Remember OP says it "just launched."  They espouse Jesus, but as one who was created, on a lesser deity degree than the Father.  It's not Christianity but they can espouse what they choose.  It isn't truth.

Tragedy is more like it.

Anyone who want's to really examine what they believe purely in search of what is true will do so. Other's will just stay where they are, we can't make them see what we see. I really hope anyone who believes in a Unitarian interpretation of the Bible takes the time to listen to Anthony Rogers in that video I listed, he raises many questions and makes many points that are very important and need answers.

I'll leave on this note, El Elohim translates, Infinite God.

I was thinking that of trinitarians. I've seen a lot of scriptures flung about particularly in this thread, buy I can't really tell if any trinitarians examined them from any point of view except the one they've been told to examine them from.

Will do.

That is certainly a unique translation.

Actual scholarly translations can be found in the various translations of Joshua 22:22

https://biblehub.com/joshua/22-22.htm

If Jesus isn't God, to worship Him is idolatry; some super Mary, mega Muhammad - it's idolatry.

The interesting issue.  What do you gain with making Jesus less than God?  The Holy Spirit points to Jesus.  Everyone saved in the New Testament can't stop talking about Jesus.  Jesus is the whole point.  But He's not The Prize according to some.

It's anathema.

Okay, so why would a non-trinitarian accept the Bible as authoritative?  The canon itself was determined and handed down (along with a lot of other stuff) by trinitarians.  Serious question.

The canon was informally established long before it was "determined" in 1563.

The texts themselves were copied fastidiously and spread far and wide long before the doctrinal declaration of Jesus being God in 325 and the Holy Spirit being God in 359.

I suggest to you that John did not commit idolatry when he worshipped the angel. He knew what idolatry was, he knew what angels were, and he knew who Christ was. He was simply mistaken about the pecking order.   Ruth worshipped Boaz, Saul worshipped Samuel, and many worshipped David. Worshipping Jesus, as the saints in Philadelphia are worshipped, is only an issue for those that wish to make worship into something it is not.

What I gain is a mediator that was tempted in all points like I am, subject to temptation, but resisted it with the same tools I have. A mediator that bit his tongue when he smashed his thumb as a carpenter. A mediator that was tempted with lust, but had to control his impulses. Someone I aspire to be like, not somebody that it is impossible to be like. And when I am resurrected, I will be like him.

Jesus isn't the whole point. His father is.

Curiously, nobody ever said that in the bible.

I agree that Trent had nothing to with it, but I thought the canon was formalized in the 4th century.

I hope you find the real Jesus, OP.

May the Holy Spirit guide him to the truth.

I don't think it was "formalized" as with unified declaration, but I do think that the churches were largely unified in the 2nd and 3rd centuries and were disagreeing around a couple of books.  As they were having theological disagreements and did so from a largely common set of books.

The 66 books (and whatever is in the apocrypha as it's been a while since I read any of it) are quite sufficient and are in every corner of the earth now.

um...

Colossians 1:4, 16-19
Since we heard of your faith in Christ Jesus... For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence. For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell

This new wave sect believes "firstborn" means created.  Jesus was created and not preeminent.

Here's the mystery - The Holy Spirit (God) points to Jesus (God).  Exalts Jesus.  The Spirit indwells believers and shows the saved that Jesus is THE PRIZE.  Above every name.  At no cost, expense, dilution to the glory of the Father (God).

It is from hell any doctrine which points anyone away from the beauty, glory, exaltation of Jesus as no other name is greater.  To the delight of the Father and testimony of the Spirit.

This is why you study your bible. Here we see Trinitarians messing with the translation to insert their doctrine. Let's just go through the passage.

Here we have an abuse of the elasticity of the Greek word "en". It is the same word in all cases highlighted (excepting "upon" and "through" which are different words). The Pauline doctrine of things being "in Christ" which is a point he is pounding home in this passage, but is suddenly changed to "by him" by the translators where Christ could be presented as the creator. The consistent doctrine of the bible is that we are new creations "in Christ" except here where Trinitarian doctrine can override Paul's doctrine through translational manipulation.

