Did Jesus have faith?

[Homer]

If Jesus truly "emptied himself" in the incarnation He would certainly have needed faith. And if He had no need of faith, how would He be an example to us?

[dwight92070]

Snarky comments aside, it's an interesting question.

One finds no legitimate reason to think Jesus did not have faith in God.

1. Jesus had to fulfill the Law for us which commands trust in God.
2. Jesus shared the weaknesses and limitations of a human nature with only one thing missing—sin.
3. Imitation of Christ is everywhere commended and makes no sense he would be missing a virtue.

Another interesting question is whether God's divine nature might have faith—certainly with omniscience one does not need a faith that is in some way combined with uncertainty, but God may be said to believe in himself or even to put faith in his servants (even if they let him down).

Peace to those in Christ.

I made no snarky comments. I simply acknowledged what you have expressed as being your opinion about logic.

The most legitimate reason is that the Bible doesn't say He had faith.

1. So did the Law command Him to trust in God? Why would the Law command Jesus to trust in Himself?
2. Also in Him "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form".
3. Where does it say that we are to imitate Christ's faith?

Where is the scripture that says that God has faith in Himself? Where is the scripture that says that God puts faith in his servants?

Just like you see the Trinity in Scripture when it doesn't say so, we see Jesus exercising faith even though it doesn't say so explicitly using that terminology. But, everywhere we see Jesus walking in Faith and praying and seeking God's will and following it in obedience, not knowing many things as he did so - temptation without faith is a subterfuge. Being tempted like us in all respects while being obedient is the essence of faith.

Your bias is so strong in your response to the first point in the blog article about Jesus being unsure about whether God would remove the cup and so forth makes a mockery of one of the most human and important examples of Christ to us in living in faith makes it seemingly worthless to even engage you in this (or perhaps any) discussion. You seem intent only in ridiculing what you clearly haven't engaged enough with an open mind to understand.

Prayerfully approach the subject with humility and review that material or not if you want to really engage this discussion -- otherwise, pearls and swine come to mind. There is a LOT of material there and if you are truly interested in the subject there should be things to cause you to think about this differently. If you don't want to think about it differently, then you're in the wrong place. I took your post as an honest inquiry - but it seems you aren't questioning and exploring - you are only trying to preach.

Apples and oranges. You are right, the word "Trinity" is not found, but the trinity has much scriptural evidence to back it up. Jesus is called God close to a dozen times in scripture. The Holy Spirit is refered to as God. Jesus commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is worshiped throughout the New Testament. Only God is to be worshiped. I have spent over a year presenting Bible evidence for Jesus' Deity and the Trinity, so I know the Bible speaks of both. On the other hand, I see no scriptural evidence that Jesus had faith. You say you see Jesus walking in faith, etc., but the Bible doesn't call it that. You say that Jesus did not know many things. Aside from His infancy and childhood, there's only one thing the Bible tells us that He did not know- the time of His return. You can bet He knows that now. In fact, the Bible tells us several times that He knows all things. In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
When Satan tempted Jesus, He simply quoted the Word. No mention of faith. He didn't have to believe the word. He IS the word.
Your bias is just as strong in the other direction. I do not make a mockery of how Jesus walked and lived on earth. You call it a mockery, because I came to a different conclusion than you. Should I call what you believe a mockery?
If you think it's worthless to engage me in any discussion, then don't. Nobody is keeping you here except you. I made two exclamatory remarks: "Unbelieveable" and "Are you kidding me?" and you accuse me of ridiculing the blogger. Not true. I was so surprised that he would come up with that obvious deception, that Jesus was unsure about whether He would be crucified or not. You imply that my mind is closed. Again, no more so than yours.
If scripture backs up a belief, I accept it. If it doesn't, I reject it. If that's being close-minded, then I'm guilty.
I told you that I intended on listening to all those blogs, as I have time, and I will, the Lord willing. There's no need for "pearls and swine" talk. Just because there's a lot of material, and I do have an interest in the topic - after all, I started the new topic- doesn't guarantee that I'll think differently about it. So far, what I've read just reinforces what I believe. You said, "If I dont' want to think about it differently, then you're in the wrong place." So if I don't come to agree with you, then I shouldn't be on the forum. That's a very immature attitude. Maybe you're in the wrong place, if you don't come around to my way of thinking. Just because I already had an opinion on this new topic, doesn't mean that we can't discuss it, or that I shouldn't present it. I love to explore the scripture. Give me some verses to back up your interpretation, and I will definitely explore them. I'm only trying to preach? Isn't preaching at least part of what we Christians are commanded to do? If we're not allowed to proclaim the truth on the Bible forum, then we can no longer call it a Christian forum. Obviously, we all preach. You preach non-trinitarianism, Jesus is not God, He did have faith, etc. etc.

[dwight92070]

If Jesus truly "emptied himself" in the incarnation He would certainly have needed faith. And if He had no need of faith, how would He be an example to us?

By His obedience.

[darinhouston]

I made no snarky comments. I simply acknowledged what you have expressed as being your opinion about logic.

The most legitimate reason is that the Bible doesn't say He had faith.

1. So did the Law command Him to trust in God? Why would the Law command Jesus to trust in Himself?
2. Also in Him "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form".
3. Where does it say that we are to imitate Christ's faith?

Where is the scripture that says that God has faith in Himself? Where is the scripture that says that God puts faith in his servants?

Just like you see the Trinity in Scripture when it doesn't say so, we see Jesus exercising faith even though it doesn't say so explicitly using that terminology. But, everywhere we see Jesus walking in Faith and praying and seeking God's will and following it in obedience, not knowing many things as he did so - temptation without faith is a subterfuge. Being tempted like us in all respects while being obedient is the essence of faith.

Your bias is so strong in your response to the first point in the blog article about Jesus being unsure about whether God would remove the cup and so forth makes a mockery of one of the most human and important examples of Christ to us in living in faith makes it seemingly worthless to even engage you in this (or perhaps any) discussion. You seem intent only in ridiculing what you clearly haven't engaged enough with an open mind to understand.

Prayerfully approach the subject with humility and review that material or not if you want to really engage this discussion -- otherwise, pearls and swine come to mind. There is a LOT of material there and if you are truly interested in the subject there should be things to cause you to think about this differently. If you don't want to think about it differently, then you're in the wrong place. I took your post as an honest inquiry - but it seems you aren't questioning and exploring - you are only trying to preach.

Apples and oranges. You are right, the word "Trinity" is not found, but the trinity has much scriptural evidence to back it up. Jesus is called God close to a dozen times in scripture. The Holy Spirit is refered to as God. Jesus commanded to baptize in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. He is worshiped throughout the New Testament. Only God is to be worshiped. I have spent over a year presenting Bible evidence for Jesus' Deity and the Trinity, so I know the Bible speaks of both. On the other hand, I see no scriptural evidence that Jesus had faith. You say you see Jesus walking in faith, etc., but the Bible doesn't call it that. You say that Jesus did not know many things. Aside from His infancy and childhood, there's only one thing the Bible tells us that He did not know- the time of His return. You can bet He knows that now. In fact, the Bible tells us several times that He knows all things. In Him are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.
When Satan tempted Jesus, He simply quoted the Word. No mention of faith. He didn't have to believe the word. He IS the word.
Your bias is just as strong in the other direction. I do not make a mockery of how Jesus walked and lived on earth. You call it a mockery, because I came to a different conclusion than you. Should I call what you believe a mockery?
If you think it's worthless to engage me in any discussion, then don't. Nobody is keeping you here except you. I made two exclamatory remarks: "Unbelieveable" and "Are you kidding me?" and you accuse me of ridiculing the blogger. Not true. I was so surprised that he would come up with that obvious deception, that Jesus was unsure about whether He would be crucified or not. You imply that my mind is closed. Again, no more so than yours.
If scripture backs up a belief, I accept it. If it doesn't, I reject it. If that's being close-minded, then I'm guilty.
I told you that I intended on listening to all those blogs, as I have time, and I will, the Lord willing. There's no need for "pearls and swine" talk. Just because there's a lot of material, and I do have an interest in the topic - after all, I started the new topic- doesn't guarantee that I'll think differently about it. So far, what I've read just reinforces what I believe. You said, "If I dont' want to think about it differently, then you're in the wrong place." So if I don't come to agree with you, then I shouldn't be on the forum. That's a very immature attitude. Maybe you're in the wrong place, if you don't come around to my way of thinking. Just because I already had an opinion on this new topic, doesn't mean that we can't discuss it, or that I shouldn't present it. I love to explore the scripture. Give me some verses to back up your interpretation, and I will definitely explore them. I'm only trying to preach? Isn't preaching at least part of what we Christians are commanded to do? If we're not allowed to proclaim the truth on the Bible forum, then we can no longer call it a Christian forum. Obviously, we all preach. You preach non-trinitarianism, Jesus is not God, He did have faith, etc. etc.

I think it's time to dust my feet off

[dwight92070]

I've noticed you often do that. When you don't have a kind and good answer, you ignore totally what I just said with a condescending remark, usually adding that I don't know how to discuss things properly on the forum, or another smokescreen is that I can't stay on topic, so therefore I'm not worthy of even receiving a response - all because I do not only disagree with you, but also because I make some good points which refute your position. That really seems to bug you.

