Thread 17866414

If Jesus claims to be God (John 10:30) and God inseminated the Virgin Mary (Matthew 1:18) then that means Jesus impregnated his own mother to give birth to himself in an act of magical incest. Disgusting.

Enjoy hell :)

>>17866414 (OP)
The Father is not the Son.
You are not white.
/thread

>>17866414 (OP)
>I fail to understand the trinity, so that means I can Reddit gotcha you moment with this :)
Why are non-Christians so pathetically retarded?

>>17866414 (OP)
1. Jesus is the Son, not the Father, not the same Person.
2. There was no sex or semen involved in Mary's pregnancy.

>>17866420

Based. Christians have the highest average IQ of any religious group, being 104.4. Norse Pagans average out at 89.1.

>>17866418
>>17866420
>>17866422
John 10:30
>I and the Father are One.

Your conception of the Trinity isn't actually Biblically accurate, it's exegesis (headcanon) introduced later to obfuscate the incestuous connotations of the story.

>>17866427
Trinity is one while being three. Understood?

>>17866432
No because, again, that's not actually Biblical canon.

>>17866437
Explain. What verses refute the trinity?

>>17866439
John 10:30 first of all. You can't claim that Jesus is distinct from the Father when Jesus himself says they're one and the same.

>>17866446
"They are but they also aren't one" isn't a counterargument either. Show me ONE verse that points to that being the case at all. You can't.

>>17866427
>>17866446
>unironically attempting to use John to disprove the trinity
It’s like the retard just breezed past the first paragraph of John as if it meant nothing.

>>17866457
Nothing in that verse addresses any of my points

>>17866449
See
>>17866457
You still can't do it. Why? Because the Trinity as modern Christians understand it was only devised long after-the-fact to obfuscate the incest which is central to their mythology.

>>17866449
>Show me ONE verse
Surely when the Son pledges allegiance to the Father, he is actually pledging allegiance to God. God’s hand is over theirs.

>>17866414 (OP)
Bad way to understand it.
The Christian belief differentiates Jesus Christ "in the flesh" and Jesus Christ after Christ's death and resurrection. Divine incarnation is God (immaterial) taking the form of a man (material) for the salvation of humanity. For incest to occur its orgin would need to be material.
>>17866427
Same Being, same divine nature, manifesting in three different persons.

>>17866417
>Enjoy fiction.
I do.

>>17866446
Nobody is claiming they're distinct, they're one and they're not. What you're struggling to understand is the nature of the trinity from an all powerful God in the first place.
>>17866449
See above. The Father, The Son, and the Holy Spirit.
Philippians 2:4-11
>Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied himself, by taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. herefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

>>17866510
>>17866502
>>17866498
Not ONE real counterargument / verse that supports your position

>>17866446
>John 10:30
Immediately after that the Jews are about to stone Jesus because they assume that he's claiming to be God in saying that, but Jesus seems to imply that they misunderstood him. He clarifies that he's claiming to be God's son and that "the Father is in me and I am in the Father." But Jesus seems to say that Christians can also share that sort of unity with him and with the Father in John 17:20-26, and of course Paul also teaches that Christians can become adopted children of God, that they can be one in a certain sense, and that God can be all in all and Christ can be all and in all.

And at other times Jesus distinguishes himself from the Father, saying "My Father is greater than I."

>>17866517
I just gave you a verse

>>17866520
And that verse doesn't specify them as distinct beings, in fact your verse in Philippians is actually arguing the opposite. You're effectively only proving my point.

>>17866526
Because they're one while being three. So, we've come back in a circle now.

>>17866510
>Nobody is claiming they're distinct
>They're one and they're not
You immediately contradicted yourself here btw. I accept your concession

>>17866517
I just gave you a verse:
>Surely when the Son pledges allegiance to the Father, he is actually pledging allegiance to God. God’s hand is over theirs.

>>17866529
See
>>17866530
Thanks for proving my point to other readers of this thread. You've actually been a huge help.

>>17866530
Not distinct in the way of framing of "They're the same God". They're the same God. 1=3.

>>17866427
John 14:28
“You heard me say, ‘I am going away and I am coming back to you.’ If you loved me, you would be glad that I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I

>>17866547
Later interpolation

>>17866414 (OP)
I never even realized how disgusting the Jesus / Mary relationship was, yikes

>>17866449
>Show me ONE verse
You were given the universe, and still you ask for more.