Further, let's read the passage carefully. In the important verse left out (Col 1:15) Jesus is the image of God which clearly identifies him as a creation and not the creator. Second, let's look carefully at the creation presented in Col 1:16-19. This isn't the Gen 1 creation, this is the new creation. You can tell by reading it. First, there are no seas, which are a feature of the Gen 1 creation but not of the new creation. Second, there are powers and principalities, these are features of the second creation (Jesus is King of Kings) but are not part of the Gen 1 creation.

The message is that Jesus is the beginning (Col 1:18), the first creation of God (Rev 3:14), which is why Mark, Luke, John, and Acts (and 1 John) open with "the beginning" and begin with John the Baptist. It is no accident that at the baptism of Jesus the spirit is hovering over the water and God speaks (Just like Gen 1:2-3).

Read the Bible for yourself.  Read more than one interpretation of some of the books.  Also read the books and epistles that aren't included in the Bible.  The more you read and study about Christianity and it's roots, the better decision you can make.

One really interesting book I read was called "The thirteen Crucified Saviors", and it was written in the late 1800's, early 1900's, I can't remember exactly when.  The book outlines the common roots and similarities of many religions, and how many of the stories, themes, and lessons are common in many different religions.  Christianity is only one of many religions that has as it's central theme a savior born of virgin birth who was brutalized, killed, and rose from the dead after a life of performing various miracles.

Knowledge is power, and the more you know, the more able you will be to decide what works for your own personal religion.   Accepting 100% of the dogma from any one religion is unusual among many people of faith, so don't worry about your inability to buy off on everything in one specific religion.  You may agree with everything in one church except something like homosexual marriage, or how to submit to authority, abortion, birth control, or other topics.  It would be more common than you think for very devout people to accept only 95% of the dogma from the religion they have chosen.

The Pharisees were the party in power.

I believe I've shown I have. I'm a day behind on my daily readings, but I try to do it daily.

If you have read your bible, his son said it would happen and laid curses upon those who would do such things. See last verses of Revelation. You don't think he idly made those comments do you?

Nope. Through his son, he laid down some serious curses upon those who would do it.

Thanks.

As per your request, I watched the video. He appears to be occupying two slots at a bible school. The bible school I help run uses a similar format.

The video is a very much a by Trinitarians and for Trinitarians type of class. It is not really suited for conversion of Unitarians. I would suggest the book by Andrew DeFord (The Triune God and the Doctrine of the Covenant: Answering Unitarian Objections to the Doctrine of the Trinity) if you are looking for something to accomplish that task. I actually enjoyed Andrew's explanation of the structure of the bible and the covenant structure. I did disagree with his overall conclusion though. Andrew was born into a Unitarian family and approaches the Covenants and Bible like a Unitarian would.

Video Part 1
-----------------------
In the first half of the video, he spends a lot of time explaining that Unitarians (among other groups) assert that the NT must be informed  by the OT (I agree). And this is why he has needs to present evidence for the Trinity in the OT. In contrast to the previous position of trinitarians (using B.B. Warfield as his baseline) was that the Trinity was a progressive revelation, he argues that the progressive revelation position is unsustainable and unitarian God verses the Trinitarian God is not really a progressive revelation, but an entirely new God (I agree).

He laments that the unity of God groups started increasing during the 1800's and lists several reasons for it. The reason he doesn't list is the most important. The French Revolution and Napoleonic conquests of the 1790's and early 1800's was the effective end of the Church's ability to kill those who disagree with the church, or direct the state to go kill those who disagree with the church (at least in the western world).

He does make some scripture references in Acts that just don't jive with what he's trying to make them say. For instance the resurrection of Jesus wasn't to prove that Jesus is God, it is to prove that he is both Lord and Messiah (Acts 2:36). He speaks of the sermon Paul gives in Athens in Acts 17, however when you read the sermon it is a unitarian sermon and is completely devoid of any trinitarian doctrine.

He makes a big deal about God saying "us" three times in Genesis and argues that this is evidence of the Trinity. As a unitarian I would point to the 11,000+ mentions of God being a single person is evidence of God being a single person. 11,000 is much greater than 3.

He references Hebrews 1 and that the author there was using the OT to make his case to believers in the NT and that this is a good way to do things (I agree).  He then makes some bold claims about what Hebrews 1 is telling us. I would suggest that he read what the author of Hebrews says he is trying to tell us (See Hebrews 2). If your conclusions are at significant variance with the author's conclusions, then you need to rethink your conclusions.

