The Trinity

[popsthebuilder]

Also tired of people being asked to verify their negative claims about others due to their words that they don't agree with, only to be met with more accusations and name calling as opposed to actually showing support for one's false claims.

I'm done here. I knew there was a reason I was staying out of this thread.


Have fun.

peace


Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[marhig]

Son denoted beggoten nature.

I'm tired of people turning a blind eye to the obvious truth in favor of lies told by man in a building for money

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

I totally agree, and they will allow many things that go against God to please their congregation, Gay marriage being one of them. To line up the coffers to fill the bank accounts! Coffee mornings, church grounds made into paid car parks, and many other money making schemes. I wonder how many churches that Jesus would turn the tables over in today?

 

[MichaelCadry]

I tried to pm but have reached some memory quota. Deleting messages has yet to fix the issue.

So I am posting this here.

Sorry, thanks, peace

Mr. Mike,

please do not consider me against any perception man might receive of our Loving GOD.

I have two contrasting points.

Perhaps you could give your thoughts, by GOD, and not of our own vain imaginings.

I cannot justifiably believe that any man whatsoever should ever be literally equated to the literal fullness of GOD.
This is verified by much scripture.

The other point;

I cannot limit the capacities of GOD; If it was the will of GOD to manifest utterly and wholly into a human vessel, then who am I do deny such?

Equating man to GOD will and does lead to atrocity through entitlement.

Though I place the man Jesus under the subjection of the eternal GOD as he walked the earth in physical manifestation, I do consider the Christ of GOD to be synonymous with the Eternal GOD now as GOD is Spirit and the Spirit of Jesus did surely return to the right hand of GOD.

My fight is not against Jesus/ the Christ, but against the blinding of the potential of man who does follow and wish for the Will of GOD alone in their life, by the vanity and pride of mislead men.

I see no reason to divide any among Trinity/unity lines unless it is leading to entitlement, inequity, and pride/discrimination.

I wish you the very best Sir. I had wondered about you recently.

I am glad to see you are very well, and gladder still for the visit you did witness.

peace brother

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Dear popsthebuilder,

I'm sorry to get back to you so late, but I've been so busy, that I didn't have a choice. When saying Jesus, I mean, of course, Christ, the Son of God. I am also not saying that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are equal in the 'threesome' of being a trinity. God is foremost in power, compared to Christ. As for the Holy Ghost, I don't know His 'ranking.' It doesn't matter. I consider them a 'threesome' despite they are not all equal in this 'threesome.' Does this help any, pops?

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

 

[popsthebuilder]

Dear popsthebuilder,

I'm sorry to get back to you so late, but I've been so busy, that I didn't have a choice. When saying Jesus, I mean, of course, Christ, the Son of God. I am also not saying that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are equal in the 'threesome' of being a trinity. God is foremost in power, compared to Christ. As for the Holy Ghost, I don't know His 'ranking.' It doesn't matter. I consider them a 'threesome' despite they are not all equal in this 'threesome.' Does this help any, pops?

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

It does; thank you for the comfort you have brought me at this time.

peace brother

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

 

[JudgeRightly]

Once again, God's UNtruth perverts the scripture by taking a verse out of context. She has been claiming that Jesus is the Father and here she is claiming Jesus is the Holy Spirit, when this verse says no such thing. It shows clearly that she has no spiritual understanding whatsoever.

She is trying to claim the verse speaks of Jesus being the Holy Spirit....rather in context, we see Paul is speaking of the letter and spirit of the law. Jesus is indeed the LIFE we receive through the preaching of the Gospel...begotten by the Gospel via the Holy Spirit.

2 Cor. 17:6 Who also hath made us able ministers of the new testament; not of the letter, but of the spirit: for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.​

Correction: Paul is speaking about the Law verses the Spirit.

The letter is literally the Law. There is no "spirit of the law."

Remember what I said earlier? Letter and Law are synonymous.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'll tell you what's antichrist, to teach that we can still sin even wilfully, and be saved regardless!

That's not the truth!

I think you need to go read Romans again. Then read it again. And again, until you understand clearly what it says about salvation and sin.

