Jesus learned? Jesus was made perfect?

[Randy]

So the Messiah kept the law even as a man, never transgressing the law He gave Moses.

"Was made perfect" seems to mean after His resurrection. After He rose from death, sinners repented, obeyed Him and were given eternal life.

I mentioned in a prior post (not sure if it was to you) how Hebrews intent is showing that since Jesus "learned" to obey Moses, it must mean He was teaching others of Gods' mercy.


By the "order of Melchizedek" is meant Eternal,

having neither beginning of days, nor end of life Heb.7:3 KJV

Eternal doesn't need to be made perfect because It's forever that way.

It means His will be done on earth now through His people, despite His enemies (us before) running loose. Dead men in the world.

Again I read Jesus "once made perfect" then..
I read that testimony I didn't write it. He learned obedience and to rely on God though the world was made through Him. He prayed with tears.
Melchizedek has a beginning. It's about His order of priesthood.
If Jesus, like Melchizedek's priesthood, was before Levi then His priesthood has no Father-Mother beginning but is based on Gods appointment and the appointment term is forever. I agree Jesus never dies and in Him all the fullness of the Deity was pleased to dwell. Col 1:19

Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

 

[Randy]

• Yesterday at 6:38 PM

And so He Is Eternally Now and Forever to those who obey Him.

Yes He never dies because He lives by the Father just as those who feed off Him live and never die.

The Father in Him and He in us.

Just as the living Father sent me and I live because of the Father, so the one who feeds on me will live because of me.

 

[Vinny37]

..

[No Vinny37. The basic mistake interpreting scripture is when sinners don’t understand who they’re dealing with. I mentioned this to someone earlier but haven’t had a response yet, so I’ll ask you.

When our king stood before Pilate the governor said, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have authority to release you and authority to crucify you?” (ESV: Jn.19:10).

What do you think would have happened if Jesus had defended himself by law? By Mosaic law or any common decent law by which mankind is governed on earth (take your pick)?

My opinion is that if the messiah called sinners to justice instead of giving us a ton of space for repentance we wouldn’t be here.

I don’t mind answering the rest of your post, but I want an answer to the above.

Vinny37 said: [the raw data is better synthesised, fine-tuned. God does not sleep or slumber; Jesus slept and slumbered.

Heiser noted the various uses of the elohim/theos word. The NT emphasis on God/Theos is the father (the Logos was with God the father: Jhn.1:1). But with Athanasius we can see that the logos was theos in substance/ousia (Jhn.1:1). The logos is noncarnate, but the logos (a.k.a. God the son) began an incarnate mode, viz Jesus (Jhn.1:14). Jesus began about 6 BC, a human man and mission which was not complete in suffering (τελειω/τελειō: Heb.5:9) until his obedience even to death on the cross (Heb.12:2). Always sinless, he matured as a human being (Lk.2:52; Heb.5:8), operating not by his own deificity (NIV: Php.2:6) but by the deity of the spirit (Mt.12:28).]

No. John’s point is the Word from the beginning never stopped being the Word in a flesh body. The king of the universe only appeared weak because he showed everyone weaker than him mercy.

His suffering isn’t complete until the last believer is martyred. In a crazy way it’s comical how the devil wants us to see Christ’s church as vulnerable...weak. The way the world views strength...Whoever has the biggest bomb…army…kills the most…blah blah blah. What would happen if we were really dressed for a fight in the battle gear described in Eph.6? Who would win and what would that fight look like to an unbeliever?]

Please quote in context. [The basic mistake] I spoke of was in the context of understanding the ontology of Jesus—the Q you had posed. You throw in a different context, then upbraid my stupidity! Hardly fair, but let’s move on.

You ask me to opine outcomes had Jesus successfully defended himself before Pilate. A fascinating Q. Would the Second Adam have opened up his mouth in selfishness, thus the stream (God the son incarnate) rebelling against its source (God the son noncarnate), a civil war? From your context I suspect you are merely asking vis-à-vis humanity at least as represented by you & I, mulling with the ideas of justice & mercy (God is both just and merciful), perhaps even hoping for a Gotcha moment.