>>17866657
NTA but what are you even trying to say here?

>>17866517
Well in that case, understand the concepts of injective, bijective and surjective to know better.

>>17866743
>If you don't understand my arguments it's because you haven't bought into the mental gymnastics yet

>>17866418
>>17866420
>somehow only the Father (and not the Son) impregnates Mary according to christiards implying the trinity has distinct external operations and is thus three Gods according to their theologians
welcome to the heresy of polytheism! why can't christians ever get the trinity right?

>>17866417
If the price of going to Heaven is being cool with incest, I'm better off in Hell anyway. You guys follow a freak religion.

>>17866750
>Non-canonical sources outside The Bible
Nice try. Give us verses that directly contradict the Trinity, or kindly fuck off.

>>17866754
If you think Jesus isn't the Father then you think Jesus isn't God. It's that simple.

>>17866760
They're both, so what are we arguing here?

>>17866760
Actually, I apologize. I was too hasty in thinking you were speaking against the trinity. My bad.

>>17866754
>has no verse to support the trinity yet demands someone to disprove of it
why did it take centuries for your doctrine to form again? But anyway here https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2010%3A31-39&version=NIV Jesus denies the accusation levied against him. He responded that they have no basis to accuse him of being God by pointing to the usage in the previous scriptures and also saying he's merely his Son. Did God impregnate Mary? yes or no

>>17866771
I'm not a Catholic, but to answer your question:
>Did God impregnate Mary
Yes, he did, through the Holy Spirit.

>>17866746
Logical concept so well grounded that it's used in mathematics =/= mental gymnastics.
If your belief system isn't the ultimate logical conclusion why even bother?
No wonder that it was the christian clergy who founded the oldest and most prestigious universities in Europe and Americas, as edgy atheists usually don't see the point in engaging in such debates

>>17866762
Because you're arguing they're distinct (such that there is no incest with Mary) while also claiming they're not. You're holding contradictory two positions and then pretending they make sense together.

>>17866775
There's nothing logical about your arguments.
See >>17866777
Pretending math has anything to do with it just reveals you're even dumber than I originally thought.

>>17866774
If God impregnated Mary and Jesus is God, then Jesus impregnated Mary it's quite simple.

>>17866777
They're distinct in the sense that God emptied himself in the Son to live among humans. The Father and The Son are both the same. When we talk about "distinction" we usually think it as something different, but God is different. The Trinity is God in 3 separate forms that are BOTH different and the same.
>>17866781
No, because Jesus was the vessel by God to live among Man. Jesus was God, but not at the same time. Are you guys catching on yet? See the verse I quoted here in Philippians: >>17866510

>>17866786
>Jesus was God but he wasn't
Enjoy Hell

>>17866788
>Deliberate misinterprentation what I said by the resident Satanist bot
Seriously, kill your fucking self already

>>17866788
Btw this entire thread was simply designed for you to eventually deny the divinity of Christ. Your soul is mine now forever.

>>17866789
It's not a misrepresentation
>Jesus was God, but not
That's called "denying Christ." You were never a real Christian

>>17866781
You're now saying Jesus was just a body? According to standard trinitard theology Jesus is the Son. And that means he's a person of the trinity even if incarnated
>If Superman impregnated Lois and Clark is Superman, then Clark impregnated Lois it's quite simple.
Do you agree with this yes or no? And yes the analogy is correct.

>>17866794
No, go fuck yourself. He was both Man as God and God himself. Kill yourself.

>>17866796
this was for >>17866786
btw that verse of yours just shows that the Son stopped being God while he was incarnated

>>17866799
*God as Man
Excuse me

>>17866414 (OP)
How did this bait thread become a trinitarian debate?.

No God didn't have actually physical sex with Mary. The conception was a divine, essentially magic act, a baby just appeared in her womb. No sex, and God the father/ Holy Spirit are non physical formless entities with no "sexual" capacity anyway. The whole point is stupid and bait and I don't know how you got everyone riled up about the fucking Trinity aspect of it

>>17866801
>btw that verse of yours just shows that the Son stopped being God while he was incarnated
No, it doesn't, because "emptying" himself just meant he forwent all his awesome powers to take the form of Jesus Christ. When we speak of an all powerful and all seeing God, we mean that's really what he fucking is - something beyond our comprehension. Emptying himself doesn't mean he put the powers down to zero.

