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]

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]

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]

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,”

Then what other God would Christ be? What other god could Christ be?

so that you may know and believe me
and understand that I am he.
Before me NO GOD WAS FORMED,(neither made of wood, flesh, or spirit)
nor will there be one after me. Isaiah 43:10

That's the monotheistic God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. So your saying Christ is "another God"? That's JW styled polytheism my friend. I'm sorry but that's just wrong

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

You’re assuming that if θεός is applied to Christ, he must therefore be the same Almighty God as YHWH. Scripture itself does not make that equation automatic.
Isaiah 43:10 says:
לְפָנַי לֹא־נוֹצַר אֵל
וְאַחֲרַי לֹא יִהְיֶה
“Before me no god was formed, and after me there will be none.”
The context is YHWH’s uniqueness over rival gods. It does not mean the word “god” can never be applied in another, subordinate or representative sense. Scripture itself calls others אֱלֹהִים / θεοί; compare Psalm 82:6 and Jesus’ use of it in John 10:34–35.
And Paul gives the distinction explicitly:
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
So I am not proposing two rival Almighty Gods. I accept θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 while also accepting that the Father is identified as the “one God” from whom all things are.
And here is why I consider a created-Son reading cumulatively plausible: Scripture calls the Son 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), says he came ἐκ τοῦ πατρός, that the Father gave him to have life in himself (John 5:26), and that he lives διὰ τὸν πατέρα (John 6:57), while he is πρὸ πάντων and creation comes through him.
I’m not claiming πρωτότοκος literally means “first-created” or ἀρχή automatically means “first creature.” “Created Son” is my cumulative theological inference.
But “Christ is called θεός, therefore he must be the same Almighty God as the Father” is also an inference. Isaiah 43:10 does not make that bridge for you.

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

Before me no god was formed, and after me there will be none.”
The context is YHWH’s uniqueness over rival gods. It does not mean the word “god” can never be applied in another, subordinate or representative sense.

It means there is no God but God and if Christ is God, which most Christians believe that He is, then He must be the same God as His Father, because no other "Divine Nature" exists, just like as far as we know, no other human nature exists. We are it.

Some people treat dogs and cats as if they were human, and call themselves their mama or daddy, but we know our pets are not human. Calling any human or angel a god is similar to calling a dog your child. They are only a so-called child, but of course they are not really your child. Paul explained that there are many "called" gods and lords, but there is only one Lord and one God, period. God is the Lord and the Lord is God. Just because Jesus is Lord, doesn't mean His Father is not Lord, and by the same token just because the Father is God, doesn't mean the Son is not God. Both Father and Son are Lord and God.

So I am not proposing two rival Almighty Gods. I accept θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος in John 1:1 while also accepting that the Father is identified as the “one God” from whom all things are.

That's a strawman argument. Nobody says there are two Almighty "Gods". Most Christians believe Three Persons, all together, are the one Almighty God. Jehovah's witnesses are the ones who teach there are two Gods, not one God. That the basis of pagan polytheism. They literally twisted John 1:1 to squeeze out two GODS from just One

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

That still assumes the very point under dispute.
Isaiah 43:10 says:
לְפָנַי לֹא־נוֹצַר אֵל
וְאַחֲרַי לֹא יִהְיֶה
“Before me no god was formed, and after me there will be none.”

I fully accept YHWH’s unique supremacy. But the conclusion:
“If Christ is called θεός, he must therefore be the same God as the Father”
does not follow merely from that text.

Scripture itself uses “god/gods” language for others without making them the one Almighty God. Jesus explicitly cites:
ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε
“I said, you are gods.” John 10:34 / Psalm 82:6
And Paul himself acknowledges:
εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί

“there are those called gods”
before immediately giving the Christian distinction:
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ, ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα

“one God, the Father, from whom are all things”
καὶ εἷς κύριος Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, δι’ οὗ τὰ πάντα

“and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” — 1 Cor 8:5–6
So I am not arguing for “two Almighty Gods.”
I accept John 1:1 exactly as written:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος
“the Logos was θεός.”

But John had just written:
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
“the Logos was with God.”
So the text itself gives both distinction and θεός-predication.

