This is a misleading view of scripture, and seems to be rooted in paganism (the idea that gods can morph from one form to another whilst concealing their true form). This does not apply to the Hebrew God. In order to manifest himself on earth, the Logos had to be "sent" - i.e. go out from God. All manifestations of "God" in the OT are angelic.They are distinct forms of the same entity. The form that one takes does not necessarily change one's ontology. That is why God can appear in different forms to individuals on earth (which is to say a different "jurisdiction" using your terminology) in the Hebrew Bible without ceasing to be God. The forms do not allow the fullness of God to be visible to those to whom he appears.
They are obviously referring to same idea.The text says that they thought he was making himself "God," not that he was "asserting the authority of God". This is clearly a different idea than making himself equal to God.
The God/Father of Jesus is YHWH (true God), whilst Thomas was referring to God in the Elohim sense (John 10:34-36) and Ps 45:6 (Elohim used as a term of address to the Son/King). That much seems to be irrefutable.John 20 says that Jesus had/has a God and that he was also God. That is in the New Testament, and you ignore it because you don't like what it means.
I allow only for Jesus the man to be "called God of me" in the Elohim sense, per Thomas and per John 10:34-36 and per Ps 45:6.I am on record in many places saying that I don't believe we have enough information to know the precise nature of God and his relationship to Jesus. I don't think it matters. What is 100% wrong is to deny that Jesus is called God, as you do, when that is exactly what the text says.
Your confounding of Jesus with the God the Father, just because of Thomas's words, is otherwise misconceived.
That would be an artifical usage in the NT.And, again, if God is used in to refer to the totality of persons who are said to be God (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit)
You are alluding to the irreconcilability of philosophical [reasoning/usage of "God"] with the language of the NT, but using Thomas's words to justify the introduction of such philosophy. I don't accept that Thomas used "God" in an orthodox/Catholic Trinitarian sense and I don't accept the bible engages in philosophy.then it would be a mistake to say that "the Father" is the totality of God.
I can see now what you are striving to achieve, which is the justification of Trinitarian philosophy on the basis of Thomas's words, and I categoricallty reject it. "God" has two senses in the NT, one is YHWH (the Father), and one is Elohim (see John 10:34-36). These are not necessarily identical, and they diverge to a certain extent. Both have to be accomodated and accepted for what they are, without seeking to introduce novelties, such as God's form morphing between spirit and flesh (which is definitely heretical).This is true even in your conception of God where the Son somehow depends upon God. If you exclude that portion of divinity which the Son possesses from consideration with "the Father," he isn't "God" in a full sense either since a portion of his divinity abides in Jesus. You don't seem to grasp the intricacies of this. However, this does not forbid one from calling "the Father" or Jesus or the Holy Spirit God, for the New Testament does this very thing as I have pointed out to you.
The trouble seems to be that you aren't able to see the flaws in your reasoning, and you aren't able to understand what I've told you about my own views. In every case, your shortcomings are the problem.