Did Jesus have faith ?

[john t]

If you quoted someone, it wasn't me.

Sorry, wrong attribution

Did Jesus believe the word of God or not?

Wrong questions always generate wrong answers.

Jesus did not "believe the word of God"; rather Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD INCARNATE. It is He who caused the writers of the Scriptures to write as He directed them in order to give us the Bible.

That is the correct answer. The Bible says it, and it is independent of any of your beliefs to the contrary.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Sorry, wrong attribution



Wrong questions always generate wrong answers.

Jesus did not "believe the word of God"; rather Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD INCARNATE. It is He who caused the writers of the Scriptures to write as He directed them in order to give us the Bible.

That is the correct answer. The Bible says it, and it is independent of any of your beliefs to the contrary.

By that argument, you seem to suggest that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh. Is this what you believe?

 

[john t]

By that argument, you seem to suggest that Jesus Christ didn't come in the flesh. Is this what you believe?

I never posted anything such as that. Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% human, One Person having two distinct natures...

 

[marks]

Either Christ believed the scriptures or he didn't. Either Christ trusted in God's promises or he didn't.

When Jesus died on the cross, who did he trust to bring him back from the dead?

Exactly!!

 

[marks]

Refuting in this case is not a solution. All it does is make many words. It goes down a convoluted rabbit hole designed to distract and waste precious time, energy and focus.

You can be assured that Jesus had faith in his Father. He trusted in the reality which he knew was permanent and he appeals to us to learn from him.

Of course Jesus had faith!

Into You hands I commit my spirit, these are words announcing faith.

Those who knew His saw His faith,

Matthew 27
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Psalm 22
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

Much love!

 

[john t]

CadyandZoe said: ↑
Either Christ believed the scriptures or he didn't. Either Christ trusted in God's promises or he didn't.

When Jesus died on the cross, who did he trust to bring him back from the dead?

False dichotomy is an error of logic. It presents a very limited (usually two) choices, neither of which answers are satisfactory.

In your false choice dilemma, you leave out the most obvious answer, and that is Jesus Christ is the Word incarnate. It is He through the inspiration of Holy Spirit caused men of old to write the very words of Scripture in a very precise manner. As such, He is the Author of Scripture. since it was He, who had the ancients write the words, he is above Scripture, and not beholden to Scripture, as you suggest.

 

[Behold]

Why would an unbeliever have faith in Christ?


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?

Is there a Christian who does not believe in the Virgin birth?
And did Paul really argue 2 chapters trying to prove that Jesus was the 2nd Adam?
You quoted 2 verses, more or less... So, is that really "2 chapters"?
Paul understood who Jesus is, including His divinity, and including why God had to fulfill the Law as man and die as a man on The Cross.

The Law has requirements. God had to fulfill them so that He could replace the old with the NEW Covenant..
This is why the born again are "not under the Law, but under Grace".
1.) Old Testament = Law
2.) New Testament = Grace
To achieve the Grace that is offered as "the Gift of Righteousness", God had to resolve the requirements of His Law.
This can only be accomplished by a person.
So, God became a Man.

 

[CadyandZoe]

Is there a Christian who does not believe in the Virgin birth?
And did Paul really argue 2 chapters trying to prove that Jesus was the 2nd Adam?

No, Paul spent two entire chapters of the epistle to the Hebrews arguing that it was appropriate that the son be a man, rather than an angel. I mentioned this in support of the idea that Jesus believed the scriptures and trusted God's word. I'm arguing against those who mistakenly believe that Jesus couldn't believe the scriptures or trust God's word because he was God incarnate.

Well, my response is this. Did Jesus die for your sins or not. Did he bleed or not? Did he eat the Passover or not? To say that Jesus was human in every other way except one is arbitrary.

 

[john t]

This can only be accomplished by a person.
So, God became a Man.

That cannot be found in the Bible

 

[john t]

I'm arguing against those who mistakenly believe that Jesus couldn't believe the scriptures or trust God's word because he was God incarnate.

If you are attempting to summarize what I posted earlier, please read it again, and please do not jump to unwarranted conclusions as you did above.

Please re-read this:

Jesus did not "believe the word of God"; rather Jesus IS THE WORD OF GOD INCARNATE. It is He who caused the writers of the Scriptures to write as He directed them in order to give us the Bible.

And this:

It is He through the inspiration of Holy Spirit caused men of old to write the very words of Scripture in a very precise manner. As such, He is the Author of Scripture. since it was He, who had the ancients write the words, he is above Scripture, and not beholden to Scripture, as you suggest.

Well, my response is this. Did Jesus die for your sins or not. Did he bleed or not? Did he eat the Passover or not? To say that Jesus was human in every other way except one is arbitrary.

What you posted are some of the arbitrary conclusions one comes to when they ignore the Hypostatic Union of Jesus.

