In this instance, the context makes it clear that identifying a when of the Who under discussion doesn't indicate a change of the Who.
Is your argument that Jesus was never glorified and is at present an unglorified mortal? Before his resurrection, he was most definitely a mortal, you can tell he was mortal because he died. He was also not glorified, because he prays to be glorified. If you accept that he is no longer mortal and that he is at present glorified, then you must accept that he changed and the change is important. And as a consequence, your objection to my post is moot.
The Son of God indicates essence, unlike with other creatures, for example, Adam and others who are called the son of God in a different context. See the previously cited verses from John 5 which you try to respond to below.
This is a textbook example of "reading into the scriptures". The word "essence" and "unlike other creatures" are absent from the scriptures. Jesus is identified as the son of God in scriptures to make the connection with the others, not to set him apart. One of the great promises of the scriptures is:
Beloved, we are God’s children now, and what we will be has not yet appeared; but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, because we shall see him as he is. - 1 John 3:2
Scripture tells us the truth in this regard, why do you seek to denigrate God's word? See the red bold above and try and demonstrate the lie from the text or from Jesus not pointing out their error in this regard.
No, to accept the witness of Christ in this regard is to accept the witness of Christ to those who sought the more to kill Him. (See the context of John 5.) The reply of Jesus goes on for twenty-nine verses. In those verses Jesus speaks of His equality with His Father and His role as the Son.
People err greatly when instead of reading what Scripture says and means according to the God given perfect immediate context in which it was given then take passages out of context to suit their own purposes.
Let's go through some of Christ's comments in the next 29 verses in John 5 and ask the question: does Jesus 1) support the idea of his equality with God or 2) reject the idea of equality with God.
Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself;
By myself I can do nothing;
If I testify about myself, my testimony is not true. There is another who testifies in my favor, and I know that his testimony about me is true.
For the works that the Father has given me to finish—the very works that I am doing—testify that the Father has sent me.
And the Father who sent me has himself testified concerning me.
I have come in my Father’s name,
How can you believe since you accept glory from one another but do not seek the glory that comes from the only God
But do not think I will accuse you before the Father.
If we actually read the passage, Jesus constantly reiterates that he is in the service of his god and their god. This is one of the few times Jesus defended himself against a false accusation and we should accept his defense as genuine. His clear words in regard to the relationship between him and his father were "my father is greater than I". Jesus was not a sinner (a Sabbath breaker) and he was not claiming to be equal to his father.
If you have to cling to the idea that Jesus is a sinner and is equal to his God despite his clear objections to the idea, then what more clear way could Jesus say that his father is greater than him?
You're still ignoring and denying the context of Hebrews 1. For example, nothing in Hebrews two denies that all of creation was through the Son, Hebrews 1:2; He holds everything together through the power of His word, Hebrews 1:3, etc.
A person who ignores and denies the context of Hebrews 1 also ignores and denies that the Son is the one through whom all things are made, that is, he will miss, “10. God also said, "Lord, in the beginning you laid the foundation of the earth. With your own hands you made the heavens.11. They will come to an end, but you will live forever. They will all wear out like clothes. 12. They will be taken off like a coat. You will change them like clothes. But you remain the same, and your life will never end.” (Heb 1:10-12, GodsWord)
Focusing the reader on the "new clothes" to come doesn't deny the old clothes or the one through whom both sets of "clothes" are created and upheld.
The word "aionas" (ages) in Hebrews 1:2 does not mean "all of creation". I do not deny that the ages were made through Christ. If you actually read the passage, God is the active agent, and Christ is the passive instrument which God used. As Jesus showed the apostles after his resurrection, the scriptures spoke of him. The apostles testified throughout the New Testament that Jesus is the man in the image of God. He is the pinnacle of the creation. Hebrews 1:3 actually identifies Jesus as the radiance of God and the exact imprint of God's hypostases. Which by definition means that Jesus is not God, but rather he is an imprint of God.
And then we move to a red herring, a quotation of Psalm 102, where the speaker is claimed to be God (and presumably speaking to the son). Let's read the Psalm:
For my days vanish like smoke;
my bones burn like glowing embers.
My heart is blighted and withered like grass;
I forget to eat my food.
In my distress I groan aloud
and am reduced to skin and bones.
I am like a desert owl,
like an owl among the ruins.
I lie awake; I have become
like a bird alone on a roof.
All day long my enemies taunt me;
those who rail against me use my name as a curse.
For I eat ashes as my food
and mingle my drink with tears
because of your great wrath,
for you have taken me up and thrown me aside.
My days are like the evening shadow;
I wither away like grass.
God is not in distress, his bones don't burn like embers, he isn't reduced to skin and bones, and he isn't oppressed by somebody else's great wrath. What God did do was lay the foundation of the earth, and by his own hands he made the heavens.
God isn't speaking, God is the one being spoken to. The word "God" doesn't appear in greek in Hebrews 1:10 which is citing Psalm 102. We have another textbook instance of somebody "reading into the scriptures" and using their reading into as some sort of proof.
That ignores the context since it was the fact of the resurrection that led the disciples to remember what Jesus said, "I will raise it up," see John 2:19.
Saying God raised Jesus necessarily means that Jesus is not excluded. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and was God... John 1.
It remains, the scripture you wish to use to prove that Jesus raised himself "from the dead", Jesus didn't actually say "from the dead" and further the way the apostles interpreted the event was that Jesus "was raised from the dead" not "raised himself from the dead". If you have to read into the scriptures that Christ meant "from the dead" as your proof, then just be clear to yourself that your evidence isn't Christ's words, but what you read into Christ's words. And saying that God raised Jesus from the dead does necessarily exclude Jesus because God was identified separately from Jesus as Paul stated:
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.
This is how you would identify God as one party and Jesus as another party. If it was important that Jesus raised himself, Paul is skillful enough with language to say something to the effect of "Jesus raised himself".
If a person pays attention to the context of Hebrews 5 then he will see that the context is only the role of the Son.
See the section above on John 5. If a person reads the rest of John chapter five closely then he will see that equality and role are not synonymous.
This whole "role of the son" nonsense is another textbook example of "reading into the scriptures". Jesus is God's son, he's not playing a role, he is the son of God. If we read Hebrews 5, God says to Jesus "You are my son", not "You are in the role of my son". Just like we aren't to be in the "role" of children of God, but we are to be children of God.
"Didn't you even read the passage? It doesn't say the Word," ceased to be God and dwelt among us.
It says the "word" "became" something else and that something is Jesus. The thing the word became was mortal, and powerless, and God was identified as his father. If God is Jesus's father, by definition that means Jesus isn't God.