kenosis . . ?

Actuallt, Jesus said, " i have authority (exousian) to lay down my life, and I have authority (exousian) to receive it again (palin labein autEn)
It sounds like you think the Son's omniscient divine will and the Father's omniscient divine will are different such that the Son before incarnation, during his earth-bound life and after His glorification must defer to the different will of the Father. That appears to contradict the necessary tenets of non-kenotic trinitarian dogma of the three being one essence.

That is correct. Only His glory and majesty were left behind for a season. And yet the apostle John says that "we beheld His glory. The glory as of the only begotten of the Father". So the King James Bible translated this correctly -- "He made Himself of no reputation". The NIV says "He gave up His divine privileges" which is also true. At the same time He displayed His glory at the transfiguration.

This response is too inscrutable to understand.

Is this another way of saying...say what?

There is no difference between Jesus' power and the power of the Holy Spirit given without measure.

Actuallt, Jesus said, " i have authority (exousian) to lay down my life, and I have authority (exousian) to receive it again (palin labein autEn)
What did the Son's glory include that He laid aside? Non-kenosis trinitarians argue that the Son was still in heaven while also on earth. Were the angels not worshiping the Son in heaven during His 33 years on earth? While the Son was on earth, did humans worship the Son less than they were before His incarnation?

Your posts to me do not seem to me to have any logical connection to one another or my posts. How are they logically connected?.

My apologies. Carry on.

As already written in Philippians, He did not think it robbery to be equal with God the Father, since God the Father gave Him the authority to be the Creator of the universe. See Hebrews chapter 1, where God the Father calls Jesus specifically "GOD" (THEOS). He was indeed being worshipped in Heaven by all the angels. All things were created by Him and for Him.

We can only say that when Christ came as Jesus of Nazareth, He fully submitted to the will of the Father, and "became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross". That was a voluntary decision, and to offer Himself for our sins was also a voluntary decision. Who can fathom the Godhead, or the love and grace of God? We can only thank and praise God.

Why do you have to somehow make omniscience "forget' my forgiven sin in order for God to not remember the forgiven sins. Why can that simply mean that God will no longer raise the issue with me of my forgiven sins.

Do you believe the Son was not fully submitted to the Father before His incarnation? Did the Son perhaps create a few things the Father had misgivings about?

What did the Son give up, if he remained spiritually in heaven while physically on earth?

Without much elaboration, since I'm just interjecting my first thought on the subject into the discussion, I wonder if it wasn't the right of self-preservation, which duly exhibited an aspect of faith...

Are you suggesting that the Son was submitted before the incarnation and not in cooperation? Let us...sounds like in unison or in common. It doesn't say...You do...

All idle questions. Focus on what is already revealed, not hypothetical nonsense.

I am asking for clarity on what you believe the Son emptied himself of to incarnate. So far, there has been no coherent answer. Glory wss mentioned. But what does that mean What constituted the Son's pre-incarnate "glory" that you supposed he gave up? Can you be specific? If, in His pre-incarnate existence the Son's will was always the same as the Father's will, how does the Son in any meaningful way submit His will more to the Father after the incarnation than He was doing before the incarnation. How does that make any logical sense?

If the Son was still spiritually omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient in Heaven while he was in the flesh on earth, how was he being any less worshiped either in heaven by angels or on earth by men during his earthly sojourn? Can you give any rational answer to these questions your non-kenotic theory raises?

Are you suggesting that the Son in His pre-incarnate existence had "a right" to self-preservation, which He gave up to become human?

I would like to understand your particular form of trinitarianism.

Was the Son, according to your understanding, identified as "the Son" and in any way subject to the Father before His incarnation? If no, what does 1 Cor. 15 mean by -
"27 For he hath put all things under his feet. But when he saith all things are put under him, it is manifest that he is excepted, which did put all things under him.
28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all ?

What distinguished the Father from the Son before the Son incarnated. For instance, did the Son and the Father and the Holy Spirit play different roles in the creation of the world? Were those roles equal?

Yes, different roles, same essence or being. I recognize the difficulty in describing a God who is both trinitarian and One. This is made even more difficult by the fact that God is infinite as well. So we can in some ways understand it conceptually, but must ultimately accept it by faith as human language cannot capture the magnitude of all that God is. But understanding that the Trinity is completely One is summed up for me in John 17:5...And now, O Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine Own Self with the glory I had with Thee before the world was...God does not share His glory with another. Jesus was with God in His glory and shared equally that glory before time came to be. So identified with God the Father is He, that Isaiah is able to call Him everlasting Father and Jesus Himself is able to say...the Father and I are One. Not as One...but One.

A certain contemporary scholar put it something like that, in the form of a theophany, God condescended upon man in speaking to them. Philosophically speaking, can it be assumed that the Son 'became' man or would it be more accurate to assume that (M)man 'was/is? in Him" all along? and so His condescension in speaking to man required? (in saying required I mean to imply, rather, that this is a necessity in accommodating man's frailty? to comprehend the entirety of God's glory) that He 'limit' Himself, and thus, not becoming as much as exhibiting the nature of an inherent humility that is a primary characteristic of an entirely terrific? likely no, but) God.

Also, to address the "right" of self-preservation, I was speaking to the fact that He could call upon any number of legions of angels to 'rescue' Him from so much as a stubbed tow let alone death but refrained from doing for the sake of receiving death in order to 'become' our atonement.