Upvote:1
I would say the purposeful confusion this question presents is clarified by two sections:
1 Cor 8:6
But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (KJV)
1 Cor 15:27
For He (the Father) has put all things in subjection under His (Christ’s) feet. But when He says, “All things have been put in subjection [under Christ],” it is clear that He (the Father) who put all things in subjection to Him (Christ) is excepted [since the Father is not in subjection to His own Son]. (AMP)
There is one God, Christ, who is lord (master) over all, excepting God himself. Thus Christ, since he is not God, has a God. God is God of all, including Christ - and Christ is lord (master) of all, excluding God.
Upvote:2
More accurately, the son of God ascended to God the father, who is the god of the disciples. The son of God isn't the god of the son of God.
Upvote:4
1) Since god the son was ascending to his god
Yes. Specifically, God the Son was ascending to God the Father.
2) and his god is the same as the disciples' god
Yes. The god of God the Son is God the Father who is indeed the same as the disciples’s god. Thus, “...and to my god and your god” (John 20:17).
3) and the god of the disciples is god the son
In the previous statement, “his god” refers to the person of God the Father. Since “his god” = “the disciples’ god,” then the god of the disciples is God the Father, not God the Son.
That is NOT to say that God the Son is NOT the god of the disciples (cp. John 20:28). It simply means you substituted the wrong person in your logic statement. Why didn’t you instead say, “and the god of the disciples is God the Father”?