No, what the Bible offers through the words of the Son Himself is that the Son was 'sent' by the Father.
We ourselves believe this, so once again your criticis, of the Trinitarian position is based on an erroneous understanding or willful strawman misrepresentation of the Trinitarian doctrine.
It's not 'pride' that holds tight to this belief. It's a matter of accepting and believing in the words of Christ Himself.
So, accept and believe our Lord when he said "Before Abraham was, I AM" and "I and the Father are one," et cetera.
If humans are incapable of even seeing God and remaining 'alive', the idea that God could 'be' a man is ludicrous.
Moses lived having seen the Burning Bush; it is the same with the incarnation of our Lord, which is a visible Theophany according to His human nature.
If 'seeing' God would cause a man to 'die', then certainly a 'body' or 'man' cannot 'contain' God within his body.
The human nature of our Lord is not a container for God but is rather hypostatically united with God. This consubstantiality is what enables our salvation.
Perhaps you err. Perhaps the reason God beget a 'Son' was because it was impossible for God to dwell in the flesh Himself.
So that's 'why' He sent His Son to do what He could not do Himself.
No, because our Lord is Almighty; once again you are forced to deny His omnipotence and fall back on dualism owing to the fundamental inconsistency between your deeply flawed belief system and sacred scripture.
If God could 'take up the flesh', why did He never do so throughout the entire Bible?
He did. See Matthew 1-2, Luke 1-2, John 1.
Why reveal to 'men' what messages He chose to deliver? Why not just 'take on the flesh' and deliver the messages Himself?
His most important message, the Gospel, He did deliver in person.
Yet we see messengers 'sent' by God over and over again. Imagine how much more effective it would have been for God Himself to 'take on the flesh' and deliver the messages with POWER as well as words.
Indeed, just imagine how much more effective it would have been! Worship of the true God would no longer be confined two and a half tribes of a persecuted Levantine West Semitic nation, but would have spread throughout the world; His sacred scripture would have been translated into every language, hospitals and other charitable endeavours would flourish in His name. What a pity that never happened!
Oh, wait.
The answer I believe is obvious: Perhaps God cannot 'take on the flesh'. Perhaps the 'flesh' is abhorrent to God to the point that it's impossible for God to dwell within the 'flesh' of man.
Here, in your zeal to reject the Incarnation, you flirt with Docetism, and thus manage to unwittingly reject John 1:14, which you previously sought to pay lip service to.
Jesus clearly states that He was 'sent' by God. He never once states that He sent Himself or came of His own accord.
A compelling argument if we were Sabellians. We are not.
And we are given Christ's last words upon the cross: "My God, my God, why hath thou forsaken me?" Obviously at that moment, Jesus could 'not' have been God. For 'trinity' to be 'truth', Jesus would have had to be 'God' always. Even when 'fully God/fully man', He would of a necessity have been 'fully God' at 'all times'. Otherwise, He would have been God 'sometimes' and at other times 'merely a man'. This is not what is taught in 'trinity'. For 'trinity' insists that the Son was 'equal' to God in all ways at all times. That God could not exist without all 'three of the persons' that 'trinity' defines.
On the contrary, what we see here is our Lord dying according to His humanity, while in His divinity he remained impassable.
When Jesus was in the garden before being betrayed, who was He praying to? Himself? No. He was praying to His Father: God.
To suggest prayer does not exist within the Holy Trinity would I think be horrible blasphemy. Your problem is that you do not understand the idea of prosopa; you want the Trinity to be one prosopon so you can attack the idea with greater ease.
Now, for the predictable eisegetical verse bombing:
Romans 15:6
That ye may with one mind and one mouth glorify God, even the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
"the Father of," not "the Father, as opposed to"
1 Corinthians 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.
"and one Lord Jesus Christ." They are both God. This verse was of course the basis for the structure of the Creed.
2 Corinthians 11:31
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which is blessed for evermore, knoweth that I lie not.
God is the God of the Trinity. The Father furthermore is the sovereign of the Trinity.
Galatians 1:1
Paul, an apostle, (not of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the Father, who raised him from the dead
"and" Both our Lord and the Father are God. There is no reason to object to the idea that the Father rose the Son from the dead.
Ephesians 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ
Ephesians 1:17
That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him
These do not say "of our Lord Jesus Christ, who is not God."
Philippians 2:11
And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
This does not say "that Jesus Christ is Lord, but not God," which is apparently what you want every tongue to confess.
1 Peter 1:3
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead
See my reply to Ephesians 1:17.
2 John 1:3
Grace be with you, mercy, and peace, from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, in truth and love.
Amusing you seek to use St. John here will rejecting John 1:1-14 and 1 John 5:7-9. No matter;'if it said, "from God the Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of the Father, who is however, not Himself God, in any sense," you might have a point, but as it happens you do not.
I believe that these scriptures plainly show the difference between God and His Son.
That these prosopa are distinct is readily admitted by all Trinitarians.
Plainly illustrate that God is the Father. The Father is God. And Christ is the Son of God. The Son of the Father.
And that Christ is also God.
Is it through ignorance that I accept these words as offered? Or should I trust in 'your church' that teaches contrary to these words?
You accept these words contrary to their meaning; scripture is not in the reading, but in the interpretation. To interpret these words unscripturally, as you so choose, you are forced to deprecate other verses which clearly attest to the divinity of our Lord (John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, John 10:17, etc.).