The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

[mikesw]

I reject the translation 'only begotten God' because God was not begotten in any way, form or fashion.
It is senseless to argue over the ambiguity of a verse because of a textual variant.

Since you agree with the translation 'only begotten God' the maybe you can explain: 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? Who begot God?

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?

We can also see Jesus, being God incarnate, is called the Son on God and also can be called the only Son through the birth of the incarnate Christ by Mary. That idea can even roughly work with the wording "only begotten God" but with a bit of awkwardness. However, the idea of "begotten" seems to have been added mistakenly in the translation of the Greek.

The repeat of the word theos naturally results from a lack of alternative words to work between God in multiple "persons" and God narrowly as Father. I can see how a hyperliteralist would be unable to grasp the deity of Christ due to the existence of a single word "theos."

 

[amazing grace]

-that is wrong. I do not figure the word "begotten" belongs in the English.

It is there in some translations which is why the verse is considered ambiguous.

You are just rejecting the evidence that even pushes any ambiguity to certainty of the deity of Christ. You can be curious about the wording but cannot deny it is the deity of Christ here. The Trinity concept explains the way God can be in bosom of the Father. duh. I'm not aware why you still deny it.

So you can't explain how God can be in the bosom of God, i.e. the Father aka himself?

For those who are ignorant, the use of theos can represent a broad sense of God, i.e. collectively, or of One specific in the Godhead such as the Son or the Father. To deny his is to just start from ignorance and rejection of the testimony of scripture. If you think you know something more accurate about God than John shares, then provide the basis for your deeper insight.

Insults don't work.
theos does carry many meanings; some of which don't even apply to deity. Who has denied that?

We can also see Jesus, being God incarnate, is called the Son on God and also can be called the only Son through the birth of the incarnate Christ by Mary. That idea can even roughly work with the wording "only begotten God" but with a bit of awkwardness. However, the idea of "begotten" seems to have been added mistakenly in the translation of the Greek.

How is God begotten by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High? God begot God? ----- a bit of awkwardness?
Yet, you do believe that God was begotten, born of Mary right? Jesus is God incarnate, right?

If the verse is read - the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.-----there is no awkwardness especially IF the Son is actually the Son of the Father and NOT God the Son.

The repeat of the word theos naturally results from a lack of alternative words to work between God in multiple "persons" and God narrowly as Father. I can see how a hyperliteralist would be unable to grasp the deity of Christ due to the existence of a single word "theos."

It's not a lack of understanding of the word 'theos' or even being a 'hyperliteralist' - (your favorite accusation) --- it's actually understanding who the Father is, who the Son is and the clear distinction between the two.

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
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?

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

 

[mikesw]

It is there in some translations which is why the verse is considered ambiguous.

Okay. It is the translations that maybe cause confusion to you. Recognize that this verse does not then need to include "begotten" in the English. There! the problem is solved.

So you can't explain how God can be in the bosom of God, i.e. the Father aka himself?

Like mentioned -- there is only one word available such that there is not a distinct word between the use of theos in "only God" and the use in a collective sense. Really, the use of Father in 1:18 offers the distinction needed. Jesus pre-exists as God and the Father exists as God. This is what unitarians miss and causes confusion.

Insults don't work.

Sorry. If you took that statement personally, that was your choice.

theos does carry many meanings; some of which don't even apply to deity. Who has denied that?

Uh. Really? The word appears in scripture with specificity -- and too much so -- as god(s) or God. There is no instance of an alternative sense of meaning I could find. I'm noting that the confusion arising for some when reading John 1:18 lies with theos applying collectively (or in an alternating sense) with the preexistence of Jesus and of the Father.

How is God begotten by the Holy Spirit, the power of the Most High? God begot God? ----- a bit of awkwardness?

Explained

Yet, you do believe that God was begotten, born of Mary right? Jesus is God incarnate, right?

That first wording is sometimes used -- maybe more so by Roman Catholics. It only makes sense in the pre-existence of Christ as God yet being born incarnate through Mary. If you put the ideas together this way, your confusion comes to an end.

If the verse is read - the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.-----there is no awkwardness especially IF the Son is actually the Son of the Father and NOT God the Son.

So you have to deny Jesus as the Son of God (i.e. God, the Son) in order to make your doctrine. That is unacceptable.

