Argument against the Doctrine of the Trinity. (And keep it clean, please.)

[Rella]

A begotten Son. Not a Son without a beginning.

A beginning noted by the word begotten

The firstborn of all creation -

You said .....“A begotten Son. Not a Son without a beginning.” ​

Corrected from the bible.
The Son is described as “begotten,” but Scripture does not say this means He had a beginning. “Begotten” refers to unique relationship and identity, not origin in time.


The Bible never says:

the Son began to exist

the Son is a created being

“begotten” = “had a beginning”

Instead, Scripture uses “begotten” to express:

uniqueness (John 1:14, 1:18)

origin from the Father in relationship, not in time

revelation (Psalm 2:7 fulfilled in resurrection; Acts 13:33)

You said......“A beginning noted by the word begotten.” ​

Biblically corrected

The word “begotten” does not indicate a beginning of existence. In Scripture it can refer to appointment, revelation, or unique sonship—not creation.


Some Examples:

Psalm 2:7 ....God “begot” the King at enthronement

Acts 13:33 ....“begotten” fulfilled in the resurrection

Hebrews 1:5 .... “begotten” tied to exaltation, not origin

John 1:18 ....The Son already exists and “explains” the Father

So “begotten” never teaches a starting point for the Son’s existence.

You said ......“The firstborn of all creation.” ​

Correct biblically...
“Firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) means rank, authority, and inheritance—NOT that He was the first created being.


Why?

Verse 16 immediately says He created all thing .... including everything created.

“Firstborn” in Scripture often means preeminent heir, not first produced

Israel is called God’s “firstborn” (Exod 4:22)

David is called “firstborn” though youngest (Ps 89:27)

Thus, “firstborn” = supreme over creation, not “first thing God made.”



Here is your list rewritten accurately and biblically and you should keep them for future reference

The Son is called “begotten,” which reflects His unique relationship to the Father, not that He had a beginning.

The term “begotten” in Scripture does not indicate that the Son began to exist but expresses revelation, sonship, and exaltation.

“Firstborn of all creation” means the Son is supreme over creation—the heir and ruler—not the first creature.

 

[Paul]

You said .....“A begotten Son. Not a Son without a beginning.” ​

Corrected from the bible.
The Son is described as “begotten,” but Scripture does not say this means He had a beginning. “Begotten” refers to unique relationship and identity, not origin in time.

It doesn't even state the Father has no beginning. I don't believe He shares your no beginning concept but it remains unknown to me as He kept that to Himself. He's unbegotten, that is if the Father has a beginning it couldn't be by any other being.
“You are my witnesses,” declares the LORD, “and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

What does unbegotten mean? As it appears to me, I could be wrong, that's how your describing the definition of begotten.

The Bible never says:

the Son began to exist

the Son is a created being

“begotten” = “had a beginning”

Instead, Scripture uses “begotten” to express:

uniqueness (John 1:14, 1:18)

origin from the Father in relationship, not in time

revelation (Psalm 2:7 fulfilled in resurrection; Acts 13:33)

You said......“A beginning noted by the word begotten.” ​

Biblically corrected

The word “begotten” does not indicate a beginning of existence. In Scripture it can refer to appointment, revelation, or unique sonship—not creation.


Some Examples:

Psalm 2:7 ....God “begot” the King at enthronement

Acts 13:33 ....“begotten” fulfilled in the resurrection

Hebrews 1:5 .... “begotten” tied to exaltation, not origin

John 1:18 ....The Son already exists and “explains” the Father

So “begotten” never teaches a starting point for the Son’s existence.

You said ......“The firstborn of all creation.” ​

Correct biblically...
“Firstborn of all creation” (Colossians 1:15) means rank, authority, and inheritance—NOT that He was the first created being.


Why?

Verse 16 immediately says He created all thing .... including everything created.

God, our Father from whom all things come created by, through, for His Son except the person of the Son who was created by the Father alone.
God our Father spoke to us in these last days by His Son.

“Firstborn” in Scripture often means preeminent heir, not first produced

The Father is already over His creation and everything belongs to Him. He has not received from any other being. You havn't noted this distinction between Father and Son?

