Listen, I am not capitulating here, but this hair-brained logistic that you have going on does not deserve dignity by responding to it. It is a dire shame that you, assuming that you're over 12yrs old, cannot see the inanity behind such a delineation of the Godhead.God the Father exists in eternity; and as such, He dwells in eternity eternally. Therefore, in descending to become a Man, He would not cease to dwell in eternity. From the perspective of being in eternity, God is able to have power over His incarnate self to raise His incarnate self from the dead.
It is also true that I do not believe that the 2nd Person of the Trinity, as dwelling in the flesh, rose to fill all things; but that He continues to dwell in a finite body of human flesh while His Spirit was also released to the Father into eternity and also rose to fill all things. This Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus; and is in a sense Jesus. But the 2nd Person of the Trinity, the Son of God, is confined to the flesh body of Jesus Christ in a permanent and perpetual hypostatic union.
While the 1st Person of the Trinity continues to dwell in eternity eternally (Isaiah 57:15). He lived one eternal moment and then (from the perspective of the Son) incarnated to become a Man...even the Son of man and Son of God...
Eph 3:11, According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord:
Okay, you have a slight, but incidental point. If God is three, and one of the three rid himself of his deity in order to become man, then the other two could retrieve him back. ...whatever the heck, either way, that is supposed to mean???
Not to mention that you seem to call the Father the Son more than once, in your above explanation. I personally couldn't care less, but it is in contradiction to Nicaene Christology.
'...God the Father exists in eternity; and as such, He dwells in eternity eternally. Therefore, in descending to become a Man, He would not cease to dwell in eternity. ...'. '...While the 1st Person of the Trinity continues to dwell in eternity eternally (Isaiah 57:15). He lived one eternal moment and then (from the perspective of the Son) incarnated to become a Man...even the Son of man and Son of God...'
Either way, you speak of a hypostatic union as if the definition makes any sense. You spoke about Christ's perpetual god-man ontology, as if this comprehensible or even plausible on any level. It would be nice if you actually used Biblical terms, for it seems that you trinitarians have received revelation unbeknownst to the Bible's inspired authors.