Wow, so what do you really believe? ...Statement of Faith

[[email protected]]

I don't understand. Are you questioning the virgin birth?

[DaveB]

Jeff - read the question. That's all I'm asking about. In what way is Jesus the seed of David according to the flesh, if Joseph was not His biological father? It's an old question, and those scriptures provide a basis for at least asking the question. The virgin birth is not the question.

[Paidion]

So why could He not have been the seed of David through his mother Mary?

[DaveB]

Fine with me. I know of that little loophole in Jewish tradition, but it seems like quite a stretch. But if you're happy with it, ok.

[[email protected]]

DaveB, you are too defensive. I just didn't understand your question.

As for the answer, I've always understood Luke's genealogy to lead to Mary, Jesus' birth mother, and Matthew's genealogy to lead Joseph, Jesus' appointed custodial father. Like you say these things have been debated in the past and this article gives a good summary, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogy_of_Jesus.

The traditional Christian view of the virgin birth has strong Biblical support from my point of view so I will leave it in my proposed statement of faith.

[Paidion]

Jeff, I have heard that view expressed a lot (concerning the "conflicting" geneologies of Matthew and Luke), but I never found it satisfactory. Mary just doesn't fit into Luke's geneology.

However, Eusebius gave an explanation of the two genealogies that convinced me. I have simplified this explanation below:

-----------Matthew's Geneology--------------------Luke's Geneology

------------Matthan------Estha-----------------------Matthat------Estha


---------------Jacob---“Eva”--------------------------------Heli---“Eva”



-------------------Joseph



Matthan died, and then Matthat married Matthan's widow Estha who birthed Heli.

Thus Jacob and Heli were uterine brothers (had the same mother)

Heli married “Eva” ( I gave her this name for clarification), but Heli died and they had no children.

Jacob did the honourable thing and married his sister-in-law “Eva”, so as to produce offspring for his brother, according to ancient Hebrew practice:

And Judas said to Aunan, Go into your brother‵s wife, and marry her as her brother-in-law, and raise up offspring to your brother.
And Aunan, knowing that the offspring should not be his... (Genesis 38:8 An English Translation of the Septuagint.)

Note: Any child that should result would be the legal offspring of Er, Thamar‵s husband who had died. Aunan knew that legally the child would not be considered his, but Er‵s.

So Joseph, the husband of Mary, was the biological son of Jacob (as in Matthew's gospel), but legally (according to Hebrew law) he was the son of Heli (as in Luke's gospel).

[DaveB]

Jeff - sorry if I sounded defensive - I wasn't, actually,,I just wanted to point to the question, which I tried to word precisely to avoid using the hot-button term 'virgin birth'. No problem, mate!

Paidion - it is passing strange to me that our Lord's birth narrative should depend on a convoluted and esoteric path that would be hidden from almost everyone. In contrast, the genealogies are written right there, in public, for inspection, and run from David to Joseph (in the one genealogy) - anyone reading that lineage would, under almost any understanding of things, say Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, of the seed of David - which seed almost always ran through the father, not the mother.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I am pointing out that for such an important subject as the V.B., I personally would expect great transparency.
As things stand, one could call this line of reasoning - to follow - a house of cards. (I don't call it that):

God it triune
Jesus is God
Jesus has always existed
Therefore when He became flesh, his birth must have been supernatural - the V.B; Joseph was not the biological father. God the Father made Mary pregnant.
Jesus thus had the two natures
etc etc

I don't see the scriptural NECESSITY of most of that line of reasoning. I am not at all sure that any of those steps are essential to being a spirit-filled Christian; in fact I'm pretty sure there were many Christians for the first couple of hundred years A.D. that did not believe all those steps.

But I'm not on a soapbox - I'm always willing to be taught.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

But I'm not on a soapbox - I'm always willing to be taught.

Glad to hear that, Dave. Otherwise - like Humpty Dumpty - you might be setting yourself up, for a great fall

[DaveB]

Well then again, Randy, it's hard to fall if you're not up high somewhere - on a wall or something - I THINK I have my feet on the ground.
Who is the Big Bird btw??

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Well then again, Randy, it's hard to fall if you're not up high somewhere - on a wall or something - I THINK I have my feet on the ground.
Who is the Big Bird btw??

Oops. Wrong clip. Time to think on my feet. If you are a good orator, then you soar like the eagle. Else, it rains on you.

[DaveB]

Okay, I get it now!
I hope that I can get across the idea that I am not attacking; I am questioning and looking for answers. I know for a fact that many people who hold to traditional evangelical Christianity don't realize that much of what they hold to was not even thought about by Christians for a couple/three hundred years after our Lord's ascension.

In other words - isn't it true that God's will and work was NOT dependent on them knowing certain theories that 'evolved' later on. Anymore, imo, than His work and will depends on those extra-biblical (imo) theories NOW?

[Paidion]

Paidion - it is passing strange to me that our Lord's birth narrative should depend on a convoluted and esoteric path that would be hidden from almost everyone. In contrast, the genealogies are written right there, in public, for inspection, and run from David to Joseph (in the one genealogy) - anyone reading that lineage would, under almost any understanding of things, say Joseph was the biological father of Jesus, of the seed of David - which seed almost always ran through the father, not the mother.

I'm not saying I disagree with you, but I am pointing out that for such an important subject as the V.B., I personally would expect great transparency.

And here I thought the explanation of Eusebius was very transparent, and does not involve Mary at all. And it eliminates the apparent contradiction between the two records of Joseph's geneology. What's "convoluted" and "esoteric" about it? Rather it's because I found it so straightforward and "down to earth" that I accepted it as the best explanation I have ever encountered—in fact the ONLY one that makes sense.

There is nothing in Luke's record that suggests that it is the geneology of Mary.

[DaveB]

My apologies - I did not read that carefully enough. I re-read it now, and It is fairly straightforward, and well may be the only explanation that works. Very good, thank you.

[Eaglesway]

No, I'm not. I've read a bit on the subject and I'm still perplexed. I do know that this is a sacred cow (so to speak) and I'm not up to arguing about the teaching - I just want it explained.
No trolling. If noone wants to pick up on this topic, fine with me!

When a man died before his wife conceived his brother was supposed to impregnate her so that his brother would not be left without seed. The child begotten by her was named and inherited and was considered the "seed" of his mother's husband- not his father's brother.

Just a note, not sure if/how it applies to the question.

[Paidion]

It doesn't directly apply. But it does seem to suggest why Jesus' genealogy was given through Joseph.
Though Joseph was not the biological father, he was the husband of Jesus' mother.

Suppose within Jewry in an ordinary marriage, the wife became impregnated by a man who was not her husband (as Joseph thought was the case here). Would not the child's genealogy be given through the wife's husband?

[Eaglesway]

As well as suggesting perhaps in terms of inheritance, tribe, household and sonship other things than direct impregnation apply. Another thought is that Jacob received the blessing of the firstborn through a word, not through birth right.

[DaveB]

Okay it looks like some explanation could be made. OTOH, a 'plain' reading could lead one to the belief that Joseph, of the seed of David, was the father.
Another scenario is this: Joseph was the biological father, and the virgin birth story is just that - in line with other literature of the period that accented the glorious accomplishments of 'great' leaders by attributing to them a miraculous birth.

I'm not sure what is at stake by accepting that scenario. It would stress Jesus' humanity, which is a big scriptural focus. It would devalue the 'two natures' theory of certain creeds, but they are not necessary imo anyway. The Word would still be made flesh, if by the Word we mean the Father's eternal wisdom and goals and love, not a pre-existent person.
Well in any case, I'm not seeing where the scenario would necessarily be heretical. I'll have to think about it some more.

[DaveB]

Okay it looks like some explanation could be made. OTOH, a 'plain' reading could lead one to the belief that Joseph, of the seed of David, was the father.
Another scenario is this: Joseph was the biological father, and the virgin birth story is just that - in line with other literature of the period that accented the glorious accomplishments of 'great' leaders by attributing to them a miraculous birth.

