listing them separately, as the bible does in many places, does not exclude them from being god.
to assert it does is to apply the logical fallacy called the false exclusionary disjunct, which, btw, is apparently your entire reasoning method.
see the person is speaking of them inclusively, as the bible does. you try to make it mean only one is god and exclude the others. you even use the word "excluding" which denotes the logical fallacy you are trying to apply.
this logical fallacy can be formally written
a or b
therefore not b
it is a fallacy if both are true, but you are using one to make the other false.
to be on the cover of vogue magazine, you must be a celebrity, or very beautiful.
ariana grande is on the cover of vogue. she is a celebrity.
therefore she cannot be very beautiful.
this is a fallacy because it denies that a celebrity can be very beautiful.
is jesus a man, or the son of man?
scripture says he is son of man.
therefore he cannot be a man.
this is a fallacy because both are true and you cannot use one to falsify the other. jesus is both a man and the son of man.
is jesus god, or the son of god?
scripture says he is son of god.
therefore he cannot be god.
this is a logical fallacy all jws perform in their reasoning. both are true. one does not cancel the other. using this logical fallacy automatically makes the conclusion wrong. jesus is both god and the son of god.
jesus says the father is the only true god. he says he and the father are one.
you choose where he says the father is the only true god.
and therefore conclude they cannot be one, they are merely united in purpose.
and then, weirdly, you launch a campaign against those that believe the truth that all scripture is truth and one does not cancel the other.
is this your reasoning method yrag?
is this the method you used to figure out the trinity doctrine is false?
if it isn't, how does your method differ from what i have explained?