• Love God, and love one another!

    Share your heart for Christ and others in Godly Love

    https://christianforums.net/forums/god_love/

  • Want to discuss private matters, or make a few friends?

    Ask for membership to the Men's or Lady's Locker Rooms

    For access, please contact a member of staff and they can add you in!

  • Wake up and smell the coffee!

    Join us for a little humor in Joy of the Lord

    https://christianforums.net/forums/humor_and_jokes/

  • Need prayer and encouragement?

    Come share your heart's concerns in the Prayer Forum

    https://christianforums.net/forums/prayer/

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join Hidden in Him and For His Glory for discussions on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/become-a-vessel-of-honor-part-2.112306/

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes coming in the future!

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

The Holy Spirit must be a Person

Alfred Persson

Catholic Orthodox Free Will Reformed Baptist
Member
Joined
Jan 23, 2011
Messages
5,025
Reaction score
533
Because both the Father and Son are "persons", "the Holy Spirit" must also be a person, He is equally subsisting in the one "Name" we are to be baptized in.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19 NKJ)

As they publicly ministered to Jehovah, it was the Holy Spirit who spoke, commanding the disciples separate to Him Barnabas and Saul. Then, they "being sent out by the Holy Spirit" set about accomplishing His Will. Only a "Person" can say "I" "Me" and send people to do "their will".

2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:2-4 NKJ)

Saying "I" "Me" and commanding the disciples is as impossible for an electrical current as it is any impersonal active force:

Scripture is always 100% truth (Daniel 10:21; John 17:17) because:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-4:1 NKJ)

PS:
Scripture equips making the man of God complete. Notice, neither the Catholic Magisterium, Book of Mormon, Watchtower Magazine are included in this statement. Therefore, they are irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, the man of God is made complete by scripture without them.
 
Last edited:
Because both the Father and Son are "persons", "the Holy Spirit" must also be a person, He is equally subsisting in the one "Name" we are to be baptized in.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19 NKJ)

As they publicly ministered to Jehovah, it was the Holy Spirit who spoke, commanding the disciples separate to Him Barnabas and Saul. Then, they "being sent out by the Holy Spirit" set about accomplishing His Will. Only a "Person" can say "I" "Me" and send people to do "their will".

2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:2-4 NKJ)

Saying "I" "Me" and commanding the disciples is as impossible for an electrical current as it is any impersonal active force:

Scripture is always 100% truth (Daniel 10:21; John 17:17) because:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-4:1 NKJ)

PS:
Scripture equips making the man of God complete. Notice, neither the Catholic Magisterium, Book of Mormon, Watchtower Magazine are included in this statement. Therefore, they are irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, the man of God is made complete by scripture without them.
..................................................................
New Testament language experts tell us that “name” (onoma) usually refers to a personal name (or proper noun for a thing). So why do even some very trinitarian NT language experts (who certainly want it to mean a single personal name for three “persons”!) say that it really isn’t being used that way in Matt. 28:19?

Because that same NT language expert who is so highly respected by trinitarians tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, Vine. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name” (“authority,” “power”) he says that it is used
“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....”
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:
“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”
For example, see Acts 4:7 -- the Jews asked "By what power, or in what name, have ye done this? " Peter answered "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (v. 10). ASV.

And, “So the two disciples were brought in before them. “By what power, or by whose authority have you done this?” the Council demanded.” - Acts 4:7, TLB. (Cf. NCV; ICB; EXB.)

Noted trinitarian scholars McClintock and Strong say in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature concerning Matthew 28:18-20:
"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

And trinitarian scholar Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae [including Matthew 28:19] of the NT."

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, if the holy spirit is not a person, to find this single instance of the word “name” being used with “the holy spirit” where it is used in the phrase beginning with “in the name of...” which is specifically linked to the minority meaning of “authority,” “power,” etc.

What should be surprising (beyond all credibility, in fact) would be that the holy spirit is a person, equally God, who never has the word onoma (“name”) used for “Him” in its most-used sense of “personal name” (as do the Father and the Son—hundreds of times).

