The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

He does as a human; we celebrate it every year on Dec 25th. The Word does not have a beginning, for he created whatever has been created.
The son in your trinity is begotten (John 1:18, John 3:16) so he's not God. God Almighty is not a begotten God.
John 1:3Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.

Now if the Word has a beginning, then the statement “without him nothing was made that has been made” is not true.


Doug
This is what I quote. When the Word was made flesh, Jesus was created. Cross reference Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14.
 
The word "begotten" bears Strong#G3439, in Greek "μονογενής monogenēs" defined by Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain as - in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class.
That proves that Jesus is of the same kind or class with the Almighty God the Father as "God."

Joh 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.

G3439
μονογενής monogenēs
pertaining to what is unique
in the sense of being the only one of the same kind or class -
(from Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain. Copyright © 1988 United Bible Societies, New York. Used by permission.)
Begotten requires a beginning point, not in line with eternality. Ever notice how Jesus is never called eternal in the entire Bible?
 
The son in your trinity is begotten (John 1:18, John 3:16) so he's not God. God Almighty is not a begotten God.

This is what I quote. When the Word was made flesh, Jesus was created. Cross reference Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14.
monogenes- UNIQUE- One of a kind.


MONOGENÊS

BAGD:
"In the Johannine lit[erature] m[onogenês] is used only of Jesus. The mngs. only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here...But some (e.g., WBauer, Hdb.) prefer to regard m[onogenês] as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One." (Bauer, it will be remembered, believed the Gospel of John was a gnostic text, and hence saw a theology behind John's writing compatible with the creation of the Logos as a semi-divine intermediary between the Monas and the creation with which He could not directly interact).

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."

LSJ: "Only, single" (references John 1:14, the only NT verse cited).

TDNT: defines monogenês as "only begotten," but distinguishes between nouns ending in -genes and adverbs ending in -genês. The former denote the source of the derivation, the latter the nature of the derivation. Thus, the author (Buchsel) concludes that monogenês means "of sole descent." But Pendrick argues strongly against this view:


monogenes (‎monogenh/$‎, NT:3439) is used five times, all in the writings of the apostle John, of Christ as the Son of God; it is translated "only begotten" in Heb 11:17 of the relationship of Isaac to Abraham.

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 !!!
 
The son in your trinity is begotten (John 1:18, John 3:16) so he's not God. God Almighty is not a begotten God.

This is what I quote. When the Word was made flesh, Jesus was created. Cross reference Colossians 1:15 and Revelation 3:14.
Jesus the man was born; that was his beginning; begotten of the Holy Spirit, and thus God in human flesh. The Word is Jesus prior to becoming man. The Word “was” (already existent) in the beginning (the point of creation starting). He was begotten by God the Holy Spirit!

Doug
 

My thoughts on Thomas...

If I saw a tree falling that surprised me. I might say something like oh my Lord and my God. That does not mean I would be calling the tree God.

In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
 

My thoughts on Thomas...

If I saw a tree falling that surprised me. I might say something like oh my Lord and my God. That does not mean I would be calling the tree God.

In seeing the resurrected Jesus, Thomas clearly saw both the Lord Jesus, and the God who raised Jesus from the dead.
Jesus raised himself from the dead; ‘destroy this temple and “I” will raise it in three days’! Jesus is God to raise himself from the dead.

Doug
 
Begotten requires a beginning point, not in line with eternality.
I've given you Greek-English Lexicon Based on Semantic Domain what the word "begotten" means as same kind with God the Father as eternal. Can you quote a verse that the Father is not eternal Runningman?
Ever notice how Jesus is never called eternal in the entire Bible?
Jesus had said Runningman that He is the "life." (John 14:6)
And the Father's testimony that eternal is in His Son. (1John 5:11)
If we do not have the Son, we can't have eternal life.(1John 5:12)
As Jesus is the eternal life in 1John 5:20.
Runningman, if you deny Jesus as the eternal life in 1John 5:20, I'm afraid you cannot have that life, Biblically taught.
 
Jesus raised himself from the dead; ‘destroy this temple and “I” will raise it in three days’! Jesus is God to raise himself from the dead.

Doug
The obvious difficulty in John 2:19 is that Jesus said “I” will raise up this sanctuary, which causes some problems. One of them is that the other times the Bible speaks of Jesus getting up from the dead it is the Father, God, who raises Jesus, he does not raise himself. Many verses plainly state that it was God who raised Jesus (Acts 2:32; 4:10; 5:30; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:9-10. Also, another problem caused by Jesus saying “I will raise it up” is that Jesus died on the cross and so if Jesus was dead then he could not raise himself from the dead.

When a single passage seems to say something that is difficult and/or contradicts many other passages, we should not reinterpret the many clear passages so that they agree with the one contradictory verse. If we base our theology on an unclear or obscure text and ignore the clear passages, we inevitably fall into error. When dealing with a difficult passage that contradicts many clear passages, the correct approach is to consider other possibilities such as transmission errors, translation errors, or simply that the passage means something that we have not considered. Even if after considering other possibilities the obscure passage remains puzzling, we should not abandon the many clear passages and accept a contradictory interpretation.
 
The obvious difficulty in John 2:19 is that Jesus said “I” will raise up this sanctuary, which causes some problems. One of them is that the other times the Bible speaks of Jesus getting up from the dead it is the Father, God, who raises Jesus, he does not raise himself. Many verses plainly state that it was God who raised Jesus (Acts 2:32; 4:10; 5:30; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:9-10. Also, another problem caused by Jesus saying “I will raise it up” is that Jesus died on the cross and so if Jesus was dead then he could not raise himself from the dead.

When a single passage seems to say something that is difficult and/or contradicts many other passages, we should not reinterpret the many clear passages so that they agree with the one contradictory verse. If we base our theology on an unclear or obscure text and ignore the clear passages, we inevitably fall into error. When dealing with a difficult passage that contradicts many clear passages, the correct approach is to consider other possibilities such as transmission errors, translation errors, or simply that the passage means something that we have not considered. Even if after considering other possibilities the obscure passage remains puzzling, we should not abandon the many clear passages and accept a contradictory interpretation.
Jesus, being God, raises himself from death. Thus, God raised him from the grave. That Jesus says “I” will raise it, means exactly that. You cannot ignore the one in it’s specificity which clarifies the more general statement of “God” raised him.

Doug
 
Jesus, being God, raises himself from death. Thus, God raised him from the grave. That Jesus says “I” will raise it, means exactly that. You cannot ignore the one in it’s specificity which clarifies the more general statement of “God” raised him.

Doug
Kind a hard to raise yourself from the dead when you're dead. So yeah, I can ignore the verse that probably means something else since it does not fit with the many other verses that say Jesus was a man.
 
Kind a hard to raise yourself from the dead when you're dead. So yeah, I can ignore the verse that probably means something else since it does not fit with the many other verses that say Jesus was a man.
Duhh. If Jesus were mere man, you would be right. He is also God. So you are wrong. Basic logic cancels out unitarianism. You do not have to know the specific metaphysical aspects to justify this. The scripture testifies to Jesus raising himself. That scripture though is hardly of interest to unitarians.
 
Kind a hard to raise yourself from the dead when you're dead. So yeah, I can ignore the verse that probably means something else since it does not fit with the many other verses that say Jesus was a man.
Again, the physical aspect is dead, the spiritual man is the real man and is still alive. The Word that took on flesh does not die, nor can it for it is the source of life itself!

Doug
 
The obvious difficulty in John 2:19 is that Jesus said “I” will raise up this sanctuary, which causes some problems. One of them is that the other times the Bible speaks of Jesus getting up from the dead it is the Father, God, who raises Jesus, he does not raise himself. Many verses plainly state that it was God who raised Jesus (Acts 2:32; 4:10; 5:30; Rom. 10:9; 1 Cor. 6:14; Gal. 1:1; 1 Thess. 1:9-10. Also, another problem caused by Jesus saying “I will raise it up” is that Jesus died on the cross and so if Jesus was dead then he could not raise himself from the dead.

