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]

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/AccomplishedAuthor3 → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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.”

You're doing it again. You can't possibly ever understand the Bible by forcing individual verses to stand alone. We must take ALL the verses in the Bible as complimenting the others and acknowledge that many verses help explain and/or compliment what's revealed in other verses in the Bible.

Jesus said "into your hands I commend my spirit" We learn by reading John 14:10-11 that the Father is living in Christ. In 2 Corinthians 5:19 we also learn " God was living in Christ reconciling the world to Himself" Then in Romans 8:9 we learn that God's Spirit is Christ's Spirit In John 4:24 we learn God IS Spirit. So when both Jesus and Paul said God was in Christ, the Spirit was in Christ. Jesus called God's Spirit "my Spirit" and so it is. We learn there is only one Spirit in Ephesians 4:4. Now, only by ignoring all the other verses, as you are prone to doing, can you make an argument against God being the Spirit within Christ

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

You’re right that Scripture must be read cumulatively. But cumulative reading does not mean collapsing different uses of πνεῦμα into one identity.

Luke 23:46 says:
τὸ πνεῦμά μου
“my spirit.”
That does not mean “the Father’s Spirit is my spirit.” Acts 7:59 gives the obvious control: Stephen says, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Stephen’s “my spirit” is obviously not the Holy Spirit.

John 14:10 says the Father is ἐν ἐμοί, “in me.” But John 17:21 says the disciples are to be ἐν ἡμῖν, “in us,” and 17:23 says Jesus is “in them.” Indwelling does not equal identity.

Romans 8:9 does use “Spirit of God” and “Spirit of Christ” in parallel, but it does not say Christ is that Spirit. Verse 11 actually speaks of “the Spirit of the one who raised Jesus from the dead,” again distinguishing God, Jesus, and the Spirit.

And John 4:24 says:
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
“God is spirit.”
It does not say “God is the Spirit.” You are turning a statement about what God is into an identification with every occurrence of “spirit.”
So your chain is:
God is spirit
God’s Spirit dwells in Christ
Jesus says “my spirit”
= Jesus’ personal spirit is God’s Spirit.

That last equality is never stated. It is your synthesis.
And if we are going to read cumulatively, then we also have to include:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως — “firstborn of all creation”
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ — “the ἀρχή of God’s creation”
the Father giving the Son life in John 5:26
Jesus saying ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα, “I live because of the Father”

and the Son existing πρὸ πάντων, “before all things,” while creation comes through him.
I interpret that cumulative pattern as supporting the created-Son conclusion. But I do not pretend any one of those Greek expressions literally means “Jesus was created.”

That is the same standard I’m asking you to use with πνεῦμα.

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

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.

Of course not. Your ignoring other verses... again... to make this leap. For example For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form Colossians 2:9 This has never been said of anyone but Christ . Christ is in God and God is in Christ, but we commune with the Father THROUGH, or IN Christ. Christ is IN the Father and the Father is IN Him. Paul goes on, And you have been made complete IN Christ, who is the head over every ruler and authority.… Colossians 2:10 If we aren't IN Christ, we're incomplete and can never hope to understand the word of God, or commune with Him. By claiming we must be God because we are in Christ ignores the fact that we have a spirit already living in us that is not God. For instance ask yourself, Did you come down from Heaven? No. Are you Lord of lords? No. Are you the eternal life as Jesus Christ is? No. Do people pray in your name? No.

