Replies

redleghunter to metmom: "Indeed very clear, and you have only given us a small sample.
Others have posted a full PC window full of texts with associated logical commentary. "

It's important to note that the majority of those quotes (5 of 8) come from the Gospel Writer John.
So, if John's gospel is properly understood, then most of the justification for full-blown trinitarianism disappears.

Christian denominations known as "restorationists" begin to understand John by going first to his final words on this subject: John 20:30-31:

"30 Jesus performed many other signs in the presence of his disciples, which are not recorded in this book.
31 But these are written that you may believe[b] that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name."

John does not say he wants us to believe that Jesus is God Himself.
From this perspective, when we re-examine all those other proof-texts to see if John ever violated his own intentions, it turns out, he did not.

However, you have to change the meaning and lexicon in John 1 to fit your view.

I will ask another question that remains unanswered. If the Son of God is not truly God and truly man, then what is His Nature? Is the Son of God a created Being or did He exist eternally with The Father? If a created Being then what type? A god, angel?

So, if John’s gospel is properly understood, then most of the justification for full-blown trinitarianism disappears.
***Other than the FACT that you’ve blithely overlooked all the rest of the evidence posted to you, what you write is yet again, simple heresy.