Enseignements du Ier siècle : Jésus vs la Trinité

1. Dieu regrette d'avoir créé l'humanité
* Genèse 6:5–7

"L'Éternel vit que la méchanceté des hommes était grande sur la terre, et que toutes les pensées de leur cœur se portaient chaque jour uniquement vers le mal. L'Éternel se repentit d'avoir fait l'homme sur la terre, et il fut affligé en son cœur. Et l'Éternel dit : J'exterminerai de la face de la terre l'homme que j'ai créé, depuis l'homme jusqu'au bétail, aux reptiles, et aux oiseaux du ciel ; car je me repens de les avoir faits."

2. Dieu manifestant le jugement ultime
* Apocalypse 20:11–12, 15
"Puis je vis un grand trône blanc, et celui qui était assis dessus. La terre et le ciel s'enfuirent devant sa face, et il ne fut plus trouvé de place pour eux. Et je vis les morts, les grands et les petits, qui se tenaient devant le trône. Des livres furent ouverts... Quiconque ne fut pas trouvé écrit dans le livre de vie fut jeté dans l'étang de feu."

** Matthieu 25:41, 46**
"Ensuite il dira à ceux qui seront à sa gauche : Retirez-vous de moi, maudits ; allez dans le feu éternel qui a été préparé pour le diable et pour ses anges. ... Et ceux-ci iront au châtiment éternel, mais les justes à la vie éternelle."

** Hébreux 10:30–31**

"Car nous connaissons celui qui a dit : La vengeance m'appartient, c'est moi qui donnerai la rétribution ! Et encore : Le Seigneur jugera son peuple. C'est une chose terrible que de tomber entre les mains du Dieu vivant !"

3. Dieu est un Dieu jaloux

** Exode 34:14**

"Tu ne te prosterneras point devant un autre dieu ; car l'Éternel porte le nom de Jaloux, il est un Dieu jaloux."

Deutéronome 4:24
"Car l'Éternel, ton Dieu, est un feu dévorant, un Dieu jaloux."

Exode 20:5
"Tu ne te prosterneras point devant elles, et tu ne les serviras point ; car moi, l'Éternel, ton Dieu, je suis un Dieu jaloux, qui punis l'iniquité des pères sur les enfants jusqu'à la troisième et la quatrième génération de ceux qui me haïssent."

** Nahum 1:2**
"L'Éternel est un Dieu jaloux, il se venge ; l'Éternel se venge, il est plein de fureur ; l'Éternel se venge de ses adversaires, il garde rancune à ses ennemis."

Il y a une raison pour laquelle Dieu notre Créateur dans l'Ancien Testament

1) Ne connaissait pas nos pensées
2) A fait des erreurs
3) S'est mis en colère/jaloux
4) A ressenti de la douleur

Nous avons été créés à l'image de Dieu et nous avons fini bien pire que Dieu, et cela a vraiment blessé notre Dieu

Nous avons mordu aux mensonges de Satan et avons fait passer nos besoins/péchés personnels avant les autres et avant Dieu

Jésus qui est Seigneur et Sauveur et n'a jamais prétendu être Dieu mais a existé avant la création, a seulement dit "Avant Abraham" et ne s'est jamais désigné comme l'Alpha et l'Oméga

Jésus est aimant, attentionné, compatissant et pardonne

Jésus est tout ce que Dieu souhaite que nous soyons

Jésus est la première création, le fils de Dieu lui-même

Il s'est humilié en étant envoyé ici par son Père et en ressentant la douleur et la souffrance que nous ressentons pour mieux nous comprendre

Christianisme est un mot donné par les Romains et n'a jamais été la foi du Ier siècle que Jésus et ses disciples enseignaient et suivaient

Les chrétiens sont apparus après que Jésus soit remonté au Ciel... il y a 3 passages où le terme apparaît, mais jamais comme les Apôtres se nommant ainsi, mais comme des étrangers donnant ce nom aux disciples après Jésus, les traquant et les persécutant

Pierre s'inquiétait pour les chrétiens mais il n'en était pas un lui-même, bien que tous deux essayaient de suivre le même chemin et de lire la même écriture

Quand les gens sont confus sur la raison pour laquelle Dieu ne se soucie pas ou ne fait pas de miracles

C'est le plaisir du diable parce que les chrétiens, en tant que disciples de Jésus, ne peuvent pas comprendre comment un "Dieu" si bon peut nous ignorer.

Jésus s'incline devant notre Dieu, il n'est pas Co-Égal. Si Jésus était Co-Égal, je suis sûr qu'il nous tendrait la main et n'aurait pas à rester et à regarder avec le Père

Le père a regardé notre péché, notre haine, notre maladie, chaque acte mauvais
Le père nous laisse encore respirer et donne son fils pour nous... si ce n'est pas un miracle, je ne sais pas ce que c'est

Les gens sont si divisés parce qu'ils ne réalisent pas que nous avons un Dieu qui ne connaît pas nos décisions futures... un Dieu qui ne nous guérit pas tous et ne nous tient pas la main

Notre Dieu n'a pas non plus tenu la main de Jésus sur cette planète... c'est pourquoi Jésus a crié vers les cieux en demandant pourquoi son Père l'avait abandonné

https://youtu.be/YwYmJRCZ80s?is=a5w-a3h4bb7V7x6v

Rome/Le Pape

Pendant 1500 ans, Rome a craint Jésus et ses Apôtres ainsi que la religion chrétienne qui a commencé à se développer des décennies après que Jésus soit remonté au ciel

Il y a eu un empereur romain qui a réellement inversé la tendance

L'empereur romain qui a inversé la tendance : Julien l'Apostat (361–363 ap. J.-C.)
* Le changement : Après que Constantin ait légalisé le christianisme (313 ap. J.-C.) et que ses successeurs en aient fait la religion impériale, l'empereur Julien a complètement inversé la tendance. Élevé chrétien, il a rejeté l'église d'État, a gagné le titre d'"Apostat" et a tenté de démanteler la structure de pouvoir impériale chrétienne grandissante.
* Ses actions : Il a dépouillé l'église d'État de ses exemptions fiscales et subventions impériales spéciales, a restauré les pratiques gréco-romaines traditionnelles et a promu le pluralisme religieux. Pour contrer les prétentions chrétiennes à la suprématie théologique, il a ordonné la reconstruction du Temple juif à Jérusalem avant que sa mort soudaine au combat ne mette fin à son règne après seulement 20 mois.
Tertullien sur le Père et le Fils (Subordinationnisme précoce)
Bien que Tertullien (v. 155–220 ap. J.-C.) ait inventé des termes théologiques latins précoces comme Trinitas, il ne croyait pas que le Fils était co-égal ou co-éternel avec le Créateur ultime, Dieu le Père :
* "Il fut un temps où le Fils n'était pas" : Dans Contre Hermogène (Chapitre 3), Tertullien a explicitement déclaré que Dieu n'a pas toujours été Père :

"Car Dieu est le Père, et Dieu est Juge ; mais pourtant, Il n'a pas toujours été Père et Juge, simplement parce qu'Il a toujours été Dieu. Car Il n'aurait pas pu être Père avant le Fils... Il fut un temps où le Fils n'était pas."