At 41:00 he shotguns a bunch of passages. I didn't catch them all, but the ones I did catch show that he's counting on his audience to be ignorant and if they encounter a Unitarian and use these, they will have problems.

Isaiah 7:14 I suggest he read Isaiah 7 and then the Kings and Chronicles and he can find when the prophecy of Isaiah 7 is literally fulfilled.
Isaiah 9:6 Again, read it. And then read some actual scholarship on it.
Zechariah 12:10. Again read it, then read John's interpretation of it. John has it right and it conflicts with the Trinitarian position.
1 Cor 10 - He claims that Jesus was actually there in the wilderness. In contrast, Paul actually uses the word "type".
Jude 1:5 - The passage is a textual mess and is borderline dishonest to bring up.

Video Part 2
-----------------------
He starts segment 2 with almost a JW position (I'm ignorant of JW apologetics so I could be wrong). He presents the case that Jesus is the angel of God's presence (Isa 63:7-19). He then goes on to saying Gal 4 is the fulfillment of Isa 63 (I think he's wrong and Isa 63 is fulfilled in Rev 19:13-15 but that is not important). His main argument is that Jesus is this angel. This particular argument could run afoul with Luke 1:19 and what angel you interpret Gabriel to be (i.e. the angel in the presence of God). This one is new to me so I haven't thought it through.

He then goes on that Jesus is in Exodus 24. This part is interesting. He explains that angels can bear the name of YHWH (Exodus 23:21) and therefore this angel can be called YHWH (I agree). He then links to Exodus 3 and the angel in the bush. And cites Stephen's speech in Acts 7 and notes several other instances where the Angel of the Lord acts (I agree). He then claims that this is Jesus acting in the OT.

As a unitarian I would point out the following:
-Jesus never claimed to have done any of these things in the OT, even when he spoke of the event
-Stephen said it was an angel in the bush, Exodus 3 says it was an angel in the bush. Saying it was Jesus in the bush is wishful thinking
-Hebrews and Galatians both say the law was given by angels. Saying Jesus was the angel that gave the law is wishful thinking

His argument here is based on something that isn't really true. He argues that the angel must be God, because the angel does things "only God can do" (i.e. making the covenant of faith with Abraham). This limits God to not being able to empower others to do his will and act on his behalf. This really isn't an interesting argument as it stems from something imagined and not found in the bible i.e. "only God can do".

His next argument is in regards to the Holy Spirit. He makes a big deal of the personal pronoun being used of the spirit in 2 Sam 23:1-3. From a unitarian perspective isn't meaningful.

His next discussion is about some Jews who hold to two persons in the Godhead as evidence of multi-personal God.  I would point out that they are one short.

He then exhorts his audience to read the OT through Trinitarian eyes

He cites Jacob and wrestling with "God". A bible student would point out that Hosea explains Jacob wrestled with an angel.

The biggest binary difference in threads like these are some have been changed by the Holy Spirit, others have not.  Transformed people see and savor Jesus above all else. They see the Father, Son, and Spirit as one God. The veil has been removed from eyes. No more heart of stone. The Spirit brings simplicity and joy showing truth. Those without the Spirit do not understand the true things of God. None do. I did not.

Ask Jesus to show you what is true; for wisdom. I can tell you there are severe falsities in this thread. Dangerous. Perhaps deadly. They are not of the Spirit...of God.

Jesus is king. Lord. The greatest Prize ever. Equal to the Father. Equal to the Spirit.

We get to call Him friend.

God the Father and Jesus the Son both call themselves the Alpha and Omega.

Perhaps they did. But always remember to read the passages carefully and not blindly accept what others think. "Educated" theologians sent Jesus to the cross because they erred not knowing the scriptures and took their flock with them in their folly.

Rev 1:8 “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” says the Lord God, “who is, and who was, and who is to come, the Almighty.”  (The Angel speaking for the Lord God)

Rev 21:6 He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life.  (The angel speaking for God)

Rev 22:13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.  (The angel speaking. Who he is speaking for is indeterminate. Jesus doesn't begin speaking until verse 16 so it isn't Jesus directly speaking.)

