Non-Trinitarianism is unscriptural

[Imagican]

Do you actually read my posts, old chap? I suppose not, given that I have never used the rather verbose form of "it is presupposed that..."

You don't need to use the WORD in order to convey it's existence. Everything you offer PRESUPPOSES 'trinity'.

Alas, John 1:1 says otherwise.

Not as I interpret it. What it DOESN'T offer is 'trinity'. Once again, the Holy Spirit isn't even MENTIONED. Since it is an integral part of 'trinity', obvious any lines of scripture that do not INCLUDE that which is integral do not PROVE such proposition as that pertaining to 'trinity'.

Here you argue with yourself. The Nicene Creed, which we confess, says "Begotten, not made." You are the one seeking to argue that our Lord is a creature.

Nope. And let me clear that up right here. I do NOT consider Christ to be a 'creature' as you have indicated. He is the Son of God and I don't propose to offer anything BUT. But the Bible SAYS that "He is the FIRSTBORN of EVERY creature". Not MY words, but scripture. I leave that up to YOU to define or interpret.

Ok, so 'begotten' not 'made'. But let us examine the word BEGOTTEN. In every OTHER use of the word in the entire Bible, it basically means to SIRE. A father 'begets' a son. Upon that moment of begetting, the son is 'begotten'. I don't CHOOSE to alter definitions to FIT my interpretation. I simply accept the words AS OFFERED.

In fact, it does not. Once again it would seem you are arguing against my invisible evil Sabellian twin. Classical strawman, by the way.

No. It is imperative that one ask and others answer questions in order to understand each other. I try my best to give answers to the questions you ask. But each time you don't WANT to answer one of mine, you offer something other than an answer instead.

Asked and answered, ad nauseum. I'll give you a hint though; it is related to Exodus 3:14-15

As YOU say. I see no such ANSWER in the scripture to which you refer. No answer that would MATCH what it is that you say you believe.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

As YOU say. I see no such ANSWER in the scripture to which you refer. No answer that would MATCH what it is that you say you believe.

Blessings,

MEC

On the contrary, there is an answer to that question and it has been given to you repeatedly throughout the duration of this thread.

 

[Imagican]

according to 'trinity'. A man made concept created specifically to make it OK to worship Jesus AS God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

according to 'trinity'. A man made concept created specifically to make it OK to worship Jesus AS God.

Blessings,

MEC

By implication, but one could hypothetically, according to the verse in question, which I am disinclined to wuote yet again, one could believe in eternal generation, while adhering to full Pneumatomachianism.

 

[Imagican]

while I appreciate your use of the technical terms you have learned according to your 'church', to me, all they sound like are words created by men. The majority of which are not even FATHOMED in the Bible. "Pneumatomachianism". Now ain't THAT a mouthful? You make 'Christianity' or the understanding of it's principles sound like 'Rocket Science'. What I can't help but wonder is: 'what about the REST of us that AREN'T 'Rocket Scientists'?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

See if you can scare us up some scripture concerning eternally begotten or eternal generation that actually INDICATES that it's even a possibility. And while you're at it, please, show us the scripture that explains to us that the use of the word 'begotten' means something DIFFERENT when used in accordance to Christ than it does when used in EVERY OTHER instance. I mean WHY use the word 'begotten' if it doesn't MEAN 'begotten'? From a scriptural perspective.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Wgw]

while I appreciate your use of the technical terms you have learned according to your 'church', to me, all they sound like are words created by men. The majority of which are not even FATHOMED in the Bible. "Pneumatomachianism". Now ain't THAT a mouthful? You make 'Christianity' or the understanding of it's principles sound like 'Rocket Science'. What I can't help but wonder is: 'what about the REST of us that AREN'T 'Rocket Scientists'?

Blessings,

MEC

Since I am not Gnostic, I do not believe knowledge of Pneumatomachianism is by itself salvific.

However, you do raise an interesting point in that it can be argued that a vigorous intellectual understanding of the issues involved is a characteristic of the Trinitarian position. Now the American Unitarians were also intellectually formidable, however, their approach contained elements of transcendentalist, universalist hyper-pietism from the start, and ultimately this trend towards a non-dogmatic religion would entirely dominate what became the UUA of today.

So the argument with Unitarians was always in part a dispute between Enlightenment philosophy and more traditional Christian philosophy in the Western Augustinian-Thomistic mode.