For Christ’s part, he knew he had in mercy to through injustice—asking neither for justice nor for mercy—defeat death if he was to help us in the best possible way. Unlike Pilate (in context), he neither calls us to justice nor to injustice, but in justice and mercy calls on us to repent of rejection and to enter life with him in mortal life, as members of his messianic community (Jhn.17:3). This eternal life is possible (as is everlasting life to come) because his father cried Crucify, crucify, handing his son over to the cross (Gen.50:20), opening up the global, perhaps universal, atonement. Had that atonement not been, Christian life would not have been, nor our ultimate life with God beyond the portending veil. However the logos-incarnate had been matured—learned human obedience—through suffering and was ready for crucifixion: “…at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly” (NIV: Rm.5:6). BTW Jesus being human was weak: Apollinarius and the docetists were wrong.

PS, you might find https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lacking-in-christs-afflictions/ interesting.

 

[Consecrated Life]

The Son divested Himself of, among other things, knowledge when He became human flesh .
What He willingly became ignorant of while walking topside earth has absolutely no application to Him today as He sits fully Glorified at the right hand of God the Father.
In example this statement in Mat 24:36 which was true at the time He said it, is not true today.
The difference being it was spoken by the Jesus who had not yet been glorified.
For the glorified Jesus of today this statement He made pre-glorification no longer applies to Him.
Being now Glorified with all the Glory of the Father He had prior to becoming flesh, The Lord now knows that day as well as the Father .
The Father & Son Being One

Mat 24:36
But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only.

John 17:5
And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Again I read Jesus "once made perfect" then..
I read that testimony I didn't write it. He learned obedience and to rely on God though the world was made through Him. He prayed with tears.
Melchizedek has a beginning. It's about His order of priesthood.
If Jesus, like Melchizedek's priesthood, was before Levi then His priesthood has no Father-Mother beginning but is based on Gods appointment and the appointment term is forever. I agree Jesus never dies and in Him all the fullness of the Deity was pleased to dwell. Col 1:19

Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

God has always understood mankinds weaknesses and helped sinners being tempted,

For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? Deu.4:7 KJV

Paul doesn't mean '"learn" in the sense of not knowing before. He means the Son understood obedience by living.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Please quote in context. [The basic mistake] I spoke of was in the context of understanding the ontology of Jesus—the Q you had posed. You throw in a different context, then upbraid my stupidity! Hardly fair, but let’s move on.

I never threw in "a different context." I said Pilate didn't understand His Gods' ontology (as you call it.)

You ask me to opine outcomes had Jesus successfully defended himself before Pilate. A fascinating Q. Would the Second Adam have opened up his mouth in selfishness, thus the stream (God the son incarnate) rebelling against its source (God the son noncarnate), a civil war?

No, because I'm not comparing a sinner (Adam) to Jesus.

From your context I suspect you are merely asking vis-à-vis humanity at least as represented by you & I, mulling with the ideas of justice & mercy (God is both just and merciful), perhaps even hoping for a Gotcha moment.

Actually I'm mulling how God is both just and merciful but hoping for a freeing moment... a merciful moment... not a justice moment, or gotcha moment. I don't need to remind myself that before Jesus showed me how He much is willing to forgive. I stood guilty,

Therefore let us move beyond the elementary teachings about Christ and be taken forward to maturity, not laying again the foundation of repentance from acts that lead to death, and of faith in God, Heb.6:1 NIV

For Christ’s part, he knew he had in mercy to through injustice—asking neither for justice nor for mercy—defeat death if he was to help us in the best possible way. Unlike Pilate (in context), he neither calls us to justice nor to injustice, but in justice and mercy calls on us to repent of rejection and to enter life with him in mortal life, as members of his messianic community (Jhn.17:3). This eternal life is possible (as is everlasting life to come) because his father cried Crucify, crucify, handing his son over to the cross (Gen.50:20), opening up the global, perhaps universal, atonement. Had that atonement not been, Christian life would not have been, nor our ultimate life with God beyond the portending veil. However the logos-incarnate had been matured—learned human obedience—through suffering and was ready for crucifixion: “…at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly” (NIV: Rm.5:6). BTW Jesus being human was weak: Apollinarius and the docetists were wrong.

