>> First, I can't find YHWH used in the new testament even though it is common in the OT. <<
Right. That's what I'm trying to explain: the New Testament was written in Greek, and the Greeks used "Lord" to represent YHWH. Many English bibles follow this tradition, simply capitalizing LORD, to distinguish from the common British title, "lord." But when we proclaim that Jesus is LORD, we are proclaiming that Jesus is God.
>> I doubt that Marx or Stalin did that. <<
They certainly did not proclaim that Jesus was God, or that he rose from the dead. They did, however, acknowledge that Jesus existed. Again, my point is that confessing Jesus LORD means more than acknowledging his existence; it means proclaiming he is God. Notice that Paul says we must confess Jesus Lord AND that he rose from the dead. That means that we have to confess Jesus Lord.
>> Was/is Jesus a man? Of course, the Bible says so repeatedly. But was he "only" a man or 'merely' a man? No! <<
This is why it is baffling that you keep citing references to Jesus being a man as if it were refutation of Jesus being God; Jesus is both God and man.
>> He took part but did not partake. He shared the flesh but not the blood. The flesh was of Mary but the blood from his Father. <<
"Took part" is nothing more than a back-formation of "partake." Also, an unborn baby does not have its own blood. Its blood is the mother's, passing through the umbilical cord. Jesus's blood was Mary's.
Umm ... no. That's just wrong. An unborn baby has his own blood, with his own blood type, which doesn't change after he is born. The umbilical cord and placenta are also his; the 'interface' is in the lining of his mother's uterus. Oxygen, carbon dioxide, nutrients, and waste pass through but the blood does not. Unless there's a serious problem.
Partakers- koinonia- to share fully, to partner
Took part - metecho- to share
Unborn babies do not share their mother's blood supply. They share but don't share fully.
Had Jesus' blood been Mary's then he would not have had the sinless nature.