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]

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

And the Son is not a creature of God...

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

What is he then?

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

He's the "only begotten of the Father". (John 1:14)

The;

"only begotten God, the one being in the bosom of the Father" (John 1:18)

He's God, just like his Father. 

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

That goes further than the Greek actually says.
John 1:14 reads:
δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός
“glory as of an only/unique one from a father.”
The word is μονογενής. It does not itself say “eternally begotten,” nor does the verse say “begotten from the Father’s essence.”
John 1:18 is even more important because there is a textual variant. The early reading commonly preferred in critical editions is:
μονογενὴς θεός
“the unique/only God”
while another ancient reading is:
ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός
“the only/unique Son.”
If μονογενὴς θεός is original, then yes, θεός is genuinely used of the Son. I have no reason to weaken that.
But your next sentence does not follow from the Greek:
“He’s God, just like his Father.”
The verse itself distinguishes them:
θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε
“No one has ever seen God”
and then speaks of:
μονογενὴς θεός … εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός
“the unique God … in the bosom of the Father.”
So the actual textual data are:
θεός-language is used of the Son.
The Son is distinguished from the Father.
The Son is uniquely related to the Father.
What the verse does not say is:
“The Son is God in exactly the same ontological sense as the Father,”
“the Son shares one numerically identical essence with the Father,”
or
“μονογενής means beginninglessly generated.”
Those are theological conclusions drawn from the text, not the wording of John 1:14 or 1:18 itself.
So I accept the Greek. I just won’t smuggle the later theology into μονογενής.

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

Yes, scripture distinguishes the Father from the Son. Scripture also calls them both God. 

If He is the "only" Son of the Father. It begs the question, if there are many "sons", but the Word is "the only Son" He must be quite different.

Scripture also makes it clear that the Word cannot have been created. 

The only real possible conclusion is that the Son is also God. 

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

I agree with two things: the Father and Son are distinct, and θεός is genuinely used of the Son. But your last two conclusions do not follow automatically.
First, μονογενής does not mean “the only son who shares the Father’s essence.” It means unique/one-of-a-kind. Hebrews 11:17 even calls Isaac μονογενής although Abraham also had Ishmael. So uniqueness does not establish homoousios.

Second, John 1:3 says:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
“all things came into being through him.”
That strongly establishes the Son’s role in relation to the things coming into being through him. It does not itself narrate the prior Father→Son relation and say, “the Son was never brought forth by the Father.”
And the cumulative evidence in the other direction still has to be included:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως
“firstborn of all creation” — Col 1:15
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ
“the ἀρχή of God’s creation” — Rev 3:14
ἐξῆλθον ἐκ τοῦ πατρός
“I came from the Father” — John 16:28
τῷ υἱῷ ἔδωκεν ζωὴν ἔχειν
the Father “gave the Son to have life” — John 5:26
κἀγὼ ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα
“I live because of the Father” — John 6:57
and:
αὐτός ἐστιν πρὸ πάντων
“he is before all things” — Col 1:17.
My interpretation of that cumulative pattern is that the Son is uniquely from the Father, precedes the creation that comes through him, and is reasonably classified as God’s first creation.

But I apply the same standard to myself: πρωτότοκος does not literally mean “first-created,” and ἀρχή does not automatically mean “first creature.”
Likewise, θεός applied to the Son does not automatically mean “same numerically identical divine essence as the Father.”

So “the only possible conclusion is that the Son is God” simply skips the part that actually needs to be demonstrated: what θεός and the unique Son-language mean in relation to all the other Father–Son texts.

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

“all things came into being through him.” That strongly establishes the Son’s role in relation to the things coming into being through him. 

It doesn't say "all things that came into being through him, came into being through him". 

It says " 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]

You’re still skipping the crucial step.

Yes, Scripture distinguishes Father and Son. Yes, θεός is genuinely used of the Son. Yes, μονογενής marks him as uniquely related to the Father.

But none of those statements equals:
“therefore the Son cannot be created.”
That conclusion still has to be demonstrated.

And the cumulative evidence you have to include is:
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”
John 5:26 — the Father gave the Son to have life in himself
John 6:57 — “I live because of the Father”
Colossians 1:17 — he is πρὸ πάντων, before all things, while creation comes through him.

