>>17929963
>we agree on the substance of the matter
You are a liar, no matter how many times you repeat this it won't be true. We don't believe the Quran to be God or a part of him like you do. We don't believe his speech was eternally begotten as an offspring that shares his very nature. This is more neoplatonic pagan philosophy you are inserting into a tradition that has nothing to do with it.
>God could still speak when Jesus was on Earth
I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean you don't believe him to be the actual "attribute" of God. Acts of speech being given a representation is not the same as God's ability to speak incarnating.
>Does this say he can't lie, or that he doesn't?
It says that he does not lie because he isn't a human being since that is within our nature as you keep demonstrating. Which is what you denied previously when you were playing dumb. Later on it says if he were human he might change his mind implying that because he isn't there is no "might" at all
>God won't ever lie. But that's by choice
Nope, in your paradigm there is a possible world where God lies and invalidates the verse.
>How exactly does this apply to our discussion?
Because you are doing the exact same thing, and I am not surprised you haven't even heard of the concept. You seem very uneducated on basic exegesis.
>He can't be separated from the Father if he is in the Father.
The reason you keep coping about muh script is because you don't like what it entails. Jesus is not literally in the Father, that is not what he is saying. It is just another braindead interpretation you keep reading into the text. He is separated from the Father because the text says he left him and will return back to him. How the fuck do you return to someone you never left?