The Holy Spirit must be a Person

[journeymanisnothing]

It is late here and I am on a tablet with is a big challenge for me.

I can always participate tomorrow at some point.

If I say I will, then I will.

Thank you electedbyhim. Goidnight

 

[electedbyHim]

Thank you electedbyhim. Goidnight

Grace and peace to you.

 

[My Rock]

The consensus within "Christianity" today is that Jesus died as a curse, as a sinner, in place of all sinners for the ungodly.
In 1Cor.12:1-3

The idea that Jesus died as a curse and in place of sinners is rooted in the understanding of His unique role as both fully God and fully human. According to Galatians 3:13, "Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us." This verse symbolically represents Jesus taking upon Himself the curse that was due to humanity because of sin. However, it is crucial to understand that Jesus, though He bore the curse, did not become a sinner Himself. Rather, He was the sinless Lamb of God who willingly took on the penalty of sin to bring about redemption.

In 1 Corinthians 12:1-3, Paul emphasizes the importance of recognizing Jesus as Lord, which is central to understanding His divine identity. This passage underscores the truth that Jesus' death was not just the death of a man but the self-sacrifice of God manifested in the flesh. In taking on the curse, Jesus was not becoming a sinner but rather fulfilling the divine plan of salvation. The curse He bore was the full weight of sin, which He took upon Himself to reconcile humanity to God. Through His death and resurrection, Jesus broke the power of sin and death, offering redemption and eternal life to all who believe. This act was not done by a separate person within a Trinity but by God Himself, who, in His great love, manifested Himself in the flesh to redeem His creation.

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Hello My Rock.
I'm carrying on thus discussion in a new thread in the Theology section calked "The Holy Spirit Came As A Witness. Please read the 1st post and see if ut makes any sense to you.
I believe if you simply look at the post without Catholic, Protestant, Calvanist, Jehovah Witness, ;whatever belief you think is right and as well as you can, try to read it like you're reading it for the 1st time.
Then I want your own opinion, not the opinion of any organized religion.
Just what you as a layman think it says.
Not jump to anither passage " because Rom....says-----.
Ok? I want only what you think as an ordinary person of normal reading intelligence by yourself. I already know what the Reformers thought. I don't want what they thought.
I only want to hear the ooinion of you, electedbyhim , Free or any other person (reformed or not doesnt matter because I dont want their religions opinions.
Like before you git saved if I showed you the op of my new thread, what wouid you by just your knowledge of language think it meant?

 

[Alfred Persson]

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}

The lack of faith required to beleieve God would permit such a massive corruption of His Word warrants questioning why believe in Him at all.

If God couldn't preserve His Word from such corruption, neither can He preserve you from eternal corruption.

I am a critical thinker. I have seen the arguments for variant readings and have concluded they are violations of Occam's razor, from the ground up mere speculation.

If there was anything scientific about the process the "correct text" would have been produced long ago. Instead, every year new permutations are produced.

When the numbers never add up one must question the assumptions behind the numbers, as it appears they aren't right.


Paul preached in the Byzantine Churches. The Bible they preserved is the correct text. Faithful copies were made as time and wear required it. Whereas, corrupt error ridden copies ended up being preserved by non-use.

Therefore, the premise "older is better" is simply wrong. The evidence bears this out. The internal consistency of the Byzantine text is well above 90%, while the other texts agree with each other and the Byzantine at far less percentages. That clearly implies they are error ridden.

Moreover, if we calculate according to the figurative language used by Christ (jot, tittle = smallest meaning), and not look at spelling, word order (which doesn't affect meaning) and diacritical marks, I consider the scripture is 100% correct. Not the smallest meaning (that will be fulfilled) has been lost:

"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)

 

[Runningman]

The anointing of Jesus does not imply there was ever a time when He lacked divine empowerment. From a biblical and theological perspective, Jesus has always been fully empowered by virtue of His divine nature. The anointing, as it pertains to Jesus, is more about the formal recognition and manifestation of His messianic role rather than the bestowal of power He did not previously possess. The appearance of the dove at His baptism served as a sign to John the Baptist that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the one he had been sent to prepare the way for. This sign was not indicative of a separate person of the Trinity but was a visible confirmation of Jesus' identity and mission.