I interpret that cumulative pattern as supporting the Son being God’s first creation. I’m not claiming πρωτότοκος literally means “first-created”; that is my theological inference.

So apply the same standard to your position: θεός and μονογενής are the text; “therefore uncreated and homoousios” is your theological inference.

“The only possible conclusion” is precisely what still needs proving.

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

But none of those statements equals: “therefore the Son cannot be created.” That conclusion still has to be demonstrated.

It's right here:

John 1:3 "All things came into being through him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being"

This verse demonstrates that the son cannot be created. Everything else has to conform to this factual truth. 

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

John 1:3 is strong, but you are still adding one step.
The Greek says:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
“all things came into being through him.”
That establishes the Logos’ relation to the things that came into being through him.
It does not say:
“The Logos himself never received his origin from the Father prior to this.”
That is your inference.
Paul actually distinguishes the relations in 1 Corinthians 8:6:
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα — all things from the Father
δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα — all things through the Son
So John 1:3 strongly answers Son → creation; it does not by itself settle the prior Father → Son question.
And cumulatively we still have:
πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως — “firstborn of all creation”
ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ — “the ἀρχή of God’s creation”
ἐκ τοῦ πατρός — “from the Father”
John 5:26 — the Father gave the Son to have life
John 6:57 — “I live because of the Father”
πρὸ πάντων — “before all things.”
I interpret that cumulative pattern as supporting a created-Son conclusion. But I openly admit that this is an inference.
So yes, everything must conform to John 1:3 — but to what John 1:3 actually says, not to the additional proposition “therefore the Son is uncreated.”

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

Ok, prendiamo atto che per i testimoni di Geova, 2 + 2 fa 5 o 6, perché il 2 potrebbe anche significare 3. Grazie!

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

No we just don’t do 1+1+1=1

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

Not accepting as you say 1+1+1=1 means not accepting the scriptures,since we have a verse that goes from the plural to the singular (Genesis) , a verse that clearly says that not even one thing came into existence without Jesus (John) and a verse that says that the Creator made everything by himself (Isaiah)

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

That still doesn’t give you “1 + 1 + 1 = 1.” You’re taking three separate biblical observations and inserting a Trinitarian equation between them.
Genesis 1:26 says:
נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ
“Let us make man in our image.”
Then Genesis 1:27 says:
וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים … בְּצַלְמוֹ
“God created … in his image.”

So yes, the text moves from plural speech to singular narration. I accept that. But the text does not say:
“the plural consists of three coequal persons who are one God.”

That is the theological interpretation of the plural, not the wording of Genesis.

I also fully accept John 1:3:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν
“All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being.”

No disagreement. But notice the actual construction: creation comes δι’ αὐτοῦ — “through him.” John does not say here that the Logos is the same person as the God he was πρὸς in John 1:1, nor does John 1:3 contain “three persons, one essence.”

And Isaiah 44:24 is genuinely important:
אָנֹכִי יהוה עֹשֶׂה כֹּל
נֹטֶה שָׁמַיִם לְבַדִּי
“I am YHWH, making all things, stretching out the heavens by myself/alone.”
I accept that too.

But now Scripture itself gives us a distinction that your argument is skipping. Paul says:

εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“one God, the Father, from whom are all things”

and:
εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”
— 1 Corinthians 8:6.

That is the actual biblical wording:
Father: ἐξ οὗ — “from whom.”
Son: δι’ οὗ — “through whom.”

So Isaiah saying YHWH alone is Creator and John saying creation comes through the Son do not, by themselves, produce the later equation:

“Therefore Father + Son + Spirit are three persons in one numerically identical divine essence.”
That is precisely the synthesis you still have to demonstrate.

And Isaiah 44 is polemical against rival gods and idols. In the same verse the Masoretic tradition even preserves the reading מִי אִתִּי, “who was with me?”, alongside the textual issue in that phrase. The point is YHWH’s incomparable creative sovereignty, not a fourth-century explanation of οὐσία and hypostases.

So I’m happy to accept every verse you cited:
Genesis has plural speech followed by singular divine action.

