Below offers potential interpretations of many verses which are commonly used to teach the Deity of Christ or the Trinity from a Unitarian perspective. Note that my understanding of these passages may change, and I of course do not lay claim to any sort of infallibility or exhaustive understanding of what these passages teach:

• Genesis 1:26, 3:22, 11:7, Isaiah 6:8
  • Argument: God speaks in terms of "us", which refers to the Persons of the Trinity
  • Response: While God could be addressing Himself using plural pronouns, it is likely that He is speaking to heavenly beings that He has already created. Of course, the idea that God left 3 or 4 "hints" that He had a plurality within Himself, and then proceeded to use singular personal pronouns thousands and thousands of times is a rather weak argument, and exemplifies the kind of eisegesis that a person must resort to when their doctrine is nowhere explicitly stated in the Bible
• Genesis 19:24
  • Argument: The Lord (Yahweh) rains fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah "from the Lord (Yahweh)". This speaks to the plurality within God
  • Response: In this verse, a noun (Yahweh) is repeated instead of using a pronoun. See other examples of this in Genesis 17:23: 1 Kings 1:53, 8:1, 12:21, Ezekiel 11:24, where the subject is repeated in this way, yet clearly does not imply some kind of plurality within the subject
• Isaiah 9:6
  • Argument: Jesus is called the "mighty God" and "everlasting Father"
  • Response: Jesus is called "mighty God" here (El gibbor). See the note on Hebrews 1:8-9 for an understanding of the semantic range of the terms translated "God" in the Bible, especially in the Old Testament. The title "everlasting Father" or "Father of the age" is less clear, even from the Trinitarian viewpoint, and could have many possible applications. Unitarians who believe that God created all things through Jesus Christ could make an application there, but there are many potential ways that the title can be understood from a Unitarian perspective
• Micah 5:2
  • Argument: Jesus is said to be "from everlasting", which means He is eternal, and had no beginning
  • Response: This verse has a contested translation in a few ways. Firstly, many modern versions render what is translated "goings forth" in the KJV as "origins". Additionally, many render the last part of the verse as something like, "from ancient days", instead of "from everlasting". Also, in context, this figure is placed under God, and the text says of Him, "he shall stand and feed in the strength of the LORD, in the majesty of the name of the LORD his God" (Micah 5:4). Yet, if the KJV readings are chosen, there are still ways of understanding Jesus being said to be "from everlasting", such as that He is the central figure in the whole plan of God from eternity past, or that "everlasting" refers to before the foundation of the world (Revelation 13:8)
• Zechariah 3:2
  • Argument: "The Lord" (Yahweh) tells "the Lord" (Yahweh) to rebuke Satan. This speaks to the plurality within God
  • Response: See the note on Genesis 19:24. Additionally, there are many instances of God speaking in the third person in Scripture (Exodus 24:1-2, 33:19, 34:5-7, Leviticus 21:8, Numbers 12:8, 32:11-12: 2 Samuel 7:11, Hosea 1:7, Amos 4:11)
• Zechariah 12:10
  • Argument: God says that they will look upon "me who they pierced", which refers to Jesus being pierced (John 19:37)
  • Response: This verse has a contested translation. Some versions render Zechariah 12:10 "Him who they pierced", which matches the quotation given in John 19, which does not say "me who they pierced", but "Him who they pierced" (John 19:37). However, in either case, God can certainly be said to have been "pierced" when Jesus was crucified, in a similar way that Mary can be said to have been vicariously "pierced" in Luke 2:35, which many commentators would say refers to the crucifixion of her son, which she witnessed (John 19:25-27). God loves His Son, and experienced grief when He was crucified, in whatever way a Being like God can be said to experience sorrow or grief (Genesis 6:6, Psalm 78:40)
• Matthew 1:23
  • Argument: Jesus is called "Emmanuel", which means "God with us"
  • Response: Jesus is the express image of God, and reveals God in such a way that He can say "he that has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:9-11, compare John 1:18, 12:45: 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:13-15, Hebrews 1:1-3), and it can be said of Him, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself" (2 Corinthians 5:19), and that "in him dwells all the fullness of deity bodily" (Colossians 2:9)
