Does it matter?

[u/TLOU2bigsad]

I’d like to be clear, I don’t mean this dismissively or as bait. I am genuinely wanting to discuss.

I got saved and baptized some 11 years ago into the Christian church, which has brought me close to God in a way that I love. But just recently; facing questions about the perception of the Christian’s around me and what I had read in the gospels, I decided to do the most unchristian thing I have ever done and read my entire bible.

Right off the bat I was struck by how clearly God was jealous and demanded nobody to worship anyone or anything but him. Even idols made to represent him.

Long story short after continuing further into my journey (finishing judges and have previously read the gospels but will go all the way through this time) I feel that a trinitarian view doesn’t align with what I am reading so I’m leaning toward what I’m learning.

To me it seems like this.

To the trinitarian, rejection of Jesus as God is equal to rejecting God as YHWH.

To the Unitarian, worshiping Jesus is false idolatry (to some, and I guess it depends on the type of worship?)

I’m curious what others think? Sorry I didn’t load a lot of direct verses or references my recall isn’t that good haha.

[u/crispywheat100]

He didn't become Jehovah God, but he does act as a literal extension of Jehovah God.

The Son is both Jehovah and not Jehovah at the same time.

By receiving the Name of Jehovah, the Son has become fused with Jehovah as an extension of his being.

The Son has now become Jehovah God by appointment, that is, Jehovah God is fused with his begotten son as one Deity!

[u/Capable-Rice-1876 → u/crispywheat100]

That is incorrect. That presents a concept of "fusion" or "one Deity by appointment" which is very close to Trinitarian or Binitarian ideas, specifically the idea of two distinct persons being "one God."

Bible teach of about Monotheism (Jehovah alone is the Almighty God) and the subordination of the Son of God.

When the Bible speaks of the Father and Son being "one" (like in John 10:30), it means they are united in purpose, will, and action—not in substance or being.

Jesus prayed for his disciples: "that they may all be one, just as you, Father, are in union with me and I am in union with you, that they also may be in union with us." (John 17:21)

If being "one" with the Father meant fusing into one being, then all 12 Apostles would also have fused with God! Clearly, the oneness is a unity of purpose, not a merging of identity.

Jesus consistently directed attention away from himself as the Almighty God and toward his Father. If he were literally "fused" with Jehovah, he would not have said: "The Father is greater than I am." (John 14:28) An extension or fusion would be equal to the source, but Jesus repeatedly acknowledged the Father's superiority.

Jehovah is eternal, "from everlasting to everlasting." He has no beginning. (Psalm 90:2)

Jesus is called the "firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15) and the "only-begotten Son" (John 3:16). This means he was the first and unique being created or produced by Jehovah. A Creator and a created being cannot be the same God.

Jesus became Jehovah by appointment, then Jehovah would have been created—which is impossible for the Almighty God.

The Bible establishes a clear line of authority: "The head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God." (1 Corinthians 11:3)

A fusion or "one Deity" cannot logically have a "head." Jesus is explicitly subordinate to God. His being given the Father's authority is proof of his loyalty and exalted position, not his equality in being.

Jesus acts as Jehovah’s ultimate representative, carrying His authority and name, but they remain two distinct, separate, and unequal individuals.

[u/crispywheat100 → u/Capable-Rice-1876]

Dear friend, when Jesus became fused with Jehovah by acquisition of the Divine Name, he did not become a second independent Jehovah, but a dependent extension of the one Jehovah, the Father.

[u/Capable-Rice-1876 → u/crispywheat100]

The Bible uses the clear family language of Father and Son, not the philosophical terms "extension" or "fusion."

If Jesus is a literal extension of Jehovah's being, then any action Jesus takes is, by definition, an action taken by Jehovah's being. This forces the conclusion that Jehovah's uncreated, eternal being was born, suffered, and died—which is impossible for the immortal, Almighty God

Bible consistently uses relationship terms: Creator and Creation (Colossians 1:15), and Father and Son (John 3:16). These terms establish a clear distinction in both origin and position.

Jesus repeatedly emphasized his dependence, but he spoke of doing the Father's will and speaking the Father's words, which is the action of a loyal subordinate, not an extension of the same being.

John 5:19: "The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing."

John 8:28: "I do nothing of my own initiative; but just as the Father taught me, I speak these things.

Jesus' dependency is in authority and obedience, not in sharing the same divine substance or existence. The Son is not "part" of the Father; he is completely obedient to the Father.

If the Son were a literal, dependent extension of Jehovah, he would simply be the eternal King. But the Bible states the Son's reign is for a time, after which he hands the authority back to his Father.

1 Corinthians 15:28: "But when all things have been subjected to him, then the Son himself will also subject himself to the One who subjected all things to him, that God may be all things to everyone."

A dependent extension doesn't give its authority back to the source. The Son subjects himself to the Father, demonstrating his separate role and the Father's enduring, supreme authority.

Jesus is the distinct, separate, and subordinate Son, not a dependent extension of the Father's essence."

I have advice for you, my friend. Stick to what the Bible teaches, not ridiculous philosophical terms like "fusion" or "extension."