The Important of knowing the theme and word usage in a chapter of scripture

[GodsGrace]

No not at all -you say ???
Nonsense-- Suffice to say- I merely summarized your convoluted spin to get to the heart of it.
What you are clearly trying to present is the Christadelphian -Universalist false teaching that Jesus had no actual pre-existence as the Word of God. You have stated multiple times that the Word was a plan not a person...
And you are wrong.
The Christadelphian and Uni's , Jewish Monotheists- whatever you brand yourselves - teach the opposite of scripture. The Word of God became flesh and walked among us. HE came to His own. He was previously in God's form ( morphe) and then He became flesh and being in flesh He became a servant, humbling Himself. Phil 2
Jesus Christ came in the flesh. He pre-existed as the Word and He is still the Word of God. Same yesterday, today and forever. He is not His Father. John 1:1 but He was with God and the Word was God.
Hard to compute? Yes it is. Oh well. That does not mean we should try to make it mean something that it does not mean in order to make it make better sense to our finite human brains by putting God into our box! It's humbling to just accept it as written!

You're confusing the OP by speaking.

You're interrupting his speech.

You might miss some important aspect of his teaching by asking questions.

All great professors demand silence and no questions while they teach.....it could really confuse them,,,,,take them off track!!

Let's just sit back and listen to the nonsense being spewed.

 

[JustMe]

A habitual interferer and a frequent instigator of conflict in public will not be welcomed in the Kingdom of God.

The desire to control or dominate every discussion reveals deep emotional insecurity and narcissism.

These individuals should reflect honestly on themselves, recognize their true nature, and accept their limitations, including the possibility that they may struggle to grasp spiritual ideas.

 

[GodsGrace]

How many people truly examine and analyze the themes and words usage in the Chapters of scripture? It provides valuable insight into why and how words were used, and in so doing clears up much controversy in their meanings conveyed. It also builds a common foundation with which to add and build upon, to grasp a much larger picture of especially the gospel message and the way of life for a believer in the Messiah, the Son of God.​

For example, in John Chapter 1, there are symbols and literal words and idioms used to convey John’s message to his audience. Most would have understood their meanings as most were well versed in Aramaic and even the Greek language, To a lesser extent the Hebrew, that went out of style before the 1st century AD.

For example, the Logos in John 1 is best understood as the divine expression, wisdom, and purpose of God the Father, through which all things were created. The term logos, meaning "word," "reason," or "plan," conveys both the rationality and active will of God. In the context of John 1, the logos is not a separate preexistent person distinct from God the Father, but rather the eternal means by which God the Father reveals Himself and brings creation into being.

This divine expression and wisdom, the logos is portrayed as the embodiment of God’s wisdom and self-revelation, echoing the personified wisdom in Proverbs 8, which was present at creation and acted as God’s agent. This aligns with Old Testament imagery where God’s "word" is not merely spoken but is active in creation (e.g., Psalm 33:6, "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made").

This creative power: the logos, is the instrument through which all things were made (John 1:3), indicating that creation is an act of divine reason and purpose. This reflects the Hebrew concept of dabhar—"word" as equivalent to "deed"—where speech is inseparable from action. God expresses himself internally and extended it into our world through his spirit. Thus the word and spirit are inseparable entities of God.

Now The Son of Man becomes the Expression of God by it embedment into him: When the logos "became flesh" (John 1:14), it signifies the full revelation of God’s plan and character in Jesus Christ. Jesus is not the logos in the sense of being a separate divine being, but the ultimate, living expression of God’s wisdom, love, and purpose—the Father’s self-revelation in human form.

Theological Context: While later Christian theology (especially from the 4th century onward) developed the logos into a distinct person of the Trinity, the original context—Jewish, Semitic, and early Christian—emphasizes logos as a dynamic, personified aspect of God’s action, not a co-eternal person. The logos is God’s self-expression, not God Himself in full essence, but the way God communicates, plans, and acts in the world.

Thus, the logos in John 1 is the eternal wisdom and creative power of the Father, made known through Jesus Christ—not as a substitute for God, but as the full and final revelation of who God is.