• Matthew 9:2-8, Mark 2:1-12, Luke 5:17-25, 7:36-50
  • Argument: Jesus forgives sins. Only God can forgive sins
  • Response: God certainly has the ability to delegate the authority to forgive sins to another person on His behalf, as Jesus Himself does with His disciples in John 20:23, and as the Apostle Paul demonstrated when he wrote, "To whom you forgive anything, I forgive also: for if I forgave anything, to whom I forgave it, for your sakes forgave I it in the person of Christ" (2 Corinthians 2:10), and so on. Additionally, Matthew 9:8 gives the indication that this power was to be understood as a delegated authority, as do Matthew 9:6, Mark 2:10, and Luke 5:24, especially in light of verses like Matthew 11:27, 28:18, Luke 10:22, 22:29, John 5:22, 5:26-27, 5:30, 10:17-18, 17:2, in which Jesus speaks of the Father as the source of His authority or power
• Matthew 19:16-17, Mark 10:17-18, Luke 18:18-19
  • Argument: Jesus says that only God is good. Yet, Jesus is sinless (2 Corinthians 5:21, Hebrews 4:15: 1 Peter 2:21-22: 1 John 3:5), and calls Himself the "good shepherd" (John 10:11, 10:14)
  • Response: Jesus is stating here that the ultimate source of goodness is God, and is not claiming to be God. If the clear, unambiguous statements of Jesus concerning God are analyzed, He explicitly distinguishes Himself from God, and places God over Himself (Matthew 27:46, Mark 15:34, John 7:16-18, 8:40-42, 13:31-32, 14:1, 16:27-28, 17:1-3, 20:17). The idea that all of that can be controverted by a supposed "hidden message" in a remark like this is not practicing good hermeneutics
• Matthew 28:18
  • Argument: Jesus has "all power" "in heaven and in earth"
  • Response: The text explicitly says that He has been "given" that power, in a similar way to how God has "given to the Son to have life in himself" (John 5:26), or "given him power over all flesh" (John 17:2), and other similar statements (Matthew 11:27, 28:18, Luke 1:32, 10:22, 22:29, John 3:34-35, 5:19, 5:22, 5:27, 5:30, 10:17-18, 13:3, Acts 2:22, 2:36, 3:13, 5:30-31, 10:38: 1 Corinthians 15:24-28, Ephesians 1:19-20, Philippians 2:8-9, Hebrews 1:1-4, 5:8-10, Revelation 1:1, 2:26-27). The Bible also says of the eternal state, "then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all" (1 Corinthians 15:28). So, this is an instance of delegated authority and power, from the Father to the Son
• Matthew 28:19
  • Argument: Baptism is to be performed in the name of all three Persons of the Trinity - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Additionally, the "name" is singular, yet three are mentioned, because there is one Essence, yet there are three Persons
  • Response: "In the name of" is an idiom which means "by the authority of", or "on behalf of", or "in accordance with the will of" (Deuteronomy 18:5-7, 18:20-22: 1 Samuel 17:45, 25:9: 2 Samuel 6:18: 1 Kings 22:16: 2 Kings 2:24, Psalm 118:10-12, 129:8, Micah 4:5, Matthew 10:41-42, 21:9, 23:39, Acts 2:38, 3:6, 9:27: 1 Corinthians 1:13, etc.). Additionally, the fact that "name" is singular does not mean that one thing is being referred to, as "name" is used as a plural referring term throughout Scripture (Genesis 48:16, Exodus 23:13, Deuteronomy 18:20, Joshua 23:7, Ruth 1:2: 2 Samuel 7:9: 1 Chronicles 17:8, Proverbs 10:7, Luke 6:22). Therefore, when setting aside attempts to read a pre-existing Trinitarian theology into the verse, it teaches that believers are to be baptized in the name of God, His Messiah, and His Spirit, and there are multiple ways to understand that from a Unitarian point of view. However, all three being mentioned together does not mean that they are all divine, or the same being (see 1 Timothy 5:21), nor does their being mentioned in connection with baptism imply that they are all God (1 Corinthians 10:2)
• John 1:1-14
  • Argument: The "word was God" (verse 1), created all things (verses 3, 10), and became flesh (verse 14), which refers in context to Jesus
  • Response: Jesus could be called "God" here, though many interpret the "word" to refer to an aspect of God's nature in a similar way to how the book of Proverbs refers to wisdom (Proverbs 3:19, 8:1-36), and that Jesus is a perfect embodiment of God's attributes in that He expresses God's qualities and character (John 1:18, 12:45, 14:9-11: 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:13-15, Hebrews 1:1-3). Some Unitarians believe that God created all things by Jesus Christ, who was the first of His creation, but some also interpret the creation to be personal to God, and an expression of His word/wisdom, but not necessarily personal to Jesus Christ who would embody it. Jesus, however, can be called "God" (see the discussion of Hebrews 1:8-9), in that He is full of the divine essence (Colossians 1:19, 2:9), and as already established, is the embodied expression of that essence. Yet it should be kept in mind that Jesus explicitly calls the Father "the only true God" in the Gospel of John (John 17:3), and it is as if John recorded it to guard against any kind of misunderstanding as to that fact
• John 1:18
  • Argument: Jesus is called the "unique God"
  • Response: This verse has both a contested translation, and a textual variant. Some manuscripts read "only begotten Son", others read "only begotten God". Then, there is controversy over how to translate monogenēs, with some saying it should be "only begotten", and others saying it should be "unique". With respect to the textual variant, consider the context. The verse states, "No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten (Son/God), which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him". The reading "Son" makes sense, as it is referring to no one having seen God, and the Son making Him known. It makes less sense to say that no one has seen God, but the unique/only begotten God has made Him known. Likewise, the word monogenēs is very commonly (arguably exclusively) used elsewhere in the context of sonship/descendence (Luke 7:12, 8:42, 9:38, John 3:16, 3:18, Hebrews 11:17: 1 John 4:9), with the exact phrase "only begotten Son" being used of Jesus in John 3:16, 3:18, and 1 John 4:9, whereas monogenēs is never once used elsewhere to refer to God, or the uniqueness of God. So, the use of monogenēs favors "Son" as the original reading. However, even if the variant is granted, it would still make more sense to translate monogenēs as "only begotten", rather than "unique". When the Bible says that there is "only" one God, it is the Father (John 17:3), and uses monos ("only"), not monogenēs. However, if both the Trinitarian variant and translation are granted, the verse would still be distinguishing Jesus from God, and would be using a secondary sense of the word "God" to refer to Jesus (see the discussion of Hebrews 1:8-9)
• John 5:17-18
  • Argument: John says that the Jews sought to kill Jesus because He "said that God was his Father, making himself equal with God"
  • Response: In context, the hostile Jews accuse Jesus of breaking the Sabbath, and Jesus responds by saying, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working" (verse 17). John remarks that in this sense, at least in the minds of the hostile Jews, Jesus was "making himself equal with God". In what way? By claiming eternality? By claiming to be Yahweh? Or by claiming to be God? No, in verse 17, He clearly distinguishes Himself from the "only true God", the Father (John 17:3). Rather, He claims equality in that He claims for Himself the divine prerogative of determining what is proper work on the Sabbath day for Himself, as the unique Son of God. This theme of delegated authority from God the Father is carried on for much of the chapter (John 5:19-38), where Jesus says, "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do" (John 5:19), and, "the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son" (John 5:22), and, "as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself; And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man" (John 5:26-27)
• John 8:24
  • Argument: Unless a person believes that Jesus is the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14, they are lost
  • Response: Even when I was a Trinitarian, I would have considered this a twisting of Scripture, and an addition to the Gospel. Here, Jesus says egō eimi ("I am", "I am he", "I am the one"). The Jews, after hearing this, ask Him, "Who are you?" (John 8:25), demonstrating they did not understand this to be a divine claim at all, despite assuming the worst of Him, and the Lord responds, "Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning". Jesus was not going around preaching that He was God, but rather that He was the Messiah (John 4:25-26, egō eimi), and John concludes his Gospel saying that one must believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God to be saved (John 20:31). That is what Jesus is referring to here. That He is the Christ is what His disciples, who did not believe that He was God (Matthew 8:23-27, Mark 4:36-41, Luke 8:22-25), confessed when He asked them to identify Him (Matthew 16:13-17, Mark 8:27-30, Luke 9:18-20, compare John 6:67-69), which would make little sense if they also believed the much higher proposition that He was God Himself. Consider also how out of place what the Apostles actually say when preaching in the book of Acts seems if they believed that Jesus is God, let alone that such a thing needed to be believed in order for one to be saved (Acts 2:22, 2:36, 3:13, 3:26, 4:10, 5:30-31, 9:20, 10:38-42, 13:37-38, 17:30-31, 18:5, 18:28, 20:21)
• John 8:58
  • Argument: Jesus says, "Before Abraham was, I am", which is Jesus identifying Himself with Yahweh per Exodus 3:14
  • Response: See the note on John 8:24
• John 10:30
  • Argument: Jesus says that "I and my Father are one", and the Jews go to stone Him for blasphemy, saying, "that thou, being a man, make thyself God" (John 10:33)
  • Response: This is not considered to be a strong passage, even by Trinitarian scholars, because in John 17, Jesus prays to the Father, and in reference to believers, asks "that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:21-22, 17:11). It requires reading in a tremendous amount of presupposed theology into what Jesus actually said to get any sort of Trinitarian reading of this passage, wherein God and Jesus are of one Essence, or something like that - none of that is stated at all. Instead, it most straightforwardly refers to being one in action or purpose (see 1 Corinthians 3:8). Also, in regard to what the Jews say of Jesus "making Himself God", He responds in the following verses, in which He in essence says that even human beings can be called "God" (theos), and yet, He actually said that He was "the Son of God" (John 10:34-36)
• John 12:37-41
  • Argument: John quotes Isaiah 53:1 and Isaiah 6:10 about Jesus, and says, "These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spoke of him" (John 12:41). This refers to the glory of Yahweh spoken of in Isaiah 6:1-5, especially in the Septuagint, which additionally reads "glory" in Isaiah 6:1, and so John is identifying Jesus with Yahweh
  • Response: While it is possible that John is applying the passage about Yahweh to Jesus agentively (acting as God's agent), it is also possible that John is using "glory" in a more general sense, i.e., Isaiah, through his prophecies, saw the greatness of the Messiah, and truths about the Messiah, in a similar way Abraham can be said to have "rejoiced to see (Jesus's) day: and he saw it, and was glad" (John 8:56). Further, John quotes Isaiah 53, which is part of a passage which speaks of the Messiah in these terms - "he shall be exalted and extolled, and be very high" (Isaiah 52:13), "he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand" (Isaiah 53:10), and, "Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong" (Isaiah 53:12). So, the first passage that John quotes deals more directly with the exaltation of the Messiah, and on that basis is probably a better candidate for what John would be referring to in John 12:41, though I find him using "glory" in the general sense to be the most likely interpretation
• John 18:4-6
  • Argument: Jesus says "I am", and the soldiers sent to arrest Him fall back, which identifies Him as Yahweh (Exodus 3:14)
  • Response: See the note on John 8:24. The term egō eimi ("I am", "I am he", "I am the one") is a term of self-identification, and in John, it is used of Jesus to say that He is the Messiah (John 4:25-26, 8:24, 8:28, 8:58, 13:19). The soldiers falling is significant, because they identify Him as "Jesus of Nazareth", and Jesus's "I am He" hearkens back to the aforementioned passages, in which He declares Himself to be no mere prophet or citizen of Nazareth, but the Messiah - the one who was prophesied to come, and who the people were expecting (John 1:19-21, 6:14, 7:40, Matthew 11:2-3, Luke 7:18-20)
• John 20:28-29
  • Argument: Thomas calls Jesus "my Lord and my God", and Jesus commends him for believing
  • Response: While Thomas's confession could be calling Jesus Himself God in the secondary or non-absolute sense as described in John 10:33-36, it is more likely referring to Thomas confessing that Jesus is the manifestation of the Father to them ("My Lord [Jesus], and my God [the manifestation of the God that I worship]"), as Jesus had told His disciples earlier in John's Gospel - and Thomas is specifically named in the scene - "he that has seen me has seen the Father" (John 14:5-11, compare John 1:18), and "he that sees me sees Him that sent me" (John 12:45). Jesus, in the same chapter, places God above Himself (John 20:17), and elsewhere states that the Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3)
• Acts 20:28
  • Argument: "God" purchased the Church "with His own blood"
  • Response: This verse has both a contested translation, and a textual variant. Many translations render the end as something like, "with the blood of His own (Son)". Additionally, some manuscripts read "the church of the Lord" instead of "the church of God". However, as noted elsewhere, there are secondary senses in which the word "God" can be used of someone other than God Almighty in Scripture
• Romans 9:5
  • Argument: Jesus is called "God"
  • Response: This verse has a contested translation. Many versions render it as something like, "Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever", while others break the second part into its own sentence, "May God, who rules over all, be praised forever". Considering how often the book of Romans explicitly distinguishes Jesus from God (Romans 1:1-3, 1:7-9, 2:16, 3:24-26, 5:1, 5:8-11, 5:15, 6:11, 6:23, 7:4, 7:25, 8:3, 8:31-32, 8:39, 10:9, 14:18, 15:5-6, 16:27), the modern Trinitarian rendering of this single verse in chapter 9 is extremely unlikely. However, as noted already, there are secondary senses in which the word "God" can be used of someone other than God Almighty
• Romans 10:9-13
  • Argument: The Apostle Paul applies Joel 2:32, originally about Yahweh, to Jesus
  • Response: Here, the Apostle Paul teaches that Joel 2:32 has an additional application to Jesus, as He has been exalted by the Father to Lordship (Philippians 2:9-11). The passage itself, however, clearly distinguishes between God and Jesus (Romans 10:9)
• Philippians 2:5-11
  • Argument: Jesus was "in the form of God" and "thought it not robbery to be equal with God". Every knee bows to Jesus, and confesses that He is Lord, which is a reference to Isaiah 45:22-23, in which Yahweh says every knee will bow to Him
  • Response: Here, Jesus is actually distinguished from God, and in context, it is God who "has highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name" (verse 9). Of course, stating that Jesus was in the "form" of God and considered "equality" with God would be superfluous if Jesus were in fact God Himself - there would be no need to mention "form" or "equality"; the author would simply need to say something like, "Jesus, who is God", etc. In the view of Unitarians who believe that Jesus pre-existed His birth in Bethlehem, this describes the exalted state of Jesus prior to His Incarnation, but others see this as being in reference to His earthly ministry, and having all of the prerogatives of the Lord's Messiah, yet setting them aside to take our sins upon Himself in His death (verse 8). Finally, the application of an Old Testament passage about Yahweh to Jesus is always valid when the New Testament authors do so, and here, Isaiah 45:22-23 is given an application to Jesus. Yet, notice in the passage that every tongue confesses that Jesus Christ is Lord, "to the glory of God the Father" (verse 11). In each case, Old Testament passages about Yahweh finding their fulfillment in Jesus Christ, who is the express image of Yahweh (John 1:18, 12:45, 14:9-11: 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:13-15, Hebrews 1:1-3), are ultimately to the purpose of glorifying God, as God is the one who exalted Jesus to the honor that He is receiving in each instance
• Colossians 2:9
  • Argument: This verse teaches that Jesus Christ possessed the Essence of God in hypostatic union with a human nature
  • Response: This verse refers to the fact that "it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell" (Colossians 1:19). That is, it describes a delegated and imparted benefit that God gave to Jesus. A similar thing is said of believers in Ephesians 3:19 (also see 2 Peter 1:4), though it applies to Jesus Christ more perfectly, as He is the express image of God (John 1:18, 12:45, 14:9-11: 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:13-15, Hebrews 1:1-3)
• 1 Timothy 3:16
  • Argument: "God" was manifest in the flesh, and in context, this refers to Jesus
  • Response: This verse has a textual variant, with most modern translations favoring "He was manifest in the flesh", based on the earliest manuscript data. Even if it were not a variant, this would still be most naturally interpreted in light of explicit statements like John 1:18, 12:45, 14:9-11: 2 Corinthians 4:4, Colossians 1:13-15, and Hebrews 1:1-3
• 1 Timothy 6:14-16
  • Argument: Jesus is described as the one "who alone has immortality". Jesus is the antecedent in verse 14, and is called "King of kings" and "Lord of lords" in verse 15, just as in Revelation 17:14, 19:16
  • Response: Verses 15-16 refer to God, not Jesus, which is made clearer in most modern translations. That is why they describe one "whom no man has seen, nor can see". Many people saw Jesus, and Jesus is not described as one who people cannot see, yet God consistently is, often in distinction from Jesus (Exodus 33:20, John 1:18, 5:37, Colossians 1:15, Hebrews 11:27: 1 John 4:12). In chapter 1 of this epistle, it is God, not Jesus, who is described as "the King eternal, immortal, invisible" (1 Timothy 1:17), and the passage in question from chapter 6 can be seen as a callback to this, as both passages declare the Kingship, invisibility, and immortality of God. Additionally, in chapter 2, the "one God" is unambiguously distinguished from Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5). So, the passage in question is actually stating that God alone has immortality (by nature), and is used as a Unitarian proof text
• Titus 2:13
  • Argument: Jesus is called "our great God and Savior"
  • Response: This verse has a contested translation, with many Bibles reading something like, "the great God and our Savior Jesus Christ". Trinitarian grammarians argue for the application of the Granville Sharp Rule to make both terms, "God" and "Savior", apply to Jesus, but there is controversy over how this verse, and 2 Peter 1:1, which is similar, should be translated. God the Father is explicitly separated from "Jesus Christ our Savior" in Titus 1:4. So, that would be the natural way to read the passage in question as well
• Hebrews 1:6
  • Argument: Jesus is worshipped by the angels of God
  • Response: See the note on Revelation 5:8-14
• Hebrews 1:8-9
  • Argument: Jesus is called "God"
  • Response: Jesus is definitely called "God" here, yet, notice that in context, this is the kind of "God" who Himself has a God (Hebrews 1:9). This passage is quoting Psalm 45:6-7, which was actually sung in Israel, and would have been sung to or about the king - none of which would have led the Jews to think that the king was Yahweh, as they understood the non-absolute sense that the word elohim (God) can be used, as it is used of human judges or rulers in Exodus 7:1, 21:6, 22:8-9, Psalm 82:1, 82:6, as referenced by Jesus in John 10:33-36
• Hebrews 1:10-12
  • Argument: The author of Hebrews quotes Psalm 102:25-27, which addresses Yahweh, and says it applies to Jesus
  • Response: While some commentators believe that the subject switches in verse 10 to the Father, Unitarians who believe that God created by Jesus Christ would have little problem with Psalm 102:25-27 having an application to Jesus, as the creation of the world is the subject of the passage. Those who do not hold to pre-existence would see this as paralleling God's creation of the world with Jesus's creation of the world to come, based on Hebrews 2:5. Additionally, as with the other texts that link Jesus to Yahweh, I generally view these as applying to Jesus agentively (acting as God's agent), where Jesus is the agent and closest expression of Yahweh, and so texts originally about Yahweh can be said to find fulfillment in Jesus. Note also that this passage is couched within an argument aiming to demonstrate that Jesus is ("by inheritance") superior to the angels (Hebrews 1:4-14), which would be superfluous if the writer thought that He was God, in which case he would only have to say as much and move on
• 2 Peter 1:1
  • Argument: Jesus is called "God and Savior"
  • Response: See the note on Titus 2:13. Additionally, in the very next verse, 2 Peter 1:2, Jesus is distinguished from God
• 1 John 4:8, 4:16
  • Argument: "God is love", and in order for God to be essentially loving, there must be an object of love from all of eternity. Otherwise, God was dependent upon His creation for His attribute of love. Therefore, only the Trinity, wherein three Persons eternally love each other, can explain how God can be essentially loving
  • Response: This argument is extremely common in pop Trinitarian apologetics. Firstly, being "loving" can refer to having the character trait of being loving, or performing the action of loving someone. A Unitarian God could be perfectly loving in the sense of having a loving character, even if there was no object of His love external to Himself to manifest that trait. There is no logical basis for saying that a perfect being would need to be loving someone else in order to be perfect. A perfect being is going to have lots of unrealized potentialities which He does not have to actually manifest in order to be perfect. For example, being merciful on someone else is a good thing. Yet, God does not need someone wronging Him from all eternity so that He can manifest that trait, in order to be perfect. Being a creator of a beautiful creation is a good thing. Yet, God does not need to create something from all eternity so that He can manifest that trait, in order to be perfect. Also, in the Trinitarian view of God, God is one Being. So, if God is only in the final estimation loving Himself, that is not really meaningfully different from a Unitarian concept of love within God
• 1 John 5:7
  • Argument: This verse explains that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one God
  • Response: The text of 1 John 5:7 as it appears in the KJV (translated from the Textus Receptus) is admitted by almost all impartial critics of the New Testament to be an addition that worked its way in from Latin, having no Greek attestation in the main text of a manuscript for over 1,000 years after Jesus Christ. If it were genuine, it would say about as much as John 10:30, except it would add that the Holy Spirit is in agreement with the Father and Son, which Unitarians would acknowledge anyway. But, it is not genuine
• 1 John 5:20
  • Argument: Jesus is called "the true God, and eternal life", because 1 John 1:2 says that the Son is "eternal life"
  • Response: Many Trinitarians would readily acknowledge that this refers to the Father, who is the ultimate source of Eternal Life in 1 John (1 John 5:11). The antecedent is not the Son, but "Him that is true" (hence "the true God"), which the Father. It is simply a fact of language that often, the antecedent of a pronoun is not the closest noun (see 2 John 1:7, Acts 10:38, etc.). Additionally, Jesus explicitly says that the Father is "the only true God" (John 17:3)
• Revelation 1:17, 2:8, 22:13
  • Argument: Jesus is called the "Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last". These titles are used for God in Isaiah 41:4, 44:6, 48:12, Revelation 1:8, 1:11, 21:6. There can only be one "beginning and the end, the first and the last"
  • Response: Unitarians acknowledge that Jesus can share titles with God the Father, such as "Lord", "Savior", "King of Kings", and the ones used in the passages in question. While there can only be one "beginning and the end, the first and the last" in the absolute sense, Jesus can be said to be those things as it pertains to the new creation (which is the context of Revelation 22), creation in general (Revelation 3:14, archē, "beginning"), the resurrection from the dead (Revelation 1:5, Colossians 1:18: 1 Corinthians 15:20-23, etc.), or in some other sense that God sees fit as a reason to bestow the titles upon Him. Additionally, as could be stated for each book containing the verses covered in this section, the testimony of the entire book of Revelation is that Jesus is distinct from God (Revelation 1:6, 3:2, 3:12, 3:14, 5:9-10, 7:10, 12:5, 14:12, 15:3, 21:22), and there is no confusion or ambiguity on that point when the book is considered as a whole
• Revelation 5:8-14
  • Argument: Jesus is worshipped alongside God in a religious setting
  • Response: Unitarians affirm that Jesus can be praised and worshipped for who He is and what He does, which is what is taking place here. In Philippians 2:9-11, this worship is shown to be "to the glory of God the Father", who exalted Him to His position. Jesus does not "compete" with God for worship, because He both exists and occupies His current position solely because of God, and all Biblical worship of Him is done from that perspective