I'm not sure what is at stake by accepting that scenario. It would stress Jesus' humanity, which is a big scriptural focus. It would devalue the 'two natures' theory of certain creeds, but they are not necessary imo anyway. The Word would still be made flesh, if by the Word we mean the Father's eternal wisdom and goals and love, not a pre-existent person.
Well in any case, I'm not seeing where the scenario would necessarily be heretical. I'll have to think about it some more.

[Eaglesway]

Okay it looks like some explanation could be made. OTOH, a 'plain' reading could lead one to the belief that Joseph, of the seed of David, was the father.
Another scenario is this: Joseph was the biological father, and the virgin birth story is just that - in line with other literature of the period that accented the glorious accomplishments of 'great' leaders by attributing to them a miraculous birth.

I'm not sure what is at stake by accepting that scenario. It would stress Jesus' humanity, which is a big scriptural focus. It would devalue the 'two natures' theory of certain creeds, but they are not necessary imo anyway. The Word would still be made flesh, if by the Word we mean the Father's eternal wisdom and goals and love, not a pre-existent person.
Well in any case, I'm not seeing where the scenario would necessarily be heretical. I'll have to think about it some more.

Knew you were trolling.

[DaveB]

I know it looks like a troll - but it still is NOT.
I do like being the loyal opposition at times. An outrageous position can throw light on what are sometimes less-than-thought-out-orthodoxies.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

I know it looks like a troll - but it still is NOT.
I do like being the loyal opposition at times. An outrageous position can throw light on what are sometimes less-than-thought-out-orthodoxies.

Oh, great! Another nominee for the Holy Fools tradition

[DaveB]

Where do I apply?

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Where do I apply?

First you need to pass a test. You need to emulate Murdoch of the A-team, as a role model. And you need to prove you're as "off the wall", as Curly Howard, of the Three Stooges. Are you prepared for the test

[DaveB]

Sadly, no.

[maintenanceman]

Okay, I get it now!
I hope that I can get across the idea that I am not attacking; I am questioning and looking for answers. I know for a fact that many people who hold to traditional evangelical Christianity don't realize that much of what they hold to was not even thought about by Christians for a couple/three hundred years after our Lord's ascension.

In other words - isn't it true that God's will and work was NOT dependent on them knowing certain theories that 'evolved' later on. Anymore, imo, than His work and will depends on those extra-biblical (imo) theories NOW?

Gosh darn, why don't more people understand this!!!

[davo]

Okay, I get it now!
I hope that I can get across the idea that I am not attacking; I am questioning and looking for answers. I know for a fact that many people who hold to traditional evangelical Christianity don't realize that much of what they hold to was not even thought about by Christians for a couple/three hundred years after our Lord's ascension.

In other words - isn't it true that God's will and work was NOT dependent on them knowing certain theories that 'evolved' later on. Anymore, imo, than His work and will depends on those extra-biblical (imo) theories NOW?

Gosh darn, why don't more people understand this!!!

[Eaglesway]

Because everyone is so sure that their theory didn't just evolve..... it is the God given truth ;o)

[Paidion]

Paidon, I see your logic, but the plainer understanding still seems to identify the Holy Spirit as distinct to me.

I agree that there is a sense in which the HS is distinct. But is the HS distinct as a PERSON? If the HS is a divine Person distinct from the Father and the Son, then it would make sense to pray to the HS. And we do, in fact, hear prayer addressed to the HS in modern churches. Also, many of our modern hymns are addressed to the HS, such as "Come Holy Spirit I need Thee. Come sweet Spirit I pray. Come in Thy strength and Thy power. Come in Thy own gentle way."

However, in the prayers recorded in the Bible, we don't find a single one addressed to the Holy Spirit. If the HS is divine and personal, one would expect prayer to have been made to Him, wouldn't one? Or is it merely accidental that not one prayer to the HS is recorded in the Bible?

[Paidion]

Here is the translation of a hymn from the year 200 A.D. addressed to the Lord Jesus:

Bridle-bit of untamed colts,
Wing of birds that do not go astray,
Sure Tiller of ships,
Shepherd of the King’s lambs!

