Jesus is God

[jeremiah]

Good afternoon Dwight,

Jeremiah, I think the answer is right in the verse itself. It does not say that He learned obedience through faith and trust in His Father. Rather it says,"He learned obedience by the things which He suffered." There's no need to add anything to that verse that isn't already there. I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand that, but it won't be the first time.

Well sure, I'm not suggesting we add anything, but that we do need to explain how it would be so. That he learned obedience by the suffering does not therefore mean that all suffering will produce more obedience. It could have resulted in bitterness and hatred of God, or despair and hopelessness, as it often does in the less faithful, but though he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet he was without sin. Therefore, something—I would say, trust— must be working together with the suffering and obedience by which he grew in that particular training.

But He is never described as having faith. Given all of that, if Jesus had faith, it should be plastered all over the scripture - but it's not.

His faithfulness to his father is indeed plastered all over the scripture. I will grant you that the vast majority of what could be listed is implicit and demonstrated, and only a smaller portion of such a list would be explicit. But so what?

The 'hall of faith' in Hebrews could not exist if such inferences made by the author were not a perfectly valid handling of the word of God. Genesis makes no mention of Abel's faith demonstrated by his offering to God, which I imagine is also the case for the vast majority of the individuals' stories mentioned in that chapter, and yet it says in Hebrews, Abel did that by faith in God.

By the way, the bookend to the hall of faith in Hebrews calls Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. Do you not accept his "authorship" as explicit language pointing to the fact of his faith in the father?

Another explicit one dizerner mentioned from Hebrews earlier, you said you dealt with that passage but i couldn't find it. Could you tell me the date of that response you're referring to?

Regarding Hebrews 5:8, why would Jesus need to learn obedience? Didn't He always obey? One teacher said that actually Jesus learned obedience (in the face of) suffering, as WE are called to do. So we can be assured that He knows what we go through. That is, He "walked in our shoes" and became "a High priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses. Hebrews 4:15

I have no problem saying Jesus had the potential to sin, because he was a man. He was the son of God to be sure, but he was also a son of Adam. When he was a child, it was said that he increased in wisdom and waxed strong in spirit. So to my mind, just like you and I, Jesus had to grow from strength to strength and from faith to faith. Of course he demonstrated this like no one else, but he still was actually tempted.

I don't say these things while rejecting the divinity of Jesus, I am much more on your side of this thread's original topic than Darin and Paidion. I joined the discussion because of what you're saying about Jesus not having faith, or not needing it. I think i understand why you conclude that. Is it mainly coming from your view that Jesus walked the earth with all, or some measure at least, of the 'Godhood' he possessed prior to his incarnation?

Forgive me, i started to go back through this entire thread but wasn't able to get past maybe 20 pages of it. I'm not sure i remember a thread ever reaching this many pages, or spanning this many years

[Otherness]

Darinhouston>>>(and if it had a trinitarian concept in mind, there's no mention of the most mysterious aspect of the Trinity, namely the Holy Spirit).<<<

Darin, here, again, this statement of yours peaks my interest in your understanding of the ontology of God because I find the Holy Spirit to be the “least mysterious” aspect of the Trinity. Very simply, “God is (Holy) Spirit” : a [invisible to the unregenerate (natural) eye] Personal Being (I AM). The revelation of “The Trinity” asserts (reasserts) this (John 4:24) in its explication of the Godhead right along with the almost incomprehensible wonder that Almighty God is our (tender-hearted) Papa. No one could truly experience this Truth (in all its fullness) had not this Truth (John 14: 6) incarnated in our flesh. Because He did incarnate we find His (Holy) Spirit right here in the (our) flesh where once there could be found (only) sin (unholiness) [2 Corinthians 5: 21]. The (Holy) Spirit is the “I AM” in the Burning Bush, Who tempered His Glory to be the Life of the True Vine (John 15: 1). The (consuming) Fire (Hebrews 12: 29) that did not consume the Bush incarnated to be the Light that enlightens every man coming into the world (John 1: 9) so that he be not consumed (Malachi 3: 6), but subsumed.