I'm sorry you don't like the way I worded it.

But if the traditional Trinitsrian doctrine is true as man would have you believe then it means the eternal god sent himself to be a blood sacrifice for himself so man can not change from faith and knowingly continue in sin.

If that isn't what you believe then correct me.

Here is your correction:

God (the Father) sent His Son (God the Son) to pay for the penalty of sin, which is death, so that He could redeem His creation to Him, because humanity had broken His righteous standard. Did you notice that all of the sacrificial offerings that were required for the atonement of breaking the law were all blood sacrifices? That's because only blood/death will suffice as payment for sin. However, those sacrifices weren't enough payment for the sin of all men, only for that person's/group's. The only one who's death would have enough value to atone for all mankind's sin is God Himself. That's why Christ (God the Son) was sent, so that God Himself could pay the price for man's sin, and not only that, but if that's not the greatest act of love, for one to lay down his life for another, I don't know what is.

You can take prices and parts of my words and make it seem how ever you want. It doesn't change the truth that begotten isn't eternal. It doesn't change the fact that eternal means without death. It doesn't change the fact the the Christ of GOD called himself the son of man because it explains that He, in flesh, was not the utter fullness of GOD.

 

[God's Truth]

Who denies He came in the flesh?

Okay, He didn't kill himself bit was murdered by the hands of man willingly.

So how does god die at all?

You people act as if I deny that the Holy Spirit filled the Christ of GOD, because I say the man Jesus wasn't literally the utter fullness of GOD as he was man. All scripture verifies this if you cared to see past your own force fed lies you so eagerly and naively devour up.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

They refuse to look at the truth that God Himself really came as a Man, and as a Man He had some limitations.

He didn't know some things while in the flesh, he prayed to the Father while in the flesh, he suffered and died while in the flesh.

 

[NWL]

No, you're not. You're trying to make it say that Jesus denied being God, and this is the furthest form the truth. When Jesus says "for what good work do you stone me?" that is clearly a rhetorical question, not a statement that he is being stoned for a good work. Neither does he state that the Son of God is anything less than God. That, you see, is a created assumption that is found in a JW doctrinal statement, not the biblical text itself.

"Neither does he state that the Son of God is anything less than God", this statement made by you is ridiclous and hardly proof that Jesus being the Son of God meant he was God. Jesus never stated many things, he never stated he wasn't a homosexual, or that he doesn't lives in a cave on the moon, or that he likes picking his nose and eating the produce. You using the "never denied" argument proves nothing and means nothing.

Jesus stating he was the "Son of God" by definition means he was NOT God, since you cannot be the Son "of" something and yet be the "of" that you are the Son to, this is contradictory, Jesus was never contradictory. You, rosenritter, are the Son of your Father, thus you are not your Father. Jesus was the Son of God, thus he was not the God to whom he is a Son to.

I never said Jesus denied being God in John chapter 10. What John chapter 10 does show however is Jesus stating the reason why the Jews wanted to stone him for blashmey, Jesus said "do you say to me..‘You blaspheme,’ because I said, ‘I am God’s Son.."

Again, the blasphemy the Jews were stoning Jesus for was because Jesus called God is Father, not because he said he was God. Nowhere in John chapter 10 do we find Jesus once saying he was God, repeatedly we find Jesus claiming that God was his own Father, then we have Jesus himself saying that they wanted to stone him because he said he is God son.

did Jesus say that they were stoning him and I quote, "because [he] said, I am the Son of God?", did Jesus say that or did he not?

Yes, he did. The Jews said they were stoning him because he made himself equal to God. Jesus said that they said he blasphemed because he said he was the Son of God. These statements do not stand in disagreement, nor did the Jews seem to think there was any difference. It's only the Jehovah's Witness (and other Unitarians) that say there is a difference, not the Jews of Christ's audience.

