The Hypostatic Union- the 2 Natures in Christ

Where are you going to run?

Revelation 4:11 – Understanding the Greek Text
The verse in Greek:

"Ἄξιος εἶ, ὁ Κύριος καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἡμῶν, λαβεῖν τὴν δόξαν καὶ τὴν τιμὴν καὶ τὴν δύναμιν, ὅτι σὺ ἔκτισας τὰ πάντα, καὶ διὰ τὸ θέλημά σου ἦσαν καὶ ἐκτίσθησαν."

"λαβεῖν" (labein) – The verb here is aorist active infinitive of λαμβάνω (lambanō), which can mean to receive, to take, or to be acknowledged as worthy of.

The context clarifies that God is not passively "given" power but is worthy of all glory, honor, and power because He is the Creator.
This is not a statement that God "received" power from another being, but that all creation acknowledges His power as intrinsic to His being.

2. The Father Is the Source of All Power (Not a Recipient)

A. The Old Testament Declares God's Omnipotence

Psalm 62:11 (LXX 61:12) – "ἅπαξ ἐλάλησεν ὁ Θεός, δευτέραν ταῦτα ἤκουσα, ὅτι ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐστίν"
"Once God has spoken, twice I have heard this: that power belongs to God."

The Hebrew (לֵ֣אלֹהִ֣ים עֹ֑ז, leʾlōhîm ʿōz) means "strength/power belongs to God," not something He receives.

Isaiah 40:28 – "Hast thou not known? hast thou not heard, that the everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither is weary? there is no searching of his understanding."
This shows God's infinite, unchanging power (cf. Isaiah 43:13, Isaiah 46:9–10).

B. The New Testament Affirms God's Power Is Innate

Romans 13:1 – "For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God."
1 Chronicles 29:11-12 – "Thine, O LORD, is the greatness, and the power (הַגְּבוּרָה, haggevurah), and the glory, and the victory, and the majesty... both riches and honour come of thee, and thou reignest over all; and in thine hand is power and might."

John 19:11 – Jesus says to Pilate: "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above."
These passages emphasize that all power originates in God. If God received power, then there must be a higher authority than Him—which is impossible.

3. Christ Receives Power in His Messianic Role, Not in His Divine Nature
The reason Christ receives power (e.g., Matthew 28:18, Daniel 7:14) is because, as the Messiah, He took on a mediatorial role in the economy of redemption.

Matthew 28:18 – "And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."

Greek: ἐδόθη (edothē) – Aorist passive indicative of δίδωμι (didōmi, "to give"), meaning this power is granted in His role as the incarnate Son, not that He lacked it in His divine nature.

Daniel 7:13–14 – "And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages should serve him."

Here, Christ receives authority as the Son of Man, fulfilling His role as the Messianic King.

This granting of power is not a denial of His divine omnipotence, but rather part of the plan of redemption.

4. Scholarly Support
A. A.T. Robertson (Word Pictures in the New Testament, on Rev. 4:11)
"God does not 'receive' power as though He lacked it, but is acknowledged as worthy of power, since He alone is Creator and Sovereign over all things."

B. Richard Bauckham (The Theology of the Book of Revelation)
"Revelation does not suggest that God gains power; rather, the worshipers affirm His absolute sovereignty. The language of receiving power is doxological, not metaphysical."

C. Charles Spurgeon (on Psalm 62:11)
"Power is inherent in God. He does not borrow it, nor is it conferred upon Him; He is the fountain and source of all strength."


Revelation 4:11 does not state that God the Father "received" power from another being, but rather that He is worthy of recognition as the source of all power.

Greek syntax (λαβεῖν, "to receive") in context refers to a declaration of worthiness, not a literal bestowal of power.

The Old Testament and New Testament affirm that all power belongs to God from eternity (Psalm 62:11, Isaiah 40:28, 1 Chronicles 29:11-12, Romans 13:1).

Christ receives power in His role as the Messiah, not because He lacked it in His divine nature (Matthew 28:18, Daniel 7:14).
Scholars confirm that the language in Revelation 4:11 is doxological, affirming God's supreme authority rather than implying He was given power by another.

J.
so, we can take this as you cannot find that scripture as to the Father sitting on the throne. but listen,

NOW,
"power" from the willing to rule over them.

Repeat, repeat, repeat,,,,

Think "authority".....
so, you are saying that the Father sits on the throne, well then in authority it's the Lord Jesus. now please explain how the LAMB who is the Lord Jesus stand before the very throne he sits on..... your answer PLEASE.

101G
 
ὑπόστασις

Personhood is a distinction of substance.

Hypostasis and Personhood​

In the context of the Trinity, “hypostasis” can be understood as equivalent to “person,” but with specific theological nuances that emphasize the distinct individual realities within the unity of the Godhead. Each hypostasis possesses the fullness of the divine essence, but they are not three gods; rather, they are three persons in one God.
I can agree with this, and to elaborate--

Hypostasis, Personhood, and Latin Theological Development
The concept of ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) and its Latin counterpart substantia (substance) or persona (personhood) has been the subject of intense theological precision in both Greek and Latin traditions, particularly in Trinitarian doctrine. The term ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) underwent semantic refinement, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, as theological controversies necessitated distinctions between essence (οὐσία, ousia) and personhood (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis).

