The Deception of the Teaching of the Trinity

[liafailrock]

Is your spirit a separate being from you? We were created in the image of God, our spirit is us, we are spirits inhabiting the temple of the physical body. When God created mankind in his image he formed only two and the twain shall be one. There is no separate being who is considered the holy spirit otherwise we would have been created as a trinity.



John 4:God is a Spirit...
Do you believe that God cannot personally inhabit each of the temples he made?
Psalm 139:7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?
Gods spirit and presence are the same thing. It is a common biblical translation error to personify things... consider this passage;

1 John 4:6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of error.

Do you believe that the spirit of error is a separate being too? or maybe this one;

1 Corinthians 2:12 What we have received is not the spirit of the world but the Spirit who is from God, so that we may understand what God has freely given us.

God describes things quite well here;
Acts 2:17 And it shall come to pass in the last days, said God, I will pour out of my Spirit on all flesh....

God will pour out his spirit and who but God is holy? In God's own words I will let it be said as it was written;

2 Cor 6:16 ....for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.



We were created in the image of the Father and Son "Let us make man in our image".
In the same way that God gave birth to his Son by separating a part of his spirit so did he do with us and he shows us from the beginning that Eve was a part of the first lone man Adam who was separated from him to be his companion.
Our spirits are the same as God since they were part of God to begin with;
Genesis 2: Then the Lord God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life....
God didn't just say let man live, he personally gave from his own spirit to form us. This is why we are all considered gods and children of the most high;
Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Here is a further explanation that appears to have the right understanding;
Reasons “Holy Spirit” is one of the names of God or the Gift of God
1. The “breath” of God and the “spirit” of God are synonymous terms, a point that is easily seen in the original text, but not always so obviously translated (Job 4:9, 27:3; Ps. 33:6, 104:29 and 30; John 3:8; 2 Thess. 2:8. The breath of God is not a distinct person from God any more than the breath of a human could be a person distinct from that person.
2. The “spirit of God” is synonymous with the hand and the finger of God, which can be seen from the fact that, referring to the same thing, they are used interchangeably (Job 26:13-KJV; Ps. 8:3; Matt. 12:28; Luke 11:20). This is strong evidence that “the Holy Spirit” is the name of God when His power is in operation. If God and “the Holy Spirit” were two co-equal “Persons,” it would not make sense to understand “the Holy Spirit” as the “hand” of God. As a man’s hand and finger are subordinate and submissive to the will of a man, so the spirit of God is subordinate to the will of God. As what is done by the hand of a man is done by the man himself, so what is done by the spirit of God is done by God Himself.
Reasons “Holy Spirit” is one of the names of God or his Gift | BiblicalUnitarian.com

I agree with your interpretation of the Spirit of God. But for those who would say that the Spirit is a separate person, you forgot to mention Revelation 4:5 with the 7 spirits of God so there must be 7 Holy Spirits. LOL

The apostles always greeted in the name of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. In Revelation, I see no throne for the Holy Spirit.

 

[oldhermit]

I agree with your interpretation of the Spirit of God. But for those who would say that the Spirit is a separate person, you forgot to mention Revelation 4:5 with the 7 spirits of God so there must be 7 Holy Spirits. LOL

The apostles always greeted in the name of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. In Revelation, I see no throne for the Holy Spirit.

"And from the seven spirits who are before His throne." There is no justification for the capitalization of "spirits". This is not a description of the nature of God. This statement cannot be understood apart from 4:5 which reads, "And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God;" The seven spirits which are the seven lamps of fire that burn before the throne are the seven churches to whom this revelation is sent (verse 20), "As for the mystery of the seven stars which you saw in My right hand, and the seven golden lampstands: the seven stars are the angels of the seven churches, and the seven lampstands are the seven churches."

 

[liafailrock]

Revelation 4 seems to be using the passage of Isaiah 11:1-3 in a similar manner.

 

[oldhermit]

v

Revelation 4 seems to be using the passage of Isaiah 11:1-3 in a similar manner.