Yes, the holy spirit is never called by a personal name, and Matt. 28:19 is the only instance of onoma being applied to the holy spirit at all!
 
..................................................................
New Testament language experts tell us that “name” (onoma) usually refers to a personal name (or proper noun for a thing). So why do even some very trinitarian NT language experts (who certainly want it to mean a single personal name for three “persons”!) say that it really isn’t being used that way in Matt. 28:19?

Because that same NT language expert who is so highly respected by trinitarians tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, Vine. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”
....

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, if the holy spirit is not a person, to find this single instance of the word “name” being used with “the holy spirit” where it is used in the phrase beginning with “in the name of...” which is specifically linked to the minority meaning of “authority,” “power,” etc.

What should be surprising (beyond all credibility, in fact) would be that the holy spirit is a person, equally God, who never has the word onoma (“name”) used for “Him” in its most-used sense of “personal name” (as do the Father and the Son—hundreds of times).

Yes, the holy spirit is never called by a personal name, and Matt. 28:19 is the only instance of onoma being applied to the holy spirit at all!
And, yet:

Luk 24:49 And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (ESV)

What is that promise that Jesus is sending?

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,
Joh 14:17 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. (ESV)
...
Joh 14:26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you." (ESV)

Joh 15:26 “But when the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness about me. (ESV)

Joh 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you.
Joh 16:8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment:
Joh 16:9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me;
Joh 16:10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer;
Joh 16:11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
Joh 16:12 “I still have many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.
Joh 16:13 When the Spirit of truth comes, he will guide you into all the truth, for he will not speak on his own authority, but whatever he hears he will speak, and he will declare to you the things that are to come.
Joh 16:14 He will glorify me, for he will take what is mine and declare it to you.
Joh 16:15 All that the Father has is mine; therefore I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you. (ESV)

The "Helper" is clearly the Holy Spirit, who is “another Helper.” That implies both that Jesus is the first “Helper” and that the Holy Spirit is one who is like him but distinct from him. That is the plain reading of the text and it implies personhood. For example, if I'm at someone's house and have a piece of cake for dessert, which I eat, and then am asked if I want another piece, I fully expect to get a different piece of the same cake, unless some further qualification is made.

And, what is a "Helper"? When we look at the Greek, it is the word parakletos, which means not only "helper, counselor, comforter, advocate;" all of which either are or can be actions of persons. The meaning of advocate is important since persons advocate on behalf of other persons; "its" cannot advocate for anyone or anything.

Pay close attention to the actions of this other Helper: teaches; brings things to remembrance; testifies; convicts. These are actions of personal agency, not an "it." And, Jesus says it is for their advantage that he leaves and sends this Advocate. How is it, then, that having an "it" would be to their advantage? Could a chair, rock, or impersonal power do any of these things or be of an advantage when Jesus left?

Parakletos is used only five times in the NT. In addition to the above four instances in John, the fifth is also by John here, for "advocate":

1Jn 2:1 My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. (ESV)

Jesus is said, by John, to be an advocate. It is not insignificant, then, that John records Jesus saying that he will send "another parakletos." Jesus was the first parakletos, and remains so, but in John’s gospel he was returning to the Father and the disciples still needed much help and guidance. It all points to the Spirit being a person and also being truly God, in the same way Jesus is truly God.

An advocate can only be a person. Here is how parakletos is defined:

NAS Word Usage - Total: 5

1. summoned, called to one's side, esp. called to one's aid
1. one who pleads another's cause before a judge, a pleader, counsel for defense, legal assistant, an advocate
2. one who pleads another's cause with one, an intercessor
1. of Christ in his exaltation at God's right hand, pleading with God the Father for the pardon of our sins
3. in the widest sense, a helper, succourer, aider, assistant
1. of the Holy Spirit destined to take the place of Christ with the apostles (after his ascension to the Father), to lead them to a deeper knowledge of the gospel truth, and give them divine strength needed to enable them to undergo trials and persecutions on behalf of the divine kingdom

https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/greek/nas/parakletos.html]

It's strongly implied that the Holy Spirit is a person, and so it can only be that he is also truly God, the same as the Father and as the Son.