Israel is called God’s “firstborn” (Exod 4:22)

Gods firstborn, and He would have one whether you believe that is Christ or not, would be a being not a people. Such a being would make such a statement, "before Abraham was born I Am"
"The Firstborn OF all creation -the beginning of the creation of God

David is called “firstborn” though youngest (Ps 89:27)

Your reading it wrong. the Christ is the most exalted not David. God didn't make David His Firstborn He appointed His Firstborn to Davids line. And the Christ is forever and in Christ Gods promise to David is fulfilled.
Just as Peter pointed out to the croud in acts "you will not let your Holy one see decay", was about Jesus's resurrection not David as He was still buried there that very day.

He will call out to me, ‘You are my Father,
my God, the Rock my Savior.’
27And I will appoint him to be my firstborn,
the most exalted of the kings of the earth.
28I will maintain my love to him forever,
and my covenant with him will never fail.
29I will establish his line forever,
his throne as long as the heavens endure.

Thus, “firstborn” = supreme over creation, not “first thing God made.”

The Father is supreme. Jesus is HIS Christ.

Here is your list rewritten accurately and biblically and you should keep them for future reference

The Son is called “begotten,” which reflects His unique relationship to the Father, not that He had a beginning.

The term “begotten” in Scripture does not indicate that the Son began to exist but expresses revelation, sonship, and exaltation.

“Firstborn of all creation” means the Son is supreme over creation—the heir and ruler—not the first creature.

Oh Rella

 

[Hazelelponi]

Jesus is not seen as another. He is not "a" God. He is the First and Last. Its the Father not another in the Son. Not the Son in the Son.
The Fathers works Jesus performed do not testify that He is the Father, (God), but that He and the Father are one.

To me God did not give His glory to another as in away. Hence He still is on His throne.


It certainly doesn't prove their equal.

Its about Christ in us. We are one just as He and the Father are one. Its not hard to understand what He states
In Fact as He defined=>I in them and you in me

If we are the seed of Abraham as we and Christ are one then Jesus is the First and Last as He and His Father are one

Yet He sat down on His Fathers throne as He stated. It doesn't make your point either. You think it weakens my case? How I see Father and Son is how it shown throughout scripture and I believe Jesus states the same context.
Is this not stated of the risen Lord?=>He has made us a Kingdom of Priests to serve His God and Father

I assume you don't believe He is adopted and I know you don't believe He is born/begotten as a child. Yes, He is called the Son of His Father in scripture because He is a Son. I for the life of me don't know how you can read that any different. Did someone redefine the meaning of the word Son and Father?

Its the Father in the Son doing His work. I am sorry you see Him as another then Himself. I don't. God spoke to us by His Son. God created by His Son.
God lives in all His fullness in His Son.

I'm not denying the Fathers glory. To me it is shown in the Son as well as Himself.

It is His being without limit that dwells in His Son and they are one.

If you think that all things are from the Father disproves Jesus is His Firstborn your free to do so. I fail to see that.

God is our Father Christ is our Lord.

Jesus abides within the framework of His "Fathers" will is what I see. He received from His Father is what I see. The Father has not received from any other being from what I see. So excuse me if I believe Jesus who states the Father is greater than Him.

Paul, at this point the issue is no longer just logic. It is plain grammar, syntax, and the narrative structure of Scripture itself

When you say “It’s the Father in the Son… not the Son in the Son,” you are not merely affirming oneness (which we all do).
You are erasing personal distinctions that the biblical text refuses to erase.

Five quick, decisive proofs from the text:

John 1:1b
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
“The Word was with God.”

The preposition πρός + accusative never means “inside” or “identical to.”
It means face-to-face, personal communion with another distinct person.
The Word is not “with” Himself.

John 17:5 (pre-incarnation)
“Glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

Two personal pronouns.
Two subjects.
Shared glory with another before creation.

Modalism turns this into incoherent self-talk.

Hebrews teaches a priest is appointed “on behalf of men in relation to God” (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, Heb 5:1). And
Christ “ever lives to make intercession” (Heb 7:25).

Intercession and priesthood collapse the instant the intercessor and the one interceded to are the same single Person.

Revelation 5:13 — the text you still have not answered:
“To Him who sits on the throne
AND to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and power forever!”

Greek grammar: two datives joined by καί, not one person with two titles.
Every creature in the universe sings to two distinct recipients the identical divine worship.
No angel ever rebukes it (contrast Rev 19:10; 22:9).

Modalism makes this the most absurd scene in Scripture: one solitary Person praising Himself in two costumes while the universe applauds. That's just not a consistent reading of Scripture according to the Scriptures.