It is not a reverence to Isa 11. This is the same vision given to Ezekiel in 1:1-14 and 10:1-22. The definition of the seven spirits of God is supplied by the text. We do not have the right to assign a different definition to the symbolism.

 

[liafailrock]

Yeah I won't deny that, either. I was talking about usage, i.e. Isaiah 11 talks about 7 different spirits in a Menorah type fashion whether Revelation had that in mind or not. But then again, I'm not perfect. I actually got that Isaiah 11 idea a long time ago reading mainline Christian trinitarian stuff so consider the source. LOL. This is why it's dangerous to mix things but seemed to fit the topic of the thread.

 

[KBCid]

Nonsense. That's what your cult teaches you and they are wrong.
The doctrine of the Trinity is encapsulated in Matthew 28:19, where Jesus instructs the apostles: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." "name of"-singular, not "names of"-plural.
The parallelism of the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not unique to Matthew’s Gospel, but appears elsewhere in the New Testament (e.g., 2 Corinthians 13:14, Hebrews 9:14), as well as in the writings of the earliest Christians, who clearly understood them in the sense that we do today—that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three divine persons who are one divine being (God).

I am not part of any cult or religious sect.
I have reviewed evidences available to anyone who wishes to look, such as;

"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

So you can assume that some cults are trying to do some underhanded things or you can investigate such things for yourself to see the truth of it. Personally for me I seek the pure word of God as he intended it to be given to us so I check history and see if traditions of men have worked their way into the man made book asserted to be God's word.

 

[epostle1]

I am not part of any cult or religious sect.
I have reviewed evidences available to anyone who wishes to look, such as;

"Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus." The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637

The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles Volume 1, Prolegomena 1:
The Jewish Gentile, and Christian Backgrounds by F. J. Foakes Jackson and Kirsopp Lake 1979 version pages 335-337. "There is little doubt as to the sacramental nature of baptism by the middle of the first century in the circles represented by the Pauline Epistles, and it is indisputable in the second century. The problem is whether it can in this (Trinitarian) form be traced back to Jesus, and if not what light is thrown upon its history by the analysis of the synoptic Gospels and Acts.
According to Catholic teaching, (traditional Trinitarian) baptism was instituted by Jesus. It is easy to see how necessary this was for the belief in sacramental regeneration. Mysteries, or sacraments, were always the institution of the Lord of the cult; by them, and by them only, were its supernatural benefits obtained by the faithful. Nevertheless, if evidence counts for anything, few points in the problem of the Gospels are so clear as the improbability of this teaching.
The reason for this assertion is the absence of any mention of Christian baptism in Mark, Q, or the third Gospel, and the suspicious nature of the account of its institution in Matthew 28:19: "Go ye into all the world, and make disciples of all Gentiles (nations), baptizing them in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit." It is not even certain whether this verse ought to be regarded as part of the genuine text of Matthew. No other text, indeed, is found in any extant manuscripts, in any language, but it is arguable that Justin Martyr, though he used the trine formula, did not find it in his text of the Gospels; Hermas seems to be unacquainted with it; the evidence of the Didache is ambiguous, and Eusebius habitually, though not invariably, quotes it in another form, "Go ye into all the world and make diciples of all the Gentiles in My Name."
No one acquainted with the facts of textual history and patristic evidence can doubt the tendency would have been to replace the Eusebian text (In My Name) by the ecclesiastical (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of baptism, so that transcriptional evedence" is certainly on the side of the text omitting baptism.
But it is unnecessary to discuss this point at length, because even if the ordinary (modern Trinity) text of Matthew 28:19 be sound it can not represent historical fact.
Would they have baptized, as Acts says that they did, and Paul seem to confirm the statement, in the name of the Lord Jesus if the Lord himself had commanded them to use the (Catholic Trinitarian) formula of the Church? On every point the evidence of Acts is convincing proof that the (Catholic) tradition embodied in Matthew 28:19 is a late (non-Scriptural Creed) and unhistorical.
Neither in the third gospel nor in Acts is there any reference to the (Catholic Trinitarian) Matthaean tradition, nor any mention of the institution of (Catholic Trinitarian) Christian baptism. Nevertheless, a little later in the narrative we find several references to baptism in water in the name of the Lord Jesus as part of recognized (Early) Christian practice. Thus we are faced by the problem of a Christian rite, not directly ascribed to Jesus, but assumed to be a universal (and original) practice. That it was so is confirmed by the Epistles, but the facts of importance are all contained in Acts."
Also in the same book on page 336 in the footnote number one, Professor Lake makes an astonishing discovery in the so-called Teaching or Didache. The Didache has an astonishing contradiction that is found in it. One passage refers to the necessity of baptism in the name of the Lord, which is Jesus the other famous passage teaches a Trinitarian Baptism. Lake raises the probability that the apocryphal Didache or the early Catholic Church Manual may have also been edited or changed to promote the later Trinitarian doctrine. It is a historical fact that the Catholic Church at one time baptized its converts in the name of Jesus but later changed to Trinity baptism.
"1. In the actual description of baptism in the Didache the trine (Trinity) formula is used; in the instructions for the Eucharist (communion) the condition for admission is baptism in the name of the Lord. It is obvious that in the case of an eleventh-century manuscript *the trine formula was almost certain to be inserted in the description of baptism, while the less usual formula had a chance of escaping notice when it was only used incidentally."
A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19

