The Problem With The Trinity

[gadar perets]

the point makes itself gadar, if i have to tell you the point then there is no point, and that was just for someone else i guess ok

You certainly make my day a little more surreal as per your avatar!

 

[stunnedbygrace]

So why can't Christians keep even the minimum standards? Why do they teach that those minimum standards no longer apply?


By "Ancient Israeli civil code", do you mean Torah? By "contemporary code", do you mean the Talmud?


What is your point about 1 Samuel 8?

So why can't Christians keep even the minimum standards? Why do they teach that those minimum standards no longer apply?


By "Ancient Israeli civil code", do you mean Torah? By "contemporary code", do you mean the Talmud?


What is your point about 1 Samuel 8?

Its not so much that minimum standards do not apply. It's the deception a man falls under if he thinks minimum standards are some sort of holiness. The minimum standard of the command to not kill is to not bludgeon anyone to death. That is to look at the command humanly and by the letter. And a man (or at least 98% of them) will say he has always kept that commandment.

But if he has anger in his heart without cause (and the without cause part encompasses more than we think at first glance, which is another discussion), our Lord says he has ALREADY murdered. Which shows that the man was defiled even before he bludgeoned anyone, and more, even if he NEVER bludgeons anyone, he has still been defiled by what came out of his heart.

In this way, we see that it is true that what defiles a man is not about what he puts in his body but rather what defiles a man is what comes from within him. So should a man say he has always kept the bear minimum standard of the command to not murder? Or should he beat his breast and say, Lord, have mercy on me, a murderer!

 

[bbyrd009]

You force Yeshua to teach those men to sin since those laws were supposedly not abolished until the cross when he fictitiously nailed them to it.

so i am somehow forcing Joshua to do stuff, but you cannot see the point of 1 Samuel 8?
ok

You certainly make my day a little more surreal as per your avatar!

the meme is an illustration of your opinion gadar, not mine, i mean we can both read v18 all by ourselves i guess, but somehow you are reading "dirty hands" in there and i am reading "whatever goes into a man from outside cannot defile him."

So i would say put your interp to the test, and if it passes your test keep it, i have no objections

 

[gadar perets]

that is your opinion, but opinions obviously differ here gadar--although how i'm not quite clear, but really idc if you want to find "dirty hands" in here, fine with me; i read "whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him,"

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
​

Were they transgressing by eating unclean meat or by eating clean food (bread) with dirty hands?

Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
​

"But" sums up the opposite of what Yeshua was teaching. What comes out of the mouth defiles, BUT what goes in after eating with dirty hands does not defile.

and i am not forcing anyone to do anything, see; in fact it is you who say that it is we who have to avoid certain foods or be judged, right

I do not force anyone to do anything either. I educate in the ways of YHWH as the Holy Spirit leads me. The choice is yours to obey or not.

 

[bbyrd009]

Mat 15:2 Why do thy disciples transgress the tradition of the elders? for they wash not their hands when they eat bread.
Were they transgressing by eating unclean meat or by eating clean food (bread) with dirty hands?

Mat 15:20 These are the things which defile a man: but to eat with unwashen hands defileth not a man.
"But" sums up the opposite of what Yeshua was teaching. What comes out of the mouth defiles, BUT what goes in after eating with dirty hands does not defile.

diff passage and obv diff subject gadar
gotta run for now have a nice Sabbath

 

[gadar perets]

diff passage and obv diff subject gadar
gotta run for now have a nice Sabbath

Same subject. It is a parallel passage in which Matthew gives us a little more detail/context about Yeshua's words. The more details, the better we can understand Yeshua's intent. Shabbat Shalom!

 

[justbyfaith]

Does it really? Why is it that the word "nomikos" was used 9 times in the NT and only once translated "law" in this verse? The other 8 times it was translated "lawyer". "Nomos" is the Greek word translated "law" throughout the NT. Why is it that the word "nomikos" is plural, but the KJV translates it "the law"? Why does the KJV add "the" when it is not found in the Greek? Could it be because anti-nomian Christian translators don't want believers to discuss the law. You fell for their bogus translation just like many others have.

I offer the following translation;

Titus 3:9 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings of lawyers; for they are unprofitable and vain.
​

Paul was referring to the Jewish lawyers who would argue over the most minuscule points of the law and add in their own man made laws which are compiled in the Talmud. He was not saying serious discussion of the law in order to know the will of the law giver is forbidden.

Obviously we must all be able to fluently speak and read the Greek language to be able to get the real message of the Bible.

Your contention that the Bible that I read in English is not the word of God is frankly repulsive to me. The Bible teaches that arguments over words are to the subverting of the hearers (1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:14); so I am not going to go there. If you want to keep arguing over strivings about the law, then be my guest. I will have no part of it. Go ahead and excuse yourself on the day of judgment saying that you did not believe that scripture and had to look up the Greek so that you could find an alternate meaning (by striving with God over the word that the translators used); and that when you did, it told you not to obey what you originally had read to be the truth. What will you say to God when your prosecuting attorney accuses you of having had itching ears?

It is a cult mentality that believes every person who says that what we read in English isn't accurate and that they are the ones to tell you what it really says. As if the translators of the kjv didn't take great care in the fear of the LORD to make sure the translation would be as accurate as was humanly possible. And as if the LORD didn't take up the slack by making sure the translation would be every jot and tittle according to His will!

 

[Jun2u]

@gadar perets, @Ajak, and to those who do not believe in the Trinity.

Time and again I have said people and most Christians do not know how to read nor understand the Bible. They critique and read Scripture literally like it is an ordinary book instead of a spiritual book. So they make all kinds of false assumptions.

God has given us rules by which we might understand the deeper meaning of difficult verses.

1) ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
2) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).
3) God spoke in parables and without a parable, he did not speak unto them so that seeing they may see and not perceive: and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins forgiven them (Mark 4:34, 12). A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning.

Armed and equipped with the knowledge above let us begin.

Genesis 11 reads: “Behold the people is one.” and the Hebrew word “one” here is “echad” as over in Deuteronomy 6:4 is “one.” Now people refer to a plural number but the predicate, the “is” is singular and the “one” “echad” is speaking of the oneness of the plurality, in other words, there is a unity among the people that binds them together as one people. Therefore we discover that the plural is spoken of is being actually a unity or singular

Now, this same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 2:24 is a beautiful illustration here where “echad” is used and translated as “one.” “The two shall becone flesh.” Now the two (plural) shall be (plural) one (singular) flesh. Obviously, the word of God does not mean when a man knows his wife that there shall be after only one body and one personality, and no longer two people. No, the idea is the plurality of persons shall continue to exist as a separate and distinct personality, but they will share a oneness that results from their intimate knowledge of one another.

It is quite clear that the favorite text of the Unitarian is a powerful statement to the fact that God exists as a plurality of persons Elohim in one compound unity of the Godhead known as Jehovah.

We might also observe here that there is a technical term for “one only “or “one alone” and that’s “yahid.” But that’s not the term used in Deuteronomy 6:4 or these other passages noted where it speaks of a unity or a plurality of the fact that God who subsists in three persons is one God.

Now God should not be thought of as separate individuals in the sense of Peter, James, and John because Peter, James, and John are not one. They are lacking in absolute unity. There is disagreement among them. There is the difference as to gifts and capabilities, and quality of brains and so forth. They are not equal, they are not one in unity and substance, in essence, and purpose, and so on, as God is indeed one.

But perhaps the most dramatic declaration of the Trinity lies in the manner in which the Scriptures declares that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ALIKE raised Jesus from among the dead!

By the way, I gave these Scripture references to both @gadar and @APAK in other threads also but not one of them responded, I wonder why? But here it is again...try and refute them.

In Acts 13:30 as well as Romans 6:4, is plainly stated that God the Father resurrected our dear Savior. Christ was raised from among the dead by the glory of the Father, we read. Yet in John 2:19; 10:17,19, we’re specifically taught that the Son raised Himself from among the dead. For it is said, Jesus answered them, ‘destroy the temple and in three days I will raise it up again,’ and He spoke of the temple of His body and He said: I will raise it up.

And again Christ said: ”Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man takes my life from me, I lay it down by myself, I have the power to lay it down, I have the power to take it up again.”

Yet the apostle Paul and Peter insist that the Savior was resurrected from among the dead by God the Holy Spirit. “Christ has once suffered for sins to be put to death by the flesh made alive by the Holy Spirit.” How marvelous is the clarity of the testimony of the word of God? Jehovah is indeed ONE, as perfect unity in essence and substance yet He is three as to persons.

Let us also not forget Genesis 1:1 and 1:26.

The Bible teaches indeed that the Father is God. It teaches indeed that the Son is God. It teaches indeed that the Holy Spirit is God. Three persons, distinct, and separate. And yet in the same breath that declares this God who exists in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist as ONE GOD, ONE JEHOVAH for all of eternity!

To God Be The Glory

 

[APAK]

@gadar perets, @Ajak, and to those who do not believe in the Trinity.

Time and again I have said people and most Christians do not know how to read nor understand the Bible. They critique and read Scripture literally like it is an ordinary book instead of a spiritual book. So they make all kinds of false assumptions.

God has given us rules by which we might understand the deeper meaning of difficult verses.

1) ALL scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. (2 Timothy 3:16-17).
2) But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned (1 Corinthians 2:14).
3) God spoke in parables and without a parable, he did not speak unto them so that seeing they may see and not perceive: and hearing they may hear, and not understand: lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins forgiven them (Mark 4:34, 12). A parable is an earthly story with a heavenly/spiritual meaning.

Armed and equipped with the knowledge above let us begin.

Genesis 11 reads: “Behold the people is one.” and the Hebrew word “one” here is “echad” as over in Deuteronomy 6:4 is “one.” Now people refer to a plural number but the predicate, the “is” is singular and the “one” “echad” is speaking of the oneness of the plurality, in other words, there is a unity among the people that binds them together as one people. Therefore we discover that the plural is spoken of is being actually a unity or singular

Now, this same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 2:24 is a beautiful illustration here where “echad” is used and translated as “one.” “The two shall becone flesh.” Now the two (plural) shall be (plural) one (singular) flesh. Obviously, the word of God does not mean when a man knows his wife that there shall be after only one body and one personality, and no longer two people. No, the idea is the plurality of persons shall continue to exist as a separate and distinct personality, but they will share a oneness that results from their intimate knowledge of one another.

It is quite clear that the favorite text of the Unitarian is a powerful statement to the fact that God exists as a plurality of persons Elohim in one compound unity of the Godhead known as Jehovah.

We might also observe here that there is a technical term for “one only “or “one alone” and that’s “yahid.” But that’s not the term used in Deuteronomy 6:4 or these other passages noted where it speaks of a unity or a plurality of the fact that God who subsists in three persons is one God.

Now God should not be thought of as separate individuals in the sense of Peter, James, and John because Peter, James, and John are not one. They are lacking in absolute unity. There is disagreement among them. There is the difference as to gifts and capabilities, and quality of brains and so forth. They are not equal, they are not one in unity and substance, in essence, and purpose, and so on, as God is indeed one.

But perhaps the most dramatic declaration of the Trinity lies in the manner in which the Scriptures declares that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ALIKE raised Jesus from among the dead!

By the way, I gave these Scripture references to both @gadar and @APAK in other threads also but not one of them responded, I wonder why? But here it is again...try and refute them.

In Acts 13:30 as well as Romans 6:4, is plainly stated that God the Father resurrected our dear Savior. Christ was raised from among the dead by the glory of the Father, we read. Yet in John 2:19; 10:17,19, we’re specifically taught that the Son raised Himself from among the dead. For it is said, Jesus answered them, ‘destroy the temple and in three days I will raise it up again,’ and He spoke of the temple of His body and He said: I will raise it up.

And again Christ said: ”Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man takes my life from me, I lay it down by myself, I have the power to lay it down, I have the power to take it up again.”

Yet the apostle Paul and Peter insist that the Savior was resurrected from among the dead by God the Holy Spirit. “Christ has once suffered for sins to be put to death by the flesh made alive by the Holy Spirit.” How marvelous is the clarity of the testimony of the word of God? Jehovah is indeed ONE, as perfect unity in essence and substance yet He is three as to persons.

