>>17930988
>A)
And we have covered that incarnation is literally a logical contradiction and hence it is not a thing. Just like shapeless shapes and other such nonsense. God not being able to do things only weak created beings can like die is not a problem because it is a logical impossibility.
>B)
"The Son and the Holy Spirit are parts of God", you are lying.
>that doesn't indicate that all translations are thereby endorsed
Never said that, however your scripture depends on translation so it's literally scripture. Anyway 5 different ones use my understanding as well as Christian exegetes. You are in fact the odd one out with your insistence that he can lie. This is precisely why you need a third grade reading level bible because regular concepts are too difficult for you
>but it doesn't denote "this is the caused to be the case by"
Yes it does, I highlighted that before and I will do it again in this image. You simply have no way to explain how they got it wrong but you somehow didn't.
>relevance
If I wanted to make a point about the inconsistency of your scripture I would indeed use that point. You are challenging the translation of that specific word and in that case nothing else matters at the moment.
>Do you have any way
Yes, the fitrah and other arguments I could use against an atheist about the necessity of God to exist, send revelation, etc
>bound
He decided this to be creation and that's that. There is no other possibility because he willed it that way. Do you think God doesn't have power over fundamental reality or what?
>use that way
I did, I reject your interpretation of what you think it means and I used the absurdity of you yourself being God under your paradigm to demonstrate it. You can't leave then return to someone that you are always in.
>merely the name
You are just dishonest. The only one ignoring the meaning of established words here is you. Bro you cannot even tell the difference between a part and an attribute.