>>17930297
>not on the substance of the matter.
You are literally repeating yourself ahaha. I already explained to you how. Your theologians btw admit that their external actions cannot be independent or else you are a polytheist.
>otherwise it wouldn't have been available for God to be able to speak
That does not follow. Trinitarians do not believe that the divinity of Jesus was reduced when he humbled himself.
>Where is a causal word like "because" used?
I literally quoted it in the image here >>17929654
>This information is not actually present in the text
Reading comprehension issues or just dishonesty? It says if he were human he might do it. That word tells us there is a possibility in the human case.
>You do know "possible worlds" aren't real places?
Under your paradigm there is nothing stopping them from actualizing, especially given an infinite amount of time. The probability only keeps increasing.
>How do you figure?
Are you that dense? You are imposing your concept of what a word is supposed to mean onto our tradition just because a similar word is used. Nobody accepts your nonsense about the attributes of God. Dr. Alan Kurschner is a christian scholar.
>I'm not using the passage to argue that Jesus is God
And I never implied that. I said he isn't literally in the Father because I reject your unjustified interpretation. Your only way out is to concede that you too are in the Father in the very same way he is. In other words checkmate, either you use a sane understanding or become a heretic