Does God have eyes?

[Oseas]

John identifies the word as Jesus. The two refer to the same entity.

Yes, even as the Word -GOD- made flesh, as says the Word of GOD through John.
As you know, the Holy Spirit showed this great mystery to John, it seems he wrote this wonderful revelation times after JESUS's ascension.

As you know, Satan and his followers, possessed by the satanic spirit of Antichrist, deny what the Holy Spirit revealed to John the Apostle, they deny the Word of GOD. GOD is Truth, and Satan and his followers never abode in the Truth.

 

[Oseas]

John did not even hint that anyone was to suppose [the word = the person Jesus] at either John 1:1 or John 1:14.
But he did describe in his Gospel what he was talking about in those two verses.

You are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth -JESUS IS THE TRUTH- , because there is no Truth in the Devil. So when he speakes a lie through you as you wrote above, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar, he is the father of lies. .

 

[Oseas]

Would you mind to clarify this? I'm not sure what you mean.
Speculating, I would say that Jesus represents that portion of "God" that is humanly discernible.

You wrote the message above to the Caroljeen . Remember that Colossians 1:v.19 does not say JESUS "portion of GOD", but says that It pleased the Father that in JESUS should all fulness dwell. In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge-Colossians 2:v.3.

 

[Caroljeen]

That's what's confusing me. With my deficient understanding of Oneness theology I thought that you can't have a "both". My conception is that the belief is in a single entity who took two different forms/modes (whatever terminology is proper). This is problematic in passages like Lk. 3:22 when the Father is speaking to Jesus and in Jn. 1:1 where the word is said to be "with God".

I agree. God is a single entity who began to exist in two distinct forms/modes as a human and a Spirit although we might interpret "entity" differently. I can see why you would think Luke 3:22 is problematic. I will try to explain in my next post to you.

I'm not sure that all the fullness of God can become incarnate without destroying us. I was out of my comfort zone even with my speculation. I don't have a satisfactory answer for this question.

I understand the 'fullness of God' as all the qualities that make God to be God. John 1:1-14 asserts that Word is God and God became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is the incarnation of God. For this to be true, then Jesus is God and possesses all the qualities of God in human form.

 

[Newbirth]

And will never be,

neither will you nor any other human.

but cust out to be burned with everlasting fire.

You are not my judge to determine that

GOD is a devouring FIRE as you will see. Get ready .

And so will you. What is your point? Do you think yourself to be more highly than others?
Romans 12:3
For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith.

 

[Lee Magee]

And will never be, but cust out to be burned with everlasting fire. GOD is a devouring FIRE as you will see. Get ready .

That is Christianity, none of that is in the Old Testament, which are the original Abrahamic canon.

 

[Lee Magee]

You are of your father the Devil, and the lusts of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the Truth -JESUS IS THE TRUTH- , because there is no Truth in the Devil. So when he speakes a lie through you as you wrote above, he speaks of his own, for he is a liar, he is the father of lies. .

"Devil" makes no appearance in the Old Testament, therefore that character is not canon.

 

[John Milton]

You wrote the message above to the Caroljeen . Remember that Colossians 1:v.19 does not say JESUS "portion of GOD", but says that It pleased the Father that in JESUS should all fulness dwell. In whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge-Colossians 2:v.3.

When John talks about Jesus's fullness, he mentions him being full of "grace and truth" (1:14, 16). As far as I am aware, he doesn't speak of Jesus during his incarnation in direct terms about his deity. The closest we get are the glimpses of what the Jews were saying about him, and it's not at all clear from these that these were things that he was directly saying.
John 10:33
"The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.'"
John 5:18
"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. "
The fact that Jesus spoke of God as "his Father" rather than "our Father" in both these instances seems to account for their response. John maintains this distinction between Jesus and the people throughout his entire gospel. I was trying to evaluate Thomas's remarks about Jesus being "God" by what John wrote.

I understand the 'fullness of God' as all the qualities that make God to be God. John 1:1-14 asserts that Word is God and God became flesh and dwelt among us. Jesus is the incarnation of God. For this to be true, then Jesus is God and possesses all the qualities of God in human form.

This is a difficult topic, and I appreciate your feedback and restraint thus far. I've already given a couple remarks on "fullness" in John's gospel, so I'll move on to Colossians. It is interesting to me that the text in Col. 1:19 doesn't say "of God".
Col. 1:19 "ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι"
In commentaries the claim is often made that "τὸ πλήρωμα" is a technical term that refers to divinity without explicit mention of God or that the use of πᾶν intensifies the expression to refer to deity. While I'm not denying that this may be correct, I find it interesting that in the latter case no one claims that those mentioned in Eph. 3:19 should be divine because of πᾶν (ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ.) and in the former case there seems to be a contrast in the tenses used in Col. 1:19 and Col. 2:9.
Col. 1:19 "ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι." (in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell)
Col. 2:9 "ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς," (in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily).
Why use the aorist with a past tense verb to imply a past state in 1:19 when 2:9 states that deity currently dwells in him? Could it be that it was referring to the state before his incarnation or perhaps that the fullness he had during his incarnation did not include divinity? Taking the thoughts from John and Paul there seem to be some room for interpretation.

 

[Caroljeen]

I think part of the difficulty here is the inadequacy of words we use to describe the relationship. I don't think that most people have a conception of different "persons" per se, but we don't have an adequate way to conceptualize what is happening without relying in part on some form of that distinction. This is particularly true in passages like Lk. 3:22 above where "they" appear to be in different forms and places.

I agree. I don't think most people have a conception of God as being more than one person. I know that I didn't because of the OT. I understood God as the Jews did as one God, one divine person who spoke of himself with singular personal pronouns. After the incarnation, things changed. God could speak from the heaven in the first person, descend upon Jesus in the form of a dove and exist as a man all at the same time and these are not limitations for him. He is capable of so much more.

That's interesting. If you don't mind my asking, could you explain this a bit more?

Sure. I base it more on Hebrews 2:17 than Phil 2:1-8. It's more of a functional kenosis in that when God became incarnate, he began to function as a human just like us. Whatever it means to be human, God became that. I can elaborate more but you only asked for a bit.

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

 

[Caroljeen]

When John talks about Jesus's fullness, he mentions him being full of "grace and truth" (1:14, 16). As far as I am aware, he doesn't speak of Jesus during his incarnation in direct terms about his deity. The closest we get are the glimpses of what the Jews were saying about him, and it's not at all clear from these that these were things that he was directly saying.
John 10:33
"The Jews answered him, 'It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.'"
John 5:18
"This was why the Jews were seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God. "
The fact that Jesus spoke of God as "his Father" rather than "our Father" in both these instances seems to account for their response. John maintains this distinction between Jesus and the people throughout his entire gospel. I was trying to evaluate Thomas's remarks about Jesus being "God" by what John wrote.

Do you ever go to John's epistles and compare them to his gospel?

This is a difficult topic, and I appreciate your feedback and restraint thus far.

I don't feel like I've restrained myself at all. I'm not trying to argue what I think but explain it and question what others think for understanding. If you agree with me or not, it doesn't matter.

I've already given a couple remarks on "fullness" in John's gospel, so I'll move on to Colossians. It is interesting to me that the text in Col. 1:19 doesn't say "of God".
Col. 1:19 "ὅτι ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι"
In commentaries the claim is often made that "τὸ πλήρωμα" is a technical term that refers to divinity without explicit mention of God or that the use of πᾶν intensifies the expression to refer to deity. While I'm not denying that this may be correct, I find it interesting that in the latter case no one claims that those mentioned in Eph. 3:19 should be divine because of πᾶν (ἵνα πληρωθῆτε εἰς πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ Θεοῦ.)