On the other hand, the modern voices of non-Trinitarian theology are noted for a belligerent form of anti-intellectualism, typified by the intentionally perjorative use of words such as ain't. It is nothing more than a giant appeal to ignorance, yet another fallacy in the veritable litany of fallacious arguments presented by the non-Trinitarians.

What is more, it is also, in my view, an affront to the dignity of Creation. God has endowed us with the gift of rational faculties, and when we argue against the usefulness of these faculties, we disparage a divinely ordained function which by virtue of its mere existence, separates humanity from irrational beasts.

 

[Wgw]

See if you can scare us up some scripture concerning eternally begotten or eternal generation that actually INDICATES that it's even a possibility. And while you're at it, please, show us the scripture that explains to us that the use of the word 'begotten' means something DIFFERENT when used in accordance to Christ than it does when used in EVERY OTHER instance. I mean WHY use the word 'begotten' if it doesn't MEAN 'begotten'? From a scriptural perspective.

Blessings,

MEC

I have provided a strong hint as to which verse I am referring to; I invite you to connect the dots.

 

[Imagican]

Since I am not Gnostic, I do not believe knowledge of Pneumatomachianism is by itself salvific.

However, you do raise an interesting point in that it can be argued that a vigorous intellectual understanding of the issues involved is a characteristic of the Trinitarian position. Now the American Unitarians were also intellectually formidable, however, their approach contained elements of transcendentalist, universalist hyper-pietism from the start, and ultimately this trend towards a non-dogmatic religion would entirely dominate what became the UUA of today.

So the argument with Unitarians was always in part a dispute between Enlightenment philosophy and more traditional Christian philosophy in the Western Augustinian-Thomistic mode.

On the other hand, the modern voices of non-Trinitarian theology are noted for a belligerent form of anti-intellectualism, typified by the intentionally perjorative use of words such as ain't. It is nothing more than a giant appeal to ignorance, yet another fallacy in the veritable litany of fallacious arguments presented by the non-Trinitarians.

What is more, it is also, in my view, an affront to the dignity of Creation. God has endowed us with the gift of rational faculties, and when we argue against the usefulness of these faculties, we disparage a divinely ordained function which by virtue of its mere existence, separates humanity from irrational beasts.

Yet you choose to follow a faith who's teachings are anything BUT 'rational'.

You claim to have stemmed from the 'church' formed in Antioch by the apostle Paul, I assume.

Yet your basic dogma and doctrine are obviously little different than those of the Catholic Church, (you say they are different but so far they SEEM to me to be EXACTLY the same).

And it's OBVIOUS that the concept or idea of Peter being the first 'Bishop' of Rome is impossible.

Paul, in almost every epistle, PLAINLY illustrates the difference between GOD and Christ. He makes it clear that God and Christ are two distinct entities. Not Father and Christ, but GOD and Christ.

So too does John. Once one reaches the NEXT chapters of John, it becomes CLEAR that the interpretation of the first chapter by 'trinitarians' is incorrect. For the 'oneness' that John continually refers to, even quoting Christ Himself, offers just the OPPOSITE concept than that which is contained within 'trinity'.

You may well consider me to be ignorant. And in fact this is probably quite true. Especially when it comes to the teachings of men. While I am aware of them in a rudimentary way, I do not adhere to them and therefore my understanding is certainly limited. And it will remain so. I don't need to be an intellectual to KNOW God or His Son. In fact, the Bible references the very FACT that the overwhelming majority of those to whom Christ appealed would BE the very folks that YOU would probably consider to be IGNORANT from your standpoint.

But it is MY proposition that one cannot THINK their way to God. It is a matter of acceptance. Not CREATION through one's OWN understanding.

Regardless of the teachings of 'churches', fortunately we have God's Word offered in PRINT. While the 'churches' controlled the populace for hundreds upon hundreds of years by DENYING the congregation anything other than bits and pieces, we are NOW able to read the CONTENT of the Bible and through it recognize a much DEEPER truth than the 'churches' ever conveyed. And the BIGGEST truth is that it is NOT a 'man made church' that is capable of offering or denying one's Salvation IN TRUTH, but the understanding offered to the INDIVIDUAL and the relationship that can be developed on a PERSONAL level. While Jesus preached to MANY, it was the INDIVIDUAL that recognized His Words that became the TRUE FAITHFUL FOLLOWER.

And the apostles APPEALED to the individuals to 'follow them'. But they NEVER attempted to FORCE ANYONE to be their followers. This in utter contradiction to the 'churches' that attempted to DESTROY any and everyone that REFUSED to follow THEM. While they had the POWER to do so.

