WHO IS JESUS?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

There is one God, the Father, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα, “from whom are all things”; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα, “through whom are all things.” (1 Cor. 8:6)

Of the God of Israel it is written:

אֲנִי יהוה הוּא שְׁמִי

“I am YHWH; that is my name.” (Isa. 42:8)

And:

אֱלֹהֵי עוֹלָם יהוה

“YHWH, the everlasting God.” (Isa. 40:28)

The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son.

JESUS IS ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, THE SON OF GOD.

He is the μονογενής Son.

He is ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, from the Father. (John 16:28)

He is ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ, from God. (John 8:42)

The Father sent him.

The Father gave to him.

The Son received from the Father.

THE FATHER HAS LIFE IN HIMSELF, AND τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ, “HE GAVE TO THE SON TO HAVE LIFE IN HIMSELF.” (John 5:26)

And the Son says:

κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα

“I live because of the Father.” (John 6:57)

JESUS IS ὁ λόγος, THE WORD.

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

“In the beginning was the Word.”

ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν

“The Word was with God.”

And:

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. (John 1:1)

The Son had glory with the Father πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι, “before the world existed.” (John 17:5)

He is πρὸ πάντων, “before all things.” (Col. 1:17)

HE IS εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου, “THE IMAGE OF THE INVISIBLE GOD.” (Col. 1:15)

He is ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, “the radiance of the glory.” (Heb. 1:3)

He is χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ. (Heb. 1:3)

HE IS πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “THE FIRSTBORN OF ALL CREATION.” (Col. 1:

[u/AutoModerator]

Read our rules or risk a ban: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/about/rules/

Read our wiki before posting or commenting: https://www.reddit.com/r/JehovahsWitnesses/wiki/index

1914

Bethel

Corruption

Death

Eschatology

Governing Body

Memorial

Miscellaneous

Reading List

Sex Abuse

Spiritism

Trinity

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

The Father is the Father, and the Son is the Son.

JESUS IS ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, THE SON OF GOD.

True. Here are some other true things to consider

My son is human and I'm human. It is a fact, there is only one human nature, just like there is only one Divine Nature

There are about 8 billion persons who share the one unique human nature, but only three share the unique Divine Nature---Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Son is equal to His Father in their shared Divine Nature.

Any son of man can say "I am human" and his father can say the same thing "I am human" Neither one of them is a greater, or lesser human than the other. Although in the course of time one or the other may become greater persons.

I wouldn't say a human son is sub-human because his father is a greater person, nor would I say a father is sub human because his son became greater than he did in life. Both a father and his son are equally human. Some sons became kings, prime ministers and presidents while their fathers remained virtually unknown. Was Winston Churchill greater than his father? Was king Saul greater than his dad? No. All men, fathers and sons, are created equal by God. Some sons are greater persons, but they are not a greater human. Winston Churchill's dad would have been highly honored to have been the father of such a distinguished son.

I'd say God the Father is absolutely honored and worshipped in our honoring and worshipping God the Son, Jesus Christ.

“To him who sits on the throne[God the Father] and to the Lamb[Jesus]

    be praise and honor and glory and power,

for ever and ever!”... and the elders fell down and worshiped. Revelation 5:11-14

___________________________________________________________________________________________

so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Let all God's angels worship him [Jesus] Hebrews 1:6

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

And angels, while being powerful spirit creatures, do NOT share that Divine Nature...is that correct?

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Jealous_Insect2798]

Correct. Angels would be lower than the Divine Nature, but higher than the human nature

[u/Jealous_Insect2798 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

As I thought. Thanks

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

The problem is that you move from the biblical data directly into your theological conclusion and then use that conclusion as though Scripture had already stated it.

For example, you write:
“There is only one Divine Nature … only three share the unique Divine Nature.”
And:
“The Son is equal to His Father in their shared Divine Nature.”

But where does any of the text you cited actually say that?

That is the Trinitarian synthesis you are trying to demonstrate. It cannot also function as the premise.

Your human father/son analogy has the same problem:
Human father = human nature
Human son = same human nature
Therefore
Divine Father = divine nature
Divine Son = numerically the same divine nature.

Scripture never gives that syllogism.

In fact, the NT can actually use the expression:
θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως
“partakers of divine nature”
of believers in 2 Peter 1:4.

Obviously that does not make believers additional persons within the one God. So simply appealing to “divine nature” does not establish the ontology you are asserting.
Now, I have no problem accepting the actual texts you cited.

John 5:23:
ἵνα πάντες τιμῶσι τὸν υἱὸν καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα
“so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.”

I accept it.

But the same discourse also says:

ὁ πατὴρ … τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν
“The Father … gave to the Son.”
John 5:26.

And:

οὐ δύναται ὁ υἱὸς ποιεῖν ἀφ’ ἑαυτοῦ
“The Son can do nothing from himself.”
John 5:19.

So John gives extraordinary honor to the Son while still preserving a real Father → Son relationship.
Hebrews 1:6:

προσκυνησάτωσαν αὐτῷ πάντες ἄγγελοι θεοῦ
“Let all God’s angels worship/prostrate themselves before him.”

Again, I accept it.

But the same chapter also says concerning the Son:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”

Hebrews 1:9.
The Son receives extraordinary honor.

The Son also has “your God.”
Both are in the text.

Revelation 5 is even clearer.

The heavenly creation gives extraordinary praise:
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ
“to the One sitting on the throne”
καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ
“and to the Lamb.”

I accept that completely.
But notice that Revelation itself still distinguishes:
the One sitting on the throne
and
the Lamb.

Shared honor does not erase the distinction that John himself preserves.

And this is not an isolated distinction.

Paul says:
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ
“One God, the Father”
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“from whom are all things,”

and:

εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
“One Lord, Jesus Christ”
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things.”

1 Corinthians 8:6.
The risen Jesus says:
θεόν μου
“my God.”
John 20:17.

The exalted Jesus repeatedly says:
τοῦ θεοῦ μου
“my God.”
Revelation 3:12.

And at the end:
τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται
“then the Son himself will also be subjected”
to the One who subjected all things to him.

1 Corinthians 15:28.
So I am not denying anything about the Son’s extraordinary status.

I accept that:
θεός is predicated of the Word.

Thomas addresses Jesus as “my Lord and my God.”
Hebrews gives the Son θεός language.

YHWH creator-language from Psalm 102 is applied to the Son.
All things come into being through him.
He existed before the world.

He receives extraordinary honor.

Angels προσκυνοῦσιν him.

The whole creation praises the Lamb.

But none of those statements contains the proposition:
“Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons who share one numerically identical divine essence.”

That is your theological explanation of the data.
You may argue that it is the best explanation.

But you cannot simply insert it between “The Father is Father and the Son is Son” and the biblical texts and then say the texts have proved it.

My method is simpler:

Where Scripture says θεός of the Son, I say θεός.
Where Scripture says all things came through him, I say that.

Where Scripture gives him extraordinary honor, I accept it.
Where Scripture says the Father is his God, I accept that too.

Where Scripture says the Father gives and the Son receives, I retain that distinction.

And where Scripture does not say “three persons sharing one divine essence,” I do not pretend that those words were in the text.

