Are You Following the Real Jesus—or a Counterfeit?

[Runningman]

I appreciate your willingness to dig into the Greek, but the issue here isn’t just language, it’s context. When you take the whole of Scripture together, the case is clear: Jesus is not a created being. He is the eternal Word, fully God.

John 1:1 says, “In the beginning was the Word,” not “the Word came into existence.” The Word was with God (pros ton Theon) and was God (Theos). The lack of the article before “Theos” doesn’t make Him less than God, it highlights His divine nature. John 1:14 says the Word became flesh (egeneto). That’s not about being created, it’s about taking on a new form, God becoming man. John 8:58 backs this up when Jesus says, “Before Abraham was, I am.” The Greek ego eimi mirrors Exodus 3:14, and the Jews understood He was claiming the divine name. They picked up stones because He claimed to be the I AM.

Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the “firstborn of all creation,” but prototokos refers to position and rank, not origin. David was called firstborn in Psalm 89:27, though he wasn’t the oldest. Colossians 1:16 clears up the meaning: “By Him were all things created, visible and invisible.” The Greek dia means Jesus is the agent of creation, not a passive tool. John 1:3 agrees: “Without Him was not anything made that was made.” If Jesus were created, He’d fall under “things that were made,” which the verse says is impossible.

Revelation 3:14 calls Jesus the “beginning” (arche) of creation, but arche often means source or origin. He’s the starting point of all creation, not the first creature. Proverbs 8:22 personifies wisdom poetically, it’s not a prophecy about Christ being created. When 1 Corinthians 1:24 calls Jesus the wisdom of God, it means He embodies divine wisdom, not that He’s identical with that poetic figure.

Micah 5:2 says the Messiah’s goings forth are from everlasting. That’s eternal existence. John 8:58 confirms it. Hebrews 1:2 says God made the ages through the Son, and verse 3 says He upholds all things by His power. That’s Creator language. Hebrews 1:8 quotes Psalm 45:6, “Your throne, O God, is forever.” The Father calls the Son God. Verse 9 just shows the Son submitting in role, not nature.

Titus 2:13, in Greek, reads “our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.” That’s one person, not two. Thomas said to Jesus, “My Lord and my God” (John 20:28), and Jesus didn’t correct him. In Revelation 1:8, Jesus says, “I am the Alpha and Omega, the Almighty.” Revelation 21:22 shows distinction between Father and Son, but both are equally divine.

Scripture is consistent. Jesus is the Word made flesh, the Creator of all things, and fully God. Denying that is not deep study, it’s rejection of what the Bible plainly says.

It's true that John 1:1 does say the Word is God "theos" with God "ton Theon" to show distinction between the Word as God and the definitive God as The God. There is a reason for why John worded it that way, of course, and it is because he didn't want anyone to misunderstand what he was saying. John was trying to say the Word is not the definitive God with the definite article. In other words, the Word is an indefinite God.

I would like to take a closer look at some of the other things John said to get a better idea of what he actually believes. A good example is Acts 4:23, where John and Peter were still together. They prayed together to God and addressed Him as Lord and said He is the Creator of heaven and earth. This prayer continues on until verse 30, but in this passage John and Peter spoke of the Creator having servants like king David and Jesus that God anointed and performed signs through. Why this is important is because it is evidence that John and Peter didn't believe Jesus is God and if that's the case then John didn't believe the Word is literally God. I'll continue.

There is also 1 John 1:1-3 in which John referred to the Word using impersonal pronouns (that, which, this, it) and said that the Word of life is indeed eternal life. John believed the Word is a thing, not a real pre-existent being or someone who incarnated. I believe a lot of what John wrote about the Word in John 1 is simply personification and I believe that should actually be intuitive since nowhere in all of Scripture are words considered to be an actual person. That with the fact there are no examples of the Word pre-existing in the Old Testament, this is a likely conclusion. There are references to the "word of God" being personified in Hebrew literature (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11.)

