As I'm sure you're aware, Luke 1:36 states that Mary and Elizabeth are cousins and that John is six months older than Jesus, making John and Jesus second cousins. Luke 3:23 also informs us that John baptized Jesus when this one was about 30 years old, said baptism found recorded in Luke 3:21, 22.
Considering all these historical facts from the lens of your claims we have to ask:
[1] John is God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?
[2] Why did God need to be baptized?
[3] John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?
[4] Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?
So, I don't understand the issue here.
If you understand "personhood" as an extension of rational nature(=something with a mind), then there's absolutely no issue. The person is not a distinct ontological entity from the mind. That is:
- when you have mind + person, you don't have 1 + 1. Rather, you have 1 and its relational extension.
The "I" of the mind is not a seperate ontological entity of the mind. As if you have one thing - the mind; plus another thing - the person. No, you have the mind and the person of that mind.
So, the issue here is your misunderstanding of personhood and what it is construed as within classical theism. I mean, even secular pscyhology would tell you that. The "I" of the mind is not a distinct entity from the mind. It is an extension of the mind. The operating system of the mind, so to speak.
Thus, it is perfectly coherent:
- the First Divine Person calls the Second Divine Person - God
Because both of Them abide in the same Divine Mind, thus both are God. Both of Them come from the Divine Essence, but are Two different Divine Persons.
Just like human beings have one human nature and many persons. You, me, William Lane Craig, Saint Augustine and so forth. However, there's only one human nature. And just like it does make sense for me to call you "man", and you call me "man", so does it make sense for One Divine Person to call another God, and vice-versa.
mm: [1] John is God's second cousin who is six months older than Him?
jc: This one is arguing from a pure material perspective, allowing neither mind nor spirit. Yet the religions did not supply a firm existential paradigm, therefore we find the humans displaying their limitations with pride. Had this paradigm been given, their ignorance would be a little masked. Yet to give it would’ve impaired the popularity of religion too.
mm: [2] Why did God need to be baptized?
jc: This was to forward the superstition that man could reach salvation for a song, i.e. a tiny amount of mainly symbolic effort. In truth baptism has no effect whatever on a soul.
mm: [3] John saw God come down in the form of a bird and sit down on top of God's head?
jc: The Holy Spirit does extend Its powers throughout the animal kingdom, not only the human realm, so this amounts to John’s awareness this unusual behavior from a dove was from God’s influence. I too have seen animals do strange things, like attempt philosophy.
mm: [4] Both John and God heard God saying to God, "This is my beloved Son in whom I am well pleased?
jc: This is just a restatement of the eternal truth that the Son can do no wrong, which is to say His behavior is always of the highest order, though men are unable to interpret it as such as they drag Him down to circle around them instead of trying to circle around Him.
kv: So, I don't understand the issue here.
jc: The error he should have seen was in the use of the term “beloved Son,” since love only really applies to another, and the Son is not other than God. A better phrase would be, “This is my glorious Incarnation, given to you of Earth for now. Try to follow Him.”
kv: If you understand "personhood" as an extension of rational nature(=something with a mind), then there's absolutely no issue. The person is not a distinct ontological entity from the mind.
jc: Actually, to have a mind does not automatically make one a person. Only those with free minds are authentic persons. Those with corrupted minds are something more like devils, which is to say interacting with hostility instead of sympathy, seeking private short-term aims instead of the public good in the long-term. And the civilization they generate is not an authentic civilization, which is to say one where goodness is honored.
kv: That is:
- when you have mind + person, you don't have 1 + 1. Rather, you have 1 and its relational extension.
jc: To know the mind is the most difficult art, nor has anyone been instructed in this art, nor is anyone practicing it today. The proof God exists is in the mind, if it is well-known.
kv: The "I" of the mind is not a separate ontological entity of the mind. As if you have one thing - the mind; plus another thing - the person. No, you have the mind and the person of that mind.
jc: If you speak of “I,” you must speak of the “selfish I” of the bound souls, and the “selfless I” of the free souls. The selfish I is bound to the material plane, the selfless I springs directly from spirit in truth. These “I’s” are radically incompatible, and while those with selfless I’s can try to understand the selfish I’s, it doesn’t work the other way.
kv: So, the issue here is your misunderstanding of personhood and what it is construed as within classical theism. I mean, even secular pscyhology would tell you that. The "I" of the mind is not a distinct entity from the mind. It is an extension of the mind. The operating system of the mind, so to speak.
jc: The only slightly accurate theories about the “I” are from Hinduism, as it speaks of the ahankara or worldview maker. In general language falls apart in the inner realm, and any terms chosen must be carefully defined and explained, related to actual phenomena.
kv: Thus, it is perfectly coherent:
- the First Divine Person calls the Second Divine Person - God
Because both of Them abide in the same Divine Mind, thus both are God.
jc: So far, so good. Yet it is imperative to emphasize it is literally all one Spirit, in Father, Son and Holy Ghost. These are literal connections, and literally the same Being. The weak term “abide” is used here, when a stronger term such as “cohere” should be used.
kv: Both of Them come from the Divine Essence, but are Two different Divine Persons.
jc: No. Here things take a dive south. The Father and Son are two aspects of the same person. It’s one person expressing Himself in two places. Perhaps if you think of your right and left hand you can begin to understand my point. These can do different things, these are different hands, but they are really just a way for one person to express himself.
kv: Just like human beings have one human nature and many persons. You, me, William Lane Craig, Saint Augustine and so forth.
jc: This is definitely not right, and you’ll offend the angels should they read this! The souls are created separate from one another. To say they share a common nature because they were created similarly, is a mere lingual shuffle that ignores the existential reality. There are no comparisons of the Trinity, with the created souls. These souls have a unitary consciousness, not a split consciousness. Only God can divide His consciousness.
kv: However, there's only one human nature.
jc: Again, you appear trapped in a shallow lingual shuffle, remarking that “human nature” and “divine nature” seem like parallel terms, but without any inquiry into the existential underpinnings. In fact there are myriad ranks of souls, all with different natures. Human nature has echelons, and if these are seen then immortality is known.
kv: And just like it does make sense for me to call you "man", and you call me "man", so does it make sense for One Divine Person to call another God, and vice-versa.
jc: To refute this it’s best to bring in the angels as examples, since these are divine persons. Then, it is right for the angels to call one another “angel,” but not right to say they are equated existentially. However when Jesus says, “God,” He could as well say, “Myself in disembodied portion.” Jesus cannot meet another God, something of a curse.