In scriptures like John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," we see that Jesus (the Word) has always been fully divine, with all the authority and power of God. The anointing, therefore, reflects the moment when this divine authority was revealed and exercised in His earthly ministry, particularly at His baptism, where the Spirit descended upon Him (Matthew 3:16-17), affirming His identity as the Messiah and Son of God.

This anointing is not about adding power to Jesus but about fulfilling the role of the Messiah, the One chosen to carry out God's plan of salvation. It marks the public recognition of His divine mission, which He was eternally prepared and empowered to fulfill. Thus, the anointing of Jesus signifies the appointed time when His divine nature and mission were fully revealed to the world, but it does not suggest any prior lack of empowerment.

Jesus wasn't inherently anointed or empowered until his water baptism. This was the time that Jesus began being tested and going around doing miracles. It means he isn't God., bur rather God did miracles through him, much in the same way God did miracles through others.

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.

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Very welcome praise be to God.

Have a great night.

Love, Walter

 

[My Rock]

Jesus wasn't inherently anointed or empowered until his water baptism

The statement that "Jesus wasn't inherently anointed or empowered until His water baptism" is not biblically accurate. While it is true that Jesus’ baptism marked the beginning of His public ministry and was a significant moment where the Holy Spirit descended upon Him like a dove (Matthew 3:16), this event did not indicate that He lacked anointing or power before this moment. It’s important to understand this anointing not as the moment when Jesus first received divine empowerment, but rather as a public declaration of His messianic role and the beginning of His active ministry.

Scripture reveals that Jesus was inherently divine and empowered from the very beginning of His earthly life. In Luke 1:35, the angel Gabriel tells Mary that "the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God," indicating that Jesus was holy and set apart from conception. Furthermore, in Matthew 1:23, Jesus is referred to as "Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us," affirming His divine nature from birth. John 1:1-14 also emphasizes that the Word, who was with God and was God, became flesh in the person of Jesus Christ, fully embodying the power and presence of God.

The baptism of Jesus was a public affirmation of His identity and mission, symbolizing the beginning of His active ministry, not the moment He received divine anointing or empowerment. The descent of the Spirit was a sign to John the Baptist and to others, confirming Jesus as the promised Messiah (John 1:32-34). However, Jesus, being fully God and fully man, possessed the fullness of divine power and authority from the moment of His conception. Therefore, the notion that Jesus was not anointed or empowered until His baptism does not align with the broader biblical testimony of His divine nature and mission.

 

[My Rock]

The lack of faith required to beleieve God would permit such a massive corruption of His Word warrants questioning why believe in Him at all.

If God couldn't preserve His Word from such corruption, neither can He preserve you from eternal corruption.

I am a critical thinker. I have seen the arguments for variant readings and have concluded they are violations of Occam's razor, from the ground up mere speculation.

If there was anything scientific about the process the "correct text" would have been produced long ago. Instead, every year new permutations are produced.

When the numbers never add up one must question the assumptions behind the numbers, as it appears they aren't right.


Paul preached in the Byzantine Churches. The Bible they preserved is the correct text. Faithful copies were made as time and wear required it. Whereas, corrupt error ridden copies ended up being preserved by non-use.

Therefore, the premise "older is better" is simply wrong. The evidence bears this out. The internal consistency of the Byzantine text is well above 90%, while the other texts agree with each other and the Byzantine at far less percentages. That clearly implies they are error ridden.

Moreover, if we calculate according to the figurative language used by Christ (jot, tittle = smallest meaning), and not look at spelling, word order (which doesn't affect meaning) and diacritical marks, I consider the scripture is 100% correct. Not the smallest meaning (that will be fulfilled) has been lost:

"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)

The development of the doctrine of the Trinity in the early centuries of Christianity coincided with a noticeable decline in the exercise of the Gifts of the Spirit among many church leaders and theologians. This decline was particularly evident after the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., where the formalization of Trinitarian doctrine, which came from the minds of men rather than the mind of the Spirit, began to take shape. Some historians and theologians have observed that as the Church became more institutionalized and as theological debates became more abstract, there was a corresponding shift away from the dynamic, experiential aspects of faith, including the Gifts of the Spirit. For example, in the writings of church fathers like Augustine, we see a growing emphasis on doctrinal correctness over the ongoing operation of spiritual gifts.

