Did Jesus have faith ?

[ChristisGod]

ok, my apologies Christophany, those were not definitive Scriptures declaring the faith of Jesus, that undermine your premise.
But, the reason that I may have been a bit impetuous in using them as support against your thesis, is because I don't believe that the specific and explicit delineation of Christ's faith is required to define the Atonement - understanding the Atonement eg; Christ's passion, precludes your entire premise. For, I have always said that the minute an exegete is required to perform an etymology on a word, it somewhat invariably denotes that they've entirely missed the context. No one principle in all of Christendom, should ever be adjudicated by a single word.

In other words, to understand the dynamics of the Atonement, and as to why God was pleased with Christ, unequivocally defines Christ's obedience, and invariably his faith (for one cannot please God otherwise). That is, understanding that Jesus had a mission, of which the fulfillment of it was not guaranteed - otherwise his actions and sufferings would just be a farce, as would God's judicial integrity - implies immediately that Jesus attained to perfection, which requires faith. This is the over-arching principle of the Atonement. Christ succeeded, where Adam and man failed, and all men are exonerated for the convictions of Jesus. He loved God with all his heart mind and soul.

Thus, why in the world does one need to delve into the etymology of the word faith, in order to understand the disposition of Christ?
As @john t said, your argument is based on silence or the absence of evidence, meanwhile the entire pericope of Christ's mission and obedience has completely eluded you.

You present a valid argument but are making accusations about me that are not true, such as the following :

"meanwhile the entire pericope of Christ's mission and obedience has completely eluded you."

I addressed His obedience earlier in the thread and have not denied it.

 

[farouk]

You present a valid argument but are making accusations about me that are not true, such as the following :

"meanwhile the entire pericope of Christ's mission and obedience has completely eluded you."

I addressed His obedience earlier in the thread and have not denied it.

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

 

[bbyrd009]

@ Christophany
It's a distraction....it muddies clear waters....it puts itself forward as wisdom when all it is is foolishness

i mean dont get me wrong imo Jesus was literally the model of faith, but its interesting that it is not specifically written, and this is even meant to impart something im pretty sure

Work out your own Salvation with fear and trembling Christophany and in the process make sure you don't throw up unnecessary smoke screens that confuse and distract the young in faith.

ha arent most forum goers fairly versed? i guess we get somewhat of a mix, but sure seems like most ppl are here to teach, eh?

 

[bbyrd009]

Jesus is Faith incarnate

right?

 

[bbyrd009]

One factor to take into account for is that "faith" is never attributed to Jesus Christ as mentioned in the OP. This is odd, for pistis and its cognates are the dominant words for "faith" and "believing." One could never have asked of Jesus, "Do you believe in God? Do you have faith in God?" Why not? Because he is the Savior to whom faith points! He had every confidence, trust, that the Father's will would be done through him, even when the moments were dark. However, "faith" and "believing" are soteric catogeries, pointing to deliverance from sin through God's promises FULFILLED IN THE MESSIAH. Was Jesus to have faith in himself?

Jesus was in constant communion with the Father; he revealed all things to the Son. The Father-Son relationship, in my view, precludes faith and in the NT Christ is always the object of faith.

It is odd that the NT never attributes “believing” or “faith” to Christ as an action. There is a reason for this- it is not a pure argument from silence- namely, that Jesus is the object of faith. It is this that makes the “silence” of pistis so deafeningly loud! The Son trusted that all things in respect of his Messiahship would be fulfilled by the Father in him; and they were. Jesus was the Messiah, and sinners believe in Him as God.

hope this helps !!!

yeh we pretty much all start out in a Jesus Cult i guess

 

[DNB]

You present a valid argument but are making accusations about me that are not true, such as the following :

"meanwhile the entire pericope of Christ's mission and obedience has completely eluded you."

I addressed His obedience earlier in the thread and have not denied it.

But, the fact that you deny his faith, which is the predicate of your OP, is tantamount to denying his obedience and passion, is it not?

 

[ChristisGod]

But, the fact that you deny his faith, which is the predicate of your OP, is tantamount to denying his obedience and passion, is it not?

And my response was according to John 5 Jesus always did and said what He saw His Father doing and saying 24/7.

Let me ask you this do you believe in the Impeccability of Christ ?

BTW- I said earlier that if by faith you mean trust then we are on the same page. Do you believe that the Father trusts the Son ?

 

[DNB]

i mean dont get me wrong imo Jesus was literally a model of faith, but its interesting that it is not specifically written, and this is even meant to impart something im pretty sure

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.

 

[DNB]

1. Let me ask you this do you believe in the Impeccability of Christ ?
2. if by faith you mean trust then we are on the same page?
3. Do you believe that the Father trusts the Son ?

1. No, I do not believe in the impeccability of Christ, whatsoever. I do not believe that Jesus is God or deified in any manner, or on any level. I believe that the whole Atonement falls to disgraceful pieces, if this were true. And makes a mockery of God's wisdom and Law.

2. No, faith is not trust in regard to your OP. You differentiated between the believer's faith, and the object of their faith, and how Christ did not have that same faith. I am saying that both, Christ and his adherents, share the same faith, but Christ's faith was more complete and perfect. Both include the aspect of trust, they are synonymous to a large degree. We trust God will raise us from the dead when Christ returns, is the same as saying that we have faith in God's redemptive plan and His willingness to execute it as promised.

