All Trinity Rejectors are Welcome! | Live Debates

The host read from Luke's nativity account to argue that the passage mentions shepherds, not 'three wise men,' and so common Christmas imagery should not be confused with the te...

The host cited Matthew's nativity narrative to show that the text only says 'wise men from the east' and does not specify that there were three of them.

The host quoted Paul's warning about 'another gospel' to argue that Mormon polytheism presents a different gospel and therefore cannot save.

The host cited Jesus' summary of the greatest commandment to argue that Christ taught monotheism, not polytheism, in response to an LDS caller.

The host used this verse about believers doing 'greater works' to argue that 'greater' can mean greater extent or quantity, not superior nature, when interpreting 'the Father is...

A non-Trinitarian caller cited this section to argue that the promised Comforter is the Father himself rather than a distinct divine person.

The caller appealed to this verse to identify the Comforter explicitly as 'the Holy Spirit' and then argue that this Comforter is the Father.

This verse was debated over whether Jesus sends a distinct Spirit from the Father or whether the Spirit is simply the Father himself.

The caller used this passage about 'the God of all comfort' and the Spirit's seal to argue that the Father is the Comforter and therefore the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person.

The caller used this passage about 'the God of all comfort' and the Spirit's seal to argue that the Father is the Comforter and therefore the Holy Spirit is not a distinct person.

The host cited Jesus' words about the Spirit of truth not speaking on his own authority to argue that the Spirit is distinct from the Father, since the Father does speak on his ...

The caller appealed to Peter's statement on prophecy to argue that the Spirit speaks God's words through prophets, as part of his case about how the Spirit relates to the Father.

This passage was used in debate over whether Daniel identifies both the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man among the 'Most High(s),' implying shared divine status.

The host and caller discussed Daniel's multiple thrones to argue over whether the Ancient of Days and the Son of Man share heavenly rule and divine status.

This verse was used to argue over singular versus plural forms of 'Most High' in Daniel and whether the Son can be included among the 'Most High(s).'

The caller cited Paul's headship language to argue that the Father is over Christ, while the host answered that role subordination does not deny equality of nature.

The host cited this psalm to argue that heaven uniquely belongs to Yahweh, so if Jesus is Lord of lords in heaven he must share Yahweh's identity.

This verse was paired with Psalm 115:16 to argue that Yahweh alone is 'God of gods and Lord of lords' in heaven, supporting Jesus' identification with Yahweh.

A non-Trinitarian guest used these verses to argue that Jesus has 'my God' over him and is 'the beginning of God's creation,' while the host argued that 'beginning' means source...

The host cited Jeremiah's statement that Yahweh is 'the God of all flesh' to explain why the incarnate Son can truly call the Father 'my God' without denying Christ's deity.

The host used this psalm's womb-language to argue that the Father became Jesus' God in relation to Christ's human nature from incarnation onward.

A guest cited this verse to argue that the Son received life from the Father and therefore is not co-eternal; the host answered with an eternal-generation reading.

The host cited Jesus' appeal to two witnesses under the law to argue that the Father and the Son must be distinct persons, against modalism.

The host used this narrative to argue that the Holy Spirit speaks, commands, and calls missionaries, demonstrating personhood rather than an impersonal force.

A later caller invoked the Shema as a direct objection to the Trinity, arguing that 'the Lord is one' excludes any triune understanding of God.

The host cited the marriage text to show that 'one' can describe a unity of more than one person, not only numerical singularity, in response to a Shema objection.

A caller appealed to John's prologue to frame a non-Trinitarian reading, while the host pressed the text to show that the Word was already with God and was God in the beginning.

The caller connected John's 'in the beginning' to Genesis in order to argue that the Word/light began in creation rather than existing eternally.

The host used John's prologue to argue that if all things came into being through the Word, then the Word himself is uncreated and fully divine.

A Biblical Unitarian caller cited Jesus' conception narrative to argue that the Son began to exist in Mary's womb and did not preexist.

The host cited Paul's creation language to argue that Christ created all things in heaven and on earth, which implies his preexistence and deity.

This section was debated over whether the author of Hebrews is presenting God's own words about the Son's superiority over angels and divine status.

This psalm was identified as one of the Old Testament texts quoted in Hebrews 1 to show God's declaration concerning the Son.

This text was cited as another passage echoed in Hebrews 1 to discuss how God speaks about or to the Son.

A superchat cited Paul's confession of 'one God, the Father' to argue against any notion of a lesser god made by the Father.