1.
You admit that "Jesus is God when considering his 'nature' " and this is called "Jesus is God in nature",
also you admit that "the God of Jesus is God when considering his 'nature' " and this is called "the God of Jesus is God in nature",
thus you easily say "they are 'equally' or 'the same' or 'identically' God in 'nature' ".
2.
You admit that the words "nature" and "person" are different when considering the word "God".
3.
Thus like Point Number 1 listed above, you admit that "Jesus is God when considering his 'person' " and this is called "Jesus is God in his person",
also you admit that "the God of Jesus is God when considering his 'person' " and this is called "the God of Jesus is God in his person",
but at this juncture you refuse to say "they are 'equally' or 'the same' or 'identically' God in their 'person' "
I'm not asking if they are "identical in person" I, as you know, am asking if they are "identical in being God in their person", in other words, if the word "God" denotes "person" and not nature just as the word "King" denotes "person" and not "nature" then "person" denotes a "rank" instead of a species, thus if the word "God" is like "King", and denotes "person"/"rank", is Jesus just as much "King" as "the KING OF JESUS" is King?, is Jesus just as much "God in his person" just as much as "the GOD OF JESUS" is "God in his person"?
Thank you for finally clarifying what the question meant, so that I may answer it to your satisfaction. To then finally clarify my answer I will repeat what I have thus far said if it has not been absolutely clear then hopefully, God-willing, this will be, and I will follow your order laid out in this post:
1) I admit that Jesus is God when considering His nature. A nature is what something is, for instance, the nature of a human is... humanity. It is that which makes them a human and not a dog (which is a different nature). Simple enough.
I also admit that the God of Jesus (the Father) is also God when considering His nature. What He is. This means that He has the same nature as Jesus (see post note 1/
pn1). They have the same nature. They are the same thing, in response to the question "what is that"? This is just like how you and I have the same nature, when you look at us and ask "what are they" one would say "humans." That is the nature.
Therefore the God of Jesus and Jesus have the same nature. This nature which they both have is equal, the same, identical. I easily say this. They both have the same nature, the both are equal in nature, they both are identical in nature, are all equivalent terms.
2) Nature and Person are different when considering the word "God," I admit. This is because one can by "God" mean "the divine nature" or "a divine Person," even a specific divine person (
pn2). A nature has been defined, but what is person? "Who is that?" A person is a knower and is known, a lover and is loved. It is a "who" (
pn3). A person
has a nature (notice how I often said "they both
have the same nature," "they" refers to person). Therefore when one says "God" it can refer to either of these things.
This distinction is also present in humans. I am a person, which refers to who I am, who has a human nature, that is what I am. They are not reducible to one another but are inseparable (a person always has a nature although "person" and "nature" do not mean the same thing). These two phrases are equivalent: I am a human person. I am a person who has a human nature. In both cases "human" refers to nature.
But take special note of this: due to these definitions I mean only two possible things when I say "God." The divine nature or a divine person (and a person has a nature). I said before explicitly "
I do not mean a role like a king..."
The word "king" is to me not at all like person or nature. It chiefly and principally refers to what a person does, that is they rule. As you can see from how I defined both person and nature the word "king" does not fit, even if in how we speak it seems to.
"What is that?" "A human."
"Who is that?" "David."
"What does he do?" "He rules Israel."
"So what is he?" "A king."
"So who is he?" "The king of Israel."
The last two questions are what make "king" seem like it can mean "person." It does not mean person to me though or nature. When we call someone a "king" we are always most properly referring to what they do. This is entirely irrelevant to what I have been saying all along. We may say that someone is what they do, but this is not how I am using that, so the word "king" does not apply to anything I've been saying. That is why I called it a "role" before, as in, a role someone plays or has, that is, something they do. Notice "they" in that last sentence, it refers to person.
Therefore I distinguish between: nature, person, and actions. Actions are irrelevant here and have only introduced confusion.
3) I admit that "Jesus is God when considering His Person," and this is called "Jesus is God in His Person."
Why would I say that in light of all the definitions I just gave? The answer is simple: a person has a nature. One may rightly say "that is a divine person" or "that is a human person," and this would both be called to me: "they are divine in their person" or "they are human in their person." Perhaps it sounds weird, but it only means "they are a divine person" or "they are a human person." Because a person has a nature.
The God of Jesus (the Father) also is God when considering His Person, and this is called "the God of Jesus (the Father) is God in His Person."
Yet as you noticed: I refused to say "they are equally God in their Person." Why would I refuse to say that? For it was not immediately clear to me if you meant what I meant by "in Their Person."
If you meant: "They both are Persons with a divine nature," then I have already answered you when I said before that they have the exact same, equal, identical, nature.
If you meant: "They are both the same Person." Then I already answered you "no." Because the answer to "who is that" concerning both of them will be different, because they are different Persons. Just like it will be different with you and I, the answer to "who is that" will be different because we are different persons.
So returning to your question which I was not dodging but trying to get clarification on, I did not want to answer it because it could be read in two different ways:
Your question directly quoted: "are the God of Jesus and Jesus equally God in person?"
First way of reading it (in my mind this is what I saw in it): "are the God of Jesus and Jesus equally divine in Person?"
This would mean nothing other "do both of these Persons have the same nature?" to me, and I would then say "yes, the God of Jesus and Jesus are equally God in Person." This is 1000% true to me.
Second way of reading it: "are the God of Jesus and Jesus equally the same Person?" and I would answer "no" to this, because when you ask the question concerning them "who is that" the answer will be different, it is two different persons.
The final clarification of the clarification:
You said: "
I'm not asking if they are "identical in person" I, as you know, am asking if they are "identical in being God in their person", in other words, if the word "God" denotes "person" and not nature just as the word "King" denotes "person" and not "nature" then "person" denotes a "rank" instead of a species, thus if the word "God" is like "King", and denotes "person"/"rank", is Jesus just as much "King" as "the KING OF JESUS" is King?, is Jesus just as much "God in his person" just as much as "the GOD OF JESUS" is "God in his person"?"
Now that you see my definitions you know what I'll say concerning this.
- The word "God" can denote Person or nature.
- The word "king" does not denote person or nature, but what a person who has a nature does.
- The word "person" does not denote "rank" but the answer to "who is that?"
- The word "God" in my usage in this whole thread does not denote rank at all and is not like "king" at all.
Now why this was incoherent to me is even more clear, for as you are saying "king" denotes "person" what you asked in the last bit of your message is:
"Is Jesus just as much Person as the God of Jesus is Person?" Knowing what I mean by person, how on Earth am I meant to answer that?
You also say "God is like king" so in the last bit you asked:
"Is Jesus just as much Person in His Person just as much as the God of Jesus is Person in His Person"?
Neither of these make any sense.
But why this cleared all things up to me is this bit you said: "
am asking if they are 'identical in being God in their person'."
This can only refer to nature. In which I will finally say to your original question:
"[A]re the God of Jesus and Jesus equally God in person?"
Yes.
Why do I say yes? Because this question as it is not asking if they are identical in Person (that is, the answer to the question "who is that" differs for them and is not identical) then it must be asking are they identical in nature. The answer is yes.
POSTNOTES:
PN1: Jesus because of the Incarnation has a human nature and a divine nature. This post deals only with the divine nature.
PN2: Almost exclusively in the Bible "God" refers to the Father, hence St. Paul often says "grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." There are exceptions to this, but due to this usage in Scripture it is right to say "God is the Father" or "the Father is True God." There are other more detailed reasons but I won't go into them here.
PN3: Irrational animals are not persons to me.
