Then He wasn't fully human.
Of course He was fully human. But not only was He NOT stained by original sin, He was also fully God. Jesus said:
Matt 6:24 : "No one can serve two masters . Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.
Neither could fully human Jesus serve both God and satan, AS God. It just couldn't happen.
FK: "I was trying to show that Jesus told the truth when He said He came to do the will of the Father, and that He never deviated once."
Then the Son is subordinate to the Father. That's Arian heresy.
Jesus said:
John 6:38-39 : 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. 39 And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day.
Your argument is with Jesus Himself, not me. :)
People say, for instance, God "cannot" lie, suggesting that that is a lack of ability or power. What happens if I rephrase it thus: God cannot want to lie.
My point, if any, is that God's utter reliability (not limited to making it rains right after I wash the car) maybe ought not to be thought of or expressed as a limitation on His power. Maybe.
Saying, "It just couldn't happen," is one thing. I want to suggest the substitution of "It just wouldn't happen," to see if the conversation develops helpfully.
In the "agony" in the Garden (in quotes because the root sense of "agony" is struggle, not pain) we are presented with the real, live, Son of God, seeming to suggest to the Father that it would be okay with the Son if the Father could come up with another way to get the job done. That is a mysterious indication of the union and distinctness of persons, I guess. Jesus can entertain the possibility that there might be a way out of this, although he explicitly rejects doing something other than the Father's will.
But again, there's the problem of speaking about His obedience as though it were a limitation rather than an accomplishment. If it were me in the garden, I'd probably say, "Get yourself another boy, I'm outta here," but that would be my failure.
So is freedom a failure?
IN related news: Does it matter, kosta, the the so-called Athanasian Creed says "inferior to the Father as touching His manhood?"
"Begotten" is such interesting language. ON the one hand, like begets like, so that Son is the same "kind of thing" as the Father. But still certainly we resonate to some extent with the idea that that which begets is in some sense "prior" to that which is begotten, don't we?
If I were having the discussion you two are having, I'd pick me way very carefully through it and have frequent recourse to that very Catholic language, "in a special way ...."
Neither was Adam and he was free to disobey the will of God; and He chose to exercise (actually abuse) his freedom. From that we learn that when we absue our freedom, we loose it.
The difference is that Christ in His humanity chose not to disobey. That was His choice. Was He double-predestine as well and subject to the necessity of His own "plan?"
Neither could fully human Jesus serve both God and satan, AS God. It just couldn't happen.
But neither can we!
Kosta: Then the Son is subordinate to the Father. That's Arian heresy
FK: John 6:38-39 : 38 For I have come down from heaven not to do my will but to do the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up at the last day...
And Jesus is also quoted as saying (John 14:28) "...If you loved Me, you would have rejoiced because I go to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. [my emphasis]
No wonder heretics also quote scriptures! Perhaps that's why Origen, who cannot be accused of theological poverty, eventually began teaching the error of "hierarchichal" Trinity.
If such theological giants as Origen and Tertullian can fall, the danger of private interpretition for teaching and reproof of the scriptures as one sees fit is loud and clear.
Your argument is with Jesus Himself, not me
I have no arguments with Christ, FK. In His humanity, He chose not to sin. He was tempted like the rest of us, but He chose not to follow His temptations. He did that on His own free will. In His Humanity, He possessed human soul, experienced passions, and death.
Otherwise He was an illusion of a man, and His suffering and death were illusions as well, and that is yet another ancient heresy.