Presuming the angel in Rev 22:13 is speaking for Christ, this still isn't very interesting. If the Holy Spirit had said something similar, then this would be an interesting discussion regarding the trinity. However since God and the Son are the only potential persons saying these things, a unitarian would fully embrace it as God and his son would undoubtedly share the same titles.

(Note, Jesus is not God, and God is not Jesus in these passages. They are clearly identified as two separate persons)

---------------------------------------------------------
And on that note, why is the supposed omniscient person of the Holy Spirit is ignorant of some very important details. Let us read the testimony of Christ:

"Now concerning that day and hour no one knows--neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son--except the Father only. "But as for that day and hour no one knows it--not even the angels in heaven--except the Father alone. But no one knows of that day and hour, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but my Father only. Matthew 24:36

At its very base, you're on to a newer group movement, believe Jesus was created, and believe you know the Scriptures.  I'll put it plainly, when a person is saved the Holy Spirit indwells this person.  The Spirit gives this person Godly wisdom, an ability to discern the Word of God, mysteries made plain, new life.

This happened to me.

Jesus is everything.  He's the Prize.  He's King.  Alpha.  100% man.  100% God.  At zero expense to the glory of the Father.  And praise to the Spirit.  Each unique in person... yet one.

This is what the indwelling Spirit points to.  What the Bible says.  What the Father desires.  Praise and worship Jesus.  By the power of the Spirit.  To the glory of the Father.

I can't deny your spiritual experiences and praise be to God that you had them.  The sacrifices God desires are a contrite heart and broken spirit and it sounds like you have him the offering he desires from you.  

Amen.  I truly hope you come to see Jesus for all He is, ghengiskhabb.  Reading the statement of faith in the first post, I do not see it as worshipping the truest God.  The one who ever was, made Himself flesh, lived perfectly, died unjustly and willingly, rose on the third day...and by faith takes our place to become sons of the living God.

umm...

Trinity in the Dead Sea Scrolls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fY7riAZCNQ

What??? You believe that ONE HUMAN man can pay for the sins of an ENTIRE HISTORY of sinful humans with one death? How could anyone BUT a perfect and holy God pay for that many sins? Jesus IS God, he just added a human nature to his own spiritual nature. Humans are souls wrapped in a body, why can't you accept that Jesus did the same? Have you not read John 1:1-3? Jesus is the Word, and it clearly states that the Word is God, even that He created all things. In Genesis, we see God creating all things. This isn't a contradiction.

One being (God), with three centers of consciousness (Father, Son, Holy Spirit). It's a little weird to us, but that doesn't mean we need to reinvent the wheel to try to explain it differently. Scripture is THICK with references to the Trinity, you can't explain it any other way if you look at the whole of Scripture.

Jesus is not a creation of God. Many verses attest to just the opposite. Even in John 8:58, which you quote above, those Jesus was speaking to knew the Old Testament and that saying the words "I AM" the way Jesus used them was a declaration that you are calling yourself God, which is why they took up stones to stone him. Jesus thought himself equal to God and spoke as much and they wanted to kill him for it.

Hebrews 1:5 - 8: shows us Jesus is not a created being (v.5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, "Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?..." Then in verse 8, God speaking here: But unto the Son he saith, "Thy throne O God, is for ever and ever..."

Did you catch that? God is speaking, to the Son, and calls him "God" and says his throne is forever. Who, but God, has ever sat on the the throne in heaven? Does God the Father get too old and decide to retire, passing it on to Jesus? No. Jesus IS God, and God has always sat on His throne.

You think God accepted payment for sins. I think God forgives sins.  These two concepts are mutually exclusive and only one of them is found in the bible.

Well OK then.

Good grief. By that logic the formerly blind man in the next chapter claimed to be God when he said "I am". The words "I am" simply mean that you are the person in question.

Further, if you actually read the LXX of exodus 3:14, when the angel in the bush tells Moses "I am has sent you", the greek words (ho on) are different than the words Christ uses when he says "I am" (ego eimi).

Whoever let you believe this particular defense of your doctrine did you a great disservice.

God isn't speaking in verse 8.  Read the Greek and read the psalm. The speaker changed from God in verse 5 to the psalmists in verse 6. All you have to do is go and look at the passages being cited by the author of Hebrews.

-Moses said “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (citing the song of Moses Deut. 32:43)
-The Psalmist says “He makes his angels spirits, and his servants flames of fire.” (citing Psalm 104:4)
-The Psalmist says "Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness; therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions by anointing you with the oil of joy." (citing Psalm 45:6,7)

Whoever led you to believe God was speaking in verse 8 did you a great disservice. Actually following what the author is leading to by those quotations leads you to the truth of what he is saying: "It is not to angels that he has subjected the world to come" but rather he's putting things under the feet of a man.

Agreed.

The thing that kills me about this is how Unitarians try to make God more like man rather than just stop for one second and ask themselves a few questions.

Are man and God different? Yes. In what way's is He different than man?

Seriously, He's a being and we're a being, but what makes you think that just because we only have 1 person, that a being (God) that was not created, and is all powerful, all knowing etc. must be the same? Why not 10 persons then I have been asked...well simple. Because the scriptures don't show that, they show 3 person's, God the Father, God the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Even if you deny the trinity because you deny that the Holy Spirit is a 3rd person of God, you're still stuck with a huge problem of The Father and The Son both being clearly displayed as God in the scriptures. This as well as like I mentioned earlier the ancient Jew's even acknowledged that God was multi personal is pretty irrefutable evidence at least IMO that He is at a minimum multi-personal and at a minimum, 2 person's 1 god. But I as well as my fellow Trinitarian brothers assert that the scriptures revealed the truth of the matter, and when the truth is illuminated it's clearly seen that the God of the Bible, the 1 true and only actual God, is triune.

Scripture is all about Jesus.  He's God.  The Holy Spirit, indwelling all believers, testifies to this.  Sons and daughters of God see this truth.

https://www.amazon.com/Oneness-God-Pentecostal-Theology-Vol/dp/0912315121/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?keywords=oneness+of+god+bernard&qid=1581833201&sr=8-1

God's righteousness demands that all sins be paid for -- hence Jesus' sacrifice. Forgiveness is an outcome that is available to those who accept Jesus' sacrifice for their sins. If they don't accept Jesus, they pay for them on their own (i.e. - hell). They are not at all mutually exclusive. If no payment for sins is needed, why doesn't God just forgive everyone and lets just get the heavenly party going?!! Why send anyone to hell? Why send Jesus to die on a cross? Why talk SO MUCH about forgiveness, but that Jesus is the ONLY WAY to the Father?

You might want to read this (but probably not, because it would crush your current theology). I'll leave these links here for others to consider though:

The Trinity -- a solution, not a problem.

Part 1: https://www.str.org/publications/solid-ground-the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-1#.Xkxzvi2ZNBw
Part 2: https://www.str.org/publications/solid-ground-the-trinity-a-solution-not-a-problem-part-2-2#.Xkx07C2ZNBw

Ugh. Are you being serious right now? There is a difference in the blind guy saying "I am (that same guy)" and saying "I AM", which is calling yourself God. Geez, look at the context of the passages. Translations into English don't capture the nuance, but it is quite obvious what Jesus meant -- why else would they instantly try to stone him to death???

I've never heard your arguments about Hebrews. I'll have to read it more closely and compare when/if the speaker changes. It doesn't change the point though. Many other verses to back up what I'm saying...

What is contextual criticism for $1000 Alex?

You are correct.

Before Abraham came into being (ie born); I am.  Not only is eimi present tense, but it’s usage is “being per se” ...ie before Abraham eternally .

Furthermore, this parallels with other passages in John and the New Testament in general.  Of course Jesus is referencing the Tetragrammaton; hence the Jews try to stone him immediately for blasphemy.

He’s Paul?

The wages of sins is death. And everybody dies, including Christ. The gift of God is eternal life. He gives gifts to whoever he choses.

Christ died on the cross as the covenant sacrifice for the new covenant (see Galatians 3). The only payment made by Christ's death was to redeem you from slavery from sin to serve your new master. Payment wasn't made to God, it was made to your master (sin) to free you from it (See Romans 6-8).

In order:
-God forgives whoever he choses however he choses (Matthew 18:21-35). He doesn't owe anybody anything.
-Everybody goes to the grave.
-Jesus died on the cross to crush the head of the serpent.
-The man Christ Jesus is the only mediator between God and men

I read both. Would you like me to comment on them? The substitutionary atonement model is despicable.

The all caps is a figment of the translators imagination. The greek words are the same between the blind man and Jesus. The greek words are not the same between the "I am" in Exodus 3 and Jesus in John 8. If you read the passage, Jesus made a scripture reference 2 verses prior when he mentioned Abraham rejoicing. In verse 58 he says he is the person spoken of in the scripture he is referencing.

As to why they tried to stone him within the city limits, it isn't stated (and highly illegal), however they thought he was demon possessed, thought he was a Samaritan (likely a stoning offense), and failed to understand him at every turn.  Counting on their understanding is a thin substantiation.

While interesting, for a doctrine as important as the trinity doctrine claims it is, the evidence for it is thin to none, and the evidence against it is overwhelming.

Paul was Saul pre-conversion. He hated Christians and either supported their deaths or looked to imprison them

As to I AM, it’s still context.  Jesus is God. The Holy Spirit testifies to this fact.

Questions: What do you gain to see Jesus as less than God?  What does diluting the Godhead bring you in ways of peace, reconciliation, newness of life?  Would you be willing to share your conversion experience?

The context is that Jesus is the person Abraham rejoiced about which is the scripture he referenced. He references the promise of Isaac when Abraham laughs. Abraham's faith was rock solid when he laughed (See Romans 4). Abraham saw Christ's day the day Isaac was promised. He saw it and was glad.  There is no other scripture where Abraham rejoices. All of the Jews present would immediately know what passage Jesus is talking about. 21st century evangelicals seem to not read the passage Jesus is referring them to and wish their doctrine into the passage.

1) I gain a savior who was tempted at all points like me, not one who pretended to be like me.
2) If God can save Jesus out of death to eternal life, he can save me out of death to eternal life.
3) I was confronted with the reality of the falseness of the trinity and quested to find it in the bible. It isn't there.

It isn't there because
-I was referred to Hebrews 1, but Hebrews 1 is about Jesus not being an angel but instead the son. Why would the author argue that our savior couldn't be an angel, was greater than Moses, Joshua, and Aaron, if he could have simply said "Jesus is a Godperson".
-Despite being referred to John 1 a multitude of times, it is at least one godperson short (the holy spirit), and the expositors haven't even read the passage themselves.
-The antichrists denied that Jesus came in the flesh. Trinitarians deny that Jesus came in the same flesh I have, but came in different flesh (see doctrine of impeccability). This is a distinction without a difference.
-The addition of 1 John 5:7 to the bible indicates that even trinitarians can't find the trinity in the bible and had to add it.

For the doctrine to be a "salvation doctrine" it simply isn't in the bible. All of the sermons in Acts neglect this important doctrine. The best defenses of the trinity require only a surface understanding of the passage. Once you read the passage and figure out what the author is saying, he's not even talking about what the trinitarian expositor wishes he was talking about.

I.e. I came to my conclusions by studying and meditating on the scriptures once I came across a person made me defend my trinitarian beliefs.

Was this your response to conversion experience?

What moment, event, series of events led you to begin seeing Jesus as the truest prize?  Once dead, now alive in Him.  Can you share?

God is his father. The holy spirit formed him in the womb of Mary.

Since sons aren't their own fathers this is one of the multitude of ways Jesus is not God and God is not Jesus.

A two year period of soul searching, study, thinking, praying, etc....

The moment that started me on it was in a bible study and I was confronted by somebody who did not believe in the trinity and I had no defense, and the defense passages I was equipped did not say what the trinitarian wished they said when scrutinized, for example Hebrews 1. I subsequently attended some bible college classes on the topic and one of the class sessions that really stands out centered around "Jesus was not capable of sin", which is not the same Jesus in the bible that was touched with my infirmities.

Which caused me to go further and evaluate the doctrine, the passages used for defense, the history, etc... . And I realized the other side which has a far better understanding of the scriptures and the promises. And when you read the bible, that is the way it has always been. The majority of those that claimed to worship the one true God, rarely did.

Please then explain John 1, who is the other person?

You can't deny there's clearly two persons spoken of here. And that they're both equated as God, both simultaneously with one another.

How do you resolve this?