So in summary, to re-emphasize the key points made as its theme:

John 1 presents the Logos not as a separate person co-eternal with the Father, but as the divine wisdom, plan, and self-expression of God—the means through which creation unfolds and revelation is communicated.

The Logos is described as being "in the beginning" with God and "with God" (John 1:1), but this reflects a relationship of unity and purpose, not a distinct divine person.

It is not a personified being in the way of a second God, but rather the eternal wisdom and creative power of God, consistent with the personified Wisdom in Proverbs 8, where Wisdom speaks of being "with God" and involved in creation.

The Logos is the expression of God’s will and plan, as seen in the Hebrew concept of dabhar (word), which means both "word" and "deed"—showing that God’s word is active and effective in creation, deliverance, and revelation.

In John 1:14, "the Word became flesh" means that God’s eternal plan and wisdom were fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ—not that Jesus is the Logos as a separate entity, but that He is the embodiment of that divine wisdom and purpose. God’s word and spirit was fully a part or feature of his Son’s mind and spirit, upon his anointing.

The Logos is thus the means by which God reveals Himself, not a co-equal being, but the divine expression of the Father’s mind and will, making Jesus the ultimate revelation of God’s character and redemptive plan.

This view aligns with early Jewish and Hellenistic thought, where Logos was understood as divine reason, wisdom, and creative power—not a distinct person, but the active self-expression of God.

Now, from John Chapter 1, of its context, theme and word usage one can extend this information into other areas of scripture to find commonality, and there is much in common.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For those wanting to know/have the specific easy-to-read context version of John Chapter 1 included:

Context (really the major theme/thread and structure/flow):
John Chapter 1 serves as a theological prologue to the Gospel of John, introducing the Logos (word) of God, who is the Father where both his word/logos and he existed before creation, outside of our time reckoning. It contrasts divine revelation with human ignorance, emphasizing that while the world was made through it or (personified as with wisdom as he), it did not recognize it. The chapter unfolds in four movements: the preexistence/eternal and creative role of the word of God(verses 1–5), the testimony of John the Baptist as a witness to the Light (verses 6–13), and the same logos or word of the Father become embedded into the man Yeshua, Son of God (verses 14–18) over time, and culminating at his anointing. This embodiment of the word of God into his Son, as his Messiah, revealed his Father, God on a human level for the first time in history verse 18. This context sets the stage for the entire Gospel, focusing on identity, mission, and divine revelation.

Had no tme for the above before.

First of all, you should always state the source when what you post is not yours.

Secondly, Just, we don't need an explanation of what LOGOS means.

John, an Apostle of Jesus did a really good job of explaining all about the logos.

It's amazing that you believe you could do a better job than John the Apostle.

 

[GodsGrace]

John Chapter 10​

Context:
John Chapter 10 unfolds in Jerusalem during the winter Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah), a time commemorating the rededication of the temple after the Maccabean Revolt. Yeshua is walking in Solomon’s Colonnade, a covered area of the temple complex. The chapter centers on a pivotal confrontation with Jewish leaders who demand a clear declaration of His identity. Yeshua responds with profound metaphors—the Good Shepherd, the gate for the sheep, and the unity of the Father and Son—to reveal His God-provided divine mission, sacrificial love, and God-given authority. The chapter concludes with Yeshua withdrawing across the Jordan to continue His ministry beyond Jerusalem, where many believe in Him based on John the Baptist’s testimony.

Theme:
The central theme is Yeshua as the God-sent Shepherd and Savior, who provides eternal life, security, and unity to His followers. He contrasts Himself with false shepherds (hypocritical and deceptive religious leaders) who exploit the people and lead them spiritually wanting. Yeshua emphasizes His unique relationship with the Father, His voluntary sacrifice, and the unbreakable protection of His sheep. The chapter affirms eternal security—believers are kept by both Yeshua and the Father—and presents a clear claim to being the Son of God as his Messiah, working in one purpose as two separate spirit beings ("I and the Father are one"), which provokes division and leads to attempts to stone Him.

Key Words and Phrases:

Good Shepherd – Yeshua’s self-designation, emphasizing sacrificial love and intimate care.

Gate for the sheep – Yeshua as the only way to salvation and abundant life.

My sheep hear my voice – The spiritual discernment and bias toward Christ’s ways of true believers and discipleship.

