[boatbums]

The scriptures declare that the Son inherited all things from God. So there was either a time that the Son did not exist, or at least, had no divine attributes. But the Father did not have to die or go into retirement for the Son to receive those attributes. The Father is Spirit, and the Son is flesh.

You may not realize this or admit it, but you are arguing for the same heresy that Arius did which was the main reason the Council of Nicea was convened. From the OP:

In the populous Alexandria suburb of Baucalis, a well-liked presbyter by the name of Arius began teaching in opposition to the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander. Specifically, he disagreed with Alexander’s teaching that Jesus, the Son of God, had existed eternally, being “generated” eternally by the Father. Instead, Arius insisted that “there was a time when the Son was not.” Christ must be numbered among the created beings — highly exalted, to be sure, but a creation, nonetheless. Alexander defended his position, and it was not long before Arius was declared a heretic in a local council in 321. http://www.equip.org/article/what-really-happened-at-nicea/

If you believe that the flesh was divine, separate and distinct from God the Father, then you are in the same camp as the followers of the RCC, and have to give Mary credit for making more of God (which is not possible).

Except that ISN'T what the Roman Catholics believe nor is it what Scripture teaches. The creed that came about from Nicea says:

We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made….

There are many doctrines that Catholicism teaches that ARE orthodox and have been held from the very start of Christianity. I don't have a problem agreeing with them on these because they are Scriptural and come to us through the Holy Spirit. Jesus is the only begotten Son of God, the second person of the Holy Trinity, true God of True God, who is eternal and has always existed, by whom ALL things were made that were made. He is the Incarnation (became flesh) of God - God with us (Immanuel). Therefore, Jesus IS the God/man. The Son of God existed from all eternity but it was when He took on human flesh that He became the Son of Man. When He arose from the dead after the crucifixion, He appeared in His glorified body and this will be how we will see Him for all eternity. He IS God the Son - don't know why you have heartburn with that term.

I think your issue is with trying to comprehend an infinite truth with a finite mind - we have to accept certain things by faith because it IS what God has revealed to us. One day we WILL know as we also are known - but not yet today - when we have the mind of Christ.

[Zuriel]

Pardon me, it’s late so I will be brief. I don’t regard any of the pow wows of theologians to be the final word on understanding the scriptures.

The scriptures don’t teach a “first person”, “second person”, or “third person”. Those are just a sampling of man modified opinions of the Godhead.

**We believe…in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the substance of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, of one substance (homoousios) with the Father, through Whom all things were made….**

“..begotten, not made..” seems contradictory, especially when one reads this from Rev. 3:14:

“..These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God.”