One notable historical quote comes from the fourth-century theologian John Chrysostom, who lamented that the spiritual gifts had largely ceased in his time: "The whole place is full of profound sadness at the fact that there is no one left who speaks with tongues." (Homilies on First Corinthians, Homily 29). This reflects a broader trend where the miraculous and prophetic gifts of the early Church, as described in the New Testament, became less common or were even dismissed by some as no longer necessary.

This decline highlights the importance of relying on the operation of the Holy Ghost to reveal truth rather than solely on human understanding. Proverbs 3:5-6 (KJV) reminds us, "Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths." The Gifts of the Spirit, such as prophecy, tongues, and discernment, are vital tools for the Church to receive divine guidance and to stay rooted in the living, active work of God. Without these gifts, the Church risks becoming more reliant on human reasoning and less attuned to the immediate leading of the Holy Spirit.

The decline in the exercise of these gifts among those who formulated the Trinity doctrine, which was a product of human reasoning rather than divine revelation, can be seen as a cautionary tale. It underscores the need for believers to continually seek the fullness of the Spirit’s work in their lives, allowing the Holy Ghost to guide them into all truth (John 16:13). Relying on our own understanding can lead to a dry, intellectualized faith that lacks the vibrant power of the Spirit. Therefore, it is crucial for the Church today to embrace and cultivate the Gifts of the Spirit, ensuring that our faith remains both doctrinally sound and spiritually alive.

 

[Free]

Everyone,

Again, please keep on topic, which is the personhood of the Holy Spirit.

 

[My Rock]

Sorry my apologies.

The argument that the Holy Spirit must be a distinct person because of references to personal pronouns like "I" and "Me," or because of the instruction in Matthew 28:19, misunderstands the unified nature of God's self-revelation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God, who operates in various ways to fulfill His divine purpose.

In Matthew 28:19, the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is understood to refer to the singular "name" which is Jesus. This interpretation is supported by the consistent practice in the Book of Acts, where baptism is always carried out in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5). The use of "name" in the singular indicates that these titles—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are all aspects of the one God, fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit, rather than being a separate person, is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), actively working in the world and within believers. When the Holy Spirit speaks or acts, it is God Himself at work, not a separate person within a triune Godhead. The references to the Spirit sending, speaking, or commanding reflect the dynamic and personal ways in which God interacts with His creation, but they do not imply a distinct personality within the Godhead. Instead, they show how God, who is Spirit, manifests His will and presence in the lives of His people.

 

[Alfred Persson]

Sorry my apologies.

The argument that the Holy Spirit must be a distinct person because of references to personal pronouns like "I" and "Me," or because of the instruction in Matthew 28:19, misunderstands the unified nature of God's self-revelation. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the one true God, who operates in various ways to fulfill His divine purpose.

In Matthew 28:19, the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is understood to refer to the singular "name" which is Jesus. This interpretation is supported by the consistent practice in the Book of Acts, where baptism is always carried out in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38, Acts 8:16, Acts 19:5). The use of "name" in the singular indicates that these titles—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—are all aspects of the one God, fully revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

The Holy Spirit, rather than being a separate person, is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9), actively working in the world and within believers. When the Holy Spirit speaks or acts, it is God Himself at work, not a separate person within a triune Godhead. The references to the Spirit sending, speaking, or commanding reflect the dynamic and personal ways in which God interacts with His creation, but they do not imply a distinct personality within the Godhead. Instead, they show how God, who is Spirit, manifests His will and presence in the lives of His people.

That's impossible. All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In fact, God wrote it so even a child can understand it:

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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. 3:15-17 NKJ)

A "common sense" reading of Acts 13:2-4 teaches the following:

When the disciples were ministering to the LORD, it was the Holy Spirit Who spoke to them, in direct speech as a Person would using personal pronouns "I" "Me". Moreover, it is He who commands the disciples do "the work to which I have called them". Then, to confirm the entire verse 4 repeats they are "being sent out by the Holy Spirit":

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)

All theories ignoring this infallible and incontrovertible data are falsehood.

God's Word is Truth. God wrote Scripture so we could read and understand it. If the Holy Spirit is not a Person just like the Father and the Son, then Acts 13:2-4 would be worded differently.

It's that simple.

 

[My Rock]

That's impossible. All scripture is inspired by God and beneficial for doctrine (2 Tim. 3:16-17). In fact, God wrote it so even a child can understand it:

15 and that from childhood you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
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. 3:15-17 NKJ)

A "common sense" reading of Acts 13:2-4 teaches the following:

When the disciples were ministering to the LORD, it was the Holy Spirit Who spoke to them, in direct speech as a Person would using personal pronouns "I" "Me". Moreover, it is He who commands the disciples do "the work to which I have called them". Then, to confirm the entire verse 4 repeats they are "being sent out by the Holy Spirit":

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)

All theories ignoring this infallible and incontrovertible data are falsehood.

God's Word is Truth. God wrote Scripture so we could read and understand it. If the Holy Spirit is not a Person just like the Father and the Son, then Acts 13:2-4 would be worded differently.

It's that simple.

It is essential to understand that the language used in Acts 13:2-4, where the Holy Spirit speaks using personal pronouns like "I" and "Me," is not indicative of the Holy Spirit being a person. Rather, it reflects the manner in which God, who is Spirit, communicates His divine will to His people. The Holy Spirit is the same Spirit of the one true God who was manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). When the Holy Spirit speaks, it is God Himself revealing His purposes and guiding His church. This aligns with the biblical pattern of God using various forms of self-revelation to interact with humanity, whether as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, or the Holy Spirit in regeneration and guidance.

The reference to the Holy Spirit commanding and sending in Acts 13:2-4 does not necessitate a separate personality but demonstrates the dynamic and personal relationship God has with His people. In John 14:18, Jesus promises, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you," indicating that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is indeed His own Spirit continuing His work among believers. The consistent practice of baptism in the name of Jesus throughout the Book of Acts (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5) further underscores that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is fully embodied in Jesus Christ. The singular "name" in Matthew 28:19 points to the unified identity of God, who has revealed Himself fully in Christ.

In this light, the Holy Spirit's actions and words in Acts 13 are understood as the workings of the one God, not a distinct person, but the same God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now operating through His Spirit to lead and empower the church. The passage reveals the unity of God's operation rather than suggesting a division of persons within the Godhead. Thus, the interpretation that views the Holy Spirit as a separate person misunderstands the nature of God's self-revelation and the scriptural portrayal of His oneness.

 

[Alfred Persson]

It is essential to understand that the language used in Acts 13:2-4, where the Holy Spirit speaks using personal pronouns like "I" and "Me," is not indicative of the Holy Spirit being a person. Rather, it reflects the manner in which God, who is Spirit, communicates His divine will to His people. The Holy Spirit is the same Spirit of the one true God who was manifest in the flesh as Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). When the Holy Spirit speaks, it is God Himself revealing His purposes and guiding His church. This aligns with the biblical pattern of God using various forms of self-revelation to interact with humanity, whether as the Father in creation, the Son in redemption, or the Holy Spirit in regeneration and guidance.

The reference to the Holy Spirit commanding and sending in Acts 13:2-4 does not necessitate a separate personality but demonstrates the dynamic and personal relationship God has with His people. In John 14:18, Jesus promises, "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you," indicating that the Comforter, the Holy Spirit, is indeed His own Spirit continuing His work among believers. The consistent practice of baptism in the name of Jesus throughout the Book of Acts (Acts 2:38, 8:16, 19:5) further underscores that the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is fully embodied in Jesus Christ. The singular "name" in Matthew 28:19 points to the unified identity of God, who has revealed Himself fully in Christ.

In this light, the Holy Spirit's actions and words in Acts 13 are understood as the workings of the one God, not a distinct person, but the same God who is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, now operating through His Spirit to lead and empower the church. The passage reveals the unity of God's operation rather than suggesting a division of persons within the Godhead. Thus, the interpretation that views the Holy Spirit as a separate person misunderstands the nature of God's self-revelation and the scriptural portrayal of His oneness.

The theory is absurd, there is no gain realized by God or man if the Father switched identities for no apparent reason.

Switching identities for no apparent reason would be irrational and bizarre.

They were ministering to the LORD, but its the Holy Spirit who spoke. There can be only one logical cause for another speaking, its because another Person was there listening to the conversation and decided to speak:

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)

Your theory reminds me of an illustration. Two people are looking out of a window admiring the city's buildings, when suddenly they see someone plummet down from the roof, to the concrete below. And one of them says, "it is essential to understand he is not falling to his death, he is flying to a new location."

Improbable theories manifest certain characteristics, they all violate Ockham's razor. They invent "entities" that are not supplied by the data, to make them work. That describes your theory perfectly.

 

[My Rock]

The theory is absurd, there is no gain realized by God or man if the Father switched identities for no apparent reason.

Switching identities for no apparent reason would be irrational and bizarre.

My position reflects an understanding of the unified nature of God operating through distinct roles in the divine economy. In this view, God does not switch identities but rather manifests Himself in different capacities to fulfill His purposes in creation, redemption, and regeneration. As the Father, God is the omnipresent Spirit who is the source of all creation, embodying the essence and power of the divine. In the role of the Son, God enters into tangible human form as Jesus Christ, fully participating in the process of redemption and revealing the depth of His relational and sacrificial love. In the role of the Holy Ghost, God continues His work by regenerating and indwelling believers, providing them with spiritual empowerment and ongoing guidance.

This perspective upholds the essential unity of God while recognizing the distinct functions and manifestations that serve His redemptive plan. The Father, as the omnipresent Spirit, encompasses the whole of creation, while Jesus Christ as the Son represents a specific historical manifestation of God’s involvement in human salvation. The Holy Spirit then represents the ongoing, interactive presence of God within the lives of believers, ensuring their spiritual renewal and empowerment. Thus, the Oneness view maintains that these roles are not separate identities but distinct manifestations of the one true God, harmonizing with the scriptural revelation of God's singular and multifaceted nature.

 

[Runningman]

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.

I will begin with simply stating the fact that no modern Bible translation, to the best of my knowledge, that has been produced within the past 100-150 years contains "God was manifest in the flesh..." but rather contains something like "He [Jesus Christ] was manifest in the flesh..."

Most scholars attribute the error of "God was manifest in the flesh..." to a scribal error, gracefully calling it accidental, though some believe it could have very well been a deliberate alteration to the manuscript to bolster Trinitarian dogma; these aren't anti-Trinitarians saying these things - no. These are people of reputation, standing, with credentials in theology who have reputations at stake and nothing to gain theologically by rightly confessing that 1 Timothy 3:16 has been altered.

How do they know? Because one of the metrics for determining authenticity is the age of the manuscript. The idea being that if a manuscript is old and they find numerous copies of them all saying "He [Jesus Christ] was manifest in the flesh..." and not "God was manifest in the flesh..." then it stands to reason that the belief circulating in the earliest church, the time in closest proximity to when the first copies were made, then statistical likelihood of it being altered is lower.

That being said, they actually found the earliest and best manuscripts that prove such. Below are some links to the proof where there is nothing being said about God in 1 Timothy 3:16.

For further reading, you can see many Trinitarians using the above proof to debunk the word "God" being in 1 Timothy 3:16: https://textus-receptus.com/wiki/1_Timothy_3:16

I also recommend these commentaries. https://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_timothy/3-16.htm because a lot of people provide proof that the KJV's version is wrong.

 

[Alfred Persson]

My position reflects an understanding of the unified nature of God operating through distinct roles in the divine economy. In this view, God does not switch identities but rather manifests Himself in different capacities to fulfill His purposes in creation, redemption, and regeneration. As the Father, God is the omnipresent Spirit who is the source of all creation, embodying the essence and power of the divine. In the role of the Son, God enters into tangible human form as Jesus Christ, fully participating in the process of redemption and revealing the depth of His relational and sacrificial love. In the role of the Holy Ghost, God continues His work by regenerating and indwelling believers, providing them with spiritual empowerment and ongoing guidance.