>>17866808
That's a logical contradiction. How can you be subject to death and not subject to death at the same time? How can you lack knowledge and then be omniscient at the same time? His powers must have went to zero because he said that he cannot do anything on his own, and even if he didn't then that just means he powered down to SSJ1. Of course you have no problem with contradictions so I don't expect a satisfactory answer

>>17866816
I honestly don't understand what you're saying right now. "How can you be subject to death and not subject to death at the same time". Mind explaining this?

>>17866827
God is immortal according to the bible. Jesus is God according to you. God as the Son was subject to death and that means God is not immortal and immortal at the same time.

>>17866835
Because the God and Son are one, and when Jesus Christ was placed on this Earth, he took on the form of Man. Immortality was never the point for Jesus, it was to die for the sins of Man. The point is that God was willing to humble himself for the children he loved (that being us) and to present himself as a messianic figure for our sakes. It's not that complicated.

>>17866750
It does not answer the question of the personhood of the trinity, but talks about operations of the named Persons, it does not debunk Trinity but explains what tritheism would be if the operations of them were considered in a certain manner...
>>17866771
The formalisation of the Trinity was a response to Arianism, which denied the divinity of Jesus Christ and Macedonianism, which denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Trinity as a term is a relatively late concept, the truth of the Trinity - God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost being God has been believed by Christians from the beginning.
Clement of Rome, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, and Tertullian, all for example express the Divinity of the Holy Spirit in their writings.
if you want biblical verses confirming this, here are some.
>1 Corinthians 11 27-30
Christian community in Corinth believes in the real presence of God, Jesus Christ in the eucharist, and those who take the Body of Christ in an unworthy manner die due to their disbelief
>1 Corinthians 12 1-8
Affirming the Holy Spirit as God, confirming that the Christian Communities believe this doctrine, equating Christ and Holy Spirit in divinity
>Galatians 5 16-26
Equating the Holy Spirit to God (Belief equating God to good and God being the source of good, so the desires of the flesh contradict this since they lead away from said good - John 8:34, Matthew 5:28) and confirming that Galatians believed in the divinity of the Holy Spirit.
I've focused solely on the Holy Spirit here since Jesus Christ confirms divinity himself and accepts worship, also boosted by Paul's writings, in a way it's kind of obvious when one reads it, hence one can easily conclude that early Christians believed in it.
So in conclusion the Trinity is a term, the official doctrine was a response to Arianism but the truth of the Trinity (its teaching) has been taught and practiced since the beginning.

>>17866805
>a baby just appeared in her womb. No sex
Fertilization of Mary's eggs had to happen for Jesus to be from the lineage of David. And since Jesus was fully human too that means he must have had entirely human genetics. And that means Jesus materialized sperm into her womb
>>17866843
>he took on the form of Man
Yes and he lost his immortality so he could die. Either he stopped being God on Earth or you've got a contradiction

>>17866802
>>17866799
Sorry for bursting your bubble, but you never actually believed in Christ.

>>17866816
>Christianity is wrong becuase a king can't rule at 2 periods in time, once when he's 22 and once when he's 42

>>17866852
He never "lost the immortality" he just died in the designated place. I already said that God emptied himself in the form of Jesus Christ, so why do you keep continuing to argue that Jesus was actually God in his full power? The Trinity feels like such a simple thing to believe in, but apparently it still causes so much confusion lol

>>17866858
True though
Paul warns against the use of profane language and Christ himselves urges us to be as wise as serpens but as innocent as doves, it's better to not defend Christianity at all than defend it like this.

>>17866876
No, not true with this fuck. I've seen this well poisoning snake multiple times in threads before. He's nowhere near a real Christian, and needs to put a double barrel into the roof of his mouth.

>>17866884
You're the one denying the divinity of Christ trying to lead others into Hell with you with your devil-inspired misunderstanding of the Trinity.

>>17866849
>but talks about operations of the named Persons
Yes and people here are denying they are one and the same just so Jesus doesn't impregnate his own mother.
>Trinity as a term is a relatively late concept, the truth of the Trinity - God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost being God has been believed by Christians from the beginning.
Nobody is talking about the term, who the fuck cares what you call it? The problem is the very same people that read those verses early on did not believe in a triune being that's coeternal and coequal. You think those heretical groups did not read the same verses as you? Of course they did, what happened was just a political victory.
>>17866861
>He never "lost the immortality" he just died
Are you listening to yourself? To be immortal means to not experience death. the Son experienced death so he lost his immortality. It's an essential attribute of God that Jesus just did not posses
>why do you keep continuing to argue that Jesus was actually God in his full power
Because that's what your tradition teaches. He's fully God and fully man

>>17866859
hahaha, is that why you have manuscripts that correct it?

