Yes, I wasn't relying on Heb 5:8, thanks; Prov 8 is a text we divide on, not so. I've affirmed full deity all along, but not obedience like a creature's, as Heb 5:8 is; we aren't told how the Father related to his Son in that respect other than together and of one nature.: anything else?

Jesus is worthy of worship, mingled with angels, became man to die as God, and his Father raised him from the tomb, to be our Mediator till the wedding of the Lamb, after which he shall always yet be our Saviour. We learn from his example as the Son of God and man, since he is our Saviour from sin.

Obedience implies subordination. In His humanity He was subordinated to the Father. But how could Christ in eternity be obedient (subordinated) to the Father, and at the same time equal (co-equal) with Him? Both are mutually exclusive.

From post #114333 (and 114363)

that raises a question in my mind. how do you see marriage? are you thinking the wife should so empty herself that only the husbands mind and will is done? or how about the children of that marriage, should there be no individuality in them?

if i may clarify the yoke of obedience referred to here....Christ did not owe obedience to the law, we do. if He came only as a man, He also would have owed obedience to the law and His life and death would have done us no more good than creating a perfect man to live and die.

This was part of the "ONENESS",
not that they were one in the physical sense,
but one in purpose, plans, motives, desires, ideals, etc. Neither seeking to exalt self over the other, but existing in perfect unity of love and plans and purposes.

thus there was no need for one to be subordinate and serve the other in "obedience", as they already mutually agreed.

Good luck with that!

The rule of divine equality is flexible, given Phil 2:6 (KJV), so Jesus' deity is both certain and full. The Father's glory is greater than the Son's, as stated in P&P, ch.1, and Prov 30:4 suggests a literal Father & Son relationship, not least also Jn 3:16.

Can Jesus not be God's literal Son since eg. "the days of eternity" (Micah 5:2), the Word from "the beginning", and also be fully divine, the fulness of the Godhead manifested to sinful man?

Wasn't implying lesser authority subordination - wasn't implying inferior subordination, either, with obedience: just that P&P ch.1 talks of the Son being the eternal God's "Associate" in creation, and the other proclamations to the heavenly host of the Son of God receiving worship just like the Father, etc, etc. The Father was stating pre-existent facts, plus clarifying for any doubt & confusion, but also ordaining with full authority of the Godhead throughout the universe, and so on and so forth. Appears to be the Son reaching maturity, having always been divine.

Since when have 'we' as Adventists believed in the co-existence of Jesus with the Father? You know they being the same age, that is co-eval? I've learned from senior church members that this is new belief, since maybe the mid-20th C, and have found no teaching on it prior to 1919.

that raises a question in my mind. how do you see marriage? are you thinking the wife should so empty herself that only the husbands mind and will is done? or how about the children of that marriage, should there be no individuality in them? [/quote]
OUCH, no: wasn't talking of no individuality here...

Heard recently that the Jewish raised, north African Adventist scholar, Jacque Doukhan, compared Gen 1 & 2 in a dissertation. He noted that Gen 1 depicts the difference between God, Creator, and mankind, created in God's own image and equal before him. Gen 2 depicts the difference between man and woman: different identities, roles and functions, but also equal to themselves and before God.

In a nutshell, God invented marriage, thus: man - servant headship of the woman; woman - submissive & virtuous, looking after the man. In a word, she loves him, and he gives his life for her.

Sin didn't pervert that relationship, which was perverted and abused after the fall.