[darinhouston]

I've noticed you often do that. When you don't have a kind and good answer, you ignore totally what I just said with a condescending remark, usually adding that I don't know how to discuss things properly on the forum, or another smokescreen is that I can't stay on topic, so therefore I'm not worthy of even receiving a response - all because I do not only disagree with you, but also because I make some good points which refute your position. That really seems to bug you.

You're fooling only yourself

[PR]

I believe that in Romans 3:22 for example, "pistis Christos" is translated "faith of Christ" in the KJV, and "faith in Christ" in most other modern translations. This translation also occurs in Galatians 2:16. I think both translations are acceptable. Why the change? I don't know.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested , being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:21-23, KJV)

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:21-23, NASB)

This came to mind when I read the original post. "Faith of Christ" instead of "faith in Christ," what do you think?

Thanks

PR

[darinhouston]

I believe that in Romans 3:22 for example, "pistis Christos" is translated "faith of Christ" in the KJV, and "faith in Christ" in most other modern translations. This translation also occurs in Galatians 2:16. I think both translations are acceptable. Why the change? I don't know.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested , being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:21-23, KJV)

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:21-23, NASB)

This came to mind when I read the original post. "Faith of Christ" instead of "faith in Christ," what do you think?

Thanks

PR

I guess I don't understand how that could be so. From my beginning greek understanding, the term Christos is in the genitive case and cannot mean "in Christ." It can be "of" or "from" but not "in." (and, incidentally, it's actually the genitive pisteos not pistis).

[dwight92070]

I believe that in Romans 3:22 for example, "pistis Christos" is translated "faith of Christ" in the KJV, and "faith in Christ" in most other modern translations. This translation also occurs in Galatians 2:16. I think both translations are acceptable. Why the change? I don't know.

21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested , being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe : for there is no difference: 23 For all have sinned , and come short of the glory of God; (Romans 3:21-23, KJV)

21 But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, 22 even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (Romans 3:21-23, NASB)

This came to mind when I read the original post. "Faith of Christ" instead of "faith in Christ," what do you think?

Thanks

PR

How could the faith OF Christ, that is HIS faith, bring about OUR salvation, since HIS faith would not require a decision of any kind on OUR part? The Calvinists would most likely LOVE this translation, since they believe that we have NO PART TO PLAY in OUR salvation - i.e. ONLY GOD can CAUSE us to be born again. But the entirety of the New Testament cries out against that interpretation.

The New King James CHANGED their translation of Romans 3:22 (i.e. from the original King James version) to "faith IN Christ". Now we're talking about OUR FAITH in Jesus. Faith IN Jesus is infinitely more in line with the entire teaching of scripture. How many times did Jesus say, "YOUR faith has saved you" or "Have faith (that is YOUR faith) IN God."? Or how many times did He tell THEM (and US) to "BELIEVE"? Trust and obey, i.e. YOU TRUST and YOU OBEY.

Again the New King James CHANGED their translation in Galatians 2:16 to "faith IN Jesus". It also appears that they were completely justified in making those changes, because the Interlinear Greek New Testament says "of(in) Jesus Christ" for both the Romans verse and the Galatians verse. So BOTH words must be considered, but "faith IN Jesus" more accurately agrees with the entirety of scripture. So I believe the translators for the New King James version made a wise choice in changing the original translation.

[darinhouston]

Again the New King James CHANGED their translation in Galatians 2:16 to "faith IN Jesus". It also appears that they were completely justified in making those changes, because the Interlinear Greek New Testament says "of(in) Jesus Christ" for both the Romans verse and the Galatians verse. So BOTH words must be considered, but "faith IN Jesus" more accurately agrees with the entirety of scripture. So I believe the translators for the New King James version made a wise choice in changing the original translation.

You say they were justified but on what basis do you make this claim? Grammatically, "of" and "in" are not the same in Greek.

How could the faith OF Christ, that is HIS faith, bring about OUR salvation, since HIS faith would not require a decision of any kind on OUR part? The Calvinists would most likely LOVE this translation, since they believe that we have NO PART TO PLAY in OUR salvation - i.e. ONLY GOD can CAUSE us to be born again. But the entirety of the New Testament cries out against that interpretation.

I'm no Calvinist but to answer your question, it's not the entire NT teaching on the subject, but Christ's own faith (or faithfulness) led to his obedience and to the cross which is what saves us. We get to participate in that salvation by placing ourselves under his headship/lordship, but his faithfulness is what saves us. Our faith in him and what he did affirms our status and allows us to participate but it was his faith/faithfulness to the end that did the work. And his example of faithfulness and obedience throughout his life is further empowerment for us to remain faithful.