Let us also not forget Genesis 1:1 and 1:26.

The Bible teaches indeed that the Father is God. It teaches indeed that the Son is God. It teaches indeed that the Holy Spirit is God. Three persons, distinct, and separate. And yet in the same breath that declares this God who exists in three persons Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist as ONE GOD, ONE JEHOVAH for all of eternity!

To God Be The Glory

I see why either GP or I, if true, never responded to some of your scriptures you posed to us in the past.

Just reading this post says it all. Why would one bother. They may even laugh. It is a bunch of twisted illogical nonsense where I see even new dribble presented I’ve never seen before. It is awful. You do no service for yourself or others that support your cause.

Your understanding of scripture is as much as I knew when I was 15 years old, and that was not much.

Anyway, I enjoy reading your posts as you keep ‘digging deeper and deeper holes’ for them.


So, you are the new voice of Trinity? Good luck mate. Trinitarians are cringing, and I amazed at the level of pride, self-piety and recklessness with regard to your use of scripture.

I pray for you mate. You say you are believer, aye.

APAK

 

[gadar perets]

Obviously we must all be able to fluently speak and read the Greek language to be able to get the real message of the Bible.

Your contention that the Bible that I read in English is not the word of God is frankly repulsive to me. The Bible teaches that arguments over words are to the subverting of the hearers (1 Timothy 6:4, 2 Timothy 2:14); so I am not going to go there. If you want to keep arguing over strivings about the law, then be my guest. I will have no part of it. Go ahead and excuse yourself on the day of judgment saying that you did not believe that scripture and had to look up the Greek so that you could find an alternate meaning (by striving with God over the word that the translators used); and that when you did, it told you not to obey what you originally had read to be the truth. What will you say to God when your prosecuting attorney accuses you of having had itching ears?

It is a cult mentality that believes every person who says that what we read in English isn't accurate and that they are the ones to tell you what it really says. As if the translators of the kjv didn't take great care in the fear of the LORD to make sure the translation would be as accurate as was humanly possible. And as if the LORD didn't take up the slack by making sure the translation would be every jot and tittle according to His will!

Since you could not refute my critique of that verse, I guess you chose the next best course of action; hold fast to the KJV and accuse me of subversion and other evils. Grow up jbf and learn how to study the Bible. One does not need to fluently speak and read Greek to pick up a concordance and lexicon to see if the translators got it right. The reason we have many differing translations is because other translators knew the KJV translators blew it on certain verses. How do you know YHWH didn't raise them up to make those corrections? Also, are you saying Tyndale's Bible which preceded the KJV and which much of the KJV is founded upon was not protected by YHWH? If it was, then how could the KJV translators change what Tyndale wrote?

 

[gadar perets]

Genesis 11 reads: “Behold the people is one.” and the Hebrew word “one” here is “echad” as over in Deuteronomy 6:4 is “one.” Now people refer to a plural number but the predicate, the “is” is singular and the “one” “echad” is speaking of the oneness of the plurality, in other words, [U]there is a unity among the people that binds them together as one people[/U]. Therefore we discover that the plural is spoken of is being actually a unity or singular

Now, this same Hebrew word is also used in Genesis 2:24 is a beautiful illustration here where “echad” is used and translated as “one.” “The two shall becone flesh.” Now the two ([B]plural[/B]) shall be ([B]plural[/B]) one ([B]singular[/B]) flesh. Obviously, the word of God does not mean when a man knows his wife that there shall be after only one body and one personality, and no longer two people. No, the idea is the plurality of persons shall continue to exist as a separate and distinct personality, [U]but they will share a oneness that results from their intimate knowledge of one another.[/U]

It is quite clear that the favorite text of the Unitarian is a powerful statement to the fact that God exists as a plurality of persons Elohim in one compound unity of the Godhead known as Jehovah.

We might also observe here that there is a technical term for “[U]one only[/U] “or “[U]one alone[/U]” and that’s “[U]yahid[/U].” But that’s not the term used in Deuteronomy 6:4 or these other passages noted where it speaks of a unity or a plurality of the fact that God who subsists in three persons is one God.

Now God should not be thought of as separate individuals in the sense of Peter, James, and John because Peter, James, and John are not one. They are lacking in absolute unity. There is disagreement among them. There is the difference as to gifts and capabilities, and quality of brains and so forth. They are not equal, they are not one in unity and substance, in essence, and purpose, and so on, [U]as God is indeed one[/U].

Concerning the "Shema" ([URL='http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Deut.6.4']Deuteronomy 6:4[/URL]) it reads, "Hear, O Israel: YHWH our Mighty One is one YHWH:" or "YHWH is one." It is believed by many that the word "echad," translated "one," means "a united one" or a "compound unity," not singularity. The scriptures prove this belief to be false. Note [URL='http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Nu.7.13-82']Numbers 7:13-82[/URL] where "echad" is translated "one" 84 times and each time it means one as in the number one, singularity. Consider also [URL='http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Gen.2.1']Genesis 2:1[/URL] - one rib and [URL='http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Dan.9.27']Daniel 9:27[/URL] - one week.

Perhaps the most conclusive evidence that the word echad has the meaning of alone or unique comes to us from the Messiah himself in [URL='http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Mk.12.28-34']Mark 12:28-34[/URL]. When asked which commandment was the most important, Yeshua responded by quoting the Shema. In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one. Yeshua acknowledged that the teacher answered wisely thereby confirming the teacher's correct understanding of the meaning of the Shema.

It is true that echad was used in verses such as [URL='http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ge.2.24']Genesis 2:24[/URL] and [URL='http://biblia.com/bible/kjv1900/Ge.41.25']Genesis 11:6[/URL]. There we see two people becoming one flesh and a group of people referred to as one. The key here is that two become one or many become one (not one in number, but one in unity). In the Shema, we only see one individual, YHWH, proclaimed to be one! It doesn't say, "And the two YHWH's became one." Nor does it say two or three became one YHWH. In the two verses in Genesis, we don't see one becoming two or one becoming many. But that is what people are trying to do with the Shema. They say one means two and therefore, there must be two YHWH's or a trinity of persons being YHWH. Nonsense.

[QUOTE]But perhaps the most dramatic declaration of the Trinity lies in the manner in which the Scriptures declares that God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit ALIKE raised Jesus from among the dead!

By the way, I gave these Scripture references to both @gadar and [USER=7755]@APAK in other threads also but not one of them responded, I wonder why? But here it is again...try and refute them.

In Acts 13:30 as well as Romans 6:4, is plainly stated that God the Father resurrected our dear Savior. Christ was raised from among the dead by the glory of the Father, we read. Yet in John 2:19; 10:17,19, we’re specifically taught that the Son raised Himself from among the dead. For it is said, Jesus answered them, ‘destroy the temple and in three days I will raise it up again,’ and He spoke of the temple of His body and He said: I will raise it up.

And again Christ said: ”Therefore doth my Father love me because I lay down my life that I might take it again. No man takes my life from me, I lay it down by myself, I have the power to lay it down, I have the power to take it up again.”

Yet the apostle Paul and Peter insist that the Savior was resurrected from among the dead by God the Holy Spirit. “Christ has once suffered for sins to be put to death by the flesh made alive by the Holy Spirit.” How marvelous is the clarity of the testimony of the word of God? Jehovah is indeed ONE, as perfect unity in essence and substance yet He is three as to persons.[/QUOTE]
Please cite the thread and post# in which you presented these verses to me.[/user]

 

[justbyfaith]

By these four verses we learn (among other things) 1) That YHWH is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob 2) that YHWH is the great I AM 3) that Yeshua is the Son of that same God, the Son of YHWH, the Son of the great I AM 3) that that same God did not become the Son 4) that Yeshua is not YHWH and 5) that Yeshua is NOT the great I AM.

That Jesus is the Son that was given means that He is indeed YHWH, Isaiah 9:6.

 

[justbyfaith]

Just reading this post says it all. Why would one bother. They may even laugh. It is a bunch of twisted illogical nonsense where I see even new dribble presented I’ve never seen before. It is awful.

Apparently you are not thinking of what it says in 1 Corinthians 1:18 and 1 Corinthians 2:14.

Since you could not refute my critique of that verse, I guess you chose the next best course of action; hold fast to the KJV and accuse me of subversion and other evils. Grow up jbf and learn how to study the Bible. One does not need to fluently speak and read Greek to pick up a concordance and lexicon to see if the translators got it right. The reason we have many differing translations is because other translators knew the KJV translators blew it on certain verses. How do you know YHWH didn't raise them up to make those corrections? Also, are you saying Tyndale's Bible which preceded the KJV and which much of the KJV is founded upon was not protected by YHWH? If it was, then how could the KJV translators change what Tyndale wrote?

If I had access to a Tyndale Bible, I would revere it above the kjv! Tyndale was burned at the stake for his translation; and that says something about how much the devil hated what he did. The devil has also succeeded at keeping the Tyndale version out of our hands. There is a famine of God's words today. The kjv is the best we have, impaho. Other translations are watered down, and anyone will see that if they simply look and compare them for any length of time!

 

[justbyfaith]

Also, I thought you were a stickler for the law, @gadar perets! Why aren't you observing the sabbath today?

 

[justbyfaith]

and Daniel 9:27 - one week.

Is not one week a compound unity of seven days?

In response to his answer the teacher replied, "You are right in saying that God is one and there is no other but Him." Although Yeshua did not specifically say "there is no other but Him" the teacher understood that meaning to be implied in the word echad or one.

If I recall, in context, in that passage it says that the Lord our God is one Lord. Now you have a problem. If Jesus isn't our Father YHWH, then there are two Lords, count them, two: 1) Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2) 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6.

But the Bible teaches that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5). You have a problem theologically.

 

[gadar perets]

If I had access to a Tyndale Bible, I would revere it above the kjv! Tyndale was burned at the stake for his translation; and that says something about how much the devil hated what he did. The devil has also succeeded at keeping the Tyndale version out of our hands. There is a famine of God's words today. The kjv is the best we have, impaho. Other translations are watered down, and anyone will see that if they simply look and compare them for any length of time!

Here is Tyndale's translation of John 1:1-4;

John 1:1 In the beginnynge was the worde and the worde was with God: and the worde was God.
John 1:2 The same was in the beginnynge with God.
John 1:3 All thinges were made by it and with out it was made nothinge that was made.
John 1:4 In it was lyfe and the lyfe was ye lyght of men
​

Still revere it? The KJV changed "it" to "him" in three places. Which Bible is the truly preserved Word of God?

BTW, Tyndale's Bible is available on eSword. You can also access it online here.

 

[gadar perets]

Also, I thought you were a stickler for the law, @gadar perets! Why aren't you observing the sabbath today?

I observed it as required. If you are questioning my use of a computer on Sabbath, spiritual work is permissible. Secular work is not.

 

[gadar perets]

If I recall, in context, in that passage it says that the Lord our God is one Lord. Now you have a problem. If Jesus isn't our Father YHWH, then there are two Lords, count them, two: 1) Matthew 11:25, Luke 10:21, 2) 1 Corinthians 12:3, 1 Corinthians 8:6.

But the Bible teaches that there is one Lord (Ephesians 4:5). You have a problem theologically.

We have been through this ad nauseam. It is you that has a problem interpreting those verses.

 

[gadar perets]

That Jesus is the Son that was given means that He is indeed YHWH, Isaiah 9:6.

This makes no sense. YHWH gives us a Son which means the Son is YHWH???? That's almost as bad as 1+1+1=1

 

[brakelite]

This makes no sense. YHWH gives us a Son which means the Son is YHWH???? That's almost as bad as 1+1+1=1

If my father, a man, begets a son, then he, the son, me, also is a man. Like father like son. If God begets a Son, then the Son must also be God. The Jews knew what the implications were when Jesus claimed God as his Father. They thought it blasphemy, which is why they wanted to some him. Jesus was claiming Sonship in the highest sense of the word.