Do you think that Christ having the whole fullness of deity dwelling in him is the same as a believer being "filled with all the fullness of God"? Meaning both are indwelled by God/deity but that indwelling in "other than" themselves.

and in the former case there seems to be a contrast in the tenses used in Col. 1:19 and Col. 2:9.
Col. 1:19 "ἐν αὐτῷ εὐδόκησεν πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα κατοικῆσαι." (in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell)
Col. 2:9 "ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς," (in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily).
Why use the aorist with a past tense verb to imply a past state in 1:19 when 2:9 states that deity currently dwells in him? Could it be that it was referring to the state before his incarnation or perhaps that the fullness he had during his incarnation did not include divinity?

Maybe it means the fullness of God dwelled in Christ during the incarnation and continues to dwell in Christ currently.

Taking the thoughts from John and Paul there seem to be some room for interpretation.

It seems so. I'm interested in knowing what it really means.

 

[John Milton]

I agree. I don't think most people have a conception of God as being more than one person. I know that I didn't because of the OT. I understood God as the Jews did as one God, one divine person who spoke of himself with singular personal pronouns. After the incarnation, things changed. God could speak from the heaven in the first person, descend upon Jesus in the form of a dove and exist as a man all at the same time and these are not limitations for him. He is capable of so much more.

I may not get to all this tonight (there seems to have been a sudden flurry of activity), but I'll at least try to address this post. I agree with the thrust of what you are saying. There doesn't appear to be too much difference between your position and that of Trinitarians, as I understand you to have described it and, of course, in my personal opinion. The key issue seems to be how to define the kind of unity (which seems to be recognized by both parties) between three distinct operations (which I am trying to use as a neutral word to mediate the two positions). It appears fundamentally a disagreement over terminology arising from limited cognition.

The spanner in the works for me is the other possibility that "God" described in the Hebrew Bible might have been a singular concept rather than a singular entity all along, similar to the concept of one body of the church, one nation of "Israel", etc that becomes clearer through progressive revelation though hinted at from the very beginning (Gen. 1:2, 26; Josh. 5:15, etc.). But that's a bit off-topic.

Sure. I base it more on Hebrews 2:17 than Phil 2:1-8. It's more of a functional kenosis in that when God became incarnate, he began to function as a human just like us. Whatever it means to be human, God became that. I can elaborate more but you only asked for a bit.

14 Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same things, that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil, 15 and deliver all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong slavery. 16 For surely it is not angels that he helps, but he helps the offspring of Abraham. 17 Therefore he had to be made like his brothers in every respect, so that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in the service of God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people. 18 For because he himself has suffered when tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.

That is true, but even then you can't push the "in every respect" bit too far or else you are forced to include sin and grapple with his unique conception. Philosophically, it may be the absence of sin coupled with knowledge of good and evil that defines "God", but again this is straying from the topic. Feel free to tell me to shut up if/when I become obnoxious. Like you, I'm not trying to change or challenge any opinions.

 

[John Milton]

Do you ever go to John's epistles and compare them to his gospel?

Yes, but since I believe the gospels were written to address more specific concerns than the gospel the risk of applying a specific remark to a general situation or a general remark to a specific situation is a reason to be careful about the application of one to the other.

I don't feel like I've restrained myself at all. I'm not trying to argue what I think but explain it and question what others think for understanding. If you agree with me or not, it doesn't matter.

That comment was intended for the two of you jointly, but I moved it to another place and forgot about it. The point was I appreciate having a conversation and not a molotov cocktail party. I have always found you to be a pleasant person to interact with.

Do you think that Christ having the whole fullness of deity dwelling in him is the same as a believer being "filled with all the fullness of God"? Meaning both are indwelled by God/deity but that indwelling in "other than" themselves.

I'm honestly not sure. My conception would depend on the temporal location of "Christ" that we are discussing. During his incarnation, I have no reason why it must be different than that of a believer.

Maybe it means the fullness of God dwelled in Christ during the incarnation and continues to dwell in Christ currently.

Perhaps. But the more natural way to express that in Col. 1:19, I would think, would be to use the present infinitive κατοικεῖν to show that God was still dwelling in Christ rather than the aorist infinitive κατοικῆσαι. That's what I was trying to say in the other thread.

It seems so. I'm interested in knowing what it really means.

I am, too, but I don't anticipate an answer on this side of the valley.