So you can assume that some cults are trying to do some underhanded things or you can investigate such things for yourself to see the truth of it. Personally for me I seek the pure word of God as he intended it to be given to us so I check history and see if traditions of men have worked their way into the man made book asserted to be God's word.

If you claim not to be part of any sect or cult, then you need to be more discerning of your sources. Your link quotes Tom Harper, a well known liberal, and it is a Jehovah's Witness page.
Phony quotes
The reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia is not useful; there are many works by that name, and without an author or date, it's hard to pin it down. I looked at the most popular one from the early twentieth century and found no such quote. The alleged quote from Cardinal Ratzinger is phony, what he really said was :

"It may be useful to preface the discussion with a few facts about the origin and structure of the Creed; these will at the same time throw some light on the legitimacy of the procedure. The basic form of our profession of faith took shape during the course of the second and third centuries in connection with the ceremony of baptism. So far as its place of origin is concerned, the text comes from the city of Rome; but its internal origin lies in worship; more precisely, in the conferring of baptism. This again was fundamentally based on the words of the risen Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19: "Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit."​

If the phrase in question was a change, it was a change made during the Apostolic age. In any case, our faith does not come from the Scripture, but from the Spirit-guided Apostolic community, which authorized the final versions of the Scriptures.

The "pure word of God" you see is through the Watchtower Society and its subsequent false legalisms and revisionist histories. Clinton D. Willis, author of the link, is a Jehovah's Witness. I can pick it apart even further to show your link is full of deceptive lies, but I find the exercise rather draining.

You are ignoring 2 Corinthians 13:14, Hebrews 9:14

The Didache

"After the foregoing instructions, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [running] water. . . . If you have neither, pour water three times on the head, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" (Didache 7:1 [A.D. 70]).
Here is the full text of the Didache, where is alleged ambiguity? Another falsehood.

Ignatius of Antioch

"[T]o the Church at Ephesus in Asia . . . chosen through true suffering by the will of the Father in Jesus Christ our God" (Letter to the Ephesians 1 [A.D. 110]).
"For our God, Jesus Christ, was conceived by Mary in accord with God’s plan: of the seed of David, it is true, but also of the Holy Spirit" (ibid., 18:2).

Justin Martyr

"We will prove that we worship him reasonably; for we have learned that he is the Son of the true God himself, that he holds a second place, and the Spirit of prophecy a third. For this they accuse us of madness, saying that we attribute to a crucified man a place second to the unchangeable and eternal God, the Creator of all things; but they are ignorant of the mystery which lies therein"
(First Apology 13:5–6 [A.D. 151]).
Should I make the dates bigger so you can see them? Oh, I keep forgetting. You have nothing to do with the ante-Nicene Fathers. You have divorced yourself from the early Church.

Index of articles on JW's
Jehovah's Witnesses: Christian Analyses

 

[Marymog]

That verse doesn't say believing in the trinity is a salvation issue. Doesn't even hint at it.

You're not being honest. That's not how the Word is sown. Care to try again?

Dear sir you have lost me. I never said that the verse I quoted suggested it is a salvation issue.

I ask again and I sincerely hope you will answer me:

When Peter said, 'Why has Satan filled your heart to LIE TO THE HOLY SPIRIT? You have NOT LIED TO MEN BUT TO GOD".

He is clearly talking about two SEPERATE beings. Did Peter miss-speak?

Curious Mary

 

[Job]

I never said that the verse I quoted suggested it is a salvation issue.

Of course you did. You don't remember this?

So my answer is yes, it is a salvation issue.

I would say "show me" but I know you can't so I won't even ask.

I love you Job so I will answer the un-asked question:

Why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit? You have not lied to men but to God.

 

[Marymog]

Of course you did. You don't remember this?

The question was asked: Is the Trinity a salvation issue?

I answered: Yes, it is a salvation issue.

We were NOT talking about that specific verse as PROOF it is a salvation issue. And you question my honesty?

That verse, along with many other verses, back up the Trinity teaching. The teaching in Christianity for 2,000 years has been that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate but One.

Your theory is not biblical or historical.

You are very good at dodging questions. Please answer my question in post #88

 

[Job]

Your theory is not biblical or historical.

And just what is my "theory"?

 

[Helen]

That verse doesn't say believing in the trinity is a salvation issue. Doesn't even hint at it.

You're not being honest. That's not how the Word is sown. Care to try again?

Amen! true words Job.

 

[KBCid]

I agree with your interpretation of the Spirit of God. But for those who would say that the Spirit is a separate person, you forgot to mention Revelation 4:5 with the 7 spirits of God so there must be 7 Holy Spirits. LOL
The apostles always greeted in the name of God and the Lord Jesus Christ. In Revelation, I see no throne for the Holy Spirit.

Don't forget the spirit of error that must be running around somewhere....

I am happy that God opened your understanding.

 

[KBCid]

If you claim not to be part of any sect or cult, then you need to be more discerning of your sources. Your link quotes Tom Harper, a well known liberal, and it is a Jehovah's Witness page.

My links outside the bible reference to actual evidences that are known and wrote about by many authors but,

The strength of my assertion about a trinity wasn't and is not born on the backs of authors outside the bible. These reference authors see what is plainly asserted by God the Father and Christ when they created mankind;
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let "US" make man in our image, after our likeness....

And that image and likeness he pronounce to be......;

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And just to ensure that this understanding of God's image is reinforced we have a number of reminders given to us in the new testament....;

Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

The image of God that we were created in is represented by two individual beings who come together as one in purpose;

John 17:11 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are

There is no triune or trinity in the God that I follow but, as the spirit moves me I am urged to state that there is a god who is indeed triune (or a trinity) in existence and he was spoken of in revelation;

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

You can deny any outside sources that you feel like but, you cannot logically deny that the creator of heaven and earth made his image in a pair.

John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

 

[KBCid]

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost

Matthew 28:19, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," represents a rare biblical reference to the Holy Trinity. However, the trinity did not become church doctrine until the third century, and even fourth century citations of this verse by Eusebius of Caesarea mention only baptizing in the name of Jesus, as do similar biblical passages (e.g. Acts 19:5).

