1 Corinthians 8:6 (Part #2) | Exposing the False Trinity Doctrine

The King James Version (KJV) is mostly used in these lessons. Click here to access the KJV online.

4. One Lord/G-d and One Lord/G-d = Two G-ds

What the Trinitarian response argument is essentially suggesting is that Paul really meant, "for us there is one Lord G-d, the Father.... and one Lord G-d, Yahushua Christ. Trinitarians want to have the word "Lord" to be just another label for the one "G-d" just as the word "G-d" is a reference to the one G-d. However, if you just stop and think about it, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. IF that were the case, Paul would be effectively saying there is one Lord G-d, the Father.... and one Lord G-d, Yahushua Christ. That necessarily amounts to two G-ds. One plus One is Two. If we have "one" of these and "one" of those it amounts to two things. Trinitarians like to say, "there is one G-d: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit." But Paul did not say, "there is one G-d, the Father.... and Yahushua." Since Trinitarians want "G-d" and "Lord" to be different titles for the same identity, G-d, he has Paul saying there is one G-d who is the Father and one G-d who is Yahushua Christ for a sum total of two G-ds.

The Definition of the word "G-d" in this Verse

How does the Trinitarian define the word "G-d" in this verse? Indeed, how does he define the words "one G-d." This term cannot be defined as the Triune G-d because that would be saying the Triune being is the Father which makes no sense in Trinitarian doctrine. Hence, the Trinitarian's only option is to try and claim it means "the one divine ousia," the divine nature. And indeed he must since there is no other option. Paul is referring to the "one G-d" and the oneness of G-d in Trinitarian doctrine is the divine ousia.

And this is where the Trinitarian is caught in an unsolvable predicament. He needs to have the words "G-d" and "Lord" be references to the divine nature. So here Paul would be defining the one divine nature as the one person of the Father and the one (same) divine nature (Lord) as the person of the Son. But this doesn't work in their doctrine. Doing such a thing would confuse person and being by granting identity to the divine nature which they claim they do not do. They would be ascribing identity to the divine nature and turning the what into a who. So this claim is also proven false. Not only so, it is clear that the word "G-d" and "Lord" are references to identities not natures since Paul is contrasting our one G-d, the Father, with the many G-ds of the pagans, and our one Lord, Yahushua, with many lords of the pagans. Moreover, if they word "G-d" was a reference to the divine nature, Paul would be identifying this divine nature ("G-d") as the Father. That would mean the Trinitarian Yahushua's divine nature is the Father. Absurd even in Trinitarian doctrine.

But if one loves G-d, he is known by HIM. Hence, as to the eating of idol sacrifices, we know that an idol is nothing and that there is no G-d but one. For although there may be G-ds in heaven or on earth, as there are many G-ds and many lords, yet for us there is one G-d, the Father, out of whom are all things and we to HIM, and one Lord, Yahushua Christ, through whom are all things and we through him.

The one G-d we love is our Father, the G-d of Yahushua. The word "G-d" and the word "Lord" are obviously references to identity, not nature.

5. The Structure of the Passage

The Trinitarian error can also be clearly seen when the context is honestly considered:

There is no G-d but One

Many G-ds

Many lords

Yet for Us

One G-d - the Father

Out of whom are all things and we to Him

and

One Lord - Yahushua Christ

Through whom are all things and we through him

Paul is contrasting many G-ds with our one G-d AND he is contrasting many Lords with our one Lord.

We have one G-d in contrast to many G-ds. We do not have one G-d in contrast to many Lords. We do not have one Lord in contrast to many G-ds either. We have one Lord in contrast to many Lords. It is very important to see this parallel in Paul's argument. There are many G-ds but we have one G-d. AND there are many Lords but we have one Lord.

Some have many G-ds PLUS many lords. Christians have one G-d PLUS one Lord (Two).

5. King of Kings and Lord of Lords

In Scripture, there are many Lords (kyrios) identified including Abraham, Saul, David, Solomon, and Paul. The title "Lord of Lords" is an easy and simple way to see that there is not just one Lord in existence. If it were true that there was only one Lord in existence, and the Lords did not exist, the title "Lord of Lords" would be a very empty title. So we see in Scripture that there are indeed "many Lords" as Paul said at 1 Corinthians 8:4. There several Scriptural facts which demonstrate the Trinitarian claim is based on false premises. "Lordships" were created for example (Col 1:16). David is profusely called "Lord" at 1 Kings chapter one and Israelites are bowing down (proskyneo) before him as their Lord, "David our Lord." The Trinitarian response to 1 Corinthians 8:6 is entirely based on suggesting only one Lord exists. They do this because they need to claim that if only Lord exists then the Father is necessarily that one Lord in view because they also want to claim, by an act of their own will, that Yahushua is that one G-d of 1 Corinthians 8:6 despite the fact that Paul has already identified the one G-d as the Father. But the claim that only one Lord exists is demonstrably false.

The word "Lord" in this verse is Greek kyrios. The Shema command at Deuteronomy 6:4 says, "the Lord (kyrios) our G-d, the Lord (kyrios) is one." But King David was Israel's Lord (kyrios). So must we conclude that David is the Lord our G-d? No, and this illustrates the Trinitarian error concerning 1 Corinthians 8:6).
 

The above lesson was extracted from the links below which may have more details:

• https://www.worldslastchance.com/topical-biblical-studies/anti-trinitarian-studies
• https://www.angelfire.com/space/thegospeltruth/TTD/verses/1corinthians8_6.html