 

[Caroljeen]

I may not get to all this tonight (there seems to have been a sudden flurry of activity), but I'll at least try to address this post.

I know I won't get back to this thread for a couple of days. Don't feel obliged to answer right away. although it looks like you already have.

 

[Oseas]

That is Christianity, none of that is in the Old Testament, which are the original Abrahamic canon.

What matters and prevails is the Word of GOD. The Word is GOD, understand? The Word is self-executing. But after your hardness and impenitent heart treasure up unto yourself wrath against this Day of wrath and revelation of the righteous Judgment of GOD, Who will render to every man according to his deeds.

 

[Oseas]

"Devil" makes no appearance in the Old Testament, therefore that character is not canon.

What matters and prevails is the Word of GOD, the Word is GOD, understand? JESUS said to the Jews: John 8:v.42 and 44:
- 42 If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me.
- 44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

 

[cjab]

Scripture does not say that...

"The Word is [anarthrous] God" in the Greek is nearly equivalent to the "Word is divine / divinity" in English.

The reason why "God" is in many respects a better translation in the context of Jn 1:1, despite the confusion in title with [definite] God as the title of the Father, is (1) because there are other Greek words for divine/divinity that weren't used in John 1:1; (2) the stress is on the Word as the functional ruler and fashioner of all creation (Jn 1:3), which meaning is embraced by "God", but where it is conceded that the meaning of [anarthrous God] is extremely difficulty to convey in English, due to the long history of the Catholic/Trinitarian usage of God always conveying the definite article; (3) the intention of John was to convey the Word as synonymous with the authority of the Father, and with the attributes of the Father (i.e. glory/form) such that the ministry of the Word in heaven is to be treated as synonymous with the will and authority of the Father.

So one should be very careful with identifying what scripture does or does not say when it comes to English translations that can only be approximate. It may be that there is no better translation due to the deficiencies of the English language. The onus is on you to come up with a better translation if you maintain "scripture does not say that".

Even if there are valid grounds for objecting to the English translation of Jn 1:1c, and one of them is the implication of the Trinitarian dogma of equivalence in power and authority as between the Father and the Word, vis-a-vis themselves: if one is prepared to say that this is not warranted by Jn 1:1c, because of what else Jesus taught, then surely the words in Jn 1:1c can be permitted, even if qualified.

These problems of definition are by no means unique to English translations and extend to translations in many other languages.

 

[The Real John Milton]

"The Word is [anarthrous] God" in the Greek is nearly equivalent to the "Word is divine / divinity" in English.

The reason why "God" is in many respects a better translation in the context of Jn 1:1, despite the confusion in title with [definite] God as the title of the Father, is (1) because there are other Greek words for divine/divinity that weren't used in John 1:1; (2) the stress is on the Word as the functional ruler and fashioner of all creation (Jn 1:3), which meaning is embraced by "God", but where it is conceded that the meaning of [anarthrous God] is extremely difficulty to convey in English, due to the long history of the Catholic/Trinitarian usage of God always conveying the definite article; (3) the intention of John was to convey the Word as synonymous with the authority of the Father, and with the attributes of the Father (i.e. glory/form) such that the ministry of the Word in heaven is to be treated as synonymous with the will and authority of the Father.

So one should be very careful with identifying what scripture does or does not say when it comes to English translations that can only be approximate. It may be that there is no better translation due to the deficiencies of the English language. The onus is on you to come up with a better translation if you maintain "scripture does not say that".

Even if there are valid grounds for objecting to the English translation of Jn 1:1c, and one of them is the implication of the Trinitarian dogma of equivalence in power and authority as between the Father and the Word, vis-a-vis themselves: if one is prepared to say that this is not warranted by Jn 1:1c, because of what else Jesus taught, then surely the words in Jn 1:1c can be permitted, even if qualified.

These problems of definition are by no means unique to English translations and extend to translations in many other languages.

Yep.

 

[Newbirth]

"The Word is [anarthrous] God" in the Greek is nearly equivalent to the "Word is divine / divinity" in English.

Greek is not Hebrew. The Greeks understand God differently from the Hebrews.

