Easy to answer. Daniel was seeing not just into the spirit world, he was seeing into the future. Of the beasts he saw we know that one was Alexander the Great and so on. The ancient of days he saw was obviously God. He also saw the son of man which is obviously a man, and that is the Man Christ Jesus. Not duality. He saw God and he saw the flesh that God would put on to save us. Read revelation 1. John describes the same thing as Daniel but calls it the Son of man. When we get to heaven we will see God. He will be sitting by himself on ONE throne. He will have scars in His hands, feet, and brow. And we will bow down and worship him.
But that is not how Daniel reads. And I am not worried about the prophetic part. I want you to read it carefully and pay attention to the context. Specifically this:
““I saw in the night visions, and behold, with the clouds of heaven there came one like a son of man,
and he came to the Ancient of Days and was presented before him.”
Daniel 7:13 ESV
https://bible.com/bible/59/dan.7.13.ESV
There is a
fixed scene, it is a throne room. It is not seeing the same person just in the past then in the future like you said. It is not seeing God, then seeing the flesh in the future. This is happening
all in one moment, this is import. You have the Son of Man
come to the Ancient of Days and he is
presented before. Then you have the Ancient of Days
giving the Son of Man all of his power glory and dominion.
There are two distinct people here, this is happening in the same moment. How could God be presented before himself if he does not have distinct persons? How could God give something to himself, if he does not have distinct persons? If this was a vision of God with no persons, it would just be the ancient of days going down and become the Son of Man, that is not what is happening. Here The Son of Man is not the Ancient of Days, and The Ancient of Days is not the Son of Man, yet both are given attributes of God.
Additionally, the long standing understanding of this verse in the early church was these were two distinct persons yet one God. So your argument falls flat linguistically (again) as well as historically (again).
You always have this problem when you try to apply the modalism heresy to scripture the New Testament there are numerous examples that show Jesus interacting with the Father even Praying to Him. Why would Jesus be praying to himself. When he is dying on the cross, why would he call out to Himself, ABBA Father. I will go more into one specific verse deeper because it was used to refute the modalism (sebalianism) heresy by Origen and others in the 100s (yes way before Nicea,
way before Constantine this heresy was handled with Trinitarian thought straight from the Bible)
Please answer also to the Garden before his crucifixion.
“When Jesus had spoken these words, he lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you,” John 17:1
Jesus isn’t praying to himself. Why would he ask himself (father) to glorify himself (son) in turn so he could glorify himself (son)
“And now, Father, glorify me in
your own presence with the glory that I had with you before the world existed.”
John 17:5
Jesus is very clearly
not talking about his own presence, he is asking to be glorified in someone else’s presence (the Father). This point is super clear in Greek by the way it is conjugated, but it is also plain in English. If Jesus is praying to himself, why would he be asking to be in someone else’s presence?
I could go on and on, but go read all of John 17 and Jesus prayer here to the Father. The distinct persons here are self evident in English, but in the Greek it is even clearer and linguistically impossible (as well as logically impossible) for Jesus to be praying to himself.
The fact is your position is the one that goes against the plain reading of scripture.