No one can snatch them out of My hand – Assurance of eternal security.

I and the Father are one – A direct claim to be working as an equal partner with his Father who is God, in one purpose, for human salvation. And Yeshua never took advantage of this position working as one spirit in common purpose with his Father, even though he considered it not to be robbing God of his permanent superior position. He was a humble man and servant to/for his God.

Lay down My life – Voluntary sacrifice, not forced death.

Other sheep – Other nations or future believers to be gathered into one flock.

Blasphemy – The accusation against Yeshua for claiming to be an equal with his Father. And of course he was, although dependent on his Father.

Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) – Historical and theological backdrop of religious renewal.

Jesus give eternal life to those that abide in Him.
Please notice that these verbs are always in the present tense.
ABIDE IN HIM
BELIEVE IN HIM
FOLLOW HIM

This means that it must be a continuous action.
This means that there is the possibility that that action could be interrupted.

And I do wish to inform you that your theology is not Christian.
Are you a mormon?
A Jehovah's Witness?

You state above that there are two spirit beings..
one the father
and one the messiah.

Where in the NT did you learn such oddity??

You said Jesus was being stoned for creating a separate being...or some odd statement.
Actually, the pharisees wanted to stone Jesus because he claimed TO BE GOD.

Did you not know that there were other Messiahs throughout Jewish history?
They did NOT claim to be God.

Let me show you some facts about the Trinity:

1. THERE IS ONLY ONE GOD.
2. IN THIS GOD THERE EXISTS THREE PERSONS.

God is a being.
Father, Son, Holy Spirit are Persons.

You might want to learn what a Person is in Christian theology.

There is so much wrong with everything you've posted...
that I doubt you'll get any response to this thread.

This will be my last post too....
for now.

 

[GodsGrace]

Again thanks for the kindness. And again I will ask the Q that you ignore-
Are you teaching that Jesus had no actual pre-existence as the Word of God? YES OR NO?
You have stated the Word was God's plan. A plan is not a life.

He's teaching a lot more weird stuff than that.
Will not be participating on this thread.
It's really beyond.

 

[JustMe]

The interpretation of Colossians 1:15–20 - in conformance with both the local and outer context drawn for other scripture.

Paul’s letter to the church in Colossae, written to counteract false teachings that were undermining the supremacy and sufficiency of Yeshua the Messiah. The Colossian believers were being drawn toward a syncretistic mix of Jewish legalism, pagan mysticism, and angel worship—ideas that placed created beings or spiritual intermediaries on par with Christ. Paul responds with a powerful Christological hymn (likely an early Christian creed) to reassert Christ’s absolute preeminence as the founder of the new creation of, and for men.

Paul's theme here is about a new spiritual creation of man in Christ - the Church- 2 Cor 5:17-20 and Yeshua the Messiah is the firstborn and head of this new creation.

(2Co 5:17) Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old things are passed away, behold, all things have become new.
(2Co 5:18) But all things are of God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave to us the ministry of reconciliation.
(2Co 5:19) That is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not counting their trespasses to them; and has committed to us the word of reconciliation.

Rom 8:29 - " For whom He foreknew, He also foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among many other children. "

Gal 6:15 - " For neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything. What counts is being a new creation."

The Interpretation of Colossians 1:15–20 affirms Yeshua as the preeminent human Messiah and agent of God’s redemptive plan, not as a preexistent divine being. The creation language in verse 16 refers not to the physical creation of the universe, but to the spiritual creation of the Church and the new creation in believers.

"All things were created through him" (Col 1:16): this is referring to the new creation in Christ—specifically, the Church formed from Jew/Judahite and other outside nations (Eph 2:15), the "new man" (Eph 4:24), and the renewal of individual believers (2 Cor 5:17). The Greek word ektisthē (created) refers to actual creation, not arrangement, and is used throughout Scripture to denote God’s physical creation (e.g., Gen 1:1, Rev 10:6), but in Colossians, it is contextually tied to Christ’s role in redemption, not cosmogony. Paul does not suddenly reopen the discussion of the old Genesis experience here, and then for what purpose? This is about the new Genesis or new creation of the new man through Christ as the head of this creation by his resurrection to immortality.

"In him" (en autō): the preposition en (in) in Col 1:16 should be understood as "in intention" or "because of him", not "by him." or even not "through him" who has no independent power apart for his Father, his God. Scholars like James Dunn and F.F. Bruce, they suggest Paul speaks of God’s plan being centered on Christ before creation (Eph 1:4). Thus, creation was planned in view of Christ, not executed through him.

"Firstborn of all creation" (Col 1:15): this as a title of honor and preeminence, not literal preexistence. It echoes Israel’s designation as God’s firstborn (Ex 4:22), meaning Christ is the foremost among God’s creation, especially in his role as the resurrected head of the Church.

"He is before all things" (Col 1:17): This is seen as a statement of Christ’s priority in God’s redemptive plan, not ontological preexistence. His supremacy is established through resurrection, to immortality, not eternity.

"God was pleased to have all His fullness dwell in him" (Col 1:19): this is God bestowing divine authority and spiritual fullness upon Christ, not as a statement of divine essence. The same phrase in Ephesians 3:19 refers to believers receiving God’s fullness through the Spirit—showing that "fullness" does not imply divinity.

"Beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14): this verse confirms Christ’s role as the first to be raised to immortality, not the creator. He is the firstborn from the dead, not the Creator.

In summary, Colossians 1 is a high Christology rooted in God’s plan, not in Christ’s divinity or preexistence. Paul’s language is polemical against Gnosticism—affirming Christ’s real humanity and role in salvation—while maintaining strict monotheism, with God the Father as the sole Creator (Isa 44:24).

Ref John 11:25, Romans 8:29, 1 Cor 15:20, 23, 2 Cor 5, Col 3:9, Heb 1:4-5 as related to Col 1:15-20

 

[JustMe]

Phil 2: 1-11

The Mental and heartfelt giving and loving attitude of Christ to be Our Example - one mind

(Php 2:1) Therefore, if there is any encouragement in Christ, if any consolation of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any tender mercies and compassions,
(Php 2:2) make my joy full by being like-minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one mind.
(Php 2:3) Let nothing be done through selfish ambition or conceit, but in lowliness of mind let each esteem others better than himself;
(Php 2:4) each of you not looking to his own things, but each of you to the things of others.
(Php 2:5) Have this mind in you, which was also in Christ Jesus.

(Php 2:6) Who, though being in the mental image of God, did not consider grasping at being equal with God,
(Php 2:7) but poured himself out, taking the mental attitude of a servant, and was the made just the same as all ordinary men.
(Php 2:8) And being perceived as a normal man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
(Php 2:9) Wherefore God highly exalted him, and gave to him the name which is above every name-
(Php 2:10) that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the earth,
(Php 2:11) and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

The theme of Philippians 2 is “having the mind of Christ.” (Phil 2:5). Purpose and context of the passage: The hymn is not a creedal statement but an ethical exhortation (v.5): “Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus.” Paul uses a well-known hymn to encourage humility and selflessness among the Philippians.

In verses 6-11, the testimony of Yeshua the Messiah is provided as the principal example of the humility and obedience we all should have. Also emphasized, is the reward that Yeshua received from selfless service and obedience (Phil 2:8-11). However, Phil 2:6-7 has been unfortunately and traditionally used as a proof text for advocates of the doctrine of incarnation. This is because verses 6-7 are typically translated with a traditional bias that prejudices the reader into reading incarnation into the passage. However, this passage does not teach that Yeshua was God and then became a man.

The interpretation of Philippians 2:6–11,it's a passage about Yeshua's exaltation and humility during his earthly life, not his preexistence as God. The phrase "being in the form of God" refers to Yeshua’s Messianic and then post-resurrection status, not an eternal divine nature.

Key points of interpretation include:

"Form of God" (μορφή θεοῦ): this refers to role, status, or authority, not ontological divinity. It reflects Yeshua's divine function after exaltation, not an inherent nature. And in contrast with "form of a servant" (μορφὴ δούλου), which denotes a role, not a change in essence.

"Did not consider equality with God a thing to be grasped": This is seen as Yeshua refusing to exploit his divine privileges during his earthly ministry, not a denial of divinity. The humility is practical and relational, not ontological. And clearly, Paul is also stating here that Yeshua is not God as he never attempted to be equal (as robbery in some translations) as his own Father, who is the one God.

"Emptied himself" (ἐκένωσεν): This is Yehsua renouncing divine privileges to live as a human, not losing divine nature. This aligns with the idea that Yeshua was a man exalted by God, not a pre-existent deity.

Contrast with Adam: The passage draws a parallel between Adam, who sought to be like God (Gen 3:5), and Yeshua, who did not grasp at divine status, but humbled himself. This reversal of Adam’s pride is central to its understanding (of this passage).

Exaltation, Not Incarnation: The passage emphasizes that Yehsua was exalted by God due to his obedience, not that he descended from heaven. Acts 2:36 ("God has made him both Lord and Christ") is cited as the key moment of divine appointment, not a pre-existent state.

Tense and Grammar: The present tense of "being in the form of God" (hyparcho) is emphasized, suggesting the statement applies to Yeshua being the Messiah and after his resurrection, not before any incarnation. Also note that the word "though" is added in some translations and is seen as a biased interpolation that distorts the text.

Contrast with another common view: There is no pre-existent Messiah. Paul contrasts Yeshua's present exalted status ("form of God") with his past humble state ("form of a servant"), not a change in nature.


Quotes from Trinitarian Bible Scholars that no not favor an incarnation or pre-existence of Yeshua in this scripture passage, In fact if not believed as they do, a few warn of a gnostic interpretation of this passage:

James Dunn (Methodist NT Scholar) p115. Christology in the Making
“Moreover it can readily be seen that the outline of thought in the Philippian hymn fully matches the two-stage Christology evident elsewhere in first generation Christianity. – free acceptance of man’s lot followed out to death, and exaltation to the status of Lord over all.”

J A T Robinson (Anglican NT Scholar), p166 “The Human Face of God”
The picture is not of a celestial figure lowering himself to become a man, to be exalted still higher than he was before. Rather, it is that the entire fullness of God was enabled…to find embodiment in one who was completely one of us as any other descendant of Abraham.”

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (Catholic NT Scholar)
“Inevitably, those who begin their exegesis of this hymn with the assumption that it concerns a pre-existent divine being tend towards a docetic (gnostic) interpretation of these lines.”

James P. Mackey (Catholic Theologian). p52 ” The Christian Experience of God as Trinity”
“The fact that in the context of the hymn in the actual epistle, there is no mention at all of this anonymous divine figure who becomes man…”

Karl-Josef Kuschel (German Theologian) p250 “Born Before All Time”
“From this fact that the Jewish rather than Hellenistic syncretism may be the key to understanding the Philippians hymn, present day exegetes have drawn the radically opposite conclusion that the Philippians hymn does not speak of the pre-existence of Christ at all.”

Anton Vogtle (German Catholic NT Scholar) Freiburg exegete
“No pre-existence of Christ before the world with an independent significance can be recognized even in Phil. 2.”

Klaus Berger (German Catholic NT Scholar) Heidelberg exegete
“Philippians 2:6 is primarily concerned with making statements about high status and by no means necessarily concerned with pre-existence.”

Bas van Iersel (Dutch NT Scholar) p45. ‘Son of God in the New Testament’
“But of pre-existence and equality of being with God we cannot discover any trace in Paul’s letters”


Erroneous presumptions and misconceptions

Here is a list of common erroneous presumptions and inferences regarding Phil 2:5-7

The word “was” in reference to the mind of Christ biases the reader to suppose Paul is talking about a past time frame where Jesus had a certain mindset and into supposing that Christ had this mindset before he became human.

Presuming that Paul is talking about a pre-incarnate Son who “was” in the “form of God.”

Presuming that the term “form of God” means “God” and falling to see that it makes no sense to refer God as being in the form of God. It only makes sense to refer to someone else as being in the image of God or the form of God.

Presuming that Yeshua emptied himself of some of his divine prerogatives or his positional glory in heaven.

Presuming that not regard it to be a plunder to be equal to God is that Yeshua had no problem being equal with God. In context, this makes no sense whatsoever since Paul’s point is to show the Philippians how to humble themselves and serve as Yeshua served his God.

Taking Paul’s words to say that in verse 6, Yeshua did not regard “clinging to” equality with God. However, that would mean the incarnate Yeshua was not equal to God, which they deny.

Taking verse 6 to mean that Yeshua did not exploit, or take advantage of his equality with God. However, if Yeshua already had a harpagmos where then are the words in verse 6 which refer to exploiting it? harpagmos hardly means exploitation. It refers to something snatched/seized for one’s self, like plunder.

Presuming that “taking the form of a servant” means “adding a human nature” to himself. The words “becoming in the likeness of men,” or “coming to be in the likeness of men” qualify the expression “taking the form of a servant.” In context, the likeness of men is contrasted with the form of God. The Greek word here is saying that Yeshua came into his existence in the likeness of humans.

 

[marks]

The interpretation of Philippians 2:6–11,it's a passage about Yeshua's exaltation and humility during his earthly life, not his preexistence as God. The phrase "being in the form of God" refers to Yeshua’s Messianic and then post-resurrection status, not an eternal divine nature.

Just one portion of this passage is sufficient to show your error. He became obedient. Consider the implications. He became obedient, meaning He was something other before. Your choices are, was Jesus disobedient, and became obedient? Or was Jesus sovereign, and became obedient? The answer is self evident if you are honest.

Your statement above is itself nonsensical. Being in the form of God, he took on the form of a servant. The form of God preceded the form of a servant.

And yes, you will be right if you think I'm not just going to go on and on with you. After a few admonitions, we are to reject the heretic. And that's how it's going to go.

Much love!

 

[JustMe]

Just one portion of this passage is sufficient to show your error. He became obedient. Consider the implications. He became obedient, meaning He was something other before. Your choices are, was Jesus disobedient, and became obedient? Or was Jesus sovereign, and became obedient? The answer is self evident if you are honest.

Your statement above is itself nonsensical. Being in the form of God, he took on the form of a servant. The form of God preceded the form of a servant.

And yes, you will be right if you think I'm not just going to go on and on with you. After a few admonitions, we are to reject the heretic. And that's how it's going to go.

Much love!

Trying to force Yeshua to be God by misinterpreting Phil 2:8, and arguing that there are only two options regarding the term 'became,' or as many other translations say, 'becoming' obedient, is misleading and completely dishonest. The common interpretation assumes Yeshua's pre-existence and divinity, which appears to be derived from an old, manipulative sales tactic aimed at promoting a preconceived idea of the Son of God to only support your ill-conceived belief system.

However, there is a third, more reasonable option that comes from actually reading the passage in context and interpreting it without any persuasive dishonest tactics.

The phrase "became" or "becoming obedient unto death and to the Cross" reflects the natural human experience of the Messiah—not evidence of a prior divine nature. His obedience arises from his human condition, through his self-giving to others and personal suffering for God, rather than from any assumed previous divine existence requiring him to become obedient.

He gradually grew stronger, as revealed, and more mature in humility and obedience, motivated by a loving heart toward his Father. He did not merely follow commands but acted over time out of love as a human, ultimately sacrificing his life for both his Father and all humanity.
“Obedience is not just about doing what you’re told. It’s about a deep heart commitment to God that drives every action.” – Joyce Meyer

This humility and developing obedience have no connection to Yeshua having a preexisting divine life or being God.

(Hebrews 5:8) Though he was a Son, he learned obedience through the things he suffered.

(Philippians 2:8) And being perceived as a normal man, he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (NEV)
(Philippians 2:8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. (KJV)

Yeshua truly showed his genuine love and obedience to his Father, his God, especially when he became the Messiah of his God, which led to his death on the Cross.

And calling me a heretic and in the same breath saying you show much love comes only from a warped and most-probably narcistic set mind; one who cannot be counted on in writing truth.

 

[marks]

The phrase "became" or "becoming obedient unto death and to the Cross" reflects the natural human experience of the Messiah—not evidence of a prior divine nature. His obedience arises from his human condition, through his self-giving to others and personal suffering for God, rather than from any assumed previous divine existence requiring him to become obedient.

Nah. Your're trying to make it fit your view.

Much love!