The reason why "God" is in many respects a better translation in the context of Jn 1:1, despite the confusion in title with [definite] God as the title of the Father, is (1) because there are other Greek words for divine/divinity that weren't used in John 1:1; (2) the stress is on the Word as the functional ruler and fashioner of all creation (Jn 1:3), which meaning is embraced by "God", but where it is conceded that the meaning of [anarthrous God] is extremely difficulty to convey in English, due to the long history of the Catholic/Trinitarian usage of God always conveying the definite article; (3) the intention of John was to convey the Word as synonymous with the authority of the Father, and with the attributes of the Father (i.e. glory/form) such that the ministry of the Word in heaven is to be treated as synonymous with the will and authority of the Father.

All this makes no sense or solve anything. The person writing or speaking Greek to convey a Hebrew understanding will have the same limitations as one trying to convey a Greek understanding to English writings. So the person trying to convey Greek understanding to English text without first having a Hebrew understanding will always be confused.

So one should be very careful with identifying what scripture does or does not say when it comes to English translations that can only be approximate.

I agree 100%

It may be that there is no better translation due to the deficiencies of the English language.

In the same way, there may not have been a better translation from Hebrew to Greek.

The onus is on you to come up with a better translation if you maintain "scripture does not say that".

Since translation deals with words there may never be a better translation. This is why it is important to understand the Hebrew culture and language.

Even if there are valid grounds for objecting to the English translation of Jn 1:1c, and one of them is the implication of the Trinitarian dogma of equivalence in power and authority as between the Father and the Word, vis-a-vis themselves: if one is prepared to say that this is not warranted by Jn 1:1c, because of what else Jesus taught, then surely the words in Jn 1:1c can be permitted, even if qualified.

This gives rise to many different understandings of a single passage in scripture. That certainly is not the intention of the authors.

These problems of definition are by no means unique to English translations and extend to translations in many other languages.

Yep.

 

[cjab]

You probably mean the authors who wrote the Greek text were Hebrews. How does that eliminate the problem? You still have a Hebrew person writing Greek.

You've yet to prove that there is any problem. "o theos" is the title of the Father in the NT, who is YHWH, unless contextually or grammatically differentiated (e.g. John 10:34-36).

As far as I know, this is a bible discussion forum, not a school of theology.

I don't think such a distinction is made out as these are not severable with respect to Jn 1:1. However I have clearly been emphasizing the text.

You quarreled with "the word is God, understand?"

Certainly one could take issue with this usage of the present tense (viz. "The Word is God") because the bible makes clear that the "Word was God" (imperfect), which equates to a state of affairs arising in the eternal past without reference to any human being. In the transposition of the imperfect to the present, today's false prophets can augment their authority by dint of naively misappropriating Jn 1:1c to themselves. Here "the Word is God" transposes to "They themselves are de facto God" just because they assert themselves as ministers of the Word of God (e.g. like Mahomet who by asserting himself as the prophet of God and by misappropriating to himself the sentiment of "The Word is God" made himself out to be, and became, the de facto God of the Arabians). Therefore, and for the suppression of cults of every variety, it is necessary to preserve the imperfect in Jn 1:1c to differentiate "the Word" from mere human beings (whereas the Logos of God, i.e. the risen Christ, continues to have the same status as before - Rev 19:13, John 6:62, Dan 7:13,14 etc).

Conversely, beyond the dangerous manipulation of verb tense. I see it it as lexically and theologically dangerous to deny that the validity of the English translation the "Word was God" just because it is almost impossible to come up with a better simple translation within the confines of the English language, although one can qualify any translation by annotations of the Greek text.

Ergo, IMO, no-one is going to help themselves by arbitrarily repudiating, without more, the validity of the translation "The Word was God."

By your standards or God's standards?

Why? This is not a language class. As long as one understands what theos means to the Greeks and what Elohim means to the Hebrews, one can have a clearer understanding of the message.

I agree, but theos does not have one referent in Greek, but carries different connotations and meanings within scripture depending on context and grammar. Theos can also be used both in a titular sense, and in a non titular sense (e.g. when it is used with pronouns cf. John 20:28 - which is a subtlety that few grasp).

There may not be one word for the Hebrew person who is translating Hebrew to Greek to use when translating the word Elohim.

I agree. Thus in Ps 45:6, I have offered wondered why Elohim is translated "God" when it seems to have been directed to a mere human being. "God" here comes from the LXX and "God" would never be used of a human being in English, although in the LXX era, "theos" was probably compatible with an application to human beings. An alternative translation could be the English word "King" Gk: βασιλεὺς which has historically carried an implication of divine appoinment, at least amongst certain monarchs during the era of the English civil war. However the text suggests more than divine appointment: i.e. divine agency. Re the agents of YHWH: we know that the angel agents of YHWH assumed the YHWH title, and the human agents the Elohim title (Jesus implies as much in Jn 10:34-36), so it may be we have to accept that the biblical use of divine titles doesn't easily correlate with the English word "God."

That would depend on the context one applies.

That is a whole other ball game.

If by divine status you mean God status then I would have to ask how many Gods are we talking about. My position is if Jesus has God status and his father has God status then that is two Gods. Jesus clearly states the father is the only true God.

Such is true. Per the gospels, Jesus is of God and from God, which still falls with the meaning of the English word "divine."

 

[Caroljeen]

I may not get to all this tonight (there seems to have been a sudden flurry of activity), but I'll at least try to address this post. I agree with the thrust of what you are saying. There doesn't appear to be too much difference between your position and that of Trinitarians, as I understand you to have described it and, of course, in my personal opinion. The key issue seems to be how to define the kind of unity (which seems to be recognized by both parties) between three distinct operations (which I am trying to use as a neutral word to mediate the two positions). It appears fundamentally a disagreement over terminology arising from limited cognition.

It's more than that.
God is one person described in the OT as an invisible Spirit that is everywhere. In the OT God describes himself with singular personal pronouns. God used the nation of Israel to be his witnesses to the nations. Isaiah 43: 1-14 (especially vs 10, 12). Wouldn't you think that if God was going to use Israel as witnesses to the nations of who he is, that he would have explained that he was a unity of persons? It seems deceptive to misrepresent himself to his chosen people.

The spanner in the works for me is the other possibility that "God" described in the Hebrew Bible might have been a singular concept rather than a singular entity all along, similar to the concept of one body of the church, one nation of "Israel", etc that becomes clearer through progressive revelation though hinted at from the very beginning (Gen. 1:2, 26; Josh. 5:15, etc.). But that's a bit off-topic.

That's the explanation that trinitarians give...progressive revelation. I agree that God revealed things about his plans progressively and that Jesus is the full revelation of God revealed in the last days. Heb 1:3, John 14:9, Gal 4:4 But He doesn't have to be a trinity of persons to explain it what we read about in the NT.

That is true, but even then you can't push the "in every respect" bit too far or else you are forced to include sin and grapple with his unique conception.

Do you think it was possible for Jesus to sin?
His unique conception doesn't cause a problem if a kenotic Christology is employed to understand how Jesus is God and human like us. It explains how Jesus doesn't know everything. How Jesus grows in wisdom. Why he relies on his Father to teach him and why the Father does the "works" through him, as well as why Jesus asks for the glory he once had in the beginning, etc.

Philosophically, it may be the absence of sin coupled with knowledge of good and evil that defines "God", but again this is straying from the topic.

Again, I think the difference between God and human made in his image is much more than that.
For starters, we can't listen and answer all the prayers that are prayed at the same time. We can't fill others with our spirit and dwell within them. We can't create matter. We use existing things to create. We don't know the thoughts of everyone who is currently alive and those who have died and gone on to the intermediate state and the other spirit being. Have I misunderstood your point?

Feel free to tell me to shut up if/when I become obnoxious. Like you, I'm not trying to change or challenge any opinions.

I could point out some examples of posters being obnoxious and offensive on this thread. You are not one of them.
I don't mind a challenge to my opinions at all. I'm here to discuss these things. You might change my mind.