Evidence for God from Science

During Jesus ministry on earth, was the power coming out of His own human body, or was the power provided by the Father & He by faith exercised it? If the latter, how do we explain the case where the woman with the issue of blood was healed after touching Him? He said He sense power leaving Him...does it mean He inherently had that power even without the exercise of His own faith?

During Jesus ministry on earth, was the power coming out of His own human body, or was the power provided by the Father & He by faith exercised it? If the latter, how do we explain the case where the woman with the issue of blood was healed after touching Him? He said He sense power leaving Him...does it mean He inherently had that power even without the exercise of His own faith?

Wasn't it the faith of the recipient along with the power and the will of God that initiated the miracles? I'm not sure that Jesus' faith came into it. Just a thought.

Your question is very intriguing though and brings up questions of my own. Like if Jesus was subject to the Father in all things, in His veiled flesh, could he speak, do, or know anything unless God the Father allowed it?

FFC wrote:

During Jesus ministry on earth, was the power coming out of His own human body, or was the power provided by the Father & He by faith exercised it? If the latter, how do we explain the case where the woman with the issue of blood was healed after touching Him? He said He sense power leaving Him...does it mean He inherently had that power even without the exercise of His own faith?

Wasn't it the faith of the recipient along with the power and the will of God that initiated the miracles? I'm not sure that Jesus' faith came into it. Just a thought.

Your question is very intriguing though and brings up questions of my own. Like if Jesus was subject to the Father in all things, in His veiled flesh, could he speak, do, or know anything unless God the Father allowed it?

Careful, you're approaching modalism in what you're saying. You're making it sound as if Jesus was some sort of human robot, being directed by God the Father. No it is not like that. Remember that Jesus the Son is a full member of the trinity and is the Word that always was and always will be. The Word took on a fleshy body and walked among us. The Word accomplished the will of God the father and fulfilled the prophesies. he was in no way string-puppied but had full autonomy on his actions. He just knew what had to be done and simply did them.

In Christ,

Byblos.

FFC wrote:

During Jesus ministry on earth, was the power coming out of His own human body, or was the power provided by the Father & He by faith exercised it? If the latter, how do we explain the case where the woman with the issue of blood was healed after touching Him? He said He sense power leaving Him...does it mean He inherently had that power even without the exercise of His own faith?

Wasn't it the faith of the recipient along with the power and the will of God that initiated the miracles? I'm not sure that Jesus' faith came into it. Just a thought.

Your question is very intriguing though and brings up questions of my own. Like if Jesus was subject to the Father in all things, in His veiled flesh, could he speak, do, or know anything unless God the Father allowed it?

You phrased it better than I did in my original post.
Another way I might ask is: "When Jesus left His throne, did He also left His power?" The answer would better help me understand His human nature.
Jesus may have a devine nature. But if His devine power still exist, then it won't be much of a test or challenge when He fasted for 40days, tempted, abuse & crucified...wouldn't it?

The edge wrote:

FFC wrote:

During Jesus ministry on earth, was the power coming out of His own human body, or was the power provided by the Father & He by faith exercised it? If the latter, how do we explain the case where the woman with the issue of blood was healed after touching Him? He said He sense power leaving Him...does it mean He inherently had that power even without the exercise of His own faith?

Wasn't it the faith of the recipient along with the power and the will of God that initiated the miracles? I'm not sure that Jesus' faith came into it. Just a thought.

Your question is very intriguing though and brings up questions of my own. Like if Jesus was subject to the Father in all things, in His veiled flesh, could he speak, do, or know anything unless God the Father allowed it?

You phrased it better than I did in my original post.
Another way I might ask is: "When Jesus left His throne, did He also left His power?" The answer would better help me understand His human nature.
Jesus may have a devine nature. But if His devine power still exist, then it won't be much of a test or challenge when He fasted for 40days, tempted, abuse & crucified...wouldn't it?

Phillipians Chapter 2 speaks or Jesus "emptying" himself of many of the things that were due Him as God. This was a voluntary setting aside, not a divorcing of his true nature.

As such, I believe much of what we see in his ministry is a result of the special annointing of the Holy Spirit that marked the beginning of his Public ministry.

I think there is mystery here.

The theological term is referred to as the "hypostatic union" which in effect holds to Christ being both 100% God and 100% man.

Nevertheless, I believe that emptying put Him in the role of ministering in his Humanity through the power of the Holy Spirit.

That is why He could make the statement that those who followed after him would do greater things than He was doing. The basis of that was His knowledge that pentecost was coming. The means was the greater distribution and power of the Holy Spirit in the ministry of the Church.

My 2 cents.

Careful, you're approaching modalism in what you're saying. You're making it sound as if Jesus was some sort of human robot, being directed by God the Father

Byblos, I don't know what a modalist is, but I believe according to what I see in the scriptures that although Jesus was completely God he was also completely a man who took on the form of a servant and submitted himself to the Father in all things. I believe His glory was veiled and that he deliberately did not act autonomously. He came to seek and to save those who were lost, to reveal the Father, and it seems to me to demonstrate that it is possible for one who is in constant obedience and fellowship to the father to live a sinless life even when tempted. If that make me a modalist than I guess I am. However if I am wrong in my thinking I definitely want to be shown.

But if His devine power still exist, then it won't be much of a test or challenge when He fasted for 40days, tempted, abuse & crucified...wouldn't it?

This is what I'm thinking. It wouldn't be much of a test for God to breeze through all the tests and temptations, but it would if He was clothed in a human nature and voluntarily submitted to the Father for his leading. We know that He is our high who was tempted in all ways yet He never sinned. A temptation is not a temptation if there is no struggle or choice.

