Scriptures that trinitarians Don't Want You to Know About - #5, Book of Acts

[Abaxvahl]

But wait...there's more!...Tertullian V. Praxeas - Tertullian won and now Abaxvahl is his disciple. And even Tertullian acknowledged that many had issue with his formulated doctrine...I guess not much has changed Sad part...who pays the price for this confusion? Well, the Scripture, God's Word is shelved and so so many deceived.

The Trinity wasn't made be Tertullian. I am not his disciple, he isn't even a Church Father although his writings are historically useful. God's Word has not been shelved and you in fact are the one who is deceived and people pay for the confusion you spread.

And moreover: you do not even hold to the heresy of Praxeas who crucified the Father.

 

[face2face]

The Trinity wasn't made be Tertullian. I am not his disciple, he isn't even a Church Father although his writings are historically useful. God's Word has not been shelved and you in fact are the one who is deceived and people pay for the confusion you spread.

And moreover: you do not even hold to the heresy of Praxeas who crucified the Father.

So you refute Tertullian teaching?

 

[Abaxvahl]

So you refute Tertullian teaching?

Depends on his teaching. He taught many right things and many wrong things, and in his life he fell into heresy. This is well known, he became a Montanist and then began spewing error quickly and all over the place. In addition even some of his writings before this point have errors in them, so you tell me which teaching and where it is and I'll see if I deny it or not.

 

[Brakelite]

You're not really going to be successful in using Trinitarian doctrine to break Trinitarian doctrine. Jesus was begotten a Son by incarnating into flesh. Incarnating into flesh permitted Jesus the opportunity to die a man's death. Dying a man's death doesn't mean He becomes separated from the Father.

Jesus attests to His eternal nature,

John 3:12-13 KJV
12) If I have told you earthly things, and ye believe not, how shall ye believe, if I tell you of heavenly things?
13) And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

Much love!

I see two major problems with this.
One, your hope is in a human sacrifice if it was but the death of a man. Two, you are denying the Father actually sent a Son. You are saying the Father sent someone who became a son? And this 'someone' was still connected to the trinitarian God? The divine part of Jesus was still in heaven while the human part was on earth? If that's the case, then there was no real sacrifice was there. Both knew that all would be well... Neither were giving up anything... And there was no real death or separation, this no propitiation or Atonement.
The quote you offered from the KJV is not included in most modem Bible, s, as it is missing from many manuscripts. It is similar to Matthew 28:19, a spurious addition by translaters to bolster the arguments in favor of the Trinity. I have no issue with 3 persons in the Godhead. I do have an issue with the assumptions made by theologians in their efforts to describe the Godhead, particularly in the coequal (denying the Sonship of Christ and His submission to the Father's authority) and the co-eternal nature of each (again denying the Sonship as of Father and Son can be the same age) and also the indivisibility of the Trinity which denies the death of the Son.

