What innate Divine attribute did Christ set aside at the incarnation?

[Yeshua1]

In context ...

[John 6:35-40 NASB] 35 Jesus said to them, "I am the bread of life; he who comes to Me will not hunger, and he who believes in Me will never thirst. 36 "But I said to you that you have seen Me, and yet do not believe. 37 "All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will certainly not cast out. 38 "For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 "This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day."

How does that verse indicate that Jesus "lay aside His divine right to use all of his attributes"?



As an aside, the next two verses state the will of "Him who sent me" ...

1. of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day
2. everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day.

... so, is that not also the will of God the Son?

Jesus stated that what he said and did was under the Father, as he did nothing of Himself, correct?
I would see Jesus being Subordinate to his Father while here upon the Earth, but he did also say that He would receive back the fullness of his glory that he had with the father when He rose again and ascended back to God.

 

[MartyF]

If you’re comparing Classical Theism with the Biblical Jesus you have to toss omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, ineffability, impassibility, simplicity, omnipresence, etc.

 

[atpollard]

If you’re comparing Classical Theism with the Biblical Jesus you have to toss omnipotence, omniscience, immutability, ineffability, impassibility, simplicity, omnipresence, etc.

I have presented an occasion where Jesus demonstrated omnipresence.
Some of the others I am not sufficiently familiar with to comment, but I have some personal questions about GOD and impassibility from a Biblical basis (setting Jesus aside for a moment).

 

[MartyF]

I have presented an occasion where Jesus demonstrated omnipresence.
Some of the others I am not sufficiently familiar with to comment, but I have some personal questions about GOD and impassibility from a Biblical basis (setting Jesus aside for a moment).

1. That "occasion" is a major stretch to get what you want. Even if someone believes your interpretive stretch of Jesus saw something a distance away = Jesus was in two places, one has to make the second interpretive stretch of Jesus was in two places = Jesus was in all places. Nothing in the text says either of these.

2. You don't seem to understand that omnipresence in Classical Theism is not just existing everywhere but also at every time.

 

[atpollard]

1. That "occasion" is a major stretch to get what you want.
2. You don't seem to understand that omnipresence in Classical Theism is not just existing everywhere but also at every time.

The first point I will grant you. Part of my intention was to just take an extreme position and attempt to make a case rather than blindly accept the rhetoric of common wisdom. So I entered the discussion with a high probability of failure.

On the second point, WHEN did the Second Person of the Trinity not exist that Jesus is disqualified from being omnipresent?

 

[atpollard]

Even if someone believes your interpretive stretch of Jesus saw something a distance away = Jesus was in two places, one has to make the second interpretive stretch of Jesus was in two places = Jesus was in all places. Nothing in the text says either of these.

Just to push back a little (for the sake of discussion). The text does present Jesus as saying that he saw something at a location where he was not corporeally (in the flesh, so to speak) present. At a minimum, in whatever sense Jesus was just like us in all ways, a "clairvoyant" Jesus is not JUST like us in ALL ways.

[Know what I mean, Verne?]

 

[JonC]

I think we may also want to consider if it was what would consider a "divine attribute" that Christ set aside.

 

[Yeshua1]

The first point I will grant you. Part of my intention was to just take an extreme position and attempt to make a case rather than blindly accept the rhetoric of common wisdom. So I entered the discussion with a high probability of failure.

On the second point, WHEN did the Second Person of the Trinity not exist that Jesus is disqualified from being omnipresent?

was all of god the Son here as Jesus, or was some of Him still in heaven?
think in the Incarnation the Full God the Son took on limited human flesh and form, so accepted the limitations of being just in one place for example!
when he ascended and was re glorified by his Father, he once again was exercising the all everything again!

 

[Yeshua1]

Just to push back a little (for the sake of discussion). The text does present Jesus as saying that he saw something at a location where he was not corporeally (in the flesh, so to speak) present. At a minimum, in whatever sense Jesus was just like us in all ways, a "clairvoyant" Jesus is not JUST like us in ALL ways.