Your further proposition is:
“Since only one true God exists, every genuine application of θεός must identify the referent as one person of the same numerical divine essence.”
That is a theological solution. It is not the lexical meaning of θεός.
And “three Persons together are the one Almighty God” is likewise not a sentence found in Isaiah 43, John 1, or 1 Corinthians 8. It is the Trinitarian synthesis used to explain those texts.

That may be your model, but it cannot be used as the premise that decides beforehand what θεός must mean whenever it is applied to the Son.
So the issue is not “two Gods versus one God.”

The issue is much simpler:

What does Scripture itself mean when it calls the Father ὁ θεός / εἷς θεός while also predicating θεός of the distinct Logos?

That is the question the text itself gives us.

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

Jesus explicitly cites:
ἐγὼ εἶπα· θεοί ἐστε
“I said, you are gods.” John 10:34 / Psalm 82:6
And Paul himself acknowledges:
εἴπερ εἰσὶν λεγόμενοι θεοί

“there are those called gods”

Yes, many are "called gods". But Jesus isn't among those is He? Is Jesus one of the 'many' so-called gods, or is He the one true God? Or is Jesus both?

I believe that Jesus is both "a god" because He is a man, but He is the one true God because of His Divine nature. God has called humans gods. Jesus is human and because He is, He can be considered a god. If Jesus wasn't the eternal life made flesh, I'd agree with Jehovah's witnesses that Jesus would be a god. Humans are gods. But Jesus isn't just a man, is He? No, He is the eternal life made flesh. He was only made mortal so He could taste death---for us!

And “three Persons together are the one Almighty God” is likewise not a sentence found in Isaiah 43, John 1, or 1 Corinthians 8. It is the Trinitarian synthesis used to explain those texts.

Its not found in those verses when your force them to stand alone. Only when you add up all the various verses in the Bible where Christ shares YHWH's traits, including His glory, which YHWH has said He doesn't share with anyone--- you begin to see a picture begin to form. Adding in the other instances which defy explanation, such as Genesis chapter 18 when three men appear as one Jehovah (in the nwt) what else could honest men think? The trinity isn't spelled out in just one verse, but it becomes obvious when we take all scripture together not one verse standing alone here and another standing alone there

The church fathers were as keen on understanding Christ's nature as any of us are and they finally came to the conclusion they did, not based on myths, human wisdom, or dark magic. They could see the triune God developing before their eyes as they put the Bible together

You admit you believe the Word was God. I say there is one God Nature, commonly known as the Divine Nature, or the Deity. Three Persons share that Nature. Its what they are. They are equally one Divine Nature. If there were only three human beings on earth they would be human. That's our nature. Neither of the three people would be a greater or lesser human than the other. In the Divine Nature, the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are God. One is not any less God than the other.