In an article by a Rev Spear over 100 years ago, is articulated a brilliant unbiased biblical view of the Godhead...
The Bible, while not giving a metaphysical definition of the spiritual unity of God, teaches His essential oneness in opposition to all forms of polytheism, and also assumes man’s capacity to apprehend the idea sufficiently for all the purposes of worship and obedience. John 17:3; 1 Cor. 8:6. The same Bible as clearly teaches that the adorable Person therein known as Jesus Christ, when considered in his whole nature, is truly divine and truly God in the most absolute sense. John 1:1-18; 1 John 5:20; Rom. 1:3, 4; 9:5; Titus 2:13.” (Rev. Samuel T. Spear D. D., New York Independent, ‘The Subordination of Christ’,)
Spear quite rightly said that the Scriptures do not contain a “metaphysical definition of the spiritual unity of God."
Spear later says (referring to the fact that the Bible speaks in terms of three persons of the Godhead but does not explain the oneness between them as in the trinity doctrine) “Bible trinitarians are not tritheists. They simply seek to state, in the best way in which they can, what they regard the Bible as teaching.” (Ibid) The terminology “Bible trinitarians” (those who believe in the Biblical three persons of the Godhead but not in the creeds we defined by the church, those we would say today being 'non-trinitarians') stands in contrast to those who believe the trinity doctrine to be true (the trinitarians). In other words, just because someone (like a non-trinitarian) refuses to explain (or refuses to accept an explanation of) how the three personalities of the Godhead have their existence together, this does not mean they are tritheists (believers in three Gods). It is just that they are refusing to go beyond what God has revealed. They are simply staying with only what God has revealed in His word. In his article, Spear also made the two following statements – which as I am sure you will agree is very good counsel.
“It is enough to take the Bible just as it reads, to believe what it says, and stop where it stops.” ....“All the statements of the Bible must be accepted as true, with whatever qualifications they mutually impose on one another. The whole truth lies in them all when taken collectively.” (Ibid)
Spear concluded his article – which was so brilliantly written
“The simple-minded Christian, when thinking of these wants, and contemplating the divine Trinity, as he finds it in the Bible, has no difficulty with the doctrine. It is a light to his thoughts, and a gracious power in his experience. Content with the revealed facts, and spiritually using them, he has no trouble with them. He does not attempt metaphysically to analyze the God he worships, but rather thinks of him as revealed in His word, and can always join in the following Doxology:
“Praise God, from whom all blessings flow! Praise Him, all creatures here below! Praise Him above, ye heavenly host! Praise Father, Son, and Holy Ghost!”
It is only when men speculate outside of the Bible and beyond it, and seek to be wiser than they can be, that difficulties arise; and then they do arise as the rebuke of their own folly. A glorious doctrine then becomes their perplexity, and engulfs them in a confusion of their own creation. What they need is to believe more and speculate less.” (Ibid)
At the very best, the trinity doctrine (any version of it) can only be termed an assumed doctrine. It is a speculative teaching that cannot be proven from Scripture. It is speculative because it attempts to explain things which God has not revealed – meaning how He has His existence in the three persons of the Godhead. This is why as far as our salvation is concerned, it is not necessary to believe it. God has not revealed these things so it should not concern us. Certainly we should not have formulated a doctrine to explain it. Once this fact is grasped it makes a study of the Godhead much more of a blessing.

 

[S.T. Ranger]

Revelation has always been progressive, and it is never until God gives understanding of the revelation that we can actually incorporate that into how we understand any particular passage of Scripture and its particular context. A good example of this is seen in the understanding of the disciples of Christ prior to Pentecost. The revelation available to them did indeed have numerous prophecies which, unless we keep revelation in context, would make us wonder why it is we see such ignorance on their parts concerning Christ. I mean, hadn't they ever read Isaiah 53 for example?

The key to placing this particular issue in its proper context is understanding that the Mystery of Christ had not been revealed to them and it would not be until the Spirit of God came in the particular ministry of Comforter. This brings us back to the question you asked. The Trinity is not found in explicit teaching, however, certain doctrines rely on implicit teaching. I will give one example of the Trinity implicitly taught by none other than Christ Himself:

John 14:15-23 KJV

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;


I would first point out that Christ is the Comforter contrasted to the Comforter that will come. He was meant to be for the consolation of Israel. The promise given here is that while Christ stated He had to depart (John 16:7), another Comforter would come and He, not it, would be with them (the disciples) forever. Remember their hearts were sorrowful because of His departure.


17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


Here we see the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, was already with them (the Spirit of God has always ministered in and through men, and had empowered them for ministries such as Prophet, Priest, King, and Warrior (known as the Filling of the Spirit of God)), but would, at a future time...be in them.

Now we see that not only will the Comforter come to be in them forever, but...


18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


...Christ, the Son of the Living God would also come to them.

So far we see the Son and the Spirit, Both coming to the disciples.


19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.


At that day-or in other words, in the future-the disciples would know (and this is the understanding that God would give them when the Mystery of Christ is revealed) that Jesus Christ is in (not with, though that is true as well) the Father, and the disciples in He (Jesus Christ), and Jesus Christ in the disciples.

I would ask you to consider at this point the state of the disciples at this time, just after the "last supper." Were the disciples in Christ at this time? No. This is precisely what Christ is stating will take place when the Comforter comes. And...when He comes.


21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Here we see that the Father is also said to be coming to abide in the disciples.

Now the question we ask is what does Scripture teach? Does it teach we are indwelt by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...

...or not?

This teaching clearly sets forth the Eternal Indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The reason we can be indwelt by all Three is that God is One. One mistake people often make is failing to distinguish the Eternal Nature of the Son of God as opposed to the Christ having a beginning in time. That is...when God created the Body He would take up residence in for the purpose of Eternal Redemption...that He might reconcile Man unto Himself.

I will leave it at that and open this up for critique.

God bless.

 

[Brakelite]

Revelation has always been progressive, and it is never until God gives understanding of the revelation that we can actually incorporate that into how we understand any particular passage of Scripture and its particular context. A good example of this is seen in the understanding of the disciples of Christ prior to Pentecost. The revelation available to them did indeed have numerous prophecies which, unless we keep revelation in context, would make us wonder why it is we see such ignorance on their parts concerning Christ. I mean, hadn't they ever read Isaiah 53 for example?

