Why does Oneness deny Son as creator?

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Iron_Bladder

Look both Oneness and The Trinity believe that God incarnated as a man, so if God changed by incarnating as a man, then they both theologies believe exactly the same and both would consequently deny God's immutibility. The only difference is that Trinitarianism teaches that the Son incarnated and Oneness that the Father incarnated (as the Son).

Oneness teaches that God remained the same God in Deity even AFTER being incarnate. We do not teach the Father stopped being the Father and Deity and changed into a man, thus no longer being God. Your arguments are fallacious

God's immutibility refers only to his deity, tso aking on a body of flesh doesn't constitute mutibility as the deity remains completely unchanged in Trinitarianism.

Then you need to drop this argument once and for all, for we do NOT believe there was ANY change in His deity. His Deity remained UNCHANAGED in any way whatsoever even after He became the Son

This is why the Trinitarian creeds avoid claiming that God BECAME flesh, he instead TOOK ON flesh as BECOMING flesh implies a change in the deity whilst taking on flesh doesn't affect his divinity in any way.

Please show me the creed that says "took on flesh". Becoming or became flesh ONLY means that God ADDED a Human nature to Himself. Was the Son or was the Son not a man? IF he was a man then how can you deny He became a man? See what you are doing is playing a semantical game.

Let me illuistrate it this way, if I put on a jumper, do i change my essential nature as a man? NO, but if I BECAME a jumper then yes, my ontological nature as a man would ahve changed.

Then what you are saying is is that the Son was NOT really a man. You are in fact denying the incarnation. You are making His humanity nothing more than a pair of pants someone puts on. That the Trinitarians do not even believe. He is THE MAN Christ Jesus. Your doctrine is heretical even by Trinitarian standards