The Holy Spirit must be a Person

[Questor]

Real quick before I respond. Wouldn't it be understood as "in the name of God." (Fullest revealed name being Jesus) end quote. Or basic english remove prepositional phrases (of the father, of the son and of the holy ghost) stop at name and you still have a complete sentence. Name singular referring to Jesus. Beside the faith doesn't lie in the Titles He holds it lies in His name Jesus.

One can use name and authority of, but there is also an indication that when I say, "In the name of Yeshua," I am speaking under the power of his reputation. It comes from an understanding of YHWH in the Tanakh making a name/reputation for himself in the very splashy work in getting the Israelites out of Egypt. Before that time, YHWH was known only to the Patriarchs (Adam to Noach then through Shem to Abraham, Isaac, and Yacob.)

 

[Hopeful 2]

Nicely put.

When not plainly pointed out, Jews have a nasty tendency to cast out their Messianic Brothers, even if not clinging to a Trinitarian viewpoint. They think we are Idolators, and have converted to the various versions of the Catholic Church.

Messianic Jews don't convert to Christianity, despite all the rumors to the contrary . . . we merely acknowledge Yeshua haMashiach for who he is, YHWH tabernacling in a tent of flesh.

Of course, it is the rare Jew that actually studies the Brit Chadashah until tapped on the shoulder by haRuach haKodesh. And so one prays for them to be called, and to be kept alive until they are.

"WE" merely acknowledge... ?
Why does your avatar show you are Christian ?

 

[Free]

All off-topic discussion has been moved HERE. Please keep on topic.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

..................................................................
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!

I have but one question for you:
If the Holy Spirit of God is NOT God Himself, then what IS the Holy Spirit of God?

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

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.

How can the Holy Spirit "proceed from the Father" if He IS the Father? There must be one whom the Holy Spirit proceeds, and one whom He proceeds FROM.

 

[Dyonisius the Areopagite]

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.

Please see my two responses in this thread before this one.
Commonly, those against the Trinity will assert that Trinitarians often do not account for the Holy Spirit. Yet, really, I do think that it is easier to prove the Trinity by reference to the Spirit than it is to the Son. For how can the spirit of any thing be fundamentally divorced from that thing and be "other" than that thing?
Justn as an example...is the "spirit" of a stone somehow different and divorced from the stone that it is the spirit of? Yet, the spirit of a stone is NOT the stone itself. It is the ESSENCE of the stone.
And so it is the same with God.
God's Spirit cannot be anything but Himself. Yet there is a DISTINCTION here between God, and His Spirit. Otherwise, there would be no reason from the two words..."Father", and "Holy Spirit".