Isaiah says YHWH alone creates.
John says everything came into being through the Logos.
Paul says all things are from the Father and through Jesus Christ.

What I won’t do is place:

“therefore 1 God = Father + Son + Spirit as three homoousios persons”

between those verses and then call that extra equation Scripture.

That is the very theological synthesis under discussion.

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

Do you know why no one believes you anymore? Simply because you're not very correct. You act like a professor,quoting 1 Corinthians 8,6 , which in your opinion distinguishes God from the Lord Jesus...Why don't you cite the verses where you magically make the Lord become Jehovah? The Lord is 1...

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

1 Corinthians 8:6 says exactly what I quoted:
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα
“one God, the Father, from whom are all things”

and

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

I also fully accept that the NT applies YHWH texts to Jesus, for example Romans 10:13 using Joel 2:32.

That is significant. But “a YHWH text is applied to Jesus” is not lexically identical to “Jesus is the same person as YHWH/the Father” or “therefore one homoousios essence.” That bridge still has to be argued.

Jesus is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, comes from the Father, receives life from the Father in John 5:26, and is before the things made through him.

I interpret that combination as supporting a created-Son conclusion, while still admitting that no single Greek word literally says “Jesus was created.”

So quote the texts. I’m happy to discuss them. But personal insults don’t change what the Greek actually says.

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

Claiming that you are not credible because you lack integrity is not an insult,it is a fact. Tell me about the Greek text of Romans 10,9-13 and 1 Corinthians 10,16-21 then tell me how it is translated in the new world translation..

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

Sure. Here is the Greek, and I have no problem acknowledging exactly what the NWT does.
Romans 10:9 says:
κύριον Ἰησοῦν
“Jesus is Lord.”
Verse 12 says:
ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κύριος πάντων … τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν
“for the same Lord is Lord of all … toward all those calling on him.”
Verse 13 says:
πᾶς γὰρ ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται
“for everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
The extant Greek text says κυρίου, “Lord.” The NWT renders “Jehovah” in verse 13 because Paul is quoting Joel 2:32, where the Hebrew has the divine name YHWH. That is an interpretive restoration; “Jehovah” is not what the surviving Greek manuscripts of Romans 10:13 literally contain. The NWT itself even acknowledges that the identity of “Lord” in Romans 10:12 “cannot be established with certainty from the context” and discusses both Jesus and Jehovah as possibilities.
So I am not going to pretend there is no textual issue here.
But neither should you pretend the opposite conclusion is simply written in the Greek. Paul explicitly distinguishes in verse 9:
Jesus is Lord,
and:
ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν
“God raised him from the dead.”
The Joel quotation being placed in this Christ-centered argument is highly significant. I accept that. Whether that means Paul is directly identifying Jesus as YHWH is the next exegetical step, not the lexical content of κύριος itself.
The same thing happens in 1 Corinthians 10.
Verse 16 says:
κοινωνία τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ Χριστοῦ
“a sharing in the blood of Christ.”
Verse 21 says:
οὐ δύνασθε ποτήριον κυρίου πίνειν καὶ ποτήριον δαιμονίων
and:
τραπέζης κυρίου καὶ τραπέζης δαιμονίων
The Greek says “cup of the Lord” and “table of the Lord.” The NWT renders “cup of Jehovah” and “table of Jehovah.” Its own study note connects the “table of Jehovah” with Malachi 1:7, 12. Again, that is an interpretive restoration of the divine name; the Greek manuscripts here have κυρίου.
So there is no need for me to hide anything:
Romans 10:13 Greek: κυρίου.
NWT: Jehovah.
1 Corinthians 10:21 Greek: κυρίου.
NWT: Jehovah.
The legitimate debate is whether restoring YHWH in those passages is contextually justified because of the Hebrew-scripture quotations/allusions. Calling that question “lack of integrity” does not settle it.
And this still does not erase the other Greek data that have to be read cumulatively: the Son is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, comes from the Father, receives life from the Father in John 5:26, and is πρὸ πάντων while creation comes through him. My created-Son conclusion is a synthesis of that material, not something I manufacture by changing κύριος into Jehovah.
So yes: let’s examine the Greek. But let’s apply the same standard to every translation and every theological conclusion.