Once again you have shown that you are not interested in discussing specifics. Your explanation of Philippians 2 has already been refuted with the meaning of "morphe" in Koine Greek, which you have not addressed. What evidence do you have that Clement and Origen used vernacular or slang Greek otherwise known as Koine in their writings? The fact is you don't have any.
"...coming in human likeness; 5 and found human in appearance, "
How do you interpret this? If Jesus was just a man like you and I, then why the big deal Jesus was made human in likeness and appearance? Doesn't that seem odd? You assume only a part of the passage could allude to Jesus's preexistence, which you've tried to show another interpretation. The best interpretation is the one that goes along with the rest of the passage.
Jesus who has the external appearance of God (God created man in His image), took on the external appearance of a bond-servant does not establish the preexistence of the Lord.
I don't believe God created us in His "physical" image. God doesn't have an external appearance.
Those who try to compare the birth/death/resurrection of the Lord with the Isis/Osiris/Horus myths and there othe pagan counterparts ignore the fact that both Isis and Osiris were gods. Mary was not a goddess, so the comparison is both superficial and lame. So once again you are trying to obfuscate this thread.
People take cheap shots. Do you have access to the original gospels and letters? Do you understand Koine Greek? Where do you get your information from?
Reading a verse and understanding a verse are not the same thing. You need to come up with a better explanation. God said He is not a man or the son of man and Jesus' favorite title for Himself was "Son of Man", which is the same way God the Father addressed the prophet Ezekiel, which only adds weight to Moses prophesy concerning a prophet like him who God would raise up in Israel and God is not a prophet like Moses.
Yeah, but Jesus referring to Himself as "Son of Man" is enough evidence to tell us that Jesus is not a man like you and I. It's strange for a natural human to call himself a "son of man".
God put every word into the mouth of this Prophet. If this prophet were God incarnate as a son of man, where the Fullness of the Deity dwelt, then sure every word spoken would be from God.
2 Corinthians 13:13 does not refer to the Lord Jesus Christ as the Lord God Jesus Christ. The word "kurios" does not equate to the person addressed as "kurios" is God. This was discussed on another thread you contributed to so I will not go into this again. Also Matthew 28:19 does not read "names" indicating a compound unity, it reads "name". So unless you suddenly converted to the UPC your appeal to that verse is ludicrous since the Father's name is Yehovah, the Son's name is Yehoshuah (God is salvation), and the Holy Spirit does not have a name other than Holy Spirit.
The verse only shows that there are three persons. That's the significance of it. That "God[the Father]", "Jesus Christ", and "Holy Spirit" are three persons. I guess where one goes from there is another story.
The verses I'll adress in just a minute, I'll do another post just for them, because they are kinda off topic but are important.