What is the source of Jesus' power?

[Elijah John]

What is the source of Jesus' power?

To have lived a holy life, to have preached and performed miracles, to have healed, to have resurrected others, to have been resurrected himself?

Was Jesus power self-generated? Or did he draw from the Father?

What implications can be reasonably drawn if Jesus had to draw from the Father for his power?

What NT evidence suggests that Jesus was dependent on the Father?

[shnarkle]

He can't take credit for it, this is not a negation of who he is, but an affirmation of his divinity. He extends that divinity to the rest of the world as well ...

What do you mean by "his divinity"? Is the word being used as a synonym for "goodness"? or "love"?

Those all fit, but I'm sticking with the definition primarily. Again, this does include Adam and the angels as well. They are referred to as "son of God". Anything that is created directly by the power of God is referred to as a "son of God" All those who are born again, or "begotten from above" are sons of God. Christ participates in our humanity that we may participate in his divinity. Christ presents us with what it means to be fully human. To be fully human is to "walk with God"; to be divine. This is the way Adam was created.

[shnarkle]

There seems to be no argument that Jesus displayed a very human dependence upon God while he was on earth...

Do you feel that you display this same dependence upon God because you're human, or do you see this human dependence that Jesus displayed upon God as something different in that you, or perhaps the rest of humanity doesn't display this same dependence upon God?

Different in degree only. But I realize this is "heresy" to the Athanasius' Church.

I'm not sure of the relevance to this heresy. If you depend upon God to a lesser degree, then does this make you less of a human being, or less divine, or both?

But why isn't that evidence that Jesus was not God but only a human who was highly favored and empowered by God?

Here again, I wonder why this wouldn't be the exact opposite because there are those who go through life never considering that they depend on God at all. To see one's life as completely dependent on God is a rarity nowadays, yet Jesus says that we can do nothing apart from him.

Which Jesus? The Synoptic Jesus never says this, that is John's Jesus who seems to usurp God's role. YHVH alone is the true Vine.

I think it would be more accurate to say that the Father is the source of the Vine rather than the Vine itself. The Holy Spirit is what invigorates the Vine itself. The Spirit is what causes the buds to break, flower, go to seed, etc. It's a systemic process. John is simply pointing out that a transcendent God is beyond anything you can think, or comprehend; there has to be an intermediary. That intermediary is immanence.

He seems to be pointing out that he is an integral part of reality. Even to be in a position of disfavor and disempowerment would be according to God's will. Jesus fits that description as well, no? He's described as coming in "sinful flesh". He's described as coming as a servant or slave, to be of no account, discarded and rejected, scorned, etc. For someone of such a spectacularly insignificant status in a backwater of the Roman Empire to be picked out by the leadership of the Jewish hierarchy as a threat, and to then successfully persuade their overlords to crucify him seems almost superhuman. How does someone of such insignificance become such a threat to those in power?

Non Sequitor, as many were crucified for being less of a threat.

I seriously doubt that. Jesus wasn't a thief and although he was a radical, he wasn't a radical that was seeking the overthrow of the government in any sense that they should have found threatening. He wasn't leading a revolt, and Pilate could see this plainly. The only thing the Jewish elders were threatened by was Jesus becoming more popular than them, and he was doing plenty to curtail that from happening with his requirements to deny oneself, sell everything, forsake all, etc.

One need not be "God-in-the-flesh" to be a perceived threat to both Temple and Caesar.

This wasn't what he was convicted of in the first place. His "son of God" comments weren't far-fetched, then or even today. At one end of the spectrum you have Jewish mothers who are quite ready to describe their own sons in this manner. At the other end of the spectrum you have people who use this description as being looked at as crazy. Neither one is anything more than a slight annoyance. The gospel narratives describe people just walking away in droves.

Aye, that's me, a strict Monotheist.

Well that explains it, so you agree with my assessment then?

For someone who sees God as being relational as well as subjectively immanent rather than simply objectively transcendent, praying isn't something that one does "to" God, but something that happens by God's power.

Maybe I misunderstand, but this sounds like a straw man to me. No one is saying that prayer is done "to" God, but rather as a way of connecting with God. And yes, by God's power, even for a strict Monotheist.

Yes, you misunderstand. Our language gives it away. You said, "a way of connecting with God". Look at where you put the word 'God'. It is the direct object. Jesus is "a way", but more accurately, "the way". The only way one can "connect with God" is subjectively. To do otherwise is as an object, and that is idolatry. Jesus essentially becomes the icon, and this is probably also idolatry, but Jesus seems to be saying more than that when he says that he is the Way, and especially when he says one must deny oneself. I don't assume that Jesus isn't taking his own advice here. If that's the case then he isn't pointing to himself at all, but to the Way which is being manifested.