It's not a lack of understanding of the word 'theos' or even being a 'hyperliteralist' - (your favorite accusation) ---

Your point is rejected as illogical and insufficient.

it's actually understanding who the Father is, who the Son is and the clear distinction between the two.

Indeed. You can look at this in a binitarian sense or extend it to the triune sense. This remains coherent in accord with the Shema

Grace to you and peace from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ.
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?

Christ Jesus is pre-existence with distinction from the Father where both are God. Explained again.

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

Jesus is not common man. duh. He pre-exists in divinity along with the Father. Duh.

This wording is ancient and reflects the source and the understanding of Christians. The focus is on the one and only god-among-humanity (the one who has declared the true Father rather than misrepresentations due to lack of faith of the people), which is clarified as Jesus and as the God in the Father's bosom. Of course when the earlier wording is confused by unitarians, the words make no sense. That is what we are trying to put an end to.

Glad to help.

 

[civic]

The NLT captures it beautifully


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

So does the Berean

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

The CSB

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.

GNT

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.

ISV

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

NET

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

NRSV

No one has ever seen God. It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father’s heart, who has made him known.

 

[mikesw]

The NLT captures it beautifully


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

So does the Berean

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

The CSB

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.

GNT

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.

ISV

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

NET


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

Love that first one!
Even if "begotten" is used (in the reading "begotten God"), the idea can simply reflect the incarnation status as a son through Mary and the Father. That fits within broad options of the Trinitarian doctrines. However, it seems to be that the translation (or definition) as "only begotten" is not as strong.

 

[amazing grace]

Okay. It is the translations that maybe cause confusion to you. Recognize that this verse does not then need to include "begotten" in the English. There! the problem is solved.

The verse is admittedly ambiguous because of textual variance. No consensus among scholars to date so I feel very confident in reading the text as only begotten Son or only Son.

Like mentioned -- there is only one word available such that there is not a distinct word between the use of theos in "only God" and the use in a collective sense. Really, the use of Father in 1:18 offers the distinction needed. Jesus pre-exists as God and the Father exists as God. This is what unitarians miss and causes confusion.

Can you show me some information as to 'God' has definition in regard to 'a collective sense'? Do you mean in 'collective sense' God carries Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the meaning?

So would we then understand the verse in this manner?
No man hath seen the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at any time, the only Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus did not pre-exist as God. He would have had a spiritual body first instead of a natural body.

Sorry. If you took that statement personally, that was your choice.

For those who are ignorant, the use of theos can represent a broad sense of God, i.e. collectively, or of One specific in the Godhead such as the Son or the Father. To deny his is to just start from ignorance and rejection of the testimony of scripture. If you think you know something more accurate about God than John shares, then provide the basis for your deeper insight.

Addressed in response to my post so the inference is made.

Uh. Really? The word appears in scripture with specificity -- and too much so -- as god(s) or God. There is no instance of an alternative sense of meaning I could find. I'm noting that the confusion arising for some when reading John 1:18 lies with theos applying collectively (or in an alternating sense) with the preexistence of Jesus and of the Father.

addressed above . . . Can you show me in a definition of theos where the meaning in the definition is said to be used or described in the 'collective sense'?

Explained
That first wording is sometimes used -- maybe more so by Roman Catholics. It only makes sense in the pre-existence of Christ as God yet being born incarnate through Mary. If you put the ideas together this way, your confusion comes to an end.

The phrase Mary, Mother of God admittedly is used more so by Roman Catholics but has to be part of every Trintarian's belief because they believe Jesus is God incarnate. Therefore Mary gave birth to God.

So you have to deny Jesus as the Son of God (i.e. God, the Son) in order to make your doctrine. That is unacceptable.

Your point is rejected as illogical and insufficient.

Indeed. You can look at this in a binitarian sense or extend it to the triune sense. This remains coherent in accord with the Shema

Christ Jesus is pre-existence with distinction from the Father where both are God. Explained again.

No, it's not unacceptable - it is very much acceptable --- a clear distinction that God is the only true God and Jesus of Nazareth, the man, is God's Son.

I don't have two gods ---- I only have ONE God as per the Shema.

Jesus is not common man. duh. He pre-exists in divinity along with the Father. Duh.

This wording is ancient and reflects the source and the understanding of Christians. The focus is on the one and only god-among-humanity (the one who has declared the true Father rather than misrepresentations due to lack of faith of the people), which is clarified as Jesus and as the God in the Father's bosom. Of course when the earlier wording is confused by unitarians, the words make no sense. That is what we are trying to put an end to.

Glad to help.

Jesus was God's Son, God's Christ, the Messiah, descended from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. ---- this descendant is clarified as Jesus of Nazareth the man approved by God. And if you have any other Jesus - oh well.......

Even when you try to explain your meaning of the words ---- the words make no sense, the concept makes no sense.

 

[mikesw]

The verse is admittedly ambiguous because of textual variance. No consensus among scholars to date so I feel very confident in reading the text as only begotten Son or only Son.

Can you show me some information as to 'God' has definition in regard to 'a collective sense'? Do you mean in 'collective sense' God carries Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the meaning?

John 1:18 -- or you have to say the Father lays in the bosom of the Father. The confusion is your own.

So would we then understand the verse in this manner?
No man hath seen the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at any time, the only Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

I see how you just convolute stuff to the point you are left in confusion. Is that the normal approach by unitarians?
I presume you know better than to assume that is anyone's representation. Though, I perhaps should have said there is a multiple sense -- that since Jesus preexisted as God (but not in the flesh) and the Father is God. The term God is not used in a single exclusive since when speaking about them. You know that but you wish to destroy John's message.

Jesus did not pre-exist as God. He would have had a spiritual body first instead of a natural body.

the pre-incarnate state is being God. so you are trying to say that a body must exist before the body exists? Maybe you have some weird concept of this you would have to share.

Addressed in response to my post so the inference is made.

you are the only one reading the posts

addressed above . . . Can you show me in a definition of theos where the meaning in the definition is said to be used or described in the 'collective sense'?

I'm just showing how the hyperliteralist assumes only the narrow sense of "God" as the Father even though we see "God" applied to the pre-incarnate Jesus. I just gave more flesh beyond what the hyperliteralist can comprehend. The sense is recognized to make clear the meaning of John 1:18. Otherwise, unitarians are left in confusion.

The phrase Mary, Mother of God admittedly is used more so by Roman Catholics but has to be part of every Trintarian's belief because they believe Jesus is God incarnate. Therefore Mary gave birth to God.

really? everyone has to treat it in a twisted way of saying somehow that God is created? I see you love to take the confusing option and treat it as if it is reality.

No, it's not unacceptable - it is very much acceptable --- a clear distinction that God is the only true God and Jesus of Nazareth, the man, is God's Son.

duh. there is the distinction and the unity.

I don't have two gods ---- I only have ONE God as per the Shema.

whew. the problem is not of you holding to polytheism. The problem is denying the essence of God

Jesus was God's Son, God's Christ, the Messiah, descended from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. ---- this descendant is clarified as Jesus of Nazareth the man approved by God. And if you have any other Jesus - oh well.......

Even when you try to explain your meaning of the words ---- the words make no sense, the concept makes no sense.

I realize more and more that the hyperliteralist only confuses ideas more and more. I sort of have your pain figured out.

 

[civic]

The verse is admittedly ambiguous because of textual variance. No consensus among scholars to date so I feel very confident in reading the text as only begotten Son or only Son.

Can you show me some information as to 'God' has definition in regard to 'a collective sense'? Do you mean in 'collective sense' God carries Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the meaning?

So would we then understand the verse in this manner?
No man hath seen the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit at any time, the only Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

Jesus did not pre-exist as God. He would have had a spiritual body first instead of a natural body.


Addressed in response to my post so the inference is made.

addressed above . . . Can you show me in a definition of theos where the meaning in the definition is said to be used or described in the 'collective sense'?

The phrase Mary, Mother of God admittedly is used more so by Roman Catholics but has to be part of every Trintarian's belief because they believe Jesus is God incarnate. Therefore Mary gave birth to God.

No, it's not unacceptable - it is very much acceptable --- a clear distinction that God is the only true God and Jesus of Nazareth, the man, is God's Son.

I don't have two gods ---- I only have ONE God as per the Shema.

Jesus was God's Son, God's Christ, the Messiah, descended from Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, etc. ---- this descendant is clarified as Jesus of Nazareth the man approved by God. And if you have any other Jesus - oh well.......