PS, you might find https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/lacking-in-christs-afflictions/ interesting

God cried out "Crucify Him"? No Vinny. That's what the ungodly cried out. The most revered theologians of that day said that. The men who supposedly knew scripture better than anyone said that. So called scholars who taught the masses, trangressed and condemned the Word of God as evil. Like this,

(for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree” Gal.3:13 NKJV

Paul doesn't mean Jesus was cursed according to the law. He means Jesus was falsely accused. Paul referred to this passage,

“If a man has committed a sin deserving of death" Deu.21:22 NKJV

He's saying,

I delivered unto you That the Lord Jesus...was betrayed 1Cor.11:23 KJV

By sinners, not by His Fathers' law.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Please quote in context. [The basic mistake] I spoke of was in the context of understanding the ontology of Jesus—the Q you had posed. You throw in a different context, then upbraid my stupidity! Hardly fair, but let’s move on.

And please know my friend I never reply to a sincere believer with any pride in myself. I had to look up the derinition of "ontology."

Here is a another good example of misunderstanding the ontology of Jesus,

For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 1Cor.15:27 KJV

Many devoted, highly educated theologians (please read any commentary of any sect I know), believe the the above starement from 1Corinthians is referring to the relationship between Jesus and His Father, but that's not right.

It's not right because the subject of that chapter is the resurrection. Another thing is that Paul is comparing Adams' inferiority to Christs' superiority. And because "He has put all things under his feet" has a dual meaning (pertaining to both Jesus and Adam) Paul is showing how God on earth was subject to no man.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings journeyman,

Here is a another good example of misunderstanding the ontology of Jesus,
For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him. 1Cor.15:27 KJV
Many devoted, highly educated theologians (please read any commentary of any sect I know), believe the the above starement from 1Corinthians is referring to the relationship between Jesus and His Father, but that's not right.

But the passage is wide ranging and it includes the relationship between Jesus, the Son of God and the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. The relationship is clarified if the two Persons are highlighted:

1 Corinthians 15:25–28 (KJV): 25 For he (Jesus) must reign, till he (God the Father) hath put all enemies under his (Jesus) feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he (God the Father) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (God the Father) saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God the Father) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus). 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God the Father) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God (God the Father) may be all in all.

Jesus learned? Jesus was made perfect?
That's what Heb.5:8-9 says but if Jesus is God, why would He have to learn by suffering, or be made perfect when He was perfect already?

Jesus was and is a human, and he learned as a child, and as an adult, and during his ministry. He was perfected in character by the things that he suffered.

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Hebrews 5:7–9 (KJV): 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[Vinny37]

...

[I said Pilate didn’t understand his gods’ ontology (as you call it.)] That’s megacringe to me. Please, even getting the English apostrophe right (it’d be [god’s], not the plural [gods’]), I never happily speak in such terms. Paul didn’t have a god, but he had God and understood God’s ontology well. Why hide the polytheism by giving it a false capital (which I’ve removed)? Let us speak as true monotheists. To the extent that we have a god, we have not God. I suspect it’s futile to try to get you to see your miscontextualisation, but as I said, let us move on.

The Bible calls Jesus Adam (1 Cor.15:45), and compares in various places the two adams, the sinless adam and the sinless adam. On the wider front, Augustine held that Jesus (who remained the sinless adam) had the posse peccare and the posse non peccare, the ability to sin and the ability not to sin. I did not say that you had even considered that Q, but it is a Q raised above the elementary teaching about Christ and is in fact germane to your opening Q as to how Jesus the man could not be ‘perfect’ if he were God. In that context I had said that that tail presumption was incorrectly construed—Jesus began in creation, and as the second adam learned human maturity and human obedience. Why you have lobbed in Heb.6:1 when I’m giving advanced ideas which I don’t believe you grasp, is interesting.

Nor seemingly did you see that God was behind the (Jerusalem?) crowd shouting Crucify, crucify—one may say that he was the unseen cheerleader, even as he had been behind the plot to send Joseph to Egypt. The crowd, even Caiaphas (Jhn.11:51-3) and Pilate, were following his will (Ac.2:23), though along the lines of Gen.50:20 (act/attitude).

