Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God

[journeymanisnothing]

Knowing God by knowing Jesus doesn't mean they are the same person.

That's what sinning angels' thought. Sinning mankind also.

He returns in like manner. Taken to heaven and brought back. 1 Thessalonians 4 says God brings Jesus.

Causing an unquenchable fire which changes creation.

14For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, we also believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in Him.

Of course. They learned Jesus had not come again and abandoned them. They learned the "coming tribulation" is to some degree experienced by every believer.
It's what makes Gods' work unique,

These things said Esaias when he saw his glory and spake of him. Jn.12:41 KJV

John is referring to how Isaiah saw Jesus in Isa.6. He's saying Jesus is God.

 

[Runningman]

These things said Esaias when he saw his glory and spake of him. Jn.12:41 KJV

John is referring to how Isaiah saw Jesus in Isa.6. He's saying Jesus is God.

Not according to Hebrews 11. None of them literally saw or had the Messiah. It refers to knowledge of the prophecies, a future promise, something they didn't yet have. Additionally, there are no quotes or actions by Jesus in the Old Testament. He didn't exist yet.

Hebrews 11
13All these people died in faith, without having received the things they were promised. However, they saw them and welcomed them from afar. And they acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

 

[Delete_me]

There's a broader context and it actually doesn't just come right out and say "Jesus is God" in such explicit terms. For example, Jesus is a he and the word is the logos that 1 John 1:1,2 calls an it. Jesus isn't an it. I would offer you that the Word (logos - a word, speech, or utterance) is being personified.

That isn't unprecedented. In Proverbs 8 wisdom is also personified, but we don't call wisdom an entirely separate person. John was writing poetically about something. To the original readers there would have been no misunderstanding that it was calling a man Lord God Almighty.

Anyone can read the "broader context". I'm reading the same Bible you are. Anyone making an honest read of the Bible (without a bone to pick) can read on in John 1 and see that John 1:14 goes on to say "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Full of grace and truth." Then it goes on to say in John 1:17 that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth was by Jesus Christ.

John does say the Word is Jesus Christ. Jesus was there at the beginning, with God. The Word was made flesh, which is Jesus Christ as we know Him. And John is witness to that. He explicitly says it. You are saying the opposite. Thus I am taking God's Word on that over yours.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Not according to Hebrews 11. None of them literally saw or had the Messiah.

Isaiah obviously saw Him in a vision,

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up and his train filled the temple. Isa.6:1 KJV

It refers to knowledge of the prophecies, a future promise, something they didn't yet have.

Yes I know that's my point. John said,

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Jn.12:38 Isa.53.1 KJV
and
He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart and be converted and I should heal them. Jn.12:40, Isa.6:9-10 KJV

He's saying Jesus is God.

Additionally, there are no quotes or actions by Jesus in the Old Testament. He didn't exist yet.

The Word of God came to all the Prophets.

Hebrews 11
13All these people died in faith, without having received the things they were promised. However, they saw them and welcomed them from afar. And they acknowledged that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.

They received Him in figures.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Runningman
You must understand that sinful, savage, vile, unlawful acts were committed against Jesus. Then Isaiah said,

Woe is me! for I am undone; because I am a man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips for mine eyes have seen the King, the LORD of hosts. Isa.6:5 KJV

The people who nailed Him to that cross never saw their own filthiness. Waiting for the Lord to come and destroy His enemies.

He "blinded their eyes" by coming to make peace because they were His enemies. So were we. It's amazing.

 

[Randy]

Who gave Jesus the name above every name? Who exalted Jesus?

Clearly the same one who gifted Him the fullness. Hence therefore God Your God....
Col 1:19

God having a God isn't a biblical concept. Christianity is monotheism. The explanation I provided you preserves the integrity of monotheism.

A Son who is called God.
Isaiah 9:6

Where do you see a Sonship that existed before creation?

You mean in Hebrews 1?
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the
universe.

He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end

In Hebrews 1 and Psalm 45, it's evident that the mentioned king isn't the highest God. The king is blessed by God, has a queen, and is clearly a human king, not the highest God. It's also clear that the Psalm 45 passage isn't originally about Jesus because the king in it has a queen.