FFC wrote:

Careful, you're approaching modalism in what you're saying. You're making it sound as if Jesus was some sort of human robot, being directed by God the Father

Byblos, I don't know what a modalist is, but I believe according to what I see in the scriptures that although Jesus was completely God he was also completely a man who took on the form of a servant and submitted himself to the Father in all things. I believe His glory was veiled and that he deliberately did not act autonomously. He came to seek and to save those who were lost, to reveal the Father, and it seems to me to demonstrate that it is possible for one who is in constant obedience and fellowship to the father to live a sinless life even when tempted. If that make me a modalist than I guess I am. However if I am wrong in my thinking I definitely want to be shown.

But if His devine power still exist, then it won't be much of a test or challenge when He fasted for 40days, tempted, abuse & crucified...wouldn't it?

This is what I'm thinking. It wouldn't be much of a test for God to breeze through all the tests and temptations, but it would if He was clothed in a human nature and voluntarily submitted to the Father for his leading. We know that He is our high who was tempted in all ways yet He never sinned. A temptation is not a temptation if there is no struggle or choice.

Here's a link to a definition of Modalism.

http://www.carm.org/heresy/modalism.htm

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

_______________________________________________

The issue here is not modalism per se, in my opinion, the issue is the full deity of Christ coupled with full humanity. It is a mystery, but it is essential to orthodoxy.

If Jesus was (is) anything less than fully human, then His atonement for us is meaningless.

If Jesus was (is) anything less than fully God, then our faith is in vain.

This is what the Council of Nicea was really all about if you want to read about it historically. It's is also at the heart of what the Gnostics claimed in their heretical Gospels that are all the rage now a days. They see Jesus as more than human, but less than God.

The key passage again, is

Phil 2:1-11

Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested

himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.
Present day groups that hold to forms of this error are the United Pentecostal and United Apostolic Churches. They deny the Trinity, teach that the name of God is Jesus, and require baptism for salvation. These modalist churches often accuse Trinitarians of teaching three gods. This is not what the Trinity is. The correct teaching of the Trinity is one God in three eternal coexistent persons: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

Thank you, Canuckster1127, I'm certainly not of that persuasion .

The issue here is not modalism per se, in my opinion, the issue is the full deity of Christ coupled with full humanity. It is a mystery, but it is essential to orthodoxy.

If Jesus was (is) anything less than fully human, then His atonement for us is meaningless.

If Jesus was (is) anything less than fully God, then our faith is in vain.

This is what the Council of Nicea was really all about if you want to read about it historically. It's is also at the heart of what the Gnostics claimed in their heretical Gospels that are all the rage now a days. They see Jesus as more than human, but less than God.

The key passage again, is

Phill 2:1-11

Yes, that is the bottom line.

FFC wrote:

Careful, you're approaching modalism in what you're saying. You're making it sound as if Jesus was some sort of human robot, being directed by God the Father

Byblos, I don't know what a modalist is, but I believe according to what I see in the scriptures that although Jesus was completely God he was also completely a man who took on the form of a servant and submitted himself to the Father in all things. I believe His glory was veiled and that he deliberately did not act autonomously. He came to seek and to save those who were lost, to reveal the Father, and it seems to me to demonstrate that it is possible for one who is in constant obedience and fellowship to the father to live a sinless life even when tempted. If that make me a modalist than I guess I am. However if I am wrong in my thinking I definitely want to be shown.

But if His devine power still exist, then it won't be much of a test or challenge when He fasted for 40days, tempted, abuse & crucified...wouldn't it?

This is what I'm thinking. It wouldn't be much of a test for God to breeze through all the tests and temptations, but it would if He was clothed in a human nature and voluntarily submitted to the Father for his leading. We know that He is our high who was tempted in all ways yet He never sinned. A temptation is not a temptation if there is no struggle or choice.

FFC, I hope you did not take my comments as an accusation or as an offense. If they remotely sounded as such please accept my apology.

I certainly do agree that Jesus was fully God and fully human thru the hypostatic union. I also do see what you mean that if Jesus was fully God then all the tests he went thru would have been a breeze. Did he have to relinquish his Godly powers in order to be tempted and suffer? I don't know, I don't think so. The way I see it Jesus was the greatest compartmentalizer of all time. He was able to fully engage his human side when needed (which is pretty mush most of the time) and fully employ his Godly side when absolutely necessary. I have no doubt that Jesus felt great pains when he was repeatedly tempted and have no doubt that he suffered unbearable pains on the cross. That's what makes him so great, the fact that he could have stopped it, could have used his Godly powers but chose not to. He chose to suffer for us when he didn't have to. That's what makes our religion so beautiful and so unique. Come to think of it, I think the most awesome pain Jesus suffered was the fact that he had the power to stop his suffering but didn't.

In Christ,

Byblos.

FFC, I hope you did not take my comments as an accusation or as an offense. If they remotely sounded as such please accept my apology.

Not at all.

I certainly do agree that Jesus was fully God and fully human thru the hypostatic union. I also do see what you mean that if Jesus was fully God then all the tests he went thru would have been a breeze. Did he have to relinquish his Godly powers in order to be tempted and suffer? I don't know, I don't think so. The way I see it Jesus was the greatest compartmentalizer of all time. He was able to fully engage his human side when needed (which is pretty mush most of the time) and fully employ his Godly side when absolutely necessary. I have no doubt that Jesus felt great pains when he was repeatedly tempted and have no doubt that he suffered unbearable pains on the cross. That's what makes him so great, the fact that he could have stopped it, could have used his Godly powers but chose not to. He chose to suffer for us when he didn't have to. That's what makes our religion so beautiful and so unique. Come to think of it, I think the most awesome pain Jesus suffered was the fact that he had the power to stop his suffering but didn't.

In Christ,

Byblos.

I agree wholeheartedly! I knew we we're on the same page.