Love, sending, obedience, mutual glorification
John 3:35; 5:23; 10:17–18; 14:31; 17:1; Phil 2:8

None of these are possible without real personal distinction.

A single Person cannot love, send, obey, or glorify “another” who is actually Himself.

Unity of essence? Absolutely.
Identity of person? Never.

Scripture will not allow the Father to be the Son, any more than it will allow the Son to be a creature.

Until you let Father and Son be truly distinct in person yet truly one in essence,
the grammar of the New Testament will keep resisting you—because it resists every form of modalism and more besides.

The Lamb on the throne is not the Father wearing a mask. He is the eternal Son, worthy of the same worship because He is the same God.

 

[Paul]

Paul, at this point the issue is no longer just logic. It is plain grammar, syntax, and the narrative structure of Scripture itself

When you say “It’s the Father in the Son… not the Son in the Son,” you are not merely affirming oneness (which we all do).
You are erasing personal distinctions that the biblical text refuses to erase.

Five quick, decisive proofs from the text:

John 1:1b
ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν
“The Word was with God.”

The preposition πρός + accusative never means “inside” or “identical to.”
It means face-to-face, personal communion with another distinct person.
The Word is not “with” Himself.

John 17:5 (pre-incarnation)
“Glorify Me together with Yourself, with the glory which I had with You before the world was.”

Two personal pronouns.
Two subjects.
Shared glory with another before creation.

Modalism turns this into incoherent self-talk.

Hebrews teaches a priest is appointed “on behalf of men in relation to God” (πρὸς τὸν θεόν, Heb 5:1). And
Christ “ever lives to make intercession” (Heb 7:25).

Intercession and priesthood collapse the instant the intercessor and the one interceded to are the same single Person.

Revelation 5:13 — the text you still have not answered:
“To Him who sits on the throne
AND to the Lamb
be blessing and honor and glory and power forever!”

Greek grammar: two datives joined by καί, not one person with two titles.
Every creature in the universe sings to two distinct recipients the identical divine worship.
No angel ever rebukes it (contrast Rev 19:10; 22:9).

Modalism makes this the most absurd scene in Scripture: one solitary Person praising Himself in two costumes while the universe applauds. That's just not a consistent reading of Scripture according to the Scriptures.

Love, sending, obedience, mutual glorification
John 3:35; 5:23; 10:17–18; 14:31; 17:1; Phil 2:8

None of these are possible without real personal distinction.

A single Person cannot love, send, obey, or glorify “another” who is actually Himself.

Unity of essence? Absolutely.
Identity of person? Never.

Scripture will not allow the Father to be the Son, any more than it will allow the Son to be a creature.

Until you let Father and Son be truly distinct in person yet truly one in essence,
the grammar of the New Testament will keep resisting you—because it is resists every form of modalism.

The Lamb on the throne is not the Father wearing a mask. He is the eternal Son, worthy of the same worship because He is the same God.

Its the Father Deity in the Son as the Father.

Jesus is not the Father. He is Gods firstborn=NOTE: "HIS" spirit. -not Deity His spirit was formed by God as the first of Gods works. In Him was pleased to dwell the fullness -Gifted not formed at that beginning.
This is the Spirit of the Son who was not a newly formed spirit in Mary. "Father into your hands I commit MY spirit" Jesus descended into the body that was prepared by God for Him. And He came to do all that the Father commanded Him to do.

With the Father who is Deity living in His Firstborn without limit the Son is the radiance of the Fathers glory and the exact imprint of the Fathers very being. Its the Deity of the Father in the Son that spoke to us. Its the Deity of the Father in the Son who created. God created by His Son. If you seen the Son who have seen the Father in Him doing His work. They are one. In this context God was the Logos. A Son who is called God. A Son in the form of God. But the Deity didn't become the Son it is the living Father in Him in all His fullness. All the power and treasures of wisdom and knowledge live in Christ. But as a Son Jesus has His own mind and spirit.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Its the Father Deity in the Son as the Father.

Jesus is not the Father. He is Gods firstborn=NOTE: "HIS" spirit. -not Deity His spirit was formed by God as the first of Gods works. In Him was pleased to dwell the fullness -Gifted not formed at that beginning.
This is the Spirit of the Son who was not a newly formed spirit in Mary. "Father into your hands I commit MY spirit" Jesus descended into the body that was prepared by God for Him. And He came to do all that the Father commanded Him to do.