Within the strict Monotheistic paradigm, God can still be considered trancendent and immanent.

Only if you are going to redefine the meanings of these two words. That which is transcendent can never be immanent.

No need to bring a third "Person" into it.

The Son is considered the second person of the Trinity.

The Spirit OF God can be considered immanent, indwelling the hearts of believers, like Jesus himself. And this too, is "relational".

Yes, this is why Jesus states that he must leave so that the Spirit may come to indwell in them. As long as he is around he is just seen as an icon of God by his disciples. He has to take them beyond that idea completely.

A strict monotheist cannot pray to his own idea of God; this is idolatry. So he must pray to God without using his imagination. He must pray to a transcendent God.

That is one reason images are forbidden to represent the Living God.

And it is no accident that the word "imagination" comes from the same root word.

But believing in God's immanent, indwelling Spirit as well as the trancendence of the Creator in Heaven is not the "idolatry" of imagination.

Believing in God's immanence through the indwelling Spirit, and admitting that the Father is transcendent is not idolatry. However, engaging one's imagination to create attributes of any sort to the Father is idolatry. This includes Jesus as well. Jesus says that if you have seen the Son, you have seen the Father. If we take his words to be saying that he is the image of the Father this is not the same thing as saying he is the Father anymore than looking at your own image is who you are. People conflate these two things and become idolaters.

The Father and Holy Spirit are connected to each other, and are, in fact, the "same".

The throttle and drive train are connected to each other, and are, in fact, the "same". No, they aren't, are they? The source of the power is quite different from the mechanism that transfers the power to the road; both are different from where the rubber meets the road.

Just a matter of the "where" of Divine manifestation.

Nope. Transcendence cannot be manifested through transcendence. Transcendence is by definition not manifest.

Mistaking a fellow vessel of God's Spirit (Jesus) as the Source, or as God Himself is idolatry, at least a mild form of idolatry.

Yep, Jesus isn't claiming to be the source, or as the manifestation of the Father. He is claiming to be the image of God. He is revealing the fact that a transcendent Father cannot be revealed except through immanence.

Was it the Buddha himself who said "if you see the Buddha on the road, kill him"? A hyperbole worthy of Jesus, perhaps.

Sure, but then it all depends on how you understand this saying of the Buddha.

Or as one historical Jesus scholar put it, "Jesus pointed to the Father, but his followers couldn't take their eyes off the pointing finger".

Yep, but here again this only spotlights the fact that Jesus was no threat to anyone really. However, this isn't to say that people aren't threatened by the extinction of their egos.

However, Jesus prays to God through himself.

Theological speculation, I know of no Biblical passage which supports this conclusion.

Here are two: "If you have seen the Son you have seen the Father". "No one can come to the Father except through me".

He has become a conduit for God's will.

The more we obey God, the more we also, become conduits for His will, the "Light of the World, the "Salt of the Earth" the "City on a Hill" etc. What Jesus experienced, he was saying "you too", not "through me" (except of course, in the GoJ).

He doesn't negate that it is only through the Son that anyone can come to the Father. When he says, "you are the light of the world", he is pointing out that they too must negate themselves to become sons of God. Paul takes it to its logical conclusion by pointing out that our identity is in Christ; we become absorbed into his body. There is no life outside of Christ.

He is receiving direct revelation from the source of his being,

The Great "I AM" YHVH, is the source of all being.

No, JHVH is the ground of being. The transcendent Father is the source of being, but technically, and by definition cannot exist. Existence is not an attribute of transcendence.

And Jesus taught direct connection to the Father, (the Lord's prayer), bypassing the necessity of the Temple intermediators.

Jesus taught that no one could come to the Father except through direct immanence. So while there can be no intermediaries; there is a mediator, and that mediator is reality itself; the Way. Christ personifies the way, but the Way cannot admit to personification

but he doesn't see it the same way a strict monotheist like Abraham would. Abraham sees God as external from himself, while Jesus sees God through himself.

Through himself, or within himself?

Through. Within necessitates a person; a self. Jesus denies the necessity for the self.

Jesus then offers this relationship to his own disciples. He goes from referring to himself as the light of the world to referring to them as the light of the world.

Exactly, but we need only go to the Father directly, as Jesus taught.

There is no direct route to transcendence. However, immanence is the way which should never be confused with the transcendent Father.

He has transmitted this to them because he is transmitting a relationship to them rather than just a revelation from an objective transcendent God.

Transmitting a relationship with the Father or with himself?

There can be no direct relationship with the Father, except through the Son. However, the Son does what he sees the Father doing which, for all practical purposes; is negating His very existence.

Why not relate to God directly, as Jesus taught? Approaching the Father with faith, humility and a willingness to forgive?

Because there is no direct access to what is transcendent.

Jesus acknowledges the source from which this comes as well as the power that is manifest through him. He can't take credit for it, this is not a negation of who he is, but an affirmation of his divinity.

Yes, small "d" divinity. Jesus is divine as are we, just a difference of degree.

Perhaps, but I don't think it's a small "d". People do some amazing things which one would categorize as superhuman or divine. These would be the small "d"'s of the world. When one is born again, they become divine in the truest sense of the word. Again, this is because the Father is beyond any idea or imagination anyone can have for God.

He extends that divinity to the rest of the world as well, but this isn't a popular invitation especially when one takes into account some of the requirements e.g. denying oneself, forsaking all etc. To do that, one must rely completely on the Father. From that standpoint, it makes perfect sense.

It's a hard challenge, and an ideal to continually strive for, and Jesus succeeds where most of us don't.

I think Jesus would deny this. He would say that his burden is light, his yoke easy. Why? Because he isn't doing anything. He has denied himself completely. It is simply the power of the Spirit moving and manifesting through him. Even this can't be accurate because there is no "him". There is no "you", "me", "them" etc. This is no different than what he was doing before the incarnation; it is simply him doing the same thing in a human incarnation. The incarnation is God manifesting through His creation. He shows that one must negate themselves to become fully human and divine. This has to be what the Son does through the act of creation. I don't even like to use the word "act" or look at creation as constructive. Creation seems to be more about negation; a continual emptying out.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 22 by shnarkle]

Lotta ground here, and interesting discussion. Let me just focus on a couple of things for now.

First, relating to God by His attibutes, would only be "idolatry" if we consider those attributes to be His sum-total. We understand that any attribute that has been revealed is only a facet.

But our salvation, and our well-being does not depend on understanding God in all His trancendence.

It is only necessary to understand that He is good, and His will as He revealed, reveals it,

[marco]

Those all fit, but I'm sticking with the definition primarily. Again, this does include Adam and the angels as well. They are referred to as "son of God". Anything that is created directly by the power of God is referred to as a "son of God" All those who are born again, or "begotten from above" are sons of God. Christ participates in our humanity that we may participate in his divinity. Christ presents us with what it means to be fully human. To be fully human is to "walk with God"; to be divine. This is the way Adam was created.

This rather reduces theology to chatty semantics. Divine has its roots in God; its pedestrian meaning is "excellent" - as in a divine meal.

When it is said: Anything that is created directly by the power of God is referred to as a "son of God", the operative word is "directly", but the statement struggles for meaning and is reminiscent of mythology where the moon might be a daughter of God. The phrase, son of God, can mean much or little. We are all sons of God in a loose sense. If we go along with the notion of "spiritual rebirth" then we can make God the cause and so we are happy divinities. We haven't changed corporeally but our self esteem has been lifted - divinely.

As I said, we are dabbling in semantics and struggling for meaning when we play with the word "divine."

[Joe1950]

What is the source of Jesus' power?

To have lived a holy life, to have preached and performed miracles, to have healed, to have resurrected others, to have been resurrected himself?

Was Jesus power self-generated? Or did he draw from the Father?

What implications can be reasonably drawn if Jesus had to draw from the Father for his power?

What NT evidence suggests that Jesus was dependent on the Father?

For the sake of argument let us assume that Jesus was a real person. And let us also assume that the stories about him are basically correct. (Keep in mind that these assumptions about him are not verifiable) .

If these extraordinary powers (bringing back dead bodies, turning water into wine, feeding a multitude with a few loaves and fishes) are his alone, then he certainly would not have allowed himself to be crucified. Not only that, as a decent human being or god, he would have used his powers extensively to feed everyone. To cure every one. Etc.
Unless he has simply trying to demonstrate how great he is. So he selectively chose to use these great powers. This puts him in a position of being an arrogant egotist. A man who cares only for his own reputation and honor. Not a nice guy in either case.

On the other hand, if these great powers are given to him by someone else, then he is nothing but an empty vessel. He simply does the bidding of another. A weakling who has no self hood.
And the person or god who controls him shows itself (call him god the father) to be rather callous . The father COULD use his powers to cure all disease. To feed everyone. But he chooses not to do so. Not an admirable quality in a person or a god.
Either way you look at it, this Jesus person does not come off too well.
But then again, it is just stories.

[onewithhim]

What is the source of Jesus' power?

To have lived a holy life, to have preached and performed miracles, to have healed, to have resurrected others, to have been resurrected himself?

Was Jesus power self-generated? Or did he draw from the Father?

What implications can be reasonably drawn if Jesus had to draw from the Father for his power?

What NT evidence suggests that Jesus was dependent on the Father?