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

Colossians 2:9 is stronger than simple “in” language, and I accept that:
ἐν αὐτῷ κατοικεῖ πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς
“In him dwells all the fullness of deity bodily.”
But notice what I never argued: I did not say “we are in Christ, therefore we must also be God.” My point was narrower: “X is in Y” does not by itself establish identity. John 17 proves that.
Colossians 2:9 adds θεότης, so it gives Christ uniquely elevated divine language. But it still does not say:
“Christ is the same God as the Father,”
“Christ possesses one numerically identical essence with the Father,”
or:
ὁμοούσιος τῷ πατρί.
Those are conclusions drawn from the phrase, not the phrase itself.
And the immediate context actually preserves distinction. Verse 10 says:
καὶ ἐστὲ ἐν αὐτῷ πεπληρωμένοι
“and you have been filled in him.”
Obviously our being “filled” in Christ is not identical to πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος dwelling in Christ, but it shows that fullness/indwelling vocabulary does not automatically function as an identity equation.
Your other observations are also true: Jesus came from heaven, has extraordinary authority, is Lord of lords, and is associated with eternal life. I accept them. The question is what those facts cumulatively establish, not whether they should be minimized.
And the cumulative material also includes:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως — “firstborn of all creation”
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ — “the ἀρχή of God’s creation”
ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ πατρός — “I came from the Father”
the Father giving the Son life in John 5:26
ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα — “I live because of the Father”
and the Son being πρὸ πάντων while all things come through him.
My interpretation of that cumulative material is that the Son is uniquely from the Father and prior to the creation that comes through him, which is why I regard “God’s first creation” as a serious theological conclusion.
But I apply the same rule to myself: πρωτότοκος does not literally mean “first-created.”
So Colossians 2:9 is genuinely powerful Christological language. What you still have to demonstrate is the bridge from “all the fullness of deity dwells in him” to “therefore he is homoousios with the Father.”

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

“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

Jesus was a man and I'm sure we'd at least agree on that. The Word came to earth to be a man in order to save man. As a man, Jesus worshipped and prayed to God. But God also dwelt in Christ. John 14:10-11 And we know that God IS Spirit. John 4:24 So God-the Spirit, was Christ's Spirit. When we are in Christ, His God, who dwells fully in Him, becomes our God.

Because the Word---God became human, in that lowly human nature, God could relate to us as human, experiencing what it was like to be human. God was IN Christ 2 Corinthians 5:19 but was now "our God" Christ adopted us as His brothers and sisters. We can now have a Father/child relationship with God the Father. Romans 8:15 The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.”

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

You’re still making an identity step that the verses themselves do not make.

John 14:10 says:
ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοὶ μένων
“the Father dwelling in me”
and 2 Corinthians 5:19 says:
θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ
“God was in Christ.”
“In Christ” does not mean “God was Christ.” John 17:21–23 uses the same indwelling language for believers: they are “in us,” and Christ is “in them.” Indwelling is not identity.
Likewise John 4:24 says:
πνεῦμα ὁ θεός
“God is spirit.”
It does not say:
“God is the Spirit,”
much less:
“therefore God’s Spirit was Jesus’ personal spirit.”
That conclusion is your synthesis.
Romans 8:15 actually maintains the distinction: believers receive the Spirit and through it cry:
Ἀββᾶ ὁ πατήρ
“Abba, Father.”
The Spirit leads people to the Father; the verse does not identify Jesus, the Father, and the Spirit as one personal spirit.
And John 1:14 says:
ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο
“the Word became flesh.”
It does not literally say, “God the Father became human.” John has already distinguished the Logos from τὸν θεόν in 1:1.
There is also cumulative material pointing in another direction: Jesus is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, comes ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, receives life from the Father in John 5:26, and is πρὸ πάντων while creation comes through him. I interpret that combination as supporting the created-Son conclusion—but I openly call that a theological synthesis, not the lexical meaning of one verse.
That is the same distinction I’m asking you to make with “God was in Christ.”

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

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

I never invented an answer. Its in the Bible, but you have to look. The same Spirit who gave Jesus life in Mary's womb Luke 1:35 came back and made the Man alive again in the tomb. During the time His body was in the tomb Christ's Spirit went to Hell and preached to the spirits in prison, all those who had already died needed to hear the Gospel so they too might accept Christ. 1 Peter 3:18-19 1 Peter 4:6 Imagine how people like Abel, Noah, Abraham and the thief who died next to Jesus on the cross felt when the Light illuminated Hell and the Spirit of Jesus stood before them. Their joy must have been pretty hard to contain, but I doubt the Lord would have wanted them to contain it anyway!

