Thomas... My Lord and my God

[Runningman]

So you wish to have me deceived into the rejection of the divinity of Christ?
I have no idea why you deny the biblical testimony of the significance of the divinity of Christ when you note there is no definite article. It would actually give some hope to the unitarian deception to have "the son of man" implied here. That would be deemphasizing the sense of being like a son of man. But we know that Christ, in his divinity, became like a son of man. So the LXX wording just emphasizes Christ's divinity. I guess that gaffe on your part is part of the reason you remain a unitarian. But really you keep advancing the Trinitarian view.

Means Jesus is one of the many sons of men in the context of Daniel 7. Jesus is a human saint who rules with the other human saints and serves God with them forever. I guess you still don't believe Daniel 7 regardless of how much you are informed about what it says. It's clear you have your narrative and will reject anything the Bible says that debunks it. Anyway, it's less for your benefit and more for others who may care about what the Bible says and don't feel threatened by it like you seem to.

 

[mikesw]

Means Jesus is one of the many sons of men in the context of Daniel 7. Jesus is a human saint who rules with the other human saints and serves God with them forever. I guess you still don't believe Daniel 7 regardless of how much you are informed about what it says. It's clear you have your narrative and will reject anything the Bible says that debunks it. Anyway, it's less for your benefit and more for others who may care about what the Bible says and don't feel threatened by it like you seem to.

You are projecting your own fear as if it were mine. Your interpretations remain faulty. Jesus claims to be the one in Dan 7:13-14 as shared in Matt 26:64. I almost have this passage memorized for repeating Jesus's point so often, so I do not know what you reject that.
Matthew 26:64 (ESV)
64Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
I certainly wish you could understand his testimony but you are stuck on deny who Christ is. I forget if you had a way to deny the obvious connection with Christ's divinity expressed here, both in Jesus's words and in the High Priest's affirmation that this was a claim of divinity. Maybe synergy can add this to the list of gaffes you make.

 

[synergy]

Maybe synergy can add this to the list of gaffes you make.

It would be my pleasure.

What are agreeing on is false. So it's a bad catch. When Jesus was taken to heaven, that was his rapture. Which is the very same rapture the other Sons (huios) of Men will experience.

For someone to claim that Dan 7:13-14 is "the very same rapture the other Sons (huios) of Men will experience" is nothing short of delusion of grandeur — thinking that he also be "given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him".

(Dan 7:14) “Then to Him was given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve Him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and His kingdom the one which shall not be destroyed.”

Daniel 7:14 uniquely exalts Christ with glory, worship, and eternal dominion that belong to Him alone. To say that is the same rapture for all sons of men is an example of unprecedented self-glorification. This is Unitarian Gaffe #40.

 

[mikesw]

It would be my pleasure.


For someone to claim that Dan 7:13-14 is "the very same rapture the other Sons (huios) of Men will experience" is nothing short of delusion of grandeur — thinking that he also be "given dominion and glory and a kingdom, that all peoples, nations, and languages should serve him".

Daniel 7:14 uniquely exalts Christ with glory, worship, and eternal dominion that belong to Him alone. To say that is the same rapture for all sons of men is an example of unprecedented self-glorification. This is Unitarian Gaffe #40.

Runningman seems to skip recognizing Jesus in Dan7:13-14 and put Jesus and followers of Christ into vv 23-27

 

[Peterlag]

All Jesus was saying was that the Bible from the beginning is about him...

Not Abraham. The Jews picked up stones because they knew Jesus was saying he was the Messiah. Period. There's nothing else there other than the trinity spin.

Jesus had not beenclaiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked himat his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked himabout whathe had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 recordsthe High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest torehis garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus statedhe was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed thatJesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed saidhe was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim wasworthy of the death penalty.

 

[synergy]

Runningman seems to skip recognizing Jesus in Dan7:13-14 and put Jesus and followers of Christ into vv 23-27

He recognizes and includes himself as those who all peoples, nations, and languages shall serve because "that is the very same rapture the other Sons (huios) of Men will experience".

 

[mikesw]

All Jesus was saying was that the Bible from the beginning is about him...

Not Abraham. The Jews picked up stones because they knew Jesus was saying he was the Messiah. Period. There's nothing else there other than the trinity spin.

Jesus had not beenclaiming to be God in the flesh and this is why the Jews never asked himat his trial if he was God in the flesh, but instead they asked himabout whathe had been claiming to be, which was the Messiah. Mark 14:61-62 recordsthe High Priest asking “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed?"And Jesus said "I am.” The High Priest torehis garments and said he deserved to be put to death when Jesus statedhe was the Messiah. So we see that the Jews correctly assessed thatJesus had been claiming to be the Christ, and that Jesus indeed saidhe was the Christ, and also that the Jews thought his claim wasworthy of the death penalty.

still pushing that fictional concept or bad analysis. The high priest stated blasphemy as the problem of Jesus' claim.

Here is Jewish usage:

As distinct from these synonyms, βλασφημ- always refers finally to God, whether in the sense of the disputing of His saving power (4 Βασ‌. 19:4, 6, 22), the desecrating of His name by the Gentiles who capture and enslave His people (Is. 52:5), the violation of His glory by derision of the mountains of Israel (Ez. 35:12) and His people (2 Macc. 15:24), all ungodly speech and action, especially on the part of the Gentiles (Is. 66:3; 1 Macc. 2:6; 2 Macc. 8:4; 10:34 ff.; 12:14; Tob. 1:18 א) ...
Beyer, “Βλασφημέω, Βλασφημία, Βλάσφημος,” TDNT, 621–622.

Quit your fictitious arguments.

 

[Peterlag]

still pushing that fictional concept or bad analysis. The high priest stated blasphemy as the problem of Jesus' claim.

Here is Jewish usage:


Quit your fictitious arguments.

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God.

 

[mikesw]

The Jews would not have considered Jesus a threat, but insane if he had walked around saying he was God.

That is a great observation. That is why he did not go around speaking of his divinity. It seems the High Priest was checking if Jesus would claim divinity by tying himself as Messiah with Dan 7:13-14. It was only then, as seen in Mk 14:62-64 that Christ revealed his divinity in a more specific way than before. It is good that these points are now more obvious.

 

[Runningman]

You are projecting your own fear as if it were mine. Your interpretations remain faulty. Jesus claims to be the one in Dan 7:13-14 as shared in Matt 26:64. I almost have this passage memorized for repeating Jesus's point so often, so I do not know what you reject that.
Matthew 26:64 (ESV)
64Jesus said to him, “You have said so. But I tell you, from now on you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
I certainly wish you could understand his testimony but you are stuck on deny who Christ is. I forget if you had a way to deny the obvious connection with Christ's divinity expressed here, both in Jesus's words and in the High Priest's affirmation that this was a claim of divinity. Maybe synergy can add this to the list of gaffes you make.

So to be clear, I do believe Jesus is a son of man, a saint, who shares sovereignty over the kingdom with the others forever, while serving God. I understand that Jesus is like the others in his group who received authority from God. You have a different story in mind about Jesus being God and the whole crowd worshipping and serving him, which is false. You've read Daniel 7 and you're smart enough to know it doesn't say anything remotely close to your story. If it isn't fear that is causing you to misunderstand Scripture, it must be your effort to intentionally deceive others, which is worse. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have seemingly accidentally exposed yourself as a fraud.

 

[mikesw]

So to be clear, I do believe Jesus is a son of man, a saint, who shares sovereignty over the kingdom with the others forever, while serving God. I understand that Jesus is like the others in his group who received authority from God. You have a different story in mind about Jesus being God and the whole crowd worshipping and serving him, which is false. You've read Daniel 7 and you're smart enough to know it doesn't say anything remotely close to your story. If it isn't fear that is causing you to misunderstand Scripture, it must be your effort to intentionally deceive others, which is worse. I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, but you have seemingly accidentally exposed yourself as a fraud.

you are trying to say that what Daniel 7 says is not remotely what it says?? You totally skip Dan 7:13-14 and what Jesus said about it. So why should I not trust what Jesus said? Maybe you can get beyond your previous attempts to explain Dan 7:13-14 and Mark 14:62-64 and come up with a decent interpretation. You keep trying to explain your heresy but it just reinforces the Triune God of scriptures.

 

[Runningman]

Runningman seems to skip recognizing Jesus in Dan7:13-14 and put Jesus and followers of Christ into vv 23-27

Who possess the kingdom with sovereignty, dominion and greatness forever? Jesus and the saints. We know Jesus was just called a son of man earlier in the chapter, therefore we know Jesus is a human. He is one of the other people who received authority from God. Therefore Jesus is not the Most High because he was given authority that he did not inherently have by God.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’
22until the Ancient of Days arrived and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for them to possess the kingdom.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

 

[mikesw]

Who possess the kingdom with sovereignty, dominion and greatness forever? Jesus and the saints. We know Jesus was just called a son of man earlier in the chapter, therefore we know Jesus is a human. He is one of the other people who received authority from God. Therefore Jesus is not the Most High because he was given authority that he did not inherently have by God.

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
18But the saints of the Most High will receive the kingdom and possess it forever—yes, forever and ever.’
22until the Ancient of Days arrived and pronounced judgment in favor of the saints of the Most High, and the time came for them to possess the kingdom.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

Maybe I can simplify the idea for you.
Jesus is given dominion as one like the son of man in divine glory. The saints who follow Christ are benefactors of that kingdom. I have to wonder if English is just a second language to you.

 

[Runningman]

you are trying to say that what Daniel 7 says is not remotely what it says?? You totally skip Dan 7:13-14 and what Jesus said about it. So why should I not trust what Jesus said? Maybe you can get beyond your previous attempts to explain Dan 7:13-14 and Mark 14:62-64 and come up with a decent interpretation. You keep trying to explain your heresy but it just reinforces the Triune God of scriptures.

You can give up trying to gaslight me and drop the act now, unless it's just your effort to save face publicly. Daniel 7 is crystal clear about Jesus being a human who received sovereignty over the kingdom with the others forever. This is a future event, post-resurrection because people don't live forever until after the resurrection. I hope you don't deny the resurrection, too. You've rejected everything else the Bible says so far.

 

[mikesw]

You can give up trying to gaslight me and drop the act now, unless it's just your effort to save face publicly. Daniel 7 is crystal clear about Jesus being a human who received sovereignty over the kingdom with the others forever. This is a future event, post-resurrection because people don't live forever until after the resurrection. I hope you don't deny the resurrection, too. You've rejected everything else the Bible says so far.

Amazing that you get every fact wrong. This is first century stuff. Synergy can add these to your gaffes. Jesus said he would be coming on the clouds at that time. I know this will not help you, but it may help students of the bible:
Mark 14:62–65 (ESV)
62And Jesus said, “I am, and you will see the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power, and coming with the clouds of heaven.”
63And the high priest tore his garments and said, “What further witnesses do we need?
64You have heard his blasphemy. What is your decision?” And they all condemned him as deserving death.
65And some began to spit on him and to cover his face and to strike him, saying to him, “Prophesy!” And the guards received him with blows.

Jesus is not saying the High Priest will live for another 2000 years but that he would see this happening in his lifetime. I suppose some of these beliefs are common doctrinal errors among various church groups, so it is not entirely your fault to have been misinformed about this passage and missed proper instruction about the Triune God.

 

[Runningman]

Maybe I can simplify the idea for you.
Jesus is given dominion as one like the son of man in divine glory. The saints who follow Christ are benefactors of that kingdom. I have to wonder if English is just a second language to you.

Let's try it again with you.

Do you see that Jesus and the other people, the other saints of the Most High, have the same eternal dominion and sovereignty over the kingdom?

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

 

[Milo Flores]

Everything I could find on Thomas...

“My Lord and my God.” A very likely way to understand John 20:28 is that Thomas had realized the power of God working in Jesus, and in saying “my Lord and my God” he was pointing out that Jesus did, in fact, reveal God in a unique and powerful way. In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead, and he stated that fact. Jesus always taught that he only did what God guided him to do, and said that if you had seen him you had seen the Father. In that light, there is good evidence that here in John 20:28, “doubting Thomas” was saying that in seeing Jesus he was also seeing the Father.

We have to remember that Thomas’ statement occurred in a moment of surprise and even perhaps shock. Only eight days earlier, Thomas had vehemently denied Jesus’ resurrection even though all the other apostles and disciples, including the women, emphatically stated that they had seen Jesus alive. Thomas could no longer deny that Jesus was alive and that God had raised him from the dead. The Father had worked in Jesus and raised him from the dead. Thomas, looking at the living Jesus, saw both Jesus and the God who raised him from the dead.

When Thomas saw the resurrected Christ, he became immediately convinced that Jesus was raised from the dead. But did he suddenly have a revelation that Jesus was God? That would be totally outside of Thomas’ knowledge and belief. Jesus had never claimed to be God (despite Trinitarian claims that he had) and in fact quite the opposite. From the cross he called out to the Father, “My God, My God” (Matt. 27:46); then after his resurrection he still called God, “my God” (John 20:17).

In the other places in the Bible where the apostles speak about the resurrection of Jesus, they do not declare, “This proves Jesus is God!” Rather, they declare that “God” raised the Lord Jesus from the dead” (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 4:10, 5:30, 10:39-40, 13:30, 33, 37; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; 15:15; Gal. 1:1; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 1:21). From all those examples we can safely conclude that the apostles, including Thomas, saw God at work in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. The apostles understood Jesus’ resurrection to be an act of God, and a demonstration of His power (Eph. 1:19-20).

There are many Trinitarian authorities who admit that there was no knowledge of Trinitarian doctrine at the time Thomas spoke. For example, if the disciples believed that Jesus was “God” in the sense that many Christians do, they would not have “all fled” just a few days before when he was arrested. The confession of the two disciples walking along the road to Emmaus demonstrated the thoughts of Jesus’ followers at the time. Speaking to the resurrected Christ, whom they mistook as just a traveler, they talked about Jesus. They said Jesus “was a prophet mighty in deed and word before God… and [they] crucified him. But we were hoping that he was the one who was about to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:19-21). The disciples thought Jesus was the Messiah, a “prophet,” and the Son of God, but not God Himself.

Are we to believe that somehow Jesus taught the Trinity, something that went against everything the disciples were taught and believed, but there is no mention of Jesus ever teaching it anywhere, and yet the disciples somehow “got” that teaching? That seems too incredible to believe. There is no evidence from the gospel accounts that Jesus’ disciples believed him to be God, and Thomas, upon seeing the resurrected Christ, was not birthing a new theology in a moment of surprise.

On John 20:28 (“My Lord and my God”) — a careful reading


Friends, I respect those who see here the climax of Johannine Christology as an ontological declaration. Yet allow me to share why I cannot take this as the birth of Nicene metaphysics, but rather as a profound functional confession, perfectly consistent with the rest of Scripture.

---

1. The Greek phrase​

Thomas’ words are: ὁ κύριός μου καὶ ὁ θεός μου — literally, “the Lord of me and the God of me.”

• This construction can be read vocatively (“my Lord and my God!”), but the Greek allows also a doxological or exclamative force, like other NT uses of θεός in astonishment (cf. Jn 10:34–35 where humans are called “gods”).
• Note that Thomas does not invent new metaphysics here. The immediate context is shock, not doctrinal lecture. Just eight days earlier he had denied the resurrection (Jn 20:25). His confession is sudden recognition, not a creedal treatise.

---

2. The immediate Johannine context​

Only a few verses earlier, the risen Jesus says to Mary: “I ascend to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God” (Jn 20:17). If Jesus Himself calls the Father “my God” after His resurrection, then Thomas’ use of “my God” cannot erase this hierarchy.


Similarly, in John’s Gospel:

• Jesus insists: “The Father is greater than I” (Jn 14:28).
• He calls Himself “sent” by the Father (Jn 17:3, 8, 25).

Thus the Evangelist frames Thomas’ confession within the larger Johannine witness: the Son reveals God, depends on God, and in Him we see the Father at work (Jn 14:9–10).

---

3. Apostolic preaching after Easter​

In Acts and the Epistles, the apostolic proclamation is never “Jesus is God” as a new metaphysical formula, but: “God raised Jesus from the dead” (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15; 5:30; 10:40; Rom 10:9; 1 Pet 1:21).


If Thomas’ statement were intended as a definitive ontological dogma, we would expect this to dominate apostolic preaching. Instead, the pattern is always:

• God as the Source.
• Jesus as the Lord exalted, whom God raised and appointed.

---

4. Patristic echoes before Nicaea​

• Ignatius of Antioch can call Christ “our God” (Eph. 18.2), but always within a framework where the Father remains the one Fount.
• Justin Martyr and Irenaeus identify Christ as divine Logos, pre-existent, yet begotten of the Father.
• The Didache (c. 100 AD) invokes Father, Son, Spirit liturgically, but never with Nicene homoousios.

To anathematize all these witnesses as “heretical” for not reading John 20:28 through Nicene lenses would be absurd. They saw Christ as Lord and revealer of God, not as ontologically identical with the Father.

---

5. My understanding​

I see Thomas’ words as the perfect climax of Johannine theology:

• “My Lord” → confession of Jesus as the risen Messiah, exalted as heir of all things (Heb 1:2).
• “My God” → recognition that in Him the Father’s power is revealed (cf. Eph 1:19–20), so fully that to see the Son is to see the Father (Jn 14:9).

Thus Thomas confesses not Nicene ontology, but the functional unity of Father and Son: one God, the Father (1 Cor 8:6); one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are mediated.

---

6. Kenotic arc​

Philippians 2:6–9 explains the logic:

• Christ, existing in God’s form, emptied Himself (kenosis).
• He obeyed unto death.
• Therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the Name above all names.

Thomas’ astonished cry fits this arc: the crucified one now lives and reigns; God is revealed in Him.

---

7. Conclusion​

Thomas does not coin a new metaphysical dogma in a moment of surprise. Rather, he recognizes in the risen Lord the full presence of God’s action. Jesus is “my Lord” in His messianic authority, and “my God” in that through Him the invisible God is made visible.


I respect the Nicene reading as an interpretation of this verse, but I cannot bind it as dogma. To me, the functional unity revealed here is greater than speculation: in Christ we encounter both the Son and the Father who sent Him.


One God, the Father. One Lord, Jesus Christ. One Spirit, the Breath of God.

 

[mikesw]

Let's try it again with you.

Do you see that Jesus and the other people, the other saints of the Most High, have the same eternal dominion and sovereignty over the kingdom?

Daniel 7
14And He was given dominion,
glory, and kingship,
that the people of every nation and language
should serve Him.
His dominion is an everlasting dominion
that will not pass away,
and His kingdom is one
that will never be destroyed.
27Then the sovereignty, dominion, and greatness of the kingdoms under all of heaven will be given to the people, the saints of the Most High. His kingdom will be an everlasting kingdom, and all rulers will serve and obey Him.’

Maybe I can give you another hint. Jesus is the Messiah, the king descendant promised to David. That means Jesus is the king with dominion per Dan 7:14. Saints are not the king. Maybe ask Peterlag to look up the definition of king for you. He might get a useful definition this time. Also, the High Priest recognized Jesus' divinity of Dan 7:13-14. Is that still hidden fromyou?

 

[Milo Flores]

Maybe I can give you another hint. Jesus is the Messiah, the king descendant promised to David. That means Jesus is the king with dominion per Dan 7:14. Saints are not the king. Maybe ask Peterlag to look up the definition of king for you. He might get a useful definition this time. Also, the High Priest recognized Jesus' divinity of Dan 7:13-14. Is that still hidden fromyou?

When Jesus cited Daniel 7 before the High Priest (Mark 14:61–64), we must recognize a certain ambiguity: we cannot be sure how the High Priest understood it.

• If he took it ontologically, as a man claiming to share God’s own glory “coming with the clouds,” it was blasphemy in his ears.
• If he took it messianically, as the Son of David receiving dominion and kingship from the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:14), it was equally intolerable, because it implied Jesus was the Messiah who would judge and reign.

Either way, the claim was explosive. That is why the High Priest tore his robes: the scandal was not a matter of subtle metaphysics, but the sheer weight of Jesus’ self-claim.


And notice the deeper pattern: in Daniel, the Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and a Kingdom. He does not seize it; he receives it by inheritance. This matches Paul’s testimony:

• “Therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the Name above every name” (Phil 2:9).
• “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18).
• “He became heir of all things” (Heb 1:2).

So the arc is consistent: the Son reveals the Father by kenosis —self-emptying, obedience even unto death (Phil 2:6–8). For that reason the Father exalts Him and bestows the Kingdom, so that Christ can truly say: “Here am I, and the children God has given Me” (Heb 2:13).


Thus, whether the priest understood Jesus’ claim ontologically or messianically, it was a stumbling block. In both senses, Jesus stood far above him: as the One to whom God gives the Kingdom, exalted not by self-assertion but by inheritance from the Father.

 

[mikesw]

When Jesus cited Daniel 7 before the High Priest (Mark 14:61–64), we must recognize a certain ambiguity: we cannot be sure how the High Priest understood it.

• If he took it ontologically, as a man claiming to share God’s own glory “coming with the clouds,” it was blasphemy in his ears.
• If he took it messianically, as the Son of David receiving dominion and kingship from the Ancient of Days (Dan 7:14), it was equally intolerable, because it implied Jesus was the Messiah who would judge and reign.

There is nothing about blasphemy being applied someone claiming to be the Messiah. I shared that with Peterlag earlier today. This point about blasphemy was duly noted in the gospels without disclaiming the implication of Jesus' divinity.

Either way, the claim was explosive. That is why the High Priest tore his robes: the scandal was not a matter of subtle metaphysics, but the sheer weight of Jesus’ self-claim.

Of course it was explosive, the Jewish leaders did not want to lose their alliance with the Roman Empire. We are told that they all knew Jesus was the Messiah but they thought this would disrupt what they had.

And notice the deeper pattern: in Daniel, the Son of Man is given dominion, glory, and a Kingdom. He does not seize it; he receives it by inheritance. This matches Paul’s testimony:

• “Therefore God highly exalted Him and gave Him the Name above every name” (Phil 2:9).
• “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth” (Mt 28:18).
• “He became heir of all things” (Heb 1:2).

Jesus received as heir that which was created through him. the Unitarians hide that inconvenient detail. Jesus as the divine Son indeed is a proper heir.

So the arc is consistent: the Son reveals the Father by kenosis —self-emptying, obedience even unto death (Phil 2:6–8). For that reason the Father exalts Him and bestows the Kingdom, so that Christ can truly say: “Here am I, and the children God has given Me” (Heb 2:13).

That is fine that the Father exalts the Son. The exaltation of the Father and Son emphasizes their divinity so that humanity will look to them.

Thus, whether the priest understood Jesus’ claim ontologically or messianically, it was a stumbling block. In both senses, Jesus stood far above him: as the One to whom God gives the Kingdom, exalted not by self-assertion but by inheritance from the Father.

That is fine that the Son inherits from the Father. That does not cause an issue in recognizing Christ's divinity. The conquering came after Jesus receiving the kingdom. No problem with that either.

There are many pieces to understand this but they do come together well.