There was an interesting point in there about our lenses to see God. You made a statement about the lenses that we were "given".  I rather feel that the lenses we have to view God are of our own design. We have designed religions to speak about the unspeakable and describe the indescribable. We write our own characters into sacred texts to help us share our understanding of God.  We use the language of religion to help us speak about something that doesn’t have tangible qualities. We project personification on the creative force so we can have relationship with "him" and talk to "him".  All religions have different images of God.  None of them are going to be absolutely "correct" but our own will feel more comfortable to us and others will feel uncomfortable as I’m sure you are uncomfortable reading my words. 

So I do see the bible as a lens to view God but it is our creative lens.  Actually I see it as 2 distinct lenses; one of ancient isreal (OT) and one of 1st century Christianity (NT). Each lens has it’s own origin and distinct coloring about God’ nature.  Both could not be absolutely correct because they differ, but both were useful to their respective cultures.

This point you make of the image of God or lens of God leads to the age old "did God make us or did we make God" debate.  I believe God made us but we also must form our own image of him becasue we can’t physically "see" or "know" him in a physical way.

Peter, I guess you are someone that sees the bible as something God gave us to reveal himself and you see your own image of God as THE ONLY true image of God. Is that accurate?  I don’t mean to put words in your mouth but that is what I seem to understand as the underlying reasoning for your statements.  Your statements make some logical sense IF you start from that assumption (I don’t personnally make that assumption).

I said all of that to make the simple point that another way to describe the relationship between God and Jesus is; Jesus was a human lens for seeing God.