And in my opinion, one of the most profound doctrines that made this possible was 'trinity'. For it takes a faulty foundation to make people faulty followers so far as truth is concerned. And the foundation called 'trinity' can do nothing but blind those that follow it from any other truth except that created by MEN. Once accepted, it closes the mind and heart to anything BUT. Even destroying the humanity that God placed within us in our very creation. It 'takes away' LOVE and replaces it with MYSTERY. It destroys charity and replaces it with a feigned MERCY.

No guy, truth be known, I doubt seriously that there will be MANY 'Rocket Scientists' receiving any real 'gifts' other than the one's they are capable of giving themselves in the time they spend here in this life.

Like the man that stands in the street screaming his prayers out in the open in an attempt to SHOW everyone how truly pious they are, they RECEIVE their reward WHEN others look upon them as 'most pious'. But they certainly aren't building any treasures in heaven by appeasing themselves instead of sharing their love and compassion with others. One CANNOT serve TWO masters. And what this REALLY means is that if you are not TRULY serving ONE, then you are most definitely serving the other.

I suggest that you consider yourself TOO 'bright'. You have certainly learned your lessons well. But, to what extent? Have you TRULY learned about God and His Son? Or have you fallen victim to a 'church' created by men and learned what they have formulated? Not accusation. Can't do such a thing. But I can't help but wonder.

I have spoken to you about personal experience. You refuse to even mention it. Choosing instead to repeat the words of 'other men' instead. I can only HOPE that your understanding hasn't brought about an inability TO have person experiences. You say you've had them. But refuse to share them. I only know this: if they weren't meant to be shared, they wouldn't have been offered.

For it is THROUGH our witness and testimony that others are able to SEE. And trying to learn to repeat what others have taught you is utterly LIMITED so far as TRUTH is concerned. For in most instances of which we have the ability to discern, when it comes to the teachings of men, RARELY if EVER do they teach the TRUTH.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Hoghead1]

Hello, WGW. Hoghead1 here. I am very interested in discussing process with you. I received one email saying you had posted your response. I still can't find it. I came back here, but still didn't find it.

 

[Hoghead1]

Hello, Wgw. You may have already received this email. I just want to make sure. If you haven't, I said I would enjoying process with you. You emailed me and said you had posted a response. My problem is that I can't find it.

 

[Wgw]

Hello, Wgw. You may have already received this email. I just want to make sure. If you haven't, I said I would enjoying process with you. You emailed me and said you had posted a response. My problem is that I can't find it.

Here is the link to the Process Theology thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/a-critique-of-process-theology.7920224/

 

[YHWH's Lion]

Acts of the Apostles is the Great Commission in preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Peter in Acts after preaching Jesus Christ would say be baptised in the name of Jesus Christ to rally people to accept Christ in their lives.

"However when the apostles actually got around to baptised new members in Jesus Christ, the Apostles would follow the formal trinitarian prayer by saying in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."


That simply is not supported by scripture, examples of apostles baptizing in the name of Jesus is.

 

[Wgw]

"However when the apostles actually got around to baptised new members in Jesus Christ, the Apostles would follow the formal trinitarian prayer by saying in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit."


That simply is not supported by scripture, examples of apostles baptizing in the name of Jesus is.

Until one reads the entirely canonical Matthew 28:19.

 

[Wgw]

Yet you choose to follow a faith who's teachings are anything BUT 'rational'.

If by "rational" you mean to say the tenets of my faith are Biblically based and not arbitrary, I agree.

You claim to have stemmed from the 'church' formed in Antioch by the apostle Paul, I assume.

I fail to see why you feel the need to put Church in parenthesis even in a case where by your own standards, the faith of that church should not be subject to question. You do realize the concept of a church is Biblically based (Matthew 16:18)?

Yet your basic dogma and doctrine are obviously little different than those of the Catholic Church, (you say they are different but so far they SEEM to me to be EXACTLY the same).

That you seem unaware of the Chalcedonian schism, the Great schism, the filioque controversy, our rejection of purgatpry, papal infallibility and so on, and numerous other facts which could be gleaned from a quick Google, is not surprising, but it is dissappointing nonetheless.

And it's OBVIOUS that the concept or idea of Peter being the first 'Bishop' of Rome is impossible.

Red herring.

Paul, in almost every epistle, PLAINLY illustrates the difference between GOD and Christ. He makes it clear that God and Christ are two distinct entities. Not Father and Christ, but GOD and Christ.

