The Holy Spirit must be a Person

[My Rock]

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".

The interpretation of Matthew 28:19 and the references to the Holy Spirit as a "person" require careful examination within the broader context of Scripture. The Bible emphasizes the absolute oneness of God, affirming that there is only one divine essence who manifests Himself in different ways. In this light, the term "name" in Matthew 28:19 is understood to refer to the singular name of Jesus, who fully embodies the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Jesus Himself clarified in John 14:9-10 that to see Him is to see the Father, and in John 14:26, He promised that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, would be sent in His name, indicating that the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Jesus working in and through the church.

When the Holy Spirit speaks and directs actions, as seen in Acts 13:2, it is understood that this is the one God in action. The Spirit is God's active presence and power at work in the world. The language of the Holy Spirit saying "I" and sending people is seen as God Himself speaking and working. Therefore, the Bible maintains that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is the one God revealed in different ways—primarily and fully in Jesus Christ, who is the one name by which we are saved and into which we are baptized (Acts 4:12).

 

[My Rock]

Joh 14:16 And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Helper, to be with you forever,

John 14:16 states, "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you forever."

This verse highlights the continuing presence of God with His people through the Holy Spirit. Jesus, in His earthly ministry, was God manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), and as He prepared His disciples for His departure, He assured them that they would not be left alone. The "another Comforter" refers to the Spirit of Jesus Himself, coming to dwell within believers. The Holy Spirit is understood as the Spirit of Christ, who continues the work that Jesus began, providing guidance, comfort, and empowerment to the church. In this way, God remains with His people as the same one true God who was manifest in Jesus Christ, now present in the life of every believer through the indwelling Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9). This understanding reinforces the Biblical belief that God is not divided but is fully unified in His manifestation as the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

 

[Runningman]

You can deny all you like, that has no affect on those who understand the Trinity.

It is your word against Gods.

That would be begging the question since the Trinity cannot be proven using Scripture. No one has been able to do it due to the sheer lack evidence and proof from the Bible. You would need to at least prove it exists in the first place, so you’re still on square one.

It’s really your words against God. Unitarianism on the other hand is stated directly in Scripture. The belief about who God is is simply what Jesus said therefore it’s Scripture while the Trinity isn’t.

 

[Runningman]

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.

There are many kinds of spirits in the Bible that aren’t a literal person or being. Sometimes the holy spirit is a spirit of holiness that can be gifted to and used to anoint/empower someone.

Acts 10
37That word, I say, ye know, which was published throughout all Judaea, and began from Galilee, after the baptism which John preached; 38How God anointed Jesus of Nazareth with the Holy Ghost and with power: who went about doing good, and healing all that were oppressed of the devil; for God was with him.

On the other, the Holy Spirit is also one of the names of the Father. This difference is not understood and represented incorrectly in translations produced by Trinitarians and their publishers, but once you know you know.

 

[kbmonday]

That would be begging the question since the Trinity cannot be proven using Scripture. No one has been able to do it due to the sheer lack evidence and proof from the Bible. You would need to at least prove it exists in the first place, so you’re still on square one.

It’s really your words against God. Unitarianism on the other hand is stated directly in Scripture. The belief about who God is is simply what Jesus said therefore it’s Scripture while the Trinity isn’t.

In the Hebrew Tanahk, specifically in Beresheet or Genesis, Elohim is used. In Hebrew a plurality is only used to indicate 3 or more, never just 2. And Elohim is a plural word as indicated by the 'im'. This is where English fails to carry the full weight and meaning of scripture.

 

[Runningman]

In the Hebrew Tanahk, specifically in Beresheet or Genesis, Elohim is used. In Hebrew a plurality is only used to indicate 3 or more, never just 2. And Elohim is a plural word as indicated by the 'im'. This is where English fails to carry the full weight and meaning of scripture.

hello kbmonday, I would have to disagree with that based on Scripture. For example, there is no numerical quanity attached to the word elohim. This was a little confusing to me, too, at first, because I didn't know anything about Hebrew grammar. Elohim doesn't refer to numbers, but rather amplification in Hebrew grammar; elohim is one of those examples.

For example, there are many instances in which the word elohim is used to refer to the singular God or person. For starters, God defines Himself as one and not three (Deuteronomy 6:4). I'll just quote a few examples to demonstrate my point so we can get an idea of what elohim really means in context.

Moses, a man, is a singular being, not one being in three persons, yet God made him an elohim and it's translated as a singular god and not gods. (Elohim doesn't translate to they)

Exouds 7
1And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

There are a number of false gods referenced in Scripture who are singular, yet the word used is elohim: Judges 6:31, Judges 11:24, 1 Samuel 5:7, and Exodus 22:20

 

[kbmonday]

hello kbmonday, I would have to disagree with that based on Scripture. For example, there is no numerical quanity attached to the word elohim. This was a little confusing to me, too, at first, because I didn't know anything about Hebrew grammar. Elohim doesn't refer to numbers, but rather amplification in Hebrew grammar; elohim is one of those examples.

For example, there are many instances in which the word elohim is used to refer to the singular God or person. For starters, God defines Himself as one and not three (Deuteronomy 6:4). I'll just quote a few examples to demonstrate my point so we can get an idea of what elohim really means in context.

Moses, a man, is a singular being, not one being in three persons, yet God made him an elohim and it's translated as a singular god and not gods. (Elohim doesn't translate to they)

Exouds 7
1And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

There are a number of false gods referenced in Scripture who are singular, yet the word used is elohim: Judges 6:31, Judges 11:24, 1 Samuel 5:7, and Exodus 22:20

Close, at least in my current understanding. Elohim can refer to celestial beings as a whole (in the case of Moshe), and only sometimes refers to God Almighty. My point is that a plurality in Hebrew never refers to only 2, it is always more than 2. I recognize that it does not mean any specific number. I also admit that it is not speaking of multiple gods in Genesis, but instead seemingly refers to the plurality of excellence. It is a very complex subject, but many historical rabbis had come to the conclusion that God is a triune God. The really interesting bit is that while Elohim is plural it is followed by 'bara', a singular verb meaning 'he created'. It is a very deep and intriguing puzzle. Either way, God is Jesus is the Ruach. I think we are in accord, but even if not that's ok. We are all imperfect humans trying to understand God, who is more than we can possibly understand completely. As for me, all I really need to know is that He loves me, and that I know Him. Scripture does tell us to meditate upon His name though, so this is not a fruitless exercise in futility. May God Almighty bless and keep you and yours my dear brother in Christ.

 

[electedbyHim]

That would be begging the question since the Trinity cannot be proven using Scripture. No one has been able to do it due to the sheer lack evidence and proof from the Bible. You would need to at least prove it exists in the first place, so you’re still on square one.

It’s really your words against God. Unitarianism on the other hand is stated directly in Scripture. The belief about who God is is simply what Jesus said therefore it’s Scripture while the Trinity isn’t.

Many Scriptures prove the Trinity, but you dismiss that.

Universalist also do not believe Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh.

The Bible calls you a liar and an anti-Christ.

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.


1 Johnn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1 Johnn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

 

[Runningman]

Close, at least in my current understanding. Elohim can refer to celestial beings as a whole (in the case of Moshe), and only sometimes refers to God Almighty. My point is that a plurality in Hebrew never refers to only 2, it is always more than 2. I recognize that it does not mean any specific number. I also admit that it is not speaking of multiple gods in Genesis, but instead seemingly refers to the plurality of excellence. It is a very complex subject, but many historical rabbis had come to the conclusion that God is a triune God. The really interesting bit is that while Elohim is plural it is followed by 'bara', a singular verb meaning 'he created'. It is a very deep and intriguing puzzle. Either way, God is Jesus is the Ruach. I think we are in accord, but even if not that's ok. We are all imperfect humans trying to understand God, who is more than we can possibly understand completely. As for me, all I really need to know is that He loves me, and that I know Him. Scripture does tell us to meditate upon His name though, so this is not a fruitless exercise in futility. May God Almighty bless and keep you and yours my dear brother in Christ.

