Again, this shows you don't understand the doctrine of the Trinity. There is only one God who has always existed as three coequal, coeternal, divine persons. If you don't believe that, you don't believe the Trinity.That would mean that each member of the Trinity is the same Spirit, the same Lord, and the same God.
You believe the Father came and took on human flesh, becoming the Son. But that is heresy. You believe that the Father is his own Son, which is not what the Bible teaches. It makes the use of father and son language completely irrelevant and superfluous. One has to completely ignore language and its meanings to believe such an idea. Based on the language used in the NT, it consistently distinguishes between the Father and the Son, both preincarnate and post.I believe that the Son is the Son in that He is come in the flesh (1 John 4:1-3, 2 John 1:7).
Again, anything that is logically impossible is still impossible with God, simply because it is nonsense. As C. S. Lewis said, "Nonsense is still nonsense, even when it is spoken of about God." As beings made in God's image, God gave us reasoning minds so that we can communicate with each other and him, so that we can understand him, so that we can create, so that we can do all that we do. Logic and reason are necessary to our survival, and it all comes from God. So, if something is logically impossible, it's logically impossible even for God because it is, by definition, nonsense.What is logically impossible with man is not always impossible with God.
You are denying he is the Son of God in the way the Bible says he is the Son of God, the way he said he was the Son of God. He never was and never will be the Father come in the flesh.I addressed it by telling you that no one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God.
Perhaps you should start at the beginning of Hebrews, where the Father calls the Son God (1:8), and then claims that it was the Son who "laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning," that "the heavens are the work of your hands" (1:10). In fact, verses 10-112 are quotes from Pslam 102:26-28, where they are attributed to Yahweh.He is come in the flesh.
Hebrews 10:5 tells us that a body was prepared for Him; I believe that this is the sense in which the Father sent the Son; by preparing for Him a human body.
And that agrees with John 1:1-18, Phil 2:5-8, and Col 1:15-17.
Of course he didn't, because he didn't take on human nature, the Son did.The Father did not VACATE ETERNITY when He descended to take on an added nature of human flesh.
No, he is speaking about before creation began, which is what John 1:1-18, Phil 2:5-8, and Col 1:15-17 tell us.Jesus had that glory with Him before the world existed because in ascending, He would be ascending to again exist outside of time (Ephesians 4:10).
What is historically believed is believed for a reason: because it is what the Bible says.It is. I don't think that you are able to see that when Philip said, Shew us the Father, Jesus was surprised that Philip didn't understand that He was the Father ("How is that you have not known me, Philip?") in response to his query, shew us the Father.
Because you have a pre-conceived idea in your head that is based on what is historically believed about God instead of what is written in holy scripture.
I stated: "You are if you're denying that the Son existed in eternity past as distinct from the Father."No, I am not denying that.
You here have denied that is the case. Yet, when I said: "As the pre-incarnate Son, he existed outside of time, eternally as God. That is at the heart of Trinitarianism."
You reply with this:
Which contradicts what you just said and supports what I said. If the Son, in his pre-incarnate form is that he is the Father, then he cannot also have existed in eternity past as distinct from the Father.Yes, His pre-incarnate form is that He is the Father (Isaiah 9:6, John 14:7-11).
I'll have to address the rest later.