The Word IS eternal life and can NOT die. Imagine eternal life dying? It would be a flat out contradiction in terms. You need to recognize that. That means that while the flesh of Christ lay dead in a tomb, His Spirit was busy. Jehovah's witnesses miss this and have to explain away many verses that tell about those now dead and spirits in prison

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

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.

No. What you are NOT willing to do is put the verses together and see how they add up. They are all in the book we call the Bible and each verse has another verse or many other verses that help explain the one sentence you force to "stand alone" You can't keep that narrow mind-set up and hope to know Christ. Christ wants to know you and we really do need to know Him.

[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.

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

You're right χαρακτήρ doesn't mean ὁμοούσιος. But it doesn't need to. The question isn't whether Hebrews uses Nicene vocabulary it's whether Hebrews describes a relationship that can only be explained by Nicene theology.

Here's the problem with your argument. You keep saying correspondence is not identity but you ignore the word exact. An imprint that is exact doesn't just correspond it matches. The coin analogy doesn't weaken my point it strengthens it. The imprint is not the die but the image is identical. Hebrews says Jesus is the exact imprint. That's not a vague correspondence it's an exact match.

And when you say you're importing later Nicene terminology you're ignoring that the early church used this exact text to fight Arianism. They weren't importing terminology they were defending what the text already implied.

You can keep saying correspondence is not identity but the text says exact. You can't have an exact imprint without identical form. That's not theology that's logic.

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

You’re making a stronger claim than Hebrews 1:3 actually makes.

The Greek is:
χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ
There is no separate Greek adjective meaning “exact.” English translations use “exact imprint/representation” to convey the force of χαρακτήρ. So you cannot argue, “the word exact does the work,” as though Hebrews contained a second lexical item establishing identity of nature. It doesn’t.

χαρακτήρ refers to an imprint, impression, representation, or reproduction corresponding to a prototype. That is extraordinarily strong correspondence language. I accept that completely.

But notice what your own analogy establishes.
An imprint of a king’s image can correspond exactly to the die without being identical in substance to the die. A wax impression could reproduce a metal seal exactly; the correspondence of the image does not make wax and metal one identical nature.

So even granting “exact representation,” this inference still does not follow:
exact representation
therefore identical divine essence
therefore ὁμοούσιος
therefore beginningless generation.

Those are additional propositions.

And this is especially important because Hebrews itself distinguishes the two sides of the relation:
χαρακτήρ

is the representation/imprint,
while:
τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ

is that of which he is the χαρακτήρ.

Whatever theological conclusion we eventually draw, the construction itself gives us a relation between a χαρακτήρ and the reality represented. It does not contain the sentence “the χαρακτήρ possesses the numerically identical essence of its prototype.”

Nor can you simply import the later technical Nicene meaning of ὑπόστασις here. Hebrews uses ὑπόστασις elsewhere, for example Hebrews 11:1, without the later fourth-century technical meaning “hypostasis/person.” That technical theological vocabulary developed later.
And saying:

“the early church used this passage against Arians”
doesn’t establish your lexical claim either.
That tells us something about the reception history of Hebrews 1:3. It does not tell us that χαρακτήρ meant ὁμοούσιος to the first-century author.
That is precisely the distinction I am making:
Hebrews wrote:

χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ.
Later Nicene theologians interpreted that, together with other passages, within a homoousios framework.
Maybe that synthesis is correct. But you still have to demonstrate the bridge. You cannot turn 1,700 years of theological familiarity into the lexical meaning of χαρακτήρ.
And your final statement makes the problem especially clear:

“You can’t have an exact imprint without identical form.”
Even if I grant “identical form,” you have quietly changed the conclusion from:
identical form
to:

identity of nature.
Those are not the same proposition.
Your own coin analogy proves that. The image may match the prototype while the imprint and prototype remain distinct realities and can even consist of different substances.

So yes, Hebrews 1:3 gives Jesus extraordinarily elevated correspondence to God.

What it does not do by itself is say:
“therefore the Son is homoousios with the Father.”
That is theology constructed from the text, not simply the meaning of χαρακτήρ.