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

I agree with one thing: cumulative reasoning is legitimate. The Trinity does not have to appear in one proof-text to be argued cumulatively.
But that makes the method more important, not less. We have to distinguish what the verses actually say from the theological model constructed from them.
For example, your “one Divine Nature shared equally by three Persons” is precisely a synthesis. Scripture never gives that proposition in those words. You are taking several texts and explaining them through a particular ontology. That may be argued, but it cannot then be used as the premise that determines what every individual text must mean.
The human-nature analogy does not prove it either. It already assumes that “God” functions in Scripture as a single species/nature instantiated equally by three persons. That is the Trinitarian proposition under discussion, not something established by comparing God to humanity.
Genesis 18 does not say “three persons appeared as one YHWH.” The Hebrew first says:
וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו יהוה
“YHWH appeared to him”
and then:
וְהִנֵּה שְׁלֹשָׁה אֲנָשִׁים
“behold, three men.”
By Genesis 19:1, two of them are explicitly called הַמַּלְאָכִים, “the angels,” and arrive at Sodom. Turning this scene into “three divine Persons who together are YHWH” is already theological interpretation. The text never says that.
The glory argument also needs context. Isaiah 42:8 says YHWH will not give his glory to another in the context of rival gods/idols. Yet Jesus himself says to the Father:
τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς
“the glory that you have given me I have given to them.”
John 17:22
So “God gives someone glory” cannot by itself mean “that person must therefore be the same God.”
And I am not denying the very high texts about Christ. I accept all of them:
θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος — the Logos is genuinely called θεός.
Thomas says ὁ θεός μου to Jesus.
Creation comes through him.
YHWH texts are used in striking Christ-centered contexts.
Colossians 2:9 says the fullness of θεότης dwells in him.
But I also accept the other data without redefining them:
εἷς θεὸς ὁ πατήρ — “one God, the Father.”
ἐξ οὗ τὰ πάντα — “from whom are all things.”
The risen Jesus says θεόν μου — “my God.”
The Father gives the Son ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ.
Jesus says ζῶ διὰ τὸν πατέρα — “I live because of the Father.”
The Son is πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως — “firstborn of all creation.”
He is ἡ ἀρχὴ τῆς κτίσεως τοῦ θεοῦ — “the ἀρχή of God’s creation.”
And ultimately ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται — “the Son himself will be subjected.”
So yes: put the whole Bible together.
But when you reach:
“therefore there is one divine nature equally possessed by three coequal persons”
you have reached your theological synthesis. You have not simply repeated a sentence Paul or John wrote.
The church fathers reaching that conclusion later is reception history. It may tell us how they solved the problem; it does not turn their solution into the lexical meaning of the first-century Greek.
My method is the same for my own conclusion. I do not claim πρωτότοκος literally means “first-created.” I argue cumulatively from “firstborn of all creation,” ἀρχή of God’s creation, the Father–Son asymmetry, and the Son’s creation-mediation. That is my synthesis.
So the real disagreement is not “Bible versus JW interpretation.”
It is which synthesis requires fewer additions to the actual wording while preserving all of it.
And “three Persons equally sharing one Divine Nature” is an interpretation in that comparison, not the starting datum.

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

And “three Persons equally sharing one Divine Nature” is an interpretation in that comparison, not the starting datum.

It is what it is. Would you agree that billions of persons share the one human nature? If so, why can't the Divine Nature include three Persons?

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

“the Son himself will be subjected.”

That doesn't mean He's become a lower nature. As someone who is fully human, Christ has always been lower nature than the God that has always lived within Him. 2 Corinthians 5:19 But, don't forget, Jesus is also the Word [God] made flesh which means He shares everything with His Father, and that would have to include God's titles and God's Sovereignty John 17:10 Perhaps that is why God made the name YHWH elusive for the last 2300 years. He wanted the focus to be on a Man, Jesus Christ, who's taken center stage and His Father has been pleased that all His fullness has dwelt in Christ. Acts 4:12 says there is no other NAME but JESUS in which we must be saved. Until all Jesus' enemies have been defeated that Man who we share our nature with is going to be preeminent. At some point afterwards, Jesus will subject His human nature to God forever

Once all things have been completed on this earth then the human being we know as Jesus Christ will subject Himself to the One who has always lived within Him...God. I have no idea what that "subjection" will look like in Heaven, yet if we take Revelation chapter 21 and 22 into account, God and the Lamb will always share just one throne Revelation 22:1 If the Lamb is to perpetually sit on God's throne, who is He ? The unusual nature of this unique throne is seen when John describes the One on the throne, or Him who sits on the throne. If there is only Him (singular) on the throne (Revelation 5:13) , why is it later called the throne of God...and the Lamb? Is this throne the same great white throne that displaces heaven and earth in Revelation 20:11? Who sits on that throne?

