(and dies as their representative).
Can you really die that Christ stands as the representative of man in regards to Atonement?
This statement is a little vague, so I apologize if you are not saying He was not.
Yes it is God the Father that speaks in Isaiah, and it is the multitudinous Son of Man that speaks in Revelation 1.
"Multitudinous Son of Man?"
It is the Alpha and Omega, Trevor, the First and the Last...that speaks in both.
It is God speaking.
Here we see Him speak again:
Revelation 22:10-13
King James Version (KJV)
10 And he saith unto me, Seal not the sayings of the prophecy of this book: for the time is at hand.
11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
12 And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
13 I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Who is coming, Trevor?
Yes God the Father is revealed in and through this Son of Man. And it was Jesus, and not God the Father that died.
Agreed, God is Eternal, He cannot die.
Unless He manifests in physical, human flesh for that purpose.
Philippians 2:5-8
King James Version (KJV)
4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.
5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
Now you correct me if I am wrong, but I am going to say that your view forces you to view this as Christ in physical form only, meaning that the Mind of Christ in looking on the things of others applies to after He was born.
Am I right?
But it is clear that this Mind was prior to the Incarnation, because Christ did not think it was robbery to be equal with God after He was born.
Christ did not make Himself of no reputation after He was born.
Christ did not take upon Himself the form of a servant after He was born.
Christ was not made in the likeness of men after He was born.
Christ was not found in fashion as a man after He was born.
We could make an application and say "Sure Christ made Himself of no reputation after He was born, and we might even stretch He took upon Himself the form of a servant after He was born, but it will not explain the rest of the statement.
This show's the pre-existence of Christ, my friend.
My answer to this is the following and notice the past tense:
Psalm 8:5 (KJV): For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.
The writer of Hebrews quotes this Psalm with an application to Christ:
Hebrews 2:6-9
King James Version (KJV)
6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visitest him?
7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:
8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
And just as I said in an earlier post...we have to recognize the Incarnation in this discussion. If that is left out, then both sides will make an error that will hinder the discussion. No-one denies that Christ has a point in time when He came into the world. The point to discuss is...
...His pre-existence prior to the Incarnation. And we see that in numerous places, Scripture identifying Him as the Creator Himself.
We see that in Hebrews as well:
Hebrews 1:7-13
King James Version (KJV)
7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.
10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:
11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;
12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.
13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
This is a conversation in which the Father speaks unto the Son.
He is the Creator, as we saw in other passages.
It was simply stated that some believed the Trinity and we were simply instructed that the Bible clearly teaches that there is One God the Father and that our Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. We were then given a few simple proof-texts, for example Deuteronomy 6:4 and 1 Corinthians 8:6.
Kind regards
Trevor
Now you have been given many proof-texts as to why we see God as Father, Son, and Holy Ghost (although I don't think much has been said about the Comforter, on my part in this discussion, other than the fact that we see Father, Son, and Holy Ghost all said to come to indwell the believer (which has received no response either)).
Which would you say stands as a better defense of Doctrinal Position?
You basically imply that this has not been something you started studying until later in life, right? Am I remembering that correctly? Would you cede the point that sometime we can embrace a position and then seek to proof-text it? Do you think we are doing that? You?
Or are there valid arguments that should be acknowledged?
As I said, indoctrination is one of the hardest things we will combat in Doctrinal Discussion. It is up to you, if you are going to continue to deny the Deity of Christ, to address the positive presentations, as well as the negative address of the objections. The first step is recognizing the Deity of Christ. Or...
...denying it.
And the arguments you have presented so far, as well as neglect of addressing the "proofs" you feel deny His Deity, have been very weak. Not saying that to offend, my friend, just saying it because that is how I see it.
God bless.