As I mentioned before, someone being called the "Son of God" and someone being called "God" are two completely different things, for you to cheekily claim they are synonymous is dishonest. I've already stated how John 10:33 CAN be translated "make yourself a god", there are no grammatical or contextual reasons why the verse cannot translated in such a sense:

Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, p. 62, by the respected trinitarian, Dr. Robert Young: "`makest thyself a god,' not `God' as in C.V. [King James Version or `Common Version'], otherwise the definite article would not have been omitted, as it is here, and in the next two verses, -- `gods .. gods,' where the title is applied to magistrates, and others ...."

Trinitarian NT scholar C. H. Dodd:
"making himself a god." - The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel, p. 205, Cambridge University Press, 1995 reprint.

Translator's Handbook by Newman and Nida:
"Purely on the basis of the Greek text, therefore, it is possible to translate [John 10:33] 'a god,' as NEB does, rather than to translate God, as TEV and several other translations do. One might argue on the basis of both the Greek and the context, that the Jews were accusing Jesus of claiming to be `a god' rather than 'God.' "- p. 344, United Bible Societies, 1980.​

As I have shown it is NOT only JW or Unitarians who are aware the text can read differently, the context actually favours the translation "a god". The Jews wanted to stone Jesus for blasphemy because Jesus made out he was the Son of the One true God, the Father, they were NOT stoning him because he was claiming to be the Father or the one true God. If you rosenritter went around claiming to be a literal Son of God, claiming that God was your direct Father you would be blaspheming and be accountable for death, Jesus made the claim that his Father was God, that he was Gods Son, thus the Jews wanted to stone him.

You keep evading this over and over. Jesus was not simply calling them corrupt judges. Having already identified himself as the judge over all the world, that he should arise and inherit all nations, he likewise identifies himself as the God that judges among the gods. You see, God himself is immune to charges of blasphemy. If you cannot see how that answers a charge of blasphemy then your compass needs checking.

I'm not evading that point you've made, I've asked repeadbly to show me where in John chpater 10 Jesus says any of that? Where does Jesus in John chapter 10 state he is "judge over all the world that he should arise and inherit all nations"? Where does Jesus identify "himself as the God that judges among the gods", stop saying it and show it to me roseritter!??

As I've mentioned repeatably Jesus said no such thing, all Jesus quoted was "are you not gods", nowhere does he say he was the God who judges among the Gods in Psalms 82, you again have assumed this, all Jesus does is remind the Jews that they are the gods of Psalms 82, anything else and you're adding to scripture, show me where Jesus states otherwise, stop evading this point.

How many judges of the quick and the dead are there NWL? John 5:22-27 is already stated and on the record by the time we get to John 10. All judgment is given unto the son, the father judges no man, he says. So who is it that judges among the gods? The Psalm and Jesus agree that it is Jesus. A = B, B = C, therefore A = C.

This is irrevalant, Jesus was not claiming to be the "God who judges" simply because Jesus reminded the Jews that they were the "gods" of Pslams 82. Until you provide evidence for your assumptions they remain assumptions.

What does this have to do with anything? Jesus is LORD and Christ.
What does this have to do with anything? The JW doctrine is wrong in this regard.

Nice to know, now please refrain from making statements that are unrelated to the discussion.

What the heck are you talking about? Jesus is not a "little god" anyplace but JW doctrine. Yes, if we assume "little god" then it would have pacified the Jews, wouldn't it? Except the text shows us that it only angered them more, and they continued the process of stoning for blasphemy.

As I've shown the Jews saying "you make yourself a god" to Jesus in John 10:33 is a very possible translation of the Hebrew, do deny this would be dishonest. Moreover you evaded the question. Please answer the question: If Jesus was a little god or secondary god to Almighty God Jehovah, if the Jews said to Jesus "we are stoning for blasphemy because you make yourself a god" and Jesus replied "are you not gods" would Jesus comparing himself to them claiming to be the same type of god as them be a good defence for an accusation of blasphemy if Jesus was NOT God but a god?

hief "A" steals $100 from an old lady on the street, theif "B" then steals the $100 from the same old lady and thief A see's this. Thief A then accuses thief B of being a thief and states he will call the police on him because he has committed a crime. Thief B then says to Thief A "Why are you snitching, are you not a thief?". Does thief "B" make a valid point in his own defence regarding thief's "A" accusation?