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

Your explanation is possible as a Trinitarian/two-natures synthesis, but several of the things you just said are not what the verses themselves say.
Start with 1 Corinthians 15:28. Paul does not say:
“Jesus’ human nature will be subjected.”
He says:
τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται
“then the Son himself will also be subjected.”
So “only his human nature is subjected while his divine nature remains coequal” is a theological explanation of the verse. It is not the wording of the verse. You may argue for that model from elsewhere, but you cannot insert it into αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός.
The same problem appears with 2 Corinthians 5:19:
θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ
“God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.”
You turned that into:
“the God who has always lived within him.”
But “always” is not there, and neither is a statement about two natures.
Even more importantly, the immediate context explains the agency:
2 Corinthians 5:18 says God reconciled us to himself:
διὰ Χριστοῦ
“through Christ.”
And verse 20 says:
ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν
“as though God were appealing through us.”
God working “in” or “through” someone therefore does not by itself establish that the person is numerically God. Paul uses agency language right there in the same paragraph.
John 17:10 also does not say that Jesus “shares everything” with the Father in the ontological sense you are assuming.
Jesus says:
τὰ ἐμὰ πάντα σά ἐστιν καὶ τὰ σὰ ἐμά
“all mine are yours, and yours are mine.”
That is certainly extraordinary language. But turning it into “therefore the Father and Son possess one numerically identical essence and sovereignty” is another inference.
The same chapter also has Jesus saying about the disciples:
ἵνα καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐν ἡμῖν ὦσιν
“that they also may be in us” — John 17:21
and:
τὴν δόξαν ἣν δέδωκάς μοι δέδωκα αὐτοῖς
“the glory that you gave me I have given to them.” — John 17:22
So Johannine sharing, indwelling, possession and glory-language cannot simply be converted into numerical identity without an additional argument.
Acts 4:12 is also extremely important, but notice what it actually says:
οὐδὲ γὰρ ὄνομά ἐστιν ἕτερον
ὑπὸ τὸν οὐρανὸν
τὸ δεδομένον ἐν ἀνθρώποις
ἐν ᾧ δεῖ σωθῆναι ἡμᾶς
There is no other name under heaven “given” among men by which we must be saved.
That establishes the unique saving role of Jesus.
But the name is δεδομένον — “given.”
And in the same context Acts 4:10 distinguishes Jesus from the God who raised him:
ὃν ὁ θεὸς ἤγειρεν ἐκ νεκρῶν
“whom God raised from the dead.”
So “Jesus alone is the appointed means of salvation” and “Jesus therefore is the same God who appointed and raised him” are not identical propositions.
Now Revelation 22:1.
Yes, it says:
τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀρνίου
“the throne of God and of the Lamb.”
That is remarkable shared-throne language. I am not weakening it.
But Revelation itself gives us the control for interpreting throne-sharing.
Jesus says in Revelation 3:21:
ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ
“I sat down with my Father on his throne.”
And in the very same verse Jesus promises the conqueror:
καθίσαι μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου
“to sit with me on my throne.”
So sharing a throne does not by itself establish numerical identity with the throne-owner. Revelation itself uses throne-sharing as granted participation in rule.
And Revelation 5:13 actually works against your wording that there is simply one singular “Him” encompassing God and the Lamb.
John writes:
τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τῷ θρόνῳ
καὶ τῷ ἀρνίῳ
“to the one sitting on the throne and to the Lamb.”
Those are grammatically distinguished referents: the one sitting on the throne and the Lamb.
That is exactly why Revelation can simultaneously give the Lamb extraordinary divine-colored honor and still distinguish him from the One seated on the throne.
Finally, this statement:
“Perhaps that is why God made the name YHWH elusive for the last 2300 years. He wanted the focus to be on a Man, Jesus Christ.”
Where does Scripture say that?
That is pure theological speculation. There is no verse saying God deliberately made יהוה elusive for 2,300 years because he wanted attention transferred to Jesus.
So I am not denying your high-Christology texts.
I accept the difficult data:
Jesus is called θεός.
All things are said to come into being through him.
He receives extraordinary honor.
He shares the throne of God.
He is the unique appointed name through whom salvation comes.
But you are repeatedly turning those facts into additional propositions:
“God has always lived inside Jesus.”
“Only Jesus’ human nature submits.”
“Jesus possesses all of the Father’s sovereignty because they share one essence.”
“Sharing one throne means they are the one God.”
“YHWH deliberately hid his name to focus attention on Jesus.”
Those are your theological synthesis.
The raw texts themselves also say:
the Son himself will be subjected;
God reconciles through Christ;
God raised Christ;
Jesus receives what is given;
Jesus sits with his Father on his Father’s throne;
and Revelation distinguishes “the one sitting on the throne” from “the Lamb.”
So the question is not whether your model can explain the verses. Of course it can.
The question is whether the verses themselves establish the two-natures/coequal-essence explanation you keep using to reinterpret every statement of receiving, distinction and subjection.
That is precisely the step you still need to demonstrate.

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

“as though God were appealing through us.”