You're right, but I do find this to be an important subject because while God may be difficult to fully comprehend, God is knowable. There is a lot of information out there on this subject and it's refreshing to see someone open to looking into it more. While I am not a Trinitarian, I do read Trinitarian commentaries and study tools. I read whatever sources I can get my hands on with the Bible being the main source.

Something that has helped me is just looking at what a Hebrew grammar expert said about elohim.

“That the language has entirely rejected the idea of numerical plurality in Elohim (whenever it denotes one God) is proved especially by its being almost invariably joined with a singular attribute.” - Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar

From an English speakers mind and perspective, plural always refers to numbers, not the multiplication of excellence and amplification. So I believe when a singular being is also called Elohim, it's a bit like saying "You're a singular God, but You are more excellent than words can describe. Just saying You are singular is not enough praise to Your glory" and yet when we look at the context, we should expect to consistently find Elohim refers to plural Gods or "them" or "they" but it rarely ever does. We also haven't ruled out that elohim cannot refer to the Divine Counsel.

So many questions, so few answers, but we chip away at it by asking questions and digging for answers. God bless brother. Thank you for being the exception. It's very refreshing to see someone with a kind heart here.

 

[Runningman]

Many Scriptures prove the Trinity, but you dismiss that.

Universalist also do not believe Jesus Christ is God come in the flesh.

The Bible calls you a liar and an anti-Christ.

1 John 2:22 Who is the liar but the one who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, the one who denies the Father and the Son.
1 John 2:23 Everyone who denies the Son does not have the Father; the one who confesses the Son has the Father also.


1 Johnn 4:1 Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
1 John 4:2 By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,
1 Johnn 4:3 and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, of which you have heard that it is coming, and now it is already in the world.

Those passages don't say God came in the flesh. Read them again. You're just weaponizing them because you ran out of things to say.

 

[Alfred Persson]

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.

ChatGPT summarized well known proofs for Mt 28:19. I didn't see anything Antichrist therein. Without any proof of an "antichrist spirit" I can't agree with you. It does make mistakes, but I didn't notice any in the quote I provided. Its correct to say the assessment of "Eusebius of Caesarea" is an opinion, one among many. PS: As a believer in providential preservation the scattered Eusebius quotes, which can be explained various, don't cause me to question the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19


(a) Textual criticism.—In all extant MSS and versions the text is found in the traditional form, πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν, though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac versions are defective at this point. The evidence of Patristic quotations is not so clear. It was formerly thought to be as unanimous as that of the MSS and Versions, but F. C. Conybeare (ZNTW, 1901, p. 275 ff.) has shown that this is not true, at least in the case of Eusebius of Cæsarea.

The facts are in summary that Eusebius quotes Mt 28:19 twenty-one times, either omitting everything between ἔθνη and διδάσκοντες or in the form πορευθέντες μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη ἐν τῷ ὀνόματί μου, διδάσκοντες, κ.τ.λ., the latter form being the more frequent. He also quotes it four times in the ordinary text; but it is significant that these four quotations are all in the later writings of Eusebius [once in the Syriac Theophany, iv. 8 (Lee’s tr. p. 223), once in contra Marcellum, p. 3 C, once in the de Ecclesiastica Theologia, v. p. 174a, and once in the letter of Eusebius to the Church at Cæsarea quoted by Socrates, HE i. 8. 38; it should be noted that there is reason to think that the Syriac translator is giving, not the text of Eusebius, but the version to which he was accustomed (cf. Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 171), and that the authorship of the contra Marcellum and the de Ecclesiastica Theologia is doubtful (cf. Conybeare, ZNTW, 1905, p. 250 ff., and a reply by Gerhard Loeschcke, ib. 1906, p. 69 ff.)]. At first sight this evidence seems to prove that Eusebius, in his earlier writings at all events, used MSS of the Gospels which omitted the command to baptize in Mt 28:19, but Riggenbach (‘Die trinitarische Taufbefehl,’ Beiträge zur Forderung christl. Theol. 1903) and Chase (JThSt, 1905, p. 481 ff.) have argued that his method of quotation is due to the influence of the arcani disciplina. This suggestion does not seem to bear examination, for the quotations in Eusebius are not found in works intended for unbelievers or for catechumens. The most reasonable view seems to be that Conybeare has shown that the quotations in Eusebius point to a text which omitted the baptismal formula, though it is still open to question whether Eusebius knew also the traditional form. It is naturally important to ask whether there is any other evidence for the ‘Eusebian’ type of text. Conybeare thinks that he can see traces of it in Justin Martyr, Dial. xxxix. 258, and liii. 272, and in Hermas, Simil. ix. 17. 4; but none of these passages is convincing, and perhaps more striking than any of them is the passage in which Justin gives a description of the regeneration of Christian converts in connexion with baptism (Apol. i. 61). Here he quotes a saying of Christ (‘Except ye be born again ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven’) as a proof of the necessity of regeneration, but falls back upon the use of Isaiah and Apostolic tradition to justify the practice of baptism and the use of the trine formula. This certainly suggests that Justin did not know the traditional text of Mt 28:19.

Whether the ‘Eusebian’ text, if its existence be granted, has any real claim to be regarded as a serious rival to the traditional form, is a wholly different question. The answer depends on the view taken of the general problem of textual criticism. If a high value be attached to the existing MSS of the NT, the traditional text, though no longer unassailed, must be accepted. But if it be thought (as many critics think) that no MSS represent more than comparatively late recensions of the text, it is necessary to set against the mass of manuscript evidence the influence of baptismal practice. It seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the ‘Eusebian’ text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it.

MacCulloch, J. A., Bartlet, J. V., Lake, K., Wood, H. G., Mackichan, D., Brandt, W., Macdonald, D. B., Gray, L. H., & Mogk, E. (1908–1926). Baptism. In J. Hastings, J. A. Selbie, & L. H. Gray (Eds.), Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics (Vol. 2, p. 380). T. & T. Clark; Charles Scribner’s Sons.

All arguments seem convincing until someone disputes it, like the last statement:

It seems easier to believe that the traditional text was brought about by this influence working on the ‘Eusebian’ text, than that the latter arose out of the former in spite of it.

Given the extreme caution the early church exercised against anything "novel" that was practiced by only a few churches, the opposite conclusion is warranted. The practice of Trinitarian baptism COULD NOT arise if it didn't have scriptural support.

 

[kbmonday]

Those passages don't say God came in the flesh. Read them again. You're just weaponizing them because you ran out of things to say.

Please reconsider this. 1 John 4:3 absolutely DOES say sarx in the Greek, which most assuredly means in the flesh. Weaponized scripture is dangerous and shouldn't be done, but in this case he is right. Strongs G4561. We all have to do our own research in these matters, but when someone denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh he is in mortal danger of the second death. I bet you to reconsider in a prayerful manner.

 

[Runningman]

Please reconsider this. 1 John 4:3 absolutely DOES say sarx in the Greek, which most assuredly means in the flesh. Weaponized scripture is dangerous and shouldn't be done, but in this case he is right. Strongs G4561. We all have to do our own research in these matters, but when someone denied that Jesus Christ came in the flesh he is in mortal danger of the second death. I bet you to reconsider in a prayerful manner.

Jesus Christ came in the flesh, yes aboslutely! It doesn't say God came in the flesh though. No one said God came in the flesh in the Bible.

 

[kbmonday]

Jesus Christ came in the flesh, yes aboslutely! It doesn't say God came in the flesh though. No one said God came in the flesh in the Bible.

Yes, it does.
Zechariah 12:8-10 (KJV)

8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

The Hebrew of Zechariah 12:8 which is translated as Lord is YHWH in the Hebrew. God the Father and Jesus are one. When Yeshua said that He knew Moses and Abraham it was because He walked with them, before coming in the flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Romans 8:3 (KJV) - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

In the Hebrew order of family, a son IS his father. There is no separation like there is in English.

 

[My Rock]

Jesus Christ came in the flesh, yes aboslutely! It doesn't say God came in the flesh though. No one said God came in the flesh in the Bible.

1 Timoth 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

 

[My Rock]

ChatGPT summarized well known proofs for Mt 28:19. I didn't see anything Antichrist therein. Without any proof of an "antichrist spirit" I can't agree with you. It does make mistakes, but I didn't notice any in the quote I provided. Its correct to say the assessment of "Eusebius of Caesarea" is an opinion, one among many. PS: As a believer in providential preservation the scattered Eusebius quotes, which can be explained various, don't cause me to question the Trinitarian formula in Matthew 28:19


(a) Textual criticism.—In all extant MSS and versions the text is found in the traditional form, πορευθέντες οὖν μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη, βαπτίζοντες αὐτοὺς εἰς τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἁγίου πνεύματος, διδάσκοντες αὐτοὺς τηρεῖν πάντα ὅσα ἐνετειλάμην ὑμῖν, though it must be remembered that the best manuscripts both of the African Old Latin and of the Old Syriac versions are defective at this point. The evidence of Patristic quotations is not so clear. It was formerly thought to be as unanimous as that of the MSS and Versions, but F. C. Conybeare (ZNTW, 1901, p. 275 ff.) has shown that this is not true, at least in the case of Eusebius of Cæsarea.

Here is a little more info:

These all are verifiable documentation with source citation included. Most works can be looked up here: https://web.archive.org/

“And Jesus came, and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Goe ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptising them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: Teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.“ {Matthew 28:18-20}

In the book of Acts 2:38, the evangelist Luke described the same statement of Jesus from Matthew 28:19.20. But in Acts 1:8 Jesus calls us to proclaim His truth to all nations, without any mention of baptism in the name of the Trinity:

„But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto Me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.“ {Acts 1:8}

Scholars have identified that Eusebius quoted or referenced Matthew 28:19 approximately 18 times in his extant writings. Out of these, about 16 instances are cited without the Trinitarian formula, often ending with "in my name." in his works before Nicea here are a few:

“Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after His victory over death, he spoke the word to His followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all nations in My name.” {Eusebius: Oration in Praise of Emperor Constantine, Chapter 16, Section 8}

“But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph “In MY NAME.” And the power of His name being so great, that the apostle says: “God has given Him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth,” He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd when He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all the nations in My Name.” He also most accurately forecasts the future when He says: “for this gospel must first be preached to all the world, for a witness to all nations.” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, ch. 7, 136 (a-d), p. 157}.

“Who said to them: ́Make disciples of all the nations in My Name. ́” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, Chapter 7, 138 (c), p. 159}

“Relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go ye and make disciples of all the nations in My name.” {Eusebius: Book III of his History, Chapter 5, Section 2, (about the Jewish persecution of early Christians)}

“With one word and voice, He said to His disciples: “Go, and make disciples of all nations in My Name, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you” {Eusebius: Proof of the Gospel, Book III, ch 6, 132 (a), p. 152}

Throughout the entire Bible, baptism is consistently described as being performed 'in the name of Jesus.' The true Bible does not provide conflicting sets of instructions, yet Matthew 28:19 seems to directly conflict with all other baptismal references. This discrepancy is strong evidence of potential falsification, as the two versions are fundamentally opposed and cannot coexist without contradiction. God never provides conflicting instructions!

“When they heard this, they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus.“ {Acts 19:5}

“But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the Name of Jesus Christ, they were baptised, both men and women. ́” {Acts 8:12}

“For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus“. {Acts 8:16}

Below is the excerpt from Shem Tob’s MSS Hebrew Matthew Gospel, Matthew 28th chapter, which comes from a book by Dr. George Howard, a specialist in the Hebrew language. The original of this manuscript is in the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in New York. This Gospel was saved by Hebrews during the first century and was discovered in the 14th century. In the 14th century, there was no discussion of the Trinity! And in this old original manuscript of the Gospel, Matthew 28:19, there is no trinitarian form of baptism, there is no statement by Jesus in this regard. Matthew wrote his Gospel in Hebrew and not in Greek, as most theologians claim today:

“Matthew also issued a written Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome and laying the foundations of the church.” {Irenaeus in the second century: Adv. Haer. 3.1.1}

18. Jesus drew near to them and said to them: To Me has been given all power in heaven and earth.

19. Go

20. and (teach) them to carry out all the things which I have commanded you forever.

