Yes for sure they will come up with some theories to explain away Jesus being a man who needed to be taught by God.
I have shown numerous times why this is the case, yet you still have not understood:
A key passage is Phil 2:5-8, which shows that He chose to not appear in his glorious state, so as not to exploit his divine nature for his own ends.
Php 2:5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus,
Php 2:6 who,
though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped,
Php 2:7 but
emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men.
Php 2:8 And
being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.
Php 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name,
Php 2:10 so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
Php 2:11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (ESV)
This passage supports the concept called the Economic Trinity--that is, how the Trinity relates to each other in bringing out the salvation and redemption of creation. The Economic Trinity shows the difference in function between the Persons of the Trinity in the plan of redemption.
However, a difference in function does not mean a difference in equality or nature.
Some important points to note about this passage:
1. Jesus was in "the form of God." This is supported by
John 1:1--" and the Word was God." The NIV has a clearer rendering of what is meant in verse 6: "being in very nature God."
The Expositor's Greek Testament and M. R. Vincent (
Word Studies in the New Testament) agree. That Paul is referring to the divinity of Christ is without question.
2. He "did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped"; that is, being in the form of God, being equal with the Father, he did not consider that equality something to be "forcefully retained [or held onto]." The meaning is that anything to do with the appearance of his glory as God had to be let go of or veiled in order for the completion of his humiliation, which was necessary for man's salvation. Again, the NIV brings out the meaning a bit better: "did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage."
3.
He, being Jesus, emptied
himself. It was he who did the emptying. In other words, he had to already exist in order to be able to be “emptied,” and he had to be sufficiently powerful to do it himself. That is, in contrast with his “taking the form of a servant,” he was something else. He had to be something or someone that was capable of emptying himself.
4. In emptying himself, he took on the "form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men"--this is what
John 1:14 is speaking of. First, note that Paul is contrasting Jesus's "taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men" with being in the "form of God." Second, the emptying of himself was accomplished
by taking on human form. It’s a paradoxical emptying by addition; a limiting or veiling of his glory and power by becoming human. Jesus willingly chose to take the form of a human for the salvation of mankind and, as God Incarnate, still maintained his full deity (since God can never cease to be God) in becoming truly and fully human.
5. Being found in "appearance as a man" (NIV)--as opposed to his having been in "the form of God"--he "
humbled himself by becoming obedient." We know that he was truly human, so why would Paul suddenly say that Jesus was "found in appearance as a man"? Would that not imply that he existed previously, supporting verse 6, and indicate he wasn't a man before?
The whole point of this passage is to show the humility of Christ, which we are to have (verses 1-5).
There is no greater example of humility that could be conceived than that of God (the Son) coming to earth and taking on the form of one of his creatures.
I have also made the following point before and never received a response (that I can remember). For any who use such arguments as you to deny that Jesus can be truly God in human flesh,
if God did come in human flesh, just what should we expect such a person to be like?