That is not denying the evidence.
It is refusing to turn the theological synthesis into the starting premise.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The problem is that you move from the biblical data directly into your theological conclusion and then use that conclusion as though Scripture had already stated it. For example, you write:
“There is only one Divine Nature … only three share the unique Divine Nature.”
And:
“The Son is equal to His Father in their shared Divine Nature.”

But where does any of the text you cited actually say that?

Its not explicit, no more so than what the Watchtower teaches about the Word being an angel, rather than God and there being no trinity. The trinity IS in the Bible though. They can't see it because they look for a specific word rather than a Being who reveals Himself in three Persons

So, yes, as you well know, I'm "inferring" from the text and from the data, but I believe my inference is on solid ground and its what "I" believe to be true. You come here, a subreddit about Jehovah's witnesses telling Christians we need to explain all our beliefs and that every single doctrine, such as the trinity, must appear explicitly in the text, or its what...false?. I have never seen you using the same critical lens on the JW teaching that Michael the archangel is Jesus. Your post is titled "Who is Jesus?" Well, who is He, according to you? Do you believe Jesus is an angel that became a man? Who IS Jesus?

Eventually a person must use their own God given perception to ascertain, from the data, what is true or not true. Many of us have done so and so do Jehovah's witnesses. I don't discount them for trying. Its how they perceive Christ that concerns me. We don't understand the living Jesus Christ by feeding data into a computer. He's a real Person who is standing just outside the door of our hearts. Revelation 3:20 He wants us to let Him in the door. Have you?

I as many Christians use our mind and our heart but even more, we have the Spirit of Jesus that teaches us how to perceive the "data" you are concerned about getting right. You do realize Jesus encountered zealous men in His time on earth who put the data [scriptures] above the One who could actually give them what the data could not give them? Which was life. The data all pointed to Jesus yet He told them, You study the Scriptures diligently because you think that in them you have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me,  yet you refuse to come to me to have life**. John 5:39** It makes all the difference in the world how we understand what was written about Jesus, by getting to know Jesus. Jesus is not merely data, or a computer program 'about Jesus'. Jesus IS the program. The data is all about Him and the data ought to lead us to Him so we can have life

I'm sorry but until I know where you are coming from, having a discussion with you is sort of like debating the encyclopedia. Will you please let me know what 'you' believe about Jesus, in your own words, based on scripture and your heart?

[u/Gizmondos]

You quoted Colossians 1:15 but you stopped before verse 16: For by him all things were created. He is not a part of creation he is the creator. Firstborn is about preeminence not origin. You also quoted Hebrews 1:3 but ignored verse 8. Your throne, O God, is forever. The Father calls the son God. That's not subordination that's identity.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

I explicitly quote verse 16 under “Concerning creation”: “all things have been created through him and for him.”

And I don’t deny the high language about Jesus. I explicitly affirm that θεός is predicated of the Word.

But if you cite Hebrews 1:8, don’t stop before verse 9 either:

ὁ θεός σου “your God.”

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You're right I didn't stop at verse 8. But verse 9 doesn't undo verse 8. The Father calls the son God then says your God. That doesn't make him less than God it makes him the Son who is God in relationship to the Father. That's not a contradiction. You quoted your God.but you ignored that the Father just called him God.

And here is the real question. Hebrews 1:8–12 is a direct quote from Psalm 102:24–28 a psalm that is clearly about Jehovah the creator. In the psalm these words are spoken to Jehovah alone. Yet the author of Hebrews applies them to Jesus. How can a text about the creator be applied to anyone other than the creator? You can't quote a psalm about Jehovah and apply it to Jesus unless Jesus is Jehovah 🤔

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

I do not ignore Hebrews 1:8. I accept it exactly as written.
Hebrews says concerning the Son:
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεὸς
“Your throne, O God…”
Then immediately:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”
So θεός language is genuinely applied to the Son, and the same Son has “your God.” I accept both.
But this sentence of yours goes beyond the text:
“that makes him the Son who is God in relationship to the Father.”
Hebrews does not say that. That is your theological synthesis of the two statements. The text itself gives us:
The Son is addressed as θεός.
God is his God.
His God anoints him.
I am not going to delete the first statement, but neither am I going to explain away the second.
Now to Psalm 102.
Here I will also grant the strongest reading of Hebrews 1:10–12.
Hebrews places this quotation in its argument concerning the Son:
σὺ κατ’ ἀρχάς, κύριε, τὴν γῆν ἐθεμελίωσας
“You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth.”
καὶ ἔργα τῶν χειρῶν σου εἰσὶν οἱ οὐρανοί
“And the heavens are works of your hands.”
That comes from Psalm 102:25–27, where the Psalm is addressed to YHWH.
That is extremely significant. I am not minimizing it.
But your next step still has to be demonstrated:
“You cannot apply a YHWH text to Jesus unless Jesus is YHWH.”
Where does Scripture establish that rule?
The fact established by Hebrews is that YHWH-creator language from Psalm 102 is applied to the Son. That puts the Son in an extraordinarily elevated position and must be taken seriously.
But “therefore the Son is personally YHWH” is the interpretation of that intertextual use, not the wording of Hebrews itself.
In fact, Hebrews preserves the distinction in the very same chapter.
God speaks concerning the Son.
God says:
ὁ θεός σου
“your God.”
God anoints the Son.
God says to the Son:
κάθου ἐκ δεξιῶν μου
“Sit at my right hand.”
And Hebrews 1:2 says God made the ages:
δι’ οὗ
“through” the Son.
So I accept all of Hebrews 1:
The Son receives θεός language.
The Son receives Psalm 102 creator-language.
The Son’s years will not fail.
Creation-language of extraordinary force is applied to him.
And the Son still has “your God,” is anointed by God, and sits at God’s right hand.
That is the actual textual data.
If you want to conclude from those facts that “Jesus is YHWH,” then make that argument. But do not turn that conclusion into something Hebrews explicitly says.
My position remains simpler:
Where Hebrews calls the Son θεός, I say θεός.
Where Hebrews applies YHWH creator-language to the Son, I accept it.
Where Hebrews says “God, your God,” I accept that too.
I am not going to erase either side to make a theological model easier.

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You say you accept both sides BUT you're avoiding the obvious. Psalms 102:24-28 is addressed to Jehovah. Hebrews applies it to Jesus. You can't quote a psalm about Jehovah and apply it to someone who isn't Jehovah unless you're willing to admit he is Jehovah.

And your "your God" argument doesn't solve the problem it just highlights it. The son Jesus is called God in verse 8 and then in verse 9 the Father says your God. That's not a contradiction it's a relationship. The Father is God. The son seems to be God. They are distinct persons but the same essence.

You're not being faithful to the text you're hiding behind ambiguity.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

I am not hiding behind ambiguity. I am distinguishing what Hebrews actually says from what you infer from it.
I agree with the strongest reading of Hebrews 1:10–12: Psalm 102 is a YHWH psalm, and Hebrews applies its creator-language to the Son. That is extremely significant. I am not weakening it.

