You do not have to agree that the text is inspired to accept my position. It's just accessing if it accounts for what is in the Hebrew scriptures about God. Did you notice how many "may be" and "could be" and conjectures on history and anachronisms you had to appeal to just to avoid the clear implications of the words in Genesis which my position makes better sense of? This is the textbook definition of ad-hoc.

Again the hypocrisy is amazing. So you have a problem with using concepts from thousands of years later to explain the text and reading back later ideas into early scriptures until YOU DO IT and then it's all fine!, you were very big on "The writers of the text could not have had trinity in mind when they wrote the text" but somehow you have no problem believing that they might have had the royal We in mind?

But still it makes no sense because we are not doing the same thing at all. The trinitarian paradigm originated with Jews. Jesus is a Jew, the apostles were Jews and these guys knew the Hebrew scriptures like the back of their hands and they took the trinitarian nature of God for granted. Nicea articulated the position which was already present in scripture. You on the other hand are using the royal we, which is a concept that comes from the middle ages ALL THE WAY IN ENGLAND/FRANCE. How in the world are you using an English/French concept to interpret a Jewish middle eastern text that came 3000 years before it from people who did not even know the OT. isn't that madness?

So after rejecting trinity over and over, I asked you for a model that works, you have me divine council, after squeezing you on your divine council position, you are now saying "I don't need to make it work!", is that an admission it doesn't work?

If you agree to that, then I can address your Sophia point and why that doesn't work.