Heb 1:8, But about the Son he says.
Who is he? None other than "o theos" in Para. 1. It is evident that not a single paragraph after Heb 1:1 is referring to "o theos", because "o theos" is doing the speaking.
And? O THEOS in vs 1 is speaking and identifies the Son as O THEOS in vs 8 and 9.
Why don't you address the verses I give you?
John 14:1 you would have to explain
1 Cor 11:3 is hierarchy not being. 3 But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is
man, and the head of Christ is
The same logic has to apply to all comparisons. If 'head' means greater in being, and therefore God is a greater being than Jesus, and Jesus is a greater being than man, then man is a greater being than woman.
John 20:17 "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father. Go instead to my brothers and tell them, 'I am returning to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'" Jesus returned to his God and to our God, he returned to his Father and our Father. But who did he return to? Who is Jesus' Father? Who is Jesus' God?
This is because of the relationship between Jesus and God vs. humanity and God. If Jesus is a created being should have addressed it as our God and our Father. Jesus said this because He is God’s Son by nature vs. humanity being God’s children by creation. Being God Jesus has a different relationship with God and the Father than man has. That is why Jesus said ‘my Father and your Father, to my God and your God', and not ‘our Father and our God.
Note Jesus never said 'Our Father' and included Himself in the 'Our'.
Both are not Jesus. YHWH is not Jesus (Ps 110:1).
Correct. YHWH is speaking to the Messiah which is Adon, and David addresses Him as his Lord. There are multiple verses where YHWH is addressed as Lord. This verse alone is not specific as to identifying Jesus as YHWH, but it does not invalidate it. Being part of the overall narrative of Hebrews 1 we can look back to Psalm 110 and conclude it is Jesus who is YHWH.
Sabellianism is also all about the multiplication of persons under the "o theos" title, and is inseparable from Trinitarianism.
Totally wrong, suggest you read up on both.
Sabellianism is Modalism. One being one center of self consciousness which manifest itself in different roles.
Trinitarianism = One being within that being there exist three centers of self consciousness which each identify as 'I'.
The Logos was in the form of God, as Paul says. But the form of God, alone, does not command the "o theos" title where "God (o theos) is the head of Christ" 1 Cor 11:3.
Read the passage 'form of' is taken from the same word in both renderings, 'the form of God' and 'the form of a bondservant'. Since neither is modified, if Jesus was found fully in the form of man, following logic and reason Jesus is also fully in the form of God.
Also 'equal' translates from 'isos' which means equal in quality and quantity.
So Jesus was always and forever distinguishing himself from God, as in Jn 14:1.
14 “Let not your heart be troubled; you believe in God, believe also in Me.
No. This does not contradict the Trinity at all, but agrees.
Really I have no interest in gnosticism, which is why I describe myself as a biblical literalist/realist, but not a Trinitarian, which is a gnostic creed based upon an anti-monism agenda. I find this conversation descending into ever increasing puerility.
Puerility is you constantly posting insults. This could be a civil discussion minus the mud slinging.
Also I studied Gnosticism, I don't see how you make the connection. Care to share?