>Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them - Hebrews 7:25 (KJV) How do Trinitarians who believe that the distinct persons of the Trinity share one will, explain how Jesus is making intercession with God? (A previous answer here on Christianity.SE stated that some Trinitarians believe that the Trinity share a single will, while others believe each has a separate but identical will.) I apologize. I thank you all for your answers. But my question wasn't clear enough, so your answers didn't provide the information I am seeking. So I am re-asking my question .

In John 8:19 (NIV), the Jews ask Jesus: >“Where is your father?” But instead of giving a direct answer to where, Jesus replies: >“You do not know me or my Father. If you knew me, you would know my Father also.” Why did Jesus respond with who (about identity/relationship) rather than answering the where they asked? Was this a deliberate redirection of their misunderstanding, or is there a deeper theological reason for this shift in focus?

We read in Mk 3:19-21 (KJV) : > Then the multitude came together again, so that they could not so much as eat bread. But when His own people heard about this, they went out to lay hold of Him, for they said, “He is out of His mind.” One wonders as to why the kith and kin of Jesus made that comment in the initial days of his public life. Did they foresee a security threat from the side of the rulers or the religious hierarchy whom he criticized ? Did they really mean what they said ( "He is out of his mind") , or was it said to find an excuse for not getting involved in the affairs attributable only to him? My question therefore is: **Did the kith and kin of Jesus anticipate a security threat for themselves?** Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

In Matthew 22, after basically frustrating the Pharisees and the Saduccees by answering some really tricky questions, Jesus finally turns the tables on them and asks this question: > 41 While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, 42 “What do you think about the Messiah? Whose son is he?” “The son of David,” they replied. 43 He said to them, “How is it then that David, speaking by the Spirit, calls him ‘Lord’? For he says, 44 “‘The Lord said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies under your feet.”’[e] 45 If then David calls him ‘Lord,’ how can he be his son?” The response is silence, and apparent victory: > 46 No one could say a word in reply, and from that day on no one dared to ask him any more questions. What I understand is this - Jesus is pointing out that the Messiah is both David's son and David's Lord. I get that its a good theological point. But why does it silence his critics?

(the question title isn't quite right; I welcome any better phrasing - it is not intended to sound inflammatory) This is a genuine question, that regularly occurred to me during my youth, and was recently reminded to me by an answer fragment: > ... However, the death of Christ on the Cross is such an infinite payment... I *always* had trouble with this. It is *honestly* not intended to dismiss the suffering of someone being tortured to death, but in the context of Christ as an infinite being in the Trinity, capable of miracles, healing, resurrection and immortal heavenly life, this seems... quite a minor event. And indeed, many many people have suffered similar treatment on all sides of religious quarrel (or non-religious, for that matter). Likewise, the sacrifice of God in "giving up" the Son - again, in the context of a being that is either many thousands of years, or ageless (in that time cannot be applied), a 30-something year stint on the earth (where God is omnipresent anyway) before re-ascending seems... an inconvenient errand rather than truly *giving something up*. It is probably way too late to save my wondering, but what is (/was) the reasoning that I missed on this?

Exactly what God wants to teach us, in describing that Jesus is the only begotten son (only begotten - monogenes), because we see a parallel in generating Eve from Adam's ribs.

In the Gospels, Jesus is portrayed as both fully divine and fully human. This raises the question of whether He exercised attributes like omniscience while living on earth. For example, Philippians 2:6–8 speaks of Christ “emptying Himself” (κένωσις) by taking the form of a servant, which some interpret as a limitation of His divine prerogatives. Luke 2:52 also records that Jesus “grew in wisdom and stature,” suggesting a human process of learning. On the other hand, there are passages where Jesus seems to demonstrate supernatural knowledge, such as knowing people’s thoughts (Mark 2:8; John 1:48). Yet, in Mark 13:32, Jesus says that “no one knows the day or the hour… not even the Son, but only the Father,” which appears to imply a limitation in knowledge. How do Christian theologians reconcile these passages? Did Jesus, as a human, retain omniscience and choose not to use it at times, or did He genuinely limit His knowledge while on earth?

Related answered questions: [Chalcedonianism is a moderate between Nestorianism and Monophysitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/19867/is-it-proper-to-state-that-chalcedonianism-is-a-moderate-position-in-between-nes) , [What does it mean that the two natures of Christ cannot be separated?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/31552/what-does-it-mean-that-the-two-natures-of-christ-cannot-be-separated?rq=1) , and [Does the Chalcedonian definition mean Christ has two minds? ](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/66264/does-the-chalcedonian-definition-mean-christ-has-two-minds) Related unanswered question: [How would miaphysites approach monothelitism versus dyothelitism?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/64416/how-would-miaphysites-approach-the-question-of-monothelitism-versus-dyothelitism) I know the Sixth Ecumenical Council affirms the orthodox position of the two wills of Jesus and rejects monothelitism. And the Chalcedonian definition states >One and the Same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten; acknowledged in **Two Natures unconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably**; the difference of the Natures being in no way removed because of the Union, but rather **the properties of each Nature being preserved**, and (both) concurring into One Person and One Hypostasis; **not as though He were parted or divided into Two Persons**, but One and the Self-same Son and Only-begotten God, Word, Lord, Jesus Christ. My understanding is that the indivisbility of the two natures means we can't attribute particular adjectives or actions that apply to the Person of Christ to the individual nature, though that may be its source. Such as, it would be incorrect to say that "Jesus' human nature died on the cross, but his divine nature did not." Or even "Jesus' divine nature is omnipotent, but his human nature is not." Though we may know that the source or origin of his omnipotence from his divinity, we cannot attribute omnipotence to Jesus' divine nature but the person as a whole. It seems the Chalcedonian definition supports this, unless "the properties of each Nature being preserved" implies the opposite of that. By "attributing" a property, or perhaps "identifying" a property to be of one nature, I am referring to the accuracy of statements such as "Jesus' human nature slept, but Jesus' divine nature was always awake" (because "God never sleeps", Psalm 121:4). If we can't attribute a property to a particular nature, then we must stop at saying "Jesus slept" (the person of Christ) and cannot say anything in particular about what each individual nature experienced, though we perhaps could say that the origin of Jesus' ability to sleep is from his human nature. The same applies with Jesus' omnipotence. Perhaps we could say that the origin of Jesus' omnipotence is his divine nature, but we can only say that Jesus is omnipotent (not saying 1/2 of his natures is omnipotent). The communication of properties between Jesus and God seem to come into play here, as well. If we can say that Jesus slept, then that means God slept. But, if only His human nature slept while His divine nature was awake, then perhaps we could escape concluding that God slept? Except that the Bible seems to be denote the person of Jesus with actions or adjectives, rather than an individual nature. It seems like this being the case, we could only attribute the will of Jesus to the person of Jesus, and not either individual nature when the two are inseparable. It seems like the same arguments apply for His wills as for various adjectives. "Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he didn't have a human will." "Well, Jesus wouldn't be 'fully' human if he wasn't limited in knowledge, and yet he possesses omnipotence." Or something like that. Take the claim "Jesus can't be fully human without a human will;" why can't Jesus be fully human because He has a will as a person? As in, a will that is attributed to the person of Christ rather than to his individual human nature. I don't get how that wouldn't fulfill the "fully human" requirement. It seems that to say otherwise is just based on how we define what "human" is (which of course would be important). **If we can't attribute adjectives or actions to either individual nature, why can we attribute wills to the individual nature? How is that not separating the two natures that should be indivisible?** From a typical orthodox Trinitarian view, I want to know how this doctrine is properly formulated in light of these concerns, whether through Church creeds or early church fathers or theologians of the day or through someone's explanation. Edit: suggested from comments below, **how do do we know it is acceptable to attribute a property to one nature and not the other given that the two natures are inseparable? What does it mean for them to be inseparable if you can identify properties of each individual nature rather than the Person?**

In the Gospels, Jesus is led into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan (Matthew 4:1–11, Luke 4:1–13). As the Son of God, He would have known in advance both that Satan was coming and the kinds of temptations he would present. For Christians, however, temptations often come suddenly and without forewarning. We usually don’t know in advance what form they will take. My question is: Does Jesus’ foreknowledge of the devil’s tactics set His experience of temptation apart from the temptations Christians face, or should it be understood as fundamentally the same kind of testing?

The Gospels record that at Jesus’ baptism, the Holy Spirit descended on Him like a dove (Matthew 3:16, Mark 1:10, Luke 3:22, John 1:32). Immediately afterward, we read that the Spirit led Him into the wilderness to be tempted (Matthew 4:1, Mark 1:12, Luke 4:1). Does this mean that the Holy Spirit entered or moved into Jesus only at His baptism, and then guided Him into the wilderness? Or should the descent of the Spirit be understood differently, since Luke 1:35 indicates that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit and therefore already had a unique relationship with Him before baptism?

I've always believed that Jesus was stabbed in his left side. That seems to be the common belief. How is that notion supported? I can't find anything the tells me absolutely in which side he was stabbed, so if there is anyone who says it was the right side, how is that supported?

> 11“I, only I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. The OT especially has a strong emphasis on there being only one God, Yahweh, and there are only a few scattered and cryptic references to God even having a Son. Trinitarian doctrine tries to solve this problem at least by stating that God is one Being, but represented by three Persons. Non-trinitarians challenge this saying that God and the Son are distinct beings. They would say that Jesus is subordinate to the Father and yet this passage seems to be saying that there is no Savior apart from the Father. The Word of God is manifested plainly in the New Testament, where Jesus seems to be distinct from the Father. But what do non-trinitarians do hermeneutically with passages in the OT like this one that seem to deny the separate existence of the Word? Why would Yahweh say there is no other Savior, whether person or being, knowing that he would be sending his Son to be the Savior of the world? Anyone should feel free to answer the question regardless of their beliefs about the trinity. Here is the verse in its immediate context. > 10“You are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, “And My servant whom I > have chosen, So that you may know and believe Me And understand that I > am He. Before Me there was no God formed, And there will be none after > Me. 11“I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me. > 12“It is I who have declared and saved and proclaimed, And there was > no strange god among you; So you are My witnesses,” declares the LORD, > “And I am God. 13“Even from eternity I am He, And there is none who > can deliver out of My hand; I act and who can reverse it?”

John 18:37 > “‘So you are a king?’ Jesus said, ‘You say that I am a king. In fact, the reason I was born and came into the world is to testify to the truth. Everyone on the side of truth listens to me.’” John 14:6 > “Jesus answered, ‘I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.’” John 15:26 > “When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” John 1:18 > “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.” If Jesus declares that He came into the world to bear witness to the truth (John 18:37), and also affirms that He Himself is the truth (John 14:6), how does this personal testimony reveal the intrinsic relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in the Trinitarian concept—where the Son not only communicates truth but is the very Truth proceeding from the Father and manifested in the Spirit?

In the following verse, did Jesus in fact say the word, the name of God, that no Jew would dare to say aloud at that time? > As soon then as he had said unto them, I am [he], they went backward, > and fell to the ground (John 18:6) If yes, why was He not tried for that before the high priest (there were so many witnesses after all)? If not, why then so many say that here He was quoting Exodus 3:14 (which means He DID pronounce the forbidden word)?

We read in Mtt 16:13-16: > When Jesus came to the region of Caesarea Philippi, he asked his disciples, “Who do people say the Son of Man is?” They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”. It is usual for people entering public life to introduce themselves , or to get the introduction done by someone else. We see John the Baptist introducing Jesus as the Lamb of God (Jn 1:29). We also see Jesus reading from Isiah and introducing himself as the Anointed One ( Lk 4:21). But Mtt 16 suggests that it was Peter who first acknowledged Jesus as Son of God, before which he had been known to the public by other attributes. My question therefore is : When did Jesus first introduce himself as Son of God ?

Some traditional drawings of crucifixion of Jesus show him hanging on the cross with his feet at a man's height above the ground. That seems justified, as we read in Jn 19:28-29: > After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.” A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine **on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.** Given that the convict was prone to give violent and painful jerks on the cross , it had to be positioned in a pre-dug hole say, of three feet on the ground. Let us presume that the vertical beam of Jesus' cross measured 12 feet, considering the portion that went to the ground, the position of his feet above ground and the top portion of vertical beam where INRI was placed. Now, Jesus was made to carry the entire cross, with the lowest end dragging on the path. In terms of geometry, the ideal length of the cross would be proportionate to his height so as to allow enough space between the shoulder and the vertical and horizontal beams built at 90 degree angle. The cross on which he was crucified appears too long for such a proportion. One is therefore, inclined to conclude that Jesus in fact carried a cross proportional to his height, and was crucified on a different cross vertically much longer. My question therefore is: Was Jesus crucified on the same cross he had carried to Calvary? Inputs from any denomination are welcome.

We read in John 1:1-2: > In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. Clearly, John means The Son of God for “the Word who was with God”, as is evident from Vs 1:2. No other Evangelist uses the concept of "The Word was God "; neither do we hear Jesus referring to himself as "The Word". Of course, he speaks of the words from the mouth of God, as in Matthew 4:4: > But he answered and said, it is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Now, there is a difference between Word that proceeds from God' and Word that was God'. Is it possible that John sourced the concept from an ancient Jewish text, or from Greek philosophy? My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, what was the source of the concept "The Word was God " that John the Evangelist introduced in Jn 1: 1?**

> The Spirit immediately drove him out into the wilderness. And he > was in the wilderness forty days, being tempted by Satan. And he was > with the wild animals, and the angels were ministering to him. (ESV) > > Mark 1:12–13 In this verse, the Holy Spirit sent Jesus into the wilderness to be tempted by Satan. Given that Jesus was the Son of God, the Holy Spirit must have known that Jesus could withstand the temptation. Why did the Holy Spirit do that then?

We read in Mark 15: 42-44: > "When evening had come, and since it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath, Joseph of Arimathea, a respected member of the council, who was also himself waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then Pilate wondered if he were already dead; and summoning the centurion, he asked him whether he had been dead for some time. " That implies that Jesus'death on the cross happened earlier than had been expected. Some medical professionals theorize that Jesus died of a heart failure, to which extreme mental stress had significantly contributed. They believe that the Lord's psychological trauma did not end with the Sweating of Blood at Gethsemane, rather followed Him to the Cross. Now, one should not expect that the Creed will be re-written to state that Jesus died on the Cross, of heart-failure. But, understanding the theory helps one to look at the mental agony of Jesus with the same gravity as his physical suffering. My question therefore, is: Has the Catholic Church taken cognizance of the theory that the terminal cause of Jesus's death on the cross was heart-failure ?

Acts 1:9–11 records Jesus’ ascension into heaven. Hebrews 1:3 and other passages state that He "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high." Yet other verses, such as Romans 8:34 and Hebrews 7:25, describe Him as interceding for believers. Revelation 3:21 also speaks of Him sharing His Father’s throne. According to Christian theology, since His ascension, has Jesus been permanently seated on His throne, or is this meant to describe His authority while He remains actively engaged in roles such as interceding, reigning, and preparing for His return? I’m seeking an explanation based on Scripture and Christian doctrine about what Jesus has been doing since He ascended to the Father.