When a single passage seems to say something that is difficult and/or contradicts many other passages, we should not reinterpret the many clear passages so that they agree with the one contradictory verse. If we base our theology on an unclear or obscure text and ignore the clear passages, we inevitably fall into error. When dealing with a difficult passage that contradicts many clear passages, the correct approach is to consider other possibilities such as transmission errors, translation errors, or simply that the passage means something that we have not considered. Even if after considering other possibilities the obscure passage remains puzzling, we should not abandon the many clear passages and accept a contradictory interpretation.
You might almost have had a point, though there are other options that just throwing the words away.
Here is another passage to affirm what Jesus says in John 2

John 10:17-18
17 The reason the Father loves Me is that I lay down My life in order to take it up again. 18 No one takes it from Me, but I lay it down of My own accord. I have authority to lay it down and authority to take it up again. This charge I have received from My Father.”
https://biblehub.com/john/10-18.htm
 
Again, the physical aspect is dead, the spiritual man is the real man and is still alive. The Word that took on flesh does not die, nor can it for it is the source of life itself!

Doug
Now this is something that is entirely new to me and I have been doing this for years. So, you're saying Jesus was not really completely dead.
 
Now this is something that is entirely new to me and I have been doing this for years. So, you're saying Jesus was not really completely dead.
Something happened at the cross. It is absurd to say that God no longer exists. It is a guess what happened metaphysically and the metaphysics is not something we will clearly know. Christians have eternal life even when their body dies such that a metaphysical event happens with them. Will the unitarian deny that so they can also deny who Christ is?
 
Now this is something that is entirely new to me and I have been doing this for years. So, you're saying Jesus was not really completely dead.
No, that is not what I said:

Body and Spirit/soul are distinct aspects of a human being. The Spirit does not cease to exist or function after the physical body dies. Jesus’s body was dead, but the life that was committed to the Father’s hands, did not and cannot die! Our spirits are the same, and they do not cease to function or exist after the body has died.

The Spirit is the actual source of life to the body. It is cognitive, emotional and intellectual in function; it is the real being of every person.

The physical aspect of Jesus was killed, but not the Spiritual aspect that made the physical Jesus who he was in the flesh. Thus the physical man was dead, but the spirit of Jesus did not and was reunited with the physical aspect to effect the resurrection.

Physical death occurs when the spirit of the man is separated from the body of the man.

Doug
 

Help me understand...

God was a Fetus in the womb of a young Israel woman?

Mary wrapped God in cuddly clothes in a Manger.
God was tempted and Died.
No man has seen God, yet THEY SAW Jesus.
God increased in wisdom and understanding.
God asked when Lazerus Died.
God told the Devil "Worship the Lord Your God which is ME and serve Him only."
God got baptized by John the Baptist in the river.
God raised God from the dead.
God was sacrificed on a cross for the other God.

This IS NOT NUTS TO YOU?

I would like one verse that actually calls Jesus God the Son.

One verse that actually says Jesus is a god-man.
One verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
One verse that actually says we must believe God is three persons.
One verse out of approximately 31,102 Bible verses that says God is Triune.
One verse that actually says Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
One verse that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should have been plainly and clearly taught by someone somewhere.
 

Help me understand...

God was a Fetus in the womb of a young Israel woman?

Mary wrapped God in cuddly clothes in a Manger.
God was tempted and Died.
No man has seen God, yet THEY SAW Jesus.
God increased in wisdom and understanding.
God asked when Lazerus Died.
God told the Devil "Worship the Lord Your God which is ME and serve Him only."
God got baptized by John the Baptist in the river.
God raised God from the dead.
God was sacrificed on a cross for the other God.

This IS NOT NUTS TO YOU?
The word "God" is not the personal name of the Father Peterlag, it is His nature. (Rom 1:20, Acts 17:29)
Just don't replace the name of Jesus, being God is also His nature.(Col 2:9)
And replace your use of "God" to "Father" I'm sure you will understand those you state above Peterlag.
I would like one verse that actually calls Jesus God the Son.
Jesus as the "only begotten God." (John 1:18)
One verse that actually says Jesus is a god-man.
Jesus is the "Son of Man" and "Son of God." (Mat 26:63,64)
One verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
God was manifest in the flesh.(1Tim 3:16)
One verse that actually says we must believe God is three persons.
Baptized them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19)
One verse out of approximately 31,102 Bible verses that says God is Triune.
Yes, not one verse that also state Unitarist.
One verse that actually says Jesus is both 100 percent God and 100 percent man.
As "Son of God" and "Son of Man."
One verse that actually says Jesus is God because if it's that important of a doctrine it should have been plainly and clearly taught by someone somewhere.
It's from Jesus, not just from someone.
"No one goes to the Father except through Me, the life (eternal life)" (1John 5:11,12,20)
 
Back
Top Bottom