 

[God's Truth]

Dear popsthebuilder,

I'm sorry to get back to you so late, but I've been so busy, that I didn't have a choice. When saying Jesus, I mean, of course, Christ, the Son of God. I am also not saying that God, Christ, and the Holy Ghost, are equal in the 'threesome' of being a trinity. God is foremost in power, compared to Christ. As for the Holy Ghost, I don't know His 'ranking.' It doesn't matter. I consider them a 'threesome' despite they are not all equal in this 'threesome.' Does this help any, pops?

Much Love, In Jesus Christ,

Michael

They are NOT EQUAL, you say?

Philippians 2:6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

 

[NWL]

God himself is sometimes called an angel, because angel can also be applied to a being of spirit regardless of person.

Nowhere in scripture is God called an angel, show me the verse that states God is an angel.

I just showed you how the nation of Israel saw God face-to-face even though they didn't see God literally. Compare Exo 19:9, Deuteronomy 5:4, 5.

Interesting as an example, but irrelevant overall.

This is gold!! :chuckle: I show a clear example how your understanding is wrong and your reply back is basically "interesting, but I'm going to ignore it". You can't just dismiss this point and try and excuse yourself by saying its nit relevant, it's entirely relevant.

Your whole argument hinges on the fact that you believe Moses litreally saw God because it says face-to-face, I objected to this stating the term face-to-face doesn't have to be a litreal seeing of God, I showed you clear undeniable proof and you outright rejected it.

Other than you simply wanting it to mean something different, what are your linguistic reasons that Moses seeing God "face-to-face" was any different with the Israelite's seeing God "face-to-face", for what reasons do the same terms mean completely different things?

Not ignored. Rather, you ignored the answer and context. Moses say a physical form of God, who spoke with him face to face. Moses then asks to see God's face in a different sense, and although this is denied, God does allow him to see him his spiritual form of power in a subdued sense. Even by that measure, that contradicts your "Man cannot see God and live" contention.

When it says Moses saw God face-to-face did Moses see Gods face?

It does not contradicts my understanding of the scriptures, Moses asks to see Gods "glory", God speaking in human terms states he cannot see his "face". Considering the fact that Moses ask not to see Gods face but his glory, God must have been referring to the fullness of Gods glory when he mentioned not being able to see his face. God goes onto say that he will allow him to see "his back", this must refer to the after effect of Gods presence, this is clear by what Gods futher says to Moses "And it has to occur that while my glory is passing by I must place you in a hole in the rock, and I must put my palm over you as a screen until I have passed by. 23 After that I must take my palm away, and you will indeed see my back. But my face may not be seen"

God clearly states that Moses will see him "after he has passed by", he states that "his glory" and not an physical embodiment will be the thing passing by. Taking all this into account no contradiction is found since Moses did not see God but the back of Gods glory and not God himself.

Your forced interpretation of dis-joining a passage from itself into a broken unrelated mess is counter to the obvious intent of the speaker. Why would Job start to speak about his Redeemer, and then suddenly switch to a different person that he is going to see?

Why couldn't he?

 

[NWL]

Job 19:25-27 KJV
(25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

Ah, the confusion enters because you seemed to backpedal a bit when I brought up that the context and framing of this passage is not a whimsical lucky guess that Job would behold a windstorm, and the language is not such that it would apply to any time in his current lifetime. Twice he repeats that this is something that would require his physical flesh to be restored, and twice he states that he shall see God with his physical form, in the flesh, and with his very eyes, for himself. This repetition requires a literal sense, not a symbolic.

"This repetition requires a literal sense, not a symbolic" Says who, you? Show me an example where a repetition of language demands that the things being spoken about be literal, don't make a claim without evidence.

Show me where job "states" he will see God in a "physical form" as you claim? Nowhere do we find that Job saying he will see God in a physical form, he merely states he will see God.

When God spoke to Job out of the windstorm and Job saw God, did Job literally see a physical manifestation when he states "now I do see you with my eyes"? See Job 38:1 and Job 42:5.

You may allow that Job has "seen" God in a metaphorical sense, but Job's prophecy says that the day is coming when he shall see God in the literal sense. When and how does he say this happen? When his redeemer returns and stands upon the earth in the latter day.