Gather your children
Who live in simplicity.
Let them sing in holiness.
Let them celebrate with sincerity,
With a mouth that knows no evil,
The Christ who guides his children!

O King of the saints,
O sovereign Word
Of the Most High Father,
Prince of wisdom,
Support of toiling men,
Eternal Joy of the human family,
O Jesus, Saviour …

Even this hymn after Trinitarianism became widely spread in the fourth century, addresses the Father and the Son but not the Spirit:

O Lord God, heavenly King, God the Father almighty,
O Lord, the only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ;
O Lord God, Lamb of God, Son of the Father,

That takest away the sins of the world, have mercy upon us.
Thou that takest away the sins of the world, receive our prayer.
Thou that sittest at the right hand of God the Father, have mercy upon us.

[[email protected]]

However, in the prayers recorded in the Bible, we don't find a single one addressed to the Holy Spirit. If the HS is divine and personal, one would expect prayer to have been made to Him, wouldn't one? Or is it merely accidental that not one prayer to the HS is recorded in the Bible?

A good observation. But not necessarily true that prayer to the Holy Spirit is expected or required to prove his person-hood. This observation needs to be weighed against other observations.

[nimblewill]

My Statement of Faith

For God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.

[[email protected]]

+1

[DaveB]

The title of this podcast is "Two perspectives on the doctrine of the Trinity in the early church".

Another excellent, thoughtful and respectful podcast from Dale Tuggy. In this one he responds to Professor Mark Edwards (Christ Church, Oxford) who specializes in early Christian thought and is a staunch Trinitarian.
I think Tuggy's commentary is spot-on.

http://trinities.org/blog/podcast-139-t ... ly-church/

[Paidion]

Well, there is no evidence that "the doctrine of the Trinity" existed prior to the third century.
Even Tertullian who coined the word "Trinity" in the third century, didn't understand it as did later Trinitarians in the fourth century.
In his explanation to the "simple people" who believed in the "Monarchy", Tertullian wrote:

I am aware that "monarchy" means simply the rule of one individual; but that monarchy, because it is the rule of one, does not preclude the monarch, who enjoys that rule, from having a son ... or administering his monarchy by agents of his own choosing."—Adversus Praxean 3

As I see it, though Tertullian saw "the Trinity" as Three, He thought of the Son as the agent of the Father in that rule, which in fact, the scriptures affirm. Indeed, they affirm that the Father created all things through the agency of the Son.

All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made. (John 1:3)

All things were created through Him and for Him. (Colossians 1:16)

And, of course, the Spirit was an agent of the supreme Monarch (not necessarily a "Third Person", but the spirit of the Father and of the Son). So the Father and his two Agents comprised "the Trinity" for Tertullian. Personally, I have no problem with that concept of "the Trinity."
It is the fourth-century concept that I reject.

[Eaglesway]

I agree entirely. Altho I have a personal issue with the term "Trinity" being instituted as a soteriological standard in the orthodox view, I have no issue at all with the concept of the trinity as you defined it and as Tertullian described it.

God, after He spoke long ago to the fathers in the prophets in many portions and in many ways, 2 in these last days has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. 3 And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power. When He had made purification of sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4 having become as much better than the angels, as He has inherited a more excellent name than they.

5 For to which of the angels did He ever say,

“You are My Son,
Today I have begotten You”?

[DaveB]

I think both you fellas would really like the link I posted just above. Just sayin'....

[Eaglesway]

There are a lot of interesting things in the articles which will take awhile to go through, I read two. There was one good example in it, not to be critical, but here it is, in this quote


…the three days which were before the luminaries [i.e. the stars], are types of the Trinity [Greek: triados, a form of trias], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. (“Theophilus to Autolycus,” Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. II, p. 101)

triados was most likely not capitalized in the text he quotes from his source material. merely by capitalizing it he is inferring(purposely or not) that what he says is the first recorded occurrence of the word, was presented in a manner that displays common use, acceptance and orthodoxy- the capitalization of the term. He does this for the same reason the Greeks translated sheol to Hades and the Romans translated Hades to Inferno and the English translated Inferno to Hell..... a lack of willingness to reason within the confines of the scriptures, and require no submission to any extra scriptural terminology for establishing foundation doctrines.