Even when you try to explain your meaning of the words ---- the words make no sense, the concept makes no sense.

no the textual evidence is with the older manuscripts which is the difficult reading and the reason scribes changed it and removed theos. they like you could not understand its meaning.

But I provided plenty of translations that gave the correct meaning of the Greek.

hope this helps !!!

 

[amazing grace]

John 1:18 -- or you have to say the Father lays in the bosom of the Father. The confusion is your own.

Of course, the confusion is my own ---- the doctrine makes no sense.
'the Father lays in the bosom of the Father' which doesn't make any sense either.

I see how you just convolute stuff to the point you are left in confusion. Is that the normal approach by unitarians?

I presume you know better than to assume that is anyone's representation. Though, I perhaps should have said there is a multiple sense -- that since Jesus preexisted as God (but not in the flesh) and the Father is God. The term God is not used in a single exclusive since when speaking about them. You know that but you wish to destroy John's message.

I make things complex and difficult to follow??? I am just trying to follow your logic.
I am not the one destroying John's message. I am trying to keep it intact. John never meant his gospel to be understood in the manner in which it is being presented. John included his purpose statement toward the end of his gospel (20:31) and it has nothing to do with believing Jesus is a pre-existent second member of a Trinity:
but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name.

the pre-incarnate state is being God. so you are trying to say that a body must exist before the body exists? Maybe you have some weird concept of this you would have to share.
<snip>

Weirder than the concept you are presenting? Nope. Scripture speaks of two types of bodies - one that is natural and one that is spiritual and it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural (1 Cor. 15) ---- you are presenting the spiritual first, then the natural, then the spiritual again.

I'm just showing how the hyperliteralist assumes only the narrow sense of "God" as the Father even though we see "God" applied to the pre-incarnate Jesus. I just gave more flesh beyond what the hyperliteralist can comprehend. The sense is recognized to make clear the meaning of John 1:18. Otherwise, unitarians are left in confusion.

True, in relation to John 1:18, unitarians do see 'God' as the Father.
And we recognize Jesus Christ, the only son, being in the bosom of the Father.
And that's okay because the consensus is still out as to a non-ambiguous translation of John 1:18.

really? everyone has to treat it in a twisted way of saying somehow that God is created? I see you love to take the confusing option and treat it as if it is reality.

Didn't you say that Jesus preexisted as God? . . . .

<snip> the pre-incarnate state is being God. <snip>

Then Mary is the Mother of God and that is NOT what scripture teaches.

duh. there is the distinction and the unity.
whew. the problem is not of you holding to polytheism. The problem is denying the essence of God

I realize more and more that the hyperliteralist only confuses ideas more and more. I sort of have your pain figured out.

I am glad that I read the plain and clear scripture in the manner in which they are meant to be read and if a figurative meaning comes into play --- I recognize it as such.

My confusion lies in trying to understand the Trinitarian reasoning. I don't understand it now and I didn't understand it when I was a Trinitarian which is one of the reasons I am no longer a Trinitarian.

 

[amazing grace]

no the textual evidence is with the older manuscripts which is the difficult reading and the reason scribes changed it and removed theos. they like you could not understand its meaning.

But I provided plenty of translations that gave the correct meaning of the Greek.

hope this helps !!!

Yes, you have posted MANY translations of John 1:18 - you guys are good at doing that and are good at using scripture that is ambiguous in meaning because of a textual variant of some kind.

Does John use that term anywhere else? 'only begotten God'?
What about 'only begotten Son'? Yep, it is used in John 3:16, 3:18 and at 1 John 4:9 (KJV)
Is that term 'only begotten God' used anywhere else in scripture?

The answers to the above questions should tell us something.

 

[civic]

Yes, you have posted MANY translations of John 1:18 - you guys are good at doing that and are good at using scripture that is ambiguous in meaning because of a textual variant of some kind.

Does John use that term anywhere else? 'only begotten God'?
What about 'only begotten Son'? Yep, it is used in John 3:16, 3:18 and at 1 John 4:9 (KJV)
Is that term 'only begotten God' used anywhere else in scripture?

The answers to the above questions should tell us something.

Does. the bible say anywhere else that the Father is the only True God than in John 17:3 ?