The only other apparent scriptural Trinitarian reference is in 1 John 5:7-8, which reads, "For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one." The NIV omits the underlined portion, indicating in a footnote that it is "not found in any Greek manuscript before the sixteenth century."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Bible_interpolation

 

[epostle1]

My links outside the bible reference to actual evidences that are known and wrote about by many authors but, the strength of my assertion about a trinity wasn't and is not born on the backs of authors outside the bible. These reference authors see what is plainly asserted by God the Father and Christ when they created mankind;
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let "US" make man in our image, after our likeness....

And that image and likeness he pronounce to be......;

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Genesis 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Including children. The family is more analogous to the Trinity than couples. Scripture doe not support a binity. Individuals are made in the image of God, but so is the family itself.
The human family is the closest analogy that mankind will ever come to concretely understanding the Blessed Trinity.
This understanding of His Triune nature is reflected by the human family whose personal relationships approach the likeness of the Trinity.

There are multiple demonstrations of this truth.

Consider the unity of the Trinity which is reflected in the unity of the family. Or the "family of persons" which is found in both. The persons of the Trinity share the 'same substance ' while a human family becomes one flesh: wife with husband and parents with children. That's what "man" means.

And just to ensure that this understanding of God's image is reinforced we have a number of reminders given to us in the new testament....;
Matthew 19:4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?
Mark 10:6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
The image of God that we were created in is represented by two individual beings who come together as one in purpose;
John 17:11 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are
There is no triune or trinity in the God that I follow but, as the spirit moves me I am urged to state that there is a god who is indeed triune (or a trinity) in existence and he was spoken of in revelation;

You contradict yourself.

Children count as one flesh with their parents.
The Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love". The Holy Spirit is poured forth through the exchange of love between the Father and the Son. This is why perhaps Jesus says to the Apostles: " Unless I go away, the Counselor will not come to you; but if I go, I will send him to you." (John 16:7)

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This verse has nothing to do with the Trinity.

You can deny any outside sources that you feel like but, you cannot logically deny that the creator of heaven and earth made his image in a pair.

Children are not excluded. Your "pair" theory doesn't hold water.
The Holy Spirit is said to proceed from the will of both the Father and the Son, or in other words, through the activity which they engage in, otherwise known as "love".
There is also another element in the Trinity that lends itself to human likeness. The Nicene Creed professes this about the Trinity: "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life who proceeds from the Father and the Son."
In the eternal economy of the Trinity, therefore, a person 'proceeds' from the love between two other persons. And so, the Holy Spirit is love 'proceeding' or 'coming from' the first two persons of the Blessed Trinity.
The human family has a rather striking parallel to this dynamic. The ultimate act of intimacy in a marriage mirrors the eternal exchange of love between the first two persons of the Trinity.
And like the eternal or continual procession of the Holy Spirit in the Trinity, the act of love between a man and a woman causes a 'procession' of another human person (i.e. the birth of a child). That's the image of God that is more realistic, not some barren binity.

John 17:25 O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me. 26And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them.

You don't need to convince me of the truth of the Trinity, but Clinton D. Willis, author of your link A Collection of Evidence Against the Traditional Wording of Matthew 28:19 is a Jehovah's Witness, posted on a Oneness Pentecostal site, and BOTH are heretics. You must be very confused.

Reality check: JW's and Oneness Pentecostals do not believe the Trinity.

 

[Marymog]

And just what is my "theory"?

You are very good at dodging questions. Please answer my question in post #88

 

[tabletalk]

The teaching in Christianity for 2,000 years has been that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are separate but One.

Would the word *distinct* be more appropriate than *separate* ?

 

[Marymog]

Would the word *distinct* be more appropriate than *separate* ?

Yes. A much better word. Thank you! (I had to check the dictionary )

 

[101G]

Would the word *distinct* be more appropriate than *separate* ?

May I make a suggestion, because another word for separate is "distinct". unless you have a different meaning for distinct. now another word that can be use for separate are, and not limited to, "dissimilar", or "diverse". if one is trying to separate persons without division, because if you used distinct you will still be in the division, separate arena. definition of distinct: recognizably different in nature from something else of a similar type". and if one have a different nature then one have two different Gods.