BTW on the raw data of the NT making direct deity claims re. messiah, one chart (based on Jhn.1:1,18; Rm.9:5; Tts.2:13; 2 Pt.1:1) graded the NET A+, the ESV B+, the NJB as C+, the KJV as D+, and the CJB as U+ (https://archive.org/details/the-wor...-bible-versions-2017-231024/page/202/mode/1up). Even the lowest of these graded an A- on Jhn.1,18. In short, his biblical link to deity is there and I affirm it. It’s how we translate that link into theological lingo that’s the next step, and it’s what early church councils tried to thrash out in systematic terms. Although I think that raw data [Jesus is God] phrases are unjustified at our stage in the game and that better translation is needed, from the biblical data I affirm the one-of-a-kind deificity of messiah, but differentiate him from God as did Paul (1 Cor.8:6; Gal.1:3): a connect and disconnect.

IMO your opening Q requires us to focus on the human Jesus, indeed on the priestly and substitutional Jesus. As R C Sproul well put it, “it was the human nature that carried out the mission of the second Adam on our behalf. It was the human nature uniquely anointed beyond measure by the Holy Spirit.” Jesus submitted to God joyfully handing him over to be crucified, and therefore Jesus was innocently cut-off (ie cursed) in the place of the guilty (CJB: “…becoming cursed on our behalf…” (Gal.3:13)); “God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God’s righteousness” (CJB: 2 Cor.5:21).

 

[Vinny37]

...

[Here is another good example of misunderstanding the ontology of Jesus: “For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him” (KJV: 1 Cor.15:27).

Many devoted, highly educated theologians (please read any commentary of any sect I know), believe the the above statement from 1 Corinthians is referring to the relationship between Jesus and his father, but that’s not right.

It’s not right because the subject of that chapter is the resurrection. Another thing is that Paul is comparing Adams’ inferiority to Christ’s superiority. And because “He has put all things under his feet” has a dual meaning (pertaining to both Jesus and Adam) Paul is showing how God on earth was subject to no man.]

I wonder how you define ‘sect’, but guess you mean Christian denominational positions: Christianity was once called a sect. Such can indeed influence of scholarship, but biblical scholars tend to adjust to wider lenses and use similar criteria (hermeneutic) to exegete (draw out from) scriptures.

I’m not sure that 1 Cor.15:27-8 bespeaks Christ’s ontology in the way that you suggest. There is biblical ground to speak of the noncarnate son as ontologically subjected to the father though of the same ousia/deity. But in these texts I’d take the idea to be that the incarnate son as representing mankind (Second Adam; Firstfruits), under God will by his mission (thus by God) perhaps at his return subjugate all things to his own (not God’s) feet. Scripture can read an event as both done for one person and done by that same person. Eg God raised Jesus; Jesus raised himself (Ac.2:32; Jhn.10:18). God gives all creation to his son incarnate who plays his part (Dt.11:24); as sinless man (unlike the Adam the First) his son gives all creation, including himself, to God the father.

When the man Christ Jesus hands over the fruits of his victory to God, he will hand over himself—as representative of humanity—in submission to the unchallenged reign of God the father alone.

The ontological focus is on his humanity. He was not [God on earth] but represented God on earth: he was/is God the son incarnate, who was subject to his parents (Lk.2:51).

 

[Randy]

God has always understood mankinds weaknesses and helped sinners being tempted,

For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for? Deu.4:7 KJV

Paul doesn't mean '"learn" in the sense of not knowing before. He means the Son understood obedience by living.

I'll go with what the writer of Hebrews wrote and it was about the Son not God which you are introducing into the text.

During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission

Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him and was designated by God to be high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Greetings journeyman,

But the passage is wide ranging and it includes the relationship between Jesus, the Son of God and the One God, Yahweh, God the Father. The relationship is clarified if the two Persons are highlighted:

1 Corinthians 15:25–28 (KJV): 25 For he (Jesus) must reign, till he (God the Father) hath put all enemies under his (Jesus) feet. 26 The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death. 27 For he (God the Father) hath put all things under his (Jesus) feet. But when he (God the Father) saith all things are put under him (Jesus), it is manifest that he (God the Father) is excepted, which did put all things under him (Jesus). 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him (Jesus), then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him (God the Father) that put all things under him (Jesus), that God (God the Father) may be all in all.

Jesus was and is a human, and he learned as a child, and as an adult, and during his ministry. He was perfected in character by the things that he suffered.

Luke 2:40,52 (KJV): 40 And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.