3. God trusts the Son, because the Son proved himself before God. And therefore, God exalted him to the highest rank in the universe - which of course, since it is God who bestows the exaltation, Christ cannot be above Him.

 

[ChristisGod]

1. No, I do not believe in the impeccability of Christ, whatsoever. I do not believe that Jesus is God or deified in any manner, or on any level. I believe that the whole Atonement falls to disgraceful pieces, if this were true. And makes a mockery of God's wisdom and Law.

2. No, faith is not trust in regard to your OP. You differentiated between the believer's faith, and the object of their faith, and how Christ did not have that same faith. I am saying that both, Christ and his adherents, share the same faith, but Christ's faith was more complete and perfect. Both include the aspect of trust, they are synonymous to a large degree. We trust God will raise us from the dead when Christ returns, is the same as saying that we have faith in God's redemptive plan and His willingness to execute it as promised.

3. God trusts the Son, because the Son proved himself before God. And therefore, God exalted him to the highest rank in the universe - which of course, since it is God who bestows the exaltation, Christ cannot be above Him.

I can tell you this with 100% confidence if you are wrong about God, His Nature and Attributes then your doctrines will also be false. So since you deny the Deity of Christ your doctrines about Christ will also be wrong.

the most important question a person ever answer is who do you say Jesus is, LORD ( GOD) a liar or a lunitic. Denying His Deity makes Jesus a liar and scripture not trustworthy since both testaments proclaim His Deity. Your jesus is nothing more than a mere man and no man can be the Savior of the world unless He is also God.

Unitarians/ JW's are not Christians since they deny the God of the bible. A false god/christ cannot save one from their sins.

hope this helps !!!

 

[DNB]

no man can be the Savior of the world unless He is also God.

How does that work?

 

[ChristisGod]

How does that work?

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

Who is the One that is Coming ?

 

[Behold]

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).

Jesus is God. So, what would God need to believe in?
God's faith is the force of creation.
Our faith is to empower God's creative force.
Jesus is the author and finisher of our faith.

All things are possible if you believe.
"believe" is faith as a active force.

When your child is sick, and you pray the prayer of faith..
Your Faith, is what Activates GOD to provide the healing.

Faith is like the Light Switch.
The electricity is always there, but it not always turned on.
Faith flips the switch, and turns on the Power.
God is the Power. Faith is the switch.

 

[Enoch111]

God's faith is the force of creation.

God's DIVINE CREATIVE POWER is the force of creation. God simply spoke the universe into existence.

 

[Behold]

God's DIVINE CREATIVE POWER is the force of creation. God simply spoke the universe into existence.

Yes, as i said. "force of Creation".

Lets be more specific.
The force of creation is Jesus as the Word.
God spoke words and Jesus is THE Word.
The creative force of God is Jesus, Pre-Incarnate.
Jesus said He is "I AM".... "I AM" is how God references Himself.
Colossians 1:16.
John 1:10

 

[CadyandZoe]

I see you cherry picked a bible version to suit your doctrine. Its faith IN Christ not the faith of Christ. You must be one of those KJV only types eh ?

Galatians 2:16

New American Standard Bible
nevertheless knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, so that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.

New King James Version
knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law but by faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, that we might be justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the law; for by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.

Phil 3:9

Berean Literal Bible
and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness which is of the Law, but that which is through faith from Christ, the righteousness of God on the basis of faith,

New American Standard Bible
and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith,

New King James Version
and be found in Him, not having my own righteousness, which is from the law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which is from God by faith;


next................................

Scholars debate whether πίστις Χριστοῦ should be understood as a subjective genitive: Christ's faith, or Christ's faithfulness, or an objective genitive: faith in Christ. The reason why it's hard to decide, the reason why scholars debate the issue is because it works either way. Justification by faith in Jesus Christ is certainly a Biblical concept. But who can deny that Jesus was being faithful to the Father when he voluntarily went to the cross?

 

[john t]

1. ...otherwise his actions and sufferings would just be a farce, as would God's judicial integrity - implies immediately that Jesus attained to perfection, which requires faith. This is the over-arching principle of the Atonement. Christ succeeded, where Adam and man failed, and all men are exonerated for the convictions of Jesus. He loved God with all his heart mind and soul.

"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!

 

[Behold]

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

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

Christ is God.
He does not need to have faith IN anyone or anything.
He IS Faith.
When we think of "Justified by Faith".... well, in what? You have to have faith in something to be justified by it., and moreso, it has to have the POWER to make you justified.
That's Jesus and His blood.
"Faith in Christ" is not our faith saving us...>Its Christ's Blood being applied to us by Holy God, because He accepted our faith to SAVE US with the BLood Atonement.

 

[john t]

Scholars debate whether πίστις Χριστοῦ should be understood as a subjective genitive: Christ's faith, or Christ's faithfulness, or an objective genitive: faith in Christ. The reason why it's hard to decide, the reason why scholars debate the issue is because it works either way. Justification by faith in Jesus Christ is certainly a Biblical concept. But who can deny that Jesus was being faithful to the Father when he voluntarily went to the cross?

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

 

[DNB]

Scholars debate whether πίστις Χριστοῦ should be understood as a subjective genitive: Christ's faith, or Christ's faithfulness, or an objective genitive: faith in Christ. The reason why it's hard to decide, the reason why scholars debate the issue is because it works either way. Justification by faith in Jesus Christ is certainly a Biblical concept. But who can deny that Jesus was being faithful to the Father when he voluntarily went to the cross?

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.