The Trinity lacks any Biblical support

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.

Jesus as the "only begotten God." (John 1:18)

Jesus is the "Son of Man" and "Son of God." (Mat 26:63,64)

God was manifest in the flesh.(1Tim 3:16)

Baptized them in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. (Matt 28:19)

Yes, not one verse that also state Unitarist.

As "Son of God" and "Son of Man."

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)
One verse that actually says we must believe Jesus is God.
What you posted in response to what I wrote last night makes no sense. Here's just one example. For that you quote (1Timothy 3:16)

The verse says nothing about that we should believe Jesus is God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
 
What you posted in response to what I wrote last night makes no sense. Here's just one example. For that you quote (1Timothy 3:16)

The verse says nothing about that we should believe Jesus is God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Perhaps God lets a person think he is a Christian so that such a person can eventually recognize that the Son of God is literally born as the one has the essence of his father just like any other son. Really, there is no list of things you have to believe upon becoming a Christian. People do not learn much of it until they grow in Christ.
 
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 !!!
It also means only-begotten. We have Jesus being called a Son throughout the Bible. We can see Jesus was born. We see Jesus has a mother and God as his Father. Means Jesus is begotten. Scripture explicitly says such and describes it. You can't change it.
 
It also means only-begotten. We have Jesus being called a Son throughout the Bible. We can see Jesus was born. We see Jesus has a mother and God as his Father. Means Jesus is begotten. Scripture explicitly says such and describes it. You can't change it.
Pardon me @civic, as he is addressing you but I just have this (slightly more sinmplistic) that he should know if possible.

In Scripture, “begotten” does not mean “biologically created” or “brought into existence by birth.” The Greek word monogenēs (often translated “only begotten,” e.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:16) does not describe the act of being born but the status of being unique, one-of-a-kind, or possessing a singular relationship. This is why Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenēs (Hebrews 11:17) even though Abraham had other sons. Isaac was not the only one Abraham begat, but he was the unique covenant son. Thus, “begotten” in biblical usage refers to relationship and rank, not biological origin.


Likewise, calling Jesus “Son” does not mean God reproduced or created Him. Scripture explicitly separates Christ’s eternal Sonship from His human birth. Jesus was born of Mary according to the flesh (Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4), but He is called God’s Son before the incarnation (John 1:1–3; 17:5). Psalm 2:7 (“You are My Son; today I have begotten You”) is applied in the New Testament not to Jesus’ conception, but to His enthronement and exaltation (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5). Therefore, Scripture itself defines “begotten” as a declaration of divine sonship and authority, not the beginning of existence. To equate “begotten” with biological birth is to import human reproduction categories into divine language—something the Bible never does.
 
Pardon me @civic, as he is addressing you but I just have this (slightly more sinmplistic) that he should know if possible.

In Scripture, “begotten” does not mean “biologically created” or “brought into existence by birth.” The Greek word monogenēs (often translated “only begotten,” e.g., John 1:14, 18; 3:16) does not describe the act of being born but the status of being unique, one-of-a-kind, or possessing a singular relationship. This is why Isaac is called Abraham’s monogenēs (Hebrews 11:17) even though Abraham had other sons. Isaac was not the only one Abraham begat, but he was the unique covenant son. Thus, “begotten” in biblical usage refers to relationship and rank, not biological origin.


Likewise, calling Jesus “Son” does not mean God reproduced or created Him. Scripture explicitly separates Christ’s eternal Sonship from His human birth. Jesus was born of Mary according to the flesh (Luke 1:35; Galatians 4:4), but He is called God’s Son before the incarnation (John 1:1–3; 17:5). Psalm 2:7 (“You are My Son; today I have begotten You”) is applied in the New Testament not to Jesus’ conception, but to His enthronement and exaltation (Acts 13:33; Hebrews 1:5). Therefore, Scripture itself defines “begotten” as a declaration of divine sonship and authority, not the beginning of existence. To equate “begotten” with biological birth is to import human reproduction categories into divine language—something the Bible never does.
The "Son of God" in your "Trinity" is stated to have been born. You have two options here. Either the Son of God in your trinity is a human or the Son of God is God and thus isn't God due to having been born.

Understand why so many humans are called Sons of God in the Bible now? Has no reference to deity.

Luke 1
35And the angel answering, said to her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore also the Holy One being born will be called the Son of God.
 
What you posted in response to what I wrote last night makes no sense. Here's just one example. For that you quote (1Timothy 3:16)

The verse says nothing about that we should believe Jesus is God.

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.
Do that mean Peterlag that only 1Tim 3:16 brings your doubt but others are correct? You did not address them like I did to yours.
I quote Bible text do that mean you do not believe what the Scripture says Peterlag? "God was manifest in the flesh."
Will you question the Byzantine text type manuscripts that wrote it Peterlag?
Or you want the Alexandrian text type to support Jesus as the "only begotten God?"

1Ti 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

1Ti 3:16 AndG2532 without controversyG3672 greatG3173 isG2076 theG3588 mysteryG3466 of godliness:G2150
GodG2316 was manifestG5319 inG1722 the flesh,G4561 justifiedG1344 inG1722 the Spirit,G4151 seenG3700 of angels,G32 preachedG2784 untoG1722 the Gentiles,G1484 believed onG4100 inG1722 the world,G2889 received upG353 intoG1722 glory.G1391

1Ti 3:16 καιG2532 CONJ ομολογουμενωςG3672 ADV μεγαG3173 A-NSN εστινG1510 V-PAI-3S τοG3588 T-NSN τηςG3588 T-GSF ευσεβειαςG2150 N-GSF μυστηριονG3466 N-NSN
θεοςG2316 N-NSM εφανερωθηG5319 V-API-3S ενG1722 PREP σαρκιG4561 N-DSF εδικαιωθηG1344 V-API-3S ενG1722 PREP πνευματιG4151 N-DSN ωφθηG3708 V-API-3S αγγελοιςG32 N-DPM εκηρυχθηG2784 V-API-3S ενG1722 PREP εθνεσινG1484 N-DPN επιστευθηG4100 V-API-3S ενG1722 PREP κοσμωG2889 N-DSM ανεληφθηG353 V-API-3S ενG1722 PREP δοξηG1391 N-DSF
 
Perhaps God lets a person think he is a Christian so that such a person can eventually recognize that the Son of God is literally born as the one has the essence of his father just like any other son. Really, there is no list of things you have to believe upon becoming a Christian. People do not learn much of it until they grow in Christ.
Are you implying that one who rejects the trinity is 'not' saved?
 
Are you implying that one who rejects the trinity is 'not' saved?
That is your point. I note that people can become a Christian and lack knowledge of many things. They may be confused by the words and concepts and thus not know the testimony of scripture. So, a person is not quite justified by accuracy of doctrines. However, a staunch denial of the essence of Christ Jesus does bring in suspicions to me about a person's status.
 
Yes, manuscripts are old but provide the origin and evidence of truth.
I agree with what @hutch says for the most part.

The problem herein lays with even having old transcripts that provide the origin and evidence of truth....
is when two people read the same words and disagree with what they mean.

This problem is centuries old .
 
There's a difference between God who is Spirit and how I stay focused on walking in the spirit...

In Romans 8:4, it's suggesting we walk after or by this spirit. In Romans 8:9, it calls this spirit the spirit of Christ. In Romans 8:11, it calls this spirit the spirit of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead and that it dwells in us. In 1 Corinthians 3:16, it calls it the spirit of God that dwells in us. In Galatians 4:6, it's called the spirit of his son. And in Galatians 5:16, it talks about walking in the spirit.

I stay focused on walking in the spirit to the end that I'm right inside the spirit as close as I can get right in the face of Jesus Christ. The Greek word menō translated "abide" often deals with being in him, which I'm very concerned about when it comes to walking in Christ, which I believe is the same as walking in the spirit. To be in him or to abide in him deals with remaining or continuing to be present. To dwell, live, and be within him to the end that we are operative in him by his divine influence and energy. My first red flag that started me looking into how to do this was when I realized it's the Catholics that teach we are sinners. They teach us to look at ourselves and our sin. I teach that we should look at Christ and to walk in his spirit.

John 4:23-24
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
 
John 4:23-24
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.

God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Excellent Trinitarian verses!

Do you worship the Word who was God (John 1:1c) and now tabernacles as Jesus (John 1:14)? And since God can never cease to be God then Jesus is God. Trinitarians believe that Biblical truth. Do you?

