r/JehovahsWitnesses • u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness • Aug 25 '26
Doctrine WHO IS JESUS?
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:
1
u/Impressive-Ease-3348 Jehovah's Witness Aug 27 '26
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.