>>17928668
>Exactly the same as what I say about the Trinity.
Nope, again the attribute of speech never incarnates and is indivisible from God like a part is. At most you can make the argument that an instance of speech does, however that itself is never God.
>God still spoke when Jesus was incarnate
I never said the Son became unavailable during his incarnation. In fact many trinitraians believe he was fully divine even while on Earth.
>Mainstream Christians adamantly deny that Jesus is a created being.
Yes because your theology demands it. However as shown the bible clearly says otherwise. And it's not just there, the church fathers prior also held similar opinions
>Surah 19 is extremely adamant that it's obscene to utter that Allah has a son
Yes a literal son, as in offspring. That's not the biblical definition though, for example Israel is the son of God and there are others beside Jesus
>would it be accurate to say that they are powerless?
On their own they wouldn't be able to do anything yes. For something to be God it must have inherent power, and that excludes Jesus
>So then we can do something the divine can't.
Yes, "God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?" - Numbers 23:19
>God is perfectly capable of arranging ink or vibrating air
That's passive deception and not lying. And yes that exists in the bible. However it is not the same thing as God uttering falsehood
>quasi-independent attributes
They aren't attributes and they aren't independent in any sense of the word. Everything is dependent on God, he is the necessary being.
>It's not a question of divinity but separation from divinity.
Wut? He makes it clear he wants believers to be one in the Father the exact same way he is. Do you believe in theosis like the mormons/orthodox or something?
>As historical sources
Great, still your own opinion is more important than tradition