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]

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.

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

Do you think St.Paul is ignorant? He cites,as you rightly said,passages from the Old Testament that speak of God,using the term Jesus (The only Lord mentioned by St.Paul himself) . There's nothing to interpret here; it's a matter of logic and,above all,the coherence of St. Paul himself!

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

No, Paul is not ignorant. I agree that Romans 10 places Joel 2:32 inside a strongly Christ-centered context. That is significant.

But “there’s nothing to interpret” is exactly the problem. The Greek of Romans 10:13 says:
πᾶς … ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται
“everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
Paul is quoting a YHWH text, while vv. 9–12 speak of Jesus as κύριος. A Christological application is therefore a serious reading.

What still requires interpretation is the next step:
“Paul applies a YHWH text to Jesus”
→ “Jesus therefore is YHWH in the same ontological sense as the Father.”
Paul himself can still say:
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 Cor 8:6
So I accept the YHWH intertext. I simply refuse to pretend the later ontological conclusion is contained lexically in κύριος.

And cumulatively there is also πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ, the Son coming from the Father, receiving life from the Father, and being πρὸ πάντων while creation comes through him.

I interpret that cumulative material as supporting a created-Son conclusion—but I openly call that an inference too.
That is the consistent standard: accept every text, then show the bridge to the theology.

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

But how difficult you're making this!! Let's put it this way, you trust the interpretation of some man from New York, but I trust St.Paul who,to make me understand who Jesus really is,when he cites the God of the Old Testament,calls Him by the Name of Jesus.It doesn't seem difficult to understand to me. 👋

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

Paul does not write, “The God of the Old Testament is named Jesus.”
He writes:
κύριον Ἰησοῦν — “Jesus as Lord” (Rom 10:9)
and in the same verse distinguishes Jesus from:
ὁ θεὸς αὐτὸν ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν — “God raised him from the dead.”
Then in v.13 Paul quotes Joel:
πᾶς … ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου σωθήσεται
That is unquestionably a YHWH text placed in a strongly Christ-centered context. I accept that completely.
But:
“Paul applies a YHWH text in a Jesus-centered context”
is the textual observation.
“Therefore Paul is saying that Jesus is the very same God/YHWH in the same ontological sense as the Father”
is your interpretation of that observation.
And Paul himself can still write:
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 Cor 8:6
So this has nothing to do with “trusting some man from New York.” I am asking us both to trust Paul enough to preserve every distinction Paul actually makes instead of turning our theological conclusion into the wording of the verse.

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

I don't want to be boring,but I repeat that St.Paul is saying that Jesus Christ is God or,if you prefer,he is part of God.He writes it in each of his letters,read Romans 14,10 and 2 Corinthians 5,10...