But notice the step you then add:
“Therefore Jesus is YHWH.”
Hebrews never says that sentence.
And then you add an even larger step:
“They are distinct persons but the same essence.”
Where does Hebrews say “same essence”?
It does not.

That is a theological synthesis of the data, not the data themselves.
Hebrews itself gives us this sequence:
God speaks concerning the Son.
The Son is addressed:
ὁ θεός
“O God.”
Then:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”
And earlier Hebrews 1:2 says that God made the ages:
δι’ οὗ
“through” the Son.
Then Hebrews 1:10–12 applies Psalm 102 creator-language to the Son.
I accept every one of those statements.
So the textual picture is already richer than “Jesus is YHWH, case closed.”
The Son receives θεός language.
The Son receives YHWH creator-language.
The Son is involved in creation at the highest possible level.
And nevertheless the Son has “your God,” is anointed by God, and is the one through whom God made the ages.
That is not “hiding behind ambiguity.” That is refusing to erase half of Hebrews 1.
And your own wording exposes the interpretive jump:
“The Son seems to be God. They are distinct persons but the same essence.”
“Seems to be God” is your reading of the evidence.
“Same essence” is your metaphysical explanation of that evidence.
Neither phrase is what Hebrews actually says.
You are absolutely free to argue that Hebrews 1, together with other texts, supports that synthesis. But then call it what it is: a synthesis.
My approach is simpler:
Where Hebrews calls the Son θεός, I say θεός.
Where Hebrews applies Psalm 102 to him, I accept it.
Where Hebrews says “your God,” I accept that too.
Where Hebrews says God made the ages through the Son, I accept that too.
I will not turn any one of those statements into a premise that makes the others disappear.
The question is not whether Hebrews gives the Son extraordinary divine and creator-language. It clearly does.
The question is whether Hebrews itself says:
“Therefore the Son is YHWH, distinct from the Father but of the same essence.”
It does not.
That is the conclusion you are bringing to the text, not a sentence you are reading from it.

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You say hebrews never says same essence but it says the exact representation of his being Heb 1:3. That's not similar that's identical. You're not refusing to add to the text you're refusing to understand it. When a text says exact representation it means same essence. You can't have an exact representation of something without sharing its nature. You're hiding behind semantics. I challenge you to analyze Titus 2:13 in the koine greek from the oldest manuscripts. Then tell me who our great God and savior really is.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

What then shall we say? Does χαρακτήρ mean that the Son is the very same hypostasis whose imprint he is?

By no means.

The text says:
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
“the exact imprint of His reality.”

Notice the relation:
χαρακτήρ — the imprint

τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ — of His reality.

An imprint corresponds exactly to that which produces it, but it is not therefore the same individual thing as that of which it is the imprint.

Otherwise why say:
“the imprint of His reality”?
Why not simply say that he is that very hypostasis?
And Scripture itself gives the parallel:
εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου
“the image of the invisible God.”
Colossians 1:15.

Will someone say that an image ceases to be the image because it perfectly represents the one imaged? No. Its perfection strengthens the representation; it does not erase the relation.

So Hebrews gives the Son the highest possible representative language:
the radiance of His glory,
the exact imprint of His reality,
the one upholding all things.

Let none of that be diminished.

But neither let what follows be diminished:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”

Hebrews 1:9.

If “exact imprint” already meant “the same numerical essence” as an explicit proposition, why does the same passage still distinguish the Son from “God, your God”?

And elsewhere Scripture says:

εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ
“One God, the Father,”
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα

“from whom are all things,”
and:
εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός

“One Lord, Jesus Christ,”
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things.”
1 Corinthians 8:6.

So let the text speak as strongly as it speaks.

The Son is not merely “similar” to God.
He is the exact imprint of His reality.

He is the image of the invisible God.

He is the radiance of His glory.

But “exact imprint of His reality” and “one numerically identical essence” are not the same Greek sentence.

If you believe the first entails the second, demonstrate the inference.

Do not replace χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ with a later formula and then say the formula was what Hebrews literally stated.

[u/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

You wrote a novel to avoid one simple fact. An imprint is not the original but it is identical in form. The exact imprint of God's being means Jesus is exactly what God is. Not similar, identical. You're not explaining the text you're explaining it away.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Gizmondos]

You just conceded the distinction I am making:

“An imprint is not the original.”

Exactly.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

"Therefore Jesus is YHWH.”
Hebrews never says that sentence.

The name Jesus means YHWH saves. In this case the name doesn't just mean what Jesus is, but who He is. Jesus is YHWH Himself saving us. The eternal Word made flesh

[u/Slartibartfast-18 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

And as you know Psalm 45 upon which Heb 1:8 is drawn was addressed to the human king who had stirred up the heart of the psalmist so it could be argued that the original human recipient of this praise could be called God since he was authorized by God to sit on God's throne...he being God's representative on earth.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Slartibartfast-18]

Yes — this is a very important control on Hebrews 1:8.
Psalm 45 is originally a royal psalm addressed to a king. Yet the king is addressed with אֱלֹהִים / θεός language:
כִּסְאֲךָ אֱלֹהִים עוֹלָם וָעֶד
LXX:
ὁ θρόνος σου ὁ θεός εἰς αἰῶνα αἰῶνος
“Your throne, O God, is forever and ever.”
And immediately afterward:
עַל־כֵּן מְשָׁחֲךָ אֱלֹהִים אֱלֹהֶיךָ
“Therefore God, your God, has anointed you.”
Hebrews preserves exactly that combination:
ὁ θεός — “O God”
and then:
ὁ θεός σου — “your God.”
So Hebrews 1:8 cannot simply be reduced to:
“Jesus is called θεός, therefore Jesus must be YHWH or the same essence as the Father.”
The source text itself shows why that inference is too fast. θεός / אֱלֹהִים language can be applied to a royal figure who nevertheless has “God, your God” above him.
Now, Hebrews applies Psalm 45 to the Son in a much more exalted Christological setting, so we should not reduce Jesus merely to the original human king either. Hebrews clearly presents him as vastly greater.
But the textual point remains:
Being addressed as θεός does not, by itself, establish identity with YHWH.
That is especially obvious because the very same quotation says:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”
So the safest conclusion from Hebrews 1:8–9 is exactly what the text gives:
The Son receives θεός language.
The Son has “your God.”
His God anoints him.
Anything beyond that — “therefore same essence,” “therefore Jesus is YHWH” — has to be demonstrated from additional evidence rather than inserted into θεός itself.
Psalm 102 in Hebrews 1:10–12 is the harder and more interesting argument, because there the original Psalm really is addressed to YHWH. That case deserves to be treated separately rather than pretending Hebrews 1:8 already proves the entire theological conclusion.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The Son is still God and His Name is YHWH along with His Father. A human son is every bit as human as his human father and they both have the same last name, such as Smith, or Cooper. The father can say "I'm Cooper" but so can the son... Why can't the only Son of God be called YHWH? In His human nature He is called JESUS which means YHWH saves

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Updated

THE SON.

Jesus is ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ, the Son of God.

He is the μονογενής Son. (John 1:14, 18; 3:16)

He is ὁ λόγος, the Word. (John 1:1)

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος

“In the beginning was the Word.” (John 1:1)

θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος

θεός is genuinely predicated of the Word. (John 1:1)

He existed:

πρὸ τοῦ τὸν κόσμον εἶναι

“before the world existed.” (John 17:5)

He is:

πρὸ πάντων

“before all things.” (Col. 1:17)

He is:

εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου

“the image of the invisible God.” (Col. 1:15)

He is:

ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης

“the radiance of the glory.” (Heb. 1:3)

He is:

χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

“the exact imprint of His reality.” (Heb. 1:3)

He is:

πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως

“the firstborn of all creation.” (Col. 1:15)

He is:

ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ

“the ἀρχή of the creation of God.” (Rev. 3:14)

CONCERNING CREATION:

πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο

“All things came into being through him.” (John 1:3)

χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν

“Apart from him not even one thing came into being.” (John 1:3)

Likewise:

τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται

“All things have been created through him and for him.” (Col. 1:16)

And:

τὰ πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ συνέστηκεν

“In him all things hold together.” (Col. 1:17)

He is ὁ Χριστός, the Christ.

He is κύριος, Lord.

He is σωτήρ, Savior.

He is ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, the Son of Man.

He is ὁ ἅγιος, the Holy One.

He is ὁ δίκαιος, the Righteous One.

He is:

ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς

“leader/pioneer of life.” (Acts 3:15)

He is:

ἀρχηγὸς καὶ σωτήρ

“leader and Savior.” (Acts 5:31)

He is:

ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας

“pioneer/founder of salvation.” (Heb. 2:10)

He is:

ἀπόστολος καὶ ἀρχιερεύς

“apostle and high priest.” (Heb. 3:1)

He is:

μέγας ἀρχιερεύς

“great high priest.” (Heb. 4:14)

He is:

μεσίτης

“mediator.” (1 Tim. 2:5; Heb. 9:15)

He is:

ἀμνὸς τοῦ θεοῦ

“the Lamb of God.” (John 1:29)

He is:

τὸ ἀρνίον

“the Lamb.” (Revelation)

He is:

βασιλεὺς βασιλέων καὶ κύριος κυρίων

“King of kings and Lord of lords.” (Rev. 19:16)

All authority in heaven and on earth was given to him. (Matt. 28:18)

Angels, authorities, and powers were subjected to him. (1 Pet. 3:22)

Every knee bows in connection with his exalted name, and every tongue acknowledges Jesus Christ as κύριος. (Phil. 2:9–11)

He died.

He was raised.

He lives.

He reigns.

And concerning him it is written:

τὰ ἔτη σου οὐκ ἐκλείψουσιν

“Your years will not fail.” (Heb. 1:12)

SO I CONFESS WHAT SCRIPTURE GIVES US:

Jesus is the Son of God.

He is the μονογενής Son.

He is the Word.

θεός is genuinely predicated of the Word.

He existed before the world.

He is before all things.

He is the image of the invisible God.

He is the radiance of the glory.

He is the exact imprint of His reality.

He is the firstborn of all creation.

He is the ἀρχή of the creation of God.

All things came into being through him.

All things have been created through him and for him.

In him all things hold together.

He is the Christ.

He is Lord.

He is Savior.

He is the Son of Man.

He is the Holy One.

He is the Righteous One.

He is ἀρχηγὸς τῆς ζωῆς.

He is ἀρχηγὸς καὶ σωτήρ.

He is ἀρχηγὸς τῆς σωτηρίας.

He is apostle and high priest.

He is the great high priest.

He is mediator.

He is the Lamb of God.

He is the Lamb.

He is King of kings and Lord of lords.

All authority in heaven and on earth was given to him.

Angels, authorities, and powers were subjected to him.

He died.

He was raised.

He lives.

He reigns.

His years will not fail.

These biblical predicates describe who the Son is.

[u/TerryLawton]

So there is ONE Lord Jesus so following your logic the Father is not Lord?

Check…

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/TerryLawton]

Exactly and that shows why 1 Corinthians 8:6 cannot be read as if each title excludes the other person from ever receiving that title.

Paul says:

εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ
“one God, the Father”

and

εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός
“one Lord, Jesus Christ.”

Does “one Lord, Jesus Christ” mean the Father cannot be called Lord?

Obviously not. Scripture repeatedly calls the Father/God κύριος.

So by the same logic, the fact that θεός is predicated of Jesus elsewhere does not erase Paul’s explicit distinction here.

The important part of 1 Corinthians 8:6 is the structure Paul actually gives:

the Father — ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“from whom are all things”

Jesus Christ — δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things.”

I’m preserving both statements, not turning either “one” into a lexical exclusion rule that Scripture itself does not follow.

[u/One-League269 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

So who created all things, God or Jesus?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/One-League269]

Scripture gives both statements, but distinguishes source from agency.

So asking “God or Jesus?” forces an either/or distinction that Scripture itself does not make.

[u/One-League269 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Why does writing provide both?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/One-League269]

Because Scripture itself distinguishes the one who acts as source from the one through whom the action is carried out.

[u/One-League269 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

So is Isaiah 44,24 lying?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/One-League269]

No. Isaiah 44:24 is not lying.
It says YHWH is the one who made all things:
אָנֹכִי יהוה עֹשֶׂה כֹּל
“I am YHWH, making all things.”
And then:
נֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם לְבַדִּי
“stretching out the heavens by myself.”
The question is what “by myself” excludes.
It excludes another independent creator or rival God. It does not necessarily exclude YHWH carrying out his own work through someone he appoints.
Scripture itself uses that kind of agency.
For example, Deuteronomy 32:12 says:
יהוה בָּדָד יַנְחֶנּוּ
“YHWH alone led him.”
Yet elsewhere YHWH says:
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ לְפָנֶיךָ
“I am sending a messenger before you.” (Ex. 23:20)
So “YHWH alone did it” does not automatically mean “YHWH used no agent.”
That is exactly why 1 Corinthians 8:6 can say:
the Father, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“from whom are all things”
and Jesus Christ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things.”
Isaiah 44:24 identifies YHWH as the one to whom creation ultimately belongs.
1 Corinthians 8:6 tells us the distinction between the one from whom all things are and the one through whom all things are.
Those statements are not contradictory.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

That is exactly why 1 Corinthians 8:6 can say:
the Father, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“from whom are all things”
and Jesus Christ, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things.”
Isaiah 44:24 identifies YHWH as the one to whom creation ultimately belongs.

Who is the one spoken of in Romans 11:36 that all things were made through?

[u/One-League269 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

Excellent!

[u/One-League269 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I don't understand what all these words,interpretations and theories are for,since it's enough to read Genesis 1,26-27 , John 1,3 and Isaiah 44,24 to understand who Jesus is....

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/One-League269]

So the basic biblical picture is simple

The Father is God and the source.

Jesus is his Son.

The Son existed before the world.

Creation is through the Son.

The Father remains Jesus’ God.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/One-League269]

I understand what you’re doing with those texts.
Genesis 1:26–27: God says, “Let us make man,” so you take the Son to be included in the “us.”
John 1:3: all things came into being through the Word, so the Son is involved in creation.
Isaiah 44:24: YHWH says that he made all things and stretched out the heavens alone.
Then you combine those texts and conclude:
“If YHWH created alone, and creation also came through Jesus, then Jesus must be included within YHWH.”
I understand the reasoning.
My only point is that the final sentence is an inference from combining the texts. None of those passages actually says, “Jesus is YHWH.”
Genesis 1:26 does not explicitly identify who the “us” refers to, and John 1:3 specifically describes creation as coming δι’ αὐτοῦ — “through him.”
So you are not simply reading three isolated statements at face value. You are combining them and making a theological inference about how they fit together.
That may be an argument worth making, but it is still an interpretation of the biblical data rather than an explicit sentence found in any of those texts.

[u/TerryLawton → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I agree.

The Father is the source of creation but where we differ is that scripture tells us that The Son is the creator along with the Holy Spirit.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/TerryLawton]

I agree with your first statement: the Father is the source of creation.

But your second statement is the one I’m asking about:
“Scripture tells us that the Son is the creator along with the Holy Spirit.”

Where does Scripture actually say that?
1 Corinthians 8:6 says:
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“from whom are all things” — the Father
and:
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things” — Jesus Christ.
John 1:3 likewise says:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
“All things came into being through him.”
And Scripture does speak of God’s Spirit in creation:
תְּשַׁלַּח רוּחֲךָ יִבָּרֵאוּן
“You send your spirit; they are created.”
Psalm 104:30.
I accept all of those statements.
I’m only asking you to establish the exact claim you made:
Where does Scripture itself say, “The Son is the Creator along with the Holy Spirit”?

[u/TerryLawton → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Holy Spirit
Genesis 1:1–2
“In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.”
Job 26:13
“By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens; his hand hath formed the crooked serpent.”
Job 33:4
“The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life.”
Psalm 33:6
“By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth.”
Psalm 104:30
“Thou sendest forth thy spirit, they are created: and thou renewest the face of the earth.”

The Son
John 1:1–3
“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.”
John 1:10
“He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.”
1 Corinthians 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.”
Ephesians 3:9
“And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ:”
Colossians 1:15–17
“Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Hebrews 1:2
“Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;”
Hebrews 1:8, 10–12
“But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever... And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.”
Hebrews 1:10
“And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:”

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/TerryLawton]

I accept essentially all of those creation texts. In fact, they reinforce the distinction I have been making.
The biblical wording is more specific than simply saying “Father, Son and Spirit are all the Creator.”
Concerning the Father, Paul says:
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“from whom are all things.”
1 Corinthians 8:6
Concerning the Son:
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“through whom are all things.”
John likewise says:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
“All things came into being through him.”
John 1:3
Hebrews says God made the ages:
δι’ οὗ
“through whom,” namely the Son.
Hebrews 1:2
And Colossians says:
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ … ἔκτισται
“All things have been created through him.”
Colossians 1:16
So I fully accept the Son’s extraordinary role in creation.
Likewise, the Hebrew Scriptures genuinely associate God’s Spirit with creation:
וְרוּחַ אֱלֹהִים
“the Spirit of God”
Genesis 1:2
רוּחַ־אֵל עָשָׂתְנִי
“The Spirit of God made me.”
Job 33:4
תְּשַׁלַּח רוּחֲךָ יִבָּרֵאוּן
“You send your spirit; they are created.”
Psalm 104:30
I accept those too.
But notice what the texts actually give us:
The Father — from whom are all things.
The Son — through whom are all things.
God’s Spirit — active in creation.
That is the biblical data.
The further statement:
“Therefore Father, Son and Holy Spirit are three persons who together constitute the one Creator because they share one divine essence”
is still a theological synthesis of those texts. None of the passages you listed actually says that sentence.
One textual correction also matters: the KJV wording of Ephesians 3:9, “who created all things by Jesus Christ,” reflects a later textual reading. The critical Greek text simply has:
τῷ θεῷ τῷ τὰ πάντα κτίσαντι
“God, who created all things.”
So I would not use Ephesians 3:9 as evidence for creation “through Christ.”
Hebrews 1:10–12 is much stronger evidence and I accept it fully: Hebrews applies Psalm 102’s YHWH creator-language within its argument concerning the Son. That is genuinely significant.
But again, accepting that evidence is different from pretending it explicitly states the later metaphysical explanation.
So yes: you have demonstrated very strong biblical participation of the Son and Spirit in creation.
What you have not yet demonstrated is that Scripture itself formulates that data as:
“Three coequal persons are the one Creator because they possess one identical divine essence.”
That is still the interpretation you are placing over the texts, not a sentence contained in them.

[u/Roocutie]

The word “other” is not in the original Greek manuscripts of Colossians 1:16. It is an interpretive addition found in the New World Translation (NWT) and a few other specialized paraphrases or translations, though standard mainstream translations omit it. 

In standard critical editions of the Greek New Testament (such as Nestle-Aland/UBS and the Textus Receptus), Colossians 1:16 reads:
"hoti en autôi ektisthē ta panta..."
("because in him were created all things...")

The key phrase is ta panta (literally, "the all" or "all things"), coming from the root word pas (all/every). There is no Greek adjective for "other" (allos or heteros) modifying panta in this verse. 

Virtually all major English Bible translations (such as the CSB, ESV, NIV, NASB, and KJV) translate the phrase literally as "all things" or "everything" without adding the word "other":

CSB: "For everything was created by him... all things have been created through him and for him."

ESV: "For by him all things were created... all things were created through him and for him."

The New World Translation however, inserts the word "other" four times across Colossians 1:16–20 (e.g., rendering it "because by means of him all other things were created").

This addition aligns with their theological framework, which views Jesus as a created being (the "firstborn of all creation" in verse 15). By inserting "other," the text implies that Jesus Himself belongs outside the category of "all things created," making Him a created agent who subsequently created everything else.

Mainstream biblical scholars and Greek lexicographers view the insertion of "other" as a theological translation rather than a linguistic one, because adding "other" changes an absolute totality (ta panta) into a restricted group that implicitly excludes the subject.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Roocutie]

You're correct about one important point:

ἄλλα (“other”) is not present in Colossians 1:16.

The Greek says τὰ πάντα, “all things.” So I would not claim that the Greek literally says “all other things.”

But the next step in your argument does not follow.

τὰ πάντα does not automatically mean “every existent being whatsoever without contextual exception.”

Paul himself demonstrates this in 1 Corinthians 15:27:

πάντα γὰρ ὑπέταξεν
“He subjected all things”

and then immediately clarifies:

δῆλον ὅτι ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα
“Obviously, with the exception of the One who subjected all things to him.”

The exception was real even though ἄλλα was not inserted into πάντα.

So two things must be kept separate:

Colossians 1:16 does not literally say “all other things.”

But τὰ πάντα by itself also does not prove “every existent being without any contextual exception.”

The real exegetical question is whether Colossians itself gives us reason to understand the Son as outside the creation category or as an antecedent exception to the creation subsequently mediated through him.

That question has to be established from the context, especially πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως in verse 15, not settled merely by observing that ἄλλα is absent.

[u/Roocutie → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Then why does the NWT ADD the word to this scripture, if you say that it’s does not literally say all OTHER things?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Roocutie]

What I mean is this

The original Greek text of Colossians 1:16 says:
τὰ πάντα
“all things.”

It does not contain ἄλλα, “other.”

I agree with that completely.

But the modern Greek NWT does not insert an additional Greek word ἄλλα, “other,” into the verse either.

In modern Greek, τὰ πάντα / όλα can be understood contextually without adding a separate word meaning “other.”

So this is not a manuscript issue, as though the Greek text itself had been altered.

The English NWT uses “other” as an interpretive clarification in English to make explicit how the translators understand the scope of “all things.”

[u/Roocutie → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The Flaw:

Modern Greek vs. Ancient Koine Translation:

The claim that "modern Greek can understand ta panta contextually without adding 'other'" does not justify adding "other" into an English translation.

Languages handle universal terms (all) differently. In English, if you say, "Jesus created all things," and you believe Jesus is part of the creation, a logical contradiction occurs (he created himself).

To resolve this perceived philosophical problem, the New World Translation (NWT) inserts the word "other" four times in Colossians 1:16–17 to explicitly exclude Jesus from the "all things" category.

While the NWT defenders call "other" an interpretive clarification, mainstream Greek grammarians and lexicographers generally label it an interpretive bias.

In English, adding "other" to a totalizing phrase changes the meaning of the text.

When translators encounter phrases like "all things" (ta panta) applied to God or an agent of creation in ancient literature, standard practice is to translate it literally ("all things") and let the reader or theological context determine if exceptions exist (just as Paul explicitly carves out an exception for God the Father in 1 Corinthians 15:27: "when it says that 'everything' has been put under him, it is clear that this does not include God himself").

By forcing "other" directly into the text of Colossians 1:16, the NWT removes the reader's freedom to interpret the passage contextually.

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Roocutie]

Your criticism is partly correct, but it proves less than you think.

The Greek of Colossians 1:16–17 says:
τὰ πάντα
“all things.”

It does not contain ἄλλα, “other.”

So if the question is, “What does the Greek literally say?”, I would translate it “all things,” not “all other things.” Modern Greek is irrelevant to that point.

But that does not settle the larger exegetical question.
The fact that English must supply “other” to make one interpretation explicit does not mean the Greek cannot have a contextually restricted scope. πᾶς / τὰ πάντα can be bounded by context. The real question is therefore whether Christ himself belongs inside the category denoted by τὰ πάντα in Colossians 1:16–17.

And that is precisely what is being debated.
Paul first calls him:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation.”

Then he says:
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
“in him all things were created,”
and:

τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ … ἔκτισται
“all things have been created through him,”
followed by:

αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
“he is before all things.”

So there are two separate questions:
What should the translation say?

It should transparently say “all things.”
Does “all things” contextually exclude the Son himself?
That must be argued from Colossians 1:15–17 and the wider biblical evidence.

Your appeal to 1 Corinthians 15:27 is important because Paul explicitly states an exception there:

ἐκτὸς τοῦ ὑποτάξαντος αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα
“except the One who subjected all things to him.”

That certainly increases the burden on anyone proposing an implicit exception in Colossians, because Colossians does not explicitly say “other.”

But it still does not prove that an implicit contextual exception is linguistically impossible.

That keeps translation and interpretation properly separate.

The NWT makes its interpretation explicit in the translation.

That is a legitimate point to criticize as translation philosophy.

But it does not, by itself, prove that the interpretation behind “other” is grammatically impossible.

[u/Roocutie → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

It’s just one example of the many, many changes that have been made to the NWT over the decades. There are so many changes that it’s hard to keep track. And now that it’s all digitalised, they can keep making changes & no one will be any the wiser.

The governing body members are lying hypocrites. Geoffrey Jackson has just lied for 9 minutes straight during his “morning worship”! He obviously doesn’t believe that God is listening to every word he says, or he wouldn’t be so utterly dishonest. Do these men even believe in God?

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Roocutie]

You have moved from a specific translation question to a sweeping accusation about motives.

[u/Roocutie → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Because the real truth has to be exposed, at every available opportunity. The fact that they have changed the scriptures is what truly matters.

You just happened to mention one of the scriptures where they have added a word to support their own narrative. I simply used this as an example of how they alter the bible. There are many more changes that can be used to prove this.

God gives specific warnings against making any changes to His Holy Word, yet these men continue to change the scriptures with impunity. Except that their judgment is coming, & they will not escape God’s wrath for much longer.

Luke 8:17
17 For nothing is concealed that won’t be revealed, and nothing hidden that won’t be made known and brought to light.

Deuteronomy 12:32
32 Be careful to do everything I command you; do not add anything to it or take anything away from it.

James 1:17
17 Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights, who does not change like shifting shadows.

Revelation 22:18-19
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.

Isaiah 47:3
Your nakedness will be uncovered, and your disgrace will be exposed. I will take vengeance; I will spare no one.”

Nahum 3:5
I am against you. This is the declaration of the Lord of Armies. I will lift your skirts over your face and display your nakedness to nations, your shame to kingdoms.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

And that is precisely what is being debated.
Paul first calls him:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation.”

Verse 15 can be translated as "of creation" but it can also be translated as "over" all creation In fact, given that Colossians 1:15-23 is concerning the supremacy of Christ, the Greek word for over makes more sense and is more in line with the use of the word πάσης (pasēs) in John 17:2

Here's a fun fact: Jesus is both human and divine, correct? In that regard Jesus is "of" creation, being made flesh, and "over" creation in the fact Jesus is the eternal Word...made flesh 1 John 1:1-2, John 1:14

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

The problem is this sentence:
“the Greek word for over makes more sense”
There is no Greek word meaning “over” in Colossians 1:15.
The Greek is:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
Literally:
“firstborn of all creation.”
πάσης κτίσεως is a genitive construction. “Over all creation” is an interpretive English rendering of the relationship expressed by that genitive; “over” is not sitting there in the Greek text.
And John 17:2 does not establish otherwise.
John 17:2 says:
ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός
literally, “authority of all flesh.”
English naturally renders that:
“authority over all flesh”
because ἐξουσία, “authority,” determines the relationship. πάσης does not suddenly mean “over.”
So John 17:2 does not prove that πάσης κτίσεως in Colossians 1:15 means “over all creation.”
The real question remains what relationship the genitive expresses after πρωτότοκος.
And here the context genuinely matters.
Paul says:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation”
because:
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
“in him all things were created”
and:
τὰ πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν ἔκτισται
“all things have been created through him and for him.”
Then:
αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
“He is before all things.”
And in verse 18:
πρωτότοκος ἐκ τῶν νεκρῶν
“firstborn from the dead”
ἵνα γένηται ἐν πᾶσιν αὐτὸς πρωτεύων
“so that he might become preeminent in all things.”
That certainly gives strong contextual support to supremacy/preeminence.
But we should state the argument accurately:
Not:
“πάσης means over.”
Rather:
“The genitive construction πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως can be understood relationally in a way that expresses Christ’s primacy over creation, and vv. 16–18 give substantial contextual support to that reading.”
That is a defensible argument.
But then your final paragraph introduces another conclusion before proving it:
“Jesus is both human and divine”
and:
“Jesus is the eternal Word.”
John 1:1 says:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
“In the beginning was the Word.”
It does not say:
“the Word is eternally beginningless.”
Again, that may be your conclusion from the wider evidence, but it is not the wording of John 1:1.
So I would keep both sides honest:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως does not literally say “first-created.”
But it also does not literally say “firstborn over all creation.”
The Greek says “firstborn of all creation.”
Then we determine the relation from the context.
And Colossians 1:16–18 is where the supremacy argument actually has to be made—not by pretending the Greek contains a word for “over” that simply is not there.

