:thumb:
Research articles by JWs are generally sound concerning the Trinity and promoting a more Unit-arian Christology which I use myself in study references, but one should consult all the data available to draw their own conclusions on doctrinal matters and history. On that note,...its true that it wasnt until the 4-5th centuries that the definitions (fine points) of the Trinity were fleshed out especially during the Arian Controversy where that and other Christological debates were arising.
As I've shared elsewhere, one can take a Unitarian, Trinitarian or other Christological position, what matters is how one lives their lives and treats others with Jesus as their guide, the Holy Spirit their teacher. Love God and love neighbor. The pure in heart shall see God. Those who do God's will enter his kingdom. All united in Christ who live according to the law of love, shall see life, for Christ in them is the hope of glory (the promise of immortality). Those who are born of the Spirit and make peace abroad are called the sons of God, etc. Spiritual laws and religious principles, ethics, etc. are universal, no matter what label you slap on. In this way, I'm a pure theosophist.
A Unitarian view is rational or practical on a functional level, while one may assume any number of human-divine fusion combinations about how Jesus is constituted, slice and dice as you please. There are just enough Christological heresies (so called in various catagories) to make your head swim. Since I'm an eclectic, I enjoy many different views of Jesus, the orthodox 'forumula' has no monopoly on God or Jesus, despite its profession. Like the old saying goes, you cant put 'God' in a box, he cant be shoehorned. 'God' is Spirit. 'God' is infinite.