The key to placing this particular issue in its proper context is understanding that the Mystery of Christ had not been revealed to them and it would not be until the Spirit of God came in the particular ministry of Comforter. This brings us back to the question you asked. The Trinity is not found in explicit teaching, however, certain doctrines rely on implicit teaching. I will give one example of the Trinity implicitly taught by none other than Christ Himself:

John 14:15-23 KJV

15 If ye love me, keep my commandments.

16 And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;


I would first point out that Christ is the Comforter contrasted to the Comforter that will come. He was meant to be for the consolation of Israel. The promise given here is that while Christ stated He had to depart (John 16:7), another Comforter would come and He, not it, would be with them (the disciples) forever. Remember their hearts were sorrowful because of His departure.


17 Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.


Here we see the Comforter, the Spirit of Truth, was already with them (the Spirit of God has always ministered in and through men, and had empowered them for ministries such as Prophet, Priest, King, and Warrior (known as the Filling of the Spirit of God)), but would, at a future time...be in them.

Now we see that not only will the Comforter come to be in them forever, but...


18 I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you.


...Christ, the Son of the Living God would also come to them.

So far we see the Son and the Spirit, Both coming to the disciples.


19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.


At that day-or in other words, in the future-the disciples would know (and this is the understanding that God would give them when the Mystery of Christ is revealed) that Jesus Christ is in (not with, though that is true as well) the Father, and the disciples in He (Jesus Christ), and Jesus Christ in the disciples.

I would ask you to consider at this point the state of the disciples at this time, just after the "last supper." Were the disciples in Christ at this time? No. This is precisely what Christ is stating will take place when the Comforter comes. And...when He comes.


21 He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.

22 Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world?

23 Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.


Here we see that the Father is also said to be coming to abide in the disciples.

Now the question we ask is what does Scripture teach? Does it teach we are indwelt by the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost...

...or not?

This teaching clearly sets forth the Eternal Indwelling of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. The reason we can be indwelt by all Three is that God is One. One mistake people often make is failing to distinguish the Eternal Nature of the Son of God as opposed to the Christ having a beginning in time. That is...when God created the Body He would take up residence in for the purpose of Eternal Redemption...that He might reconcile Man unto Himself.

I will leave it at that and open this up for critique.

God bless.

However you may claim there is implicit teaching of the trinity, the truth is that any conclusion as to how the three members of the Godhead are united, as the creeds all so determinedly attempt to formulate, is still and will always be assumption.

 

[S.T. Ranger]

However you may claim there is implicit teaching of the trinity, the truth is that any conclusion as to how the three members of the Godhead are united, as the creeds all so determinedly attempt to formulate, is still and will always be assumption.

I don't consult the "creeds," just the Bible, lol. It's just my opinion that there has been far too much reliance on the teachings of early Church Fathers, and that has led to Scripture being secondary and used to proof-text particular teachings.

As to whether the post presents implicit teaching of the Trinity must be addressed directly in order to draw a conclusion.

As to my "claim," yes...I do claim that. And have given an example of it that it might be challenged.

As to how the three Persons of the Trinity are "united," we are told that they are One. We are told that God created the earth, we are told that the Son created the earth:

Genesis 1:1
King James Version

1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.


Colossians 1:13-16 KJV

13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:


14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins:


15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:


16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:


Another example would be seen here:

Isaiah 44:6 KJV

Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.


Isaiah 48:12 KJV

Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last.


Revelation 1:16-18
King James Version

16 And he had in his right hand seven stars: and out of his mouth went a sharp twoedged sword: and his countenance was as the sun shineth in his strength.

17 And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:

18 I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death.


One of the primary mistakes I see being made when it comes to the Trinity (and I have seen it made in this thread) is the failure to distinguish between The Son of God, Who is Eternal, and The Christ...which has a beginning in time.

Blasphemy? No, simply a Biblical fact. God created a body in the womb of Mary roughly two centuries ago and took up residence in that body for the purpose of redeeming mankind, to reconcile Man unto Himself:


2 Corinthians 5:19 KJV

To wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them; and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation.

Galatians 4:4-5
King James Version

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

5 To redeem them that were under the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons.


However, Scripture makes it abundantly clear that The Son is Eternal God. The Christ was an "office," so to speak, a ministry performed by the Son, just as The Comforter is a ministry performed by the Holy Ghost. We call prophecy concerning Messiah Prophecy because it foretold the time when the Messiah would come and what He would do when He came.

