FK: So, you toss Matt. 4:4 because you say there wasn't a witness there suitable to you? OK. I am sure you have it on good authority that Christ never recounted what happened to Him to His disciples.
Now you are saying that Jesus boasted for having resisted evil? That's rather out of character, wouldn't you say?
There are other issues with this chapter in Matthew, Luke and Mark. According to one, Jesus was now "full of the Holy Spirit" (cf Luke 4:1). When was Jesus not full of the Holy Spirit? Before Baptism? And, immediately after the Baptism, the Spirit casts/drives (ekkbalei) Him out into the the wilderness! (cf Mark 1:12) Imagine that! The Spirit is ordering The Son around!
And for what purpose? To be tempted by the devil. And James, which you consider infallible scripture, tells us that God cannot be tempted by evil, and [God] Himself does not tempt anyone (cf James 1:13). So, the only "rational" conclusion is that Jesus must not be God!
Even if we are to assume that the temptation was to apply only to His human nature. it is still an oxymoron, because regardless of His hypostatic union, He is still God and as God cannot be tempted because His human nature was never in conflict with His divine nature.
Obviously, these manuscripts show that Jesus was perceived as human (the "Son of God" part being understood as he Jewish messiah, a human being favored by God, but not divine).
This was nevertheless necessary because the Old Testament says that God rules the earth, whereas the NT says Satan does! * This is ushering not only the morality of resisting evil but also a new theology.
*Matthew 4:8-0, Luke 4:5-7, John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11, 2 Cor 4:4 although Matthew and Luke contradict themselves, as per Mat 11:25, and Luke 10:21.
Now you are saying that Jesus boasted for having resisted evil? That's rather out of character, wouldn't you say?
You MUST have seen the word "recounted" before. It just means "tell", it has nothing to do with "boast". Jesus told them what happened to Him, and they learned from it. When facing evil, think of scripture.
There are other issues with this chapter in Matthew, Luke and Mark. According to one, Jesus was now "full of the Holy Spirit" (cf Luke 4:1). When was Jesus not full of the Holy Spirit? Before Baptism?
These obviously refer to Jesus being 100% human. The account of the baptism says that the Holy Spirit descended upon Him then. However, to complain about this would be like complaining that the Bible says that Jesus ate food because God obviously does not need food. It's a non-issue.
And for what purpose? To be tempted by the devil. And James, which you consider infallible scripture, tells us that God cannot be tempted by evil, and [God] Himself does not tempt anyone (cf James 1:13). So, the only "rational" conclusion is that Jesus must not be God!
The verse says:
James 1:13 : When tempted, no one should say, "God is tempting me." For God cannot be tempted by evil, nor does he tempt anyone;
This is clearly referring to the fact that God cannot SUCCUMB to temptation. The Bible is clear that Jesus WAS tempted, but never succumbed. That makes it easier for us to understand that HE understands all the trials we face in our lives.
Obviously, these manuscripts show that Jesus was perceived as human (the "Son of God" part being understood as he Jewish messiah, a human being favored by God, but not divine).
I'm sure some misguided people saw Him like that, but neither the OT, nor the NT teach anything like that. Christ's divinity is revealed to us all over the scriptures.
This was nevertheless necessary because the Old Testament says that God rules the earth, whereas the NT says Satan does!
No, these are separate ideas and do not conflict. satan as ruler of earth is a juxtaposition to God ruling in Heaven. The NT writers were well aware that God is completely sovereign over satan.