Jesus is homoousios with the Father before creation

My opponent has clearly misapprehended the debate topic that I had proposed. He claims that it implies bane contradiction. I intended to put forth a debate concerning the sameness in nature of both the Father and the Son anterior to creation. I do not mean that Jesus is only homoousios with the Father in his pre-human status but on the contrary, as I already expressed in Round 1, the debate would be about the divinity of the Son in his preincarnate state. In other words, I must prove that before the Son became flesh he is truly and fully God unlike Arians who taught that he is not homoousios with the Father before creation began. Therefore, Con didn't prove me wrong. He just made an assertion without even examining the context of the discussion.On Omnipresence and ImmutabilityMy opponent has made fallacious arguments about the belief that I supposedly upheld. His response is clearly about Chalcedonian Christology in which as I see he's not cognizant at all. So let me explain bit by bit, It is groundless to say that Jesus wasn't omnipresent when he was in the flesh. It is because he has the nature of the Father per John 1:1 and the Father's nature includes omnipresence as Psalm 139:7-10 says. The right thing to affrim is that Jesus is omnipresent albeit in the flesh. How is this so? It's the same with the Father. The Father is omnipresent, that is, he's present everywhere at the very same time. Does this mean that he is physically present everywhere? No. It's because the nature of his omnipresence is bound in his aseity as spirit for he is spirit as John 4:24 says. So, Christ is still omnipresent even though he's in the flesh because his omnipresence was never ascribed unto his manhood but to his deity.Concerning the immutability of the Word, in the flesh, he was still completely God. Nothing was ever changed in his divinity. He is the self-same Son who is of same nature with the Father. As I clearly perceived, my opponent is incognizant about the doctrine of the Incarnation and as such, deemed it illogical per se. He asserts that the the Son changed as he assumed human nature.So let me elucidate the logicality of the Incarnation: The Incarnation is possible for three logical reasons: (1) It doesn't make the Son not Almighty but on the contrary it proves that he is Almighty. (2) It doesn't contradict or violate the Son's immutability.He didn't transform or change into human like in Greek mythologies. (3)The fact that the Son chose to become flesh proves that it is possible. Therefore,it is very locigal as it is scriptural to believe that Jesus is a single person who has two distinct unmixed but united natures of divinity and humanity. By the way, in Christology this is called "hypostatic Union".Because Con brought up the omnipresence of Christ, I will also discuss about the Omniscience and Omnipotence of Christ which is a great need to know, not only by my opponent, but also of all our peers.On Omniscience of ChristJesus knows all things. There's nothing hidden to him. He knows everything but this is his trait per se which he has control with. He has volition to not use his omniscience. In other words, he can choose to not use his ability to know all things and this is what happened in the incarnation.He concealed his knowledge via his flesh. Jesus assumed human nature and human nature includes human body and human spirit. Jesus' divine mind is inevitably and literally concealed so that he doesn't know even his return unless he was given authority (i.e. permission) to use that omniscience he has.Again, to put it in simpler terms, ability is different from authority because in Christ, he the the ability, as God, to know the time of his return but on the otherhand, he , the Son per se, has either the authority from his Father to use it or otherwise he can't use it. The fact that Jesus can't use his omniscience at Mark 13:32 because of lack of authority or permission to do so, doesn't prove that he is not omniscient as God but only proves further that he is the Son in his intrinsic function, of same nature with the Father.On Omnipotence of ChristJesus is All-powerful. He can do all things( except sin). He has the ability to do all things but doesn't have authority to do so unless given by the Father.A classic example of this is explicitly found in John 17:2: You( the Father) have given Him (the Son) authority over all flesh, that He(the Son) should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him.( NKJV)It is so clear, the Son was given authority to give eternal life to people means he has the ability to do it!On Obedience Concerning obedience. I believe that in the Trinity there exists a relationship of functional subordination and ontological equality. Functional Subordination means "inferiority in role/rank/status/function/job/office/"Scripturally, The Father is always over the Son just as they are always of one nature.Well, obviously for you to be a Son means the Father is higher in status than you. But this doesn't mean that you're not of same nature with your Father.Ontological equality simply denotes" equality in nature" Scripturally, the Father and the Son are consubstantial.Hebrews 1:3, John 1:1,18, 5:18,26, 10:33 etc.Well, obviously a father is always of same nature with his son. I have a Daddy, his name is Russel Brown and he's human and so am I, for I am his offspring.In Philippians 2:6, the context shows that after assuming the form of a human slave, Jesus "became obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross."As I already discussed, obedience falls into the category of Functional Subordination.Unless my opponent disprove the Trinity, no one could contend against this intra-Trinitarian relations as illogocal, unsound and unscriptural.RefutationContention 1: It seems like my opponent did not appeal to the whole of my written argument. I know that the Father and the Son are unlike their creation but I am bringning up here the aspect wherein the creature and the Creator overlaps via analogy of trait. I quoted the first clause of Hebrews 1:3 and gave a support of its analogy of 'radiance" ( Greek: apaugasma) and 'light' ( Greek: doxa) with contemporary facts that suits it. The writer of Hebrews wants to reveal. The radiance/ effulgence that came from the Light per se is distinct, coeval and consubstantial to it. Contention 2: "The Son is existing as the exact imprint (Greek: hupostaseos) of the Father's very being i.e. nature and personhood (Greek: hupostaseos)."It isn't me but my opponent who clearly misundertood this verse. First, it is very evident that the Son is the exact imprint/copy of the Father's actual being* i.e. nature and personhood.*Actual being(Greek: Hupostaseos, nature, substance,essence, being, actual existence including nature & personhood )http://biblesuite.com...http://www.teknia.com...http://www.blueletterbible.org...http://www.studylight.org...Con said to me: 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.WOW. My opponent clearly contradicts his own statement by saying that Jesus and God were equal in goodness and personand it doesn't go anywhere near the claim that Jesus is exactly like God in all traits and characteristics. "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good--except God alone. Mark 10:18 Con just proved that Jesus is homoousios with the Father. WOW again. Jesus is indeed EQUAL to God in goodness and person because they are of same nature. Con just equated functional subordination with ontological equality and worst of all, he took the verse for granted. Hebrews 1:3b said that the Son is the exact copy of the Father's NATURE and PERSONHOOD ( Greek: hupostaseos)Hence, the Son is a Divine Person exactly like his Father.