 

[quietthinker]

That cannot be found in the Bible

Did you clean your teeth this morning john t? That cannot be found in the bible either!

 

[john t]

Did you clean your teeth this morning john t? That cannot be found in the bible either!

So you are SDA?

 

[john t]

Of course Jesus had faith!

ALL of these "examples" are taken from different scenes. NONE of them demonstrate your theory:

Into You hands I commit my spirit, these are words announcing faith.

These are final words of Jesus Christ on the Cross. There is nothing here to "demonstrate faith"

Those who knew His saw His faith,

Matthew 27
42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.

Again,on the Cross, and again out of context. These were onlookers who were taunting Jesus. It is a statement about their unbelief.

Psalm 22
7 All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted on the Lord that he would deliver him: let him deliver him, seeing he delighted in him.
9 But thou art he that took me out of the womb: thou didst make me hope when I was upon my mother's breasts.

These are the prophetic words of King David, written c. 900 BC. Again the context, being Davids words cannot substantiate your thesis

 

[quietthinker]

So you are SDA?

Do you know how many times I've been asked that john t?.....anyway, what's that got to do with anything?

You wanna know what I am? ....a member of the human family.
Which club do I belong to? .... the one that takes a breath every few seconds or so.
You want to know which box you can put me in?..... cardboard will do....after my toes point upwards.
What about the colour of my skin; is that of interest? and my political persuasion?
Maybe you have Jewish leanings and want to know if I'm circumcised?
......the list goes on and on and on

Here's a suggestion; evaluate what I say by its own merit.

When the Donkey spoke in Numbers 22:21-31 did it matter who spoke or was it what was said? Maybe Balaam could have assumed because it was an ass he wasn't worth taking seriously? Would that have been a wise move?

 

[CadyandZoe]

What you posted are some of the arbitrary conclusions one comes to when they ignore the Hypostatic Union of Jesus.

Did I ask you this already? I can't remember. Do you believe Jesus came in the flesh? I know, you just said you affirm the hypostatic union. Isn't it curious though, that those who strongly affirm the hypostatic union can't seem to accept that Jesus was human. Why is that?

 

[john t]

Here's a suggestion; evaluate what I say by its own merit.

When someone quotes Ellen White in a sig, it is quite natural to assume that the person is SDA. Thus if you get "annoyed off" at people asking a question based upon the "merit of your EGW quote" common sense dictates that you remove her words.

To keep her words in your sig and complain when people make a natural and obvious connection is rather silly, don't you think?

BTW we all notice that you did not answer the question. Why?

 

[ChristisGod]

Did I ask you this already? I can't remember. Do you believe Jesus came in the flesh? I know, you just said you affirm the hypostatic union. Isn't it curious though, that those who strongly affirm the hypostatic union can't seem to accept that Jesus was human. Why is that?

1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 7 declare Jesus came in the flesh and remains in the flesh permanently.The Incarnation was permanent not temporal.

 

[john t]

Did I ask you this already? I can't remember. Do you believe Jesus came in the flesh? I know, you just said you affirm the hypostatic union. Isn't it curious though, that those who strongly affirm the hypostatic union can't seem to accept that Jesus was human. Why is that?

Either you did not read post #123, or else you do not know the meaning of the term. "Hypostatic Union".
This is what I posted:

I never posted anything such as that. Jesus Christ is 100% God and 100% human, One Person having two distinct natures...

The definition of the theological term is that in the one, Divine Person of Jesus Christ, He has both a full human nature as well as a full Divine nature.

Since this is the THIRD TIME that I made a clear, unambiguous statement on that subject, perhaps you will understand why I will not reply to your erroneous 4th accusation that I do not believe that Jesus Christ is fully human, too.

 

[CadyandZoe]

1 John 4:1-3 and 2 John 7 declare Jesus came in the flesh and remains in the flesh permanently.The Incarnation was permanent not temporal.

Exactly. I agree.

 

[CadyandZoe]

The definition of the theological term is that in the one, Divine Person of Jesus Christ, He has both a full human nature as well as a full Divine nature.

I know what the term means. I simply think it is an absurd notion. Did you know that those who came up with that notion were students of Greek philosophy?

Since this is the THIRD TIME that I made a clear, unambiguous statement on that subject, perhaps you will understand why I will not reply to your erroneous 4th accusation that I do not believe that Jesus Christ is fully human, too.

I maintain that some Christians hold to ostensible beliefs, claiming to believe something that they don't actually believe. To be honest, after reading your posts, I think your belief in the hypostatic union is an ostensible belief that you hold for some reason I don't know.

You affirm, presumably out of some loyalty to a creed, that Jesus was 100% human. But you argue as one who does not believe that Jesus was a human being. You don't believe, for instance, that Jesus has faith, or that he believes the word of God, or that he trusts in God's promises. All things that a righteous, holy, human being would do.

What you affirm on one hand, you deny on the other hand.

Why is that?