While it's true that firstborn refers to rank, being firstborn also necessitates being born. With Jesus being a man, it is already intuitive that he is himself created, hence he is of the creation as Colossians 1:15 says. I know there are multiple ways to translate the word "arche" but it's still an honest translation to call Jesus the beginning of the creation of God for many reasons.

Since you mention Micah 5:2, I would like point out that this very same verse in the Septuagint LXX also contains the word "arche" and if translated as "origin" as you do in Revelation 3:14, then Micah 5:2 would still read as Jesus having a beginning point since he has an origin and that would mean he is not an eternal being. While we are in Micah 5, please look at Micah 5:4 that says this very same person's God is the LORD (YHWH) which shows distinction between Jesus and God again. YHWH, in the Old Testament, stated explicitly that He alone is God and that there are no others (Deut. 4:35 & 39, Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 45:5-6, Isaiah 45:21-22, and several others but this makes the point) and that YHWH is called Father, but never called Son or Word in the Old Testament (Deut. 32:6, Isaiah 63:16, Jeremiah 3:4,19, and more)

There seem to be hundreds of reasons, but Jesus does not have all of the divine qualities of God, does not possess all of the names and titles of God, and Paul opened most of his letters (most written decades after Jesus was already taken to heaven) by saying that the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I also believe Scripture is consistent and I think we may disagree with each other's commentaries, hermeneutics, and interpretations. It's been a good discussion and thank you for sharing your beliefs with me.

 

[bdavidc]

It's true that John 1:1 does say the Word is God "theos" with God "ton Theon" to show distinction between the Word as God and the definitive God as The God. There is a reason for why John worded it that way, of course, and it is because he didn't want anyone to misunderstand what he was saying. John was trying to say the Word is not the definitive God with the definite article. In other words, the Word is an indefinite God.

I would like to take a closer look at some of the other things John said to get a better idea of what he actually believes. A good example is Acts 4:23, where John and Peter were still together. They prayed together to God and addressed Him as Lord and said He is the Creator of heaven and earth. This prayer continues on until verse 30, but in this passage John and Peter spoke of the Creator having servants like king David and Jesus that God anointed and performed signs through. Why this is important is because it is evidence that John and Peter didn't believe Jesus is God and if that's the case then John didn't believe the Word is literally God. I'll continue.

There is also 1 John 1:1-3 in which John referred to the Word using impersonal pronouns (that, which, this, it) and said that the Word of life is indeed eternal life. John believed the Word is a thing, not a real pre-existent being or someone who incarnated. I believe a lot of what John wrote about the Word in John 1 is simply personification and I believe that should actually be intuitive since nowhere in all of Scripture are words considered to be an actual person. That with the fact there are no examples of the Word pre-existing in the Old Testament, this is a likely conclusion. There are references to the "word of God" being personified in Hebrew literature (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11.)

While it's true that firstborn refers to rank, being firstborn also necessitates being born. With Jesus being a man, it is already intuitive that he is himself created, hence he is of the creation as Colossians 1:15 says. I know there are multiple ways to translate the word "arche" but it's still an honest translation to call Jesus the beginning of the creation of God for many reasons.

Since you mention Micah 5:2, I would like point out that this very same verse in the Septuagint LXX also contains the word "arche" and if translated as "origin" as you do in Revelation 3:14, then Micah 5:2 would still read as Jesus having a beginning point since he has an origin and that would mean he is not an eternal being. While we are in Micah 5, please look at Micah 5:4 that says this very same person's God is the LORD (YHWH) which shows distinction between Jesus and God again. YHWH, in the Old Testament, stated explicitly that He alone is God and that there are no others (Deut. 4:35 & 39, Deut. 6:4, Isaiah 45:5-6, Isaiah 45:21-22, and several others but this makes the point) and that YHWH is called Father, but never called Son or Word in the Old Testament (Deut. 32:6, Isaiah 63:16, Jeremiah 3:4,19, and more)

There seem to be hundreds of reasons, but Jesus does not have all of the divine qualities of God, does not possess all of the names and titles of God, and Paul opened most of his letters (most written decades after Jesus was already taken to heaven) by saying that the Father is the God of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I also believe Scripture is consistent and I think we may disagree with each other's commentaries, hermeneutics, and interpretations. It's been a good discussion and thank you for sharing your beliefs with me.