The bottom line is that these truths cannot be broken. Those that reject the Doctrine of the Trinity have every right to do so. After all, Eternal Redemption is not based on our doctrinal ability, it is based on the Sacrifice of Christ in our stead. People can be saved and yet without understanding of certain Biblical truths. Consider the Old Testament Saints: they were justified in their lifetimes through obedience to the revelation they received at that time, however...they were ignorant of the Mystery of the Gospel of Christ.

Some still are, but they are saved by the grace of God through faith in the shed blood of Christ.


God bless.

 

[marks]

One, your hope is in a human sacrifice if it was but the death of a man. Two, you are denying the Father actually sent a Son. You are saying the Father sent someone who became a son? And this 'someone' was still connected to the trinitarian God? The divine part of Jesus was still in heaven while the human part was on earth? If that's the case, then there was no real sacrifice was there. Both knew that all would be well... Neither were giving up anything... And there was no real death or separation, this no propitiation or Atonement.

Our salvation is to be baptized into Jesus' death. Sin kills, and will kill us except Jesus is our "Ark". He survives the savage seas, death has no hold on Him, no claim, because He is righteous.

My hope isn't in human sacrifice, my hope is in Christ my rescuer - savior. I would be destroyed by death. Jesus wasn't. God allows me to share His 'non destroying' death, so I have the benefit of death, which is to be separated from the seed of Adam, removed from the First Man, and put into the Last Man.

God is Spirit. The Messenger of YHWH, that One of our Triune God Who has to do with Man, Being Spirit, took on the flesh of Man, the same flesh as He had made Adam.

For the Joy that was set before Him . . . You object to my view of Jesus' death as that "he knew he wasn't giving up anything, so what was the significance?" Jesus knew all would be well, for the joy set before Him.

Did Jesus not believe the prophecies of Himself? Did He not know them? I think He did, on both counts.

For the joy set before Him.

Psalms 22:30-31 KJV
30) A seed shall serve him; it shall be accounted to the Lord for a generation.
31) They shall come, and shall declare his righteousness unto a people that shall be born, that he hath done this.

Isaiah 53:10-12 KJV
10) Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand.
11) He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
12) Therefore will I divide him a portion with the great, and he shall divide the spoil with the strong; because he hath poured out his soul unto death: and he was numbered with the transgressors; and he bare the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors.

He knew.

Much love!

 

[marks]

particularly in the coequal (denying the Sonship of Christ and His submission to the Father's authority)

Personally I find this fully addressed here:

Philippians 2:5-11 KJV
5) Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:
6) Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
7) But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:
8) And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9) Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Jeremiah 32:27 KJV
27) Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

When Jesus took on flesh, He took on all that goes with being in flesh.

Much love!

 

[marks]

and the co-eternal nature of each (again denying the Sonship as of Father and Son can be the same age)

"Before Abraham was, I am."

Some take this to mean Jesus was saying He was the "I AM" of the OT. Perhaps, but He could have been saying something different, something not about Who His is, but about when He is.

He did not say, "Before Abraham was, I was." He said, I am. I am. I exist. Now. I am now existing before Abraham existed. Do you see the time tangle?

What is your particular issue with the Father and the Son both being together in eternity?

One issue I have with thinking of the Son somehow coming along later is that the Father then was not always a Father, but became a Father. Might He become something else? Did He learn to be Fatherly after becoming a Father, or was He Fatherly in some abstract way, having no Son? Or is He always Fatherly, Eternally Fatherly?

God "wasn't" anything. "God was this" or "God was that" are incorrect terminology to One Who is eternal, outside our time continuum. If Jesus were created, God became a Father.

Let's talk about Love.

God is Love.

Did God become Love when He became a Father? Or was God "love" though there was no object for that love? Did God create in order to have someone to love? Or did He create in order to share that love for His Son with others?

The way we answer these questions either adds to or takes away from the eternal attributes of God.

Much love!

 

[marks]

and also the indivisibility of the Trinity which denies the death of the Son.

Jesus died to supply a "righteous death", a paradox, by which we have a doorway into a new kingdom, as a new man.

Much love!

 

[marks]

At the very best, the trinity doctrine (any version of it) can only be termed an assumed doctrine.

I think when we just stay with the basics of Scripture, we can land at the right place.

