Christendom's Trinity: Where Did It Come From?

The Jews NEVER would refer to their Messiah as 'God' - they have only one God whose own personal name is Yahweh.
'god' elohim/theos can refer to angels, judges, demons, the devil other beings outside of the Almighty. ---- look it up.
If you want to reference a source I just think you could do better than Wikipedia.org.

No I do not believe human judges are the true God but they are called gods-----elohim carries that meaning elohim - 1. (plural) 1. rulers, judges, 2. divine ones; 3. angels; 4. gods 2. (plural intensive - singular meaning) 1. god, goddess; 2. godlike one; 3. works or special possessions of God; 4. the (true) God; 5. God
Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

Yes, a dog bears a dog, a cat bears a cat. And that is producing after their kind as stated in

And God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds—livestock and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds.” And it was so. And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the livestock according to their kinds, and everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. etc., etc., They produce according to their kinds through their DNA, through their reproductive process.
Jesus is called - he is titled Son of Man and Son of God. Yes, his mother is a human being and yes, God is his Father but it's not the same because there was NO NORMAL reproductive process so it can't be compared to a dog having a dog, a cat having a cat, a bird laying an egg and hatching a bird. When the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High overshadowed Mary a miraculous creation to place in the womb of Mary. . . . NO DNA, NO NORMAL procreation. A MIRACLE!

Do I believe the testimony of God that he has told us concerning his Son --- yes, I do.
AND THIS IS THE TESTIMONY - THAT GOD GAVE US ETERNAL LIFE AND THIS LIFE IS IN HIS SON -----
For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will......For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself. (John 5:21,26)
Yep, no one comes to the Father except through Jesus Christ, the Son.
Yep, I believe in the Son of God . . . Jesus Christ.

And we know that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him (God) who is true; and we are in him (God) who is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life. [1 John 5:20] - And this is eternal life that they may know you, the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. [John 17:3]
God's word fits together so great . . . when it harmonizes, it just flows!
It is amazing yet so sad the the hyperliteralist treats so many passages and words in a hyperliteralist sense but stand out so candidly to reject that Son of God means that Jesus is son of God in a literal and, shall we say, physical sense. Nope, at that time Jesus is known in scripture only as son of Mary. Oops. Maybe that phrase is not so dominant in scripture.

Then again, We have Heb 1:1-2
On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets. 2 But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.

So for the hyperliteralist unitarian, the Son of God is not really the son of God but just another human prophet. Again hyperliteralism just does not allow Christ Jesus to be truly distinct from the prophets.
 
Did God lie by calling Jesus his Son? Was that deceitful if it's not true? Scripture does record him as the only begotten Son of God YET you want to insist on saying he was God!!!
Amazing grace, I believe you unknowingly equate Jesus to God, as you write the word "Son" in uppercase while to man's as "son."
And it is not me that proves Jesus is the "only begotten God" written and described as the original wordings of the Bible, supported by the oldest manuscripts, the papyri 66 and 75. There are various readings but not described as from the Bible's original wordings.

I believe I've posted these proofs many times here in BAM forums, but I don't know why Arians hardly understand John 1:18.
From literal word for word Bible translation and Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in Original Greek," render the verse the same as "the only begotten God."

(NAS95)John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

(NAS95+) John 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the
onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.

(NT Westcott and Hort+) John 1:18 θεονG2316 N-ASM ουδειςG3762 A-NSM-N εωρακενG3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτεG4455 ADV
μονογενηςG3439 A-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ωνG1510 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM κολπονG2859 N-ASM τουG3588 T-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM εκεινοςG1565 D-NSM εξηγησατοG1834 V-ADI-3S
Scripture interprets scripture in the immediate context AND in the remote context.
I have the Son, therefore I have eternal life.
Thank you for your concern.
Do you have the Son, the eternal life in 1John 5:12,20 amazing grace? Yes or no?
 
Amazing grace, I believe you unknowingly equate Jesus to God, as you write the word "Son" in uppercase while to man's as "son."
And it is not me that proves Jesus is the "only begotten God" written and described as the original wordings of the Bible, supported by the oldest manuscripts, the papyri 66 and 75. There are various readings but not described as from the Bible's original wordings.

I believe I've posted these proofs many times here in BAM forums, but I don't know why Arians hardly understand John 1:18.
From literal word for word Bible translation and Westcott and Hort's "The New Testament in Original Greek," render the verse the same as "the only begotten God."

(NAS95)John 1:18 No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

(NAS95+) John 1:18 R1NoG3762 oneG3762 has seenG3708 GodG2316 at anyG4455 timeG4455; R2the
onlyG3439 begottenG3439 GodG2316 who is R3in the bosomG2859 of the FatherG3962, R4He has explainedG1834 Him.

(NT Westcott and Hort+) John 1:18 θεονG2316 N-ASM ουδειςG3762 A-NSM-N εωρακενG3708 V-RAI-3S-ATT πωποτεG4455 ADV
μονογενηςG3439 A-NSM θεοςG2316 N-NSM οG3588 T-NSM ωνG1510 V-PAP-NSM ειςG1519 PREP τονG3588 T-ASM κολπονG2859 N-ASM τουG3588 T-GSM πατροςG3962 N-GSM εκεινοςG1565 D-NSM εξηγησατοG1834 V-ADI-3S

Do you have the Son, the eternal life in 1John 5:12,20 amazing grace? Yes or no?
Those are not PROOFS . . . . that verse is known for its textual variant.
God is asei BUT if you want to believe that God was begotten - that God was in the bosom of the Father who also is God - you go right ahead - but of course, even with the reading 'only begotten Son' - for the trin - it would carry the same understanding either way - the only begotten Son being God is in the bosom of the Father who also is God ---- God begot God???? feel free to believe that.

I have answered your question.
 
Last edited:
Those are not PROOFS . . . . that verse is known for its textual variant.
God is asei BUT if you want to believe that God was begotten - that God was in the bosom of the Father who also is God - you go right ahead - but of course, even with the reading 'only begotten Son' - for the trin - it would carry the same understanding either way - the only begotten Son being God is in the bosom of the Father who also is God ---- God begot God???? feel free to believe that.

I have answered your question.
Monogenes mean Unique, one of a kind. Fits perfectly with who God is .

Next fallacy
 
Monogenes mean Unique, one of a kind. Fits perfectly with who God is .

Next fallacy
As I said:
Those are not PROOFS . . . . that verse is known for its textual variant.
God is asei BUT if you want to believe that God was begotten - that God was in the bosom of the Father who also is God - you go right ahead - but of course, even with the reading 'only begotten Son' - for the trin - it would carry the same understanding either way - the only begotten Son being God is in the bosom of the Father who also is God ---- God begot God???? feel free to believe that.

I have answered your question.
 
As I said:
Sure its proof since bible says monogenes theos.

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

The manuscript evidence has monogenes theos with the oldest manuscripts.

I'll take Gods word over your opinions 24/7.

next fallacy

hope this helps !!!
 
for the readers on monogenes


Louw & Nida: "Pertaining to what is unique in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class - 'unique, only.'"

Moulton & Milligan: "Literally 'one of a kind,' 'only,' 'unique' (unicus), not 'only-begotten....'"

Grimm/Thayer: "Single of its kind, only, [A.V. only-begotten]." (Note that Thayer's insertion merely cites the KJV translation, which owes considerable debt to the Vulgate of Jerome, who translated monogenês "unigenitus").

NIDNTT: "The only begotten, or only....RSV and NEB render monogenês as 'only.' This meaning is supported by R. E. Brown, The Gospel According to John, Anchor Bible, I, 1966, 13 f., and D. Moody, “God’s Only Son: The Translation of John 3:16 in the Revised Standard Version,” JBL 72, 1953, 213-19. Lit. it means “of a single kind,” and could even be used in this sense of the Phoenix (1 Clem. 25:2). It is only distantly related to gennao, beget. The idea of “only begotten” goes back to Jerome who used unigenitus in the Vulg. to counter the Arian claim that Jesus was not begotten but made."

Newman: "Unique, only."


With reference to Christ, the phrase "the only begotten from the Father," John 1:14, RV (see also the marg.), indicates that as the Son of God He was the sole representative of the Being and character of the One who sent Him. In the original the definite article is omitted both before "only begotten" and before "Father," and its absence in each case serves to lay stress upon the characteristics referred to in the terms used. The apostle's object is to demonstrate what sort of glory it was that he and his fellow apostles had seen. That he is not merely making a comparison with earthly relationships is indicated by para, "from." The glory was that of a unique relationship and the word "begotten" does not imply a beginning of His Sonship. It suggests relationship indeed, but must be distinguished from generation as applied to man.

We can only rightly understand the term "the only begotten" when used of the Son, in the sense of unoriginated relationship. "The begetting is not an event of time, however remote, but a fact irrespective of time. The Christ did not become, but necessarily and eternally is the Son. He, a Person, possesses every attribute of pure Godhood. This necessitates eternity, absolute being; in this respect He is not 'after' the Father" (Moule). The expression also suggests the thought of the deepest affection, as in the case of the OT word yachid, variously rendered, "only one," Gen 22:2, 12; "only son," Jer 6:26; Amos 8:10; Zech 12:10; "only beloved," Prov 4:3, and "darling," Ps 22:20, 35:17.

In John 1:18 the clause "the only begotten son, which is in the bosom of the Father," expresses both His eternal union with the Father in the Godhead and the ineffable intimacy and love between them, the Son sharing all the Father's counsels and enjoying all His affections. Another reading is monogenes Theos, "God only-begotten." In John 3:16 the statement, "God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son," must not be taken to mean that Christ became the only begotten son by incarnation. The value and the greatness of the gift lay in the Sonship of Him who was given. His Sonship was not the effect of His being given. In John 3:18 the phrase "the name of the only begotten son of God" lays stress upon the full revelation of God's character and will, His love and grace, as conveyed in the name of One who, being in a unique relationship to Him, was provided by Him as the object of faith. In 1 John 4:9 the statement "God hath sent His only begotten son into the world" does not mean that God sent out into the world one who at His birth in Bethlehem had become His Son. Cf. the parallel statement, "God sent forth the Spirit of His Son," Gal 4:6, RV, which could not mean that God sent forth One who became His Spirit when He sent Him. (from Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words, Copyright © 1985, Thomas Nelson Publishers.)

hope this helps !!!
 
Sure its proof since bible says monogenes theos.

θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε· μονογενὴς θεὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

The manuscript evidence has monogenes theos with the oldest manuscripts.

I'll take Gods word over your opinions 24/7.

next fallacy

hope this helps !!!
As said - this verse is known for its textual variants in which there is a difference found in wording, spelling or order of words in the handwritten older manuscripts of the same text. Most of these variants may be minor but some effect the meaning of the text. God is known as the Father throughout scripture.
If God is the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father = you have "God begat God" - feel free to believe that.
 
As said - this verse is known for its textual variants in which there is a difference found in wording, spelling or order of words in the handwritten older manuscripts of the same text. Most of these variants may be minor but some effect the meaning of the text. God is known as the Father throughout scripture.
If God is the only begotten God in the bosom of the Father = you have "God begat God" - feel free to believe that.
nope you have no idea about textual criticism otherwise you would not make such a failed argument.

next fallacy
 
nope you have no idea about textual criticism otherwise you would not make such a failed argument.

next fallacy
No one has ever seen God, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
  • #1 no one has ever seen God (who is the Father);
  • #2 the only begotten God who is in the bosom (arms) of the Father (who is God); [unique or single of its kind, only; used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God]
  • #3 He (the only begotten God) has explained Him (God).
And you can scream fallacy from the roof tops ---- that is exactly what is being presented with that translation of John 1:18 ----

Again - you are free to believe what you want = God begat God - God has explained God.
 
No one has ever seen God, the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.
  • #1 no one has ever seen God (who is the Father);
  • #2 the only begotten God who is in the bosom (arms) of the Father (who is God); [unique or single of its kind, only; used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God]
  • #3 He (the only begotten God) has explained Him (God).
And you can scream fallacy from the roof tops ---- that is exactly what is being presented with that translation of John 1:18 ----

Again - you are free to believe what you want = God begat God - God has explained God.
No one has seen God the Father as I have demonstrated with plenty of scriptures.
 
Those are not PROOFS . . . . that verse is known for its textual variant.
Amazing grace which do you prefer to base your belief from the original wordings of the Bible or not?
God is asei BUT if you want to believe that God was begotten - that God was in the bosom of the Father who also is God - you go right ahead - but of course, even with the reading 'only begotten Son' - for the trin - it would carry the same understanding either way - the only begotten Son being God is in the bosom of the Father who also is God ---- God begot God???? feel free to believe that.
Yes, dog begat dog amazing grace.
The word "God" is not the personal name of the Father, it is His divine nature.
Jesus as the " only begotten God, being "God" also is His divine nature. (Col 2:9)
Yes, I do believe the "original wordings" written in the Bible, as it is 100% Biblical amazing grace.
Those are not PROOFS . . . . that verse is known for its textual variant.
God is asei BUT if you want to believe that God was begotten - that God was in the bosom of the Father who also is God - you go right ahead - but of course, even with the reading 'only begotten Son' - for the trin - it would carry the same understanding either way - the only begotten Son being God is in the bosom of the Father who also is God ---- God begot God???? feel free to believe that.
Yes, dog begat dog amazing grace.
The word "God" is not the personal name of the Father, it is His divine nature.
Jesus as the " only begotten God, being "God" also is His divine nature. (Col 2:9)
Yes, I do believe the "original wordings" written in the Bible, as it is 100% Biblical amazing grace.
I have answered your question.
Sorry, I did not see your answer as yes or no.
Again, do you have the Son, the eternal life in 1John 5:12,20 amazing grace? Yes or no?
 
Oh my. You are getting persnickety. You are seeking to distort scriptures and you complain about my response?

I'm not curious enough to look at your questions again. All you are trying to do is deny Christ. Should I be a party to that?

Remember it is not these questions you ask that are the focus but rather the passages showing the divinity of Christ have to first be denied. His pre-existence is also strongly demonstrated. So those passages also have to be denied. We can also avoid the trinity concepts and just reflect on the divinity of Christ, which then destroys the unitarian beliefs before they take root.

I'm sorry if I'm short with you, but the arguments keep going around in circle where the pre-existence of Jesus is denied and never explained reasonably in these discussions. I figure you have been doing thus stuff for over a dozen years and have not learned anything about the true Jesus. We'll see if you come around.

mikesw:

The distortion is yours. I quoted the scriptures in context and asked you direct questions from which you lapped your tail and ran.

I'm not curious enough to look at your questions again. All you are trying to do is deny Christ. Should I be a party to that?

My denying that Jesus Christ is part of Christendom's 3-prong god is supported by scripture. Your love affair with a non-existent trinity god that was invented by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century AD (300 years AFTER Jesus left the earthly scene and 300 years AFTER the last book of the Bible was written by inspiration of Jehovah) is such that you refuse to be corrected by scripture.

Pitiful.
 
Last edited:
Oh my. You are getting persnickety. You are seeking to distort scriptures and you complain about my response?

I'm not curious enough to look at your questions again. All you are trying to do is deny Christ. Should I be a party to that?

Remember it is not these questions you ask that are the focus but rather the passages showing the divinity of Christ have to first be denied. His pre-existence is also strongly demonstrated. So those passages also have to be denied. We can also avoid the trinity concepts and just reflect on the divinity of Christ, which then destroys the unitarian beliefs before they take root.

mikesw:

What "divinity of Christ" are you referring to? Scripture says Jesus gave up his power when he came to earth; therefore, he was not divine while he was in human form. He was fully human. That why other humans were able to kill him.

Hebrews 2:9

"But we do see Jesus, who was made a little lower than angels, now crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, so that by God’s undeserved kindness he might taste death for everyone."
 
Back
Top Bottom