You and the writer of Hebrews disagree. He stated about the Son.
But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy

So, the initial statement in Psalm 45:6 isn't really talking about Jesus originally; it's about an Old Testament king. However, people later connected it to Jesus. If we say the king is called "God" in that verse, it would mean both Solomon and Jesus are considered God, which doesn't make sense. There's no clear reason to associate Psalm 45:6 with the Messiah unless verse 7 is also applied to the same king. Doing that would be reading into the text (eisegesis).

The divine nature is something that Christians partake in.

Again, for I think the 3rd time a distinction was made
Col 2:9-10
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority

I don't think so for some of the above stated reasons. We could say "god" and that would probably be ok.

Jesus is my Lord. But I can acknowledge the nature found in Him. (all the fullness of the Fathers Deity) and one with that nature is called God. However, it is the Fathers Deity or the Fathers nature not His own-

 

[Free]

Thomas words "My lord and my God" are often misunderstood by some to be a declaration on Thomas' part about his belief Jesus is God.

That is all they can mean.

However, Jesus directly contradicted Thomas' words, saying that Thomas' God is the Father. Since the Father is the only true God (John 17:3) that means Jesus isn't God and no one in the Bible believed Jesus is God.

This has been refuted elsewhere, if you yet care to address it.

Jesus referred to Thomas and the rest of his disciples as his brother.

Matthew 12​

49Pointing to His disciples, he said, “Here are My mother and My brothers​

And this is relevant how, exactly?

Jesus told Mary to deliver a message to Thomas and his other brothers about who their God is:

John 20​

17“Do not cling to me,” Jesus said, “for I have not yet ascended to the Father. But go and tell my brothers, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’ ”​

Jesus said his God is the Father and that the God of his brothers is also the Father.

Yes, a passage about the humanity of Christ that doesn’t preclude him from also being God. Remember, Jesus had already told them that he came from above, from the Father, in whose glory he shared before creation (all of which John also discusses in his prologue), and was going to return to the Father. He is simply returning to the place and position in glory from which he came.

Jesus says, “to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” He doesn’t use “our.” He is saying that is that his Father is now their Father but that there is a difference in relationship, in his sonship and theirs. His God is also their God, or, their God is his God, in that as a man, he still prayed to the Father as the one true God. But that in no way precludes Jesus from also being truly God. It is rather one of the main points of John’s gospel. Jesus is simply here stressing the new closeness of relationship between the disciples and God.

That means Thomas didn't believe Jesus is God.

He absolutely did. He was speaking directly to Jesus and said, “The Lord of me and the God of me.” That was immediately after the resurrected Jesus repeated Thomas’s own words back to him, despite Jesus not having been present when Thomas spoke them.

You are using verses that speak clearly of Jesus’s humanity to trump those that speak clearly of his deity, without any basis for doing so. That is poor exegesis based on poor hermeneutics. You must take them altogether without either his humanity or his deity trumping the other. Phil 2:5-8 is key, as is John 1:1-18 (they have the same core message).

 

[Runningman]

Anyone can read the "broader context". I'm reading the same Bible you are. Anyone making an honest read of the Bible (without a bone to pick) can read on in John 1 and see that John 1:14 goes on to say "The Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us. Full of grace and truth." Then it goes on to say in John 1:17 that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth was by Jesus Christ.

John does say the Word is Jesus Christ. Jesus was there at the beginning, with God. The Word was made flesh, which is Jesus Christ as we know Him. And John is witness to that. He explicitly says it. You are saying the opposite. Thus I am taking God's Word on that over yours.

Jesus isn't an it. That's my point. The best case scenario is that the "word" is personified in John 1:1

1 John 1
1That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our own eyes, which we have gazed upon and touched with our own hands—this is the Word of life. 2And this is the life that was revealed; we have seen it and testified to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life that was with the Father and was revealed to us.

 

[Runningman]

Isaiah obviously saw Him in a vision,

In the year that king Uzziah died I saw also the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up and his train filled the temple. Isa.6:1 KJV

I think you are reading into this a bit. Isaiah 6:3 says this is talking about YHWH. That isn't Jesus.