This is why I say I have no problem with the issue in relationship to Tertullians trinity view- or anyone elses really- as long as they do not make is a soteriological issue.

But I do not have any regard for the word itself.... beyond what respect I may have for my brothers and sisters.... I think it is a theological fabrication upon which the ambitions and conflicts of carnal men nested and became enthroned.

They won. So now all submit, in fear of ex-communication, being anathmetized or the label "heretic" or cult being laid upon them by the same people who give us eternal torment, the clergy laity deception, the torture and or execution of dissenting opinions and a bunch of other stuff.

[Eaglesway]

There are a lot of interesting things in the articles which will take awhile to go through, I read two. There was one good example in it, not to be critical, but here it is, in this quote


…the three days which were before the luminaries [i.e. the stars], are types of the Trinity [Greek: triados, a form of trias], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom. (“Theophilus to Autolycus,” Ante-Nicene Fathers vol. II, p. 101)

triados was most likely not capitalized in the text he quotes from his source material.The commas were not there. Thus it reads....

the three days which were before the luminaries are types of the trinity of God and His Word and His wisdom.

Such a reading, perfectly reasonable and very likely accurate, would have nothing to do with the godhead.

Merely capitalizing it infers (purposely or not) that what he says is the first recorded occurrence of the word, was presented in a manner that displays common use, acceptance and orthodoxy- the capitalization of the term. He does this for the same reason the Greeks translated sheol to Hades and the Romans translated Hades to Inferno and the English translated Inferno to Hell..... a lack of willingness to reason within the confines of the scriptures, and require no submission to any extra scriptural terminology for establishing foundation doctrines. The accepted concept informed the translation rather than the history, etymology, morphology and context.

This is why I say I have no problem with the issue in relationship to Tertullians trinity view- or anyone else's really- as long as they do not make is a soteriological issue.

But I do not have any regard for the word itself.... beyond what respect I may have for my brothers and sisters.... I think it is a theological fabrication upon which the ambitions and conflicts of carnal men nested and became enthroned. In itself it is a particular view of the evidence that I have no problem with. As a requirement for membership in the body of Christ, imo, it is a theological idol.

They won. So now all submit, in fear of ex-communication, being anathmetized or the label "heretic" or cult being laid upon them by the same people who give us eternal torment, the clergy laity deception, the torture and or execution of dissenting opinions and a bunch of other stuff. I mean, I am just stating my opinion.... and I kno it is a minority opinion. I submit it respectfully and as humbly as is possible for me- .

And I will continue to read through Dane's articles. I can see there are some good resources there.

[[email protected]]

Just listening to the discussion and reflecting on the question of the gravity of rejecting the Holy Spirit's person-hood. Certainly to reject the person-hood and deity of Christ would be a deal breaker. However, since the work of the Holy Spirit is to bring people to Christ, maybe he will overlook the "person-al" offense concerning his own identity. As for me the "another counselor" reference was always enough to confirm the Holy Spirit's distinct person-hood within the Godhead. Another verse that makes it clear is Matthew 28:19, "in the NAME of.."

[Paidion]

Hi Jeff,

If you are thinking that I am one of those persons who "reject the Holy Spirit's person-hood," you are mistaken. I believe in the Spirit's personhood. I affirm that the Spirit is the very Persons of the Father and the Son perfectly united into one Spirit. What I reject is the notion that the Spirit is a different Person from that of the Father and the Son.

As for me the "another counselor" reference was always enough to confirm the Holy Spirit's distinct person-hood within the Godhead.

Perhaps you understand the phrase "another counselor" as tantamount to "a different counselor." In this context, the Greek word rendered "another" is "ἀλλος" (allos), a word that means "another instance of the same kind." If a different divine Person were meant, the word "ἑτερος" (heteros) would have been used. I agree that the Spirit is another instance of Deity. For the Father and/or the Son, although especially present in heaven, extend their Persons throughout the Universe, and especially in the hearts and mind of the faithful. And that extension is another instance of their presence, that is other than their presence in heaven.

