The Holy Spirit must be a Person

[hawkman]

A summary: The Holy Spirit is God’s power. It is not a person.

Why is it necessary for you that the Holy Spirit isn't a person ? The difference is ?

 

[WalterandDebbie]

Why is it necessary for you that the Holy Spirit isn't a person ? The difference is ?

Because now, He is our Comforter. John 14:26 KJV

Love, Walter And Debbie

 

[My Rock]

Why is it necessary for you that the Holy Spirit isn't a person ? The difference is ?

The key difference is that there is one God who is truly indivisible, both externally and internally. To claim that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, whether within or outside of God, essentially divides God into separate parts or persons. This division contradicts the biblical teaching of God's absolute oneness. Instead, Scripture presents the Holy Spirit as the active presence and power of God working in the world and through His believers. By understanding the Holy Spirit in this way—as the manifestation of God's dynamic power and presence, rather than as a separate person—we uphold the unity and oneness of God. This view aligns with the scriptural revelation that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and His work in the world is a direct expression of His singular, indivisible nature. Thus, maintaining God's oneness means recognizing the Holy Spirit as God Himself actively moving in and through His creation, without introducing any internal division within the Godhead.

 

[hawkman]

The key difference is that there is one God who is truly indivisible, both externally and internally. To claim that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, whether within or outside of God, essentially divides God into separate parts or persons. This division contradicts the biblical teaching of God's absolute oneness. Instead, Scripture presents the Holy Spirit as the active presence and power of God working in the world and through His believers. By understanding the Holy Spirit in this way—as the manifestation of God's dynamic power and presence, rather than as a separate person—we uphold the unity and oneness of God. This view aligns with the scriptural revelation that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and His work in the world is a direct expression of His singular, indivisible nature. Thus, maintaining God's oneness means recognizing the Holy Spirit as God Himself actively moving in and through His creation, without introducing any internal division within the Godhead.

You are preaching oneness to me , but let us try the question I asked again .


Why is it necessary for you that the Holy Spirit isn't a person ?

We both speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance , as Christians we are both empowered by the Holy Spirit .

Seeing that the Holy Spirit works the same in both our lives I see both oneness and trinity as beside the point where the rubber meets the road .

 

[My Rock]

Why is it necessary for you that the Holy Spirit isn't a person ?

It's necessary to understand the Holy Spirit not as a separate person, but as the very presence and power of God Himself, to preserve the biblical teaching of God's absolute oneness. The Bible consistently emphasizes that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and this oneness is both external and internal. If the Holy Spirit were considered a distinct person within God, it would imply an internal division, contradicting the clear scriptural message of His indivisible Oneness.

 

[hawkman]

It's necessary to understand the Holy Spirit not as a separate person, but as the very presence and power of God Himself, to preserve the biblical teaching of God's absolute oneness. The Bible consistently emphasizes that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and this oneness is both external and internal. If the Holy Spirit were considered a distinct person within God, it would imply an internal division, contradicting the clear scriptural message of His indivisible Oneness.

Do you Agree or disagree with what I write below .

We both speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance , as Christians we are both empowered by the Holy Spirit .

Seeing that the Holy Spirit works the same in both our lives I see both oneness and trinity as beside the point when it comes to the Holy Spirit working in our lives .

 

[My Rock]

Do you Agree or disagree with what I write below .

We both speak in tongues as the Holy Spirit gives the utterance , as Christians we are both empowered by the Holy Spirit .

Seeing that the Holy Spirit works the same in both our lives I see both oneness and trinity as beside the point when it comes to the Holy Spirit working in our lives .

I completely Agree. Just keep this in mind:

It's true that as believers, we both experience the empowering presence of the Holy Spirit, manifesting through speaking in tongues and other gifts, as described in Acts 2:4 and 1 Corinthians 12. These experiences are vital and life-giving, and they demonstrate the active work of God in each of us. So while the work of the Holy Spirit in our lives is indeed a point of shared experience, the underlying theology is significant because it influences our understanding of who God is. while the Holy Spirit works powerfully in all who believe, the understanding of God's nature—whether as Oneness or Trinity—shapes how we interpret these experiences and how we relate to God. Our desire is not just to experience God but to know Him as He has revealed Himself in Scripture. I see the Holy Spirit as the very presence of Jesus as the same God (I AM of the OT) who indwells us and empowers us. That said, the common ground we share in the Spirit’s work is indeed a beautiful thing, and I value our fellowship in that.

 

[hawkman]

I completely Agree.

I thought you would .

the common ground we share in the Spirit’s work is indeed a beautiful thing, and I value our fellowship in that.

Amen !

 

[reddogs]

Because both the Father and Son are "persons", "the Holy Spirit" must also be a person, He is equally subsisting in the one "Name" we are to be baptized in.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Each One has His part and fulfills it, and we shall see it when we get to heaven..

 

[My Rock]

Because both the Father and Son are "persons"

John 4:24 Says God is Spirit. Show me one single verse that says God the Father is a person outside of the full revelation in Jesus Christ.

 

[Questor]

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

As the Holy Spirit in Hebrew is 'haRuach', the 'Breath', one cannot precisely imagine a physical personage attached to it. As the the 'breath' of G-d, haRuach is being constantly infused from the Most High to wherever he wishes it to go, and for what purposes he desires. And, being G-d, I allow him the ability to make haRuach a person if he so desires. I just can't visualize it from a Hebraic perspective, as there is not a hint of personage in the Scriptures, and only the one in the Brit Chadashah, which could have crept in after Constantine got involved in the question.

A permanent infusion of the Spirit is rare, as was given in the womb to Yochanon the Immerser, or the infilling that Yeshua received at his immersion by Yochanan the Immerser that was constant within him from that point, or that Believers receive on their immersion.

One does not visualize readily the idea of haRuach (the Breath) as a person infilling another, but it is easy to see the implanting of the creative force within anyone who is blessed so to be.

An interesting point is that the initial quarrel amongst believers through the 4th century was whether the Most High and Yeshua were 'One' or 'Two'. Once Constantine ruled on the matter, it became three, and not just three, but three separate and equal persons. As a Jew, I have trouble with Two, as the Most High said he would redeem us, but I readily see that Yeshua is human as well as divine, while the Most High is supremely divine.

I solve my problem with 'One' becoming 'Two' as most Messianic Jews do, by envisioning G-d placing part or all of himself in human form, as was envisioned in Judaic thought before Yeshua came into the world. Having G-d become three? Why, except to suit Constantine's Greco/Roman mindset, and the politics of the day?

 

[My Rock]

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.”

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

 

[My Rock]

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.”

The interpretation provided by Vine, which suggests that the phrase "in the name of" often denotes authority or power, does indeed reflect a scholarly approach to understanding biblical language. According to this perspective, Matthew 28:19—“baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”—can be understood as a directive to baptize in recognition of the authority or power of these divine roles or Titles.

This interpretation aligns with the understanding that the singular authority behind the command to baptize is the one God who has manifested Himself in various roles. The emphasis is on the unity and singularity of God’s authority. In this view, the use of the phrase “in the name of” emphasizes the authority of the one God, Jesus Christ, who is the embodiment of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This perspective holds that the phrase does not necessitate a Trinitarian formula but rather reflects the comprehensive authority of God as revealed in His various roles.

This means that the essence of the command in Matthew 28:19 is to baptize in acknowledgment of the unified authority of God, who operates through the roles of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This reinforces the belief that baptism should be performed in the name of Jesus Christ, who is the manifestation of the one God’s authority, encapsulating the fullness of the Godhead.

 

[Questor]

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.

The name "Jesus Christ" holds profound significance that ties directly to the passage in 1 John 4:2, "Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God." The name "Jesus" (Yeshua) means "Jehovah is salvation," signifying that God Himself has become our Savior. The title "Christ" (Christos) means "the Anointed One," referencing the Messiah who was promised throughout the Old Testament. When these names are combined as "Jesus Christ," they reveal the full identity and mission of God in the flesh—God’s plan for salvation fully realized in the manifestation of Himself in the person of Jesus, who is both the divine Savior and the anointed Messiah.

The passage in 1 John 4:2 emphasizes that recognizing and confessing that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is essential to understanding the true Spirit of God. This declaration acknowledges that the one true God, Jehovah, manifested Himself in the person of Jesus, fully embodying His role as Savior and Messiah. This truth is not just a doctrinal statement but a revelation of God’s intimate involvement in human redemption. Denying that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is, therefore, a denial of God’s direct and personal engagement in saving humanity, as revealed through the incarnation. The passage underscores the importance of this revelation, distinguishing between the true Spirit of God and the spirit of antichrist, which rejects this foundational truth. The name "Jesus Christ" encapsulates the reality of God’s saving work in history, emphasizing the unity of God’s identity and His redemptive purpose.

Based on above info the new rendering is this:

"Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jehovah (Father God) is salvation and Anointed One is come in the flesh (Son) is of God."

Nicely put.

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

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

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

 

[Questor]

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.

What is fascinating is that most people do not see the so-called 'Trinity' in Yeshua himself. His neshema (soul) is part if not all of YHWH, his body is human, and he is empowered by haRuach haKodesh (the Holy Spirit.)

 

[My Rock]

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

All of my elegant knowledge of Scripture and this One statement here is the most profound of them ALL. Thank you so much.

 

[Questor]

Big time. In every Protestant church in the USA today it's core doctrine.

Islam scripture teaches "esus (conteary to NT teaching) never rose from the dead. They deny thhe resurrection because they still don't kniw who the real enemy is. Judaism is not much different when yiu misunderstand who the enemy if the Jewish people is. It usn't each other. The enemy has always been death, not people of different cultures living in the ME.