Your position is a theory and its contradicted every where God speaks as "us" and declares man is made in "our" image:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Gen. 1:26 NKJ)

 

[Runningman]

The anointing of Jesus does not imply there was ever a time when He lacked divine empowerment. From a biblical and theological perspective, Jesus has always been fully empowered by virtue of His divine nature. The anointing, as it pertains to Jesus, is more about the formal recognition and manifestation of His messianic role rather than the bestowal of power He did not previously possess. The appearance of the dove at His baptism served as a sign to John the Baptist that Jesus was indeed the Messiah, the one he had been sent to prepare the way for. This sign was not indicative of a separate person of the Trinity but was a visible confirmation of Jesus' identity and mission.

There is good evidence that there was a time in which Jesus was not anointed. For starters, there are no examples of a pre-existent Jesus being anointed to begin with. Based entirely on sola scriptura, Acts 10:37,38 says, and I paraphrase for brevity, that beginning in Galilee at John's water baptism of repentance, God anointed and empowered Jesus. So it all began when Jesus was water baptized.

This is further evidenced by the fact that it was God Who made Jesus both Lord and Christ. In other words, Jesus needed to be made the things he previously was not according to Acts 2:36.

The author of Hebrews 1:9 writes, quoting Psalm 45:7 and transferring it to Jesus, that Jesus anointing was completely conditional on loving righteousness and hating iniquity. Therefore, if these conditions were not met then Jesus could have hypothetically not been anointed.

In scriptures like John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God," we see that Jesus (the Word) has always been fully divine, with all the authority and power of God. The anointing, therefore, reflects the moment when this divine authority was revealed and exercised in His earthly ministry, particularly at His baptism, where the Spirit descended upon Him (Matthew 3:16-17), affirming His identity as the Messiah and Son of God.

That doesn't say "Jesus was with God" but rather the Word was with God.

John 1:18 says, "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."

This describes the only begotten Son as a man in the bosom of the Father. This is most likely just a phrase to describe the Son as someone in the Father's heart or mind, not a pre-existent, co-eternal person separate from Himself.

This anointing is not about adding power to Jesus but about fulfilling the role of the Messiah, the One chosen to carry out God's plan of salvation. It marks the public recognition of His divine mission, which He was eternally prepared and empowered to fulfill. Thus, the anointing of Jesus signifies the appointed time when His divine nature and mission were fully revealed to the world, but it does not suggest any prior lack of empowerment.

A lack of Scripture to the contrary suggest a lack of prior empowerment.

 

[Vinny37]

...

Your PS aside, other than the medieval confusion over God’s name, and your sageism about [man of God]—where surely the principle must apply to children and women—I agree the substance your post. One could bring in the NWT which translate εκεινος as ‘he’. A big thing is to treat him, alongside the father and his son, as a person in our devotional life, spending time with him in prayer (excluding request): https://archive.org/details/prayers-gone-global-exploring-biblical-prayer/page/87/mode/1up.

 

[My Rock]

Your position is a theory and its contradicted every where God speaks as "us" and declares man is made in "our" image:

Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." (Gen. 1:26 NKJ)

This passage is the only place. Plus the very next verse show how He alone created. And in these verses there is no we, our, us, they or them. But there is alone, by myself, no one else, none beside me, etc.....

Deuteronomy 6:4 "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD."
Isaiah 43:11 I, even I, am the LORD; and beside me there is no saviour.
Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."
Isaiah 45:5 "I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me."
Isaiah 45:21-22 "Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I am God, and there is none else."
Deuteronomy 4:35 "Unto thee it was shewed, that thou mightest know that the LORD he is God; there is none else beside him."
Deuteronomy 32:39 "See now that I, even I, am he, and there is no god with me: I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand."
1 Kings 8:60 "That all the people of the earth may know that the LORD is God, and that there is none else."
2 Samuel 7:22 "Wherefore thou art great, O LORD God: for there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
1 Chronicles 17:20 "O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee, according to all that we have heard with our ears."
Hosea 13:4 "Yet I am the LORD thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt know no god but me: for there is no saviour beside me."
Mark 12:29 "And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord."
Mark 12:32 "And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he."
John 17:3 "And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent."
Romans 3:30 "Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith."
1 Corinthians 8:4 "As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one."
1 Corinthians 8:6 "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him."
Galatians 3:20 "Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is one."
Ephesians 4:6 "One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all."
1 Timothy 2:5 "For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus."
James 2:19 "Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble."