ezAad wrote: There is a problem here: you seem to be right ( in this that it looks like there must have been a 'moment' of non-existence of the Word/Breath, in which case the Word/Breath cannot be God of course); BUT the existence of the Word/Breath is eternal, came forth from God before all times, and thus their existence has been there from eternity:
the Word/Breath have been generated/brought forth by/from God and 'at the same time' (words are insufficient) their existence is eternal: there 'has never' been non-existence. (I agree with you that in that case the Word/Breath could not be God).

Malachi's response: This all sounds like a nice explanation but the problem is there is no scriptures to support it at all. The fact remains Jesus was considered a created being by the early Church Fathers who quoted Proverbs 8:22 to provide evidence that he was the first one created and then used by Jehovah (YHWH) to created everything else.

Colossians 1:15 and Revelations 3:14 backs this up beyond doubt. You have done nothing to overturn these scriptures.

Read John 1:18 No man has seen G-d at any time; the only-begotten g-d who is in the bosom with the Father is the one that has explained him.

In what sense was Jesus an only-begotten son? Does anything Johns says lead us to believe the term "only-begotten son" does not mean what we would normally think it would mean? We know that the term means when it is used in reference to other people so whey should the reader ascribe a totally different meaning when it is used in reference to Jesus? The fact that Jeus is said to have created all other things does not prevent himself from being created. Just read Revelations 3:14 because that is exactly what it says.

You are holding onto a doctrine that must rely on it own definition in order to refute the scriptures that appear to refute it rather thn simply relying on the scriptures.

The evidence is overwhelming ezAad that Jesus is not G-d or part of a Trinity. Try reading the Hebrew Bible and GT without presuppoing the doctrine of the Trinity and you will see that the evidence for the Trinity is very weak.

Regards,
Malachi