Ok. I thought I read a couple of your posts where you used Jewish terms in discussing scripture instead of the usual christin understanding.
(In a nutshell) I grew up in a Catholic church, left there and wasindoctrinated with Reformed theology (Jesus was punished by His Father in place of us) <--foundatiinal doctrine iin every Baptist, Calvanist, Pentecostal sect in the world today.
Both covenants say, Gods' mercy is unparrelled, unmatched.
So according to them, God was pleased His Son was tortured to death.
Every one of them use this rext to "prove" their point,

Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him.....He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied Isa.53:10-11 KJV

Sounds right, doesn't it? They took Gods' word and made T.U.L.I.P out of it. Paul saud,

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed. Gal.1:8 KJV

If any man love not the Lord Jesus Christ, let him be Anathema Maranatha. 1Cor.16:22 KJV

That is cursed at Chrisrts' 2nd coming.

So after I coukdn't get a straight semsible answers to questions I had I drifted from church to church being booted from all.
Through ither messengers God put in my life ( one if which was a Jewish guy who believed in Jesus and explained the old coventant in a way that made sense with the new covenant and hus view was 180 from what I was taught. That guy knew his tanakh.

Glad someone found you with all the underlying information. It's all there in the Tanakh . . . people forget the Yeshua was teaching from what is known as the 'Old Testament', as was Rav Sha'ul, and that what is known as the Brit Chadashah (New Testament) expounds upon it.

 

[Questor]

All of my elegant knowledge of Scripture and this One statement here is the most profound of them ALL. Thank you so much.

My pleasure. Distilling the Scriptures down to that point, however, is haRuach haKodesh at work. I am not that brilliant.

 

[Questor]

The idea that God would send a distinct person that is not Himself to redeem humanity if He desired a truly human experience presents a theological challenge that raises questions about the very nature of God’s purpose in redemption. Bible affirms that God is absolutely one and that the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily in Jesus Christ (Colossians 2:9). This upholds that Jesus is God Himself manifest in the flesh (1 Timothy 3:16), fully divine and fully human.

If God’s purpose was to fully identify with humanity, experiencing the struggles, temptations, and limitations of human life, it would seem inconsistent for Him to send a distinct person not Himself to accomplish this. Instead, God Himself took on human nature, becoming both the Redeemer and the one being redeemed in the person of Jesus Christ. This aligns with the biblical narrative that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19), not through an intermediary or distinct person, but through His own incarnation.

The thought here is that God’s desire to fully experience and redeem humanity could only be perfectly fulfilled by God Himself becoming man. If Jesus were a distinct person sent by the Father and not God's own Human body, the intimacy and completeness of that human experience would be diminished, as it would imply a separation within the Godhead that the Bible does not support. Instead, Jesus’ humanity was the vehicle through which God Himself experienced our condition, demonstrating His profound love and commitment to redeeming His creation.

This theological truth is further supported by passages like John 14:9, where Jesus says, "He that hath seen me hath seen the Father," indicating that in seeing Jesus, one sees the full revelation of God. The incarnation was not about God sending another, but about God becoming Emmanuel, “God with us” (Matthew 1:23). This reveals the depth of God’s oneness—His ability to enter His creation and fully partake in the human experience without dividing His essence.

It gets back to Yeshua saying "I in you, and you in me." Echad - One. And to think we get to be part of that unity!

John 14:20 (KJV)
20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

John 17:20-23 (KJV)
20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.

 

[Questor]

This exaltation signifies the completion and validation of His work as the Messiah. It is in this sense that God "made" Jesus both Lord and Christ—not that He became something He wasn’t before, but that His identity and mission were fully revealed and recognized following His resurrection. Thus, Acts 2:36 points to the post-resurrection recognition and declaration (Simply an affirmation of Who He already was) of Jesus’ divine authority and messianic fulfillment.

The key difference is that there is one God who is truly indivisible, both externally and internally. To claim that the Holy Spirit is a distinct person, whether within or outside of God, essentially divides God into separate parts or persons. This division contradicts the biblical teaching of God's absolute oneness. Instead, Scripture presents the Holy Spirit as the active presence and power of God working in the world and through His believers. By understanding the Holy Spirit in this way—as the manifestation of God's dynamic power and presence, rather than as a separate person—we uphold the unity and oneness of God. This view aligns with the scriptural revelation that God is one (Deuteronomy 6:4), and His work in the world is a direct expression of His singular, indivisible nature. Thus, maintaining God's oneness means recognizing the Holy Spirit as God Himself actively moving in and through His creation, without introducing any internal division within the Godhead.

One gets back to the Hebrew eventually - that haRuach (the Breath) is an extension of the Most High, not a stated separate entity. HaRuach haKodesh is G-d's elemental power reaching from the dimensional space he occupies, and into the humans he placed in our dimensional space. Like G-d breathing his empowerment into us from on high.