Tnank you paulchen for your thoughtful and eirenic comments. They probably need more attention than I have been able to give them so far.

I agree that when we look back from at least a 3rd or 4th century onwards point of view, we begin to apply frameworks for discussion about the nature of Jesus which were not the ones used in the 1st century. Nevertheless, that does not invalidate them.

From a 1st century point of view, which I take to be largely the developed Jewish point of view as seen in people like Paul, there is, to my mind, overwhelming evidence for a Jesus who was part of the godhead. It’s just that the nature of the discussion is different from post-1st century definitions.

In the 1st century, the issue seemed to be not so much definition of God’s nature, but how God fulfilled his purposes, and how this made an impact on the world. It was the direction of the argument which was all important. Within that direction, Jesus was being described through the symbols of the language of Judaism, which were the same symbols and language that had previously been used of YHWH. I would point again to the passages which have already been used on this thread - such as John 8; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Philippians 2:6-11; Colossians 1:15-20, and also to evidence within the gospels themselves - other than John 8.

I would also point out that Theocrat has already conceded a great deal about Jesus which to my mind puts him on the road to divinity: he was pre-existent; he created, if not heavens and earth, things in heaven and earth; he was sinless; he was worshipped.

The references in Hebrews 1 simply set out the position for a divine Jesus; the subsequent chapters are pursuing in detail the ministry of Jesus.

Even in the NT there is an incipient trinitarianism in some of the formulations - eg Matthew 28:19, 1 Corinthians 12:4-6, 2 Corinthians 13:14, Ephesians 4:4-6, 1 Peter 1:2.

But there are greater reasons for holding to a divine role of Jesus, whether we adopt the earlier Jewish approach or the later Greek trinitarian formulations.

Without a divine Jesus, there can be no outpouring of the divine Spirit on the day of Pentecost, and no people of God experiencing what is basic to the new covenant: the universal and continuous indwelling life of the Spirit. A mere man elevated to the heavens has no authority to dispense this divine gift.

And back-tracking from this: without a divine Jesus, the significance of the crucifixion is lost. We are left with an angry God seeking retribution, and taking it out on an innocent person. (Except, as Paul makes clear in Romans, there are no innocent people born of Adam).

Much as your intervention is attractive, it won’t work without undercutting issues basic to the Christian faith.

This does not mean that Theocrat and I cannot respect each other, and listen to each other’s viewpoint. I have to say that Theocrat comes across as a highly gracious and courteous person, and his scholarship is in a league beyond mine. There is a refreshing humility in his approach. It has already been a pleasure to spend time in his company - more of a pleasure than with some people who hold the same views as myself. I sometimes wonder if the difference between us more one of the use of words than reality, but I haven’t got to that point yet.