Unitarianism vs Trinitarianism

[Wrangler]

And you deny scripture that plainly shows the deity of Christ John 1:18

Why do you keep re-purposing John’s Gospel? Given that he wrote it to prove something other than you are using it for, you have to admit there is a valid non-trinitarian take - if you are intellectually honest.

 

[RLT63]

Why do you keep re-purposing John’s Gospel? Given that he wrote it to prove something other than you are using it for, you have to admit there is a valid non-trinitarian take - if you are intellectually honest.

Jhn 1:18

No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jhn 1:30

“This is He in behalf of whom I said, ‘After me is coming a Man who has proved to be [fn]my superior, because He existed before me.’

 

[Matthias]

Jhn 1:18

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

“God the only Son” - trinitarian sounding

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

(KJV)

“The only begotten Son” - Jewish sounding

 

[RLT63]

“God the only Son” - trinitarian sounding

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

(KJV)

“The only begotten Son” - Jewish sounding

I thought the NASB was the most accurate translation, why would you go back to the KJV? I thought it was translated by Trinitarians.

 

[Matthias]

I thought the NASB was the most accurate translation, why would you go back to the KJV? I thought it was translated by Trinitarians.

Almost all translations are produced by trinitarians.

Have you so soon forgotten your link? The one which said NASB95 is the best (along with NKJV) and NASB20 is not a good translation?

 

[RLT63]

Almost all translations are produced by trinitarians.

Have you so soon forgotten your link? The one which said NASB95 is the best (along with NKJV) and NASB20 is not a good translation?

Jhn 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.
NASB95
Jhn 1:30

“This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who [fn]has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’
NASB95

 

[Matthias]

Jhn 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.
NASB95

“The only begotten God” - the one God isn’t begotten.

Tertullian lands hard on this point. The Supreme God is not begotten. Trinitarianism later opposed him.

 

[RLT63]

“The only begotten God” - the one God isn’t begotten.

Tertullian lands hard on this point. The Supreme God is not begotten. Trinitarianism later opposed him.

The Son is begotten.

 

[Matthias]

The Son is begotten.

By his God, the Supreme God, the God of the Jews, as described in the birth narratives.

 

[Wrangler]

Jhn 1:18

No one has seen God at any time; God the only Son, who is in the arms of the Father, He has explained Him.
Jhn 1:30

“This is He in behalf of whom I said, ‘After me is coming a Man who has proved to be [fn]my superior, because He existed before me.’

More evidence you suppose copying-and-pasting is a substitute for conversation.

 

[Matthias]

The Son is begotten.

Origen is your man (“eternal generation”); not Tertullian.

 

[RLT63]

More evidence you suppose copying-and-pasting is a substitute for conversation.

More evidence you deny the plain reading of scripture. What has more authority, my argument or the Word of God?

 

[Wrangler]

More evidence you deny the plain reading of scripture. What has more authority, my argument or the Word of God?

To support your claim, you are required. I read the monotheist Bible for what it is. You copy and past monotheist text, supposing it supports trinitarianism.

God

God in his unitarian nature, not "the Father"

God, not "the Father, but God" in his unitarian nature so loved the world

God, not "the Father, but God" in his unitarian nature so loved the world that he gave

God, not "the Father, but God" in his unitarian nature so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.​

This juxtapostion of Jesus and God proves your doctrine false over and over again throughout Scripture. IF your doctrine had one bit of truth to it, there would not be one single vers juxtaposing God with Jesus but there are many.

 

[RLT63]

To support your claim, you are required. I read the monotheist Bible for what it is. You copy and past monotheist text, supposing it supports trinitarianism.

God

God in his unitarian nature, not "the Father"

God, not "the Father, but God" in his unitarian nature so loved the world

God, not "the Father, but God" in his unitarian nature so loved the world that he gave

God, not "the Father, but God" in his unitarian nature so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.​

This juxtapostion of Jesus and God proves your doctrine false over and over again throughout Scripture. IF your doctrine had one bit of truth to it, there would not be one single vers juxtaposing God with Jesus but there are many.

You don't address the scriptures I gave. They don't fit your narrative so you just ignore them.

 

[Wrangler]

You don't address the scriptures I gave. They don't fit your narrative so you just ignore them.

Untrue. I've adddressed it over and over again. See post # 121.

 

[marks]

Why do you keep re-purposing John’s Gospel? Given that he wrote it to prove something other than you are using it for, you have to admit there is a valid non-trinitarian take - if you are intellectually honest.

Seriously?

Let's follow this through to the end, shall we?

I'll guess your lead, but correct me if I'm wrong . . .

John wrote to prove Jesus was the Son of God, not that He was God. Is that it?

Therefore, any passages which appear to show that Jesus IS God, well, they cannot actually be saying that, so they must really be saying something else.

Am I guessing rightly?

Much love!

 

[RLT63]

Untrue. I've adddressed it over and over again. See post # 121.

Wrangler said "Why do you keep re-purposing John’s Gospel? Given that he wrote it to prove something other than you are using it for, you have to admit there is a valid non-trinitarian take - if you are intellectually honest."

Jhn 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.
NASB95
Jhn 1:30

“This is He on behalf of whom I said, ‘After me comes a Man who [fn]has a higher rank than I, for He existed before me.’
NASB95

 

[Wrangler]

Seriously?

Let's follow this through to the end, shall we?

I'll guess your lead, but correct me if I'm wrong . . .

John wrote to prove Jesus was the Son of God, not that He was God. Is that it?

Therefore, any passages which appear to show that Jesus IS God, well, they cannot actually be saying that, so they must really be saying something else.

Am I guessing rightly?

Much love!

You got it!

I think mystical dualists struggle with the notion of mutual exclusivity; that if ALL is for X, it necessarily means none is for <not X>.

Despite the poetic and figurative 1st chapter, the Gospel of John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the entire Bible. Only here does Jesus admit he has a God - who is the only true God. Mutual exclusivity, biting trinitarians dogma apart again.

 

[marks]

You got it!

I think mystical dualists struggle with the notion of mutual exclusivity; that if ALL is for X, it necessarily means none is for <not X>.

Despite the poetic and figurative 1st chapter, the Gospel of John is the most anti-trinitarian book of the entire Bible. Only here does Jesus admit he has a God - who is the only true God. Mutual exclusivity, biting trinitarians dogma apart again.

That's not what you were talking about.

Why do you keep re-purposing John’s Gospel? Given that he wrote it to prove something other than you are using it for, you have to admit there is a valid non-trinitarian take - if you are intellectually honest.

Your claim is that John wrote for a particular reason, (not to show Trinity), therefore, there is a valid reading of John that does not involve the Trinity. Is this what you are saying?

Let's start at the top.

For what reason did John write? Please show the Scriptures which you are answering with. It will be easier for the reader following along.

Much love!

 

[marks]

Mutual exclusivity, biting trinitarians dogma apart again.

There's that intellectual objection. "It makes no sense, both can't be true at the same time."

Much love!