>>17866892
>Are you listening to yourself? To be immortal means to not experience death. the Son experienced death so he lost his immortality. It's an essential attribute of God that Jesus just did not posses
What does God emptying himself not explain to you?
>Because that's what your tradition teaches. He's fully God and fully man
Exactly, he's both God and man. Is man immortal? God lowering himself to the state of man means what?

>>17866884
True Christians realise that no argument could be lost as truth is always on their side, even when someone poisons the well it's hard to lose unless you specifically try to. There is no debate, it's just locical truth and falsehood, and a Christian job is to express his beliefs which are the truth, meaning that the only way then can lose said argument is if they themselves don't believe in truth they preach. Repentance starts in us, the greatest enemy of Christianity is not Islam, not atheism, it's those who believe in it themselves.

>>17866902
>God lowering himself to the state of man means what?
Again, you're arguing Jesus wasn't God which makes you an antichrist, not a Christian

>>17866906
I'm arguing the exact opposite. Jesus was God. What is so confusing to you?

>>17866902
>What does God emptying himself not explain to you?
It doesn't explain anything. What does that even mean? is a God that emptied himself still immortal? yes or no
>Is man immortal? God lowering himself to the state of man means what?
No man is not immortal and that's why it is a logical contradiction for a being to posses immortality and not immortality at the same time.

>>17866911
>It doesn't explain anything. What does that even mean? is a God that emptied himself still immortal? yes or no
A god emptying himself to the form of man to die for their sins doesn't imply immortality, no. He's still God, because God allowed himself to die. Does that answer your question?
>No man is not immortal and that's why it is a logical contradiction for a being to posses immortality and not immortality at the same time.
And yet Jesus was resurrected, so...

>>17866918
>A god emptying himself to the form of man to die for their sins doesn't imply immortality,
It answers my question it means God was not immortal at that point in time. However that's like saying God is not omnipotent anymore. That being lost the divine making properties and is thus not God. The bible admits Jews had a problem with the idea of a messiah dying, which was just a man in their theology. If it doesn't make sense for him to die then how the fuck would it make sense for God to die?
>And yet Jesus was resurrected, so...
We all will be resurrected, are we immortal now?

>>17866892
St. Justin Martyr was not an Arian.
St. Ignatius of Antioch was not a Patripassian/Modalist
St Hippolytus was not a photinian.
A single google search will tell you this probably. Idk where you're pulling your sources from.

Tertullian embraced Montanism thus falling into heresy, but provides a historical source of what Christians believed, which is what you wanted.
>Yes and people here are denying they are one and the same just so Jesus doesn't impregnate his own mother.
Immaculate conception, there was no sex, and if if true, God being immaterial would differ from Christ being "in the flesh", in which Christ restricts himself voluntarily from immaterial divinehood as he took on a human form.
>Nobody is talking about the term
Your post does, like one sentence below the highlighted section, and i talked about teaching the doctrine of Trinity as a formality if you'd have cared to read it...
>The problem is the very same people that read those verses early on did not believe in a triune being that's coeternal and coequal.
Read the verses again, equating God, Holy Spirit and Christ is equating them in divinity, meaning that they also share divine properties - being coeternal, and hence God is one - coequal, as god can't be split or turned into 3 (1 Corinthians 11, same verse you skipped)

>>17866928
>It answers my question it means God was not immortal at that point in time. However that's like saying God is not omnipotent anymore. That being lost the divine making properties and is thus not God. The bible admits Jews had a problem with the idea of a messiah dying, which was just a man in their theology. If it doesn't make sense for him to die then how the fuck would it make sense for God to die?
What we have here is a fundamental misunderstanding on what The Trinity truly means. God sent himself in the Son to die for our sins. God is always, God is powerful, God is everything. The question you're asking is "How can heckin Jesus die if he's immortal?!", but I've already answered this. The thing you have to start doing is to start framing God in a light that is not only all powerful, but also all loving. He never had to humble himself into a state where he had to be crucified, nails in hand and feet, but he did anyway, because that's how much he loves us. He's not a pretentious and self-important God, he'll do whatever it takes to get his message across.
>We all will be resurrected, are we immortal now?
No, clearly not. We're not immortal now, same as Jesus.