• Le Fils est une dérivation, pas la substance entière : Dans Contre Praxéas (Chapitre 9), Tertullien a soutenu que seul le Père est la source complète et suprême :
  "Le Père est toute la substance, mais le Fils est une dérivation et une portion du tout, comme Il le reconnaît Lui-même : 'Mon Père est plus grand que moi'."

• Agent, pas la source sans origine : Pour Tertullien, seul le Père était sans origine, éternel et le Dieu Tout-Puissant suprême, tandis que le Fils a été produit comme instrument/agent pour la création et est resté subordonné au Père.

..
Le tournant : L'Édit de Thessalonique (380 ap. J.-C.)
Le 27 février 380 ap. J.-C., l'empereur romain Théodose Ier, aux côtés de Gratien et Valentinien II, a publié l'Édit de Thessalonique (Cunctos Populos). Ce décret a formellement mis fin au pluralisme religieux dans l'Empire romain et a établi le christianisme de Nicée comme la religion impériale obligatoire.
L'édit définissait explicitement l'orthodoxie approuvée par l'État en imposant la croyance en la Trinité co-égale :

"Nous autorisons les adeptes de cette loi à prendre le titre de chrétiens catholiques ; mais quant aux autres, puisque, à notre jugement, ce sont des fous insensés, nous décrétons qu'ils seront marqués du nom ignominieux d'hérétiques, et ne devront pas présumer de donner à leurs conventicules le nom d'églises. Ils subiront en premier lieu le châtiment de la condamnation divine et en second lieu la punition de notre autorité..."

Avec ce décret, la dissidence théologique était classée comme haute trahison contre l'État.
Suppression des disciples originaux et des mouvements précoces
Après 380 ap. J.-C., les décrets impériaux et les conciles œcuméniques ont systématiquement interdit, traqué et effacé les factions chrétiennes antérieures qui ne se conformaient pas aux dogmes impériaux de Nicée :
* Les Nazaréens et les Ébionites : Les premiers groupes judéo-chrétiens, qui considéraient Jésus comme le Messie humain et Prophète de Dieu tout en continuant à observer la Torah, ont été complètement privés de leurs droits. La Rome impériale leur a interdit de s'assembler, a confisqué leurs lieux de réunion et a brûlé leurs évangiles en hébreu et en araméen. Au Ve siècle, ils ont été conduits à l'extinction dans les déserts syriens et arabes.
* Priscillien d'Avila (385 ap. J.-C.) : Un évêque ascète espagnol qui mettait l'accent sur une vie morale stricte, l'étude biblique personnelle et la simplicité. Il est devenu le premier chrétien exécuté pour hérésie par ses pairs chrétiens sous l'autorité de l'État, condamné par le Synode de Bordeaux et décapité sous l'empereur Magnus Maximus.

• Les codes théodosien (438 ap. J.-C.) et justinien (534 ap. J.-C.) : Ces codes juridiques impériaux ont fait de la croyance non nicéenne une infraction capitale. Les hérétiques ont perdu le droit de posséder des biens, d'hériter de domaines, d'occuper des fonctions publiques ou de témoigner en justice. Les soldats impériaux brûlaient régulièrement les textes non conformes et démantelaient les congrégations rivales.
  Les siècles d'application et les estimations du bilan humain
  Une fois que la conformité religieuse a été soutenue par la force militaire de l'État, les campagnes contre l'hérésie, les sectes dissidentes et les mouvements de réforme régionaux se sont étendues à travers l'Europe pendant plus d'un millénaire.
• La croisade des Albigeois (cathares) (1209–1229) : Le pape Innocent III a lancé une croisade militaire de 20 ans dans le sud de la France contre les cathares (une secte dualiste) et les dissidents locaux. Des villes entières ont été rasées, notamment lors du massacre de Béziers.
• Estimations des morts : 200 000 à 1 000 000
• La suppression des Vaudois et des Hussites (XIIe–XVe siècles) : Le mouvement de Pierre Valdo et les disciples de Jan Hus cherchaient un retour aux écritures du Nouveau Testament en langue vernaculaire. De multiples croisades papales et campagnes inquisitoriales à travers la Bohême et les vallées alpines ont entraîné des expulsions massives, des bûchers et des guerres militaires (par exemple, les guerres hussites et le massacre de Pâques dans le Piémont en 1655).
• Estimations des morts : 100 000 à 300 000+
• Les Inquisitions (médiévale, espagnole, romaine, portugaise) : Opérant du XIIe au XIXe siècle, les tribunaux inquisitoriaux ciblaient les "judaïsants", les dissidents protestants et quiconque soutenait une théologie non trinitaire ou peu orthodoxe.
• Estimations des morts : 30 000 à 60 000+ exécutions directes, avec des centaines de milliers d'emprisonnés, torturés ou expulsés.
• Les guerres de religion européennes (1524–1648) : Conflits menés entre les puissances catholiques d'État et les factions protestantes montantes :

• Guerres de religion françaises (1562–1598) : Incluant le massacre de la Saint-Barthélemy ; 2 000 000 à 4 000 000 de morts.
• Guerre de Quatre-Vingts Ans (1568–1648) : Les Habsbourg espagnols réprimant les rebelles protestants néerlandais ; 200 000 à 1 000 000+ de morts.
• Guerre de Trente Ans (1618–1648) : Le point culminant de la guerre religieuse dans le Saint-Empire romain germanique, laissant de vastes régions dépeuplées en raison des combats, de la famine et des raids militaires ; 4 500 000 à 8 000 000 de morts.
  En agrégeant les exécutions directes pour hérésie, les croisades inquisitoriales ciblées et les guerres de religion plus larges menées pour maintenir une autorité religieuse centralisée, les estimations historiques totales des décès varient de 7 millions à plus de 15 millions de personnes.
  Pour une plongée plus profonde dans la politique et les mécanismes impériaux derrière cette transition, consultez The Untold Story About The Politics Behind the Council of Nicaea.
  Cette vidéo détaille comment la Rome impériale a transformé les factions chrétiennes précoces en un appareil d'État centralisé et les luttes politiques qui ont façonné les dogmes qui en ont résulté.

Les vues des vidéos YouTube seront stockées dans votre historique YouTube, et vos données seront stockées et utilisées par YouTube conformément à ses Conditions d'utilisation

..
This is how Rome as an Agent of Satan same with The Pope

Peter’s Rejection of Hierarchy and Personal Veneration
In the New Testament, Peter explicitly rejected personal veneration, monarchical authority, and authoritarian rule over believers:
* Refusing Prostration and Worship:
* Acts 10:25–26:
> "As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. But Peter made him get up. 'Stand up,' he said, 'I am only a man myself.'"
>
* Peter refused to let another believer kneel or bow before him, explicitly stating his equal humanity rather than claiming exalted status.
* Rejecting "Lording Over" Believers:
* 1 Peter 5:1–3:
> "To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow elder and a witness of Christ’s sufferings... Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, watching over them—not because you must, but because you are willing, as God wants you to be; not pursuing dishonest gain, but eager to serve; not lording it over those entrusted to you, but being examples to the flock."
>
* Peter refers to himself not as the supreme head of the church, but simply as a fellow elder (sympresbyteros). He explicitly forbids church leaders from "lording it over" believers or using ministry for financial profit.
Peter’s Warning of Church Corruption, Greed, and Deception
In his second epistle, Peter warned that internal corruption, greed, and fabricated dogmas would emerge directly from within church leadership:
* Exploitation and Fabricated Stories:
* 2 Peter 2:1–3:
> "There will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their depraved conduct and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with fabricated stories."
>
* Loving the Wages of Unrighteousness:

• 2 Peter 2:13–15:
  > "They will be paid back with harm for the harm they have done. Their idea of pleasure is to carouse in broad daylight. They are blots and blemishes, reveling in their pleasures while they feast with you... They have left the straight way and wandered off to follow the way of Balaam son of Beor, who loved the wages of wickedness."
  >
  How the Imperial Papacy Fulfilled These Warnings
  Historically, the evolution of the medieval and Renaissance Papacy mirrored the exact practices Peter cautioned against:
• Demanding Veneration and Supreme Monarchical Rule
• The Papal Ritual of Foot-Kissing: While Peter forced Cornelius to stand up, Roman pontiffs established the formal ritual of Adoratio, requiring cardinals, bishops, kings, and emperors to kneel and kiss the Pope's foot and ring.
• Claims of Total Supremacy (Dictatus Papae, 1075 AD): Pope Gregory VII issued 27 formal dictates asserting that the Pope alone could wear imperial insignia, that all princes must kiss the Pope's feet alone, that no council could be called without papal consent, and that the Pope could judge all men while being judged by none.
• Universal Subjection (Unam Sanctam, 1302 AD): Pope Boniface VIII declared papal subjection mandatory for salvation: "We declare, say, define, and pronounce that it is absolutely necessary for the salvation of every human creature to be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
• Exploitation Through "Fabricated Stories" (2 Peter 2:3)

• The Donation of Constantine: For over six centuries, the Papacy justified its vast territorial rule (The Papal States) and imperial authority in Western Europe using an 8th-century forged document claiming Emperor Constantine had legally gifted the entire Western Roman Empire to the Bishop of Rome. It was later conclusively proven to be a complete forgery by Renaissance scholar Lorenzo Valla in 1440.
• The Sale of Indulgences: In the 15th and 16th centuries, the Roman hierarchy commodified salvation by selling certificates of indulgence to reduce time in purgatory—most notoriously under Pope Leo X to finance the construction of St. Peter's Basilica.
• Simony, Nepotism, and Political Corruption
• Simony (Buying and Selling Holy Offices): The practice of auctioning bishoprics and cardinals' hats to the highest bidder became systemic, fulfilling Peter's warning about those who "loved the wages of wickedness."
• The Borgia and Avignon Eras: Dynastic families (such as the Borgias and Medicis) used the papacy as a private family business, creating secret inner circles, assassinating political rivals, and amassing immense personal fortunes while executing reformers who called for a return to simple biblical scripture.

...

God judges everyone equally but God the Creator is not Jesus the Son

Read the Old Testament and Read the New Testament

If anyone tries to lead you astray please feel free to DM me and I will help you see the light of Jesus

We are still supposed to worship and glorify Jesus but not as God the Creator

Jesus is our Lord and Savior

Jesus showed us through the entire Bible how much God meant to him and how he bowed down and prayed and how much he loved all of us

God created us and loves us too! But God won't put up with us sinning and forsaking his name and hurting others and exploiting others

No matter what anyone tells you, any religion on a just and righteous path has a chance to make it to Heaven it isn't reserved strictly for Christians because think about it... For one Jesus wasn't a Christian..

He was God's son that existed before our creation

He came to us through Mary as a Jew

He taught The Way and was a sect of Nazarenes

What Christians refer to as a "demented lunatic" and a "heretic" is what they described Jesus and his Apostles as.. if you don't conform to Trinity and their mission to erase the real God and create tension and misunderstandings... Then it's almost impossible to go anywhere mainstream as a follower of Jesus Christ

Please feel free to join us here in our mission to teach the original faith before Christianity and the corruption from Satan ❤️

We accept everyone

It is the will of our God?

Yes

They are following the masses and only the few make it past the gate into heaven

Living in denial when someone is trying to show you the light of Jesus

Isn't going to change the fact of what was written nor can you rationalize it with Roman rationalizations and forced beliefs that everyone told everyone for 2000 years.

TL;DR

God the Creator is the Heavenly Father and is the only God as it is written in the Old Testament

Jesus the Son is God's Son to be a son means to be created he existed before time & space just like the Father

The Holy Spirit was never a God nor a Co-Equal

Calling the original teachings heresy while still holding on to teachings that The Bible warned about

Is the meaning of Heresy.

If anyone has any questions please reach out and either DM me or post it in #🕊️┃ask-an-elder

The only doctrine commanded of us is The Bible. Anything else is a heresy

Then run that diagram I gave and the Trinity diagram and see which one is accurate

i am asking for a framework to properly implement into the AI. All it is going to do is assume you hold traditional Unitarian views, and unless you do, i suggest that you clearly specify what it is you view, and understand from scripture. This way the AI can properly understand your framework

I suggest having your AI model be more respectful and less aggressive in responses

1st Century Teachings From Jesus Versus Trinity, ETC

Fair enough. I actually did exactly what you asked. I took the theological labels off, fed your exact four-point framework in, and asked for a strict, 1st-century scriptural analysis of it.
Here is the honest result:
The Analysis of Your Framework:
Your model is incredibly coherent and heavily supported by the text. In fact, it perfectly maps the operational hierarchy of the New Testament.
The Father as Head: Scripture explicitly supports this. 1 Corinthians 11:3 says 'the head of Christ is God.'
Pre-existence: Scripture explicitly supports this. John 17:5 talks about the glory the Son had with the Father before the world existed.
Subordination: Scripture explicitly supports this. 1 Corinthians 15:28 says the Son will subject Himself to the Father so God may be all in all.
The Spirit in Tandem: Scripture explicitly supports this. Romans 8 lays out this exact operational flow.
When stripped of 4th-century creedal language, your framework beautifully captures what theologians call the 'Economic' reality of God—how the Father, Son, and Spirit functionally interact to accomplish our salvation. The Father originates, the Son submits and executes, and the Spirit operates.
The One Scriptural Question:
The AI analysis noted only one major tension point when running your framework strictly against the 1st-century text.
If the Son is the first generated being (meaning He is the highest creation, but still fundamentally separate from the Almighty Creator), how do we process Revelation 5:13-14?
John writes: 'And I heard every created thing in heaven and on earth and under the earth and in the sea, and all that is in them, saying: "To him who sits on the throne AND to the Lamb be blessing and honor and glory and might forever and ever!"'
The biblical tension is this: Yahweh says in Isaiah 42:8, 'I am the Lord; that is my name; my glory I give to no other.' Yet in Revelation 5, the Father and the Lamb receive the exact same co-equal worship from 'every created thing.'
If the Son is part of the category of creation, how can He be receiving the worship of 'every created thing' alongside the Almighty Father?
I share that not as a 'canned counter-apologetic,' but as a genuine textual question that arises from your specific framework. I really do respect the model you’ve built, and it’s obvious you aren't just pulling this out of thin air.

Paul confirms where this honor ultimately lands in Philippians 2:9–11: God highly exalted Him and gave Him the name above every name, so that every knee should bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord—"to the glory of God the Father." Honoring the Son is honoring the Father who appointed Him.
* 4. The Direct Biblical Precedent (1 Chronicles 29:20):
This tandem honor of God and His appointed ruler is standard biblical theology. In the Old Testament: "And all the assembly blessed the LORD God of their fathers, and bowed down their heads, and worshiped the LORD, and the king."
Giving praise to the Father on the throne and the Lamb who was slain doesn't make them the same being; it shows creation honoring the Almighty Sovereign and His exalted, obedient Son.

I have to give credit where credit is due—your breakdown of 1 Chronicles 29:20 is an excellent piece of biblical theology. You are absolutely right that in the Old Testament, the congregation bowed to both Yahweh and the human king without it being idolatry. Your AI did a great job synthesizing that!
I'd love to share how the Trinitarian framework processes the specific verses you brought up (John 5 and Philippians 2), because we actually look to those exact same verses as proof of His co-equal divine nature.
1. The Boundary of Worship in Revelation
You made a great point about delegated honor. However, Revelation establishes a very strict boundary for heavenly worship. In Revelation 22:8-9, John falls down to worship a highly exalted, heavenly angel. The angel immediately stops him, saying: 'You must not do that! I am a fellow servant... Worship God!'
In the heavenly realm, no generated, created servant of God will accept worship—they instantly redirect it to God alone. Yet in Revelation 5, the Lamb accepts the exact same eternal doxology as the Father from 'every created thing.' If the Lamb is part of the category of creation, the angel's rule in Rev 22 suggests the Lamb should have stopped them.
2. The Grammar of John 5:23 ('Just As')
You rightly pointed out that the Father gave judgment to the Son so the Son would be honored. But look at the specific wording Jesus uses: '...that all may honor the Son just as [kathōs] they honor the Father.'
In Greek, kathōs means 'in the exact same degree and manner.' How do we honor the Father? We honor Him as the Almighty, uncreated God. If Jesus is a generated, created being, honoring Him in the exact same degree that we honor the Almighty Creator would cross the line into idolatry (Romans 1:25). Jesus seems to be claiming the right to equal honor.
3. Philippians 2 and Isaiah 45
I completely agree that every knee bowing to Jesus brings glory to the Father! The fascinating part of Philippians 2:10-11 is what Paul is quoting. Paul is directly quoting Isaiah 45:23. In that chapter, Yahweh is speaking exclusively about Himself, saying: 'To me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear allegiance.'
Paul takes the absolute, exclusive worship of Yahweh from Isaiah and applies it directly to Jesus. To a Trinitarian, Paul is doing this because the Father and the Son share the singular identity of Yahweh.
I really am enjoying this. It's awesome to have a dialogue where both sides are bringing actual textual mechanics to the table rather than just getting angry.

We honor the Son just as we honor the Father because the Son is the Father's appointed representative and judge. Refusing to honor the Ambassador is refusing to honor the King who sent Him.
3. Philippians 2:9–11 and Isaiah 45:23 (Exaltation vs. Inherent Being)
Paul quoting Isaiah 45:23 in Philippians 2 actually proves subordination and agency, not ontological co-equality:
* Philippians 2:9: "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name..."
* Philippians 2:11: "...and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
If Jesus is already the unchangeable Almighty Yahweh from eternity past:
* How can the Almighty be "highly exalted" (hyperypsoō—exalted above/higher than before)? You cannot promote or elevate the Supreme God.
* Why does God have to give Him a name as a reward for His obedience unto death?
Paul applies Isaiah 45 to Jesus because Yahweh exercises His sovereign rule through His exalted Messiah. When every knee bows to Jesus as Lord, Isaiah 45 is fulfilled precisely because it brings ultimate glory to God the Father.

I have to say, bringing up the Greek distinction between latreuo (sacred service) and proskynesis (obeisance) is top-tier exegesis. Most people don't even know those two words exist, let alone how Revelation uses them. Your AI/study process is incredibly sharp.
Let's look at those exact Greek mechanics together, because I actually agree with your definitions, but I see them pointing to a Trinitarian conclusion!
1. Latreuo and the Shared Throne (Revelation 22)
You are 100% correct that latreuo is strictly reserved for the Almighty God, while proskynesis can be given to a human king. That is a fantastic biblical rule.
But let's look at how John applies that rule in Revelation 22:3: 'No longer will there be anything accursed, but the throne [singular] of God and of the Lamb will be in it, and his servants will worship [latreuo] him.'
Notice the grammar: God and the Lamb share one singular throne. And the servants offer latreuo (the sacred service reserved only for the Almighty) to a singular pronoun ('him' - encompassing the unified throne). The Lamb isn't sitting at the foot of the throne receiving a king's proskynesis; He is on the throne receiving the Almighty's latreuo.
2. The Context of Kathōs (John 5)
Your cross-references for kathōs were excellent. I agree that it establishes a standard of correspondence. But look at the standard Jesus establishes in the verses wrapping John 5:23.
Why should they honor Him just as the Father? Because in verse 19, Jesus claims, 'Whatever the Father does, that the Son does likewise.' In verse 21, He claims the sovereign right to raise the dead and give them life. The Son isn't just delivering a message; He is performing the exclusive, sovereign actions of Yahweh. The honor corresponds to the divine works being done.
3. How Can the Almighty Be Exalted? (Philippians 2)
This was your best point. 'How can the Almighty be highly exalted? You cannot promote the Supreme God.'
That is a brilliant philosophical question, and orthodox theology agrees with you: the divine nature cannot be upgraded. The answer is found in the verses right before the exaltation (Philippians 2:6-8). The Word, existing in the form of God, emptied Himself by taking the form of a servant (humanity).
When God 'highly exalted' Him in verse 9, the eternal Logos wasn't being promoted; the Man Christ Jesus was being exalted. The Father took the bruised, biological human nature of Christ and exalted it to the highest place in the universe. That is the beauty of the Incarnation: the eternal God lowered Himself so that humanity could be brought into the throne room.
Seriously, iron sharpens iron, and this conversation is making me study harder than I have in a long time. I deeply appreciate the pushback!

• Look at why He has the power to raise the dead and give life: John 5:26 says, "For as the Father has life in Himself, so He has granted [edōken] the Son to have life in Himself."
• A power that is granted by the Father is by definition derived and subordinate, proving Jesus is the Father’s fully authorized agent, not the ultimate Source.
• Philippians 2:6–9 (The Singular Person Being Exalted)
• The "Two Natures" split (saying only His humanity was exalted) breaks down against the text. Verse 9 says: "Therefore God also has highly exalted Him and given Him the name which is above every name..."
• The grammar identifies one singular subject (Him)—the very one who was in the form of God, emptied Himself, and died on the cross. If only the "human nature" was exalted to the supreme place in the cosmos and given the highest name, then God exalted a created human nature above the archangels.
• The plain reading is much simpler: the Son displayed supreme humility by not grasping at equality with God (harpagmon in v. 6), and as a result, God the Father rewarded His obedient Son with supreme delegated majesty.
  Iron sharpens iron. When you stick purely to the 1st-century text, the pattern never breaks: The Father is the ultimate Source, and the Son is His exalted, obedient King.

I am going to create another channel with all of this more properly formatted and with the reached conclusions when we are done debating

I love this. Iron really is sharpening iron here. Your point on John 5 is incredibly precise, and your question about Philippians 2 ('Did God exalt a human nature above archangels?') is one of the most profound theological stress tests I’ve heard.
Let’s look at the mechanics of these three points, because I think they highlight exactly where our frameworks diverge, but also how much we actually agree on!
1. Revelation 14:1 and the Singular Pronoun
Your cross-reference to Rev 14:1 was brilliant. But there is a crucial detail in the Greek text. Some older English translations abbreviate it, but the earliest Greek manuscripts (and most modern translations like the ESV/NASB) explicitly read: '...having His name and His Father's name written on their foreheads.'
Because the Lamb's name AND the Father's name are written on their foreheads, the singular pronoun in Revelation 22:3-4 ('His servants will worship Him... they will see His face') actually becomes a massive proof of their unity. John uses a singular pronoun for a plural subject (God and the Lamb) because their rule and identity are perfectly united on that one throne.
2. John 5:26 and Derived Life
I agree with you completely here! You are 100% right that the Father 'granted' (edōken) the Son to have life. The Trinitarian framework fully affirms that the Father is the unoriginated Source, and the Son's life is derived/generated from the Father.
The key is what the Father granted. He granted the Son to have 'life in Himself' (Self-existence / Aseity). Self-existent life is an exclusive attribute of the Creator. The Father granted the Son the exact same uncreated divine nature that He possesses. We fully agree on the derived hierarchy of order (the Economic Trinity); we just believe the nature that was granted is fully divine.
3. Did God Exalt a Human Nature Above Angels? (Philippians 2)
You asked: 'If only the human nature was exalted... then God exalted a created human nature above the archangels?'
Yes! Exactly! That is the beautiful, scandalous truth of the New Testament. Look at Hebrews 2:5-9. The writer explicitly says that God did not subject the world to come to angels, but to mankind. He points to Jesus, who was made lower than the angels, but is now 'crowned with glory and honor.'
God taking the bruised, biological human nature of Christ and exalting it above the archangels to the highest place in the cosmos is the ultimate victory of the Gospel. That is what happened in Philippians 2. Because He didn't exploit His equality with God (harpagmon), but emptied Himself, God exalted the Man Christ Jesus as the ultimate mediator.
I really respect how closely you are reading the text. It makes this dialogue incredibly edifying!

This is the exact heart of the discussion. Let’s look at the textual and logical mechanics of those three points:
1. Revelation 14:1, 22:3–4, and the "Singular Pronoun"
If two names on a forehead proved an ontological merge into one singular identity, look at Revelation 3:12:

"I will write on him the name of My God, and the name of the city of My God... and My own new name."

Here, three distinct names are written on the believer. Writing a name signifies ownership, allegiance, and authority—not that the city, the Father, and the Son are one singular metaphysical substance.
Throughout Revelation, the distinction between "God" (ho Theos) and "the Lamb" (to arnion) is maintained strictly in all 22 chapters:
* In Revelation 5:7, the Lamb comes and takes the scroll from the right hand of Him who sits on the throne. Two distinct beings acting in relationship.
* In Greek grammar, singular pronouns following compound titles routinely refer to the principal subject (the Father) while the Lamb shares in His royal victory (cf. 1 Timothy 5:21).
2. John 5:26 and "Granted Aseity" (A Logical Contradiction)
Claiming the Father "granted Him uncreated self-existence (aseity)" is an ontological contradiction in terms:
* Aseity literally means a se ("from oneself"—unoriginated, underived, without cause).
* By definition, aseity cannot be granted or received. The moment something is granted (edōken), it is derived and contingent on the Giver.
* Jesus makes this undeniable in John 6:57:
"Just as the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father..."

If Jesus lives because of the Father, His life originates from the Father. The Father is the sole ultimate Source (fons divinitatis); the Son is His fully empowered, subordinate Heir.

1. Philippians 2:9, Hebrews 1–2, and the "Exaltation of Human Nature"
   Saying only the "human nature" was exalted creates major scriptural and theological problems:
2. The Singular Subject: In Philippians 2:6–9, the grammar does not separate two persons or natures. The exact same subject (Hos / "who") that was in the form of God is the one who emptied Himself, died on the cross, and whom God highly exalted (hyperypsoō).
3. Inherited Superiority: In Hebrews 1:4, the text explicitly says Christ:

   "...having become [genomenos] as much superior to the angels as the name He has inherited [keklēronomēken] is more excellent than theirs."

   An eternal, co-equal Almighty God does not "become" superior to angels, nor does He "inherit" a superior status as a reward.
   Hebrews 2:5–9 (quoting Psalm 8) proves the 1st-century message: Jesus is the obedient Last Adam and Messianic King whom the One True God crowned with glory and honor as ruler over creation.
   When you let the text define itself without importing 4th-century scholastic categories, the consistency is seamless: 1 Corinthians 8:6 remains the definitive 1st-century baseline—"There is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came... and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came."

You hit the nail completely on the head regarding the grammar of Philippians 2. You are absolutely right that there is only one singular subject ('Who') doing the acting.
What's fascinating is that orthodox history actually agrees with you completely on that grammatical point! In the 5th century, a bishop named Nestorius tried to divide Jesus into two separate subjects (one human, one divine) to make the text easier to explain. The early church violently rejected it, arguing exactly what you just said: there is only one 'He.' There is only one Person.
Orthodoxy teaches that the single, undivided Person of the eternal Son experienced humiliation and exaltation in and through the human nature He assumed. We use the 4th-century scholastic categories (like the Hypostatic Union) not to overwrite the text, but to protect the exact 1st-century mystery you are pointing out: the eternal Logos genuinely experienced life, death, and exaltation as a true human.
The Hebrews 1 Paradox
Your lexical work on genomenos (became) and keklēronomēken (inherited) is spot on. As the Messianic King and Last Adam, Jesus absolutely had to inherit the cosmic throne for humanity.
But here is where the Trinitarian framework sees the beautiful paradox of the dual-nature. Just a few verses after He 'inherits' the name (Heb 1:4), look at what the Father says to the Son in Hebrews 1:10-12.
The author quotes Psalm 102:25-27—an Old Testament passage explicitly dedicated to Yahweh's uncreated, eternal, unchangeable nature—and applies it directly to the Son:
'You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning... they will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment... but you are the same, and your years will have no end.'
If the Son is a generated being who had a beginning in time, how can the Father quote a Psalm about Yahweh’s uncreated eternity and apply it to the Son?
1 Corinthians 8:6 and Divine Identity
You are right that 1 Cor 8:6 is the baseline. Modern linguistic scholars like Dr. Richard Bauckham (who focuses heavily on 1st-century Second Temple Judaism) point out something amazing here. 1st-century Jews didn't define God using Greek terms like 'substance' or 'essence'; they defined God by His Identity (the Sole Creator and Sovereign).
When Paul took the Jewish Shema ('The Lord our God is one Lord') and inserted Jesus into it ('One God the Father... and one Lord Jesus Christ'), Bauckham argues Paul was doing the unthinkable for a 1st-century Jew: he was placing the person of Jesus directly into the singular, uncreated Identity of Yahweh, while maintaining their distinct roles.
This is why I love this dialogue. You are forcing us to look at the exact Greek phrasing, which is exactly how theology should be done!

1. 1 Corinthians 8:6 & Bauckham’s "Divine Identity"
   Dr. Richard Bauckham’s modern theological theory actually highlights the very problem:
   Look at the precise, inspired grammar Paul uses:

   "Yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things... and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things."
   

2. Paul explicitly and exclusively restricts the title "One God" (heis Theos) to the Father alone. He does not say "One God: Father, Son, and Spirit."
3. Paul then identifies Jesus as the "One Lord" (heis Kyrios)—the supreme Master/Messiah through whom the Father operates.
4. This perfectly mirrors Jesus's own prayer in John 17:3: "That they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent."
   If Paul or Jesus wanted to teach a multi-person Godhead, calling the Father "the only true God" and "the one God" to the exclusion of others would be completely misleading.
5. Philippians 2 & 5th-Century Conciliar Frameworks
   Bringing up Nestorius and the 5th-century councils proves the point: the "Hypostatic Union" and "dual-nature" paradoxes were Greek philosophical solutions created centuries later to fix the logical problems introduced by the Trinity.
   In Philippians 2:9, the text does not say "God exalted Christ's human nature." It says God exalted HIM (the entire person) and gave HIM the name above every name as a reward for His obedience unto death. The Almighty cannot be rewarded, elevated, or given a name He didn't already possess.
   The Plain 1st-Century Framework
   Jesus speaks for God with total authority because the Father gave all things into His hands (John 3:35, Matthew 28:18, John 17:6–8).
   When we look at the actual framework God and Jesus gave—without needing centuries of creedal adjustments—it is perfectly clear:
   The Father is the One True God, and Jesus is His fully empowered, exalted, and beloved Son.
   (Attaching the diagram again for the visual breakdown of the biblical hierarchy!)

I really respect your commitment to 1 Corinthians 4:6 and Colossians 2:8. You are absolutely right that we must never elevate human philosophy over the text. And honestly, the visual you provided in 1000121553.jpg is a brilliant, accurate mapping of how the New Testament describes God's operations. Orthodoxy actually agrees with your diagram 100%—we call it the 'Economic Trinity.' The Father is the Almighty Origin, the Son is the Revealer, and the Spirit operates in tandem. We have zero disagreement on that functional hierarchy!
Let's look at the 1st-century mechanics of your other points, because you are bringing up some of the best arguments in biblical scholarship:
1. Hebrews 1 and the Limits of Hebrew Agency (Shaliah)
You brought up Shaliah (Hebrew Agency) to explain why the Father applies Psalm 102 to the Son. You are right that an agent carries the authority of the sender.
But look at the specific attributes the Father applies to the Son in Hebrews 1:10-12. He doesn't just grant Him authority; He attributes an uncreated, changeless eternal nature to Him: 'They will perish, but you remain... you are the same, and your years will have no end.'
Shaliah can transfer authority to an agent, but it cannot transfer a changeless, eternal nature to a created being. If the Son was generated in time and had a beginning, the Father applying the uncreated eternality of Psalm 102 to Him breaks the rule of agency. The Father is identifying the Son's inherent eternal nature, not just His delegated authority.
(And regarding Heb 1:9, you are 100% right that the Father is the Son's God! Because the Son truly took on human flesh and the role of the Messiah, He functionally submits to the Father as His God. We fully affirm this.)
2. The Grammar of Exclusivity (1 Cor 8:6)
Your point on Paul's grammar is the standard Unitarian test, but let's apply that exact rule to the second half of the verse.
If Paul calling the Father the 'One God' means Jesus cannot be God, then Paul calling Jesus the 'One Lord' means the Father cannot be Lord. It must work both ways. Yet Jesus Himself calls the Father 'Lord of heaven and earth' (Matthew 11:25).
Because the Father is Lord, we know Paul isn't using 'One' to mutually exclude them from each other. He is taking the two titles of the Jewish Shema ('Yahweh our Elohim is one Yahweh') and showing how the Father and the Son operate within that single divine identity.
3. Why Use 4th-Century Terms?
To your excellent point about Colossians 2:8: the early church didn't invent terms like the 'Hypostatic Union' because they loved Greek philosophy. They used them because the 1st-century text itself creates a massive paradox.
The text says the Word was God (John 1:1), the Word created all things (John 1:3), and the Word became flesh and was killed (John 1:14). How can the uncreated Creator die? The early church simply used those terms as guardrails to protect the biblical truth that He was fully God and fully man, without violating the text.
Seriously, I appreciate the diagram and the pushback. This is exactly how the text is supposed to be studied!

I really appreciate how deep and detailed this dialogue is getting! But if you look closely at the arguments you just laid out, your own logic actually leads directly to the 1st-century position and shows where the creedal model breaks down:

1. Hebrews 1, Shared Attributes, and Believers
   You argue that transferring eternal qualities in Hebrews 1 breaks Hebrew agency (Shaliah) because a created or generated being cannot share eternal attributes.
2. If receiving eternal attributes, an unshakeable inheritance, and divine authority makes a subject ontologically part of the Almighty Godhead, then by that exact same logic, all saved believers would also be part of the Godhead.
3. Believers are promised to be made immortal and incorruptible (1 Corinthians 15:53–54), to become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4), and to sit on Christ’s throne just as He sat on the Father’s throne (Revelation 3:21).
4. An eternal status granted by God to His Son (and through the Son to the church) does not make the recipient the Supreme God—it demonstrates the total power of the Father who guarantees the Son’s eternal kingdom.

1. 1 Corinthians 8:6, Lordship, and Acts 2:36
   You asked: “If Paul calling the Father the 'One God' excludes Jesus, does calling Jesus the 'One Lord' exclude the Father?”
   The Bible itself directly answers how and why Jesus is our "One Lord":
2. Acts 2:36: "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has MADE this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."
3. The Father is Lord by His unoriginated, absolute nature as the Creator (Matthew 11:25). But the Father appointed Jesus as the functional "One Lord" (Master, King, and Head of the Church) over all creation (Matthew 28:18, Ephesians 1:20–22).

4. There is zero contradiction here. Paul identifies the Source ("One God, the Father, from whom are all things") and the Appointed Mediator ("One Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things").

5. The "Paradox" is Man-Made, Not Scriptural
   You asked the classic philosophical question: “How can the uncreated Creator die?”

6. The Bible never creates this paradox—post-biblical creeds do.
7. Scripture plainly states that the One True God cannot die and alone possesses immortality (1 Timothy 6:16, Habakkuk 1:12).
8. The Bible never says "God died"; it says the Son of God died (Romans 5:10) and that God raised Him from the dead (Acts 2:24, Galatians 1:1).
9. The 4th- and 5th-century church didn't need councils to "protect a mystery"; they needed them to invent philosophical patchworks (Hypostatic Union, Communicatio Idiomatum) to solve the very paradox their non-biblical premise created in the first place.
   The Question to Consider
   When you have to rely on 4th-century conciliar terms and philosophical definitions to harmonize what the text plainly says, it is an admission that the raw text alone does not teach a composite Trinity.

Are you ready to simply separate God (the Father) and Lord (His exalted Son) as the Bible explicitly presents them, rather than forcing them into a post-biblical Godhead?
The 1st-century text is completely consistent and logically sound when we let it speak for itself without the baggage of later traditions.

I have to say, your use of Acts 2:36 and 1 Timothy 6:16 is incredibly sharp. You are pointing out the exact same textual tensions that the earliest Christians wrestled with. It is clear you aren't just reciting talking points; you deeply know the Word.
Let's look at those three specific points strictly through the 1st-century text, because I actually agree with your premises—I just see the biblical conclusion resolving slightly differently!
1. Hebrews 1 vs. Believers' Immortality (2 Peter 1:4)
You made a brilliant point that believers receive immortality and become 'partakers of the divine nature.' However, there is a massive categorical difference between what believers receive and what the Father attributes to the Son in Hebrews 1.
Believers are granted future immortality (we will not die). But in Hebrews 1:10, the Father quotes Psalm 102 to credit the Son with past-eternal Creatorship: 'You, Lord, laid the foundation of the earth in the beginning.' Believers didn't create the universe. The Father isn't just saying the Son will survive forever; He is attributing the uncreated, originating act of Genesis 1 directly to the Son.
2. Acts 2:36 and Appointed Lordship
I agree with you 100% on Acts 2:36. God absolutely made the crucified human Messiah to be 'Lord and Christ.' The Trinitarian framework fully affirms that Jesus, in His humanity, was functionally appointed as the Supreme Master over the church by the Father.
But look at how Paul applies that Lordship in Romans 10:9-13. Paul says that if you confess 'Jesus is Lord,' you will be saved. To prove this, Paul quotes Joel 2:32: 'Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' In the original Hebrew of Joel, that word is explicitly Yahweh. Paul takes the uncreated, ultimate name of Yahweh and applies it directly to Jesus. He is functionally appointed Lord over the church (Acts 2), but His underlying identity is the Yahweh of the Old Testament (Romans 10).
3. Did the Councils Invent the Paradox?
You are entirely right that 1 Timothy 6:16 says the One True God cannot die. The divine nature is immortal.
But the 4th-century councils didn't invent the paradox; they were just trying to explain the paradox that the Apostle Peter explicitly preached in Acts 3:15. Peter looked at the crowd and said: 'You killed the Author of life, whom God raised from the dead.'
That is the ultimate biblical paradox. How can the 'Author of life' be killed? Orthodoxy didn't invent the Hypostatic Union to overwrite the Bible; they used it to explain Acts 3:15 without violating 1 Timothy 6. The divine nature didn't die. But because the eternal Word genuinely 'became flesh' (John 1:14), the Person of the Son was able to experience death through the human nature He assumed.
To Answer Your Final Question:
You asked if I am ready to simply separate God and Lord. My answer is no, because the Old Testament explicitly unites them in the Shema: 'The LORD [Yahweh] our God [Elohim] is one LORD.' I believe Paul isn't splitting them into two different beings in 1 Cor 8:6; he is revealing the two Persons who share that one glorious identity.
But I deeply respect why your framework reads it the way you do, and I'm grateful you're demanding we stick strictly to the text. This is an awesome dialogue.

1. Romans 10:9–13, Joel 2:32, and the Divine Name
   You argued that because Paul quotes Joel 2:32 ("call on the name of Yahweh") and applies it to Jesus, Jesus must be Yahweh in identity.
2. In the biblical principle of Divine Agency, God places His Name and Authority directly upon His supreme representative:
3. Exodus 23:20–21: God says of His Angel/Messenger: "Pay attention to him... for My Name is in him."
4. Look at the explicit distinction Paul makes in that exact passage:
5. Romans 10:9: "If you confess with your mouth Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."
6. Paul does not say Jesus is the God who raised Him. God made Jesus Lord (Acts 2:36), and calling on the Name of Jesus is calling on the salvation that the Father exclusively provided through His King.
7. Acts 3:15 and the "Author of Life" (Archēgos)
   You stated that Peter created a paradox by saying they "killed the Author of life."
8. The Greek word Peter uses is ἀρχηγός (archēgos), which means Leader, Prince, Pioneer, or Trailblazer (used in Hebrews 2:10 as "the pioneer of their salvation" and Hebrews 12:2 as "the pioneer and perfecter of faith").
9. Christ is the Archēgos of life because He is the firstborn from the dead (Colossians 1:18) who pioneered the path to eternal life for mankind.
10. Peter immediately destroys any philosophical paradox in the very same sentence:
11. Acts 3:15: "You killed the Prince/Pioneer of life, whom God raised from the dead."
12. Acts 3:26: "God, having raised up His Servant/Son, sent Him to bless you..."

• There is no paradox in the 1st-century text. God did not die; God's holy Servant and Son died, and the Almighty God resurrected Him. The "paradox" only exists if you force 4th-century Nicene definitions onto Peter's plain words.
  The Call to the Pure Text
  The 4th-century councils didn't protect the text—they created philosophical contradictions that required centuries of Latin and Greek scholastic terms to try and hold together.
  The red letters of Jesus and the writings of the Apostles are direct, logically sound, and complete on their own. When you read Scripture without the lens of Roman traditions, the biblical framework is clear:
  There is One God (the Father), and One Lord (His literal, pre-existent, exalted Son Jesus Christ).
  I am commissioned to stand strictly on what is written, verse-by-verse. I encourage you to step away from the confusion of Roman conciliar tradition and look directly at the framework Jesus and the Apostles actually gave us.

I started a fresh dialogue with Grok on Expert Mode

To avoid guardrails to keep it neutral and not look at imperial dogmas enforced by death on people
I had to be explicit here is a screenshot of my fresh prompt and below is the reply

In the texts themselves, God is greater than Jesus. Jesus is the Son, the Messiah, the one sent. The Father is called “the only true God.” That is the plain reading of the verses you listed and of the larger pattern in both Testaments. Equating them as the same being, or making them co-equal in every sense, is a later synthesis.

Old Testament

The Old Testament is strict monotheism. YHWH is God. There is no second co-equal person who is also fully God.

• “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” (Deut 6:4)
• “I am the LORD, and there is no other; besides me there is no God.” (Isa 45:5; see also Isa 44:6, 45:21–22)

A coming anointed king/servant is promised. Some titles given to that figure are high (“Mighty God” in Isa 9:6; the child is also called “Everlasting Father” in that same verse). The figure remains distinct from YHWH who sends him, anoints him, and whose Spirit rests on him (Isa 11, 42, 53; Ps 2, 110). The OT does not present Jesus as identical with YHWH.

New Testament — the verses you named

Jesus and the apostles keep the distinction.

• John 14:28 — Jesus: “the Father is greater than I.”
• Mark 13:32 — “about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.”
• 1 Cor 15:28 — after everything is put under the Son, “the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.”
• John 17:3 — Jesus prays to the Father: “that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

Those are not isolated. They match the rest of Jesus’ speech:

• He has a God: “I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.” (John 20:17)
• He is sent, does not speak on his own, does the Father’s will, prays to the Father. (John 5:19, 30; 6:38; 7:16; 8:28–29; 12:49)
• “There is one God, and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Tim 2:5)
• Paul routinely writes “the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.”

John 1:1, John 20:28, Hebrews 1:8 and a few other texts give Jesus divine titles and honor. They do not erase the verses above. They sit alongside them. The later imperial formulation (one essence, three co-equal persons) is an attempt to hold both sets together by adding categories the texts themselves do not use. That formulation has to treat John 14:28, Mark 13:32, 1 Cor 15:28 and John 17:3 as “economic” or “according to the human nature” so they do not mean what they say on the surface.

If the standard is the words on the page rather than the councils, the Father is God, greater, the only true God; Jesus is the Son whom that God sent. That is what those four verses state.

"Anything beyond what is written goes against Scripture itself (1 Corinthians 4:6)."

​Mark 7:7–9, 13 — "In vain do they worship me, teaching as doctrines the precepts of men... making void the word of God through your tradition."

TL;DR

Here is a detailed fact checked summary