Sinners cannot understand the Bible!

[Ryft]

By the way, I had a read on Modalism and I can see that such is indeed what I put to you ... It is all part of theology which, while an interesting read, doesn't mean anything to me because I disbelieve in God anyway.

Well, the issue was whether or not those two propositions contradicted each another, which your disbelief in God doesn't establish. Suffice it to say they in fact aren't contradictory. But you draw attention to a rather salient point here: if someone rejects belief in God because of objections X, Y, and Z, what is the impact of those objections being systematically refuted?

How we interpret the Bible may differ, but ...

Differences in interpretation can be safely assumed, but at the end of the day it is hardly the point. Rather, the substantive point is why and how we interpret it as we do, for surely you would agree that some methods stand up under scrutiny better than others—as our brief experience demonstrated. What a person believes is not nearly as important as why they believe it. I enter such discussions assuming in advance that people interpret the Bible differently, evaluating instead the coherence and integrity of their reasoning. You believed Jesus said that he and the Father are one entity, while elsewhere saying that the Father is an entity greater than he. I ignored what you believed and focused instead on why you believed it. If you want to change someone's conclusion, address how they reached it.

I cannot see how Jesus' statements would refer to any idea other than this. But if they do refer to this, then (as Retorth showed) they must be contradictory.

Taken by themselves, I suppose it's possible. But "taken by themselves" is the same irresponsible and faulty practice as the quote-mining done by creationist wingnuts—ripping quotes from their context and interpreting them however you like—and I cannot fathom why someone would commend such a practice.

So, Arcanus, are you maintaining Jesus and God are two separate entities? Are they one and the same, or are they not? Simple answer please. A "yes they are" or a "no they are not" will suffice.

This reminds me of Star Trek: The Undiscovered Country where, as the prosecutor during Captain Kirk's trial, General Chang shouts, "Do you deny being demoted for these charges? Don't wait for the translation! Answer me now!"

I cannot answer your question simply, due to the presence of an equivocable term: 'entity'. Do you mean it in the sense of ousia? Then yes. Do you mean it in the sense of hypostasis? Then no. The Father and Son are distinct in their persons (hypostases) but identical in their essence (ousia).