Yes I know that's my point. John said,

That the saying of Esaias the prophet might be fulfilled, which he spake, Lord, who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? Jn.12:38 Isa.53.1 KJV
and
He hath blinded their eyes and hardened their heart that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart and be converted and I should heal them. Jn.12:40, Isa.6:9-10 KJV

He's saying Jesus is God.

Your premise doesn't follow its conclusion. It doesn't say Jesus is God. Where did you see that specifically?

The Word of God came to all the Prophets.

They received Him in figures.

Correct.

 

[Runningman]

Clearly the same one who gifted Him the fullness. Hence therefore God Your God....
Col 1:19

Col 1:20 it happened at the cross.

A Son who is called God.
Isaiah 9:6

Jesus isn't God there because the translation doesn't require it to be worded that way. For example, in Ezekiel 32:21 the plural form of what is translated as "mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6 is translated as mighty chiefs, ḡib·bō·w·rîm ’ê·lê. The clue here that it's an errant translation is that Jesus is not the everlasting Father. Trinitarians don't believe the Son is the Father.

You mean in Hebrews 1?
In the past God spoke to our ancestors through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom also he made the
universe.

The word for universe the isn't universe. It's about the ages being made through the Son in these last days which began some ~2,000 years ago. God didn't speak through the Son in the past, but rather through the prophets, hence why there is not one. single. quote by Jesus in the old testament. He didn't exist.

Hebrews 1
1God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,

He also says,

“In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end

Verse 10 is about God, not Jesus. That doesn't follow from verse 8.

You and the writer of Hebrews disagree. He stated about the Son.
But about the Son he says,
“Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever;
a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy

In Hebrews 1 and Psalm 45, it's evident that the mentioned king isn't the highest God. The king is blessed by God, has a queen, and is clearly a human king, not the highest God. It's also clear that the Psalm 45 passage isn't originally about Jesus because the king in it has a queen.

So, the initial statement in Psalm 45:6 isn't really talking about Jesus originally; it's about an Old Testament king. However, people later connected it to Jesus. If we say the king is called "God" in that verse, it would mean both Solomon and Jesus are considered God, which doesn't make sense. There's no clear reason to associate Psalm 45:6 with the Messiah unless verse 7 is also applied to the same king. Doing that would be reading into the text (eisegesis).

Again, for I think the 3rd time a distinction was made
Col 2:9-10
For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily, 10 and you have come to fullness in him, who is the head of every ruler and authority

Being filled with the fullness of God isn't an indicator of deity. It applies to regular Christians.

Ephesians 3
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

Jesus is my Lord. But I can acknowledge the nature found in Him. (all the fullness of the Fathers Deity) and one with that nature is called God. However, it is the Fathers Deity or the Fathers nature not His own-

2 Peter 1
4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

 

[Randy]

Col 1:20 it happened at the cross.

No -Paul is stating the Son who was from the beginning in that regard. That nature in Him created. As in God the Father created all things by and through His Firstborn Son.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

Jesus isn't God there because the translation doesn't require it to be worded that way. For example, in Ezekiel 32:21 the plural form of what is translated as "mighty God" in Isaiah 9:6 is translated as mighty chiefs, ḡib·bō·w·rîm ’ê·lê. The clue here that it's an errant translation is that Jesus is not the everlasting Father. Trinitarians don't believe the Son is the Father.

Feel free to look at all the english translations. Those translation teams seem to disagree with you. Jesus is called God as we have shown. It was prophesied so. It must be lawful and in Him does dwell all the fullness. (Fathers nature) He is the imprint of Gods very being. The image of the Father. Such a one that has that nature in them is at the very least God in that context. He is the Son given and the authority does rest on Him.

The word for universe the isn't universe. It's about the ages being made through the Son in these last days which began some ~2,000 years ago. God didn't speak through the Son in the past, but rather through the prophets, hence why there is not one. single. quote by Jesus in the old testament. He didn't exist.

The meaning is clear and cohesive with Paul and John's declarations about the Son who was.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Hebrews 1
1God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,

The correct meaning was captured by the translation teams.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Verse 10 is about God, not Jesus. That doesn't follow from verse 8.