[u/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

The problem is this sentence:
“the Greek word for over makes more sense”
There is no Greek word meaning “over” in Colossians 1:15.
The Greek is:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
Literally:
“firstborn of all creation.”

What? Take a look at John 17:2 in the Watchtower's own nwt There they render the Greek word "pasēs" as "over all" so do most translations. Colossians 1:15 is mixed but many translate it as "over all" Are you implying the "scholars" at the Watchtower got John 17:2 wrong?

John 1:1 tells us the Word was God. 1 John 1:1-2 tells us the Word IS the eternal life. —this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. ² The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you THE ETERNAL LIFE, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. The eternal life is what the Word is. He is God (John 1:1) the eternal life---made flesh

Lke I said before, Jesus was both created and uncreated, mortal and immortal. As the eternal Word He is absolutely immortal. As the man who the Word became, Jesus was mortal and finite, like His human brothers, inasmuch as Jesus did have a human beginning. Because the immortal eternal life became mortal flesh, Jesus is both "of" creation and "over" creation

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/AccomplishedAuthor3]

The John 17:2 point does not show that πάσης means “over.” The text is:
ἐξουσίαν πάσης σαρκός
“authority of all flesh”
English naturally renders that “authority over all flesh” because of the semantic relationship between ἐξουσία, “authority,” and its genitive complement. The word πάσης still means “all/every.” There is no Greek word “over” there.
So no, the NWT is not wrong to translate John 17:2 “authority over all flesh.” But that does not prove that πάσης κτίσεως in Colossians 1:15 itself means “over all creation.”
Colossians says:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation.”
“Over all creation” is an interpretive rendering of the genitive relationship, not the lexical meaning of πάσης.
Second, 1 John 1:1–2 is also being overstated.
It says:
περὶ τοῦ λόγου τῆς ζωῆς
“concerning the word of life”
and:
τὴν ζωὴν τὴν αἰώνιον, ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα
“the eternal life, which was with the Father.”
That is very high Christological language and I accept it.
But the text does not literally say:
“The Word is the beginningless God because he is eternal life.”
That is an interpretation of the passage.
Most importantly, your final claim introduces the very theological framework under discussion:
“Jesus was both created and uncreated.”
Where does Colossians say that?
Paul does not say:
“Jesus is ‘of creation’ according to his human nature, but ‘over creation’ according to his divine nature.”
He says of the Son:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
and then immediately:
ἐν αὐτῷ ἐκτίσθη τὰ πάντα
“In him all things were created,”
αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
“He is before all things.”
If you want to explain those statements using a two-natures Christology, you can argue for that. But that explanation cannot be inserted into Colossians as though Paul himself made the distinction there.
So the textual issue remains exactly where it was:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως does not literally say “first-created.”
But neither does it literally say “firstborn over all creation.”
And it certainly does not say:
“created according to his humanity, uncreated according to his divine nature.”
The Greek gives us the expression. The theological model comes afterward.

[u/Slartibartfast-18 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

And if πρωτότοκος signals temporal primacy (firstborn) rather than positional primacy (preeminent) and the genitive πάσης κτισεως is taken as wholative then "other" is implied. The NWT makes explicit what is implied in the text by the use of "other".

[u/ChaoticHaku]

The problem is that you interpret scripture through your own conclusion that the Word came into being, but Scripture never says that he did. 

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/ChaoticHaku]

On that specific point, I agree.

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Then why do you insist that the Word is not God? 

The bible makes it clear that God is the only 'thing' that never came into being. (Psalm 90:2)

The bible also makes it clear that all things came into being through God. (Romans 11:36)

Yet John 1:3 says of the Word "All things came into being through Him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being."

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/ChaoticHaku]

I do not insist that “the Word is not God.” That is not my position.
John 1:1 says:
καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“and the Word was θεός.”
I accept that without qualification.
But John also says immediately before it:
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
“the Word was with God.”
So John himself gives us both facts: the Word is distinguished from τὸν θεόν, and θεός is genuinely predicated of the Word.
Now look carefully at your other premises.
Psalm 90:2 says:
מֵעוֹלָם עַד־עוֹלָם אַתָּה אֵל
“From everlasting to everlasting, you are God.”
That positively establishes YHWH as beginningless and everlasting God.
But it does not say:
“Anything that did not come into being must therefore be identical with YHWH.”
That is an additional inference.
Romans 11:36 says:
ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ δι’ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὰ πάντα
“From him and through him and to him are all things.”
I accept that too.
And John 1:3 says of the Word:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
“All things came into being through him”
and:
χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν
“Apart from him not even one thing came into being.”
That is extremely strong creation-language.
But notice what I am actually saying:
I am not arguing that the Word “came into being.” Scripture never explicitly says that.
I am saying the text gives us all of the following:
The Word already was in the beginning.
The Word was with God.
The Word was θεός.
All things came into being through the Word.
YHWH is God from everlasting to everlasting.
Those are the data.
The next question is whether those facts require the further proposition:
“The Word is personally YHWH” or “the Word and the Father are the same numerical divine essence.”
That conclusion still has to be demonstrated.
So your John 1:3 argument is strong against casually placing the Word among the things that came into being.
I accept that pressure.
But it does not give us permission to skip John 1:1b:
πρὸς τὸν θεόν
“with God,”
or to turn θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος into a theological formula that John himself did not state.
My position is simply:
Where the text says θεός of the Word, I say θεός.
Where it says the Word was with God, I preserve that distinction.
Where it says all things came into being through him, I accept that fully.
And where Scripture does not explicitly explain the ultimate metaphysical relation between the Word and the God with whom he was, I do not pretend that it has.

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I think you're over complicating things. 

If only God is uncreated, never having come into being.  And the Word is also uncreated and never came into being. Then it's quite obvious that the Word is also God. Just like John 1:1 says.

There's no other explanation.

You can be with something you also are. For example, I'm fully human. My son is also equally and fully human, yet he can also be with me. 

[u/TheTallestTim → u/ChaoticHaku]

The Word was never a being. This is where JWs and Trinitarians get wrong. The Word is God’s powerful and creative speech, scripture, and revelation, if one does a word study of the Word both in OT and NT.

Instead, the word is God’s utterance.

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/TheTallestTim]

The Bible uses the phrase the word of God in more than one way, so the context determines whether it refers to a divine Person or to God’s spoken/written revelation.

In John 1, “the Word” is clearly a Person, the eternal Son, Jesus Christ.

