Brit:  Because it wasn't a violation. Remember at this time Christ had risen to the Father and obtained his authority over us. That makes Christ Lord. Thomas went further in saying that Christ was "his" God. He did not say that Christ was "the" God (meaning the Father) rather Thomas was acknowledging to Christ that he recognized God's authority had been given to Christ and as such Christ was now part of the "God-head" or family of God. Since Christ is in full agreement with God, and God has placed his authority on Christ, Thomas now describing Christ as "his God" is not a characterization, but is a statement of submission.

There's the disconnect.  You're flip-flopping "the" and "my" specifically.  The point is that God the Father did not manditorily dispense this authority to a separate being.  That would be God violating his own standards of worship.  Jesus did not earn it either (at least not in the sense you are imposing, that one is begging for clarification).  You also forgot John 8 and the Mount of Transfiguration  which came before the resurrection (see below).
 
Brit:   Christ does not rebuke him as He had done to others in the past because of his new risen perfected status and authority.

But you are proposing that He is somehow "separate" from the Father.

Brit:  So if you want to say that Christ is "your" God, then I will not rebuke you either, but if you want to say that Christ is "the" God, then I will clarify that God is God the Father and none other, but Christ is our Lord who now has God's authority over us.

There is no difference, because I am ascribing the title of God to the same object.  The title further originates from the same worshiper.

PJ:  Jesus is my Lord and my God.

PJ:  Jesus is the Lord and the God.

The only difference is the possessive and a whole lot of front-loaded static.  If Jesus is not the Lord and the God, to the many, then He cannot be the Lord and the God to the individual (or "mine").

Brit:  That is not to say that Christ has God's authority over everything on the Earth, He doesn't yet, that comes later (or perhaps sooner).

Does that mean God's authority was given or taken?

Brit:  I think I may have answered this above, but I will add that you hit upon the exact reason that many Jews give as to why they believe Christianity is false, they say because it amounts to polytheism. I don't think it is polytheism. I think it is hair splitting. I accept Christ as Messiah and Lord and with full authority of God over us.

Question #1.  If Jesus is not God, then is He a created being?

Question #2.  Are you absolutely sure that there is no middle road between polytheism and modalism?  I propose there is.  

Question #3.  Why do you consider it hair splitting?  I call it a valid argument.

Brit:   Christ here is stating two things at once, one, that He is greater than Abraham and that his coming was planned by God before Abraham was born.

No.  It doesn't.  Not "planned."  He states it in the present-tense.

Brit:   In doing this his chosen words were designed to leave the hearer with no other conclusion than He is the Messiah who was foretold, at the moment they would understand this, He invoked part of one of the names of God "I Am" but He did not use it as a name, but He knew they would think this and it would agitate them, and it did, they tried to stone him for blasphemy, but this was a mistake on their part, since what He said could also mean that He is the Messiah and not God the Father.

You flip-flopped.  A claim to Messiah is not blasphemy.  They understood the claim.  It was not a mistake on their part.   

Brit:  The two operative words here "fullness" and "Deity". The word translated as "Deity" is only used only once in the NT and here. It's meaning is also the subject of much debate, but it is clear that it is not one of the names of God.

Where is it also used in the NT? 

Brit:  It could also be translated as "Godliness".

But not according to very nature.  Either He is God-like, or He has God-nature.

Brit:  It is also in the present tense so Paul is here referring to the risen Christ, and not the earthly Jesus.

I agree with this part, but. . .

Brit:  So this scripture could be understood to mean the Glory of God was in Him.

That statement is a leap in reason.  You are asserting Christ was a container for the Glory of God the Father based on Paul's present tense and nothing else. 

Brit:  Compare Col 1:19 "For it was the Father's good pleasure for all the fullness to dwell in Him, "

Now who's splitting hairs?  "All" the fullness is not "some" of the fullness.  Even the word "fullness" is a 100% assertion.  "Fullness" is not "partness".  If the fullness of God dwells in Christ, then where is the Father?

Oh, but then we swing from polytheism to modalism. 

I assert a third argument and can PM it if you'd like.  But it's rather tangential.  The trinity is not a mystery or a "just so" statement.  It is both provable and scriptural.

-PJ 

"Trake: Your lofty convictions are another blemish on the rump of congregational sectarianism." -Tumbler 5/15/07

Here we have three verses

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.’

“You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

“Furthermore it has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’

Note what Jesus says immediately after quoting from the Law!  (But I say...)  In doing so He claims greater authority than Scripture.  There is only One authority greater than the Word of God, that is the giver of the Word. (ie: God)

Supreme Court,  National Security,  Borders,  Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.