Another verse that makes it clear is Matthew 28:19, "in the NAME of.."

Notice that it's "in the name of..." and not "in the names of..."

[Eaglesway]

I also believe in the personhood of the Holy Spirit, much in the same way as you do Paidon.

But in my opinion the only thing a person needs to believe in order to enter the kingdom, to be reconciled unto God, is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten son of God, that He was crucified and raised from the dead on the third day, and that He is Lord of all, embracing that Lordship.

What is a deal breaker for Christian religionists of one type or another is not a deal breaker for God, who knows those who are His.

Our soteriology ought to match Paul's. "God knows those who are His"......"If you confess Jesus Christ as Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you shall be saved".

or John's. "Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Messiah? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son. 23 Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.

Tertullian is the father of the "Trinity" but his Trinity is unnacceptable to any major denomination because all the denominations share the Roman Catholic orthodoxy concerning the godhead, and have made it a part of the salvation standard.

Tertullian also was one of the early proponents of eternal torment, who wrote of the rejoicing he would feel to see and hear the cries of torment of the damned.

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause.".....

What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.” [De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX]

Already the inquisitors had begun their work, among whom Tertullian was a cheerleader, rejocing in his imaginative visions of the sufferings of the lost and the heretics. But today, he would be the subject of their curiosity, for his unorthodox views on the godhead

[Paidion]

I fully agree with you, Eaglesway, on the salvation issue. One's view of God, whether God is a compound Being (Trinity or Binity) or "the only true God" as Jesus addressed him to be, whether the Holy Spirit is a third divine Person, or the Persons of the Father and the Son... None of these positions should define whether or not one is a true disciple of Christ.

[Eaglesway]

Exactly. There is just no scriptural justification for it.

[[email protected]]

Contraire. I do not have time to argue with you fellas, just posting back for any other readers. I don't buy your anti-Trintiarian arguments at all.

One might argue that human semantics is insufficient to describe the Godhead. I could go along with that to a degree, except for one fact. Mankind is created in God's image and so in fact whatever language and words we use to describe ourselves in the essential elements relate back from us, the type, to God the anti-type. So the semantics of personhood, father, son, spirit, distinction, oneness, and unity are useful to describe both ourselves and the Godhead. These semantics also teach us how to relate to God; trusting, obeying, and worshiping Him.

The majority of professing Christians have found agreement in the semantics of one God in three persons, the Trinity, because of observations in Scripture. God the Father is a personal God, not a more mere force, Isaiah 64:8. Jesus his Son is also worshiped as God, John 20:28, and obviously a distinct person from the Father. The Holy Spirit is also God, Acts 5:4, and distinct from both the Father and the Son, John 14:26, 16:7, and especially Luke 12:8-10 where Jesus and the Holy Spirit are clearly distinct persons. So these Scriptures and many others help us describe God using language with the Biblical semantics and in fact the same semantics that we use to describe our own personhood and unity, the creature made in his image. Furthermore, since the sin unforgiven in this age and the coming, Luke 12:8-10, is specifically "anyone who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit", it seems particularly offensive to malign the Holy Spirit's identity. Though, I think the blaspheme in view is to resist the Holy Spirit's voice concerning God the Son. I might even go as far to speculate that the Holy Spirit might graciously overlook personal offense against his own identity because his primary concern is to bring sinners to the God the Son. I might speculate that, but for what gain?

I will even go further and say that some professing Christians cling to 'Trinitarian semantics' as their god and their salvation. That is simply a case of trusting and obeying orthodoxy and dogma instead of trusting and obeying God himself. Such faith is hardly saving faith. However, just because some worship the Bible or worship their statements of faith, that does not mean that the Bible or statements of faith are necessarily bad or in error, though they should not be worshiped, but instead God. Christian faith includes both acknowledgement of truth about God as well as relationship to God. I think nearly every Christian would agree with that statement.

Yet what Scriptural reason do you have to part from the common Christian view and deny the Holy Spirit's personhood? What Scripture overturns even my short list of Scripture given above?

I also have a practical question concerning your strategies to pursue fellowship and influence with the larger body of professing Christians. I assume we agree that God's grace will be victorious in the final salvation of all mankind. This is already quite a radical departure from the majority view of professing Christians. Yet, I would think we agree that the scope of God's grace is worth a serious argument. However, since fellowship is already strained with orthodoxy why unnecessarily increase the strain by rejecting the Trinity? Why get in an unnecessary argument over the language used to describe the Godhead? It seems to me that you have expanded essential arguments onto unproductive territory and so will lose any positive influence you might have because of being divisive persons. Let's be characterized for being pro-loving God, not being anti-orthodox.

Or instead tell me why you think this is an essential argument?

Unless of course it is exposed that your anti-Trinitarian views prove that you are not worshiping the God who is and are simply followers of Knoch or any other religion that worships their man-made god who falls short of the one true God and His majesty.

[davo]

Yet what Scriptural reason do you have to part from the common Christian view and deny the Holy Spirit's personhood? What Scripture overturns even my short list of Scripture given above?

It might not be so much a case that anyone denying the Spirits personhood as such, but that you are simply bringing and foisting your own given interpretation to those texts etc, (which of course you are free to).

[DaveB]

Jeff, I think we are all trying to learn what Scripture tells us. A lot of us think that extra-biblical creeds are not based on the scriptural evidence.
Even Unitarians worship God the Father, the Son of God, and (to some extent) the H.S.
We all have trouble really LISTENING to the other guy.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Did someone lose an elephant? I think some Zoo visitors, kept giving it the wrong treats. It occasionally emits a foul gas.

[Holy-Fool-P-Zombie]

Did someone lose an elephant? I think some Zoo visitors, kept giving it the wrong treats. It occasionally emits a foul gas.

[Paidion]

Contraire. I do not have time to argue with you fellas, just posting back for any other readers. I don't buy your anti-Trintiarian arguments at all.

No one is asking you to buy them, Jeff. Indeed, we'll give them to you for nothing.

Trinitarianism never became widespread in the church until the 4th century. Prior to that, the main church did not teach it.

If God is a compound Being, a Trinity, isn't it odd that the word for "God" in the New Testament, that is, θεος (theos) NEVER refers to a Trinity, and well over 90% of the time refers to the Father alone?

And if Jesus is part of that Trinity, wouldn't He know it? Wouldn't He know that He is truly God the Son? Why would He address the Father in prayer as "the only true God"? (John 17:3). Don't think I deny the Deity of Christ. I don't. As the Son of God, He is just as divine as the Father, but He is not the Father, nor is He a part of a Trinity.

Did you ever notice that "God the Father" is an expression used in the New Testament? If Trinitarianism is true, why is it that no writer of the New Testament ever used the expression "God the Son" or "God the Holy Spirit"? Trinitarians use those expressions frequently.

The apostle Paul believed there was one God—the Father, and one Lord—Jesus Christ. At no time did he ever suggest that God was a compound Being composed of three divine Persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

... for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist. (1 Corinthians 8:6)

If Paul had believed that God was a Trinity of divine Persons, then he would not have distinguished the "one God" from the "one Lord." For the "one God" would have included the "one Lord."

Paul also wrote:

For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus ...(1 Timothy 2:5)

If Paul had believed that God was a Trinity of divine Persons, then he would not have distinguished the "one God" from the "one Mediatior."
For the "one God" would have included the "one Mediator."

Yes, I know... you have no time to argue... and I'm not asking you to do so. I just want you to be aware of the scriptural unlikelihood of a Trinity of Persons that comprise a compound God.

[Paidion]

However, since fellowship is already strained with orthodoxy why unnecessarily increase the strain by rejecting the Trinity?

How lugubrious that in some groups fellowship is based on philosophical and/or theological agreement! This is not the basis for Christian fellowship. Rather Christian fellowship is based on discipleship—on our mutual submission to the authority of our blessed Saviour!