Everyone who has challenged it has been anathematized. Your disdain for modern Oneness reaffirms this. And it's been 1800 years. That first 200 is minimized and glossed over, which you will continue to do as your fallacious "Apostolic Trinity bridge".
Everyone here has already "received" something they adamantly believe, and few have ears to hear. There are teenagers adamantly declaring doctrine they can't back up; and there are more goofy beliefs here than I've seen before in any one place. You sure aren't looking any deeper, and all you do is tout orthodox doctrine without exegesis or apologetic. My extensive affirmations list and disaffirmations should build credibility; as should my brief exegesis of John 15:26 against Filioque error.
Prove Trinity persons isn't creedal instead of Scriptural; build your case from the Word, and without whining that I'm Sola Scriptura. You present a thorough exegetic apology for Trinity, and I will gladly rebut with mine. Orthodoxy should go first since it's so "substantial". Tell HOW the HS proceedeth from the Father, not just THAT He does so. Same for sent. Same for the Word becoming flesh. Tell HOW Jesus proceeded*forth and came. Bring friends, even.
FALSE DICHOTOMY. THE CREED OF 381 AD IS SCRIPTURAL. IN ERIE PA SCOTT R. HARRINGTON
A word doesn't replace "persons", "persons" was a substitute for the truth because they didn't find it in Isaiah, Matthew, 2Peter, John, 1John, Hebrews, 1Thessalonians, Colossians, Philippians, Revelation, and Acts. Tell me... how did the Holy Spirit appear at Pentecost to be received?
YOU SAY YOU DON'T BELIEVE IN "SOLA SCRIPTURA", BUT YOU INSIST ON APPEALING TO THE SCRIPTURA ALONE. SAME DIFFERENCE. YOU HAVEN'T PRODUCED ONE SCRIPTURE THAT TEACHES "BY SCRIPTURE ALONE".
Christ has called us to obedience and love and faith with good works. I'm not hesitating; I'm waiting for the sound of the going in the mulberries.
SAY WHAT? "HERE WE GO AROUND THE MULLBERRY BUSH", SO EARLY IN THE MORNING?
CONFUSED THINKING HERE. SORRY! I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR OBJECTIONS TO TRINITY. YOU'RE SOUNDING IRRATIONAL TO ME.
I slander no one. I challenge incomplete truth and default indoctrination of assent by affiliation.
You continue to miss the entire point. The early fathers [I[overlooked[/i] the truth; I never said it was malicious. The remainder was predominantly fine. I've read of many who considered the truth through the centuries, but none could tie it together, and nobody wanted to challenge orthodoxy; so... it remained an undeveloped possibility.
The hinge-point is ekporeuomai in John 15:26. That should say something to you.
JOHN 15:26 does teach me something. The OC teaches this verse, and shows me they go by the true Gospel of God in Christ, in rejecting the Filioque and in accepting the Trinity (persons) teaching.
That is where you make an error. You say the arly fathers overlooked the truth. Not at all! The early fathers didn't overlook the truth. They taught the same faith the apostles taught. You say you have knowledge of the truth, but you don't feel free to disclose what it is. You offer nothing that is better than the term "persons". And you refer to the Scriptures not saying the word "persons", but protest that you are not "sola Scriptura". You seem double-minded on this. You insist on NT exegesis before you will use the term persons. Again, you don't feel free to say what the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in Matthew 28:19 if they are not persons? As for John 15:26, to understand why the Filioque is wrong, this has been explained already by the Church. See:
Holy Transfiguration Monastery, translators. St. Photios. On the Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Boston, MA: Studion Publishers, 1983.
Joseph P. Farrell, translator. St. Photios. The Mystagogy of the Holy Spirit. Brookline, MA: Holy Cross Orthodox Press, 1987.
See also: Siecienski, A. Edward. (2010). The Filioque: History of a Doctrinal Controversy. New York: Oxford University Press.
If the Filioque is wrong, the Trinity is right, because the Filioque is ditheism. Bitheism. Binitarianism. And, by implication, polytheism. Filioque confuses and merges the two persons of the Father and Son together. Take care. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington