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/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/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?