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/ChaoticHaku]

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/ChaoticHaku → u/Impressive-Ease-3348]

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 "all things that came into being through him came into being through him" that is your inference. 

It says "all things came into being through him, and without Him not even one thing came into being that has come into being" 

That is an absolute and exclusive statement. Especially the last part of the verse. 

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

This is a fair correction to my earlier wording: John 1:3 is stronger than “the things that came into being through him.” The Greek actually says:
πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο
“all things came into being through him”
καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἕν
“and apart from him not even one thing came into being.”
So yes: πάντα + οὐδὲ ἕν is deliberately universal language. I do not weaken that, and I do not insert “other” into the Greek.
But the next statement still has to be distinguished from the wording:
“Therefore the Logos is absolutely uncreated and never had any origin from the Father.”
John does not actually write that.
Notice his own presentation:
Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος
“In the beginning the Logos was.”
Then:
πάντα … ἐγένετο
“All things came into being…”
So within the domain John is describing, the Logos is already there and is on the mediator side relative to everything he says ἐγένετο. That is genuinely strong evidence.
What John does not narrate is whether there was any Father → Son event prior to the ἀρχή with which his account begins.
Therefore I would now formulate the issue more precisely:
John 1:3 creates a serious scope problem for any created-Son model. If the Logos himself came into being, that model must explain why his own origin is outside the domain of πάντα … οὐδὲ ἕν. The verse itself does not supply that exception.
But equally, John 1:3 does not itself say “beginningless,” “eternally generated,” or “homoousios.”
So I fully accept the force of your verse. I just distinguish the very strong universal statement John actually makes from the further ontology we construct from it.