According to the Bible, Jesus' power was NOT self-generated. He gave all the credit for that to his Father.

"Jesus answered and was saying to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of himself, unless it is something he sees the Father doing; for whatever the Father does, these things the Son also does in like manner.'" (John 5:19, NASB)

"Jesus said to them, 'If God were your Father, you would love me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on my own initiative, but He sent me.'" (John 8:42, NASB)

"For I did not speak on my own initiative, but the Father Himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to say." (John 12:49)

"The Father had given all things into his hands." (John 13:3)

"The Father who remains in union with me is doing HIS works." (John 14:10b, NWT)

"All authority has been GIVEN to me in heaven and on earth." (Matt.28:18, NASB)



I have shown how Jesus learned from his Father, and how he spoke what the Father told him to speak. The Father is clearly the superior One, upon Whom Jesus relied completely. The Father GAVE him whatever he (Jesus) had, and the Father did what works Jesus did THROUGH Jesus. It is reasonable, then, to say that the power Jesus had/has came from the Father, Jehovah. Jesus alludes to this fact when he said thus:

"[To the high priest] You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power..." (Matt.26:64)

He acknowledged that power came from God, the Father. Jehovah is the Source of Jesus' power.

The following Scripture uses "the Lord" instead of "Jehovah," but some scholarly Biblical experts believe that it is Jehovah that is being referred to here. I would agree, since "the Lord" is obviously someone other than Jesus himself.

"One day he was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord [Jehovah] was present for him to perform healing." (Luke 5:17, NASB)


To sum it up....it is quite obvious that Jesus himself was not the source of his power. The implications are clearly that Jesus is subordinate to the Father, Jehovah, and is not God or a part of God. God is the Father and only the Father, as Jesus himself said (John 17:3).

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 15 by Elijah John]

John did not differ. He always showed that Jesus was totally reliant on his Father, as I posted above. It is only where people insist on going against what Jesus actually said that we find conflicts with the idea of Jesus' subordination, by terrible translation contortions (such as at John 1:1b, John 8:58).

Another point: I don't understand how people can reject out-of-hand the idea of Jesus' pre-earthly name being Michael. Why not? Why is it so strange? People in the Bible are given more than one name frequently. (Peter, Cephas, Simon) In addition to that, an angel of God was said to be in the columns of fire and cloud that accompanied the Israelites out of Egypt, and most every religious group I've been acquainted with has said that they believe that Jesus was the one leading the Israelites in the fire and cloud.

"The angel of God, who had been going before the camp of Israel, moved and went behind them; and the pillar of cloud moved from before them and stood behind them." (Exodus 14:19, NASB)


Ask a "born-again" person or evangelical who it was in the cloud, without giving them a hint of the answer, and see what they say. I would guess that most of them would say "Jesus." My point being that JWs are not the only ones with this idea, that he was an angel.

In addition to that, Daniel 12:1 refers to Michael. He is referred to as a very unique and special individual who "stands guard" or "is standing in behalf of" his people, and the context is that this is happening during "the last days," or, "the time of the end." He is associated with the "time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time." Who was it who actually associated HIMSELF with this great tribulation? See Matthew 24:21,29,30. Who else could the "great prince" of Daniel 12 be? Is there another great prince that compares to Jesus Christ?



.

[onewithhim]

He can't take credit for it, this is not a negation of who he is, but an affirmation of his divinity. He extends that divinity to the rest of the world as well ...

What do you mean by "his divinity"? Is the word being used as a synonym for "goodness"? or "love"?

Folks on these forums consistently misconstrue the word "divinity" or "divine" to mean "God." Even though it has been defined repeatedly as "Of, relating to, or proceeding FROM God or a god." (Webster's 9th New Collegiate Dictionary) The angels are "divine," and certainly Jesus is as well, though NOT GOD.

Still people confuse "divine" with "diety." It is really to be expected, so I think we should keep that in mind.


.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 2 by ttruscott]



[center]
This is a classic, folks[/center]

As human incarnate He himself accepted dependance, but as the Word, all things were created by Him.

Thanks for the ambiguity.

So, to the question of Jesus' power being dependent on the father god, the answer given above is "yes and no".

We could not have a more ambiguous answer than "yes and no".
Another "classic" religious ambiguity.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 6 by JehovahsWitness]

Well then that would depend on whether we can believe the gospel writers such as John, Matthew et all or whether they were just over enthusiastic imaginations of disappointed followers or interpolations from generations of human additions.

That uninspired dichotomy is most probably false.

If I like the sound of the verse and it fits in with my personal theology, it's genuine and can be taken seriously... and if I don't like it for whatever reason its just a human addition put in the bible while God wasn't looking...

I think that's a fine definition of "theology".