In my last post I mid-spoke. I said that when Jesus became a man he divested himself of deity. That probably made a lot of people gasp. What I meant to say was that he divested himself of certain attributes of deity. I did not mean to make any statement suggesting that Jesus is not God.
I knew that would be one that would be questioned tmk if jesus made mistakes that we can tell ,then it onens up the door for him being mistaken when he taught,,i wont say it was possible that he made mistakes for that reason ,,,it opens a can of homosexual worms so to speakdoes the scripture show he made a mistake ,,,I cant find one but the bible does say he kwew the hearts of men ,,and was the only one who knew god ,,so when he said to god that he forsook him , he knew the heart of god and was not mistaken ,jesus credabilty in perfect dersirment and judgment in every matter is biblical don't you think see ya igota go to work
I said that when Jesus became a man he divested himself of deity. That probably made a lot of people gasp. What I meant to say was that he divested himself of certain attributes of deity.
Omniscience, omnipresence and omnipotence to name three. I don't think there is any doubt about this. Even the very conservative gotquestions. Com website agrees with this. Just put "kenosis" in the search field. I believe that Jesus made an immature error in judgment when he stayed behind at the temple without telling his parents when he was 12. I am not saying he sinned. But he should have known his folks would be worried sick. But he did grow in wisdom and stature.
Depends on what you saying. Are you saying that Jesus was not any of those three or that at will he restricted his use thereof.Divested is a strong word. Jesus was fully God and Fully man. That is what the hypostatic union is all about. Jesus was omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent and clearly proved that throughout His life. He chose not to display those things as part of His humbling of Himself and submission to the Father.Don't forget that God is also immutable.
And just to be clear Jesus did not have to develop a relationship of submission with the Father. He always had it.
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor with God and man." Lk. 2:52I think we may simply have to agree to disagree on what "kenosis" means. Jesus emptied himself of divine attributes when he became flesh. He voluntarily surrendered them. He became a servant. Since he learned he was not omniscient. Since he got hungry and tired he was not omnipotent. He was like us. He did not do miracles by his own power. He did them by the Holy Spirit and only at the Father's leading. He no longer had authority to create or act on his own. He was always submissive to the Father. And in his flesh I believe he grew in this regard. He was more in tune with the Father at age 30 than age 3.
"So, the man in Swaziland has everything he needs for life and godliness, as provided by the Lord. He does not need Jewish history or traditions or anything other than the Holy Spirit to aid him in his understand of the Scriptures.We cannot "interpret" (as if our interpretation bore any weight) scriptures except through the scriptures. They are self-contained."I must disagree. But first I would begin by suggesting that the Holy Spirit can indeed aid "the man from Swaziland" yto understand enough of Scripture for salvation and sanctification apart from any historical/cultural understanding. Having said that any person's understanding of Scripture, though not absolutely necessary, will be enhanced through understanding the historical/cultural context that envelope the Scriptures. There are 2 extremes, one is to deny any context and the other is to exaggerate the historical/cultural context such as the liberal theologian would so as to conclude that Jesus was simply a product of His times and only believed and taught those things because they were contemporary to His time. They would also suggest that we are much more learned, not having the same superstitions, and therefore we filter out everything that does not fit our current understanding. An example would be to deny His miracles (therefore His deity)by reason that they could not have taken place and must have been performed as a magician might today.I would only suggest a balanced viewpoint.We cannot lift any Scripture, including the one in question, out of its greater context and expect a complete understanding. We would never consider looking at the New Testament without the context found in the Old Testament. A plain reading of the New Testament could lead to some errant doctrines if we did not have the Old Testament. I personally think that all of this is demonstrated in what I call the problem of language or communication. Have you ever had a misunderstanding or argument when someone misinterpreted something you said or vise versa and only after further conversation did you realize that they interpreted something you said to mean something else?Any form of communication whether verbal or nonverbal has the potential to be misunderstood. Ask any relationship counselor and I'm certain that they would tell you that most arguments can be repaired when everyone is clearly understood as to what they meant. Too often what we hear is not what the other meant. And that's not even cross-culturally. Cross-culturally I might offend someone through something as benign as body language which would be a nonverbal form of communication. I mean only to be comfortable but sticking my foot into the aisle might greatly offend another culture because that's how they interpret such a gesture. I am innocent of any wrongdoing only because I did not mean to offend even though an offense was interpreted.Another form of nonverbal communication is the written word. The example that we wish to deal with is Scripture. There are different times when Scripture was written and it was written by many different people even of various cultural backgrounds.Try talking to a Mormon or Jehovah's Witness. They have learned to use a lot of the same words that evangelicals use. They might even seem very Christian in their beliefs. But we need to understand how they encode the words that we speak and how we decode those same words that they have spoken. That's part of the problem of language. Each one of us, no matter the culture that we live in, encode our words with meaning that might differ from those that are hearers to our words. Each hearer decodes our words according to their own understanding. Multiply the potential for misunderstanding by communicating with a person of a different culture. That's what we are doing when we read the Bible. Can the average man, with the aid of the Holy Spirit, comprehend enough so as to be saved and to grow in faith. Undoubtedly yes. But we do need to interpret and understand each part in its greater context. For example, take the verse in question, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" Those who deny the deity of Jesus are quick to ask why would Jesus call the Father God if Jesus were God? Therefore Jesus must not be God. But we tell them that these words must be understood in the greater context of Scripture which has much to say about His deity. We cannot allow them a "plain reading" of this verse. In must be interpreted in its context. We differ somewhat on what the greater context of this verse is. I suggest that we do well to evaluate it according to its context, be it Scriptural, cultural and historical. I've already gone on long enough but bear with me a moment longer. Look at verse 6 of Psalm 22, "But I am a worm, and no man." I used to interpret that to mean an earthworm. There is much that can be illustrated from such an understanding. But when you look at the Hebrew word, "TOLA’ATH", which means “Crimson worm” or “Scarlet worm”. Sometimes the word is translated scarlet or crimson or, in this case worm. But it loses significant meaning by not being properly translated as scarlet worm. Take a peek at http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/TheCrimsonOrScarletWorm.htmand you will understand. Here is a perfect example of better understanding because now we know why the writer (David), under the direction of the Holy Spirit, chose the word that he did. We would not get the significance if we read the plain meaning of "worm."If we did not dig into the greater context we would never know this nugget of truth.So I reiterate that though it is not necessary for salvation or sanctification it most certainly edifies us to know the Scriptural + historical + cultural context of Scripture.
TMK, that is the essence of many of the dangerous teachings at bethel--that Jesus was a man who simply had the right relationship with the Father....It affects the atonement greatly and the understanding of who we are and how we become so in Christ. Very dangerous theology.
why I have a problem in that line of thinking ,,because the scripture doesn't in any clear statements support what you said about Jesus making mistakes the only example you gave was what we can only call an assumption, it is not at all a clear verse saying Jesus made a mistake in judgment ,,,,,,,it could easily be said and rightly so that Jesus parents made an error of judgment but Jesus was following god will when he was at the temple ,,,because the bible says he did the will of the father see thats what I was saying before we should uses the clear verse like Jesus only does what he sees the father doing and says what the father tells him to say ,,,use that to interpret the part about him being in the temple ,,rather then ignore the clear statements as you just did brother tmk