>>17866910
You're changing up your arguments at the drop of a hat while consistently contradicting yourself.

>>17866897
>Manuscripts
If you haven't noticed, it's copied by hand, so mistakes tend to occur.
Christians do not believe that Bible fell from heaven btw, the people who experienced this events had the right to decide what was cannonical and what not, divine inspiration is a concept and so the spiritual truth is always preserved.

>>17866938
>Idk where you're pulling your sources from.
John Henry Cardinal Newman - An Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine-University of Notre Dame Pess (1994). It says that if you read their material that's what it makes them. And I have read some of the fathers myself and indeed they have extremely heretical beliefs. I am talking about the ones before Nicaea. For example do you believe the Son is eternally begotten? Justin Martyr thinks God cannot be begotten
>God being immaterial would differ from Christ being "in the flesh"
Immaculate conception can be understood as just a preservation of Mary's innocence/virginity. There was sex in the sense that actual human chromosomes had to be created, I didn't imply penetration but it is sexual reproduction using a sperm cell. And yes I am talking merely about the flesh here.
>meaning that they also share divine properties
That's entirely up to interpretation, I am already playing this game with a christian in another thread and I don't want to start here. But here's a clue, unitarians do not hold onto your interpretation
>>17866943
>The thing you have to start doing is to start framing God in a light that is not only all powerful, but also all loving.
A loving God would not demand human sacrifice to forgive people, no blood has to be paid and I can cite you numerous passages from the bible that demonstrates this so don't bother citing justice. Paulian theology is alien to Jesus. You think anyone expected God to commit suicide by centurion prior to him?
>He never had to humble himself into a state where he had to be crucified, nails in hand and feet, but he did anyway, because that's how much he loves us
Of course he didn't have to do it and that's because christian theology is absolutely nonsensical. God can show love without crucifixion.
>No, clearly not. We're not immortal now, same as Jesus.
Great and that means while the Son was incarnated as Jesus he was not God because he lacked what makes a being God.

>>17866953
You just admitted that the inspiration used to compile your book was not perfect, and that means the bible is not the infallible word of but the works of men which can contain anything. Why isn't the book of Jubilees canon to you but to other Christians it is?

>>17867012
>A loving God would not demand human sacrifice to forgive people, no blood has to be paid and I can cite you numerous passages from the bible that demonstrates this so don't bother citing justice. Paulian theology is alien to Jesus. You think anyone expected God to commit suicide by centurion prior to him?
You're right, the loving God we have today doesn't demand human sacrifice, which is what makes his own sacrifice on the cross all the more poignant and meaningful.

Point being is that no matter your misunderstanding of The Trinity, God is always the focal point.

Hail Mary full of grace, the Lord is with thee
Blessed art thou amongst women and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary Mother of God, pray for us sinners now and at the hour of our death, amen

Your holy mama loves you, even if you don't love her
And she's praying for you

>>17867896
Catholics are literally polytheists lol

>>17867023
Not what I'm saying, Christians believe that the Bible is the word of God, but it wasn't written by God (we are not Muslims or Mormons), but by the Magisterium (people who experienced these events). The Bible focuses on teaching spiritual truths, not fideism, so a scripting error has no effect on it unless it changes the whole narrative (which cannot happen since the primary sources on Greek and Hebrew were unchanging)

>>17867012
> I didn't imply penetration but it is sexual reproduction using a sperm cell.
Doesn't have to be, an embryio is a group of totipotent sem cells and could be formed by other means such as Somatic cell nuclear transfer.
>But here's a clue, unitarians do not hold onto your interpretation
Becuase they're heretics and deny what the early Christians believed (as provided to you by the actual verses you asked for.)
They've been bashed by every major denomination since all christian denominations agree on the truine God.
>Justin Martyr thinks God cannot be begotten
May be a difference of understanding for 2 reasons.
1. The Father cannot be gegotten and the Father is God
2. The person (the Son) could be begotten since otherwise it would be illogical and beyond our reason, as nothing which implies a contradiction is a counter to omnipotence of God.

>>17870265
Enjoy Hell

>>17871035
My beliefs won't allow me to, sorry

>>17871057
Your beliefs are antichristian and you're trying to drag other Christians to Hell with you by asserting that Jesus was not the Father (despite John 10:30) so, yes, to Hell with you.

>>17871062
John 10:30
>I and The Father are one
Congarats, you've just proved the Trinity since you confirm that God can show Himself in 2 persons.

