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?

 

[Helen]

What is his voice saying to you Helen?

Firstly I have to say , for me , the Voice of God ( as I understand it) is the Holy Spirit , The Comforter that Jesus sent to us when He ascended . “They that are led by the Spirit are the sons of God..”

if we can’t hear , we cannot be led. He leads , we follow.
Mostly He speaks to us through His written word , but without the anointing upon His written word it is the dead letter….His spirit witnesses with our spirit , which is life giving , and we know He is speaking a personal Word to us.

Mostly I believe that as we walk the walk , we have the awareness of His abiding presence …
I like the writings of Watchman Nee . He likened it to walking with God , knowing His presence , and when there is a withdrawing in the inner man , that is the warning to the Christian to be aware of incorrect teaching or error of the wrong path …

He speaks and leeds by His inner Spirit .
yes, I know I know …this will sound airy-fairy and not an answer .
I have only once ever , in over 50 years , heard the audible voice of God . I have heard a few times Him speaking in the inner voice . ( One time it made me laugh out loud, as He said “ There is One God , and it is not you! “ I needed that! )
Mostly He speaking by quickening His word as we read .

Sorry , this is the best I can answer .
Blessings ….H

 

[One 2 question]

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

Yes, to build and establish a very close intimate relationship with His Spirit Jesus sent to us is going to be even more critical in the dark times that lay ahead.

Holy Spirit communicates with me through pictures, parables and visions. I so appreciate the library of truths (pictures) that I've gained over decades. We are able to pull them out whenever I or someone else need them. They have been a great source of enlightenment to many people over the years.

 

[Runningman]

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.

I know the conversation has gone a few different ways in this thread, but I would like to see if I can concisely address the points you made. I would like to say that I am not trying to change your mind or make you see it differently, but I do want to show that the Bible does say a lot about Jesus and looking at it all is helpful for deciding if we follow the real Jesus or not.

I would like to first begin with complimenting your first point about the Word in John 1:1. I am complimenting it because I think it is brilliant and very succinctly explains what I believe. Yes, indeed, the Word as God is a qualitative statement, not an identity statement. I do not believe the Word is "a god" but rather the Word is godly. In other words, the Word is like God, shares things in common with God, but is not God Himself. This extremely nuanced understanding of John 1:1 is something only a few people pick up on in my experience, so I know you are definitely doing your homework. This is precisely why I compared John 1:1 to Hebrew poetry and said that it is simply God's godly Word being personified.

Next, I would like to comment on John 20:28. While it is true that Thomas said "My Lord and my God," it is equally true that Thomas did not say "you are my Lord and my God" and this is important because Jesus said a lot of things, on the record and off the record, but we have no evidence of Jesus teaching anyone that he is their God nor was what Thomas said repeated by anyone else. Thomas had already seen the miracles, resurrecting the dead, walking on the water, calming storms, and a variety of other jaw-dropping feats by Jesus up until this point and it is unlikely that Thomas would have had any doubt that Jesus is literally God if that's what he already believed. Yet, prior to what Thomas said in John 20:28, he said in John 20:25 that he would never believe unless he literally put his fingers in Jesus' wounds himself. Unfortunately, Thomas required material evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection and for that Jesus suggested Thomas did not qualify to be blessed in John 20:29. So, while Jesus didn't correct him, he did respond with what may be seen as a mild rebuke.

I know you made a lot more points than this, but I want to try to keep it shorter than my previous comment. 1 Timothy 2:5 says Jesus is a mediator. A mediator is a go-between between parties and Jesus is a man between God and men. This verse is strong evidence that Jesus is not the same party as God or the people of the world.

 

[bdavidc]

I know the conversation has gone a few different ways in this thread, but I would like to see if I can concisely address the points you made. I would like to say that I am not trying to change your mind or make you see it differently, but I do want to show that the Bible does say a lot about Jesus and looking at it all is helpful for deciding if we follow the real Jesus or not.

I would like to first begin with complimenting your first point about the Word in John 1:1. I am complimenting it because I think it is brilliant and very succinctly explains what I believe. Yes, indeed, the Word as God is a qualitative statement, not an identity statement. I do not believe the Word is "a god" but rather the Word is godly. In other words, the Word is like God, shares things in common with God, but is not God Himself. This extremely nuanced understanding of John 1:1 is something only a few people pick up on in my experience, so I know you are definitely doing your homework. This is precisely why I compared John 1:1 to Hebrew poetry and said that it is simply God's godly Word being personified.

Next, I would like to comment on John 20:28. While it is true that Thomas said "My Lord and my God," it is equally true that Thomas did not say "you are my Lord and my God" and this is important because Jesus said a lot of things, on the record and off the record, but we have no evidence of Jesus teaching anyone that he is their God nor was what Thomas said repeated by anyone else. Thomas had already seen the miracles, resurrecting the dead, walking on the water, calming storms, and a variety of other jaw-dropping feats by Jesus up until this point and it is unlikely that Thomas would have had any doubt that Jesus is literally God if that's what he already believed. Yet, prior to what Thomas said in John 20:28, he said in John 20:25 that he would never believe unless he literally put his fingers in Jesus' wounds himself. Unfortunately, Thomas required material evidence of Jesus' death and resurrection and for that Jesus suggested Thomas did not qualify to be blessed in John 20:29. So, while Jesus didn't correct him, he did respond with what may be seen as a mild rebuke.

I know you made a lot more points than this, but I want to try to keep it shorter than my previous comment. 1 Timothy 2:5 says Jesus is a mediator. A mediator is a go-between between parties and Jesus is a man between God and men. This verse is strong evidence that Jesus is not the same party as God or the people of the world.

Once again, your response appears logical but fails to match the complete teachings of Scripture. We need to examine each part of this issue using only Biblical text for reference.

John 1: The verse clearly states, “the Word was God” rather than saying the Word was “godly” or just like God. The lack of an article before Theos indicates the nature of divinity rather than a subordinate status. John makes a clear statement about the Word possessing divine nature alongside God while maintaining personal distinction. The verse states that the Word existed “with God” which demonstrates that the Word possesses full divinity rather than being just “godly.”

As for John 20: Thomas directly addressed Jesus with the personal and unmistakable declaration “My Lord and my God.” In the Greek text Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου Jesus Christ receives a direct and personal title from Thomas as his Lord and God. Jesus did not correct Thomas when he labeled Jesus as God because Jesus always corrected mistakes but did not find any error here. But He didn’t. Jesus received the title and worship given to Him because it represented the truth unlike how Peter in Acts 10 or the angel in Revelation 22 reacted.

Your use of 1 Timothy 2:5 does not disprove Jesus’ deity. The verse identifies Christ as the mediator between God and humanity which focuses on His functional role rather than His essential nature. Jesus is the mediator because He took on human flesh (John 1: Jesus maintained His divine nature even as He became human (Colossians 2:9). The only one who can mediate between God and man must be both completely divine and completely human. The language used in Hebrews 1 originates from Old Testament descriptions of Yahweh yet is directly applied to the Son by God the Father.

The Scriptures provide clear teaching that Jesus represents more than just human nature or mediation and that His true nature is God made flesh. Doctrines which reject God's truth must be false according to the Scriptures. The Bible declares that any spirit which does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ arrived in human form originates from a source other than God (1 John 4:3). The Word existed as God Himself and took on human flesh so He could live among humanity. That’s the Jesus of the Bible. Anything else is a counterfeit.

 

[The Gospel of Christ]

The idea that Jesus is merely “godly,” created, or just a servant of God might sound reverent on the surface — but it’s a theological smokescreen. The Bible never presents Christ as part of creation. It presents Him as the Creator.

The Word didn’t begin in Bethlehem. The Word was with God and was God from the beginning. All things were made through Him — not some things. All things. That excludes Him from the category of created beings. And anyone who tries to soften that truth with philosophical gymnastics isn’t defending Scripture — they’re redefining it.

Jesus didn’t become divine because He was exalted. He was already divine — that’s why He could humble Himself. The angels worship Him. The apostles worshiped Him. The Father calls Him God. And the fullness of the Godhead dwells in Him bodily.
If your Jesus needed to be created, taught, or promoted into divine status — you don’t have the Jesus of Scripture. You have a glorified mortal. A functional idol in theological disguise.

There is only one Jesus who saves — the eternal Word, the image of the invisible God, by whom and for whom all things were made. Deny that, and you're not just debating theology — you're gambling your soul on a counterfeit Christ.

Denying the deity of Jesus Christ is not “deep reading.”

It is spiritual suicide.

“Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist — denying the Father and the Son.”
(1 John 2:22)

And obviously...

"Are You Following the Real Jesus—or a Counterfeit?"

If you’re following Dispensationalism, you’ve already chosen the counterfeit.

 

[Runningman]

Once again, your response appears logical but fails to match the complete teachings of Scripture. We need to examine each part of this issue using only Biblical text for reference.

John 1: The verse clearly states, “the Word was God” rather than saying the Word was “godly” or just like God. The lack of an article before Theos indicates the nature of divinity rather than a subordinate status. John makes a clear statement about the Word possessing divine nature alongside God while maintaining personal distinction. The verse states that the Word existed “with God” which demonstrates that the Word possesses full divinity rather than being just “godly.”

As for John 20: Thomas directly addressed Jesus with the personal and unmistakable declaration “My Lord and my God.” In the Greek text Ὁ Κύριός μου καὶ ὁ Θεός μου Jesus Christ receives a direct and personal title from Thomas as his Lord and God. Jesus did not correct Thomas when he labeled Jesus as God because Jesus always corrected mistakes but did not find any error here. But He didn’t. Jesus received the title and worship given to Him because it represented the truth unlike how Peter in Acts 10 or the angel in Revelation 22 reacted.

Your use of 1 Timothy 2:5 does not disprove Jesus’ deity. The verse identifies Christ as the mediator between God and humanity which focuses on His functional role rather than His essential nature. Jesus is the mediator because He took on human flesh (John 1: Jesus maintained His divine nature even as He became human (Colossians 2:9). The only one who can mediate between God and man must be both completely divine and completely human. The language used in Hebrews 1 originates from Old Testament descriptions of Yahweh yet is directly applied to the Son by God the Father.

The Scriptures provide clear teaching that Jesus represents more than just human nature or mediation and that His true nature is God made flesh. Doctrines which reject God's truth must be false according to the Scriptures. The Bible declares that any spirit which does not acknowledge that Jesus Christ arrived in human form originates from a source other than God (1 John 4:3). The Word existed as God Himself and took on human flesh so He could live among humanity. That’s the Jesus of the Bible. Anything else is a counterfeit.

I believe you made an excellent point in your prior comment when you said "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)." Thus, the Word is godly, but is not God. You also mentioned John 1:3 that says, “All things were made by Him,” but the last-mentioned God in verse 2 is the God the Word was with, The Father. The "Him" in John 1:3, according to standard pronoun antecedent agreement, would mean the Father is the Creator, not the Word.

We can look a bit more past John 1:1-3 to see another example of how the Word is not the Creator. For example, in John 1:9 the True Light is said to have been coming into the world in the present tense after John the Baptist had already been testifying about the True Light. John and Jesus Christ were around the same age, about 30 years old, by the time John was already baptizing. This would place the coming of the True Light into the world during the time that Jesus was already 30 years old, meaning that Jesus is not himself the True Light. Therefore, John 1:10 says "...the world was made through Him..." would rule out the Word or Jesus as being the Creator, but rather the Father.

I understand your point about John 20:28, but in Greek it is recorded that Thomas used the genitive case to say "my Lord and my God" which means that Thomas did not make a direct address to Jesus to identify him as his Lord and God. What Thomas said can be understood as a declaration or statement, but not as an identification that he addressed Jesus as God. This is why virtually no Bible versions say "You are my Lord and my God" because the Greek grammar simply doesn't allow it to be a plausible or honest translation. I honestly think Thomas was just shocked that Jesus was still walking around fine after being crucified and exclaimed "My Lord and my God!" Much like people still do in the present day.

I believe Matthew 16:13-19 should help clear up who Jesus is and there is even an example in the Greek of Jesus being addressed in the vocative case in Matt. 16:16, where Peter said "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” This does not match what Thomas said.

It is not a requirement for a mediator between God and men to be fully divine and fully human. Galatians 3:19 calls Moses a mediator and we can read from Exodus 20:19 that Moses spoke to God on behalf of Israel. In Deuteronomy 5:5 Moses stood between the Lord and the people. Thus, Moses was also a mediator between God and man, yet Moses was merely a man. This supports 1 Timothy 2:5 that Jesus is not himself God in order to mediate between God and man. Thus, this verse is strong evidence that Jesus is not the same party as God or the people just as Moses is not the same party as God or the people.

Yes it's true that Jesus Christ "arrived in human form" or "came in the flesh" but this doesn't make any statements about a pre-existence. John was just assuring the people he was writing to that Jesus was indeed a real man who was alive, rather than just a story in a letter or a character in a sermon. "Came in the flesh" is a common phrase used to mean that someone was there in person.