This (Holy) Spirit, this “simple” I AM, exists as Father, as Son...because it is in this State of Existence that YHWH is (can be) the Creator of THAT that is His sole purpose in creating : the Body of Christ (the Son). All else shall (ultimately) be burned up.

[darinhouston]

Good afternoon Dwight,

Jeremiah, I think the answer is right in the verse itself. It does not say that He learned obedience through faith and trust in His Father. Rather it says,"He learned obedience by the things which He suffered." There's no need to add anything to that verse that isn't already there. I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand that, but it won't be the first time.

Well sure, I'm not suggesting we add anything, but that we do need to explain how it would be so. That he learned obedience by the suffering does not therefore mean that all suffering will produce more obedience. It could have resulted in bitterness and hatred of God, or despair and hopelessness, as it often does in the less faithful, but though he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet he was without sin. Therefore, something—I would say, trust— must be working together with the suffering and obedience by which he grew in that particular training.

But He is never described as having faith. Given all of that, if Jesus had faith, it should be plastered all over the scripture - but it's not.

His faithfulness to his father is indeed plastered all over the scripture. I will grant you that the vast majority of what could be listed is implicit and demonstrated, and only a smaller portion of such a list would be explicit. But so what?

The 'hall of faith' in Hebrews could not exist if such inferences made by the author were not a perfectly valid handling of the word of God. Genesis makes no mention of Abel's faith demonstrated by his offering to God, which I imagine is also the case for the vast majority of the individuals' stories mentioned in that chapter, and yet it says in Hebrews, Abel did that by faith in God.

By the way, the bookend to the hall of faith in Hebrews calls Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. Do you not accept his "authorship" as explicit language pointing to the fact of his faith in the father?

Another explicit one dizerner mentioned from Hebrews earlier, you said you dealt with that passage but i couldn't find it. Could you tell me the date of that response you're referring to?

Regarding Hebrews 5:8, why would Jesus need to learn obedience? Didn't He always obey? One teacher said that actually Jesus learned obedience (in the face of) suffering, as WE are called to do. So we can be assured that He knows what we go through. That is, He "walked in our shoes" and became "a High priest who can sympathize with our weaknesses. Hebrews 4:15

I have no problem saying Jesus had the potential to sin, because he was a man. He was the son of God to be sure, but he was also a son of Adam. When he was a child, it was said that he increased in wisdom and waxed strong in spirit. So to my mind, just like you and I, Jesus had to grow from strength to strength and from faith to faith. Of course he demonstrated this like no one else, but he still was actually tempted.

I don't say these things while rejecting the divinity of Jesus, I am much more on your side of this thread's original topic than Darin and Paidion. I joined the discussion because of what you're saying about Jesus not having faith, or not needing it. I think i understand why you conclude that. Is it mainly coming from your view that Jesus walked the earth with all, or some measure at least, of the 'Godhood' he possessed prior to his incarnation?

Forgive me, i started to go back through this entire thread but wasn't able to get past maybe 20 pages of it. I'm not sure i remember a thread ever reaching this many pages, or spanning this many years

Very nicely said - your posts are always so edifying and a blessing even when I might disagree.

[dwight92070]

Good afternoon Dwight,

Jeremiah, I think the answer is right in the verse itself. It does not say that He learned obedience through faith and trust in His Father. Rather it says,"He learned obedience by the things which He suffered." There's no need to add anything to that verse that isn't already there. I'll be the first to admit that I don't fully understand that, but it won't be the first time.

Well sure, I'm not suggesting we add anything, but that we do need to explain how it would be so. That he learned obedience by the suffering does not therefore mean that all suffering will produce more obedience. It could have resulted in bitterness and hatred of God, or despair and hopelessness, as it often does in the less faithful, but though he was tempted in all points like as we are, yet he was without sin. Therefore, something—I would say, trust— must be working together with the suffering and obedience by which he grew in that particular training.

