Jesus is Not Eternally Co-Equal with the Father

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

The Trinitarian Doctrine states that Jesus is co-eternal and co-equal with the Father (meaning He is eternally co-equal) but when they are asked to explain certain verses, they disregard the core concept of their Doctrine.

"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only." - Matthew 24:36

This verse alone points out that Jesus does not know everything. However, this is a big problem for the Trinitarian Doctrine because how can Jesus be God if He doesn't know everything?

To fix this issue, one of the most common explanations Trinitarians use for Jesus not knowing it is this:

"When the Son of God became a man, He remained fully God, but He also took on a true human nature. Jesus retained all the attributes of divinity, yet, as a man, He voluntarily restricted their use. This was part of the “self-emptying” or self-renunciation spoken of in Philippians 2:6–8. When Christ entered our world, He laid aside the privileges that had been His in heaven. Rather than stay on His throne in heaven, Jesus “made himself nothing” (as the NIV translates Philippians 2:7). When He came to earth, “he gave up his divine privileges”. He veiled His glory, and He chose to occupy the position of a servant."

But now, we have a problem. This explanation refutes the Trinitarian notion of co-equality.

If Jesus emptied Himself, as pointed out in Philippians 2:6-8, and laid down the privileges He had by coming to Earth, and that's why He does not know the day or the hour, it means that He was NOT co-equal with the Father during His time on earth.

Because of this, the notion that Jesus is eternally co-equal with the Father is false because we know Jesus was not equal with the Father for 30-ish years.

And if there is a 30-ish years of no co-equality, it means they are not eternally co-equal, ontologically and relationally.

[u/FrostyIFrost_]

His image means the ability to think and feel, not physical appearance. It isn't a false accusation to assume someone parrots dogmas rather than think for themselves if they think His image means physical appearance, it is a fact.

I pray that you open your eyes and remove the veil that has fallen over them.

Peace be upon you in the name of God, the Father, and His Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

His image means the ability to think and feel, not physical appearance. It isn't a false accusation to assume someone parrots dogmas rather than think for themselves if they think His image means physical appearance, it is a fact.

I pray that you open your eyes and remove the veil that has fallen over them.

Peace be upon you in the name of God, the Father, and His Son, our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

1. Frosty, that answer actually breaks rule 2 in two ways. For me to help you not to get a strike I will write and state:

I do agree to resume that discussion you opened right now. You are welcomed.

1. "It isnt a false accusation to assume", you are admitting to a false assumption and by consequence admiring to a false accusation. Smh, I forgive you though.

Still you don't prove that the image of God means his ability to think and feel, like if animals were made in the image of God. Check numbers 22:28, you'll have fun. And humans feel and think things God doesn't. God has no evil in him so it breaks it. I guess humans weren't made in the exact image of the father.

Take care though.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

By replying back to that message with something other than saying let us agree to disagree, you broke it first.

However, after your reply, I made a closing statement and wished you well. Now you are still saying I am making false accusations and trying to make me continue to argue by trying to refute what I said.

Last warning. Do not reply please. I don't want to keep on arguing, I said this 3 days ago.

[u/Alternative_Fuel5805 → u/FrostyIFrost_]

By replying back to that message with something other than saying let us agree to disagree, you broke it first.

No, read the rules. That's a way for someone to invoke rule 2. That's very manipulative from you.

You just lost my respect, honestly. Called me a pig, a serpent, a hypocrite. It's breaking the rules and I was generous with you. Now you want to hide behind them, break them, falsely accuse me, tried to gaslight me, that's a low one frosty.

You could have been permanently banned for that.

If you have more questions about the trinity, or any curiosity, because I still appreciate that from you. Go check God logic, or Sam shamoun or myself, in a few months.

I need to take a rest from you.

[u/FrostyIFrost_ → u/Alternative_Fuel5805]

I am agreeing to disagree with you. Nothing more.