[Know what I mean, Verne?]

Did Jesus do things out of His own Deity, or by the Holy Spirit operating in and thru him while in the flesh?

 

[church mouse guy]

He was and is sinless in his humanity, bornn that way, while you and I were born with sin natures, so how could he be"just like us?"

Because Jesus could have sinned just as Adam did but He did not do what Adam did in spite of the temptations, even those of Satan in the wilderness.

 

[Yeshua1]

Because Jesus could have sinned just as Adam did but He did not do what Adam did in spite of the temptations, even those of Satan in the wilderness.

Deity cannot sin....

 

[church mouse guy]

Technically, I think that the whole point is an artificial construct to help a person understand the Trinity as much as possible. I had a JW list about every passage in the NT on the subject but became stymied at the clear explanation of Scripture that Jesus laid aside His deity. The JWs are out to lunch on that point because it has no Scriptural basis whatsoever. The Watchtower Society is setting their people up for failure very quickly if they continue to try to sell that point.

.Philippians 2:7 (KJV) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

Deity cannot sin....

No, but man can. Jesus overcame the temptations that beset human flesh, where Adam failed.

 

[Yeshua1]

Technically, I think that the whole point is an artificial construct to help a person understand the Trinity.


No, but man can. Jesus overcame the temptations that beset human flesh, where Adam failed.

There was nothing within jesus that would be entice/attracted towards sinning, as every tiem he would get hit by that temptation, never could have conceived it forward, would be auto rejected!

 

[church mouse guy]

There was nothing within jesus that would be entice/attracted towards sinning, as every tiem he would get hit by that temptation, never could have conceived it forward, would be auto rejected!

See, there is a problem there because the Son of Man had to eat, sleep, and grow from an infant to an adult.

Hebrews 4:15 (KJV) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

 

[Yeshua1]

See, there is a problem there because the Son of Man had to eat, sleep, and grow from an infant to an adult.

Hebrews 4:15 (KJV) For we have not an high priest which cannot be touched with the feeling of our infirmities; but was in all points tempted like as [we are, yet] without sin.

he could not have the possibility to sin, and yet still do all of that!

 

[church mouse guy]

he could not have the possibility to sin, and yet still do all of that!

Then was Jesus truly man? You have a lot of problems with your point and I imagine that there is a name for that line of thinking but I don't share your viewpoint with you because Hebrews says that Jesus was tempted as we are. I still think that the core problem for human understanding is the nature of the Trinity and the attributes of God, which include an infinite mind. Jesus is called the last Adam, so I think that He was like Adam when He became incarnate, which I gather that you do not?

 

[Yeshua1]

Then was Jesus truly man? You have a lot of problems with your point and I imagine that there is a name for that line of thinking but I don't share your viewpoint with you because Hebrews says that Jesus was tempted as we are. I still think that the core problem for human understanding is the nature of the Trinity and the attributes of God, which include an infinite mind. Jesus is called the last Adam, so I think that He was like Adam when He became incarnate, which I gather that you do not?

No, for adam was a created being, while Jesus was also still fully God!

 

[church mouse guy]

No, for adam was a created being, while Jesus was also still fully God!

I disagree with you. Matthew 8:20 (KJV) And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.

Jesus called Himself over and over the Son of man.

Jesus is called the last Adam:

1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

 

[Yeshua1]

I disagree with you. Matthew 8:20 (KJV) And Jesus saith unto him, The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air [have] nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay [his] head.

Jesus called Himself over and over the Son of man.

Jesus is called the last Adam:

1 Corinthians 15:45 (KJV) And so it is written, The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam [was made] a quickening spirit.

Son of man , the divine person seen by Daniel, far greater than just another adam!

 

[church mouse guy]

Son of man , the divine person seen by Daniel, far greater than just another adam!

That is not the point, is it?