So too does John. Once one reaches the NEXT chapters of John, it becomes CLEAR that the interpretation of the first chapter by 'trinitarians' is incorrect. For the 'oneness' that John continually refers to, even quoting Christ Himself, offers just the OPPOSITE concept than that which is contained within 'trinity'.

In this thread, numerous quotes from these epistles have been provided in support of the trinitarian position.

You may well consider me to be ignorant. And in fact this is probably quite true. Especially when it comes to the teachings of men. While I am aware of them in a rudimentary way, I do not adhere to them and therefore my understanding is certainly limited. And it will remain so.

What you basically say here is "I have no knowledge of Trinitarian beliefs, but I am going to make an intellectual argument against them anyway."

If your various posts did not constantly attack the intelligence, reason, wisdom, divine knowledge, or scriptural knowledge of Trinitarians; if they were predicated on a sincerely held belief rather than an intellectual argument which you have unsuccessfully attempted to make, you would have recourse ro such an argument, however, as it stands, you are basically providing us with a compelling argument as to why we should reject your position.

I don't need to be an intellectual to KNOW God or His Son.

I have been very specific in saying ine does not need to be an intellectual to have sincere faith in the Lord. Actually, the position of the Orthodox is that even a mentally disabled person could be a theologian.

In fact, the Bible references the very FACT that the overwhelming majority of those to whom Christ appealed would BE the very folks that YOU would probably consider to be IGNORANT from your standpoint.

On the contrary, the humble folk to whom our Lord appealed may not have had the benefits of education and easy access to information that you and I enjoy, but what those who followed the Lord did have was a sincere personal piety, which is more important.

"To whom much is given, much will be required." Since we benefit from the privilege of easy access to treasure troves of information, it is becoming of us to avail ourselves of this to the extent we are able.

But it is MY proposition that one cannot THINK their way to God.

I agree.

It is a matter of acceptance. Not CREATION through one's OWN understanding.

I agree.

Regardless of the teachings of 'churches', fortunately we have God's Word offered in PRINT. While the 'churches' controlled the populace for hundreds upon hundreds of years by DENYING the congregation anything other than bits and pieces, we are NOW able to read the CONTENT of the Bible and through it recognize a much DEEPER truth than the 'churches' ever conveyed.

When does "ever" begin?

And the BIGGEST truth is that it is NOT a 'man made church' that is capable of offering or denying one's Salvation IN TRUTH, but the understanding offered to the INDIVIDUAL and the relationship that can be developed on a PERSONAL level.

Not according to St. Paul, or indeed, the Lord. This anti-ecclesiology is directly contrary to Matthew 16:18, 1 Corinthians 10:17, and other verses.

While Jesus preached to MANY, it was the INDIVIDUAL that recognized His Words that became the TRUE FAITHFUL FOLLOWER.

By deciding to be baptized, partake of the one bread, and belong to the one body.

And the apostles APPEALED to the individuals to 'follow them'. But they NEVER attempted to FORCE ANYONE to be their followers. This in utter contradiction to the 'churches' that attempted to DESTROY any and everyone that REFUSED to follow THEM. While they had the POWER to do so.

Ah, back to the persecution canard. My church never destroyed anyone, something you keep ignoring. Rather, we usually found ourselves being variously destroyed by Sassanians, Byzantines, various Islamist regimes, the Portuguese, and the British East India Company.

And in my opinion, one of the most profound doctrines that made this possible was 'trinity'. For it takes a faulty foundation to make people faulty followers so far as truth is concerned. And the foundation called 'trinity' can do nothing but blind those that follow it from any other truth except that created by MEN.

Well, at least you have the decency in this case to admit this polemical diatribe is your opinion, rather than "a matter of FACT."

Once accepted, it closes the mind and heart to anything BUT. Even destroying the humanity that God placed within us in our very creation. It 'takes away' LOVE and replaces it with MYSTERY. It destroys charity and replaces it with a feigned MERCY.

Try telling that to the victims of the oh-so-charitable Arian Visigoths. Or for that matter compare the charitable work of the J/Ws with Roman Catholics.

No guy, truth be known, I doubt seriously that there will be MANY 'Rocket Scientists' receiving any real 'gifts' other than the one's they are capable of giving themselves in the time they spend here in this life.

Another appeal to ignorance, another strawman, couched in the most uncharitable language. The irony is noted.

Like the man that stands in the street screaming his prayers out in the open in an attempt to SHOW everyone how truly pious they are, they RECEIVE their reward WHEN others look upon them as 'most pious'. But they certainly aren't building any treasures in heaven by appeasing themselves instead of sharing their love and compassion with others. One CANNOT serve TWO masters. And what this REALLY means is that if you are not TRULY serving ONE, then you are most definitely serving the other.

I suggest that you consider yourself TOO 'bright'. You have certainly learned your lessons well.

You might make your case more persuasively if you refrained from ad hominem fallacies, particularly when these very personal remarks seem to contradict "Judge not, lest ye not be judged." I try, in responding to your arguments, to address the argument, and not you yourself, and I would ask that you show me the sake courtesy. Attack my words, criticize them, but refrain, according to the teachings of our Lord, but do not presume to judge me personally.

But, to what extent? Have you TRULY learned about God and His Son? Or have you fallen victim to a 'church' created by men and learned what they have formulated? Not accusation. Can't do such a thing. But I can't help but wonder.

This paragraph is in fact accusatory in tone; indeed, speculation of this sort is equivalent to accusation.

I have spoken to you about personal experience. You refuse to even mention it. Choosing instead to repeat the words of 'other men' instead. I can only HOPE that your understanding hasn't brought about an inability TO have person experiences. You say you've had them. But refuse to share them. I only know this: if they weren't meant to be shared, they wouldn't have been offered.

I have repeatedly offered my rationale as to why such experiences are not helpful in this sort of discussion. The simple fact that you are able, correctly, to question whether or not I have had them, shows why they are, by nature, personal, and not useful in theological discussion. Otherwise this conversation would descend into hearsay.

In short, I do not ask people to accept any factual information from me that they cannot independently verify.

For it is THROUGH our witness and testimony that others are able to SEE. And trying to learn to repeat what others have taught you is utterly LIMITED so far as TRUTH is concerned. For in most instances of which we have the ability to discern, when it comes to the teachings of men, RARELY if EVER do they teach the TRUTH.

I agree, which is why in my witness and testimony, I strive to provide accurate, comprehensive and reliable information which can be objectively verified; whether or not someone then chooses to accept the subjective aspects of my faith is a purely personal decision. I likewise reject Arianism, Soccinianism, and other non-Trinitarian doctrines, as these are "teachings of men," not supported by scripture, something that can be verified by the numerous attempts of their adherents to modify scripture to suit their purposes (the Jefferson Bible, the New World translation, et cetera).

I still can't understand why you quoted Thomas Jefferson in a discussion about whether or not the Trinity was scriptural, by the way, given that he sought to produce one of the most extreme alterations of the Gospels on record. He quite literally cut out the bits he did not like.

 

[thecolorsblend]

It is my contention, after participating in several debates in this forum, that the rejection of the Trinity in general, and the divinity of Jesus Christ in particular, is not only contrary to the tradition of my specific Church, but is more generally incompatible with the canonical New Testament. I have yet to see a coherent argument against Nicene theology and Christology, put forward, that ultimately does not require either the rejection or deprecation of sections of the New Testament such as John 1:1-14, Matthew 28:19, and other verses.

The closest I've seen to a debunking of the Trinity doctrine is an argument advanced by a Messianic Jew I found years ago which said God is manifest in more than just Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Those are the primary manifestations, yes, but you get odd things now and then like the burning bush of Moses, the pillar of fire/pillar of cloud in the Exodus, Jacob wrestling possibly with a non-Christ human incarnation of God and so forth.

So to put it another way, three is the minimum anybody can agree upon but, depending on your standards for such a thing, it could be more than three. I'm not saying I believe that myself. I'm only saying that I see no basis for less than three but other people see arguments for more than three.

EDIT- If you consider God's strictly salvific manifestations, the Trinity is undeniable. No more than three, no less than three.

 

[Wgw]

The closest I've seen to a debunking of the Trinity doctrine is an argument advanced by a Messianic Jew I found years ago which said God is manifest in more than just Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Those are the primary manifestations, yes, but you get odd things now and then like the burning bush of Moses, the pillar of fire/pillar of cloud in the Exodus, Jacob wrestling possibly with a non-Christ human incarnation of God and so forth.

So to put it another way, three is the minimum anybody can agree upon but, depending on your standards for such a thing, it could be more than three. I'm not saying I believe that myself. I'm only saying that I see no basis for less than three but other people see arguments for more than three.

Thank you for this interesting intervention.

I consider that we must be careful with the use of the word "manifestation." The proliferation of manifestations cited by your Messianic friend results from I believe a failure to adhere more precisely to the idea of prosopon. My understanding is that the prevailing theologumena in our two communions, is that the burning bush et al were the work of the Spirit, since God the Father is not visible, and we have examples of similiar visual appearances of the Spirit in the NT.