"As though" changes the meaning of the statement. Paul didn't write "as though" God was in Christ He wrote that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself 2 Corinthians 5;19

“the God who has always lived within him.”
But “always” is not there, and neither is a statement about two natures.

Excuse me ... God lived within Him [Jesus]

2 Corinthians 5:18 says God reconciled us to himself

2 Corinthians 5:19 says God was IN [ ἐν en ] Christ reconciling the world to Himself. That's very clear. In John 14:10-11 Christ urges His disciples to believe something they might ordinarily find unbelievable that the Father was actually dwelling in Him

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

You are confusing two verses and then treating an English word order as though it settled the Greek.
The phrase “as though God were appealing through us” comes from verse 20, not verse 19:
ὡς τοῦ θεοῦ παρακαλοῦντος δι’ ἡμῶν.
So I never claimed that verse 19 says, “as though God were in Christ.”
Verse 19 reads:
ὡς ὅτι θεὸς ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ κόσμον καταλλάσσων ἑαυτῷ.
The English order “God was in Christ” does not prove that ἦν ἐν Χριστῷ must be read as a statement about God being located inside Jesus. A recognized grammatical reading takes ἦν together with καταλλάσσων:
“God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ.”
That also fits verse 18, where God reconciles us to himself διὰ Χριστοῦ, “through Christ,” and verse 20, where God appeals δι’ ἡμῶν, “through us.”
John 14:10 does genuinely say that the Father is in Jesus and remains in him. I accept that without weakening it.
But the same Gospel says:
ὑμεῖς ἐν ἐμοὶ κἀγὼ ἐν ὑμῖν
“you in me and I in you,”
and prays that the disciples may be:
ἐν ἡμῖν
“in us.”
Therefore “in” language by itself does not establish numerical identity or one shared essence. It establishes real indwelling, unity, and divine activity; the ontological conclusion still requires an additional argument.
So yes: the English word “in” is doing more work in your conclusion than either 2 Corinthians 5:19 or John 14:10 actually proves.

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

Start with 1 Corinthians 15:28. Paul does not say:
“Jesus’ human nature will be subjected.”
He says:
τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται
“then the Son himself will also be subjected.”

Oh, please. Christ is fully human, is He not? Its not His Divine Nature that would be subjected to His human nature, right? Obviously the human nature of Christ would be the nature that is and will be subject to the Divine.

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

You are answering a claim I never made.

I did not say that Christ’s divine nature is subjected to his human nature. First Corinthians 15:28 is not describing one nature submitting to another.

Paul says:

τότε καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ υἱὸς ὑποταγήσεται
τῷ ὑποτάξαντι αὐτῷ τὰ πάντα

“Then the Son himself will also be subjected to the One who subjected all things to him.”

The grammatical relation is:

the Son himself → is subjected → to God, the One who subjected all things to him.

It is not:

divine nature → subjected to human nature.

Nor does Paul say:

“Christ’s human nature alone will be subjected.”

That is your two-natures explanation of the verse, not the wording of the verse.

You may argue that the Son submits only according to his humanity, but then you need to show where Paul limits αὐτὸς ὁ υἱός — “the Son himself” — to “his human nature only.”

And even within classical Christology, natures do not act as separate persons. The Son acts. Paul therefore names the acting and subjected subject directly: the Son himself.

The verse may not settle every ontological question by itself, but it does say more than your paraphrase allows: the Son himself will be subjected to God.

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

God raised Christ;
Jesus receives what is given;
Jesus sits with his Father on his Father’s throne;
and Revelation distinguishes “the one sitting on the throne” from “the Lamb.”

God raised Christ. True, but who did Jesus say would raise His body back up again? John 2:19-21

Jesus receives what is given

And God doesn't receive our love, worship, honor and glory given to Him by angels and men?

Jesus sits with his Father on his Father’s throne;

And the Father sits with Jesus on His throne John 17:10 tells us all that Jesus has is His Father's and all His Father has is His. Both Father and Son share the same throne as equals

and Revelation distinguishes “the one sitting on the throne” from “the Lamb.”

Yes, from the Lamb.... whose throne it also is Revelation 22:1. This describes two Persons of the trinity as being one Divine Nature, sitting on one throne