Thanks again for expressing your thoughts, Eaglesway. I can see that you are indeed a thinking person.
I hope you are not suggesting that I am not a thinking person for my belief in the Trinity.
How do you explain that Jesus said he is sending ‘another comforter’?
Is that not a clear reference that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person from himself?
I assure you Jeff, that I am NOT suggesting that. But perhaps I was suggesting that many just accept Τrinitarian belief because they were taught it and not because they arrived at it from Bible study or reasoning. I was one such Trinitarian.
I am going to use the word “advocate” which I think is a better translation of παρακλητος. Indeed, even the King James translators rendered the word as “advocate” in 1 John 2:1.
So according to 1 John 2:1 Jesus Himself is our advocate. So in what sense was He going to ask the Father to send another advocate?
When we examine the verse in its context, I think it becomes clear that Jesus WAS the advocate when He was with His disciples, and continued to be the advocate after His resurrection. It is written that the last Adam (Jesus) became a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor 15:45). It is also written that the Lord (Jesus) IS the Spirit (2 Cor 3:17,18). So why another advocate? When He was an advocate for His disciples as a man, his Spirit was confined to His body, and they were aware of his advocacy only when He was with them. But after his departure, He promised to come again to them and be with them permanently. When that time came, his presence was a different presence—a spiritual presence rather that a physical presence; it was another presence and in that sense another advocate, but not a different Person. Here is the passage in the ESV (which translates παρακλητος as “Helper”:
16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
17 even the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees him nor knows him. You know him, for he dwells with you and will be in you.
18 I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.
First He says that he will ask the Father to send them another advocate, and then He tells them that He Himself will come to them. So is He not that “other Advocate”? How will He come to them, if not by his spirit? Thus is not the spirit whom the Father will send not the spirit of Himself as well as of the Father? Didn’t they extend their Persons into the disciples? Was that not the Holy Spirit?
19 Yet a little while and the world will see me no more, but you will see me. Because I live, you also will live.
Why would the world no longer see Him? Because after his death, He would no longer be physically present. In what way would his disciples see Him? They would experience his indwelling presence.
20 In that day you will know that I am in my Father, and you in me, and I in you.
21 Whoever has my commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves me. And he who loves me will be loved by my Father, and I will love him and manifest myself to him.”
22 Judas (not Iscariot) said to him, “Lord, how is it that you will manifest yourself to us, and not to the world?”
23 Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him.
Judas is trying to understand. He wonders how Jesus can disclose Himself to disciples and yet remain hidden from the world. Jesus explains that He and the Father will come and make their dwelling with those who love Him. How do They do that? They extend their very Persons, real but physically invisible into Christ’s disciples. Is that extension of their Persons not the Holy Spirit? If so, what need is there to presume the existence of a third divine Person?
Have you ever noticed that in the New Testament record, much prayer is made to the Father. There is at least one instance in which Jesus (after his death) is addressed in prayer (Lord Jesus receive my spirit. Acts 7:59). But NEVER is a prayer addressed to the Holy Spirit. Isn’t that rather odd than no one prayed to Him, if He is a third divine Person? Of course in our day, Trinitarians pray to Him and He is addressed in several of our hymns. But there is no record of that having been done by Christians in the first, second, or third centuries.
I really don’t have a problem with the concept of the trintiy as a general explanation of deity if theire is some fluidity allowed. For me no single position fully explains the mysteries hinted at in the scriptures concerning God, who is alone immortal, dwells in unapproachable light, and generally hides His face in a shhroud of mystery because His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts higher than our thoughts… Who has known the mind of the Lord?
But it seems some systematic theologians would counsel Him as to how He is built HAHAHAHA, what a riot, as if mere terminology could contain and define utterly those thoughts.
No really, we ought hold our beliefs on such things quite lightly, and discuss them as slightly ignorant friends standing around speculating about what sits atop a high tower that we can barely make when it is clear of clouds LOL.
Other wise we find ourselves building strongholds and towers against the true knowledge of God and think we are doing Him a service by darkening the landscape with them and imprisoning the masses within.
I find it hard to believe anyone was ever ex-communicated or worse yet- even murdered, over the way they defined hypostasis. 
Sure, but neither should we discount what has been revealed. The first major heresy against the Christian faith was to attack the physical humanity of Christ the God-man. Paidon, I see your logic, but the plainer understanding still seems to identify the Holy Spirit as distinct to me.
No, we don’t want to ignore what has been revealed. But that is what they said as they burned Michael Servetus. Revelation is debatable. Orthodoxy is not, because orthodoxy is decided by power, more than truth. So rightfully, we continue to discuss and examine that which is entrenched by the powerful- like the etrnal torment of the wicked for instance. In the field of the world we are the heretics, for believeing in the restoration of all things and the salvation of all. But the truth about the restoration of all things goes deeper than just the duration of ages and the purpose of “hell” and that everyone will eventually be saved. It goes into why God has done all that He has done and how He works with us and what He is after in us and indeed the entire creation. The mystery extends into all that and beyond these traditrional debates and I am not saying we cant know, or understand, I am saying the understanding is beyond the traditional poles.
Sadly sometimes, but always?
Other motives could include fear, pressure, ignorance, etc. There are ‘camps’ of division even within universalist / restorationist thought. Does power cause these divisions? Sometimes these camps form because they discover an important truth, but other times because they found a common enemy. And what if one universalist camp gained the power to become the prevalent new orthodoxy? What would future disgruntled seekers then follow?
Hopefully we each seek to follow Christ and grow closer to each other as we grow closer to Christ.
For myself I find it better to not fear orthdoxy and even to respect the efforts of Christians in the past, even if some of their conclusions are wrong. Of course if I think something is wrong, then I chose not to believe it. Yet if we disregard dialogue with orthodoxy we lose much. Satan is our enemy, but not our neighbor, and not even the powerful orthodox Christian friend we disagree with.
Pray for me that I would seek to be teachable, winsome, and loving towards those of a different opinion.
I’m wondering how any of us reconcile the following with the story of the virgin birth?
1 Therefore being a prophet [David], and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne. Acts 2:30
2.Of this man’s seed [David’s] hath God, according to his promise, raised unto Israel a Saviour, Jesus. Acts 13:23
3.Concerning his son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh. Romans 1:3
4. Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David. 2 Timothy 2:8
5. For verily he [Jesus] took not on him the nature of angels, but he took on him the seed of Abraham. Hebrews 2:16
6. I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David. Revelation 22:16
In any case, I find it really strange that God would impregnate (I don’t mean that in any lascivious manner, needless to say) a woman. Yes, the bible tells me so - but coupling my strange feelings about it with the scriptures above, I find myself unable to be dogmatic about it. In fact, when we read about human leaders around the 1st century, we do find that some of them were given supernatural birth stories, to draw attention to their deeds and greatness. I try to read from the original writer’s frame of mind.
Anyway, I’m not trolling, just expressing my puzzlement. Any ideas?
Yea- You’re trolling.
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! 
I don’t understand. Are you questioning the virgin birth?
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.
So why could He not have been the seed of David through his mother Mary?
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.
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, 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.
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).
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.
Glad to hear that, Dave. Otherwise - like Humpty Dumpty - you might be setting yourself up, for a great fall 
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.