1. Greek Development: Ὑπόστασις in Patristic Thought
Originally, ὑπόστασις and οὐσία were often used interchangeably, as seen in pre-Nicene writings. However, by the fourth century, theologians like Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers) clarified that:

Ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) refers to a distinct subsistent individual reality, i.e., a person.
Οὐσία (ousia) refers to the common essence or substance of God.
Thus, the Trinity is defined as μία οὐσία, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις (mia ousia, treis hypostaseis)-"one essence, three hypostases."

Key Text: Basil of Caesarea (Epistle 236:6)
"Οὐσία λέγεται τὸ κοινὸν, ὑπόστασις δὲ τὸ ἰδιωτικόν."
("Ousia signifies what is common, hypostasis what is particular.")

This definition became central to Nicene orthodoxy and was ratified at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), forming the basis of Trinitarian terminology.

2. Latin Development: Substantia and Persona
In the West, ὑπόστασις was translated into Latin primarily as substantia or persona, leading to some early linguistic confusion.

Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD) was the first Latin theologian to articulate Trinitarian doctrine using substantia (substance, essence) and persona (person, individual reality). He spoke of una substantia, tres personae (“one substance, three persons”), anticipating later definitions.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) followed, developing the relational distinctions within the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct relations (relationes), but they share one divine essence (una essentia, tres personae).

Key Text: Augustine (De Trinitate, Book 5, Ch. 8)
"Non tres deos dicimus, sed unum Deum; non tamen Patrem esse eumdem qui Filius est et Spiritus Sanctus, sed alius est Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus."

("We do not say there are three gods, but one God; yet we do not say the Father is the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another.")

This distinction between substantia (essence) and persona (person) resolved early Western theological difficulties in articulating the Trinity.

3. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) and the Definition of Hypostasis
The Chalcedonian Definition further refined the term ὑπόστασις, particularly in Christology. It stated that:

"ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστὸν ... ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον, εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν"

("One and the same Christ ... recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, into one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis (hypostasis).")

This clarified that Christ is one person (μία ὑπόστασις, mia hypostasis) but possesses two natures (δύο φύσεις, duo physeis), fully divine and fully human.

4. Hypostasis and Personhood in Trinitarian Theology
When applied to the Trinity:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct ὑποστάσεις (hypostases = persons), but they share one οὐσία (ousia = essence).

The Son possesses a divine hypostasis from eternity but, in the Incarnation, assumed a human nature, making Him one person (μία ὑπόστασις) with two natures.

Key Scholarly Sources

John of Damascus, Expositio Fidei (De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, ch. 8)

Defines hypostasis as "a reality that subsists in itself and is not predicated of another."

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 29, a. 2
"Person signifies that which subsists distinctly in the divine nature."

Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation
Explores how the term hypostasis was refined in Latin Christology, moving from Tertullian’s use of substantia to the final adoption of persona.

Conclusion
Ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) in Greek refers to a real, individual existence that subsists within a nature (οὐσία, ousia).

Persona in Latin became the standard translation for hypostasis when speaking of Trinitarian distinctions.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct hypostases (persons) but share one ousia (essence).

The Chalcedonian Definition clarified that in Christ, there is one hypostasis with two natures (divine and human).

The Latin tradition (Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas) emphasized relational distinctions within the Godhead while preserving unity of essence.

This precision in terminology defends against modalism (which denies real distinctions in the Trinity) and tritheism (which denies the unity of essence).

Are we in agreement so far @praise_yeshua?

J.
 
so, we can take this as you cannot find that scripture as to the Father sitting on the throne. but listen,

NOW,

so, you are saying that the Father sits on the throne, well then in authority it's the Lord Jesus. now please explain how the LAMB who is the Lord Jesus stand before the very throne he sits on..... your answer PLEASE.

101G
Do you believe that YHWH is literally seated on a throne? The language here appears to be anthropomorphic, doesn't it?

Consider the concept of ἐξουσία (exousia)-authority, rather than a physical posture.

J.
 
Do you believe that YHWH is literally seated on a throne? The language here appears to be anthropomorphic, doesn't it?

Consider the concept of ἐξουσία (exousia)-authority, rather than a physical posture.

J.
LOL, do God ..... in the OT have a hand or ARM.... (smile). anthropomorphism. Oh my.

but do God in the resurrection Sit on a throne.... (smile). your answer please.

101G.
 
you are saying that the Father sits on the throne, well then in authority it's the Lord Jesus. now please explain how the LAMB who is the Lord Jesus stand before the very throne he sits on..... your answer PLEASE.

101G
I explained the use of "power" as you asked.

I'm not assuming your conclusions anywhere. I believe you might need to focus upon verse #4 relative to how you're approach this narrative.

Rev 4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.

I can agree with this, and to elaborate--

Hypostasis, Personhood, and Latin Theological Development
The concept of ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) and its Latin counterpart substantia (substance) or persona (personhood) has been the subject of intense theological precision in both Greek and Latin traditions, particularly in Trinitarian doctrine. The term ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) underwent semantic refinement, especially in the fourth and fifth centuries, as theological controversies necessitated distinctions between essence (οὐσία, ousia) and personhood (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis).

1. Greek Development: Ὑπόστασις in Patristic Thought
Originally, ὑπόστασις and οὐσία were often used interchangeably, as seen in pre-Nicene writings. However, by the fourth century, theologians like Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory of Nazianzus (the Cappadocian Fathers) clarified that:

Ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) refers to a distinct subsistent individual reality, i.e., a person.
Οὐσία (ousia) refers to the common essence or substance of God.
Thus, the Trinity is defined as μία οὐσία, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις (mia ousia, treis hypostaseis)-"one essence, three hypostases."

Key Text: Basil of Caesarea (Epistle 236:6)
"Οὐσία λέγεται τὸ κοινὸν, ὑπόστασις δὲ τὸ ἰδιωτικόν."
("Ousia signifies what is common, hypostasis what is particular.")

This definition became central to Nicene orthodoxy and was ratified at the Council of Constantinople (381 AD), forming the basis of Trinitarian terminology.

2. Latin Development: Substantia and Persona
In the West, ὑπόστασις was translated into Latin primarily as substantia or persona, leading to some early linguistic confusion.

Tertullian (c. 160–225 AD) was the first Latin theologian to articulate Trinitarian doctrine using substantia (substance, essence) and persona (person, individual reality). He spoke of una substantia, tres personae (“one substance, three persons”), anticipating later definitions.

Augustine of Hippo (354–430 AD) followed, developing the relational distinctions within the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct relations (relationes), but they share one divine essence (una essentia, tres personae).

Key Text: Augustine (De Trinitate, Book 5, Ch. 8)
"Non tres deos dicimus, sed unum Deum; non tamen Patrem esse eumdem qui Filius est et Spiritus Sanctus, sed alius est Pater, alius Filius, alius Spiritus Sanctus."

("We do not say there are three gods, but one God; yet we do not say the Father is the same as the Son and the Holy Spirit, but that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Holy Spirit another.")

This distinction between substantia (essence) and persona (person) resolved early Western theological difficulties in articulating the Trinity.

3. The Council of Chalcedon (451 AD) and the Definition of Hypostasis
The Chalcedonian Definition further refined the term ὑπόστασις, particularly in Christology. It stated that:

"ἕνα καὶ τὸν αὐτὸν Χριστὸν ... ἐν δύο φύσεσιν ἀσυγχύτως, ἀτρέπτως, ἀδιαιρέτως, ἀχωρίστως γνωριζόμενον, εἰς ἓν πρόσωπον καὶ μίαν ὑπόστασιν"

("One and the same Christ ... recognized in two natures, without confusion, without change, without division, without separation, into one person (prosopon) and one hypostasis (hypostasis).")

This clarified that Christ is one person (μία ὑπόστασις, mia hypostasis) but possesses two natures (δύο φύσεις, duo physeis), fully divine and fully human.

4. Hypostasis and Personhood in Trinitarian Theology
When applied to the Trinity:

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct ὑποστάσεις (hypostases = persons), but they share one οὐσία (ousia = essence).

The Son possesses a divine hypostasis from eternity but, in the Incarnation, assumed a human nature, making Him one person (μία ὑπόστασις) with two natures.

Key Scholarly Sources

John of Damascus, Expositio Fidei (De Fide Orthodoxa, Book I, ch. 8)

Defines hypostasis as "a reality that subsists in itself and is not predicated of another."

Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I, q. 29, a. 2
"Person signifies that which subsists distinctly in the divine nature."

Richard Cross, The Metaphysics of the Incarnation
Explores how the term hypostasis was refined in Latin Christology, moving from Tertullian’s use of substantia to the final adoption of persona.

Conclusion
Ὑπόστασις (hypostasis) in Greek refers to a real, individual existence that subsists within a nature (οὐσία, ousia).

Persona in Latin became the standard translation for hypostasis when speaking of Trinitarian distinctions.

The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct hypostases (persons) but share one ousia (essence).

The Chalcedonian Definition clarified that in Christ, there is one hypostasis with two natures (divine and human).

The Latin tradition (Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas) emphasized relational distinctions within the Godhead while preserving unity of essence.

This precision in terminology defends against modalism (which denies real distinctions in the Trinity) and tritheism (which denies the unity of essence).

Are we in agreement so far @praise_yeshua?

J.
I'm skeptical of most anything "Latin". I wouldn't include any "Latin" appeals explanation other than to clarify what I see as being "bad" relative to Persona. I try to avoid the "Persona" distinction due to its associations to the "arts".
 
@praise_yeshua,
only the Father knows the return date of the Son correct. but is not the Son YHWH? so, can you explain how the Son don't know his return date, and yet is the Father. note this is the imagery of revelation chapter 5....... (smile), LOOKING to hear from you.

101G.
 
I explained the use of "power" as you asked.

I'm not assuming your conclusions anywhere. I believe you might need to focus upon verse #4 relative to how you're approach this narrative.

Rev 4:5 And out of the throne proceeded lightnings and thunderings and voices: and there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.


I'm skeptical of most anything "Latin". I wouldn't include any "Latin" appeals explanation other than to clarify what I see as being "bad" relative to Persona. I try to avoid the "Persona" distinction due to its associations to the "arts".
I did agree on Prima Scriptura and to use other sources to help clear up or rather, have a better understanding on hupostasis.

Persona has a more specific theological and philosophical connotation, emphasizing individual realities within a shared essence, particularly in the study of the Trinity and Christology.

Person, while it overlaps with persona, is used in a more general and broad sense to describe individual beings, and in modern theology, it often serves as a term for subsistent realities in the Godhead.

Can be used interchangeably-I have no problem with this.

J.
 
Read the definition please, ALONE "having no one else present". do you know what having no one else present means? it means there is no other who is OMIN - PRESENT..... hello. now you can say no all you want, definitions are not changing...... :cool:

so, your so-called other two persons are eliminated...... by scripture.

I already explained to you how this is wrong.

"No one else" does not define how many there are to begin with.

"The firemen, and no one else, were allowed into the building."

"Russia, and no one else, is responsible for the war on Ukraine."

"Mothers, and no one else, hold this special place in the hearts of children."


According to you, that makes all the above singular.

Just not according to grammar and logic.
 
I already explained to you how this is wrong.

"No one else" does not define how many there are to begin with.

"The firemen, and no one else, were allowed into the building."

"Russia, and no one else, is responsible for the war on Ukraine."

"Mothers, and no one else, hold this special place in the hearts of children."


According to you, that makes all the above singular.

Just not according to grammar and logic.
My God, listen, Isaiah 44:8 "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

HOW MANY IS "ME", only one person. " I know not any." how many is "I"? only one Person.

my God, how hard is it to understand?

101G.
 
My God, listen, Isaiah 44:8 "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

HOW MANY IS "ME", only one person. " I know not any." how many is "I"? only one Person.
You are digging a hole for yourself--

Isaiah 44:8 in Context:
The passage in Isaiah 44:8 says,
"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

The key phrase here, "I know not any," is emphatic in expressing the uniqueness of God. In the context of Isaiah, this is God’s declaration against the idolatry that Israel was prone to.

The verse is affirming the monotheistic claim that there is no other God beside YHWH. It speaks of God's sovereignty and the absence of rivals in His divine nature.

2. Understanding "I" and "Me":

The terms "I" and "Me" in this passage refer to the one God who is speaking, and this is not contradictory to the Trinitarian understanding of God. In Trinitarian theology, God is one in essence (ousia) but is expressed in three persons (hypostases)-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In Isaiah 44:8, God is speaking from the perspective of the Father or as a unified singular entity of divine essence. The monotheistic proclamation in the Old Testament strongly emphasizes that there is no other god beside God, which aligns perfectly with Christian doctrine.

3. The Father’s Role in the Trinity:
From a Trinitarian perspective, the Father is indeed the ultimate source of divinity, and in this passage, Isaiah 44:8 is reflecting God’s uniqueness in contrast to the false gods of idols. This doesn’t rule out the later revelation of the Son and the Spirit as distinct persons within the one divine essence.

The Son and Spirit are fully divine persons, yet they are distinct in personhood, and the Father speaks as "I" in this verse as the one true God who does not share His divinity with any false deity.

4. God's Unity in the Old Testament and Trinitarian Fulfillment:
The assertion that God says, "I know not any," in Isaiah does not negate the New Testament revelation that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence but distinct in personhood.

In the New Testament, Jesus (the Son) claims equality with the Father (John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"). Therefore, Isaiah 44:8 emphasizes the singularity and sovereignty of God in the context of a world filled with idolatry, but does not address the later Christian understanding of God as three-in-one (Trinity).

5. Jesus as "I AM" and Divine Identity:
Jesus, in the New Testament, asserts His divinity and oneness with the Father in passages like John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM") and John 14:9-10 ("Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"). In light of Isaiah 44:8, the unity of God is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in essence (just as Isaiah states), but they are distinct in personhood.

6. Biblical Cross-References:
Isaiah 45:5-6: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other." This passage parallels Isaiah 44:8 in declaring that God alone is God, without rivals.

Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This is a Trinitarian formula showing the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while maintaining that they are one God.

7. Conclusion:
In Isaiah 44:8, God is making a monotheistic declaration. This doesn't contradict the New Testament revelation of three distinct persons in the Godhead, but rather aligns with it. The Father is rightly asserting His sovereignty and uniqueness, but the fullness of revelation in Christ (the Son) and the Holy Spirit builds upon the Old Testament foundation, where the one God in essence remains undivided, even as the persons of the Trinity are revealed.

Unless of course you think Yeshua is a "rival"-right? Would YOU go that far?

J.
 
You are digging a hole for yourself--

Isaiah 44:8 in Context:
The passage in Isaiah 44:8 says,
"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any."

The key phrase here, "I know not any," is emphatic in expressing the uniqueness of God. In the context of Isaiah, this is God’s declaration against the idolatry that Israel was prone to.

The verse is affirming the monotheistic claim that there is no other God beside YHWH. It speaks of God's sovereignty and the absence of rivals in His divine nature.

2. Understanding "I" and "Me":

The terms "I" and "Me" in this passage refer to the one God who is speaking, and this is not contradictory to the Trinitarian understanding of God. In Trinitarian theology, God is one in essence (ousia) but is expressed in three persons (hypostases)-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

In Isaiah 44:8, God is speaking from the perspective of the Father or as a unified singular entity of divine essence. The monotheistic proclamation in the Old Testament strongly emphasizes that there is no other god beside God, which aligns perfectly with Christian doctrine.

3. The Father’s Role in the Trinity:
From a Trinitarian perspective, the Father is indeed the ultimate source of divinity, and in this passage, Isaiah 44:8 is reflecting God’s uniqueness in contrast to the false gods of idols. This doesn’t rule out the later revelation of the Son and the Spirit as distinct persons within the one divine essence.

The Son and Spirit are fully divine persons, yet they are distinct in personhood, and the Father speaks as "I" in this verse as the one true God who does not share His divinity with any false deity.

4. God's Unity in the Old Testament and Trinitarian Fulfillment:
The assertion that God says, "I know not any," in Isaiah does not negate the New Testament revelation that the Father, Son, and Spirit are one in essence but distinct in personhood.

In the New Testament, Jesus (the Son) claims equality with the Father (John 10:30, "I and the Father are one"). Therefore, Isaiah 44:8 emphasizes the singularity and sovereignty of God in the context of a world filled with idolatry, but does not address the later Christian understanding of God as three-in-one (Trinity).

5. Jesus as "I AM" and Divine Identity:
Jesus, in the New Testament, asserts His divinity and oneness with the Father in passages like John 8:58 ("Before Abraham was, I AM") and John 14:9-10 ("Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father"). In light of Isaiah 44:8, the unity of God is consistent with the doctrine of the Trinity: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one in essence (just as Isaiah states), but they are distinct in personhood.

6. Biblical Cross-References:
Isaiah 45:5-6: "I am the Lord, and there is no other; apart from me there is no God. I will strengthen you, though you have not acknowledged me, so that from the rising of the sun to the place of its setting people may know there is none besides me. I am the Lord, and there is no other." This passage parallels Isaiah 44:8 in declaring that God alone is God, without rivals.

Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." This is a Trinitarian formula showing the distinct personhood of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, while maintaining that they are one God.

7. Conclusion:
In Isaiah 44:8, God is making a monotheistic declaration. This doesn't contradict the New Testament revelation of three distinct persons in the Godhead, but rather aligns with it. The Father is rightly asserting His sovereignty and uniqueness, but the fullness of revelation in Christ (the Son) and the Holy Spirit builds upon the Old Testament foundation, where the one God in essence remains undivided, even as the persons of the Trinity are revealed.

Unless of course you think Yeshua is a "rival"-right? Would YOU go that far?

J.
so, there is no scripture as to who sits on the throne, yes, for all POWER/AUTHORTY is in the Lord Jesus, that's why. and as for the both sitting in POWER, listen, Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

in, in, in, his Throne,
so there are two authorities? ... LOL ,NO...LOL, Oh my

well enough teaching for today come back tomorrow.... (y) ok. and learn some more.

101G.
 
so, there is no scripture as to who sits on the throne, yes, for all POWER/AUTHORTY is in the Lord Jesus, that's why. and as for the both sitting in POWER, listen, Revelation 3:21 "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

in, in, in, his Throne,
so there are two authorities? ... LOL ,NO...LOL, Oh my

well enough teaching for today come back tomorrow.... (y) ok. and learn some more.

101G.
How about you answering my questions since I know all your go to isolated verses?

"Τῷ νικῶντι δίδομι αὐτῷ καθίσαντα μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, ὥσπερ ἐγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ."


Τῷ νικῶντι (tōi nikōnti): "To him who overcomes" – νικῶντι is the present active participle of νικάω (nikao), meaning "to overcome" or "to conquer," indicating the continuous action or state of victory.

δίδομι αὐτῷ (dídōmi autōi): "I will grant to him" – δίδομι (dídōmi) is the first person singular future active form of δίδωμι (dídōmi), meaning "to give."

καθίσαντα μετ’ ἐμοῦ (kathísanta met’ emou): "to sit with me" – καθίσαντα is the aorist active participle of καθίζω (kathízō), meaning "to sit," and μετ’ ἐμοῦ is a preposition meaning "with me."

ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου (en tōi thronōi mou): "in my throne" – ἐν (en) is the preposition meaning "in," and θρόνῳ (thronōi) is the dative singular form of θρόνος (thronos), meaning "throne."

ὥσπερ ἐγὼ ἐνίκησα (hōsper egō eníkēsa): "even as I also overcame" – ὥσπερ (hōsper) means "just as" or "even as," and ἐνίκησα (eníkēsa) is the aorist active indicative of νικάω (nikao), meaning "I overcame."

καὶ ἐκάθισα (kai ekáthisa): "and am set down" – καὶ (kai) is "and," and ἐκάθισα (ekáthisa) is the aorist active indicative of καθίζω (kathízō), meaning "I sat down."

μετὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου (meta tou Patros mou): "with my Father" – μετὰ (meta) means "with," and τοῦ Πατρός μου (tou Patros mou) is the genitive singular of Πατήρ (Patēr), meaning "Father," with μου (mou) meaning "my."

ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ (en tōi thronōi autou): "in his throne" – ἐν (en) means "in," θρόνῳ (thronōi) is the dative singular form of θρόνος (thronos), and αὐτοῦ (autou) is the genitive singular of αὐτός (autos), meaning "his."

Translation:
"To the one who overcomes, I will grant to sit with me on my throne, just as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne."

Key Greek Terms:
νικῶντι (nikōnti): "To the one who overcomes" – emphasizes the active victory or conquest.
δίδομι (dídōmi): "I will grant" – future tense, indicating the promise of reward.
καθίσαντα (kathísanta): "to sit" – a shared act of sitting with Christ, implying participation in His reign.
ἐνίκησα (eníkēsa): "I overcame" – the past victory of Christ is an example for the believer.
θρόνῳ (thronōi): "throne" – symbolizes the authority and reign of both Christ and the Father.

This verse speaks of the promise to those who overcome, reflecting a shared authority and honor with Christ, as He sits on His throne with the Father. Theologically, this verse can be seen as reinforcing the unity and shared divine authority between the Father and the Son, as well as the believers' participation in this reign.

And who is Jesus Christ to you-your Savior?

J.
 
Last edited:
I did agree on Prima Scriptura and to use other sources to help clear up or rather, have a better understanding on hupostasis.

Persona has a more specific theological and philosophical connotation, emphasizing individual realities within a shared essence, particularly in the study of the Trinity and Christology.

Person, while it overlaps with persona, is used in a more general and broad sense to describe individual beings, and in modern theology, it often serves as a term for subsistent realities in the Godhead.

Can be used interchangeably-I have no problem with this.

J.
For theologians, I agree. For the average individual, I'm weary of giving the wrong impression.
 
How about you answering my questions since I know all your go to isolated verses?

"Τῷ νικῶντι δίδομι αὐτῷ καθίσαντα μετ’ ἐμοῦ ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου, ὥσπερ ἐγὼ ἐνίκησα καὶ ἐκάθισα μετὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ."


Τῷ νικῶντι (tōi nikōnti): "To him who overcomes" – νικῶντι is the present active participle of νικάω (nikao), meaning "to overcome" or "to conquer," indicating the continuous action or state of victory.

δίδομι αὐτῷ (dídōmi autōi): "I will grant to him" – δίδομι (dídōmi) is the first person singular future active form of δίδωμι (dídōmi), meaning "to give."

καθίσαντα μετ’ ἐμοῦ (kathísanta met’ emou): "to sit with me" – καθίσαντα is the aorist active participle of καθίζω (kathízō), meaning "to sit," and μετ’ ἐμοῦ is a preposition meaning "with me."

ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ μου (en tōi thronōi mou): "in my throne" – ἐν (en) is the preposition meaning "in," and θρόνῳ (thronōi) is the dative singular form of θρόνος (thronos), meaning "throne."

ὥσπερ ἐγὼ ἐνίκησα (hōsper egō eníkēsa): "even as I also overcame" – ὥσπερ (hōsper) means "just as" or "even as," and ἐνίκησα (eníkēsa) is the aorist active indicative of νικάω (nikao), meaning "I overcame."

καὶ ἐκάθισα (kai ekáthisa): "and am set down" – καὶ (kai) is "and," and ἐκάθισα (ekáthisa) is the aorist active indicative of καθίζω (kathízō), meaning "I sat down."

μετὰ τοῦ Πατρός μου (meta tou Patros mou): "with my Father" – μετὰ (meta) means "with," and τοῦ Πατρός μου (tou Patros mou) is the genitive singular of Πατήρ (Patēr), meaning "Father," with μου (mou) meaning "my."

ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ αὐτοῦ (en tōi thronōi autou): "in his throne" – ἐν (en) means "in," θρόνῳ (thronōi) is the dative singular form of θρόνος (thronos), and αὐτοῦ (autou) is the genitive singular of αὐτός (autos), meaning "his."

Translation:
"To the one who overcomes, I will grant to sit with me on my throne, just as I also overcame and sat down with my Father on His throne."

Key Greek Terms:
νικῶντι (nikōnti): "To the one who overcomes" – emphasizes the active victory or conquest.
δίδομι (dídōmi): "I will grant" – future tense, indicating the promise of reward.
καθίσαντα (kathísanta): "to sit" – a shared act of sitting with Christ, implying participation in His reign.
ἐνίκησα (eníkēsa): "I overcame" – the past victory of Christ is an example for the believer.
θρόνῳ (thronōi): "throne" – symbolizes the authority and reign of both Christ and the Father.

This verse speaks of the promise to those who overcome, reflecting a shared authority and honor with Christ, as He sits on His throne with the Father. Theologically, this verse can be seen as reinforcing the unity and shared divine authority between the Father and the Son, as well as the believers' participation in this reign.

And who is Jesus Christ to you-your Savior?

J.
GINOLJC, to all.
Your first ERROR of the day, you said, ", as He sits on His throne with the Father." ERROR... in, in, for he is the Father. so NO, "Theologically, this verse can be seen as reinforcing the unity and shared divine authority between the Father and the Son". NONESENSE, he is Amalgamated in that flesh he resurrected. we see you have no clue as to who the LAMB really is. you need to go back and start over, .... no offense, the scriptures are clear, Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."
instead of hitting and mostly missing, read my posts carefully, then speak. now your other statements.

First the Lord Jesus is MY GOD, second, my REDEEMER, and SAVIOUR, third, MY COMFORTER, MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE, INTERCESSOR, MY FATHER...the EVERLASTING ONE, The TRUTH,... other words my EVERYONE.

in much GL.

101G
 
GINOLJC, to all.
Your first ERROR of the day, you said, ", as He sits on His throne with the Father." ERROR... in, in, for he is the Father. so NO, "Theologically, this verse can be seen as reinforcing the unity and shared divine authority between the Father and the Son". NONESENSE, he is Amalgamated in that flesh he resurrected. we see you have no clue as to who the LAMB really is. you need to go back and start over, .... no offense, the scriptures are clear, Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."
instead of hitting and mostly missing, read my posts carefully, then speak. now your other statements.
Interesting-do you know the difference between ev and epi?

The Lamb as Distinct from the One on the Throne (Revelation 5:6-7)

Revelation 5:6-7 explicitly distinguishes the Lamb (Jesus) from the One sitting on the throne (the Father):

"Καὶ εἶδον ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ ἐν μέσῳ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἀρνίον ἑστηκὸς ὡς ἐσφαγμένον, ἔχον κέρατα ἑπτά καὶ ὀφθαλμοὺς ἑπτά, οἵ εἰσιν τὰ ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἀπεσταλμένα εἰς πᾶσαν τὴν γῆν. καὶ ἦλθεν καὶ εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς τοῦ καθημένου ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου."

"And I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing as though it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent out into all the earth. And He came and took the scroll out of the right hand of Him who sat on the throne."

Here, the text provides two distinct figures:

The One sitting on the throne (ὁ καθήμενος ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου) — this is a consistent title for the Father in Revelation (cf. Rev. 4:2, 4:9-10, 5:1, 5:7).


Rev 5:5 And01 One02 Out03 Of-the04 elders05 Is-saying06 To-me07 No08 be-you-lamenting !09 lo !10 Conquers11 The12 Lion13 The14 Being15 Out16 Of-the17 Tribe18 of-Judah19 The20 Root21 [of-]David22 to-open23 The24 Scrollet25 And26 To-loose27 The28 Seven29 Seals30 Of-it31
Rev 5:6 And01 I-perceived02 And03 lo !04 In05 center06 Of-the07 Throne08 And09 Of-the10 Four11 animals12 And13 In14 center15 Of-the16 elders17 Lambkin18 standing19 As20 Having-been-slain21 Having22 Horns23 Seven24 And25 eyes26 Seven27 (who)which28 Are29 The30 Seven31 Of-the32 God33 Spirits34 N1 The35 Having-been-commissioned36 Into37 entire38 The39 earth40
Rev 5:7 And01 it-came02 And03 has-taken04 The05 Scrollet06 Out07 Of-the08 right-[hand]09 Of-the10 one-sitting11 On12 the13 Throne14

Sitting ON the throne--

The Lamb (τὸ ἀρνίον) — clearly a reference to Jesus, as He is the one who was slain (cf. John 1:29, Isaiah 53:7).

The phrase καὶ εἴληφεν ἐκ τῆς δεξιᾶς (He took from the right hand of Him who sat on the throne) explicitly shows an interaction between two persons. If Jesus is the Father, then who is giving the scroll to whom? A self-bestowal interpretation contradicts the natural reading of the passage.

2. The Lamb Worshiped Alongside the Father (Revelation 5:13-14)
The worship of the Lamb alongside the Father further proves a distinction:

"Καὶ πᾶν κτίσμα ὃ ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς καὶ ὑποκάτω τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς θαλάσσης, καὶ τὰ ἐν αὐτοῖς πάντα, ἤκουσα λέγοντας· Τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπὶ τοῦ θρόνου καὶ τῷ Ἀρνίῳ ἡ εὐλογία καὶ ἡ τιμὴ καὶ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων."

"And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, ‘Blessing and honor and glory and power be unto Him who sits upon the throne, and unto the Lamb forever and ever.’"

The Father (the One sitting on the throne) and the Lamb receive worship together, meaning they are distinct yet equally worthy of divine honor.
This is a refutation of your modalistic interpretation, as worship is directed to both, not just one.

3. The Lamb in Relation to the Father in Revelation 22:1-3
In the New Jerusalem, the Lamb is again distinct from the Father:

"Καὶ ἔδειξέν μοι ποταμὸν ὕδατος ζωῆς, λαμπρὸν ὡς κρύσταλλον, ἐκπορευόμενον ἐκ τοῦ θρόνου τοῦ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Ἀρνίου."

"And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding out of the throne of God and of the Lamb."


The throne is singular but belongs to both the God (ὁ Θεός) and the Lamb (τὸ Ἀρνίον).
If Jesus were simply the Father, then there would be no need to distinguish "God and the Lamb."

4. Theological Implications: The Lamb as Mediator, Not the Father

The role of the Lamb in Revelation aligns with Philippians 2:9-11, where Jesus, though divine, is exalted by the Father after His obedience.

Hebrews 7:25 states that Jesus intercedes for believers before the Father. If He is the Father, then this intercession makes no sense.

Conclusion: The Lamb is the Son, Not the Father

The consistent portrayal of the Lamb in Revelation presents Jesus as distinct from the Father, sharing divine authority and worship but not as a mere mode or manifestation. The Lamb approaches the Father, receives the scroll from Him, and is worshiped alongside Him, all of which prove they are not the same person. This completely refutes the claim that "Jesus is the Father" as the Lamb and the One on the throne are always presented as separate persons in the Godhead.

Think before you post.

J.
 
The consistent portrayal of the Lamb in Revelation presents Jesus as distinct from the Father, sharing divine authority and worship but not as a mere mode or manifestation. The Lamb approaches the Father, receives the scroll from Him, and is worshiped alongside Him, all of which prove they are not the same person. This completely refutes the claim that "Jesus is the Father" as the Lamb and the One on the throne are always presented as separate persons in the Go
And in your modalistic interpretation-eisegesis-where is Jesus the Father?

J.
 
GINOLJC, to all.
Your first ERROR of the day, you said, ", as He sits on His throne with the Father." ERROR... in, in, for he is the Father. so NO, "Theologically, this verse can be seen as reinforcing the unity and shared divine authority between the Father and the Son". NONESENSE, he is Amalgamated in that flesh he resurrected. we see you have no clue as to who the LAMB really is. you need to go back and start over, .... no offense, the scriptures are clear, Hebrews 5:12 "For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat."
instead of hitting and mostly missing, read my posts carefully, then speak. now your other statements.

First the Lord Jesus is MY GOD, second, my REDEEMER, and SAVIOUR, third, MY COMFORTER, MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE, INTERCESSOR, MY FATHER...the EVERLASTING ONE, The TRUTH,... other words my EVERYONE.

in much GL.

101G

"Oneness" isn't complicated. You said it yourself that this is simple. We just don't believe you.

I can respect the desire to properly recognize that honor due Jesus Christ but Oneness doesn't do this.
 
False, pronouns can be used in a different corporate way.
so, are you calling God a LIER? if not accept his word...... (smile)..... just cannot accept the truth ? thought so. try again.
Denial of the Trinity is not natural in origin.
Listen carefully, 1 Timothy 1:9 "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers," 1 Timothy 1:10 "For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine;" did the apostles teach the trinity NO. the apostle Paul wrote most or the majority of the NT letters correct. if he, peter, James, Jude, and even the Lord Jesus Disciple knew, that the Lord Jesus alone was the ONLY TRUE GOD, and you don't, .... then the above verses apply to U..... (smile). let's see this in scriptures where to apostle Paul and a disciple both states that the Lord Jesus is God, (Father, and Son).

scripture, while on the road to Damascus, the apostle Paul met the Lord Jesus right. and the disciple Ananias was commission to go to Paul and Water Baptize him and to receive the Holy Spirit.... correct. now let's pick up the action when he encounter Paul. Acts 9:15 "But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:" Acts 9:16 "For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake." Acts 9:17 "And Ananias went his way, and entered into the house; and putting his hands on him said, Brother Saul, the Lord, even Jesus, that appeared unto thee in the way as thou camest, hath sent me, that thou mightest receive thy sight, and be filled with the Holy Ghost."
remember what the Lord Jesus said to Ananias, "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me" keep that word "Chosen" in memory, ok.
now, at Paul's return to Jerusalem, he recounts to the Jews there as to what happen to him on his way and in Damascus, listen carefully. Acts 22:11 "And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me, I came into Damascus." Acts 22:12 "And one Ananias, a devout man according to the law, having a good report of all the Jews which dwelt there," Acts 22:13 "Came unto me, and stood, and said unto me, Brother Saul, receive thy sight. And the same hour I looked up upon him." Acts 22:14 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee, that thou shouldest know his will, and see that Just One, and shouldest hear the voice of his mouth." again note the word, "Chosen", and 101G will give you the definition. it is the Greek word,
G4400 προχειρίζομαι procheirizomai (pro-chei-riy'-zo-mai) v.
1. to handle for oneself in advance.
2. (figuratively) to purpose.
[middle voice from G4253 and a derivative of G5495]
KJV: choose, make
Root(s): G4253, G5495

Remember this Greek word.
now, what did Ananias say to Paul, then called Saul? listen carefully. the Lord Jesus said to Ananias, "Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me" ..... CHOSEN".
who chose Saul? Acts 22:14 "And he said, The God of our fathers hath chosen thee". the God of the father is the OT God, whom we call the LORD, the Father..... correct. now when PAUL HAD TO STAND TRIAL IN ROME, he first had to go before king Agrippa, and he retold the account of meeting the Lord Jesus on the road to Damascus. this is recorded in Act chapter 26. what now Paul the apostle, said confirm what the disciple Ananias said as to who chose him. let's pick up the account, you can read it for yourself also. Acts 26:13 "At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me." Acts 26:14 "And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks." Acts 26:15 "And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest." Acts 26:16 "But rise, and stand upon thy feet: for I have appeared unto thee for this purpose, to make thee a minister and a witness both of these things which thou hast seen, and of those things in the which I will appear unto thee;"

did you see it, probably not, so 101G will reveal the truth to you. see that word "make" in verse 16? it the same word for "Choose", it is the same Greek word,
G4400 προχειρίζομαι procheirizomai (pro-chei-riy'-zo-mai) v.
1. to handle for oneself in advance.
2. (figuratively) to purpose.
[middle voice from G4253 and a derivative of G5495]
KJV: choose, make
Root(s): G4253, G5495

so the term "MAKE" is what Choose/chosen means. this was hidden from many. for many said that it was the Father who chose Saul for his Son Jesus. and they just didn't know this account with the term "make" instead of Choose...... this is where many have made the BIG mistake at. but.......
just as the Lord Jesus said, Matthew 11:25 "At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

and this is what many are missing today.... GODLY WISDOM. one must be taught by the Holy Spirit, God, the Lord Jesus himself.

the apostle, and the disciple both declare that the Lord Jesus is the God of the OT, meaning he is "FATHER".

hope this helps you. in much GL.

101G.

P.S. as 1 Timothy 1:9 states, "Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for..." see KNOWING THIS, one don't have to search any longer, it's made plain. "and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine". yes, your trinity is contrary to sound doctrine. 101G appeal to you, consider what the scriptures have said, and not what 101G have said, consider the scriptures.

101G.
 
LOL, do God ..... in the OT have a hand or ARM.... (smile). anthropomorphism. Oh my.

but do God in the resurrection Sit on a throne.... (smile). your answer please.

101G.
God the Son has an arm in fact 2 arms, 2 legs, 2 feet, 2 eyes, 2 ears, 10 fingers, 2 hands, 1 nose, 1 mouth, 1 head/face, 1 body.

next fallacy
 
Back
Top Bottom