The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

[civic]

Well, as usual that doesn't even come close to answering my questions. I would have liked more explicit explanations.

monogenēs - single of its kind, unique, only, 1) used of only sons or daughters (viewed in relation to their parents); 2) used of Christ, denotes the only begotten son of God

monogenēs is a compound word from monos - alone (without a companion), forsaken, destitute of help, alone, only, merely and ginomai - a root word meaning 1. to become, i.e. to come into existence, begin to be, receive being; 2. to become, i.e. to come to pass, happen, of events; 3. to arise, appear in history, come upon the stage, of men appearing in public; 4. to be made, finished, of miracles, to be performed, wrought; 5. to become, be made.

but AGAIN - the definition of monogenes did not come close to answering the questions I asked.

I answered it and you don't like the definition just like you don't like the bible which states only begotten God.

since it opposes your theology you reject the definition and the biblical text which reads monogenes theos

 

[FreeInChrist]

I can pick and choose because "only begotten God" does not fit with the rest of the Bible. And if it does not fit then it does not fit. The oldest manuscripts mean nothing to me if the verse does not make sense because it does not fit with the rest of the Bible.

These are not specifically old....by any stretch

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Berean Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.




New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

NASB 1995
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NASB 1977
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Legacy Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.



Christian Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side —he has revealed him.



Contemporary English Version
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.



Good News Translation
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

International Standard Version
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NET Bible
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.



Literal Translations
Literal Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him].

Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.




New American Bible
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.



Aramaic Bible in Plain English
No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.”

 

[FreeInChrist]

sure it does and it has the earliest manuscript evidence to support it. the scribes like you didn't like it so they changed it to suit their own beliefs.

So do later... I posted a list to him

 

[amazing grace]

I answered it and you don't like the definition just like you don't like the bible which states only begotten God.

since it opposes your theology you reject the definition and the biblical text which reads monogenes theos

Well, I must have responded before you edited/added the definitions you provided because I usually acknowledge when I cut something from someone's post and I surely would not have provided the definitions that I did. As I said monogenes is a compound word and therefore each meaning should be considered. [monos and (genes) ginomai God was not brought into existence - He is not the only begotten of anyone --- God has always been. Oh, there's another question - Who begot Him? or Who is He begotten of?

I answered it and you don't like the definition just like you don't like the bible which states only begotten God.

since it opposes your theology you reject the definition and the biblical text which reads monogenes theos

You didn't attempt to answer the questions I asked.
I don't reject the definition ----- I reject that God was begotten in any way, form or fashion.
I'm not going to argue over the ambiguity of a verse because of a textual variant but I will ask my questions again maybe someone can answer them.

The ambiguity lies with the textual variant but anyway ---- IF the verse reads "only begotten God" ---- How is it that God was "begotten"? Aseity is an attribute of God meaning He is self-existent - he has the property by which he exists of and from himself. God doesn't depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end. THEREFORE - How was God begotten?

Also - How was God in the bosom of the Father aka God? God is the Father right? Was God in the bosom of God, i.e. himself?

Wouldn't the verse then carry the meaning - No man has seen God at any, the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of God, God has declared God? If not, maybe you can explain its meaning?

 

[Peterlag]

These are not specifically old....by any stretch

New International Version
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known.

New Living Translation
No one has ever seen God. But the unique One, who is himself God, is near to the Father’s heart. He has revealed God to us.

English Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father’s side, he has made him known.

Berean Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is Himself God and is at the Father’s side, has made Him known.

Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.




New American Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.

NASB 1995
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

NASB 1977
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.

Legacy Standard Bible
No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.



Christian Standard Bible
No one has ever seen God. The one and only Son, who is himself God and is at the Father’s side —he has revealed him.



Contemporary English Version
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is truly God and is closest to the Father, has shown us what God is like.



Good News Translation
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, who is the same as God and is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

International Standard Version
No one has ever seen God. The unique God, who is close to the Father's side, has revealed him.

NET Bible
No one has ever seen God. The only one, himself God, who is in closest fellowship with the Father, has made God known.



Literal Translations
Literal Standard Version
No one has ever seen God; the only begotten God who is on the bosom of the Father—He has expounded [Him].

Berean Literal Bible
No one has ever yet seen God. The only begotten God, the One being in the bosom of the Father, He has made Him known.




New American Bible
No one has ever seen God. The only Son, God, who is at the Father’s side, has revealed him.



Aramaic Bible in Plain English
No man has seen God at any time; The Only Begotten God Who is in the bosom of The Father, he has declared him.”

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from. In this case it's a bad translation.

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

 

[Wick Stick]

The oldest manuscripts have only begotten God.

So the question is do you believe the oldest manuscripts or the newest manuscripts.

You cannot pick and choose when its convenient for your personal beliefs.

If you say the oldest which I have heard you say many times then you should affirm only begotten God. If you say the newest then there are other scriptures that would also contradict your beliefs.

Bottom line is you cannot have your cake and eat it too as the saying goes.

1. EARLY MSS ATTEST ITS VERACITY

μονογενὴς Θεὸς is represented in a great number of the earliest MSS, is prominent in the MSS that are considered to contain accurate texts, and is most probably what John actually wrote.

The following manuscripts support theos. This list conflates the evidence of those MSS which have an article (ho) and those without it (the latter is the text of Nestle-Aland):

• Greek witnesses
  • Papyrus 66 [Papyrus Bodmer II] A.D. c. 200 (Martin), A.D. 100-150 (Hunger)
  • Papyrus 75 (A.D. 175-225)
  • Codex א - Sinaiticus (c. 330–360)
  • Codex B - Vaticanus (c. 325–350)
  • Codex C* - Eprhraemi Rescriptus (5th C.)
  • Apostolic Constitutions (A.D. 375 -380)
  • Codex L - Regius (A.D 701-800)
• non-Greek witnesses
  • Bohairic Coptic [Codex Bodmer III] (A.D. 300)
  • Diatessaron ("Out of Four") of Titan the Syrian [Arabic version] (c. 160-175)
  • Syriac Peshitta (A.D 150)
  • A revision of the Georgian (10th century)
  • Opiza manuscript (A.D 913)
  • Tbet’ manuscript (A.D 995)
• Late Greek
  • Minuscule 423 (A.D 1556)

Irenaeus' (A.D. 130-202) 'unigenitus deus' in his Against Heresies IV, 20, 11 is probably a John 1:18 quotation from an Old Latin MSS.

conclusion: The copyist has more likely to change "theos" to "huios" than vise versa.In fact, μονογενὴς Θεὸς is a so-called hapax legomenon - a rare one-time occurrence in the NT. Even if it were a simple scribal error, the sudden appearance of a "difficult reading" in the manuscript tradition would likely be corrected back to the normative text.

Here is Wallace the Greek/History expert:
... At the risk of sounding repetitive, θεός shows up again outside the Alexandrian tradition (e.g., early Latin Fathers in the Gospels are Western witnesses)76 with relatively strong textual weight (per Ehrman’s argument). (ibid.)

In sum, externally, both readings enjoy wide geographical distribution, even though υἱός is relatively stronger in non-Alexandrian forms of text. Both readings co-existed in the second century, although weightier MSS support θεός. As a whole, then, I believe θεός is more probable due to the quality, antiquity, and transmissional history of the witnesses listed above. (ibid.)

In retrospect, I conclude that μονογενὴς θεός is the best reading given all the evidence we have internally and externally. As a result, it is highly probable that the text of John 1.18 calls Jesus θεός. (ibid.)

hope this helps !!!

This raises more questions than it answers. I think I agree with @Peterlag that it doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible... or even the rest of the book of John. For instance, compare this verse to:

John 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. (RSV)

This seems to be the same statement, from the same author, in the same book. Why are they different? Even if we accept μονογενὴς Θεὸς as the probable original text, it suggests that our translation/reading of it is somehow faulty.

If I were translating this, I would be tempted to translate Θεὸς as an adjective (divine) rather than a noun (God), adding a supplied pronoun, like such:

No one has ever seen God. The unique divine [One], who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made him known.

...or else to do what the translators of the RSV have done, and simply render it as 'Son,' anyway, which is suggested by the inclusion of the word 'Father.'

 

[mikesw]

This raises more questions than it answers. I think I agree with @Peterlag that it doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible... or even the rest of the book of John. For instance, compare this verse to:

John 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. (RSV)

This seems to be the same statement, from the same author, in the same book. Why are they different? Even if we accept μονογενὴς Θεὸς as the probable original text, it suggests that our translation/reading of it is somehow faulty.

If I were translating this, I would be tempted to translate Θεὸς as an adjective (divine) rather than a noun (God), adding a supplied pronoun, like such:

No one has ever seen God. The unique divine [One], who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made him known.

...or else to do what the translators of the RSV have done, and simply render it as 'Son,' anyway, which is suggested by the inclusion of the word 'Father.'

if you have a PhD in Greek and can convince a wide body of scholars of your translation, then you might get a foothold for your view. Otherwise, theos in John 1:18 must remain "God" for known Greek language conventions. The key here is to avoid temptation and be honest to the Greek text.

Jesus is from God so John 6:46 fits perfectly with Jesus being sent from God. You have some catching up to do since theos can work both as the broad identity including the Father and Son or representing a singular sense contrasting with Jesus' incarnated state.

 

[mikesw]

The trinitarian has only 3 to pick from. In this case it's a bad translation.

1.) Use a verse from a bad translation.
2.) Use a verse that is taken out of context.
3.) Not understand how the words were used in the culture they were written in.

no wonder unitarians have such problems. They reduce options to exclude what makes sense of God.

Peterlag sets up this scenario.... Pick a number between 1 and 5 but the answer has to be selected either as 6 or 7

 

[FreeInChrist]

This raises more questions than it answers. I think I agree with @Peterlag that it doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible... or even the rest of the book of John. For instance, compare this verse to:

John 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. (RSV)

This seems to be the same statement, from the same author, in the same book. Why are they different? Even if we accept μονογενὴς Θεὸς as the probable original text, it suggests that our translation/reading of it is somehow faulty.

If I were translating this, I would be tempted to translate Θεὸς as an adjective (divine) rather than a noun (God), adding a supplied pronoun, like such:

No one has ever seen God. The unique divine [One], who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made him known.

...or else to do what the translators of the RSV have done, and simply render it as 'Son,' anyway, which is suggested by the inclusion of the word 'Father.'

There are a number of translations... well known at that , such as the NASB 77 and 95 that say " the only begotten God

I posted the list in reply 202 above. Some even elaborate on this.....

 

[Wick Stick]

if you have a PhD in Greek and can convince a wide body of scholars of your translation, then you might get a foothold for your view. Otherwise, theos in John 1:18 must remain "God" for known Greek language conventions. The key here is to avoid temptation and be honest to the Greek text.

Nope, I don't have a PhD in Greek. I've taken some courses on Biblical Greek here and there over the years and participated (sparingly) in debates on B-Greek on forums and messageboards going back to usenet days. No real desire to change mainstream views. I do enjoy working through passages for myself to increase my understanding.

You have some catching up to do since theos can work both as the broad identity including the Father and Son or representing a singular sense contrasting with Jesus' incarnated state.

I think you're saying the same thing I did earlier. It's tempting to define the word in John 1:18 in terms of a quality (divine) rather than a person (God).

 

[mikesw]

Nope, I don't have a PhD in Greek. I've taken some courses on Biblical Greek here and there over the years and participated (sparingly) in debates on B-Greek on forums and messageboards going back to usenet days. No real desire to change mainstream views. I do enjoy working through passages for myself to increase my understanding.

I think you're saying the same thing I did earlier. It's tempting to define the word in John 1:18 in terms of a quality (divine) rather than a person (God).

i'm saying God is God not "divine." I'm saying God is used both collectively of them and of the Father.

 

[civic]

This raises more questions than it answers. I think I agree with @Peterlag that it doesn't agree with the rest of the Bible... or even the rest of the book of John. For instance, compare this verse to:

John 6:46 Not that any one has seen the Father except him who is from God; he has seen the Father. (RSV)

This seems to be the same statement, from the same author, in the same book. Why are they different? Even if we accept μονογενὴς Θεὸς as the probable original text, it suggests that our translation/reading of it is somehow faulty.

If I were translating this, I would be tempted to translate Θεὸς as an adjective (divine) rather than a noun (God), adding a supplied pronoun, like such:

No one has ever seen God. The unique divine [One], who is in the bosom of the Father, He has made him known.

...or else to do what the translators of the RSV have done, and simply render it as 'Son,' anyway, which is suggested by the inclusion of the word 'Father.'

I'm not seeing any contradictions with John 1:18 and any other passage. Since God is plural in Persons it fits.

 

[amazing grace]

I'm not seeing any contradictions with John 1:18 and any other passage. Since God is plural in Persons it fits.

<snip>
As I said monogenes is a compound word and therefore each meaning should be considered. [monos and (genes) ginomai God was not brought into existence - He is not the only begotten of anyone --- God has always been. Oh, there's another question - Who begot Him? or Who is He begotten of?

You didn't attempt to answer the questions I asked.
I don't reject the definition ----- I reject that God was begotten in any way, form or fashion.
I'm not going to argue over the ambiguity of a verse because of a textual variant but I will ask my questions again maybe someone can answer them.

The ambiguity lies with the textual variant but anyway ---- IF the verse reads "only begotten God" ---- How is it that God was "begotten"? Aseity is an attribute of God meaning He is self-existent - he has the property by which he exists of and from himself. God doesn't depend on any cause other than himself for his existence, realization, or end. THEREFORE - How was God begotten?

Also - How was God in the bosom of the Father aka God? God is the Father right? Was God in the bosom of God, i.e. himself?

Wouldn't the verse then carry the meaning - No man has seen God at any, the only begotten God, which is in the bosom of God, God has declared God? If not, maybe you can explain its meaning?

Since the verse is ambiguous - the understanding can come from the reader's individual perspective. What I am questioning is how you rationalize that God was begotten and how God was in the bosom of God? And if God is plural in persons why aren't plural pronouns used in connection with him?