Last post before another lengthy break

 Jesus once appealed to an older scriptural grammar that modern readers sometimes overlook: the Hebrew Bible contains a set of texts that allow for a layered divine economy in which a supreme Elyon (the Most High) presides while other agents — called sons of God or even, in some contexts, elohim/gods — act as God’s representatives, judges, and executors of divine will. This self-contained note argues that the prologue and courtroom scenes of Gospel of John can be read coherently within that matrix, and it explains why such a reading both fits the Gospel’s language and accounts for the dramatic reactions Jesus provoked.

To begin with the prologue’s grammar: John’s opening lines establish three interrelated claims about the Logos (the “Word”): priority, proximity to the God who is Elyon, and participation in divine character. The famous Johannine formula sets the Logos “in the beginning,” places the Logos “with the God,” and then — crucially, in Greek — asserts that “θεός” pertains to the Logos without the definite article. In classical Greek usage anarthrous predicate nouns in this syntactic slot commonly function qualitatively or predicatively rather than as straightforward identifiers. That is, the clause says the Logos is “divine” in character rather than mechanically repeating the article-marked “the God” of the previous clause. When one combines this grammatical observation with the Logos tradition’s roots in Jewish Wisdom and Second Temple tropes about heavenly agents, the prologue coherently names a preexistent divine agent who participates in God’s reality while remaining relationally distinct from the Most High. Such a being can properly be described as “with God” and “divine in nature” without collapsing the One God into numerical identity with every divine title the text uses.

This grammatical and theological posture is exactly what makes Jesus’ appeal to Psalm 82 in John 10 rhetorically effective. Psalm 82 presents a courtroom scene in which God stands in the assembly of the mighty and pronounces judgment on those called “gods” or “sons of the Most High,” even as those figures are declared mortal. Jesus’ citation functions like a rabbinic proof-text: if scripture itself calls certain functionaries “gods” — those who receive God’s word and exercise delegated judgment — then a speaker sanctified and sent by the Father can justifiably claim Son-of-God language without automatically committing blasphemy. The move only makes sense if the Johannine prologue has already allowed for a category of divine agents who are distinct from Elyon yet share in divine agency. If, by contrast, the prologue had intended to announce nothing less than full, numerical identity of the Logos with Elyon, Jesus’ appeal to a subordinate category in the Psalter would be rhetorically puzzling rather than persuasive.

John’s existential “I am” sayings, especially the flashpoint in John 8, fit naturally into the same constellation when understood against the larger Old Testament witness. The present-tense “ἐγώ εἰμι” used by Jesus evokes the Exodus theophany while also asserting priority over Abraham’s chronology; read in isolation it can sound like a stark theophanic claim, and contemporaries sometimes responded as if it were. But the Johannine existential phrase functions most fully when paired with the Son-of-Man and enthronement motifs the tradition elsewhere invokes. In Daniel the “one like a son of man” appears before the Ancient of Days and receives dominion and the right to judge the nations; in Psalm 110 the enthronement language — “The LORD said to my Lord: sit at my right hand” — supplies the royal court idiom that the New Testament authors apply to the Messiah. Together these texts create a scriptural narrative economy in which a preexistent, anointed agent is sent, suffers, is vindicated, and is installed to judge. John’s Logos, who becomes flesh, is thus intelligible as the preexistent, sent agent who participates in God’s authority and will eventually exercise the judging prerogatives set out in Daniel and Psalm 110.

Reading the prologue, John 8, and John 10 together in this way renders the Johannine narrative coherent rather than fragmented. The prologue supplies the metaphysical frame (a Logos with God who is divine in quality), the “I am” sayings supply the existential identification with a preexistent anointed agent, and the Psalm 82 citation supplies the legitimate scriptural precedent for calling such an agent “son of God” or, in certain senses, “god.” The judicial and enthronement motifs of Daniel 7 and Psalm 110 supply the trajectory by which mortality, suffering, and subsequent vindication lead to divine authority and lordship without necessitating that the exalted agent be equated as numerically identical with Elyon.

At the same time, this reconstruction acknowledges the interpretive pressures that have driven other readings. Johannine language is rhetorically intense; the Logos hymnic tone, the “I and the Father are one” language, and narrative moments that invite devotion push readers toward strong claims about the Son’s status. Early Christian worship practices and Pauline and Hebraic exaltation-language likewise contributed to a reading that increasingly treated the exalted Son as an object of prayer and praise. Conversely, post-Temple Jewish theology and later Islamic emphases — each reacting to perceived threats to exclusive divine sovereignty — pressed toward tighter monotheistic formulations that tended to marginalize or reinterpret the Psalm 82 category. The task for the interpreter is therefore twofold: to show that John’s high language can coherently describe a uniquely exalted and participatory lordship without collapsing the Father’s unique position, and to explain historically why later communities moved toward other theological boundaries.

In short, when John’s prologue and courtroom scenes are read against the scriptural web of Psalm 82, Daniel 7, and Psalm 110, the Gospel yields a layered theology in which a preexistent Logos participates in divine reality, is sent and sanctified, experiences mortality, and is vindicated and enthroned by the Most High to judge. This layered reading preserves both the Father’s unique status as Elyon and the Son’s extraordinary role as the anointed judge, and it explains why Jesus could legitimately appeal to Psalm 82 in defending his Son-of-God claim in a Jewish scriptural idiom.

ChatGPT, February 2026, as authored by prompting by Stephen D Green.

Here is a version written specifically for religious readers — people who care deeply about honoring God and listening carefully to what Christ himself taught, rather than engaging in abstract theological debate.

Listening Again to What Christ Himself Taught

Many believers today long for something simple and faithful:
not innovation, not controversy, but a return to what Jesus Christhimself taught about God, about his mission, and about our calling.

If we listen carefully to his own words — especially in light of Psalm 82 — a coherent and deeply reverent understanding of Christ begins to emerge.

This understanding does not diminish him.
It clarifies him.

The One True God

Jesus consistently spoke of the Father as:

• The only true God
• The One who sent him
• The Source of authority
• The One greater than he

He prayed to the Father.
He obeyed the Father.
He submitted his will to the Father.

This alone should shape our theology: Christ’s own posture was one of loving obedience to the Most High.

Psalm 82 and Divine Commission

In Psalm 82, God stands in the divine assembly and addresses beings called “gods” and “sons of the Most High.” These are not rival deities. They are appointed agents — entrusted with authority to carry out justice on God’s behalf. Yet they remain:

• Accountable
• Mortal
• Subordinate to the Most High

When Jesus was accused of blasphemy for calling himself the Son of God, he quoted this psalm. He did not argue that he was the Most High. Instead, he pointed to a scriptural category already recognized: divinely commissioned sons who act in God’s name.

He identifies himself as the one whom the Father sanctified and sent.

This is not self-exaltation.
It is divine commission.

Christ as the Unique, Faithful Son

The apostle Paul preserves this structure. He acknowledges that in some sense there are “many gods and many lords,” yet for believers there is:

• One God — the Father
• One Lord — Jesus Christ

The Father remains supreme.
Christ is the uniquely vindicated Lord through whom God accomplishes redemption.

The letter to the Hebrews deepens this vision:

• Jesus shares flesh and blood with humanity.
• He is made lower than the angels.
• He suffers and dies.
• God raises and exalts him.

His exaltation is God’s act of vindication.
His Lordship is bestowed.
His authority is derived.

He is supreme among God’s agents — yet still the Son of the Most High.

Why This Matters Spiritually

This understanding does not reduce Christ. It magnifies his faithfulness.

It shows:

• A Son who trusted God completely
• A servant who obeyed unto death
• A mediator who shares our mortality
• A Lord vindicated and enthroned by God

It preserves both reverence for Christ and devotion to the Father.

It also restores the ethical urgency at the heart of Psalm 82: divine authority is measured by justice, mercy, and care for the weak. Christ fulfills this perfectly — and calls his followers into the same mission.

A Call to Faithful Listening

Across history, different traditions have emphasized different aspects of Christ’s identity. But for those who desire to hear him as he spoke, there is value in returning to his own words and the scriptural world he inhabited.

The framework is simple:

• One supreme God, the Father
• Commissioned divine agency
• Mortal obedience
• Resurrection vindication
• Exalted yet subordinate Lordship

This vision is not speculative philosophy. It is scriptural, coherent, and deeply devotional.

It invites believers to worship the Father as Christ did, to honor the Son as God’s anointed Lord, and to live as children of God — walking in justice, humility, and faith.

To listen carefully to Christ is not to diminish him.
It is to honor him as he revealed himself.

And perhaps, in doing so, we find not only theological clarity, but renewed spiritual life.

Psalm 82 and the theology of the Lord Jesus Christ

 Jesus taught from Psalm 82 that since many gods exist whom Scripture calls sons of God, he too can rightly be among them, since he more than any is a Son of God. Paul warned his disciples about ideas falsely called knowledge which, when followed, would cause people to wander from the truth. It later became a strong idea, called knowledge, that no gods actually existed or could rightly be called a god but that only YHWH existed. Many followed this idea. This caused a huge moving of believers away from the Psalm 82 teaching of Jesus and provoked theologies such as Trinity, Modalism, and later Islam. They all start with an idea that YHWH is the only God to actually exist. It can justifiably be regarded as a false idea because Psalm 82 and Jesus Christ, and probably most adherents of Second Temple Judaism who were contemporaries of Jesus, like those addressed about Psalm 82 by Jesus, all believed originally that there are sons of God who are all called Elohim, among which Jesus regarded himself as one of these.

So, Jesus invoked or highlighted an existing belief articulated in the 82nd Psalm and acknowledged by his audience, if they adhered to the Psalm articulation, that a category of god exists which is a son of God among many sons of God, and yet is mortal. He put himself in this category. He was not asking to be understood as escalating to a degree which could be considered blasphemy. All those in Psalm 82 called gods are also like himself set apart by God as judges over normal humans. So on that solid basis Jesus was indeed putting himself within that category. At most he was maybe alluding to be at the top of that category but still lower than the Most High, as these Elohim were.

Psalm 82 reads in full: “God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course. I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.” Here is plainly a category of beings called gods, sons of the Most High, appointed to judge, yet declared mortal. Jesus explicitly appealed to this passage in John 10:34–36: “Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?” His reasoning depends on the acknowledged existence in Scripture of this category. He places himself within it as one sanctified and sent.

Arguably post-Temple rabbinical developments as found eventually in Talmudic Judaism very much downplayed this category Jesus was invoking. Arguably later Rabbis post-Temple downplayed this category or even denied it by making any claims to membership of it into an example of heresy. Hence a Roman Emperor claiming divinity in line with this category might by these Rabbis be called heretical. On one hand it is possible the Christians of post-Temple times did exalt Jesus above the Psalm 82 category. So on one hand Rabbis may have tried to move away from anything except the Most High being called divinity, downplaying Psalm 82 divinity. On the other hand the Christians did not want Jesus to be seen as in that Psalm 82 category but higher than it, and they too downplayed this category but for the opposite reason. Thus later developments all variously built on a lack of Psalm 82 understanding, creating Talmud, Modes, Trinity, and Islam, but each in a different way going away from Jesus’ teaching and application of Psalm 82 divinity to himself.

Slightly more precisely stated, rabbinic post-Temple discourse, anxious to guard divine uniqueness after the catastrophe of 70 CE, tended to reassign Psalm 82’s “gods” to human judges or to metaphorical status and to treat any claim that risks dividing divine sovereignty as suspect; many strands of developing Christian theology, propelled by resurrection faith and liturgical worship, initially accelerated Jesus’ elevation to a uniquely worshiped Lord, but later he was apparently elevated by many Christians above that Psalm 82 category into a divinity category Jesus had tried to avoid; and then Islam later crystalized an emphatic unilateral rejection of any divine sonship, insisting on a strict tawḥīd that disavows Son language in ontological terms. I propose the later developments did indeed in several ways such as this, lose sight of the nuances of the teachings of Jesus.

I propose there is room for reexamining and returning to the actual teachings of Jesus, and indeed Paul. It is even possible to build better arguments on these teachings to counter the problems the later developments were seeking to solve. Paul invokes the same teaching as Psalm 82 but emphasises Jesus being uniquely Lord, while Elyon is uniquely God in an absolute pinnacle Fatherly divine sense. For Paul, this position of Jesus is what we mean by Christ. He died in mortality, raised by God. Losing this causes all kinds of issues, variously debated over centuries.

Paul writes in 1 Corinthians 8:5–6: “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.” Here Paul acknowledges that there are “gods many, and lords many,” yet he distinguishes uniquely between one God, the Father, and one Lord, Jesus Christ. This preserves the category Psalm 82 reflects, while assigning to Jesus a unique Lordship under the one God. He also warns in 1 Timothy 6:20–21, “O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.” An idea that denies outright any real category of divine sons or gods may be seen as precisely such an overcorrection, losing the scriptural nuance.

The writer of Hebrews pinned it down. Jesus was one among brethren but exalted above the others by an anointing of joy in being raised from the dead by Elyon. He explains, too, how Jesus is both like angels and above them, insomuch as they too are Elohim. Having been an Elohim of mortal category and lower than them, who have never been mortal, he is elevated above them in resurrection, but still not Elyon.

Hebrews 1:4–9 says: “Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? … But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.” The phrase “above thy fellows” implies a category of peers among whom he is exalted. Hebrews 2:7–9 continues: “Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands… But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.” He was lower than angels, mortal, suffering death; then crowned with glory and honour by God. He is among brethren, yet exalted.

In this way, Psalm 82, Jesus’ own argument in John 10, Paul’s distinction between one God and one Lord, and Hebrews’ exposition of exaltation together form a coherent pattern. Jesus placed himself within the Psalm 82 category of sons of the Most High who are called gods yet are mortal. He did not claim to be Elyon. He suffered mortality and died. God raised him and anointed him above his fellows. Paul calls this exalted position “Lord” and identifies it as the meaning of Christ. The Father remains uniquely God in the absolute pinnacle sense. Losing this layered understanding—whether by collapsing all divinity into one solitary category with no subordinate sons, or by elevating Jesus beyond the mortal-then-exalted framework he himself invoked—has generated centuries of theological tension. Recovering it may offer a way to return to the actual teachings of Jesus and Paul, and to address, on their own terms, the concerns that later developments attempted to resolve.

Rediscovering Jesus’ Original Teaching Through Psalm 82

 Here’s how AI words a concise, blog-friendly version of my previous post:

Rediscovering Jesus’ Original Teaching Through Psalm 82

When we look closely at the teaching of Jesus Christ in light of Psalm 82, a clear and often overlooked framework emerges—one that balances divine authority, human accountability, and spiritual purpose.

Psalm 82 describes God standing among a council of elohim, or “sons of the Most High,” beings appointed to exercise justice and care for the vulnerable. They are powerful yet accountable and mortal, subordinate to God. Jesus references this when he says in John 10:34–36: “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’?…do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” He positions himself within this framework—as a commissioned, sanctified agent of God, rather than claiming equality with the Most High.

How Later Traditions Shifted This Vision

Over time, interpretations evolved:

• Rabbinic Judaism, post-Temple, emphasized God’s uniqueness and reinterpreted Psalm 82’s “gods” as human judges.
• Christian theology increasingly elevated Jesus above the Psalm 82 category, portraying him as uniquely divine.
• Islam enforces strict monotheism, rejecting any divine sonship.

Each tradition preserved aspects of the original logic but also obscured the relational and functional framework Jesus and his earliest followers lived by.

Paul, Hebrews, and the Exalted Christ

The Pauline letters preserve the Psalm 82 logic: many agents exist, but there is “one God…the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ” (1 Corinthians 8:6). Hebrews builds on this, emphasizing:

• Jesus’ participation in human mortality
• His suffering and death
• His vindication and exaltation by God above angels and other agents

This layered perspective shows Jesus as the uniquely commissioned Son through whom God accomplishes redemption, while the Most High remains supreme.

Why This Matters Today

Understanding Jesus through this lens helps recover the nuanced balance he modeled: devotion to God, moral action, commissioned authority, and relational obedience. It also explains why later debates arose and why different traditions interpreted his identity differently.

For modern seekers, this approach offers a spiritually grounded path: honoring the one true God, following Jesus’ example as a sanctified agent, and living ethically and relationally in community. It’s a vision that bridges history, scripture, and contemporary spiritual life, offering a fresh perspective on an ancient teaching.

Some deep theology

 The teaching of Jesus, when carefully considered in the light of Psalm 82, presents a coherent framework of divine agency that is often overlooked or misunderstood in later theological developments. Psalm 82 declares, “God stands in the divine assembly; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: ‘How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked. They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. I said, ‘You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you; nevertheless, like mortals you shall die, and fall like any prince.’” This psalm presents a divine council framework in which there exists a class of beings called elohim, “sons of the Most High,” who are set apart by God to exercise judgment over humans. They are given authority and responsibility, yet they are accountable and mortal, subordinate to the Most High. Jesus invoked this category when he said, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?” (John 10:34–36). In this context, Jesus does not escalate his claim to equality with the Most High. Rather, he situates himself within a category that his audience recognized: a divinely appointed agent, a son of God, mortal, yet commissioned and sanctified by God.

Jesus’ self-identification is consistent with Second Temple Jewish understandings of divine agency. The beings called gods or sons of God in Psalm 82 were set apart to administer justice, rescue the needy, and act on God’s behalf. They were accountable and mortal, yet they bore a functional authority that set them apart from ordinary humans. In invoking this psalm, Jesus aligns himself with that existing framework, highlighting both his role as God’s appointed agent and his unique relationship with the Father. He does not claim to be Elyon, the Most High, but he implies primacy within the subordinate category, as the one whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world. In so doing, he deflects the accusation of blasphemy and demonstrates that calling oneself a Son of God was neither illegitimate nor unprecedented. The subsequent history of interpretation reorders and reframes this basic matrix in different directions: rabbinic post-Temple discourse, anxious to guard divine uniqueness after the catastrophe of 70 CE, tended to reassign Psalm 82’s “gods” to human judges or to metaphorical status and to treat any claim that risks dividing divine sovereignty as suspect; many strands of developing Christian theology, propelled by resurrection faith and liturgical worship, initially accelerated Jesus’ elevation to a uniquely worshiped Lord, but later he was apparently elevated by many Christians above that Psalm 82 category into a divinity category Jesus had tried to avoid; and then Islam later crystalized an emphatic unilateral rejection of any divine sonship, insisting on a strict tawḥīd that disavows Son language in ontological terms. All three—rabbinic consolidation, Christian exaltation, and Islamic uncompromising unity—interact with but can also obscure the original textured logic by which Jesus and his immediate interpreters could speak coherently about commissioned divine agency, mortality, and vindication.

The Pauline corpus preserves the Psalm 82 logic while giving it a christologically decisive turn: Paul acknowledges the existence, in some sense, of “many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’” (1 Corinthians 8:5), yet he insists that for Christians there is “one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist” (1 Corinthians 8:6). This maneuver preserves monotheism while allowing for a functional hierarchy in which Jesus, uniquely vindicated by God and exalted after his suffering and death, is the locus of redemptive authority and worship. His unique Lordship does not obliterate the category of subordinate divine agents but elevates him above them, establishing his identity as Christ—the one through whom God’s purposes for humanity are accomplished.

The Epistle to the Hebrews takes this logic and makes it the center of sustained theological reflection, insisting both on Jesus’ participation with the human family—he who shared flesh and blood, who was made “a little lower than the angels” as he suffered death—and on his vindication and exaltation by God, which raises him above angels and other heavenly agents and secures his unique role as the one through whom God brings many sons to glory. For clarity, the following passages are quoted in full. “Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity, therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands: They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment; And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail. But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?” This passage recognizes angelic beings as elohim and subordinate agents while emphasizing that the Son receives worship, a throne, and a name that exceeds theirs, vindicated by God himself.

“For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren, Saying, I will declare thy name unto my brethren, in the midst of the church will I sing praise unto thee. And again, I will put my trust in him. And again, Behold I and the children which God hath given me. Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Wherefore in all things it behooved him to be made like unto his brethren, that he might be a merciful and faithful high priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. For in that he himself hath suffered being tempted, he is able to succour them that are tempted.” These passages synthesize Jesus’ mortality, solidarity with humans, and ultimate exaltation: he is a mortal Elohim, lower than angels at first, who experiences death, is vindicated by God, and raised to a status above all other agents, yet remains subordinate to the Most High. Hebrews makes explicit that the resurrection and exaltation confirm his Lordship and mediatorial role, situating him as the Christ in the sense Paul articulates: the uniquely anointed agent who brings many sons to glory while Elyon remains supreme.

Taken together, the Johannine, Pauline, and Hebraic texts articulate a resolution of Psalm 82’s potential tension with monotheism. Jesus participates in the mortal condition of subordinate divine agents, shares flesh and blood with humanity, and suffers death. God raises him, vindicating his unique Lordship and anointing him above angels and other elohim. The Christ, as Paul defines him, is the one through whom God’s purposes are accomplished, the one rightly worshiped, the one whose resurrection-based exaltation places him above all others without collapsing the Father into the Son. Losing this nuance—whether through rabbinic reinterpretation, post-Temple Christian overextension, or later Islamic emphases on absolute unity—explains centuries of debate about Jesus’ divinity, worship, and relation to the Most High. Recovering the multi-level framework of Psalm 82 agency, mortality, resurrection vindication, and exalted Christology provides a coherent historical and theological foundation for understanding Jesus’ teaching and Paul’s development, offering a path to precise and ethically grounded reflection that avoids the extremes and confusions of later doctrinal disputes.

Worded by AI and Stephen D Green, prompted by Stephen D Green 

Jonahs

 Jesus is not the Father, but today we have a kind of Jonah situation where the prophetically gifted take refuge in erroneous denominational doctrines like Oneness and Trinity, and are afraid to accept the leadings of the Holy Spirit into actual truth. Jesus taught clear teachings about the relationship he and the Father have: He the obedient Son who can be called a god, and the Father as both his true father and his true God. The Holy Spirit teaches this because the Holy Spirit takes truth given by God to Jesus, and makes it known to true disciples of Jesus. Yet denominations full of such disciples are running away from the Holy Spirit’s veracity to lead into truth. One day the wars waged around them might cause the world’s leaders to put pressure on these Jonah-like believers to return to their prophetic duties of adherence to the faith and the truth found in Jesus. 

The doorway

 Jesus is not the Father, but is a window to the Father, because the works the Father does in Jesus are a revelation of the Father. Blindness of the spirit can cloud this, but if the cloud lifts, and the spirit sees, it can see beyond the miracles done by Jesus a doorway beyond which God Himself is seen—the God who is the Father. 

Believing in Jesus

 What constitutes believing in the person Jesus? It is belief in him as the light sent by God the Father as light for all the world. It is belief in him as a doorway through which to find God the Father. It is belief in him as singularly this person. It includes belief he lives now, raised from the dead by God to live forever. It is belief in him as the one who has come into the world as the Christ sent by God. It is belief that he is with God as the Son of God. This is not a mental consent to a series of tenets. It is genuine belief in him as this one, and as providing all this. Yet even this is only the beginning of finding his liberation of one’s life from enslaving moral failings. For that liberation, Jesus said to hold to his teachings as one’s personal teacher (see John 8 ). That leads to becoming a true disciple of this Jesus, in whom one believes. He brings his light from God both in miracles God gives him to do, and gives him to enable his disciples to do, but also in his teachings. So to benefit from his light, to be set free by it, it is vital to receive the teachings and sayings he has taught. He can even teach such light-giving things today, and the Holy Spirit teaches them too, in the Lord Jesus Christ’s name. One can believe in him and go on to receive teachings from him, as well as learning his teachings from scriptures. In addition there are things the Holy Spirit passes on from Jesus. It all needs embracing by the one who believes in Jesus. This is discipleship. It leads to eternal life. 

A new way that is the old Way

 “👉 Is there room today for a form of faith centered on the original teaching of Jesus Christ that stands distinct from later doctrinal systems?” — AI

I am finding out where the original faith brought in the coming of the Christ fits with all this. Jesus taught the Father is his Father, and the Father is the one true God, and he, Jesus, submits to the Father and will do so forever, but he, Jesus is a god in the sense of Psalm 82, many gods as sons of the one true God. So I am seeking understanding of whether there is now place for that original teaching of Jesus and the faith he introduced, as a kind of niche between the strict monotheistic views of Islam on one hand, Christian Trinitarianism on the other, and also post Temple rabbinical Judaism as the third form of strict monotheism, which are three apparently opposing views to this original belief and teaching of Jesus. 

It is a path to be shared and a body to be built. Not academic theory but a living way: A community to be built around the teachings of Jesus.

Here is how AI puts it.

Rediscovering the Original Path of Jesus: A Living Spiritual Community for Today

Across history, many people of faith have asked a quiet but profound question: Is it possible to live according to the original spiritual vision taught by Jesus Christ—a path centered on devotion to the one God as Father, spiritual transformation, and ethical living—while standing thoughtfully between established religious traditions?

For many modern seekers, this question is not merely historical or theological. It is deeply practical. It asks whether the earliest message associated with Jesus can form a living spiritual path and community in today’s world.

The Search for the Earliest Spiritual Vision

When people study the teachings of Jesus in the Bible, they often encounter a message that is both simple and radical. At its heart are several recurring themes:

• Devotion to the one God as Father and ultimate source of life
• A call to moral and spiritual transformation
• The announcement of the Kingdom of God as a present and future reality
• The invitation for human beings to live as children of God
• A model of faithful obedience and loving relationship with God

For some readers, these themes feel deeply compelling and spiritually accessible. Yet they also notice that later religious traditions developed detailed doctrinal systems that sometimes shift the focus away from these relational and ethical foundations.

Standing Between Established Traditions

Today, three major religious traditions each present strong and coherent forms of monotheism, but they approach the identity and role of Jesus differently.

Classical Christianity emphasizes the Trinity and sees Jesus as sharing fully in the divine nature. Rabbinical Judaism maintains strict monotheism and does not accept Jesus as Messiah or divine agent. Islam affirms absolute divine unity and honors Jesus as a prophet and Messiah, while rejecting divine sonship.

For some seekers, these traditions each contain profound truth and spiritual depth, yet they may still feel drawn to exploring a form of faith that emphasizes what they perceive as Jesus’ original relational and ethical teaching about God.

A Living Spiritual Path Rather Than a New Institution

A community centered on the earliest teachings associated with Jesus often functions less like a formal denomination and more like a shared spiritual orientation. Such a path typically focuses on lived practice rather than complex doctrinal systems.

At its core, this path tends to emphasize:

Devotion to God as Father

This involves cultivating a direct and trusting relationship with God as the ultimate source of life, moral authority, and love.

Sonship as Spiritual Growth

Jesus is often understood as the model of perfect alignment with God’s will. Followers seek to grow into that same relational life with God through humility, obedience, and transformation of character.

The Kingdom of God as a Way of Life

Faith is expressed through mercy, justice, forgiveness, and love. Spirituality becomes something practiced daily rather than confined to ritual or institution.

Community as Sacred Space

Instead of centering faith primarily on religious buildings or structures, the community itself becomes a living expression of spiritual growth and shared devotion.

How Communities Around This Vision Often Form

Throughout history, movements seeking to recover early spiritual teachings rarely begin as large institutions. Instead, they tend to grow organically through relationships and shared spiritual practices.

Common starting points include:

• Small discussion or prayer gatherings in homes
• Shared study of Jesus’ teachings with an emphasis on practical application
• Communal meals and hospitality
• Service work that expresses compassion and moral responsibility
• Open dialogue that welcomes spiritual seekers from diverse backgrounds

Such communities often prioritize sincerity, humility, and shared exploration over claims of exclusive truth.

Strengths of This Spiritual Approach

Communities built around this vision often develop strong relational bonds and a deep commitment to moral and spiritual growth. Many participants experience a sense of direct connection to God, simplicity in worship, and meaningful shared life.

This approach can also create welcoming spaces for people who admire Jesus’ teachings but feel disconnected from institutional religious structures.

Challenges Along the Journey

This kind of spiritual community also faces real challenges. Without formal doctrine, members may hold different understandings about the nature of Jesus or the mechanics of salvation. Maintaining unity requires humility and patience.

Additionally, communities without institutional structure sometimes struggle with long-term stability or generational continuity. Balancing openness with shared identity becomes an ongoing task.

Beginning Small, Growing Naturally

Historically, most enduring spiritual movements have begun with small groups of people who gather to pray, reflect, and support one another in living out shared convictions. Over time, practices, traditions, and structures emerge naturally if the community continues to grow and deepen.

The simplest beginning often involves inviting a small circle of spiritually curious individuals to explore Jesus’ teachings together, focusing on personal transformation and relational faith rather than theological debate.

A Vision Rooted in Relationship

At its heart, this path shifts the focus of religion away from arguing which theological system is correct and toward a more personal and transformative question:

How can human beings learn to live as true children of God, following the example of Jesus?

For many, this vision offers a spiritually rich and meaningful way to engage faith in the modern world—one grounded in devotion, ethical living, and shared spiritual journey.

An Invitation to Exploration

The rediscovery of early spiritual teachings is not about rejecting established traditions, but about exploring how timeless principles of devotion, transformation, and community might be lived authentically today.

For those drawn to this path, the journey often begins quietly, in conversation, prayer, study, and shared life. Over time, these small seeds can grow into communities that embody a deeply relational and transformative spirituality.

Such communities remind us that spiritual renewal often begins not with institutions, but with people seeking together to live faithfully, humbly, and wholeheartedly in relationship with God and one another.