The writer in Hebrews 1 is contrasting the Superiority of Jesus's Sonship to the angels of God. In what reasonable sense does introducing the Father make that case? About the Son He says.. About the Angels He says..
It does fall in line with vs 8. About the Son.. vs 10He also says..

In Hebrews 1 and Psalm 45, it's evident that the mentioned king isn't the highest God. The king is blessed by God, has a queen, and is clearly a human king, not the highest God. It's also clear that the Psalm 45 passage isn't originally about Jesus because the king in it has a queen.

Repeat - Again you disagree in that the writer of Hebrews showed Jesus as that one exalted by God. I'll stay with the text.

So, the initial statement in Psalm 45:6 isn't really talking about Jesus originally; it's about an Old Testament king. However, people later connected it to Jesus. If we say the king is called "God" in that verse, it would mean both Solomon and Jesus are considered God, which doesn't make sense. There's no clear reason to associate Psalm 45:6 with the Messiah unless verse 7 is also applied to the same king. Doing that would be reading into the text (eisegesis).

Its about the Son the Lord Jesus Christ. Read Hebrews

Being filled with the fullness of God isn't an indicator of deity. It applies to regular Christians.

I showed the distinction between one having received the fullness of the Fathers deity vs being given fullness in Christ 3 or 4 times already.

Ephesians 3
19of the love of Christ, and to know this love that surpasses knowledge, that you may be filled with all the fullness of God.

2 Peter 1
4Through these He has given us His precious and magnificent promises, so that through them you may become partakers of the divine nature, now that you have escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.

You do not have life in yourself nor are you the true vine that nourishes the branches found in such a vine as nobody lives through you nor do you have the fullness of Fathers Deity in you that you could lay the foundations of the world by your hands. Nor do you have such power that you can you raise us all up on the last day. The Son as stated in Hebrews 1 does. As I stated its impossible to have a honest dialogue with you. You think your being is the image of the invisible God? That its only authority that distinguishes you from the Lord Jesus? Get real.

 

[Randy]

Col 1:20 it happened at the cross.




The word for universe the isn't universe. It's about the ages being made through the Son in these last days which began some ~2,000 years ago. God didn't speak through the Son in the past, but rather through the prophets, hence why there is not one. single. quote by Jesus in the old testament. He didn't exist.

Hebrews 1
1God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,

The same word is used here. When going from Kione Greek to english a word for word translation is not always the same thing as a meaning-to-meaning translation. Besides the fact that John and Paul statements of God bringing into existence all things by and through Jesus is cohesive with Hebrews 1:2 and is captured so by the Nicene creed.

Hebrews 11:3

New International Version​

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Hebrews 11:3 Greek Text Analysis

 

[Free]

Col 1:20 it happened at the cross.

Col 1:16-17 unequivocally show that the Son was involved in the creation of everything that came into existence. It logically follows, then, that he cannot have been created and must necessarily have always existed. That is supported by John 1:1-18; 8:58; 17:5, 24; 1 Cor 8:6; Phil 2:5-8; and Heb 1:2, 10-12.

Hebrews 1
1God, having spoken long ago to our fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the ages,

Verse 10 is about God, not Jesus. That doesn't follow from verse 8.

Here, too, there is simply no way to understand Heb 1:10-12 other than speaking of the Son.

Heb 1:8 But of the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of your kingdom.
Heb 1:9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness beyond your companions.”
Heb 1:10 And, “You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning, and the heavens are the work of your hands;
Heb 1:11 they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment,
Heb 1:12 like a robe you will roll them up, like a garment they will be changed. But you are the same, and your years will have no end.” (ESV)

The "And" links back to "But of the Son he says" as a second instance of the Father speaking of the Son. Grammatically it cannot be otherwise; that's how "and" functions. That is the only way that can be understood. If not, then we must throw out our Bibles as the grammar would be so nonsensical that they could not be trusted to be telling the truth. We would really not be able to know anything for certain that the Bible says.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Knowing God by knowing Jesus doesn't mean they are the same person.

He returns in like manner.

Jesus' return burns the entire universe as we know it, so "in like manner" cannot mean "appearing as an ordinary man."

 

[Runningman]

No -Paul is stating the Son who was from the beginning in that regard. That nature in Him created. As in God the Father created all things by and through His Firstborn Son.
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. 16 For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. 17 He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. 18 And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. 19 For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

No no. This is in regards to the context of the church as Colossians 1:15-20 says. Jesus is the "firstborn of creation." That is where you should begin. It means Jesus was created. All firstborns are literally born.

Feel free to look at all the english translations. Those translation teams seem to disagree with you. Jesus is called God as we have shown. It was prophesied so. It must be lawful and in Him does dwell all the fullness. (Fathers nature) He is the imprint of Gods very being. The image of the Father. Such a one that has that nature in them is at the very least God in that context. He is the Son given and the authority does rest on Him.

Feel free to look at what I showed you from Ezekiel 32:21 that proves that "mighty God" isn't a required translation for Isaiah 9:6. For one, it doesn't fit the context because Jesus isn't God. I think we are past that at this point and for two Jesus is not the Father. Secondly, it says these are things he would be "called" not that these are things he actually is. Thirdly, he wasn't even called those things. Why? Because that isn't who or what he is.

The meaning is clear and cohesive with Paul and John's declarations about the Son who was.
For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

You need to work with the other things Paul and John said. For example, Paul said that the only God is the Father in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John clearly demonstrated he doesn't believe Jesus is God in Acts 4. Since we do not have contradictions in the Bible then the best possible solution is that when God creates "through" Jesus it refers to a particular context. It is not in regards to literally all things.

The writer in Hebrews 1 is contrasting the Superiority of Jesus's Sonship to the angels of God. In what reasonable sense does introducing the Father make that case? About the Son He says.. About the Angels He says..
It does fall in line with vs 8. About the Son.. vs 10He also says..

And it's about YHWH. Jesus is not YHWH. Start with Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13 where Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

Repeat - Again you disagree in that the writer of Hebrews showed Jesus as that one exalted by God. I'll stay with the text.

Repeat. Again, the original writing of Psalm 45 is in regards to a king of Israel. Later, the writer of Hebrews appropriated it to apply to Jesus. In the original context of the writing, Solomon was not being called God. Hebrews 1:8 is not about Jesus being God because Solomon is not God.

Its about the Son the Lord Jesus Christ. Read Hebrews

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God. Not God the Son.

I showed the distinction between one having received the fullness of the Fathers deity vs being given fullness in Christ 3 or 4 times already.

It's not useful to support your claim as I showed.

You do not have life in yourself nor are you the true vine that nourishes the branches found in such a vine as nobody lives through you nor do you have the fullness of Fathers Deity in you that you could lay the foundations of the world by your hands. Nor do you have such power that you can you raise us all up on the last day. The Son as stated in Hebrews 1 does. As I stated its impossible to have a honest dialogue with you. You think your being is the image of the invisible God? That its only authority that distinguishes you from the Lord Jesus? Get real.

Where did Jesus get the life in him from? It came from God, not himself. I hope this helps!

John 12
49I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it. 50And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say.”

 

[Runningman]

The same word is used here. When going from Kione Greek to english a word for word translation is not always the same thing as a meaning-to-meaning translation. Besides the fact that John and Paul statements of God bringing into existence all things by and through Jesus is cohesive with Hebrews 1:2 and is captured so by the Nicene creed.

Hebrews 11:3​

​

New International Version​

3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God’s command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.

Hebrews 11:3 Greek Text Analysis

The word for the physical world or universe is G2889 kosmos. The word we are talking about in Hebrews 1:2 is G165 aión which means an age or cycle of time. These words do not mean the same things. Saying the literal universe was made through the Son is demonstrably and academically false. It is not a real Biblical doctrine.

 

[Runningman]

Jesus' return burns the entire universe as we know it, so "in like manner" cannot mean "appearing as an ordinary man."

The Day of the Lord is not the same thing as the second advent of Christ.

 

[Randy]

The word for the physical world or universe is G2889 kosmos. The word we are talking about in Hebrews 1:2 is G165 aión which means an age or cycle of time. These words do not mean the same things. Saying the literal universe was made through the Son is demonstrably and academically false. It is not a real Biblical doctrine.

How do you read Hebrews 11:3?
Clearly speaking of the creation was formed at Gods command. Same exact word in the koine Greek.
The same context the translators gave in Hebrews 1:2.

through Whom also He made the worlds
through whom he made the universe

tn Grk “the ages.” The temporal (ages) came to be used of the spatial (what exists in those time periods). See Heb 11:3 for the same usage.

Heb 11:3
11 Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see. 2 For by it the people of old[a] received God’s commendation.[b] 3 By faith we understand that the worlds[c] were set in order at God’s command,[d] so that the visible has its origin in the invisible.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

The Day of the Lord is not the same thing as the second advent of Christ.

It concerns both our Lords' 1st and 2nd coming. Here is the 2nd advent,

But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 2Pet.3:10 KJV

day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night. 1Thes.5:2 KJV

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad. 2Cor.5:10 KJV

 

[Randy]

Feel free to look at what I showed you from Ezekiel 32:21 that proves that "mighty God" isn't a required translation for Isaiah 9:6. For one, it doesn't fit the context because Jesus isn't God. I think we are past that at this point and for two Jesus is not the Father. Secondly, it says these are things he would be "called" not that these are things he actually is. Thirdly, he wasn't even called those things. Why? Because that isn't who or what he is.

Its not a matter of required its a matter of proper translation into english.
Here is a list of 20+ translations into English by trained translators. They all tend to favor a child born who has Gods nature. A Son given. And the authority shall rest on that Son. Are we influenced by the revelation of the Word who is called God and became flesh. Probably.

You need to work with the other things Paul and John said. For example, Paul said that the only God is the Father in 1 Corinthians 8:6 and John clearly demonstrated he doesn't believe Jesus is God in Acts 4. Since we do not have contradictions in the Bible then the best possible solution is that when God creates "through" Jesus it refers to a particular context. It is not in regards to literally all things.

I myself don't need to work on that as I do and can acknowledge the Fathers nature in the Son. And still hold to one God the Father and one Lord Jesus Christ.

You don't hold to all that is stated but I do. Perhaps you are the one who needs to study.
1Cor 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.

And it's about YHWH. Jesus is not YHWH. Start with Exodus 3:14,15 and Acts 3:13 where Jesus is not the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.

That's like stating the church and the NT are not about Jesus.
I think its about the nature found in the Son.

Repeat. Again, the original writing of Psalm 45 is in regards to a king of Israel. Later, the writer of Hebrews appropriated it to apply to Jesus. In the original context of the writing, Solomon was not being called God. Hebrews 1:8 is not about Jesus being God because Solomon is not God.

Yes He did apply it to Jesus and I hold to his understanding.

Yes, Jesus is the Son of God. Not God the Son.

Its about the nature found in that Son and I do state Son.

It's not useful to support your claim as I showed.

It was done with scripture let it speak to us. I meant I have given it 3 or 4 times already.

For in him all the fullness of deity lives[a] in bodily form, 10 and you have been filled in him, who is the head over every ruler and authority.
(a)
Colossians 2:9 sn In him all the fullness of deity lives. The present tense in this verse (“lives”) is significant. Again, as was stated in the note on Col 1:19, this is not a temporary dwelling, but a permanent one. Paul’s point is polemical against the idea that the fullness of God dwells anywhere else, as the Gnostics believed, except in Christ alone.

Where did Jesus get the life in him from? It came from God, not himself. I hope this helps!

Begotten from the Father alone before all worlds. The beginning of the creation of the Father.
The gifting of the Fathers nature Col 1:19 to dwell in that begotten Son
In Him and by Him and through Him that nature created. God created by Him.

John 12
49I have not spoken on My own, but the Father who sent Me has commanded Me what to say and how to say it. 50And I know that His command leads to eternal life. So I speak exactly what the Father has told Me to say.”

The Father living in Him doing His work. Jesus attributed the Fathers works He performed as a testimony that the Father is in Him and He in the Father. They are one.