Analysis of information sources in references of the Wikipedia article "Unitarianism" in English language version.
It will be seen from these extracts how completely without foundation is the assertion that Servetus denied the eternal pre-existence of Christ.
Unitarian theology, which developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, included a critique of the traditional Christian theology of the Trinity, which regarded God as three distinct but unified beings—transcendent Creator God, human Savior God (i.e., Jesus Christ), and immanent Spiritual God (i.e., the Holy Spirit). Unitarians viewed this understanding of God as a later theological corruption, and they embraced a view of God as a singular, unified entity; in most Unitarian theological interpretations, Jesus Christ retains highest respect as a spiritual and moral teacher of unparalleled insight and sensitivity, but he is not regarded as divine, or at least his divine nature is not on the same level as the singular and unique Creator God.
...Before 1819, American Unitarians followed the teachings of [England's] Priestly...[in the next few decades] the liberal Congregationalists adopted their Unitarian theology.
Unitarian theology, which developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, included a critique of the traditional Christian theology of the Trinity, which regarded God as three distinct but unified beings—transcendent Creator God, human Savior God (i.e., Jesus Christ), and immanent Spiritual God (i.e., the Holy Spirit). Unitarians viewed this understanding of God as a later theological corruption, and they embraced a view of God as a singular, unified entity; in most Unitarian theological interpretations, Jesus Christ retains highest respect as a spiritual and moral teacher of unparalleled insight and sensitivity, but he is not regarded as divine, or at least his divine nature is not on the same level as the singular and unique Creator God.
Unitarian theology, which developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, included a critique of the traditional Christian theology of the Trinity, which regarded God as three distinct but unified beings—transcendent Creator God, human Savior God (i.e., Jesus Christ), and immanent Spiritual God (i.e., the Holy Spirit). Unitarians viewed this understanding of God as a later theological corruption, and they embraced a view of God as a singular, unified entity; in most Unitarian theological interpretations, Jesus Christ retains highest respect as a spiritual and moral teacher of unparalleled insight and sensitivity, but he is not regarded as divine, or at least his divine nature is not on the same level as the singular and unique Creator God.
Poland, where Faustus Socinus was their leader from 1579 until his death.
Unitarian theology, which developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, included a critique of the traditional Christian theology of the Trinity, which regarded God as three distinct but unified beings—transcendent Creator God, human Savior God (i.e., Jesus Christ), and immanent Spiritual God (i.e., the Holy Spirit). Unitarians viewed this understanding of God as a later theological corruption, and they embraced a view of God as a singular, unified entity; in most Unitarian theological interpretations, Jesus Christ retains highest respect as a spiritual and moral teacher of unparalleled insight and sensitivity, but he is not regarded as divine, or at least his divine nature is not on the same level as the singular and unique Creator God.
There are presently a number of small Christian groups calling themselves "biblical unitarians" (or: Christian monotheists or one God believers) to distinguish themselves from late 19th to 21st century Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists. Their arguments draw on early modern unitarian sources, while eschewing some of the idiosyncrasies of Socinus's theology and most of the extra revisions of the Priestley-derived stream of unitarians. Like late 18th to early 19th century unitarians, they argue at length that trinitarianism has no biblical foundation, and is inconsistent with its clear teachings. They also reject trinitarianism as contradictory or unintelligible, as involving idolatry, and as having been, as it were, illegally imported from Platonic philosophy [...]. On some issues they draw support from recent biblical scholarship, for example, the point that talk of "generation" and "procession" in the Gospel of John doesn't support later claims about inter-trinitarian relations [...]. Although this literature points out real tensions within contemporary theology (between text-oriented commentators and systematic theologians) it is widely ignored in academic theology and philosophy, and its adherents are generally excluded from the institutions of mainstream Christianity.
Unitarian theology, which developed in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, included a critique of the traditional Christian theology of the Trinity, which regarded God as three distinct but unified beings—transcendent Creator God, human Savior God (i.e., Jesus Christ), and immanent Spiritual God (i.e., the Holy Spirit). Unitarians viewed this understanding of God as a later theological corruption, and they embraced a view of God as a singular, unified entity; in most Unitarian theological interpretations, Jesus Christ retains highest respect as a spiritual and moral teacher of unparalleled insight and sensitivity, but he is not regarded as divine, or at least his divine nature is not on the same level as the singular and unique Creator God.
Poland, where Faustus Socinus was their leader from 1579 until his death.
...Before 1819, American Unitarians followed the teachings of [England's] Priestly...[in the next few decades] the liberal Congregationalists adopted their Unitarian theology.
There are presently a number of small Christian groups calling themselves "biblical unitarians" (or: Christian monotheists or one God believers) to distinguish themselves from late 19th to 21st century Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists. Their arguments draw on early modern unitarian sources, while eschewing some of the idiosyncrasies of Socinus's theology and most of the extra revisions of the Priestley-derived stream of unitarians. Like late 18th to early 19th century unitarians, they argue at length that trinitarianism has no biblical foundation, and is inconsistent with its clear teachings. They also reject trinitarianism as contradictory or unintelligible, as involving idolatry, and as having been, as it were, illegally imported from Platonic philosophy [...]. On some issues they draw support from recent biblical scholarship, for example, the point that talk of "generation" and "procession" in the Gospel of John doesn't support later claims about inter-trinitarian relations [...]. Although this literature points out real tensions within contemporary theology (between text-oriented commentators and systematic theologians) it is widely ignored in academic theology and philosophy, and its adherents are generally excluded from the institutions of mainstream Christianity.
There are presently a number of small Christian groups calling themselves "biblical unitarians" (or: Christian monotheists or one God believers) to distinguish themselves from late 19th to 21st century Unitarians and Unitarian Universalists. Their arguments draw on early modern unitarian sources, while eschewing some of the idiosyncrasies of Socinus's theology and most of the extra revisions of the Priestley-derived stream of unitarians. Like late 18th to early 19th century unitarians, they argue at length that trinitarianism has no biblical foundation, and is inconsistent with its clear teachings. They also reject trinitarianism as contradictory or unintelligible, as involving idolatry, and as having been, as it were, illegally imported from Platonic philosophy [...]. On some issues they draw support from recent biblical scholarship, for example, the point that talk of "generation" and "procession" in the Gospel of John doesn't support later claims about inter-trinitarian relations [...]. Although this literature points out real tensions within contemporary theology (between text-oriented commentators and systematic theologians) it is widely ignored in academic theology and philosophy, and its adherents are generally excluded from the institutions of mainstream Christianity.
