributes he is wrong about most every other doctrine. All doctrine begins with God not man. Modern Christianity these days begins with man, his wisdom and thinking rather than with God. They have created a god after their own likeness and image, an idol.

hope this helps !!!

 

[john t]

I didn't say anything about that. What did you have in mind? What did I say that would lead you to this conclusion?

What I quoted from you:

CadyandZoe said: ↑
But who can deny that Jesus was being faithful to the Father when he voluntarily went to the cross?

is the reason why I wrote this:

Correct me if I am not understanding you, but it seems to me that in the above quote above, you are emphasizing the deeds of Jesus such as healing, and raising Lazarus, and feeding 5000 then 4000, all of which are outside of his dying for our sins on the cross more than His sinless, substitutionary penal Atonement

Please clarify what you meant since you obviously believe that I did not understand your post..

 

[CadyandZoe]

What I quoted from you:


is the reason why I wrote this:


Please clarify what you meant since you obviously believe that I did not understand your post..

What did I say that would lead you to believe that I was emphasizing the deeds of Jesus such as healing, raising the dead etc? I believe this thread concerns the question of Jesus' faith, specifically, whether Jesus had faith or not. My answer is yes, he did.

 

[Brakelite]

but sure seems like most ppl are here to teach, eh?

Or discourage it.

 

[CadyandZoe]

DNB denies the Deity of Christ and the Trinity hence his doctrines are false. When a person is wrong about Gods nature and attributes he is wrong about most every other doctrine. All doctrine begins with God not man. Modern Christianity these days begins with man, his wisdom and thinking rather than with God. They have created a god after their own likeness and image, an idol.

hope this helps !!!

When I answer a post, I am not aware of a hidden agenda. (I suppose I haven't been around long enough.) My posts tend to answer the question directly, assuming the question is a legitimate request for information. Let me ask you this, does your previous experience with DNB color your answer in some way? I'm not being critical. I'm just asking. For my part, had I known that DNB denied the Deity of Christ, my answers would still be the same.

Those who love the truth will follow the evidence wherever it leads and accept the truth whenever they find it. I assume everyone here feels the same way and for this reason I have adopted an ethic of posting that always answers the question as asked and in a straight forward manner.