Are There Really Two Members of Trinity Mentioned at Genesis 19:24?

"Then the LORD rained down upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." - KJV.

This trinitarian 'proof'-text seems too ridiculous to even bother with, but some trinitarians appear to be serious about it.  It goes this way: when we read Gen. 19:24, we find there are two different persons who have the only personal name of God, "Jehovah," (or "LORD" in some mistranslations).  Therefore these two different persons with God's personal name show the "plural personality" of that one God.

       
Even if we assume this to be a correct translation, it seems obvious that it can be honestly interpreted as a simple repetition of the same person's name.  That is, the very same person who produced the brimstone and fire, Jehovah, is also the one who rained it down upon these cities.

       
The explanatory note by trinitarian Dr. Young in Young's Concise Critical Bible Commentary, Baker Book House, for this verse states: "JEHOVAH...JEHOVAH, i.e. from Himself."

       
If that is the correct explanation, then this scripture might provide a somewhat parallel example: "And King Solomon gave to the Queen of Sheba all that she desired, whatever she asked besides what was given her by the bounty of King Solomon." - 1 Kings 10:13, RSV.  (Cf. KJV.)  Even though this is a very literal translation of the original manuscripts and the one personal name of King Solomon is actually used twice, we surely don't believe there were two different persons making up the one King Solomon!  Wouldn't we interpret this as Dr. Young (and others) have done with "Jehovah" above?   That is obviously how the Living Bible, NIV, MLB, NASB, etc. have interpreted it.   ("King Solomon gave her everything she asked him for, besides the presents he had already planned." - LB.)

       
Another honest explanation for Gen. 19:24 given by trinitarian scholars themselves is that the use of the phrase in question ("from the LORD out of heaven") is in doubt.  The very trinitarian New American Bible, 1970 ed. (Catholic) encloses the last part of Gen. 19:24 in brackets: "the LORD rained down sulphurous fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah [from the LORD out of heaven]."  And the preface to the NAB tells us: "Doubtful readings ... appear within brackets." - p. 45, St. Joseph Edition.

       
That is why these trinitarian Bible translations have actually omitted that doubtful portion: NEB, REB, AT, Mo, LB, and GNB.  (E.g. "then the LORD rained down fire and brimstone from the skies on Sodom and Gomorrah." - New English Bible.)  And others, like the NJB, have rendered it "[Jehovah] rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire of his own sending."  Certainly no trinitarian Bible translation would do this if it could possibly be used as honest trinitarian evidence!

Gen. 2:2 - How and Why Did God Rest on “the Seventh Day"?

Gen. 2:2 - How and Why Did God Rest on “the Seventh Day"?

Because God enjoys an “abundance of dynamic energy” and “does not tire out or grow weary” (Isaiah 40:26, 28), it is clear that He did not rest because He was tired.

As the “sixth day” of creation came to a close, the account tells us: “God saw everything he had made and, look! it was very good.” (Genesis 1:31) God was satisfied with everything He had made. Many translations speak of God’s resting on the seventh day with expressions such as "he rested," "he desisted," "he had desisted," from further creative work with respect to the earth. As perfect and beautiful as the paradise garden then was, however, it covered only a small area, and there were just two human creatures on earth. It would take time for the earth and the human family to reach the state that God purposed. For this reason, He appointed a “seventh day” that would allow all that he had created in the preceding six ‘days’ to develop in harmony with his sacred will. (Compare Ephesians 1:11.)

So God rested (or desisted) from His creative work on “the seventh day.” It is as though He stepped back and allowed what He set in motion to run its course. He has full confidence that by the end of “the seventh day,” everything will have turned out exactly as He has purposed. Even if there have been obstacles, they will have been overcome.

Also see:

Day - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Is God's Name in the Book of Esther? Should the Book of Esther be a Part of the Hebrew Bible?

Is God's Name in the Book of Esther?

There are those who want to say that the book of Esther is neither inspired nor beneficial but is simply a beautiful legend. They base their claim on the absence of God’s name.

While it doesn't appear directly in the text, there are evidently four instances of the Tetragrammaton, the Hebrew spelling of God's name, appearing in the form of an acrostic. At Esther 1:20; 5:4, 13; and 7:7 we find four successive words starting with the Hebrew letters for YHWH (or JHVH, from which we get the English form Jehovah [JeHoVaH]). These initials are made especially prominent in at least three ancient Hebrew manuscripts and are also marked in the Masora by red letters. At Esther 7:5, there is also an acrostic for EHYH, meaning 'I shall prove to be', which is tied in to the divine name as its definition (see Exodus 3:14-15).

Should the Book of Esther be a Part of the Hebrew Bible?

Many facts establish the record as authentic and factual. It was accepted by the Jewish people, who called the book simply the Meghil‧lah′, meaning “roll; scroll.” It appears to have been included in the Hebrew canon by Ezra, who would certainly have rejected a fable. To this day, the Jews keep the feast of Purim, or Lots, in celebration of the great deliverance in Esther’s time. The book presents Persian manners and customs in a lifelike way and in harmony with the known facts of history and archaeological discoveries. For example, the book of Esther accurately describes the way Persians honored a man. (6:8) And archaeological excavations have revealed that the descriptions of the king’s palace as given in the book of Esther are exact to the smallest detail.

All the evidence points to the book of Esther as being part of the Holy Bible, "inspired of God and beneficial." (2 Tim. 3:16) Even without directly mentioning God or his name, it provides us sterling examples of faith.

More about Esther:
Mordecai and Esther (My Book of Bible Stories; Watchtower Online Library)

John 14:14 and the New World Translation

Robert Bowman in his Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses, Baker Book House, 1991:

"John 14:14 should also be mentioned. In the NWT this reads: “If YOU ask anything in my name, I will do it.” The Greek text in the KIT [Kingdom Interlinear Translation], however, has me after ask, so that it should be translated: “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it.” It is true that some later Greek manuscripts omitted this word, but most of the earlier ones included it, and most modern editions of the Greek New Testament include it. At the very least, the NWT ought to have mentioned this reading in a note." - pp. 67-68.

But at John 14:14 'me' is omitted after 'ask' in the following trinitarian Bibles: KJV; NKJV; ASV; RSV; JB; NEB; REB; MLB; LB; AB; CBW; NLV; MKJV (Green); Darby; Webster’s; and Young’s.

Many of them do not mention an alternate reading of 'me' in a note! And, likewise, many of the Bibles which do translate ‘ask me’ in this verse do not mention an alternate reading without ‘me’!!

This is a disputed text. There exists manuscript evidence that ‘me’ may not have been used by the original writer.  (Also see http://sahidicinsight.blogspot.com/  - Nov. 2, 2010 - where ‘Memra’ explains the importance of the ancient Coptic translation of this verse.)

However, there is no such dispute about John 16:23 where John wrote: “... whatever you ask the Father for, he will give you in my name.” We should ask the Father (not the Son) in Jesus’ name. Therefore 'me' at John 14:14 is even more in doubt.

Bowman has access to a copy of (and is quite familiar with) the 1984 NWT Reference Bible. He repeatedly quotes from it and refers to notes in it in both this 1991 publication (Understanding Jehovah’s Witnesses) and his 1989 publication, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Jesus Christ, and the Gospel of John.

Yes, the 1984 NWT Reference Bible (which does have notes, of course) says in a footnote for John 14:14:

14* “Ask,” ADIt and in agreement with 15:16 and 16:23; P66 [Aleph]BWVgSy(h,p), “ask me.”

So for Bowman to pretend here that the NWT does not even mention that some Greek manuscripts have the word ‘me’ in this verse is simply inexcusable!

Also see:

The Sahidic Coptic of John 14:14 (Jehovah's Witnesses Questions and Answers)

John 14:14: To "me" or not to "me", that is the question (Sahidic Coptic Insight on NT Verses)

Rom. 9:6 - "For Not All Who [Spring] From Israel Are Really 'Israel.'”

God's Word itself clearly teaches that Israel was a typical representation and what was said of Israel now directly applies to the True Christian congregation.

Peter applies what was said of Israel to Christians (Ex. 19:5-6 / 1 Pet. 2:9-10). Paul shows that what was said of Israel now applies to an "Israel" which has nothing to do with whether one is a natural Jew or not (Gal. 3:26-29; 6:16; Mt. 3:9; 21:42-43). Replacing natural Israel as God's nation, it becomes a new "Israel" that is "really 'Israel'" (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6-9).

It is clear that "Although the number of the sons of Israel may be as the sand of the sea, it is the remnant that will be saved" (Rom. 9:27).

So "only a remnant" of natural Israel will be saved and NOT Israel as a nation. Jews would have to become Christian and accept Christ. John's vision of those on the heavenly Mount Zion revealed the spiritual Israel of God to be 144,000 "bought from among mankind" not "from among the Jews" (Rev. 7:4; 14:1,4; 5:9,10; Jas. 1:1).

Paul said that natural "Israel" is not "really Israel" (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6-9).

Rom. 11:1,2 says: "God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew" but, the context makes it clear that salvation would not be given to Israel as a "nation" but only to a "remnant," and only to the "ones chosen" as contrasted with "the rest" who were blinded. Paul only held out a hope to "save some from among them" (Rom. 11:5-14).

(Jehovah's) Witnesses know that the primary fulfillment of the N(ew) T(estament) statements are directed at spiritual Israel and the Gentile nations.

Speaking to the Jewish religious leaders; Jesus said: "This is why I say to YOU, The kingdom of God will be taken from YOU and be given to a nation producing its fruits (Matt. 21:42-43). Replacing natural Israel as God's nation, it becomes a new "Israel" that is "really 'Israel'" (Rom. 2:28-29; 9:6-9).

John's vision of those standing on the heavenly Mount Zion with the Lamb revealed the number of this spiritual Israel of God to be 144,000 "bought from among mankind" not "from among the Jews (Rev. 7:4; 14:1, 4; 5:9,10; James 1:1).

As God's covenant people, these natural Jews had the first opportunity to be part of the New Covenant to rule as kings in heaven (Acts 3:25,26; Rom. 1:16; Heb. 8:7-13). However, as a nation, Israel failed to fill up that number (John 1:10-13; Acts 13:46; Rom. 9:27; 11:7-10). Later, so that the "full number of those sealed" would be completed the invitation was extended to non-Jews (Isa. 55:5; Acts 10:44-45; 15:14; Rom. 11:25; 15:14; Eph. 2:11-13; 3:1-6; Rev. 5:9-10; 7:4). Jews could only get another chance by becoming Christian and accepting Christ. John's vision of those standing on the heavenly Mount Zion with the Lamb revealed the number of this spiritual Israel of God to be 144,000 "bought from among mankind" not "from among the Jews (Rev. 7:4; 14:1, 4; 5:9,10; James 1:1).

The restoration prophecies of Ezekiel, Jeremiah and Isaiah are in line with the prophecies of Christ regarding the complete restoration of True Worship that would come at the "time of the end" (Acts 3:20- 21; 20:29-30; Luke 19:11,12; Mt. 25:21-30; 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 2:1-3).

At "the conclusion of the system of things...the righteous ones would then shine as brightly as the sun" (Mt. 13:24-30, 36-43; 24:45-47; Dan. 12:1,3,4,10).

By their biblical beliefs and Christlike actions, Jehovah's Witnesses prove that they are fulfilling the restoration prophecy of Ezekiel regarding faithful spiritual Israel. This is the testimony of the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 6:9-11; Gal. 5:19-22).

(Source: This is the answer given by Bar_Anerges to this question.)

Matthew 24:37 - How is Jesus' Presence "Just As" the "Days of Noah"?

At Matthew 24:37, it says:

"For just as the days of Noah were, so the presence of the Son of man will be." NWT

Some have mistaken Jesus' words here to mean that there will be another great Flood that will occur during the Last Days.
 
However, God promised that He would never again destroy all flesh by means of a flood. (Gen. 9:8-11)
 
Therefore, what Jesus was describing here was the apathetic attitude of the world in general as can be further seen in verses 38 and 39:

"For as they were in those days before the flood, eating and drinking, men marrying and women being given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark; and they took no note until the flood came and swept them all away, so the presence of the Son of man will be."

Also, the conditions before the flood was described in Gen. 6:5,

"Consequently God saw that the badness of man was abundant in the earth and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only bad all the time."

So at Matthew 24:37, Jesus was talking about the conditions of what the world would be like before the coming "Great Tribulation". (Matt. 24:21, 22)

Also see: 

Presence - Links to Information (Defend Jehovah's Witnesses)

Matthew 27:52,53 - ‘Many Bodies of the Holy Ones...Were Raised Up'

"THE earth quaked, and the rockmasses were split. And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people." (Matthew 27:51-53)

“We cannot escape it, verses 52 and 53 of Matthew, chapter 27, are ambiguous. In fact, they are among the most difficult verses to translate of the entire Christian Greek Scriptures. Because of their ambiguity no one can dogmatically state just how they should be rendered. What governs the translation of texts such as these where there is an ambiguity in the original text therefore is not textual criticism, because it is frustrated by the ambiguity. Rather, exegesis, or Bible interpretation of the meaning intended by the original writer, will have to govern. The way each translator would therefore render such texts would depend upon his understanding of the rest of the Scriptures. The Scriptural facts above set out dictate how they must be rendered to be consistent with the rest of the Bible.” - w61 1/1 pp. 28-30 Was There a Resurrection?

w90 9/1 p. 7 ‘Many Bodies of the Holy Ones Were Raised Up':

"THE earth quaked, and the rockmasses were split. And the memorial tombs were opened and many bodies of the holy ones that had fallen asleep were raised up, (and persons, coming out from among the memorial tombs after his being raised up, entered into the holy city,) and they became visible to many people." (Matthew 27:51-53)

"Catholic scholar Karl Staab calls this event that occurred at Jesus' death "most mysterious." What happened? Epiphanius and other early Church Fathers taught that the holy ones literally came to life and went with the resurrected Jesus to heaven. Augustine, Theophylactus, and Zigabenus believed that these dead ones received a temporary resurrection but later returned to their tombs. The latter opinion, however, "did not gain wide recognition," comments scholar Erich Fascher. When rendering Matthew 27:52,53, many modern Bible translations give the impression that a resurrection took place. Not so the New World Translation, which points to the effects of an earthquake. Why? First, whoever "the holy ones were, Matthew did not say they were raised up. He said their bodies, or corpses, were. Second, he did not say these bodies came to life. He said they were raised up, and the Greek verb eygei'ro meaning to "raise up," does not always refer to a resurrection. It can, among other things, also mean to "lift out" from a pit or to "get up" from the ground. (Matthew 12:11; 17:7; Luke 1:69) The upheaval at Jesus' death opened tombs, tossing lifeless bodies into the open. Such occurrences during earthquakes were reported in the second century C.E. by Greek writer Aelius Aristides and more recently, in 1962, in Colombia.

"This view of the event harmonizes with Bible teachings. In 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the apostle Paul gives convincing proof of the resurrection, but he completely ignores Matthew 27:52, 53. So do all other Bible writers. (Acts 2:32, 34) The corpses raised up at Jesus' death could not have come to life in the way Epiphanius thought, for on the third day thereafter, Jesus became "the firstborn from the dead." (Colossians 1:18) Anointed Christians, also called "holy ones," were promised a share in the first resurrection during Christ' s presence, not in the first century. -1 Thessalonians 3:13; 4:14-17.

"Most Bible commentators have difficulty explaining verse 53, although several of them suggest that verse 52 describes the opening of tombs by the earthquake and the exposing of newly buried corpses. For example, German scholar Theobald Daechsel gives the following translation: "And tombs opened up, and many corpses of saints laying at rest were lifted up." Who were those that "entered into the holy city" a considerable time later, namely after Jesus had been resurrected? As seen above, the exposed bodies remained lifeless, so Matthew must refer to persons who visited the tombs and brought news of the event into Jerusalem. Thus, the rendering of the New World Translation deepens Bible understanding and does not confuse readers concerning the resurrection."

Also see:
Matthew 27:52, 53 - Was there a resurrection from the dead at the time of Jesus' death? (Defending the New World Translation)

John 10:38 - Does This Scripture Really Prove That Jesus is God?

John 10:38 says, "...Then you will realize that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father." (NLT)

Some claim that this Scripture is proof that Jesus is God or of the Trinity.
 
But if someone is "in" someone else does this really mean that they ARE that person? If so, then does that mean that those who Jesus were talking to in John 14:20 who were "in" Jesus ARE also Jesus? Or in verse 17, that because the Holy Spirit was "in" them that they ARE the Holy Spirit?

And is this really supposed to imply that Jesus IS the Father here? Even Trinitarians don't believe that the Son IS the Father. They believe that the Son is a separate and distinct individual, the Father is a separate and distinct individual and that the Holy Spirit is a separate and distinct individual who all three somehow make up the One True God.

We can understand what Jesus actually intended when he said "I am in the Father and the Father is in me" and "the Father is abiding in me." The relationship between "abiding in," "knowing," and "seeing" (horao in NT Greek) is commonly used FIGURATIVELY in the Bible. 1 John 2:3, 5, 6; 1 John 3:29 show the intended meaning for the figurative use of "abides." Horao ("see") can mean the same thing as "abiding in" or "knowing," and all three may have the figurative meaning of agreement in purpose and will with someone else.

There is no real reason to insist that this passage shows Jesus as being equally God with his Father. The probability is that, in harmony with the usage of the time, Jesus was merely saying that what he spoke came from God, and what he did is what God directed. He meant that understanding what he did and said was like knowing ("seeing") God (as, in a similar sense, those who literally saw angels sent by God and speaking God's words were said to have "seen God"). Jesus is totally in harmony with ("one" with) the Father in purpose so that we can "see" the Father's will in Jesus.
(Also see: In John 10:30, does Jesus say that he and his Father are one person?; Search For Bible Truths)

As in all other "Jesus is equally God" evidence, we find that the trinitarian "proof" is a Scripture that can honestly be translated or interpreted in at least one other way which would prove no such thing.

For more, see:
"Seen Me: Seen Father" - John 14:7-9 (Search For Bible Truths)
John 14:10 "Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I say unto you I speak not from myself: but the Father abiding in me doeth his works." - ASV.

In What Way Are Jesus and His Father One? (w09 9/1 p. 28; Watchtower Online Library)

John 10:30 - In What Sense is Jesus and the Father "One"?

Many Trinitartians attempt to 'prove' that Jesus claimed to be God when he said at John 10:30, "I and the Father are one.”

However, many Bible Greek experts tell us that Bible writers consistently described groups of individuals as “one” figuratively in the sense of their being “united in will and purpose."

Even the very TRINITARIAN New Testament Greek scholar W. E. Vine when discussing the Greek word for “one” says: “(b) metaphorically [figuratively], union and concord, e.g., John 10:30; 11:52; 17:11, 21, 22....” - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 809.

Jesus said at John 17:22: “The glory which thou hast given me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as we are one.” - NASB. (Compare John 17:11. - A footnote for John 17:11 in the very trinitarian The NIV Study Bible, Zondervan, 1985 says: “the unity is to be like that between the Father and the Son.”)

Not only is it obvious that these Christians are not equally Christ with Jesus, nor equally God with the Father, nor are they all one person, but that they are all figuratively united in “will” and “purpose” with God. That is, they agree with and carry out the Father's will.

Also important is that the word “one” at John 10:30 and 17:22 is the neuter form 'hen'. The two other forms for “one” are 'mia', which is the feminine form, and 'heis', the masculine form. Those who insist that John 10:30 means “the Father and I are one God” are clearly wrong as shown by New Testament Greek grammar alone. “God” in New Testament Greek is always masculine and must take masculine forms of adjectives, pronouns, etc. in agreement (see Mark 12:29, 32; 1 Cor. 8:4; Eph. 4:4-6 in interlinear Bibles).

Or, as Dr. Marshall puts it in one of his basic New Testament Greek grammar rules:

“Adjectives must agree with the nouns they modify in number, gender,...and case”. - p. 25, Rule 7, New Testament Greek Primer, Alfred Marshall, Zondervan Publishing, 1978 printing. (Compare 1 Cor. 3:8 in interlinear Bible [esp. note footnote in The Zondervan Parallel New Testament in Greek and English] with NIV; NAB; LB; and CBW.)

Therefore, the use of the neuter “one” (hen) at John 10:30 shows “one God” could not have been intended by Jesus but instead shows “metaphorically, union and concord”! It is possible to have gender irregularities when someone is described figuratively (“metaphorically”) such as “he is a Rock” or “Jesus is the Lamb,” but when he is being literally described we must have gender agreement.

If we insist on supplying an “understood” ‘God,’ it must be at a place which uses the masculine form of “one” (heis) in gender agreement (cf. Mark 10:18; Ro. 3:30). Trinitarian scholar Robert Young commented on this knowledge of the word “one” at John 10:30 in his Young’s Concise Critical Bible Commentary:

“The particle en [hen] being of the neuter gender, can hardly signify ‘one being, i.e. one God,’ but rather ‘one in will, purpose, counsel...” - p. 62, Baker Book House, 1977.

The very trinitarian Bible study reference book, The Bible Knowledge Commentary, agrees with trinitarian Young (above) in its discussion of John 10:30.

Truly, then, there is absolutely no evidence for a “trinitarian” interpretation at John 10:30. In fact, the real meaning shows Jesus is not God.

For much more, see:

ONE - John 10:30 (Examining the Trinity)

In What Way Are Jesus and His Father One? (w09 9/1 p. 28; Watchtower Online Library)

John 17:3 - A Very Meaningful Scripture

At John 17:3, Jesus said in a prayer to his Father:

"This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of you, the only true God, and of the one whom you sent forth, Jesus Christ." (NWT)

Many have the mistaken belief that one just needs to 'believe in Jesus and you will be saved'. But in actuality, this makes light of serious Bible study and demonstrates that most of these people who profess religious faith give little thought to why they believe what they do or to whether there is a reasonable basis for their faith.

John 17:3 shows that more than simply 'believing in Jesus' is required in order to gain "eternal life".

The Bible likens the searching for "the very knowledge of God" to "silver, and as for hid treasures". (Prov. 2:5) That is because when one finally begins to discover the truths to the mysteries of life in the Bible they will have more peace of mind along with the knowledge about God that can lead to "eternal life". (John 17:3)

Jesus said: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need.” (Matthew 5:3)

To fill our spiritual need, we can imitate the example of the Beroeans. Luke wrote that they “received the word with the greatest eagerness of mind,” and that they were “carefully examining the Scriptures daily as to whether these things were so.” (Acts 17:11)

When "carefully examining" John 17:1-3, we can learn a few basic truths. Jesus prayed to the Father: "FATHER, .... this is eternal life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." - NIV

A prevalent teaching in the world today is the Trinity Doctrine or that Jesus is God. Yet at John 17:3, the Father alone is not only very clearly identified as the only true God, but Jesus Christ is again pointedly and specifically excluded from that identification ("AND Jesus Christ whom YOU [the only true God] have sent").

To understand that Jesus is not God is a tremendous bit of information in knowing who Jesus is and who God is. Especially if it means "eternal life"!

One would reasonably conclude that it would also be important to know what God's name is if it means "eternal life". (Also see: God Has a Name!; g04 1/22 pp. 3-4; Watchtower Online Library)

Sincere Bible students could and should use the import of John 17:3 as an incentive to further Search for Bible Truths. Much can be gained when one finally learns the accurate knowledge contained in the Bible. (Also see: "What Does the Bible Really Teach? - What Is the Truth About God?"; bh chap. 1 pp. 8-17; Watchtower Online Library)

For much more concerning John 17:3, see:

If the Father is the "only true God" (John 17:3), does that mean that Jesus is a false god? (Search For Bible Truths)

"The Only True God" (Examining the Trinity)

Jn 17:3 "Taking in Knowledge" (Defending the New World Translation)

John 17:3 (Bible Translation and Study; 2nd Scriptural listing on page)

How Does John 17:3 Show That The Trinity Doctrine is NOT a Bible Teaching? (Search For Bible Truths)

Gods or only one God? (Search For Bible Truths)

Is Jesus God or the Son of God? (Search For Bible Truths)   

How is Jesus a god? (Search For Bible Truths)