With the Father who is Deity living in His Firstborn without limit the Son is the radiance of the Fathers glory and the exact imprint of the Fathers very being. Its the Deity of the Father in the Son that spoke to us. Its the Deity of the Father in the Son who created. God created by His Son. If you seen the Son who have seen the Father in Him doing His work. They are one. In this context God was the Logos. A Son who is called God. A Son in the form of God. But the Deity didn't become the Son it is the living Father in Him in all His fullness. All the power and treasures of wisdom and knowledge live in Christ. But as a Son Jesus has His own mind and spirit.

Paul, at this point the issue is no longer whether Scripture teaches the Son’s obedience, reception, or mediatorial exaltation — we both affirm those things.

The issue is that you continue to collapse two distinct biblical categories into one, and then treat the result as decisive.

Scripture speaks in two ways about the one Son:

• According to His eternal identity, He is the Word who was God, who created all things, who shares the Father’s glory before the world existed, and who receives the worship due to God alone.
• According to His incarnation, He is sent, anointed, given authority, exalted, and speaks of the Father as “My God.”

I have repeatedly acknowledged the second category.
You have repeatedly refused to account for the first.

So let me ask one question — not rhetorically, but plainly — and I’ll leave it there:

How can a being who is not fully and eternally God receive the same undivided worship as “Him who sits on the throne,” from every creature in heaven and on earth (Rev 5:13), without Scripture depicting idolatry?

Saying “the Father authorized it” does not answer the question, because Scripture explicitly forbids giving divine worship to any being who is not God (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).

If the Lamb is not fully God, Revelation presents blasphemy.
If Revelation presents truth, then the Lamb shares the divine identity.

That is the point you continue to step around, not because it is unclear, but because your definition of “Son” will not allow it.

Scripture does not permit us to solve that tension by redefining worship, redefining deity, or redefining sonship. It forces us to confess what we do not fully comprehend — that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and God is one.

At this point, the difference between us is not what the text says, but what we are willing to allow it to mean.

 

[Paul]

Paul, at this point the issue is no longer whether Scripture teaches the Son’s obedience, reception, or mediatorial exaltation — we both affirm those things.

The issue is that you continue to collapse two distinct biblical categories into one, and then treat the result as decisive.

Scripture speaks in two ways about the one Son:

• According to His eternal identity, He is the Word who was God, who created all things, who shares the Father’s glory before the world existed, and who receives the worship due to God alone.
• According to His incarnation, He is sent, anointed, given authority, exalted, and speaks of the Father as “My God.”

I have repeatedly acknowledged the second category.
You have repeatedly refused to account for the first.

So let me ask one question — not rhetorically, but plainly — and I’ll leave it there:

How can a being who is not fully and eternally God receive the same undivided worship as “Him who sits on the throne,” from every creature in heaven and on earth (Rev 5:13), without Scripture depicting idolatry?

Saying “the Father authorized it” does not answer the question, because Scripture explicitly forbids giving divine worship to any being who is not God (Rev 19:10; 22:8–9).

If the Lamb is not fully God, Revelation presents blasphemy.
If Revelation presents truth, then the Lamb shares the divine identity.

Jesus is one with the Father; The Father is living in Him. The Deity in Him would state I am the First and Last. It's the very person of the Father living in His Son. Again, they are ONE. We may differ in how it is so but we agree Jesus is the First and Last not a God.
Clearly Gods word as in God does not and would not ever-present blasphemy.

That is the point you continue to step around, not because it is unclear, but because your definition of “Son” will not allow it.

I guess we can agree to disagree then. God can do whatever He is pleased to do and whatever He wants to do is never blasphemy. Jesus is currently where the Father wants Him to be -sit at my right hand - until -the Father makes His enemies His footstool. Then the Son of Man will return with/on the clouds of heaven and He will raise up all that the Father gave Him on that last day as that is also what the Father wants Him to do.

Scripture does not permit us to solve that tension by redefining worship, redefining deity, or redefining sonship. It forces us to confess what we do not fully comprehend — that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God, and God is one.

At this point, the difference between us is not what the text says, but what we are willing to allow it to mean.

Jesus lives and can hear and answer prayers after all if He will's the Spirit acts and conveys His answer according to thoughts of mind of Christ. Just as that same Spirit conveys the will and presence of Christ in the believer. In this context it's the Spirit of Christ even though the Spirit of the only true God is the Fathers always.

He is Gods Firstborn and has always been the Son. (God's oldest child) -His spirit
In Him Gods Spirit lives without Limit