@Duran
Your frustration seems to
stem from the fact that I answer from the standpoint of the doctrine of the
Trinity, yet you repeatedly present arguments whose only force rests on
rejecting that very doctrine. You can say “Trinity talk aside,” but if your
entire point is to make theological distinctions between Jesus and
the Father, then you're already engaging with the very essence of
what Trinitarian theology addresses. You are already trying to interpret
Scripture with a Unitarian/Arian lens while demanding a Trinitarian not respond
with Trinitarian theology—as though reasoned theology should be suspended in
favor of your preferred framework. That is not how dialogue works, nor how
theology proceeds.
You object that I mention
“ontological separation” between Jesus and the Father, while you claim your
only interest was in discussing Revelation 3:21 and the identity of those who
will sit on the throne. But your own framing presupposes two different divine
beings with different names, different thrones, and ultimately different
statuses in the divine order. So yes—ontological separation is exactly what
you’re implying, whether you admit it or not. The issue is not that I’ve
misunderstood your grammar, but that you don’t understand how language
interacts with theology. And in particular, you have no room for mystery—no
concept of how Scripture can reveal both distinction and unity in God.
You emphasize the two
names—YHWH and Yehoshua—as though naming proves essence. But this is a shallow
and reductionist reading of Scripture. Names in the Bible are not bare
labels—they reveal character, mission, and divine presence. “Yehoshua”
literally means “YHWH saves.” That name is not meant to distance the Son from
YHWH, but to identify him as the manifestation of YHWH’s saving power. You
quote John 1:29: “Behold the Lamb of God.” Yes—of course the Lamb is of God.
But Trinitarian theology never teaches that the Son is the same person as the
Father. What it teaches is that the Son, though distinct in person, shares
fully in the divine nature of the Father. You cite that verse as though it
disproves the Trinity, when in fact it fits perfectly within its framework.
Your continued appeal to
Revelation 3:21 fails for the same reason. You want to emphasize that Jesus
says, “I sat down with my Father on his throne,” as though this proves that
Jesus is not God. But what you ignore—every single time—is the broader
theological meaning of that shared throne. The Book of Revelation never says
there are two thrones. Revelation 22:1 speaks of the throne (singular)
“of God and of the Lamb.” There is only one throne, and it is shared. This is
not Trinitarian spin. It is exegesis. The Lamb shares in the throne not merely
as a servant or creature, but as one who is worshipped alongside the Father
(Revelation 5:13–14). The vision is not of a divine monarch and a created
assistant. It is of co-regency in divine glory.
Furthermore, your dichotomy
between “Jehovah” and “Jehoshua” is theologically incoherent. You say, “The
names are different, therefore the persons must be different.” But that
presumes that divine essence is defined by nomenclature. It’s as though because
you call God the Father “Jehovah” and call the Son “Jesus,” they cannot both be God. That
is absurd. Isaiah 9:6 says the Messiah will be called “Mighty God, Everlasting
Father.” You quote Scripture to prove that the Father and Son are
distinct—which no Christian denies—but then you refuse to hear the full voice
of Scripture when it attributes the very identity and worship of YHWH to Jesus.
In Philippians 2, Paul quotes Isaiah 45:23—where YHWH says every knee will bow
to him—and applies it to Jesus, who has been given “the Name that is above
every name.” That name is not merely “Jesus.” It is the divine title “Lord” (Kyrios),
the Greek rendering of YHWH in the Septuagint. To confess “Jesus is Lord” is to
proclaim him as YHWH in person.
Your repeated statements
that “Yehoshua is not Jehovah” rely on misreading a fundamental point: that the
New Testament authors intentionally identify Jesus with the Lord of
the Old Testament. Hebrews 1:10–12 quotes Psalm 102, a passage about YHWH, and
says it applies to the Son. John 12:41 says that Isaiah saw the glory of
Jesus—referring to Isaiah 6, where the prophet sees the glory of YHWH seated on
his throne. These are not slips or poetic metaphors. They are theological
affirmations rooted in the earliest Christian conviction that Jesus is not
merely God’s agent, but God incarnate.
You also cite Romans 10:9,
where Paul says we must confess Jesus as Lord and believe God raised him from
the dead. But again, this is not a problem for Trinitarians. The Son, in his
humanity, was raised by the power of the Father—and indeed, by his own power
(John 10:17–18). That he died does not negate his divinity. He died in his
assumed human nature, not in his divine essence. God the Son cannot die in his
divine nature, because God is eternal and immortal. That’s why the Incarnation
matters: the eternal Word became flesh, not by ceasing to be God, but by taking
on human nature.
Let’s be clear: Christians
confess one God in three persons, not three gods. The man
Jesus can speak to the Father as “my God” (John 20:17) without that implying
inferiority in nature. The Son speaks from his humanity—and even in his
glorified state continues to relate to the Father as the Son. If you want to
say this proves he isn’t divine, then you’ll need to explain why the New
Testament repeatedly ascribes divine honors, attributes, and titles to
him—worship, judgment, omniscience, creation itself.
You want to strip the Son
of his divinity based on relational language. But relational language is not
ontological language. The Father is the Father, the Son is the Son, the Spirit
is the Spirit—yet the three are one in divine essence. That is what the Christian
Church has always confessed, long before “Rome” became your scapegoat.
In the end, your argument
is not with me. It is with the text of Scripture itself, which refuses to
conform to the narrow categories you try to impose. The early Christians didn’t
invent the Trinity—they were compelled by the witness of Scripture to confess
it. That’s why you can’t erase the Son’s divine status by pointing to
distinctions of person. Those are the very foundations of Trinitarian faith.
So yes—Jesus speaks of “his
Father.” That does not mean he is not God. It means he is not the Father. But
he is the Son of God, begotten from eternity, consubstantial with the Father,
and Lord of all. And to him every knee shall bow—not as an honored servant, but
as the living God.