Job undeniably did see God is a metaphorical as seen by Job 42:5, the question you need to ask yourself is why are the two times Job says he "saw God" and "will see God" different types if "seeing", why can't they both be metaphorical instead of only one being literal, what grammatical or contextual reasons do you separate the two, or is it just because you want them to be different that they're different?

But if I understand correctly, the JW doctrine doesn't allow for God to ever stand upon the earth and be seen with the naked eye in the latter day.

In a symbolic sense yes he can. The earth is Gods footstool, I certainly hope you don't believe God has his literal feet resting on the earth as we speak.

 

[God's Truth]

Correction: Paul is speaking about the Law verses the Spirit.

The letter is literally the Law. There is no "spirit of the law."

Remember what I said earlier? Letter and Law are synonymous.

The law is Spiritual.

Romans 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual;

 

[JudgeRightly]

They refuse to look at the truth that God Himself really came as a Man, and as a Man He had some limitations.

He didn't know some things while in the flesh, he prayed to the Father while in the flesh, he suffered and died while in the flesh.

The Father, as a Man, prayed to the Father? So He prayed to Himself?

 

[God's Truth]

Christ is made manifest through the Holy Spirit. Christ is not the father! They communicate with one another, they are not the same, i don't pray to myself, or ask myself for help and I'm not under subjection to myself etc. These are things that Jesus did with the father thus he is not the father.

Who said you are to pray to yourself?

And, what don’t you get about there being three?

This is about God not about you.

Not only that, I gave you scripture that PLAINLY says THE LORD IS THE SPIRIT.

Lean not on your own understanding, believe what is written.

 

[JudgeRightly]

Nowhere in scripture is God called an angel, show me the verse that states God is an angel.

It doesn't say that He is, but it does call Him

Now Jacob heard the words of Laban’s sons, saying, “Jacob has taken away all that was our father’s, and from what was our father’s he has acquired all this wealth.”And Jacob saw the countenance of Laban, and indeed it was not favorable toward him as before. Then the Lord said to Jacob, “Return to the land of your fathers and to your family, and I will be with you.” - Genesis 31:1-3 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis31:1-3&version=NKJV
And
“And it happened, at the time when the flocks conceived, that I lifted my eyes and saw in a dream, and behold, the rams which leaped upon the flocks were streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted.Then the Angel of God spoke to me in a dream, saying, ‘Jacob.’ And I said, ‘Here I am.’And He said, ‘Lift your eyes now and see, all the rams which leap on the flocks are streaked, speckled, and gray-spotted; for I have seen all that Laban is doing to you.I am the God of Bethel, where you anointed the pillar and where you made a vow to Me. Now arise, get out of this land, and return to the land of your family.’” - Genesis 31:10-13 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis31:10-13&version=NKJV

Now Moses was tending the flock of Jethro his father-in-law, the priest of Midian. And he led the flock to the back of the desert, and came to Horeb, the mountain of God.And the Angel of the Lord appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush. So he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, but the bush was not consumed.Then Moses said, “I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn.”So when the Lord saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, “Moses, Moses!” And he said, “Here I am.”Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.”Moreover He said, “I am the God of your father—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God. - Exodus 3:1-6 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus3:1-6&version=NKJV

The "Angel of the LORD" is Jesus, preincarnate. And He claims to be God, because He is God.

This is gold!! :chuckle: I show a clear example how your understanding is wrong and your reply back is basically "interesting, but I'm going to ignore it". You can't just dismiss this point and try and excuse yourself by saying its nit relevant, it's entirely relevant.

Your whole argument hinges on the fact that you believe Moses litreally saw God because it says face-to-face, I objected to this stating the term face-to-face doesn't have to be a litreal seeing of God, I showed you clear undeniable proof and you outright rejected it.

Other than you simply wanting it to mean something different, what are your linguistic reasons that Moses seeing God "face-to-face" was any different with the Israelite's seeing God "face-to-face", for what reasons do the same terms mean completely different things?