Isaiah 45:22-24 KJV
22) Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else.
23) I have sworn by myself, the word is gone out of my mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, That unto me every knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear.
24) Surely, shall one say, in the LORD have I righteousness and strength: even to him shall men come; and all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed.

Philippians 2:10-11 KJV
10) That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11) And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

In Whom is our salvation? In the LORD Jesus Christ.

Much love!

 

[marks]

It is speculative because it attempts to explain things which God has not revealed – meaning how He has His existence in the three persons of the Godhead. This is why as far as our salvation is concerned, it is not necessary to believe it. God has not revealed these things so it should not concern us. Certainly we should not have formulated a doctrine to explain it. Once this fact is grasped it makes a study of the Godhead much more of a blessing.

I agree, we need not think we have to somehow expain how God is Who He is.

But how important is it to know Who Jesus is? I think God saves us with that mustard seed of faith, and just calling on Him is enough for the heart that is sincere.

But He has revealed great and wonderful things, which show me what a truly magnificent salvation we have. And show me how I know that God the Father loves me truly, fully, demonstrably.

After all, though He sent His Son, we're not saying there that the Creator sent someone else to do His work for Him. Immanuel came to us.

Much love!

 

[bbyrd009]

No son of man may die for another’s sins; the life/soul that sins, dies

 

[marks]

No son of man may die for another’s sins;

Interesting rule, but I don't think God is bound by someone else's rules. This isn't Scripture, this is not what God said, why would He be bound by it?

And when you say "for another man's sins", are you meaning on account of another man's sins, or "to pay for" another man's sins, something different?

?

 

[marks]

the life/soul that sins, dies

John 11:25-26 KJV
25) Jesus said unto her, I am the resurrection, and the life: he that believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live:
26) And whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die. Believest thou this?

How can this be?

Much love!

 

[Wrangler]

Second, the Trinity denies they possibility of any of the members thereof being separated from one another.

Good analysis, further revealing the inherently flawed concept of trinitarianism.

 

[Wrangler]

It has led me to believe that you do not know what historic Trinitarians believe

LOL. You cannot even make a statement that would go against trinitarianism. It is so odd that you claim to agree with all my points while also defending trinitarianism.

 

[Brakelite]

For the Joy that was set before Him . . . You object to my view of Jesus' death as that "he knew he wasn't giving up anything, so what was the significance?" Jesus knew all would be well, for the joy set before Him.

Did Jesus not believe the prophecies of Himself? Did He not know them? I think He did, on both counts.

Jesus died the death we must eventually die, the second death...a death without hope and without a resurrection. Jesus died alone, the Father having to turn away from His own Son in order to fulfill the law. But Jesus did still die with faith... Not in hope because burdened as He was with sin hope was gone, but faith in His past knowledge and experience with His Father God, He trusted in His Father's justice.

Personally I find this fully addressed here:

That addresses the fact that the Son lay side His divine attributes in order to become man. It doesn't settle the contradictory facet of creedal Trinitarianism that demands a unity of the 3 persons of the Godhead that cannot, according to the theologians teaching the concept, be divided. Cannot be separated. If this is true then Jesus never died, and we are therefore not redeemed.

agree, we need not think we have to somehow expain how God is Who He is.

Yet that is precisely what the Trinity doctrine purported to do... It's an attempt to explain how God has His existence in the form of 3 persons being one union. This goes beyond what scripture reveals, and sadly, it has been made a requirement for fellowship in numerous Christian churches.
I have no argument that there are 3 persons in the Godhead. A Father Who begat a Son and sent His Son to redeem mankind. The holy Spirit of also clearly another being, however, He is also on a different level of existence than the other two. We cannot equate the holy Spirit with the Father and Son in personality. Not is the Spirit explained. We are given some descriptives of His work, that He cooperates with the other members of the Godhead, and that He even brings to them, being the Spirit of God, but really, beyond that I think it safer to keep quiet.

 

[Abaxvahl]

LOL. You cannot even make a statement that would go against trinitarianism. It is so odd that you claim to agree with all my points while also defending trinitarianism.

You’re the one who equated “being” with “person” and stated in all things except one minor instance (which I refuted from Scripture) what Trinitarians believe already. It is very possible to make strong statements that utterly contradict Trinitarianism, you just refuse to do it for some reason. The Jews, Muslims, deists, Arians, Platonists, Praxeans, Sabellians, JWs, Eunomians, and many other anti-Christ groups like them have figured out how to do it, which makes one wonder why you alone seem to be unable to do so? Even your non-Trinitarian fellows on this site are able to do it. I’d figure that out if I were you. Baruch HaShem!