You claim John 1:1 teaches the Word is “a god,” not fully God, because of the missing definite article. That’s incorrect. The Greek phrase καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος (“and the Word was God”) places theos first for emphasis. This is a well-known structure in Greek grammar to show nature, not identity. It’s not indefinite, it’s qualitative. John is saying the Word is of the same essence as God, but distinct from ton Theon (the Father). That’s why in John 1:3, it says, “All things were made by Him,” making it impossible for the Word to be a created being. The Word is Creator, not creation.

In Acts 4:24–30, Peter and John prayed to the Father, which doesn’t deny Christ’s deity. Jesus, during His earthly ministry, submitted to the Father (Philippians 2:6–8). Calling Jesus the “servant” or “Son” of God reflects His role, not His essence. In John 20:28, Thomas calls Jesus “My Lord and my God,” and Jesus does not correct him. That’s because Jesus is fully God.

In 1 John 1:1–3, John uses neuter pronouns because he’s referring to what they heard, saw, and handled—the message of life, the manifestation of the eternal Word. But in verse 2, he says “that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us.” That clearly identifies the person of Jesus as eternal life, not a thing or an idea.

Colossians 1:15 calls Jesus the firstborn (prototokos) of all creation. That doesn’t mean created first. The word refers to rank, not origin. The very next verse explains, “For by Him were all things created,” and then Paul lists everything—heaven, earth, visible, invisible. You can’t be part of creation and also the Creator of all creation. The Greek word for “first-created” is protoktistos, and Paul does not use that.

Revelation 3:14 says Jesus is the “beginning” (arche) of the creation of God. But arche can mean source or origin, not the first thing created. In John 1:1–3 and Hebrews 1:2, we’re told Jesus made all things. He is the origin, not the result.

Micah 5:2 says His goings forth are from everlasting. The Hebrew word olam means eternity, not just ancient times. That’s eternal preexistence. In Micah 5:4, yes, it says the LORD is His God, but that reflects His human submission to the Father during His incarnation, not a denial of divinity. The Son submits to the Father, but is equal in essence (John 10:30, Philippians 2:6).

Your appeal to God being called Father but not Son in the Old Testament misses the point. The Son is revealed in the New Testament (Hebrews 1:1–2), though He appears in the Old Testament as the Angel of the LORD, who speaks as God, receives worship, and forgives sin (Genesis 22:11–12, Exodus 3:2–6, Judges 13:18–22).

Paul calling the Father “the God of our Lord Jesus Christ” (Ephesians 1:17) reflects Christ’s role as the Mediator (1 Timothy 2:5), not a denial of His deity. The same Paul says, “In Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9) and calls Him “our great God and Savior” (Titus 2:13).

Bottom line, the Jesus you’re describing is not the Jesus of Scripture. He’s not a created being or a symbolic Word. He is the eternal, divine Son of God, coequal with the Father, who took on flesh to redeem sinners. If you reject that, you are rejecting the true Christ. Jesus said, “If ye believe not that I am He, ye shall die in your sins” (John 8:24). Believe the record God has given of His Son (1 John 5:11–12), not a redefined version stripped of His deity.

 

[Helen]

You quoted Jesus about listening to his voice. I would like to hear what that voice is saying to you.

I know this that you wrote was not to me …and that the thread has moved on from your comment…. The scripture that comes to me is - “ My sheep know My Voice , and a stranger they will not follow”.
We just know His Voice ….and I believe as the days on earth get darker , we thst are followers need to fine tune our hearing ear …as the world tries to drown out His voice at evrty turn.

blessings …H

 

[quietthinker]

I know this that you wrote was not to me …and that the thread has moved on from your comment…. The scripture that comes to me is - “ My sheep know My Voice , and a stranger they will not follow”.
We just know His Voice ….and I believe as the days on earth get darker , we thst are followers need to fine tune our hearing ear …as the world tries to drown out His voice at evrty turn.

blessings …H

What is his voice saying to you Helen?