Certainly we can agree I think on the basis of Matthew 28:19 and other verses that the only revealed prosopa are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I would further argue that if there were other uncreated prosopa coessential with the Trinity, that their existence would have been expressed unambiguously.

 

[thecolorsblend]

Thank you for this interesting intervention.

I consider that we must be careful with the use of the word "manifestation." The proliferation of manifestations cited by your Messianic friend results from I believe a failure to adhere more precisely to the idea of prosopon. My understanding is that the prevailing theologumena in our two communions, is that the burning bush et al were the work of the Spirit, since God the Father is not visible, and we have examples of similiar visual appearances of the Spirit in the NT.

Certainly we can agree I think on the basis of Matthew 28:19 and other verses that the only revealed prosopa are the Father, Son and Holy Ghost. I would further argue that if there were other uncreated prosopa coessential with the Trinity, that their existence would have been expressed unambiguously.

As it happens, I heartily agree. My default assumption is that when in doubt, you can ascribe the unusual manifestations of God to the Spirit. Frankly I don't see that stuff as non-negotiable dogma anyway. But if one must eschew the Trinity, I can only see increasing the number of manifestations rather than decreasing them. Non-Trinitarians in my experience typically require all sorts of logical contortions (up to and including reinventing the entire universe of scriptural exegesis) to justify their peculiar beliefs when a prima facie reading of the entire canon readily indicates three major manifestations of God.

 

[Wgw]

As it happens, I heartily agree. My default assumption is that when in doubt, you can ascribe most manifestations of God as the Spirit. Frankly I don't see that stuff as non-negotiable dogma anyway. But if one must eschew the Trinity, I can only see increasing the number of manifestations rather than decreasing them. Non-Trinitarians in my experience typically require all sorts of logical contortions (up to and including reinventing the entire universe of scriptural exegesis) to justify their peculiar beliefs when a prima facie reading of the entire canon readily indicates three major manifestations of God.

To be more precise, it indicates prosopa, but yes, you are of course quite right. Every non-Trinitarian I have contended woth has either rejected outright verses of scripture, or resoeted to non-literal interpretations "reinforced" (and I use the term loosely) with copious special-pleading and Catholic-bashing.

 

[Doveaman]

Thus, pneumatomachianism; the unscriptural denial of the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

No, I am not denying the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

I believe the Holy Spirit is indeed a person.

We are not disputing whether or not the Holy Spirit is a person.

We are simply disputing the nature of that person.

A divine person is not the same as a human person, just as a divine being is not the same as a human being.

A human being is a single person, but a divine being can be more than one person.

Likewise, a human person is a single individual, but a divine person can be more than one individual.

The Holy Spirit as a single person can be a divine union of Father and Son, just as God as a single being can be a divine union of Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

The essence of God's divine nature is Spirit, Holy Spirit.

*God is spirit, and His worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.* -- (John 4:24,).

*The Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom.* -- (2 Cor 3:17).

The Father and the Son are of the same Spirit essence, the same Holy Spirit.

God's divine nature is one Father and one Son existing as one Holy Spirit.

When we receive the Holy Spirit, we also receive the Father and Son. The Holy Spirit in us is the Father and Son at work in our lives.

“I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Counselor to be with you forever – the Spirit of truth…He lives with you and will be in you. I will not leave you as orphans; I will come to you.” – (John 14:15-19).

The Father and the Son comes to us through their divine essence of the Holy Spirit.

You also confuse the conception of the incarnate Lord with his eternal generation by the Father; the Lord became incarnate through being conceived of the Holy Spirit, but this does not make him a son of the Holy Spirit

I am not saying that the Holy Spirit is the Father of Jesus. I am simply asking why He is not, since Jesus was conceived by Him.

The person by whom we are conceived is considered to be our father, is it not?

So why is the person of the Holy Spirit not considered to be the Father of the person of Jesus, even though Jesus was conceived by Him?

This only makes sense if the Holy Spirit is the divine essence of Father and Son.

The Father is simply using His own essence (Holy Spirit) to conceive a Son, just as a human father uses his own essence (human sperm) to conceive a son.

for He is eternally the Son of the Father according to His very divinity.

Even though Jesus was eternally divine, He only became the Son after His incarnation. Jesus as the Son of God was both human and divine. Before His incarnation He was the eternal "Word" but He was not the divine, human Son.