When it says Moses saw God face-to-face did Moses see Gods face?

It does not contradicts my understanding of the scriptures, Moses asks to see Gods "glory", God speaking in human terms states he cannot see his "face". Considering the fact that Moses ask not to see Gods face but his glory, God must have been referring to the fullness of Gods glory when he mentioned not being able to see his face. God goes onto say that he will allow him to see "his back", this must refer to the after effect of Gods presence, this is clear by what Gods futher says to Moses "And it has to occur that while my glory is passing by I must place you in a hole in the rock, and I must put my palm over you as a screen until I have passed by. 23 After that I must take my palm away, and you will indeed see my back. But my face may not be seen"

God clearly states that Moses will see him "after he has passed by", he states that "his glory" and not an physical embodiment will be the thing passing by. Taking all this into account no contradiction is found since Moses did not see God but the back of Gods glory and not God himself.

Why couldn't he?

 

[God's Truth]

The Father, as a Man, prayed to the Father? So He prayed to Himself?

There are three.

Who should a man pray to?

And, Jesus said he knew that the Father always hears him, but he said what he did for our benefit.

John 11:42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."

 

[JudgeRightly]

The law is Spiritual.

Romans 7:14 We know that the law is spiritual;

Once again, taking things out of context... You seem to be really good at that, GT. You also are attempting to shoehorn in that we ahould obey the law because it is spiritual. Yet that not only is not the point I'm making, but it's also wrong.

Of course the Law is spiritual, because it comes from THE Spirit, which us God. But the law and the Spirit are two different things, or do you really think that the Law is God?

Spirit and spiritual are also two different concepts.

My point is that there is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." That's a misunderstanding of the text.

 

[God's Truth]

No and it doesn't say that he is God either, but those scriptures show that the father is God, and that God is in and through Christ Jesus, not that he is God. Also, there are many many scriptures that show us that God is also the God and father of Jesus Christ. How can you not see all the scriptures, that can clearly show that the father isn't the son?

You just ignored all the scriptures that say the Lord is the Spirit.

You just ignored the scriptures completely.

I gave you scriptures that plainly say the Spirit is the Spirit of God and that it is the Lord Jesus Christ.

But there are many scriptures which show us that Jesus is the son of God, and according to Jesus and the apostles, that's what I am to believe to be saved and none of them say that I have to believe that Jesus is God to be saved. So I believe what Jesus taught us to believe by Jesus himself! That he is the son of God and that he is the Christ!

If that's not good enough for you and others then so be it, but according to Jesus it is, and I hear and follow him and no-one else!

It is good to add to your faith knowledge. Knowledge brings peace. How can one ignore the scriptures? God the Father came as a Son of Man in the flesh.

 

[God's Truth]

Once again, taking things out of context... You seem to be really good at that, GT. You also are attempting to shoehorn in that we ahould obey the law because it is spiritual. Yet that not only is not the point I'm making, but it's also wrong.

Of course the Law is spiritual, because it comes from THE Spirit, which us God. But the law and the Spirit are two different things, or do you really think that the Law is God?

Spirit and spiritual are also two different concepts.

My point is that there is no such thing as "the spirit of the law." That's a misunderstanding of the text.

You seemed so upset that I gave scripture that shows you that you said something wrong.

 

[JudgeRightly]

There are three.

Who should a man pray to?

And, Jesus said he knew that the Father always hears him, but he said what he did for our benefit.

John 11:42 I knew that you always hear me, but I said this for the benefit of the people standing here, that they may believe that you sent me."

You just ignored all the scriptures that say the Lord is the Spirit.

You just ignored the scriptures completely.

I gave you scriptures that plainly say the Spirit is the Spirit of God and that it is the Lord Jesus Christ.



It is good to add to your faith knowledge. Knowledge brings peace. How can one ignore the scriptures? God the Father came as a Son of Man in the flesh.

Do you not see how you're contradicting yourself? First you say Jesus says that the Father always hears Him, as if He's a separate entity, then you say "God the Father came as a Son of Man in the Flesh." make up your mind, Is the Father the same entity as the Son? Or is He a different entity than the Son? He can't be both.