Actually, it was the light of God's preserved Word, shining the light of His truth unto the darkness of your false doctrine. That's how you discovered for yourself, with your own words, that your doctrine, falls apart.
But, you still haven’t defined the Father ALL THE WHILE that we’ve had this debate.
EXACTLY! The preserved Word of God doesn't need my help, it defines the Father for you, it's as clear and as plain as can be.
**EXACTLY! The preserved Word of God doesn’t need my help, it defines the Father for you, it’s as clear and as plain as can be.**
Then you should be able to answer my questions EXACTLY:
So when, in your opinion, is the Father NOT in the Son? And what divine attribute(s) did the Son NOT receive from the Father?
With your separate and distinct persons of God theology; can you quote a scripture that shows the FATHER receiving anything divine from the Son?
You quoted this a couple of times:
**Isaiah 43:10-11)
“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. {11} I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.”**
Do you not understand the sentence structure? “saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen,” is the same servant found in Is. 42:1 (the Messiah)
It doesn’t say, “Ye are my witnesses, and my servant whom I have chosen, saith the LORD..”.
Now, Isaiah 44:1,2 shows the servant as Jacob (Israel): “Yet now hear, O Jacob my servant; and Israel, whom I have chosen: Thus saith the LORD that made thee,...”.
And you made your personal interpretation of Hosea 13:4, back in #101:
**Hosea 13:4
Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me.**
**Obviously, this verse is referring to Christ being God, because there have been many people over the course of history, who have saved other people from many things, And I’m sure we both agree that they were not God. So this verse is referring to a particular saviour, isn’t it?**
And thus, with your separate and distinct theory, you deny that God the Father had any part in saving Israel from the Egyptians.
Using your doctrine: If God the Father is not literally IN Christ, then the Father is not omnipresent.
**The preserved Word of God doesn’t need my help**
Then why do you offer occasional personal interpretations?