So your argument works and cuts both ways. If you want to make your argument then you must also be willing to dismiss John 17:3 not being an absolute declaration.

Thats how a double edge sword cuts- on both sides.

hope this helps !!!

 

[amazing grace]

Does. the bible say anywhere else that the Father is the only True God than in John 17:3 ?

So your argument works and cuts both ways. If you want to make your argument then you must also be willing to dismiss John 17:3 not being an absolute declaration.

Thats how a double edge sword cuts- on both sides.

hope this helps !!!

Is Yahweh the Father?
Is God known as the Father throughout scripture?

 

[amazing grace]

no the textual evidence is with the older manuscripts which is the difficult reading and the reason scribes changed it and removed theos. they like you could not understand its meaning.

But I provided plenty of translations that gave the correct meaning of the Greek.

hope this helps !!!

I can also provide plenty of translations:
KJ21 No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him.

ASV No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

BRG No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

DARBY No one has seen God at any time; the only-begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, *he* hath declared [him].

DRA No man hath seen God at any time: the only begotten Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

EHV No one has ever seen God. The only-begotten Son, who is close to the Father’s side, has made him known.

GNV No man hath seen God at any time: that only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

GW No one has ever seen God. God’s only Son, the one who is closest to the Father’s heart, has made him known.

HCSB No one has ever seen God. The One and Only Son— the One who is at the Father’s side— He has revealed Him.

JUB No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared him.

KJV No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

AKJV No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
etc., etc., etc.

Just goes to show the textual variant within this scripture.

 

[civic]

Is Yahweh the Father?
Is God known as the Father throughout scripture?

I would argue its mostly the Son. Since no man has seen the Father or heard His voice declared Jesus emphatically.

 

[FreeInChrist]

My confusion lies in trying to understand the Trinitarian reasoning. I don't understand it now and I didn't understand it when I was a Trinitarian which is one of the reasons I am no longer a Trinitarian.

And that is why I am no longer predestined... I never understood how churches could follow Calvin and am far happier having made my choice and now the Holy Spirit resides in me.

As to the Trinity.

There are several scriptures that call Jesus preexistent. I wont waste you time or mine to list them again.... but of the 12 I could post right now.... how is it you cannot understand the simplest of them which is

John 16:28​

​

“I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”​

From heaven → into the world → back to the Father. That is pre-existence, not metaphor.

 

[amazing grace]

Is Yahweh the Father?
Is God known as the Father throughout scripture?

I would argue its mostly the Son. Since no man has seen the Father or heard His voice declared Jesus emphatically.

That is your answer????

 

[civic]

That is your answer????

absolutely your view contradicts Jesus teaching about God.

 

[amazing grace]

And that is why I am no longer predestined... I never understood how churches could follow Calvin and am far happier having made my choice and now the Holy Spirit resides in me.

As to the Trinity.

There are several scriptures that call Jesus preexistent. I wont waste you time or mine to list them again.... but of the 12 I could post right now.... how is it you cannot understand the simplest of them which is

John 16:28​

“I came from the Father and entered the world; now I am leaving the world and going back to the Father.”​

From heaven → into the world → back to the Father. That is pre-existence, not metaphor.

OMGosh, is this another textual variant???? How many translations carry the phrase 'going back to the Father' and how many carry the phrase 'going to the Father'?

FROM HEAVEN:
I came from the Father and entered the world ---- HOW? did he float down from heaven and enter Mary's womb?
OR did he enter the world through conception and birth? And HOW was he conceived? by the Holy Spirit the power of the Most High, i.e. God.-----so he came from God the Father entering the world through conception and birth. ----

LEAVING AND GOING TO THE FATHER:
now I am leaving the world and going to the Father ---- through death, resurrection and ascension, seated at the right hand of God the Father.

It's not that I do not understand what the verse is saying - I just don't understand it in the manner that you understand it.

 

[amazing grace]

absolutely your view contradicts Jesus teaching about God.

Again - I asked you ----

Is Yahweh the Father?
Is God known as the Father throughout scripture?

Why are you avoiding specifically answering my questions? They are not difficult.

 

[civic]

Again - I asked you ----

Why are you avoiding specifically answering my questions? They are not difficult.

No YHWH is the Son, the Father, the Holy Spirit- YHWH is Plural.