[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

OK please tell me is the Son somebody other than the Father ... yes or no?

Are you serious? How many times have I told you already even on THIS forum, let alone others, that the Son is NOT NOT someone other than the Father? See it's your asking these questions that we have answered already and acting as though we have not already answered, that makes you seem like a troll. How can we take you seriously when you do that Robert?

Secondly, how can the distinction between the Father and the Son be an impersonal distinction as that would imply that each are to 'it's.'

NO it would not imply they are two its. It would MEAN that the difference between Father and Son is one of nature and form of being. For example. A difference between you and I...a Distinction that is not one of person, is that you live in Britain and I live in America and yet we are not it's are we?

You can't possibly be claiming that father is impersonal and Son is impersonal as father and Son are obviously personal terms. A Father is a 'he' and can never be described as an 'it.'

You are right, I never claimed that. You don't seem to be able or willing to grasp what it is I have plainly stated

I think that part of your problem Praxeas is that you've turned theology and the Bible into a nose of wax which you can turn any way that you choose. So you've claim elsewhere that the Son is etenral but that he;s not an eternal Son .... this is a nose of wax and is meaningless and demonstrates your lack of understanding of basic theological terms.

This is your strawman argument, for you would rather quibble about what we actually believe than try to refute what we believe from the bible. My views remain consistant and unchanged. The PERSON of the Son is God Himself. He became the Son when HE added a human nature to His own person. Thus WHO the Son is (yahweh) has eternally existed AS God Himself. The Human nature of the Son has not always existed. The divine essence, ontologically united in the Son is eternal. The Son is then NOT a second eternally existing person named Son. The Son is the ONLY God incarnate. So when I speak of the Son's Deity in all it's implication I am referring NOT to the incarnation mode of being, but to the Divine person and essence that was incarnate.

Now your claiming (or you will claim) that the Father is impersonal and the Son is imperosnal, but there is a distiction between two impersonal things (Father and Son).

Robert do you have a nose of wax on your face? I never EVER said Father and Son are impersonal. However PERSON is not the same thing as NATURE. That seems to be your problem. You don't understand terms

if you understood the difference between the words personal and impersonal, you wouldn't make such basic errors, whcih demonstarate your inability to dialoge with Trinitarians like myself, to whom language possesses precise meaning and isn't to be changed and redefined on a whim.

I never said Father and Son were impersonal. YOU lied and claimed I said they were impersonal. All I said was that the DISTINCTION between Father and Son is not a personal distinction. In other words they are not two DIFFERENT PERSONS. They are the SAME person, but there are OTHER differences that make Father DIFFERENT from SON.

The word Father is the one word in human history which can never be or mean impersonal .... Father must mean personal, please think and pray about this.

That's nice, now can you please start dealing with what I said and not what you keep inserting into what I said?