Keep those Trimitarian verses coming!
 
Excellent Trinitarian verses!

Do you worship the Word who was God (John 1:1c) and now tabernacles as Jesus (John 1:14)? And since God can never cease to be God then Jesus is God. Trinitarians believe that Biblical truth. Do you?

Keep those Trimitarian verses coming!
Amen !!!
 
I agree with what @hutch says for the most part.

The problem herein lays with even having old transcripts that provide the origin and evidence of truth....
is when two people read the same words and disagree with what they mean.
Homonym might be resolved by what Bible lexicon defined what it means.
This problem is centuries old .
The problem is about Byzantine text type manuscript vs Alexandrian text type manuscript.
Which of the two we believe as most reliable?
 
Homonym might be resolved by what Bible lexicon defined what it means.

The problem is about Byzantine text type manuscript vs Alexandrian text type manuscript.
Which of the two we believe as most reliable?
I tend to believe the older the more authentic... Alexandrian... I could be wrong.

Still no matter if you and I read the same word and come away with a different meaning.
 
Evidence is using any data, statement, or observation that can be used to support a claim. For example, if your claim is that God is a trinity and you want to argue your claims that the Trinity is Biblical, you must provide evidence. You need to show some statements about God being three, any observations about God being three, or any data that is in lign with what your claim is.

These sorts of statements about God do not exist in the Bible. So before you start popping off a laundry list of verses about this and that, you need to start at square one. You cannot argue for the existence of something that does not have evidence.

Why is the trinity not established in the Bible?

The Bible never states God as "three persons in one being."

No verse says that "God is three in one."​
The technical terminology ("person," "essence," "substance") came later in the history of the church (e.g., at the Council of Nicaea, 325 AD).​

These key verses are interpretive, not definitive.

John 1:1 states "the Word was God," but equating "Word" with a distinct divine person involves theological assumptions.​
Matthew 28:19 says Father, Son, and Spirit but does not say they are co-equal or one God.​

Some New Testament scriptures seem to contradict Trinitarian thought.

John 17:3 - Jesus speaks of the Father as "the only true God."​
1 Corinthians 8:6 - "One God, the Father… and one Lord, Jesus Christ."​

These suggest distinction or hierarchy, not absolute equality.

The early church did not originally believe in later-defined Trinity; the teaching evolved over numerous centuries in response to debates (Arius vs. Athanasius, etc.).

There is no reference to the Trinity in the Bible, but only interpretations.​
There aren't any clear or definitive statement of the Trinity in the Bible.​

Therefore, the doctrine of the Trinity is a faith conclusion and not a belief based on evident biblical facts.
Posts like this let me know that some do not take 1 John 5:7 seriously. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. This verse was even quoted by early church fathers before scholars in Alexandria corrupted many verses like this one and Romans 8:1. Those are my two personal pet peeves. They were like JWs today rewriting their Bible with 10% less words when we are to live by every word of God.
 
Posts like this let me know that some do not take 1 John 5:7 seriously. 7 For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. This verse was even quoted by early church fathers before scholars in Alexandria corrupted many verses like this one and Romans 8:1. Those are my two personal pet peeves. They were like JWs today rewriting their Bible with 10% less words when we are to live by every word of God.
Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.
 
Concerning 1 John 5:7-8 where it has the words "In heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost, and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth" are words that are not found in any Greek Manuscript before the 15th or 16th century and in no ancient Version. - E. W. Bullinger., A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament: (London: Samuel Bagster & Sons, 1975), p. 11 of Appendix A.
Peter that is just not true so don't buy into that one. It was quoted in 200 AD and that is not the 15th or 16th century! I'm not saying that they are three persons, just as I am not three people. But I was made in God's image which is spirit, soul and body. Those three are one. Jesus embodies them all and is God. After all the Holy Spirit was called the Spirit of Christ in Romans 8:9. That is Jesus also called the Spirit of God.
 
I tend to believe the older the more authentic... Alexandrian... I could be wrong.
Yes, the Alexandrian is older, and for me also is more reliable.
The Byzantine could be wrong if we believe that Jesus is not God through that text.
Still no matter if you and I read the same word and come away with a different meaning.
May I know what specific same word we are discussing?
Maybe the Bible lexicon can help.
 
Back
Top Bottom