The Trinity and all of its supporting doctrines are all circular in reasoning

[Runningman]

Sure there is, Runningman. A verse in the book of Daniel, as one example:

"He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form
of the fourth is like the Son of God." Daniel 3:25 KJB

Which Son of God? And why is "the Son of God" the correct translation when most Bible's say "like a son of the gods" in Daneil 3:25?

Then there's a verse in the book of Isaiah, as another example:

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace." Isaiah 9:6 KJB

If Jesus Christ isn't God, then this verse above is nothing but utter confusion. Jesus said that He & His Father are one. Notice The everlasting Father mentioned there? We should never underestimate how Satan operates, warring after our minds. Study how he operates like one studies his boxing opponent before stepping into the ring.

You're close by acknowledging that verse as utter confusion. Jesus isn't the "everlasting Father" in trinitarianism and wasn't called any of those other names or titles by anyone of any authority, making it read like a failed prophecy. So we know there must be something utterly confused about the translation. The translation you have quoted above is one of a few different ways to translate that verse, but translations must maintain the integrity and consistency of Scripture. Have you read the LXX of this verse or the CJB?

No son overall is greater than his father in hierarchy, humanly speaking. However, we're talking about Almighty God here. There is scripture that clearly shows how all Three (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) worked together in unison, resurrecting Jesus Christ on the third day. You can't get around that, Runningman.

Never read anything like that in any Bible. I have seen commentators and apologists say that, but never any proof from Scripture. What are you referring to exactly?

 

[mikesw]

The entire section I quoted, but I'll give a snippet from that which makes it clear what he believes about the Word:

"The Word as creative, and embodying generally the divine will, is personified in Hebrew poetry (Psalm 33:6; Psalm 107:20; Psalm 147:15; Isaiah 55:10-11); and consequent upon this concrete and independent representation, divine attributes are predicated of it (Psalm 34:4; Isaiah 40:8; Psalm 119:105), so far as it was at the same time the continuous revelation of God in law and prophecy."

Thanks for being more specific.

However, that proves you only read the commentary until you thought you had a proof text. Do not take that error into a post doctorate program. That is a mistake I have done at times (sans any PhD experience) and probably will do again.

Meyer shares that quote as part of the evolution of thought (or revelation) of the logos as the preexisting One.

wisdom ... is still set forth and depicted under the form of a personification, yet to such a degree that the portrayal more closely approaches that of the Hypostasis, and all the more closely the less it is able to preserve the elevation and boldness characteristic of the ancient poetry.

So your quoted text is heading toward the recognition of hypostatis of the "conscious intelligent Ego"