Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

Immutability of the SonCon's argument on immutablitiy won't work. He wrote several points of agreements/premises in which I agree and then he goes on refuting my stance on Christ's immutability, apparently, in his incarnate status.My opponent argues that the incarnation requires (1) a change of form and that (2) to incarnate without changes is impossible.The scriptures per se refutes my opponent's Preincarnate Jesus and Immutability Argument:In Philippians 2:6 -7, Paul said that the Pre-incarnate Jesus is existing ( Greek: huparchon) in form of God and afterwards chose to empty himself , having taken upon( Greek: labon)the form of a human slave via becoming in the likeness of men. The text is clear, Jesus always exists in God's form and then he took upon himself the form of a human slave. As we can all see and read, Jesus did not cease to exists in God's form but on the contrary, he take to himself (to take is to add in never to give out) to himself the form of a human slave.Therefore, the argument of Con about the impossiblity of the incarnation without changes is null and void considering that the Scriptures per se testifies that Jesus did not change in form but that he just took upon himself i.e. added unto himself the form of a human slave.On ObedienceIt seems like my opponent would not want to check out the verses that I had use for proof so that he's asking more. So to satiate his peculiar longings here it is: The Father is greater than I - John 14:28 (Functional Subordination) The Word was God* - John 1:1 ( Ontological equality)* God ( Greek: theos, anarthrous), referring to all the complete nature which God has.On Personhood and NatureMy opponent got so unfair in this. He said that I got " unbearably intellectually dishonest" when in fact, he's the one who deserves such fury. Here's why: I elucidated in the second and third rounds that the Greek word "hupostasis" as used in Hebrews 1:3 denotes " nature and personhood" per se. I provided Greek Lexicons for verification of my proof and yet it seems like my opponent didn't even bother to consider it. Of course, those "qualities" and "traits" of omniscience, immutability,etc. are already encapsulated in the word nature. In other words, it wasn't just a trait or a quality that Jesus is the exact imprint of but the nature itself. Furthermore, I see that my opponent appeals KJV's translation of the said verse which has flawed in this very verse. Unless my opponent is KJV onlyists he cannot argue with the definition of the Greek word "hupostaseos" in Hebrews 1:3 as " actual being, substance,nature".To be clear enough, let me explicate further for everyone to see my opponent's blunder in insisting the translation "express image of his person" as more authoritative than that of NIV's and ESV"s:There is no specific word either Greek or Latin for our modern sense of the word" person" in the first century C.E.The definition of person that we have today came from the theological systematization about the Trinity is the post-apostolic era.Person means " a rational and individual entity having distinct andincommunicable existence/reality, emotion and volition" But we have the word's that would eventually evolved into like that of today's denotation of person: Prosopon ( Greek), denotes " face" , from " mask" used by actors of old.Persona ( Latin),denotes the same thing as the Greek word prosopon.These words, however, does connote personhood per se in the first century. To be in the " face" of someone is to be "present visually" with that someone without you being that someone. That is, prosopon and persona denotes one aspect of personhood which is individuality.This sense is already in use at the time of the Apostles extending to Hyppollitus in the 2nd century. The modern definition we today has its origin in the 4th- 5th century.Hence, my stance on Heb 1:3's hupostaseos as " nature,substance, actual being" stands and my opponent just had saw, not just one, but lots of good reasons why my argument is sound.On Goodness My peer readers, please enjoy the show, for my opponent is in great peril about his bane arguments:Con, my opponent, said, In a desperate attempt to claim that I've somehow proved him right, my opponent misinterpreted my claim that Jesus and God are equally good.Again, for everyone to see that I'm not lying or making things up I'll show that my opponent's accusation to me as desperate is utterly a escapegoat. Here's my opponent's own words per se:My opponent has clearly misunderstood this verse, which only says that Jesus and God were equal in goodness and person, but it doesn't go anywhere near the claim that Jesus is exactly like God in all traits and characteristics.So, my question is, did I misinterpreted my opponent? Logically and contextaully, I don't think so. I appreciated my opponent's stance on Mark 10:18.Thank YouConcluding words:I have refuted every argument my opponent has to me. I notice that he is not taking full attention to the facts that I've given. Nevertheless, I always answer with clarification and put forth substantial evidences that suffice. Let my opponent elucidate and bring on the real knockdown punch he's talking about and not just sugar-coated babbling words.