One of the things Catholicism (and likely other denominations) reveres most in God is the magnificent love displayed in a god who would humble himself to become human, and humiliate himself by letting humans torture and kill him. The God you know from the Bible would never give up his glory, but the God I know - from that very same Bible - did just that. Funny how we could quote Bible verses back and forth and still never come to an agreement. Also funny how the word "begotten" (genitus, in Latin) is used in John specifically to express the homoousios mystery/paradox.
Ignore the John 3:16 quotation, if you'd like. Whether or not "only-begotten Son" is a valid defense against the Trinity is not a maker-or-breaker of that idea. There are many (hundreds) of other verses that destroy the idea of a Trinity. Yes, I know that there are many (dozens) of verses that uphold the idea of a Trinity but many of them are ambiguous at best. i.e.-Matthew 28:19 and 2 Corinthians 13:14.
In the earlier post, you said something to the effect of 'there are three persons but they are one God." I am not going to use the "how can they be three and one" argument because we are talking about whether or not God can act in an illogical way. To me, that is not a good argument because a Christian can just say that we cannot understand it and then that will open up a whole new argument.
However, I do say to you this: The very fact that the Father, Son, and holy spirit were all seen (or heard) at the same time is a major blow to the whole Trinitarian theology. (Matthew 3:16-17) At another time, Stephen was filled with holy spirit and saw Jesus standing next to God. (Acts 7:55-56) Both of these events present problems to someone trying desperately to uphold that they are "all one".
You, I am sure, are aware of the pagan beginnings of the entire idea of the Trinity. Trinities were common in Greek philosophy, Hinduism, the Egyptian religion, and other places throughout history. Christianity was fused with these pagan teachings to allow transition for pagans into that religion to be a little easier. It wasn't even until the Second Nicaean Council that the idea of a Trinity was even adopted (The holy spirit was not considered God until the Nicene Creed of 381).
About the humble God coming to earth idea, that is close to the idea presented by Philippians 2:5-8 except that it is oft mistranslated due to bias. A very good translation of that verse is in the New American Standard Bible which has it:
"Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who,
although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross [Gr.
stauros, Lit. Stake]."
That Scripture expressly states that he did not consider equality with God to be something to take for himself. The original Greek word used for "grasped" is "
harpagmos" which carries the idea of
grasping at something one does not have and, literally translated, would best be read as "grasped", not "used" or some other synonym of "used" like many other translations have it. In fact, the passage was written to show how humble Christ was. He was not arrogant enough to want something that was not his but humble enough to give up what he already had. It has much more of a humbling effect on our Savior when looked at in that manner.
The Bible teaches that we are separated from God, we cannot go near to Him because of our sin. How can that fit with a God who would come to earth and become one of us and reside among us and yet turn around and not allow us to be around Him? It wouldn't.
Now, back to your "begotten" statement, in Latin, the word translated from "
monogenes" ("Begotten" in English) may be
genitus in Latin, but that does not make that the meaning in Greek or take away from that statement as I used it in my previous post.
The fact of the matter is, either of us could be right. The traditional argument about the problem is that if "
monogenes" is derived from a root of the verb "
ginomai" (to become), then the word means "only existing" but that if "
monogenes" is derived from a root of the verb "
gennao" (to beget), then the word means "only begotten".
At this point, it is necessary for a trinitarian to turn to the Nicene Creed which says that the Son was begotten, not made. However, the Nicene Creed was formed by imperfect men who took a vote, a close vote at that, to determine truth. In the end, the Nicene Creed is an interpretation, albeit one that has endured a little less then two millennia. This Creed, though, is not a valid answer to which root word "
monogenes is derived from. Until we are perfected, we will not know for sure. You can lean towards "
ginomai" if you prefer and I can lean towards "
gennao" if I prefer.
I do want to say, though, (and please, I am not trying to be rude) but I would like if you would stop arguing with what the Latin says because that is a translation. The Bible was originally written in Greek and so we should consider the Greek words and their meanings and not the Latin words and their meanings. Also, when you said that it is funny that the word "is used in John specifically to express the homoousios mystery/paradox." That is not verifiable and should not be presented as fact.
Arguing over words is condemned in the Bible: "If any man teaches other doctrine and does not assent to healthful words, those of our Lord Jesus Christ, nor to the teaching that accords with godly devotion, he is puffed up with pride, not understanding anything, but being mentally diseased over questionings and debates about words." "Keep reminding them of these things, charging them before God as witness, not to fight about words, a thing of no usefulness at all because it overturns those listening." (1 Timothy 6:3-4; 2 Timothy 2:14)
Yes, I am guilty of it, too. In fact, more so than you just now. It is so hard not to fight over the meanings of words in the original languages like we have done more then once in the past, huh?
(This went on longer then I wanted but I've been looking for a good challenge and, E_L, you present the best!)