--- H Dorrington <hjdinfl@...> wrote:
> No I think we tend to see the word translated learned similar to us aquiring
> knowledge rather than demonstrating knowledge. If someone is given a test or an
> appraisal it doesn't per se teach them anything but rather it measures their
> knowledge.  

Huh?  It's one and the same.  You're making distinctions no one in the English
language would make unless they're trying to prove your point.  Whether it's
actually acquiring knowledge or demonstrating knowledge there is a quantifiable
increase.  And as almost all people use the word "learned" including the writer of
Hebrews, "demonstration" isn't even on the radar screen.  In fact, there are other
Greek words for demonstration that are not used by the writer of Hebrews when he had
ample opportunity.  "Learned" is "learned".  To say it isn't, is to force an issue
that isn't there.

> No the writer of Hebrews wasn't just as Paul was not on the road to gnostism by
> saying it was the will of the Father. It what people try to draw from inferrance
> that gets them into trouble!

There's no inferrence here.  You've stripped Christ of his humanity by giving him
attributes of the transcendent God.  That's pure gnosticism.  that's the same reason
1 John was written.  We "felt", we "saw", we "heard"... over against those who made
out Christ to be some kind of transcendent non-human.  If Christ was 100% human, he
had 100% human attributes, including "learning" things he didn't know previously. 
He wasn't some super-kid who automatically had all the right answers because he was
divine.  You have a Gnostic Jesus if you don't allow the text to say what it says:
he learned righteousness.

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH