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

[mikesw]

You have not shown any evidence of a "pre-existent one who became flesh" using Scripture. I have asked you at least a dozen times to refer to the Old Testament where said pre-existent one pre-existed and/or where anyone else outside of John 1 supports your interpretation. None of that exists, though, as we have seen. So you are not sharing Scripture, you are sharing a random man's pet religion and trying to pass it off as Scripture. The wall you are up against is that there are people here who will not enable you add to nor take away from the Bible like you seem to used to have been doing.

I'm sure you will be asking when rocks praised God in the OT. The relevant interactions of two who are called Yahweh have been presented as a viable basis for showing the Word as eternally existing. But you just wave the passages off as if they were flies in your face that greatly annoyed you. Your ridiculous questions about finding Jesus walking around in the OT with that name simply degrades your standing in the discussions.

 

[Runningman]

I'm sure you will be asking when rocks praised God in the OT. The relevant interactions of two who are called Yahweh have been presented as a viable basis for showing the Word as eternally existing. But you just wave the passages off as if they were flies in your face that greatly annoyed you. Your ridiculous questions about finding Jesus walking around in the OT with that name simply degrades your standing in the discussions.

It seems since you can't find a pre-existent "word" who later became flesh in the Bible, you have now proposed a new idol: rocks. That seems to be the reoccurring theme in your talking points; every one one of them ends with your god be a creation, i.e., rocks, flesh, angels, talking donkeys, 3 men, etc.

Paul condemned your interpretation explicitly. I suppose you still won't see it as perhaps it is too literal for you. I am sure you will find a new interpretation or translation that itches your ears.

Romans 1
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen.

 

[mikesw]

It seems since you can't find a pre-existent "word" who later became flesh in the Bible, you have now proposed a new idol: rocks. That seems to be the reoccurring theme in your talking points; every one one of them ends with your god be a creation, i.e., rocks, flesh, angels, talking donkeys, 3 men, etc.

Paul condemned your interpretation explicitly. I suppose you still won't see it as perhaps it is too literal for you. I am sure you will find a new interpretation or translation that itches your ears.

Romans 1
25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is forever worthy of praise! Amen.

Really? You're arguments are getting less persuasive every day.

so now you call Jesus a creature and make a mere creature the center of your life. that is indeed idolatry if Jesus were mere human.

Edited after diserner's thumbs up
You really veer far from scripture when you reject that the Rock was Christ. The wholesale rejection of the idea shows an extreme bias against the preexistence shown in scripture. Christians tend to favor the real presence of Christ among the Israel people in the wilderness. The unitarian reject everything without realizing their rejection of Christ.

I guess RM also denies that water came from the Rock, since that is impossible to his way of thinking. But with water coming from the Rock, why can he not recognize God's presence there?