1 Corinthians 12 1-8
1 Corinthians 11 27-30
Galatians 5 16-26
>Holy Spirit is God
If you deny the above, you're commiting Macedonianism

>>17871068
I don't think you understand what "are One" means. They're not 2 persons, they're one and the same. You don't actually believe Jesus is God and that's why you're Hellbound.

>>17871086
Look, if you believe that there is 1 God like the Jews do, you deny the divinity of Jesus Christ and The Holy Spirit making you an arian. If you believe that Jesus Christ is God you're in a clutch since you believe that a God is transcendent and above us but also, human, who claims to be the living Son and claims to be God, vastly different than for example the burning bush in which the bush was only a means of revelation, as the Son existed enternally (John 8:58).
So how do you account for
Christians solve this problem by implementing the "personhood" (hypostases - (ὑπόστασις)) of God, not persons in classical sense as you an me it refers to the individual, distinct, and self-subsistent realities of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit within the one God. As Itself attributes certain properties to Each. We know this becuase Jesus Christ actively prays to the Father John 17:5, Matthew 6:9-13, Matthew 26:39 (Will of the Tather in this case being seen as distinct). Evidence for this comes from John 3:16;
>For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
and John 14:26;
>But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.
If God could not be described in terms of persons/hypostases, we would not observe this, as God would not mention the Son and The Holy spirit in a distinct way. Hence we deduce the Trinity.

2 Timothy 2:25
>Opponents must be gently instructed, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth,
Christians ought to believe that the state of each soul is known only to God, so they have no authority to proclaim to someone that they'll be going to hell (James 4:12, Romans 2:1-3, (James 4:11-12, Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-42), as only God can do that. Perhaps actually read what you're condeming about.

>>17871086
2/2
Furthermore i could give you biblical evidence of the distinct attributes of said persons of the Trinity and how it ties into our understanding of the mystery of the Trinity, but it's gonna take a while, as Bible is a very long book.

>>17866414 (OP)
Most Satanic thread on /his/ currently

>>17869326
>errors are okay if they are arbitrarily small
That's such a subjective standard. There are numerous errors which can impact theology that made it into the manuscripts which you depend on. You still haven't explained why your claim to the Holy Spirit inspiring your Magisterium is more valid than other churches claiming the same thing and coming to different conclusions. Even within your traditions you had church father saints doubting the inspiration of books you canonized such as Athanasius.

>>17870265
>Somatic cell nuclear transfer.
Wait a minute are you now saying Jesus is a clone of Mary? So he impregnated his own mother who is also his own sister to give birth to himself? How does he even have a Father at this point?
>since all christian denominations agree on the truine God
No they absolutely do not. What you've done here is claim they are no true Christians by presupposing your ideas about God just must be true a priori and no other interpretation would do.
>1. The Father cannot be begotten and the Father is God
Is that an essential property of the Father's nature or just the divine nature? If it's the first then the Father cannot be the same God as the Son because their natures are different. And if it is the second then the Son lacks an essential property of God and is thus not God. If it's neither then you are acknowledging that it's possible for there to be other beings with aseity beside God.
>2. The person (the Son) could be begotten since otherwise it would be illogical and beyond our reason, as nothing which implies a contradiction is a counter to omnipotence of God.
See the thing is he said God cannot be begotten, not just the Father. It's consistent with his other ideas such as saying there's another god that's subservient to the one true God.

>>17866420
Nothing in OP's post is heretical, it's Biblical canon that Jesus is a child of incest.

Jesus never claimed to be god and the virgin birth is fanfiction.

>>17872035
Obey Jesus.

>>17866414 (OP)
Jesus 'in the flesh' (i.e. human form) and Jesus as The Son portion of the Trinity are not necessarily identical, though they are the same. The Son has existed as part of the Trinity for eternity before Christ became flesh.

>>17872198
What's the difference between them? Did the Son die on the cross?

THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS

>>17872281
What is the problem with what he said? The being that impregnated Mary is both the Father and the Son

>>17872216
Yes, the Son died on the cross. The Son has always existed, as has the Father and the Holy Spirit, as part of the whole (i.e. as one). Jesus is both separate to God and also God, in flesh form.

The easiest way to think of it is that Jesus is God in human form. He is God brought into flesh and experiencing all that entails, from agonising pain to anger to happiness. He experienced every weakness of the flesh.