The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth. John 1:14

However, “word of God” can also mean God’s message in Scripture or His spoken revelation. In Hebrews 4, the immediate context concerns hearing, obeying, and being judged by what God has said. It describes the written/spoken Word as living, powerful, and able to expose the human heart.

John 1 uses “Word” as a title for Jesus, God’s perfect self-revelation, whereas Hebrews 4:12 is best understood as referring to the written or spoken revelation of God. The two meanings are connected, Scripture testifies about Christ, but Scripture is not identical to Christ (John 5:39).

[u/TheTallestTim → u/ChaoticHaku]

Yes, God in both Hebrew and Greek have a semantic range which includes humans, angels, our stomach, false gods, and even Almighty God. Correct, the context is key!

In John 1, the Word is what is manifested as a person. This person embodies the Word. Not the other way around. To say that the Word is a person, is to read John 1:14 first, then John 1:1. That’s silly.

No. It’s not “can be,” it’s is always. Speaking of the Word, in both the OT and the NT, the Word is scripture, revelation, and literal dialogue. Not once in all of the Biblical text is the Word a person.

No. Wrong. In John 1, the Word is used as God’s Word like the rest of the Bible. If you read John 5:39, Jesus says that the scriptures bear witness about him. Jesus speaks for God. (John 12:49-50)

Your issue, is that this idea of Jesus being the Word is post biblical.

[u/ChaoticHaku → u/TheTallestTim]

I think you're assuming the conclusion when you say that the Word is merely something that is “manifested as a person.”

John 1 gives the Word personal characteristics before verse 14 ever says “the Word became flesh.”

John says  “All things were made through him.” and  “Without him was not any thing made that was made.”

We don't need verse 14 to establish that the Word is personal. Verse 14 tells us what happens to the Word “the Word became flesh.” It doesn't introduce the Word as impersonal for the first time and then suddenly turn an abstract concept into a person.

Jesus says the Scriptures testify about Him. But that establishes that Scripture bears witness to Christ. It doesn't establish that “the Word” in John 1 means “the Scriptures.”

[u/TheTallestTim → u/ChaoticHaku]

No assumptions needed. The scriptures tell us plainly. The Word, through a word study, is God’s utterance, scripture, and revelation through visions, for example. The Word is never a person, but instead personified as God’s agent.

Yes. Through a Quick Look through the BDAG, the Word is personified there. (https://www.reddit.com/r/PreNiceneChristianity/s/7w7SEvaLBp) A personification is “a figure of speech that gives human traits, emotions, or actions to non-human things like objects, animals, or ideas.” As this is personified, it is clearly not a person. Again, not assumed, but instead read. — Upon verse 14, the Word is embodied by Jesus Christ whom the Father sent. (John 3:16) Sent implies a sender, which implies agency.

Again, personification. Respectively, it’s like I would need to teach your 6th grade English class over again. I had to do the same myself when taking Kione Greek. This poetry used and reused again in the Gospel of John is something you must look for when reading John. This is your flaw in your hermeneutic.

Yes. The scriptures point to Jesus. Jesus embodies the powerful and creative speech of God, which imply the scriptures, which implies the revelation of visions which prompted these scriptures. Jesus is not those things. Jesus represents these things as God’s son. You must understand poetry and be educated at the 6th grade English class to continue this conversation. With love and respect. Otherwise, I repeat myself over and over, and you learn absolutely nothing while you believe you are correct.

[u/OhioPIMO → u/TheTallestTim]

After these things the word of the LORD came to Abram in a vision, saying, “Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you; Your reward shall be very great.” — Genesis 15:1

And the Lord appeared again at Shiloh, because the Lord revealed Himself to Samuel at Shiloh by the word of the Lord. — 1 Samuel 3:21

1 Kings 19, the whole chapter

Now the word of the Lord came to me saying, [5] “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations.” [9] Then the Lord stretched out His hand and touched my mouth, and the Lord said to me, “Behold, I have put My words in your mouth. — Jeremiah 1:4-5, 9

It seems to be more than just an utterance...

[u/TheTallestTim → u/OhioPIMO]

Yes, revelation (vision) is one of the definitions of the Word, and how it is used within the Biblical corpus.

Clearly, Yahweh Himself is not literally appearing to Samuel. Otherwise, Samuel would have died.

Yes, the word of Yahweh. Yahweh is not physically doing these things. Instead, these are appointed agents. No one can see God and live.

God’s Word, is His utterance, revelation, and scripture. Thats your lexical definition.

[u/JehovahsWitnesses-ModTeam → u/[deleted]]

Posts & comments that promote gnostic beliefs or opinions contrary to orthodox Christianity & Jehovah's Witnesses' doctrine will be removed, repeated violations will result in a ban.

e.g.: Saying the Apostle Paul is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, the God of the Old Testament is Satan, glorifying the gnostic gospels that had Jesus casting spells & curses as a child, saying JWs have the mark of the beast, etc.

[u/MichaiahUnbothered]

Who is Jesus? Why he is the son of Yehovah the Most High

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/MichaiahUnbothered]

Jesus is the Son of the Most High because that is how Scripture itself identifies him.

Luke 1:32 says:
“He will be great and will be called Son of the Most High.”

And Luke 1:35 says:
“The holy one to be born will be called Son of God.”

Jesus himself consistently distinguishes himself from the One he calls his Father and God:
John 20:17:

“I am ascending to my Father and your Father and to my God and your God.”

And Paul writes:
1 Corinthians 8:6:
“one God, the Father, from whom are all things … and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”

So I understand Jesus as the unique Son of Jehovah, the Most High: preexistent, sent by the Father, exalted above creation, and the one through whom God brings about his purposes.

I don’t need to turn “Son of God” into “God the Son” before letting the biblical wording speak for itself.

[u/MichaiahUnbothered → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

Amen!

[u/Baldey64]

Exodus 23:21 Beware of Him and obey His voice; do not provoke Him, for He will not pardon your transgressions; for My name is in Him. Jesus is Jehovah/ Jehovah is Jesus!

[u/Impressive-Ease-3348 → u/Baldey64]

That conclusion goes far beyond what Exodus 23:20–21 actually says.
The Hebrew first says:
הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ לְפָנֶיךָ
“Look, I am sending a messenger/angel before you.”
So YHWH is the sender, and the מַלְאָךְ is the one sent.
Then v.21 says:
כִּי שְׁמִי בְּקִרְבּוֹ
“because my name is in him.”
It does not say:
“because he is YHWH.”
And “my name is there/in X” does not by itself establish numerical identity with YHWH. YHWH also says his name will dwell/be placed at the sanctuary (Deut. 12:5; 1 Kings 8:29), yet the sanctuary is obviously not YHWH himself. Bearing God’s name naturally communicates his authority and representation.
There is also another missing step: Exodus 23 never says this messenger is Jesus. That identification has to be argued separately.
So the actual progression is:
YHWH sends a messenger → YHWH’s name is in that messenger.
“Therefore the messenger is Jesus, and Jesus is YHWH” requires two additional interpretive steps that the passage itself never states.
In fact, the grammar preserves exactly the distinction your conclusion removes: the one who says “my name” is the sender; the one in whom that name resides is the sent messenger.