The Holey Trinity - "No Man has Seen God" John 1:18

I posed the question to Yahoo! Answers, which is a website I frequent, for suggestions on which topic I should tackle next about the Trinity. There are many places to go, but I want to know where people need help. A person with the pseudonym "Dzr" replied with a challenge. He does not seem to be interested in the truth, more so to prove me wrong. Unfortunately for him, I only teach what the Bible actually says. So proving 'me' wrong, would be proving the Bible wrong and that is not going to provide any satisfaction for him. Judging from the disrespect and delight he gets from belittling the correct way of viewing the Bible, he is just trying to stump me. And I do love a challenge. So I will address his assertion and will do so with the help of another poster on that website, "Tim in '66". Starting with Dzr's post:

"How about.. "No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son" John 1 :18. As an "expert" on the doctrine of the Trinity (because surely you wouldn't claim to have researched so greatly and attacked so viciously without being an expert) you will know how this relates to the Trinity and how to expose it as a fallacy?"

[For the record, I do not claim to be an "expert" on the Trinity. In fact, I have mentioned that no one can be an "expert" on this nonsensical doctrine that includes the idea that somehow 1+1+1=1. This is a doctrine that has been called a "mystery" by the most devout teachers of it. What I do claim is to be very well versed on how to disprove various aspects of the Trinity doctrine (Read "The Counterfeit Doctrine"). I do attack it "viciously" because it is a blasphemous teaching about the God whom I worship and love.]

This is Tim in '66's reply Dzr:

""No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son" John 1 :18," he is relying on an easily verifiable false [not to mention misleading] rendering of that scripture. How so?

i) The Latinized Koine Greek words "monogenēs theos" has incorrectly been rendered "the one and only Son," whereas "mono" means "one, single, only," and "genēs" means "sired, begotten," and "theos" means "god."

"monogenēs" is exactly the same word used at John 3:16,18 where I would warrant that Dzr's Bible renders it correctly, as "only begotten."

So then, that part of John 1:18 correctly reads, "No one has ever seen God, the only begotten god..."

ii) Now for the misleading part. Dzr tries to make it seem as if what he has quoted is complete in itself, but to anyone concerned with what the scripture ACTUALLY says, it is quite clear that it is not complete at all.

How so?

Because the WHOLE scripture reads:

"No one has ever seen God, the only begotten god who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known."

Or as the NWT renders it, "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is at the Father’s side is the one who has explained Him."

Tim did a great job of breaking down Dzr's misconceptions and misunderstandings of this verse. First addressing the original Greek and the then addressing the context in which Dzr ignored. There are a few more things I want to address, however.

There is a discrepancy in translations between which Greek word is used here to describe Jesus. The older translations, such as the King James, and those who use the King James structure say "only begotten son" (Greek: monogenēs huios). As oppose to the more recent Bibles that were translated after older and more accurate manuscripts were found. Those Bibles translate this as "only begotten god" (Greek: monogenēs theos). Thayer's and Smith's lexicon correctly has 'theos' in place of 'huios'. The  English Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, Aramic Bible in Plain English, and the New World Translation among many others.

"Some of the oldest MSS. and other authorities read here, "Only begotten God, which is in the bosom of the Father."" - Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers

I cannot stress enough the importance of having an accurate Bible translation based on the more recently found manuscripts that were composed closer to the time of Christ. The closer they are to Jesus' time the less they have been tainted by Trinitarian bias. THIS IS NO COINCIDENCE.

Another important aspect of understanding this scripture is what exactly the word "begotten" means.

Begotten:
To generate; to cause; produce as an effect (Dictionary.com)
To cause something to exist; (Merriam-Webster)

Some Trinitarians argue that Jesus was "caused to exist" by Mary, which is what makes him "begotten". According to the context of the Bible, that is not the case:

"By this the love of God was revealed in our case, that God sent his only-begotten Son into the world so that we might gain life through him." - 1 John 4:9 (NWT)

John writes that Jesus was begotten by God before he was sent into the world. This shows that Jesus was begotten by God, directly. This poses the question; can the Almighty God be a begotten God? Can it be said of Jehovah that he was "generated" or was "caused to exist"? Of course not! We know that Jehovah is, in fact, the first and the last. Jesus was the only begotten Son because he was the only creation that Jehovah created directly. Everything else Jehovah created, was done through Jesus:

"...all things have been created through him..." - Colossians 1:16 (ASV)

"Then I was by him, as a master workman..." - Proverbs 8:30 (ASV)

Pardon the worldly comparison, it is said that Dallas Cowboys owner Jerry Jones built the Cowboys football stadium. Is that true? Did Jerry Jones himself actually build the stadium? No, he had workers who literally built the stadium, yet, it can be (and is) said that Jerry Jones built it. This is still a true statement because he funded it, played a role in designing it, and ensured it was built to his standards.

So while Trinitarians quote John 1:18 as somehow proving their doctrine, as always, the opposite is quite true. Not only is Jesus contextually separated from the 'unseen God'. He is also given the distinction of being begotten, a distinction that could absolutely not be said of the one who is the Almighty God. Additionally, the very idea that it is explicitly stated that "No man has seen God" is fatal to the doctrine. Mind you, because it is not wise to commit the fallacy of equivocation, when "no man has seen God" that must mean that Jesus is NOT God because thousands and thousands of men have seen Jesus.

To answer Drz's final question, "How does it relate to the Trinity?", it doesn't. No scripture in the Bible relates in any way to a false doctrine. The only way I or Tim could answer this question was reword so it read like this: "How do Trinitarians relate this scripture to their doctrine?". In short, the answer is the same as all others, through taking it out of context, ignorance of the original language, manipulation, and misapplication.