Is that it? Is this the long-awaited refutation of Thorn's 'copy/pasta'? A string of meaningless generalities and a straw man - namely, Jesus is not the Father? I've yet to meet a Christian who says He is. Yet you have somehow managed to convince yourself that this is standard fayre among those you despise so much. Begs the question whether you have ever understood the doctrine of the Trinity as it relates to the Father and the Son.
I'll agree with you about the importance of context, general tenor, analogy of Scripture, etc. All good points. But show me a single instance where Thorn's summary fails the context test, to the extent that the intended meaning is something other than the general thesis that Jesus is God.