Matt 12:31-32--blaspheming the Holy Spirit is an eternal sin, while blasphemy against Jesus is not. It's hard to understand how, according to your position, blaspheming a non-person is a greater sin than blaspheming a person (the Son of God no less).

Matt 28:19--singular name, three persons, one God.

Interestingly, the Holy Spirit is not only referred to as the Spirit of God, but also the Spirit of Christ or the Son or Jesus (Acts 16:6-7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11). This shows the nearness and intimacy of the three persons.

The Holy Spirit:

Acts: Matt 4:1; Acts 8:39, 16:7
Listens: John 16:13
Speaks: John 16:13-15; Acts 1:16, 10:19, 11:12, 11:28, 13:2, 15:28; 1 Tim 4:1; Heb 3:7
Can be lied to: Acts 5:3, which is the same as lying to God (5:9)
Bears witness: Rom 8:16; Heb 10:15; 1 John 5:6
Helps, intercedes, and searches: John 14:16, 15:26, 16:7; Rom 8:26-27; 1 Cor 2:10
Teaches: Luke 12:12; John 16:13; 1 Cor 2:13
Gives gifts: Acts 20:28; 1 Cor 12:11; Heb 2:4
Leads: John 16:13; Gal 5:18, Heb 9:8
Can be grieved: Eph 4:30
Can be outraged: Heb 10:29
Can be blasphemed: Matt 12:31-32
Convicts: John 16:8-11

These are all actions of personal agency. And on it goes.

Given the above, I would say that since we know the Father and the Son are distinct persons yet both truly God, it necessarily follows that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person that is also truly God. And since know there is only God, the Trinity is the best explanation.
 
Because both the Father and Son are "persons", "the Holy Spirit" must also be a person, He is equally subsisting in the one "Name" we are to be baptized in.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19 NKJ)

As they publicly ministered to Jehovah, it was the Holy Spirit who spoke, commanding the disciples separate to Him Barnabas and Saul. Then, they "being sent out by the Holy Spirit" set about accomplishing His Will. Only a "Person" can say "I" "Me" and send people to do "their will".

2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:2-4 NKJ)

Saying "I" "Me" and commanding the disciples is as impossible for an electrical current as it is any impersonal active force:

Scripture is always 100% truth (Daniel 10:21; John 17:17) because:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-4:1 NKJ)

PS:
Scripture equips making the man of God complete. Notice, neither the Catholic Magisterium, Book of Mormon, Watchtower Magazine are included in this statement. Therefore, they are irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, the man of God is made complete by scripture without them.
You're close, but not quite there and it's okay because most people miss this, but the Holy Spirit is the Father, not a separate person from the Father. You know Scripture well so think about it and let me know if you think this makes sense.
 
You're close, but not quite there and it's okay because most people miss this, but the Holy Spirit is the Father, not a separate person from the Father. You know Scripture well so think about it and let me know if you think this makes sense.
Doesn't make one bit of sense. They are always kept distinct one from the other, always. There is simply no way to come to the conclusion that the Holy Spirit is the Father. None whatsoever. It would be utterly meaningless to continually mention both of them if they were one and the same.

You're essentially saying that this is what Jesus said:

Mat 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 Father

While the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of God, the Spirit of the Lord, and the Spirit of your Father, it is very important to note that the Holy Spirit is also called the Spirit of Jesus, the Spirit of Christ, the Spirit of his Son, and the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Acts 16:6-7; Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6; Phil 1:19; 1 Pet 1:11). Importantly, 1 Pet 1:10-11 clearly shows that the prophets of the OT spoke by the Spirit of Christ:

1Pe 1:10 Concerning this salvation, the prophets who prophesied about the grace that was to be yours searched and inquired carefully,
1Pe 1:11 inquiring what person or time the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories. (ESV)

There is not one single verse that equates the Holy Spirit with the Father.
 