The same is also stated in the other 3 Bible translations:

“Then, coming toward them, Jesus spoke, saying, ‘All power has been given me in heaven and on earth. So, go and make disciples in all nations IN MY NAME, teaching them to obey all the things that I commanded you. And [Look!] I’ll be with you every day until the end of the age.“ {Matthew 28:18-20} Bible 2001

“Jesus approached and said to them, “All authority has been given to me in heaven and on earth. Consequently, when you go, disciple all nationalities IN MY NAME. Teach them to keep everything I commanded you to do. Understand this: I am with you every day until the consummation of the age!“ {Matthew 28:18-20} MIT – Idiomatic EN – 2006

“Yeshua [God is Salvation] drew near to them and said to them: “All power has been given to Me in heaven and earth”. “Go and make disciples, of all the nations, to believe IN MY NAME” “and teach them to observe all the words which I have commanded you, forever” {Matthew 28:18-20} New Messianic Version Bible

“The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.“ {Britannica Encyclopedia, 11th Edition, Volume 3, page 365}

 

[Runningman]

Yes, it does.
Zechariah 12:8-10 (KJV)

8 In that day shall the LORD defend the inhabitants of Jerusalem; and he that is feeble among them at that day shall be as David; and the house of David shall be as God, as the angel of the LORD before them.

9 And it shall come to pass in that day, that I will seek to destroy all the nations that come against Jerusalem.

10 And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.

The Hebrew of Zechariah 12:8 which is translated as Lord is YHWH in the Hebrew. God the Father and Jesus are one. When Yeshua said that He knew Moses and Abraham it was because He walked with them, before coming in the flesh.

1 Timothy 3:16 (KJV) - And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Romans 8:3 (KJV) - For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:

In the Hebrew order of family, a son IS his father. There is no separation like there is in English.

1 Timoth 3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

No, unfortunately, that is incorrect and was proven to be an alteration to the manuscript some time ago. The earliest and best manuscripts say "He who was manifested in the flesh" not "God was manifest in the flesh" and many Trinitarian commentators confirm that this is the case. Modern Bibles don't even dare translate 1 Tim 3:16 that way anymore because it's wrong.

I'll just post one commentary, but there are many:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers​

​

God was manifest in the flesh.—Here, in the most ancient authorities, the word “God” does not occur. We must, then, literally translate the Greek of the most famous and trustworthy MSS. as follows: He who was manifested in the flesh. In the later MSS., and in the great majority of the fathers who cite the passage, we certainly find Theos (“God”), as in the Received text. The substitution can be traced to no special doctrinal prejudice, but is owing, probably, to a well-meant correction of early scribes. At first sight, Theos (“God”) would be a reading easier to understand, and grammatically more exact; and in the original copies, the great similitude between ΘC (“God”)—the contracted form in which ΘEOC was written—and the relative ΘC (“He who”), would be likely to suggest to an officious scribe the very trifling alteration necessary for the easier and apparently more accurate word. Recent investigations have shown, however, beyond controversy that the oldest MSS., with scarcely an exception, contain the more difficult reading, ΘC (“He who”). The Greek pronoun thus rendered is simply a relative to an omitted but easily-inferred antecedent—viz., Christ. Possibly the difficulty in the construction is due to the fact of the whole verse being a fragment of an ancient Christian hymn, embodying a confession of faith, well known to, and perhaps often sung by, the faithful among the congregations of such cities as Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome—a confession embodying the grand facts of the Incarnation and the Resurrection, the preaching of the cross to, and its reception by, the Gentile world, and the present session of Christ in glory. In the original Greek the rhythmical, as well as the antithetical character, of the clauses is very striking. In the English translation they can hardly be reproduced:—​

What 1 Timothy 3:16 is about is Jesus being a man vindicated by God and taken to heaven. That's it.

 

[kbmonday]

No, unfortunately, that is incorrect and was proven to be an alteration to the manuscript some time ago. The earliest and best manuscripts say "He who was manifested in the flesh" not "God was manifest in the flesh" and many Trinitarian commentators confirm that this is the case. Modern Bibles don't even dare translate 1 Tim 3:16 that way anymore because it's wrong.