I gave you one possible explanation: That Jesus basically continued in His obedience through His suffering, and in doing so, He "learned" what we go through suffering.

But He is never described as having faith. Given all of that, if Jesus had faith, it should be plastered all over the scripture - but it's not.

His faithfulness to his father is indeed plastered all over the scripture. I will grant you that the vast majority of what could be listed is implicit and demonstrated, and only a smaller portion of such a list would be explicit. But so what?

I heard a long time ago that where the scripture is silent, we should remain silent, and I think that's a pretty good principle. If the scripture doesn't tell us that Jesus has faith, then we should not assume that He does.

The 'hall of faith' in Hebrews could not exist if such inferences made by the author were not a perfectly valid handling of the word of God. Genesis makes no mention of Abel's faith demonstrated by his offering to God, which I imagine is also the case for the vast majority of the individuals' stories mentioned in that chapter, and yet it says in Hebrews, Abel did that by faith in God.

The author was writing the Word of God, whether he realized it or not. So when he makes inferences about persons who had faith in the Old Testament, even though it doesn't specifically say they had faith, I agree with you that we must accept that, and I do. That doesn't give you or me the authority to make the same inferences today, especially about the One who is God. By the way, did you notice anyone missing in the "Hall of Faith"? Yup, you guessed it - Jesus. You might say that He was only giving persons from the Old Testament. But technically, Jesus was "born under the Law" and the Old Covenant was still in effect during His lifetime. If Jesus had faith, He should be at the top of the list in the Hall of Faith, but He's not even on the list!

By the way, the bookend to the hall of faith in Hebrews calls Jesus the author and finisher of our faith. Do you not accept his "authorship" as explicit language pointing to the fact of his faith in the father?

The author and finisher of (our) faith - I don't think the word "our" is in the Greek. " ... God has allotted to each a measure of faith" Romans 12:3 Do you really think that God gave faith to God in the flesh?

Another explicit one dizerner mentioned from Hebrews earlier, you said you dealt with that passage but i couldn't find it. Could you tell me the date of that response you're referring to?

I'll look for it and post it.

I have no problem saying Jesus had the potential to sin, because he was a man. He was the son of God to be sure, but he was also a son of Adam. When he was a child, it was said that he increased in wisdom and waxed strong in spirit. So to my mind, just like you and I, Jesus had to grow from strength to strength and from faith to faith. Of course he demonstrated this like no one else, but he still was actually tempted.

I don't see where it says that He grew in faith. Again the scripture is silent on that.

I don't say these things while rejecting the divinity of Jesus, I am much more on your side of this thread's original topic than Darin and Paidion. I joined the discussion because of what you're saying about Jesus not having faith, or not needing it. I think i understand why you conclude that. Is it mainly coming from your view that Jesus walked the earth with all, or some measure at least, of the 'Godhood' he possessed prior to his incarnation?

Not at all. That topic of kenosis never even crossed my mind. It's solely coming from the fact that the scripture nowhere tells us He had faith.

Forgive me, i started to go back through this entire thread but wasn't able to get past maybe 20 pages of it. I'm not sure i remember a thread ever reaching this many pages, or spanning this many years

[dwight92070]

Jeremiah,

This may be the one you were referring to: It was my June 15th 10:36 a.m. post. The book of Hebrews explicitly connects faith (trust) to Christ, attributing to him these words: “I will put my trust in him” (Heb. 2:13).

Dwight - The Hebrew word here is "qavah". It means "to wait for". So it literally means "I will wait for Him", which is not the same as faith. True, a person can wait in faith, but Jesus didn't need to wait in faith in Himself. There were many times, however, when He waited for God's perfect timing. He waited 30 years before He even started His ministry. He told Mary,"My hour has not yet come." John 2:4; He told His brothers "My time is not yet here, but your time is always opportune." John 7:6; Even John recognized that Jesus was not arrested prematurely, "because His hour had not yet come" John 8:20

[Homer]

Does not this scripture make obvious Jesus' faith in the Father?

John 11:41-42
New American Standard Bible 1995
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.”


Also the Greek word Pistis can be translated as faith or faithfulness. And isn't trust simply faith in action? How can someone who trusts be said to have no faith ?

[dwight92070]

Does not this scripture make obvious Jesus' faith in the Father?

John 11:41-42

New American Standard Bible 1995
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.”

Also the Greek word Pistis can be translated as faith or faithfulness. And isn't trust simply faith in action? How can someone who trusts be said to have no faith ?

No, this scripture does not make Jesus' "faith"obvious. Jesus even said that the reason He even spoke these words was because of the people standing around, so that THEY MAY BELIEVE that God sent Him, not so He could express His "faith". He KNEW that the Father ALWAYS HEARD HIM, He didn't have to exercise "faith" to know that. What He is saying here is basically that He didn't have to say a word at all. But He did thank the Father. No faith needed whatsoever.

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for". He never HOPED that the Father heard Him - that would imply that maybe there's a chance that He might not. "the evidence of things not seen" Jesus knew all things, He saw all things - there's nothing that He doesn't know or see. There's no thing that is not seen with Him - that He would need evidence for. Jesus said "I and the Father are One." It's not possible that the Father would not hear Him, nor is it possible that the Father would deny any request. Jesus did request that He would not have to die for the sins of all mankind, BUT He added - not My will, but yours be done.

[dizerner]

Using "the Law is not of faith" to say the Law did not command faith is a conflation of two meanings of faith.

Justification by faith in grace—condensed here to just "of faith"—is not same thing as trust or belief in God.

The Law most certainly commanded trust and belief in God, it was fundamental.

[dwight92070]

Using "the Law is not of faith" to say the Law did not command faith is a conflation of two meanings of faith.

Justification by faith in grace—condensed here to just "of faith"—is not same thing as trust or belief in God.

The Law most certainly commanded trust and belief in God, it was fundamental.

Looking at the Law of Moses in the Pentateuch, I do see the Lord rebuking Israel for NOT believing Him, actually only three times: Numbers 14:11; Deut. 1:32; and Deut. 32:51 - but I don't see much of anything where He COMMANDS them to trust and believe in Him. So, yes, He certainly wants them to believe and trust in Him but the commands to do that seem scarce, if there are any.

There are about 9 commands for them to obey God and about 6 rebukes for NOT obeying Him.
Now if you include the entire Old Testament, yes, you will find many commands to trust, believe, and obey.
Even if there were commands to trust and believe, how can you command God in the flesh to trust and believe in God? It always comes back to "Does God have faith in God?" Really, God doesn't need faith in God.

But the Law was given to the people of Israel, but the Messiah of Israel, even though He kept much of the Law, He did not keep all of the Law. He broke the Sabbath law many times, for example. He said that He was LORD of the Sabbath, which has to mean that He was Lord of the entire Law. He touched unclean lepers and dead bodies, both prohibited by the Law. He never broke any moral law, but He definitely broke some other laws.

[jeremiah]

...Even if there were commands to trust and believe, how can you command God in the flesh to trust and believe in God? It always comes back to "Does God have faith in God?" Really, God doesn't need faith in God...

Good morning brother.

Dwight, do you consider yourself a trinitarian? If so, i think most trinitarians would call this sort of argumentation either out on the skinny branches or just plain not in the same tree.

The kernel coming from Nicea that was further developed afterward did include, "very God, and very man" As far I can tell, these sorts of characterizations of the relationships within the trinity deny Jesus was a true man. Am I assuming too much? Do you consider yourself more in the Oneness understanding of the Godhead?

"Does God have faith in God?" is a caricature. The son is not the father, so it is good and proper that the son of God would have faith in the one he called Father, though they be in perfect harmony as the one true God, however humbled that was in the incarnation.

You said elsewhere, Jesus knows all things and saw all things. Sure after he finished his work that was so, but surely you know Jesus himself made explicit confirmation that while on earth, he "did not know" all things, but only the father.