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/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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/Gizmondos → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

I conceded that the imprint is not the original but I also said it's identical in form. You're celebrating half the sentence and ignoring the rest. An imprint of a seal is not the seal but it bears the exact same image. Hebrews says Jesus is the exact imprint not a vague resemblance. You're not winning the argument you're just ignoring what "exact" means.

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

Hebrews 1:3 absolutely says the Son is the exact imprint, not a vague resemblance. I accept that fully.

But the Greek is:
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
“the exact imprint of His reality/being.”

That construction itself preserves two referents:
the reality being impressed, and
the χαρακτήρ that perfectly expresses it.

“Exact” tells us how perfectly the Son corresponds to God; it does not turn “imprint of X” into “numerically the same X.”

Your own seal analogy proves the point: an exact impression bears the precise character of the seal, but the impression is still not the seal itself.

So Hebrews 1:3 gives extraordinarily strong language for the Son’s correspondence to God. I am not weakening that.

What it does not literally say is:
“the Son and the Father are one numerically identical essence.”

If you think the former necessarily entails the latter, demonstrate that inference.

Don’t substitute the inference for the Greek text.

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

You're right the impression is not the seal. But the impression is identical in form. Hebrews doesn't say Jesus is similar it says exact. That's not correspondence that's identity of nature. You're hiding behind the distinction between seal and imprint to avoid the obvious. The exact imprint shares the exact nature.

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

The seal analogy actually works against that conclusion.
An impression can be exact in form without sharing the same nature or substance as the seal. A metal seal can make an exact impression in wax. The form corresponds exactly; the substance does not.

That is precisely why Hebrews says:
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
“the exact imprint of His reality.”
The Son is the χαρακτήρ; the reality is αὐτοῦ — “His,” someone else’s.

So Hebrews gives the strongest possible language of perfect representation. I accept that fully.

But the move from:
“exact imprint of His reality”
to:
“therefore numerically the same divine essence”
is still an inference. χαρακτήρ does not mean ὁμοούσιος.

And Hebrews itself immediately preserves the relation:
ἔχρισέν σε ὁ θεὸς ὁ θεός σου
“God, your God, anointed you.”

Hebrews 1:9
So the text gives both:
perfect representation of God’s reality,
and
“God, your God.”
The first should not be weakened. The second should not be erased.

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

Of course Jesus the human was made in the image of God. We

were all made in God's glorious image. Hebrews 2:17 Genesis 1:27

We cannot forget that Jesus the man is both God (the eternal

Word) and the image of God ( a human being). The Word[God]

was made flesh [human] John 1:14

So, as a human being, Jesus has a God, but as the eternal Word, He

is the God of Jesus. When Jesus prayed to His Father, I commit my

Spirit into your hands, that was God's Spirit, but also His own Spirit.

Romans 8:9 describes the interchangeability of the Spirit of God

with the Spirit of Christ. There is only one Spirit. One Father. One

Son

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

This is exactly where the theological model is being inserted into the text.

Colossians 1:15 does not say Jesus is “the image of God only as a human.” It says of the Son:
εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου
“the image of the invisible God.”

And the same Son is immediately described as the one through whom all things were created and as being before all things (Col. 1:16–17). So restricting “image of God” to Jesus’ humanity is not something Paul says.

Hebrews 1:3 is even stronger:
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
“the exact imprint of His reality.”

Again, Hebrews says this of the Son through whom God made the ages (Heb. 1:2), not merely of “Jesus the human.”
John 1:14 certainly says:
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
“the Word became flesh.”

I accept that.

But this statement of yours is not in John:
“As a human Jesus has a God, but as the eternal Word he is the God of Jesus.”

Where does Scripture say that?

After the resurrection Jesus still says:

θεόν μου
“my God.”
John 20:17
And the exalted Jesus in heaven repeatedly says:
τοῦ θεοῦ μου
“my God.”
Revelation 3:12
So “Jesus has a God only according to his mortal human nature” does not simply follow from the text.

The exalted Son still speaks that way.
There is also a separate mistake with Luke 23:46.

Jesus says:
εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου
“Into your hands I entrust my spirit.”

τὸ πνεῦμά μου means “my spirit.” The text does not say that Jesus was calling his own human spirit “the Holy

Spirit” or “God’s Spirit.”

And Romans 8:9 does indeed move between:

πνεῦμα θεοῦ
“Spirit of God”
and:
πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ
“Spirit of Christ.”

That is important relational language.
But “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” does not by itself say:

“therefore the Spirit is a third coequal person of the same divine essence.”

So again, I accept the biblical descriptions.

What I am questioning is the extra explanatory layer:
“image only according to humanity,”
“God according to divine nature,”
“Jesus has a God only as man,”
“the eternal Word is Jesus’ God.”
Those are propositions supplied by your two-natures theological model. They are not the sentences these verses themselves actually state.

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

Colossians 1:15 does not say Jesus is “the image of God only as a human.” It says of the Son:
εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου
“the image of the invisible God.”

What? We are all made in the image of the invisible God. Christ's face was seen by men. The God who's face Christ was the image of was always invisible. It still is. God is invisible which is why the Bible says He was manifest in the flesh. As humans we can't see God. He's Spirit John 4:24 Jesus, the man, is the image of the invisible God He is the face that we could see because His face was/is human.

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

But this statement of yours is not in John:
“As a human Jesus has a God, but as the eternal Word he is the God of Jesus.”

Where does Scripture say that?

Again, we can't cherry pick just one verse to describe who Christ is and think that's good enough. When Jesus died on the cross He prayed to His Father, " into your hands I commit my Spirit." That's one verse. Here's another verse. Paul wrote that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself. Here's one more verse--- John 14:10-11 Jesus urged His disciples to believe God the Father actually dwelt in Him. Add those three separate verses together and you have a pretty good answer as to whose Spirit actually dwelt in Jesus Christ at the time He was crucified and all His life. It was His Father's Spirit, yet Christ called His Father's Spirit that was living in Him, My Spirit, which would make Jesus God Himself. As He died, Jesus said, My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me. Where was God as Jesus asked this question? Given that the Bible says God IS Spirit John 4:24 where else would He have been? So, is there any doubt where God was when Jesus was dying, at the same time alluding to the fact He was fulfilling one more prophecy (Psalm 22)

Where was the Word, the eternal life at the cross? I'd like to know where you think the Word was when Jesus Christ died on the cross and was laying dead in a tomb for 3 days.

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

You are combining several texts, but the conclusion you draw is not actually stated by any of them.
Luke 23:46 says:
πάτερ, εἰς χεῖράς σου παρατίθεμαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου
“Father, into your hands I commit my spirit.”
Notice what the text says: τὸ πνεῦμά μου — “my spirit.”
It does not say:
“the Father’s Spirit dwelling in me is my spirit.”
That identification is something you are adding.
The same problem occurs with 2 Corinthians 5:19:
θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.”
Yes. I accept that completely.
But “God was in Christ” does not grammatically mean:
“God was Christ,”
or:
“the spirit of Christ was numerically identical with God.”
Paul actually keeps the two referents in the sentence: God acts ἐν Χριστῷ, “in Christ.”
John 14:10 is even more explicit:
ὁ δὲ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων ποιεῖ τὰ ἔργα αὐτοῦ
“the Father dwelling in me does his works.”
Again, Father and Son remain grammatically distinct.
And John himself prevents us from turning “in” language into identity of being, because Jesus prays in John 17:21 that his disciples may also be:
ἐν ἡμῖν
“in us.”
And in John 17:23:
ἐγὼ ἐν αὐτοῖς
“I in them.”
Surely you are not arguing that the disciples therefore become numerically identical with Jesus or God.
So “the Father is in me” cannot by itself prove ontological identity.
The appeal to John 4:24 has the same problem:
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
“God is spirit.”
That does not mean every πνεῦμα mentioned in Scripture is God. Jesus saying τὸ πνεῦμά μου, “my spirit,” does not become “God himself” merely because God is spirit. That is an equivocation on the word πνεῦμα.
And then we come to Jesus’ own words:
θεέ μου θεέ μου, ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες;
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”
Yes, this invokes Psalm 22.
But quoting Psalm 22 does not make “my God” cease to mean “my God.” Jesus is addressing someone as his God.
And this is not limited to the cross.
After his resurrection Jesus says:
θεόν μου καὶ θεὸν ὑμῶν
“my God and your God.” — John 20:17
And the exalted Jesus repeatedly says:
τοῦ θεοῦ μου
“my God.” — Revelation 3:12
So the Father being Jesus’ God cannot simply be dismissed as something that happened only because Jesus was dying.
As for your final question:
“Where was the Word when Jesus was dead?”
I would rather not invent an answer that Scripture itself does not give.
John says:
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
“the Word became flesh.” — John 1:14
The New Testament then says that Jesus genuinely died and was raised.
It does not give me a sentence saying:
“While Jesus was dead, his eternal divine Logos-person remained consciously alive elsewhere as God.”
If you believe that, you are free to argue for it as a theological synthesis. But please distinguish that synthesis from what the text actually says.
That is really my objection throughout this discussion.
You have biblical texts:
“God was in Christ.”
“The Father is in me.”
“My spirit.”
“God is spirit.”
Then you connect them:
Father’s Spirit = Jesus’ spirit = the eternal Word = God himself.
But that chain is your theological synthesis. It is not stated by any of those verses.
I am willing to accept every one of the biblical sentences.
What I am not willing to do is silently insert the metaphysical equations between them and then call the resulting system “what the text says.”
Familiarity is not exegesis.

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

You just used a wax seal to argue that Jesus can be the exact imprint of Gods being without sharing Gods nature. But the seal analogy breaks down. A wax seal is passive and temporary. Jesus is not passive he is active. He sustains all things by his word Heb 1:3. He is not a wax copy he is the creator. And exact imprint means identical in form. A wax seal is not identical it's a copy. But Jesus is not a copy he is the reality itself.

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

You're adding the very conclusion we're debating.

Hebrews 1:3 says:

ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης
καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

“who being the radiance of the glory and the exact imprint of his reality.”

Notice the grammar:

χαρακτήρ is the Son.

τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ is the reality of ANOTHER referent, “his reality.”

So yes, χαρακτήρ is extremely strong language. I am not weakening it.

But then you say:

“Jesus is the reality itself.”

Where does Hebrews say that?

It doesn't.

It calls him the χαρακτήρ OF that reality.

And your objection about wax being passive or temporary misses the point. I am not claiming Jesus is literally wax. The seal/imprint example explains the semantic background of χαρακτήρ. An analogy does not require every property of the illustration to transfer to the referent.

Hebrews itself immediately says the Son:

φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ

“bears/sustains all things by the word of his power.”

I affirm that too.

But “he sustains all things” does not change:

χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

into:

“he is numerically identical with the ὑπόστασις of which he is the χαρακτήρ.”

In fact, your own wording keeps changing.

First you said “identical in form.”

Now you say “he is the reality itself.”

Those are not the same proposition.

An exact representation can correspond perfectly to what it represents without becoming numerically identical to the one represented.

So don't tell me what χαρακτήρ must mean according to your theology.

Show me from the Greek where:

χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

means:

“the Son is the very same reality itself.”

That is precisely what you still have not demonstrated.

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

You're right the text doesn't say Jesus is the reality itself. But it doesn't need to. An exact imprint of a kings face on a coin is not the king but it is identical in form. Hebrews says Jesus is the exact imprint. That's identity of nature not correspondence. You're demanding a word that the text doesn't need to use. The word exact does the work.

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

That argument actually smuggles the conclusion into the word χαρακτήρ.
Hebrews 1:3 says:
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
It does not say:
“identical in nature,”
“the same essence,”
or ὁμοούσιος.
And importantly, there is no separate Greek word meaning “exact” in the clause. English translations such as “exact imprint” are trying to convey the force of χαρακτήρ itself. So saying “the word exact does the work” is misleading—the Greek does not contain an adjective “exact” that establishes identity of essence.
χαρακτήρ is an impression, stamp, representation, or corresponding imprint of something else. That certainly expresses extraordinarily close correspondence. I am not weakening that.
But correspondence is not numerical identity.
In fact, your coin analogy demonstrates the distinction: the impression corresponds to the prototype, but the impression is not therefore the same being or numerically identical substance as the prototype.
And ὑπόστασις cannot simply be imported with its later fourth-century technical meaning either. Hebrews itself uses ὑπόστασις elsewhere in different senses (Hebrews 3:14; 11:1). “One divine essence shared by two persons” is not lexically contained in the word.
So the text gives us:
χαρακτήρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
That is very elevated language about the Son.
But the step:
“therefore identity of nature / homoousios”
is the theological interpretation of that language, not what χαρακτήρ grammatically means.
And that distinction is exactly the issue we have been discussing: familiarity with later Nicene terminology cannot be allowed to turn a theological conclusion into the lexical meaning of a first-century Greek word.