I'll just post one commentary, but there are many:

Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers​

​

God was manifest in the flesh.—Here, in the most ancient authorities, the word “God” does not occur. We must, then, literally translate the Greek of the most famous and trustworthy MSS. as follows: He who was manifested in the flesh. In the later MSS., and in the great majority of the fathers who cite the passage, we certainly find Theos (“God”), as in the Received text. The substitution can be traced to no special doctrinal prejudice, but is owing, probably, to a well-meant correction of early scribes. At first sight, Theos (“God”) would be a reading easier to understand, and grammatically more exact; and in the original copies, the great similitude between ΘC (“God”)—the contracted form in which ΘEOC was written—and the relative ΘC (“He who”), would be likely to suggest to an officious scribe the very trifling alteration necessary for the easier and apparently more accurate word. Recent investigations have shown, however, beyond controversy that the oldest MSS., with scarcely an exception, contain the more difficult reading, ΘC (“He who”). The Greek pronoun thus rendered is simply a relative to an omitted but easily-inferred antecedent—viz., Christ. Possibly the difficulty in the construction is due to the fact of the whole verse being a fragment of an ancient Christian hymn, embodying a confession of faith, well known to, and perhaps often sung by, the faithful among the congregations of such cities as Ephesus, Corinth, and Rome—a confession embodying the grand facts of the Incarnation and the Resurrection, the preaching of the cross to, and its reception by, the Gentile world, and the present session of Christ in glory. In the original Greek the rhythmical, as well as the antithetical character, of the clauses is very striking. In the English translation they can hardly be reproduced:—​

What 1 Timothy 3:16 is about is Jesus being a man vindicated by God and taken to heaven. That's it.

I will not judge you in this brother. We each have our own walk, our own purpose within the body of Christ. I have come to a different understanding than you have, primarily through my study of the Hebrew Tanahk and the Prophets. That said, I will not make a judgement on your relationship with Him, as Jesus warned us not to do.
Matthew 5:22 (KJV) - But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

In this passage, thou fool is a reference to an unbeliever. The term being used many times in Proverbs.
In my CURRENT understanding of Zechariah 12, Jesus is He whom is being discussed and His name in that scripture is YHWH. But that is my understanding and perhaps is where I need to focus for my spiritual growth. We should, all of us, always be willing to question our inherited spiritual leavening. We Christians have our own Talmud. I sincerely hope that we can each get past our manmade doctrines and come together in unity, but according to scripture that won't happen until Yeshua reigns on earth. I hope you have a wonderful day and may God bless you and yours.

 

[tigger II]

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

...........................................................
p. 269, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1976, admits: “In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power ...”

And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136, 1137, says:
“Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times.” And “Divine power, where ruah is used to describe...a supernatural force....” And “At its [the Old Testament’s concept of God’s spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy.” And “at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God’s ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God’s authority) exerting force in some direction.”

The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:
“The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality.” And “Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated.” Also, “It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein.” - v. 14, p. 326, 1957.

And Britannica agrees:
“The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated ‘spirit’) is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard....“The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381....” - Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985, v. 6, p. 22.

Yes, not only did God’s people, as described in the OT, believe the holy spirit was an active force and not a person, but that same belief prevailed from the time of the NT writers up until at least 325 A. D. when the Roman Church officially accepted and began promoting its new doctrine. To bolster this NEW doctrine they went to the NT to find “proof.” That vague, ambiguous “proof” is what we will investigate in this study.

Many historians and Bible scholars (many of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example:
“On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power.” - A Catholic Dictionary.

“The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 575, Vol. 13, 1967.

“It is important to realize that for the first Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divine power.” - New Bible Dictionary, p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.

“The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power...could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power” - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.

“The true divinity of the third person [the holy spirit] was asserted...finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381 A. D.” - A Catholic Dictionary.

 

[tigger II]

...........................................................
p. 269, The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1976, admits: “In the OT the Holy Spirit means a divine power ...”

And the New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984, pp. 1136, 1137, says:
“Spirit, Holy Spirit. OT, Heb. ruah 378 times...; NT, Gk. pneuma 379 times.” And “Divine power, where ruah is used to describe...a supernatural force....” And “At its [the Old Testament’s concept of God’s spirit] heart is the experience of a mysterious, awesome power - the mighty invisible force of the wind, the mystery of vitality, the otherly power that transforms - all ruah, all manifestations of divine energy.” And “at this early stage [pre-Christian] of understanding, God’s ruah was thought of simply as a supernatural power (under God’s authority) exerting force in some direction.”
The Encyclopedia Americana tells us:
“The doctrine of the Holy Spirit [as a person who is God] is a distinctly Christian one.... the Spirit of Jehovah [in the OT] is the active divine principle in nature. .... But it is in the New Testament [NT] that we find the bases of the doctrine of the Spirit’s personality.” And “Yet the early Church did not forthwith attain to a complete doctrine; nor was it, in fact, until after the essential divinity of Jesus had received full ecclesiastical sanction [in 325 A.D. at the Council of Nicea] that the personality of the Spirit was explicitly recognized, and the doctrine of the Trinity formulated.” Also, “It is better to regard the Spirit as the agency which, proceeding from the Father and the Son, dwells in the church as the witness and power of the life therein.” - v. 14, p. 326, 1957.
And Britannica agrees:
“The Hebrew word ruah (usually translated ‘spirit’) is often found in texts referring to the free and unhindered activity of God, .... There was, however, no explicit belief in a separate divine person in Biblical Judaism; in fact, the New Testament itself is not entirely clear in this regard....“The definition that the Holy Spirit was a distinct divine Person equal in substance to the Father and the Son and not subordinate to them came at the Council of Constantinople in AD 381....” - Encyclopedia Britannica Micropaedia, 1985, v. 6, p. 22.
Yes, not only did God’s people, as described in the OT, believe the holy spirit was an active force and not a person, but that same belief prevailed from the time of the NT writers up until at least 325 A. D. when the Roman Church officially accepted and began promoting its new doctrine. To bolster this NEW doctrine they went to the NT to find “proof.” That vague, ambiguous “proof” is what we will investigate in this study.

Many historians and Bible scholars (many of them trinitarians) freely admit the above truth. For example:
“On the whole, the New Testament, like the Old, speaks of the Spirit as a divine energy or power.” - A Catholic Dictionary.
“The majority of NT texts reveal God’s spirit as something, not someone” - New Catholic Encyclopedia, p. 575, Vol. 13, 1967.
“It is important to realize that for the first Christians the Spirit was thought of in terms of divine power.” - New Bible Dictionary, p. 1139, Tyndale House Publishers, 1984.
“The emergence of Trinitarian speculations in early church theology led to great difficulties in the article about the Holy Spirit. For the being-as-person of the Holy Spirit, which is evident in the New Testament as divine power...could not be clearly grasped.... The Holy Spirit was viewed not as a personal figure but rather as a power” - The New Encyclopedia Britannica.
“The true divinity of the third person [the holy spirit] was asserted...finally by the Council of Constantinople of 381 A. D.” - A Catholic Dictionary.

............................................
It is true that the word for God (theos) [and all other persons in heaven] in the New Testament is masculine, and masculine pronouns (“he,” “him,” “himself”) are always used with it. The word “Father” is also in the masculine gender in the original Greek of the NT, and masculine pronouns are always used with it. The word “Son” is also in the masculine gender in the NT Greek, and masculine pronouns are always used with it. Certainly this is not surprising since God (Jehovah, the Father alone) has always been represented to his people as a living, conscious being, and Christ (Jesus, the Son) is always represented as a living, conscious person. It would be very strange, indeed, if they were not so described!

But “Holy Spirit” in the original Greek is neuter and therefore the neuter pronouns meaning “it,” “itself” are used with it in the original NT Greek! Any strictly literal Bible translation would have to use “it” for the holy spirit (since it is really not a person, but God’s active force, a literal translation would be helpful in this case).

As the trinitarian New American Bible (Catholic), 1970 ed. admits:
“The Greek word for ‘spirit’ is neuter, and while we [trinitarians] use personal pronouns in English (‘he,’ ‘his,’ ‘him’), most Greek manuscripts employ ‘it.’” - New American Bible, St. Joseph ed., (footnote for John 14:17).