Here is food for thought. Please note, I am not declaring this reality, this is merely my own supposition. God created us in His image. We humans are body, mind, and spirit. Jesus tells us no one has seen the Father, as He was the one who talked with and was seen by Abraham and Moses. The Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters. Could it be that much as we have a body (Yeshua), mind (Father), and spirit (Ruach) so does God?
 
You're close, but not quite there and it's okay because most people miss this, but the Holy Spirit is the Father, not a separate person from the Father. You know Scripture well so think about it and let me know if you think this makes sense.
Does not make Biblical sense.

They are distinct from one another.
 
Does not make Biblical sense.

They are distinct from one another.
Couldn't both of your viewpoints be accurate? Just as you and I have a body that can be damaged, yet that body can cause pain in the mind, and if serious damage occurs (as in amputation) the Spirit can still 'feel' pain from a missing limb and sadness from the situation. Each of the three could be considered separate, but could also be intrinsically connected and each a part of the same being.
 
Because both the Father and Son are "persons", "the Holy Spirit" must also be a person, He is equally subsisting in the one "Name" we are to be baptized in.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19 NKJ)

As they publicly ministered to Jehovah, it was the Holy Spirit who spoke, commanding the disciples separate to Him Barnabas and Saul. Then, they "being sent out by the Holy Spirit" set about accomplishing His Will. Only a "Person" can say "I" "Me" and send people to do "their will".

2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:2-4 NKJ)

Saying "I" "Me" and commanding the disciples is as impossible for an electrical current as it is any impersonal active force:

Scripture is always 100% truth (Daniel 10:21; John 17:17) because:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-4:1 NKJ)

PS:
Scripture equips making the man of God complete. Notice, neither the Catholic Magisterium, Book of Mormon, Watchtower Magazine are included in this statement. Therefore, they are irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, the man of God is made complete by scripture without them.
Another view on this issue: https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/was-the-text-of-matthew-2819-changed, and more history.

Love, Walter And Debbie
 
Does not make Biblical sense.

They are distinct from one another.
Are you sure? Is not the Father Himself God and God is holy and Spirit? There you go. He's the Holy Spirit. (John 4:23,24)

Why did you think the Father and Holy Spirit are not ever mentioned talking to one another or being different persons in the same context? It's because it would be repetitive and not really make any sense.

Here's some food for thought:

Matthew 11:27 says no one knows the Son except the Father, and vice versa, so that excludes the Holy Spirit. No problem if the Father is the Holy Spirit and He is. If the Father isn't the Holy Spirit then according to Jesus the Holy Spirit doesn't know them.

Matthew 12:31,32 only mentions speaking against the Son of Man and Holy Spirit, but no mention of the Father? The Father wasn't forgotten as Jesus was speaking directly about Him.

Something else to consider, Jeremiah 32:41 says God has a soul, but why isn't God's soul a separate person who is God if the Spirit of God is a separate person? See, there is an inconsistency in Trinitarianism.
 
Are you sure? Is not the Father Himself God and God is holy and Spirit? There you go. He's the Holy Spirit. (John 4:23,24)

Why did you think the Father and Holy Spirit are not ever mentioned talking to one another or being different persons in the same context? It's because it would be repetitive and not really make any sense.

Here's some food for thought:

Matthew 11:27 says no one knows the Son except the Father, and vice versa, so that excludes the Holy Spirit. No problem if the Father is the Holy Spirit and He is. If the Father isn't the Holy Spirit then according to Jesus the Holy Spirit doesn't know them.

Matthew 12:31,32 only mentions speaking against the Son of Man and Holy Spirit, but no mention of the Father? The Father wasn't forgotten as Jesus was speaking directly about Him.

Something else to consider, Jeremiah 32:41 says God has a soul, but why isn't God's soul a separate person who is God if the Spirit of God is a separate person? See, there is an inconsistency in Trinitarianism.
You can deny all you like, that has no affect on those who understand the Trinity.

It is your word against Gods.
 
The Holy Spirit is an advocate for us because we're sinners in need of mercy.
He also advises us as an advocate for sinners who oppose us the same way the Lamb did, "resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Mt.5:39 KJV

He peads for all to know Jesus through us. And here is the proof,

He that hath received his testimony hath set to his seal that God is true. Jn.3:33 KJV

A "seal" was used to hide the contents of a document. It could be legal, but once sealed it was the speakers final word.
In this case the final word was "God is true."
if sinners believe Jesus the Holy Spirit knows. He's a reliable Witness.
The Bible calls Jesys the Faithful Witness. Si ther's two Witnesses we know our Fatjer can trusr.
Isn't it funny the kaw tgat condemns us says,

At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is worthy of death be put to death; but at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death. Deut.17:6 KJV

I sure hope He wants a 3rd witness. Bless Him for putting Himself under the law and thank Him also for waiting for another unimpeachable source to convict!" everyone!
I think I'm going to run out now for some gorilla tape and wrap it around my mouth.
 
Because both the Father and Son are "persons", "the Holy Spirit" must also be a person, He is equally subsisting in the one "Name" we are to be baptized in.

"Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, (Matt. 28:19 NKJ)

As they publicly ministered to Jehovah, it was the Holy Spirit who spoke, commanding the disciples separate to Him Barnabas and Saul. Then, they "being sent out by the Holy Spirit" set about accomplishing His Will. Only a "Person" can say "I" "Me" and send people to do "their will".

2 As they ministered to the Lord and fasted, the Holy Spirit said, "Now separate to Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
3 Then, having fasted and prayed, and laid hands on them, they sent them away.
4 So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia, and from there they sailed to Cyprus. (Acts 13:2-4 NKJ)

Saying "I" "Me" and commanding the disciples is as impossible for an electrical current as it is any impersonal active force:

Scripture is always 100% truth (Daniel 10:21; John 17:17) because:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work. (2 Tim. 3:16-4:1 NKJ)

PS:
Scripture equips making the man of God complete. Notice, neither the Catholic Magisterium, Book of Mormon, Watchtower Magazine are included in this statement. Therefore, they are irrelevant, immaterial and incompetent, the man of God is made complete by scripture without them.
7-31-24

More views on this issue: https://www.apostolic.edu/the-truth-about-matthew-2819/
 
You can deny all you like, that has no affect on those who understand the Trinity.

It is your word against Gods.
I think this is why Jesus said'

it is best for you that I go away, because if I don’t, the Advocate won’t come. Jn.16:7 NLT

Thanks for waiting most Merciful.
 
Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. Jn.14:23 KJV

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: 1Jn.5:10

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: Rom.8:16 KJV

I need to go pray and i'm not kidding.
 
From ChatGPT:

The earliest confirmation that Matthew 28:19 reads "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" comes from the manuscript evidence of the New Testament. Here are some key points regarding the textual tradition and early references:
  1. Manuscript Evidence: The phrase "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is found in all extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew 28:19, including some of the earliest and most reliable ones, such as Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century).
  2. Early Church Fathers: Several early church fathers quote or reference Matthew 28:19 with the Trinitarian formula:
    • Didache (early 2nd century): The Didache, an early Christian manual of teachings, references the Trinitarian formula in its instructions on baptism.
    • Tertullian (c. 155-240): In his work "On Baptism," Tertullian refers to the Trinitarian formula as the correct manner of baptism.
    • Origen (c. 184-253): Origen, a prominent early Christian scholar, also refers to the Trinitarian formula in his writings.
  3. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340): Eusebius is sometimes cited as using a shorter formula, "in my name," in some of his writings. However, it is important to note that Eusebius also quotes the longer Trinitarian formula in other works, suggesting that the shorter phrase might be a paraphrase rather than an alternative textual tradition.
  4. Council of Nicaea (325 AD): The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea, reflects the Trinitarian understanding of God, which aligns with the formula in Matthew 28:19. This indicates that the Trinitarian formula was widely accepted and recognized in early Christian orthodoxy.
In conclusion, the earliest confirmation of Matthew 28:19 reading "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" comes from the consistent manuscript evidence and the writings of early church fathers, as well as the broader theological acceptance in early Christianity.

__________


It is absurd God would permit His Word be corrupted. The "Majority Text's" consistency proves not a "jot or tittle" of meaning has been lost from scripture. It will all be fulfilled:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 NKJ)
 
You're close, but not quite there and it's okay because most people miss this, but the Holy Spirit is the Father, not a separate person from the Father. You know Scripture well so think about it and let me know if you think this makes sense.
It doesn't make sense, both grammar and syntax require the Holy Spirit is separate from the Father. For example, during Jesus' baptism, all three divine persons are present:

And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased." (Lk. 3:22 NKJ)

If the "Father=the Holy Spirit" then we can substitute everywhere in the NT "Holy Spirit" with "Father" and the verses would still make common sense:

And the Father descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased."

The Father's voice would come from the dove if the Holy Spirit is the Father.
 
From ChatGPT:

The earliest confirmation that Matthew 28:19 reads "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" comes from the manuscript evidence of the New Testament. Here are some key points regarding the textual tradition and early references:
  1. Manuscript Evidence: The phrase "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is found in all extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew 28:19, including some of the earliest and most reliable ones, such as Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century).
  2. Early Church Fathers: Several early church fathers quote or reference Matthew 28:19 with the Trinitarian formula:
    • Didache (early 2nd century): The Didache, an early Christian manual of teachings, references the Trinitarian formula in its instructions on baptism.
    • Tertullian (c. 155-240): In his work "On Baptism," Tertullian refers to the Trinitarian formula as the correct manner of baptism.
    • Origen (c. 184-253): Origen, a prominent early Christian scholar, also refers to the Trinitarian formula in his writings.
  3. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340): Eusebius is sometimes cited as using a shorter formula, "in my name," in some of his writings. However, it is important to note that Eusebius also quotes the longer Trinitarian formula in other works, suggesting that the shorter phrase might be a paraphrase rather than an alternative textual tradition.
  4. Council of Nicaea (325 AD): The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea, reflects the Trinitarian understanding of God, which aligns with the formula in Matthew 28:19. This indicates that the Trinitarian formula was widely accepted and recognized in early Christian orthodoxy.
In conclusion, the earliest confirmation of Matthew 28:19 reading "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" comes from the consistent manuscript evidence and the writings of early church fathers, as well as the broader theological acceptance in early Christianity.

__________


It is absurd God would permit His Word be corrupted. The "Majority Text's" consistency proves not a "jot or tittle" of meaning has been lost from scripture. It will all be fulfilled:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 NKJ)
Thank you, Sir.

Love, Walter
 
..................................................................
New Testament language experts tell us that “name” (onoma) usually refers to a personal name (or proper noun for a thing). So why do even some very trinitarian NT language experts (who certainly want it to mean a single personal name for three “persons”!) say that it really isn’t being used that way in Matt. 28:19?

Because that same NT language expert who is so highly respected by trinitarians tells us that Bible phrases beginning “in the name of...” indicate that the secondary meaning of “authority” or “power” was intended by the Bible writer. - p. 772, Vine. Therefore, Matt. 28:19 actually means: “baptizing them in recognition of the power [or the authority] of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy spirit.”

That W. E. Vine specifically includes Matt. 28:19 in this category can be further shown by his statement on p. 772 of his reference work. When discussing the secondary meaning of “name” (“authority,” “power”) he says that it is used
“in recognition of the authority of (sometimes combined with the thought of relying on or resting on), Matt. 18:20; cp. 28:19; Acts 8:16....”
Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol.1, p. 245, makes the same admission when discussing Matt. 28:19:
“The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.”
For example, see Acts 4:7 -- the Jews asked "By what power, or in what name, have ye done this? " Peter answered "in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth" (v. 10). ASV.

And, “So the two disciples were brought in before them. “By what power, or by whose authority have you done this?” the Council demanded.” - Acts 4:7, TLB. (Cf. NCV; ICB; EXB.)

Noted trinitarian scholars McClintock and Strong say in their Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature concerning Matthew 28:18-20:
"This text, however, taken by itself, would not prove decisively either the personality of the three subjects mentioned, or their equality or divinity." (1981 reprint, Vol. X, p. 552)

And trinitarian scholar Kittel in his Theological Dictionary of the New Testament:
"The N[ew] T[estament] does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae [including Matthew 28:19] of the NT."

It shouldn’t be surprising, then, if the holy spirit is not a person, to find this single instance of the word “name” being used with “the holy spirit” where it is used in the phrase beginning with “in the name of...” which is specifically linked to the minority meaning of “authority,” “power,” etc.

What should be surprising (beyond all credibility, in fact) would be that the holy spirit is a person, equally God, who never has the word onoma (“name”) used for “Him” in its most-used sense of “personal name” (as do the Father and the Son—hundreds of times).

Yes, the holy spirit is never called by a personal name, and Matt. 28:19 is the only instance of onoma being applied to the holy spirit at all!
The problem with quoting "experts" who deny the obvious, is you want us to disbelieve what our eyes report.

Three Divine Persons appear listed under one Name. The symbols are like a math equation. God=Father+Son+Holy Spirit.

WE are baptized in God, His Name, everything His name denotes. Included therein, are Three Divine Persons subsisting equally in the One Name of God: Father+Son+Holy Spirit.

Its that simple. The logic is impeccable and elegant, a characteristic of truth.
 
From ChatGPT:

The earliest confirmation that Matthew 28:19 reads "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" comes from the manuscript evidence of the New Testament. Here are some key points regarding the textual tradition and early references:
  1. Manuscript Evidence: The phrase "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" is found in all extant Greek manuscripts of Matthew 28:19, including some of the earliest and most reliable ones, such as Codex Vaticanus (4th century) and Codex Sinaiticus (4th century).
  2. Early Church Fathers: Several early church fathers quote or reference Matthew 28:19 with the Trinitarian formula:
    • Didache (early 2nd century): The Didache, an early Christian manual of teachings, references the Trinitarian formula in its instructions on baptism.
    • Tertullian (c. 155-240): In his work "On Baptism," Tertullian refers to the Trinitarian formula as the correct manner of baptism.
    • Origen (c. 184-253): Origen, a prominent early Christian scholar, also refers to the Trinitarian formula in his writings.
  3. Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 260-340): Eusebius is sometimes cited as using a shorter formula, "in my name," in some of his writings. However, it is important to note that Eusebius also quotes the longer Trinitarian formula in other works, suggesting that the shorter phrase might be a paraphrase rather than an alternative textual tradition.
  4. Council of Nicaea (325 AD): The Nicene Creed, formulated at the Council of Nicaea, reflects the Trinitarian understanding of God, which aligns with the formula in Matthew 28:19. This indicates that the Trinitarian formula was widely accepted and recognized in early Christian orthodoxy.
In conclusion, the earliest confirmation of Matthew 28:19 reading "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" comes from the consistent manuscript evidence and the writings of early church fathers, as well as the broader theological acceptance in early Christianity.

__________


It is absurd God would permit His Word be corrupted. The "Majority Text's" consistency proves not a "jot or tittle" of meaning has been lost from scripture. It will all be fulfilled:

"For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled. (Matt. 5:18 NKJ)
Be wary of chatGPT. It is an enigma, even to us in the computer sciences. It seems to have developed an antichrist spirit on its own. Read up on the creators and what they have to say about it. Never rely on chatGPT for truth, ever.
 
Back
Top