Hebrews 5:7–9 (KJV): 7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8 Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Kind regards
Trevor

Hi Trevor.
I understand what you're saying. I was taught the same thing and believed it for many years, but Paul actually means all things have already been put under Jesus.
He's seated on the Throne, "far above all" right now, but even before this, He commanded nature and demons.

When Paul says Christ will later be subject to our Father, he means by the resurrection. When the church is "subjected to Christ" (made in His image, glorified) so will our Savior be as God.

I know our Lord went through the process of "learning" as a child born does, but He never became aware of anything as a human that He didn't already know as God.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Jesus began in creation, and as the second adam learned human maturity and human obedience. Why you have lobbed in Heb.6:1 when I’m giving advanced ideas which I don’t believe you grasp, is interesting.

I lobbed in Heb 6:1 because "the principles of the doctrine of Christ" don't include "obedience to man" when man violates the law.
I already showed you what Jesus said to Pilate. I already showed you where Jesus said He came from. The Messiah could have torn Pilates' off for sinning against Him,
The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against his anointed Psa.2:2 KJV

Peter related this to Pilate and Caiaphas. It's pathetic that theologians apparently don't know what the word "against" means.

Nor seemingly did you see that God was behind the (Jerusalem?) crowd shouting Crucify, crucify—one may say that he was the unseen cheerleader, even as he had been behind the plot to send Joseph to Egypt. The crowd, even Caiaphas (Jhn.11:51-3) and Pilate, were following his will (Ac.2:23), though along the lines of Gen.50:20 (act/attitude).

My friend,
You have misunderstood Peters' point in Act.2:23 (along with the parallel of Joseph.)

Jesus was "delivered by the determinare counsel of His Father with His Fathers' knowing the outcome beforehand because our Father was showing by His Son how much patience He has with sinners spitting on Him and slapping Him around.

BTW on the raw data of the NT making direct deity claims re. messiah, one chart (based on Jhn.1:1,18; Rm.9:5; Tts.2:13; 2 Pt.1:1) graded the NET A+, the ESV B+, the NJB as C+, the KJV as D+, and the CJB as U+ (https://archive.org/details/the-wor...-bible-versions-2017-231024/page/202/mode/1up). Even the lowest of these graded an A- on Jhn.1,18. In short, his biblical link to deity is there and I affirm it. It’s how we translate that link into theological lingo that’s the next step, and it’s what early church councils tried to thrash out in systematic terms. Although I think that raw data [Jesus is God] phrases are unjustified at our stage in the game and that better translation is needed, from the biblical data I affirm the one-of-a-kind deificity of messiah, but differentiate him from God as did Paul (1 Cor.8:6; Gal.1:3): a connect and disconnect.

IMO your opening Q requires us to focus on the human Jesus, indeed on the priestly and substitutional Jesus. As R C Sproul well put it, “it was the human nature that carried out the mission of the second Adam on our behalf. It was the human nature uniquely anointed beyond measure by the Holy Spirit.” Jesus submitted to God joyfully handing him over to be crucified, and therefore Jesus was innocently cut-off (ie cursed) in the place of the guilty (CJB: “…becoming cursed on our behalf…” (Gal.3:13)); “God made this sinless man be a sin offering on our behalf, so that in union with him we might fully share in God’s righteousness” (CJB: 2 Cor.5:21).

I've already shown God doesn't allow substitutionary sacrifice. He did show all mankind how people sinned against Him for no reason. And sinners better repent of sinning against Him for no reason.

 

[TrevorL]

Greetings again journeyman,

I understand what you're saying. I was taught the same thing and believed it for many years, but Paul actually means all things have already been put under Jesus.
He's seated on the Throne, "far above all" right now, but even before this, He commanded nature and demons.

I consider he is yet to sit upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years Isaiah 2:1-4, Revelation 3:20-21.

When Paul says Christ will later be subject to our Father, he means by the resurrection. When the church is "subjected to Christ" (made in His image, glorified) so will our Savior be as God.

We differ as I consider that Jesus is the Son of God, inferior to God his Father, and he is not God the Son.

I know our Lord went through the process of "learning" as a child born does, but He never became aware of anything as a human that He didn't already know as God.

I do not accept that Jesus had two minds, as he was a human not a God-man. I was mainly interested in responding and objecting to your position and most others on this thread, but I am not very interested in discussing this any further. All I am saying is that there is another perspective and I strongly believe this. You seem to be busy enough trying to sort out your Trinitarian differences, and I am quite willing to let you and others pursue this impossibility.

Kind regards
Trevor

 

[journeymanisnothing]

I wonder how you define ‘sect’, but guess you mean Christian denominational positions: .

Yes. I've never read any Reformed, Catholic, etc. commentary that says otherwise.

I’m not sure that 1 Cor.15:27-8 bespeaks Christ’s ontology in the way that you suggest. There is biblical ground to speak of the noncarnate son as ontologically subjected to the father though of the same ousia/deity.

You think Jesus will play another roll, or take another position, or become obedient to our Father in a way He wasn't before, but none of those things are true or could they be true, because Paul is speaking of "subjection" in terms of the resurrection.

But in these texts I’d take the idea to be that the incarnate son as representing mankind (Second Adam; Firstfruits), under God will by his mission (thus by God) perhaps at his return subjugate all things to his own (not God’s) feet.

This is occuring now. It's just not apparent to the unrepentant until later. The resurrection reveals who people were before they died.

Scripture can read an event as both done for one person and done by that same person. Eg God raised Jesus; Jesus raised himself (Ac.2:32; Jhn.10:18). God gives all creation to his son incarnate who plays his part (Dt.11:24); as sinless man (unlike the Adam the First) his son gives all creation, including himself, to God the father.

When the man Christ Jesus hands over the fruits of his victory to God, he will hand over himself—as representative of humanity—in submission to the unchallenged reign of God the father alone.

The ontological focus is on his humanity. He was not [God on earth] but represented God on earth: he was/is God the son incarnate, who was subject to his parents (Lk.2:51).

Jesus never represented sinful mankind to His Father. He only represented His Father to sinful mankind.
Only a false witness portrays an innocent man as a criminal. Giving false testimony against anyone accused of a capital offense carried a death sentence. Do you understand that? Jesus could have had the Sanhedrin and others who testified against Him put to death.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Greetings again journeyman,

I consider he is yet to sit upon the Throne of David in Jerusalem for the 1000 years Isaiah 2:1-4, Revelation 3:20-21.
We differ as I consider that Jesus is the Son of God, inferior to God his Father, and he is not God the Son.

I do not accept that Jesus had two minds, as he was a human not a God-man. I was mainly interested in responding and objecting to your position and most others on this thread, but I am not very interested in discussing this any further. All I am saying is that there is another perspective and I strongly believe this. You seem to be busy enough trying to sort out your Trinitarian differences, and I am quite willing to let you and others pursue this impossibility.

Kind regards
Trevor

Again, I know there's "another perspective". I was taught that perspective and left organized religion because it isn't true.

Jesus didn't have two minds.

Then said he unto the dresser of his vineyard, Behold, these three years I come seeking fruit on this fig tree, and find none: cut it down; why cumbereth it the ground? And he answering said unto him, Lord, let it alone this year also, till I shall dig about it, and dung it: And if it bear fruit, well: and if not, then after that thou shalt cut it down. Lk.13:7-9

The Father and Son aren't disagreeing about what to do, or is God schitzoid. They're deciding whether to judge unrepentant sinners after 3 years of seeing His marvelous works, or continue to show mercy.

I'm done too.

 

[Vinny37]

Yes. I've never read any Reformed, Catholic, etc. commentary that says otherwise.

You think Jesus will play another roll, or take another position, or become obedient to our Father in a way He wasn't before, but none of those things are true or could they be true, because Paul is speaking of "subjection" in terms of the resurrection.

This is occuring now. It's just not apparent to the unrepentant until later. The resurrection reveals who people were before they died.

Jesus never represented sinful mankind to His Father. He only represented His Father to sinful mankind.
Only a false witness portrays an innocent man as a criminal. Giving false testimony against anyone accused of a capital offense carried a death sentence. Do you understand that? Jesus could have had the Sanhedrin and others who testified against Him put to death.

A little too much arrogance for my taste.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

A little too much arrogance for my taste.

Arrogance for being truly sorry about sinning against Jesus? No. It's a matter of denying the Meaaush has come and defeated our enemies,

every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: 1Jn.4:3