The Holy Spirit

Originally posted by galveston75
Points that need to be brought out which have been explained in the past on this subject.

1) The Holy Spirit has never been given a name. If it is a spirit being such as the Father and the Son are, why no name ever given?

2) If the Holy Spirit is a spirit being as the Father and Son are as the Trinity says it is, why do the scripture clearly say t Omega" is used only when speking of God the Father, never of Jesus or the Holy Spirit.

Hey Manny. Still waiting on your thoughts on this?

Originally posted by galveston75
Hey Manny. Still waiting on your thoughts on this?

I know you did not address me; but I was curious as to why
the Holy Spirit needs another name. What is wrong with the
Holy Spirit? Some, call Him the Holy Ghost, is that better?
Jesus described Him as another comforter or another helper,
but apparently, Jesus did not feel the need to give Him another
name. Is there another name you would like to give Him?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I dont profess believe in an omnipresent God, infact, why would he send out his Angels
if he was omnipresent, it doesn't make any sense, therefore my dear Caissad4, as a
southern gentlemen, i must ask you politely, to adopt another strategy
.
He has left us a communication, the most widely distributed, widely translated book in
the entire history of humanity, and here we are playing the flute and you refusing to
dance!

God could do everything unilaterally without any angels or other creatures.
Delegation is apparently His pleasure.

Ie. "And God said Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let THEM have dominion over ... and over... and over ... and over all the earth. etc." (Gen. 1:26 my emphasis)

Originally posted by RJHinds
I know you did not address me; but I was curious as to why
the Holy Spirit needs another name. What is wrong with the
Holy Spirit? Some, call Him the Holy Ghost, is that better?
Jesus described Him as another comforter or another helper,
but apparently, Jesus did not feel the need to give Him another
name. Is there another name you would like to give Him?

No problem at all. And no it doesn't need a name as it had never given one at all in the Bible. It is not a being as God Jehovah and his son Jesus are so a name would never be given a force that God uses to do his will.

Originally posted by galveston75
No problem at all. And no it doesn't need a name as it had never given one at all in the Bible. It is not a being as God Jehovah and his son Jesus are so a name would never be given a force that God uses to do his will.

Why don't you think "Holy Spirit" is not a name?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Why don't you think "Holy Spirit" is not a name?

It's just a discription of an affect of a force.

Here is some explinations of this Holy Spirit:

SPIRIT
The Greek pneu'ma (spirit) comes from pneo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma , then, basically mean “breath” but have extended meanings beyond that basic sense. (Compare Hab 2:19; Re 13:15.) They can also mean wind; the vital force in living creatures; one’s spirit; spirit persons, including God and his angelic creatures; and God’s active force, or holy spirit. (Compare Koehler and Baumgartner’s Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, 1958, pp. 877-879; Brown, Driver, and Briggs’ Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1980, pp. 924-926; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, edited by G. Friedrich, translated by G. Bromiley, 1971, Vol. VI, pp. 332-451.) All these meanings have something in common: They all refer to that which is invisible to human sight and which gives evidence of force in motion. Such invisible force is capable of producing visible effects.

God’s Active Force; Holy Spirit.
By far the majority of occurrences of rau'ch and pnue'ma relate to God’s spirit, his active force, his holy spirit.
Not a person.
Not until the fourth century C.E. did the teaching that the holy spirit was a person and part of the “Godhead” become official church dogma. Early church “fathers” did not so teach; Justin Martyr of the second century C.E. taught that the holy spirit was an ‘influence or mode of operation of the Deity’; Hippolytus likewise ascribed no personality to the holy spirit. The Scriptures themselves unite to show that God’s holy spirit is not a person but is God’s active force by which he accomplishes his purpose and executes his will.

(((((((((( It may first be noted that the words “in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one” (KJ) found in older translations at 1 John 5:7 are actually spurious additions to the original text. A footnote in The Jerusalem Bible, a Catholic translation, says that these words are “not in any of the early Greek MSS [manuscripts], or any of the early translations, or in the best MSS of the Vulg[ate] itself.)))))))) A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, by Bruce Metzger (1975, pp. 716-718), traces in detail the history of the spurious passage. It states that the passage is first found in a treatise entitled Liber Apologeticus, of the fourth century, and that it appears in Old Latin and Vulgate manuscripts of the Scriptures, beginning in the sixth century. Modern translations as a whole, both Catholic and Protestant, do not include them in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.

Originally posted by caissad4
Here is a novel idea: Since your god is omnipresent why doesn't one of these religious folks just ask god? Apparently no one has even asked this god or has your god just refused to answer? Or is it that your god hasn't spoken to anyone on this planet in almost 2 millenia ?

I'm not clear as to what you want us to ask God.
I believe all the important things we need to know
is already written in His Holy Word. So why would
it be necessary to ask Him if it is already written?
We only need to search the scriptures and that is
what He wants us to do. We can pray and ask for
forgiveness of our sins, to be blessed, and to thank
Him for the blessings we have received. But we
really don't need to ask Him for any information.
He has already said that any further teaching that
we might need will be given by the Holy Spirit in due
time.

Originally posted by galveston75
It's just a discription of an affect of a force.

Here is some explinations of this Holy Spirit:

SPIRIT
The Greek pneu'ma (spirit) comes from pneo, meaning “breathe or blow,” and the Hebrew ru'ach (spirit) is believed to come from a root having the same meaning. Ru'ach and pneu'ma , th ...[text shortened]... in the main body of the text, because of recognizing their spurious nature.—RS, NE, NAB.

What is meant by Jesus in following quote from Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB)?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying "All authority has been
given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Originally posted by RJHinds
What is meant by Jesus in following quote from Matthew 28:18-20 (NASB)?

And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying "All authority has been
given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of
all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and
the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you;
and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age."

Thanks for the question and see if this helps.

How baptized in its “name.”
At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” A “name” can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, “in the name of the law,” or “in the name of common sense,” we have no reference to a person as such. By “name” in these expressions we mean ‘what the law stands for or its authority’ and ‘what common sense represents or calls for.’ The Greek term for “name” (onoma) also can have this sense. Thus, while some translations (KJ, AS) follow the Greek text at Matthew 10:41 literally and say that the one that “receiveth a prophet in the name of a prophet, shall receive a prophet’s reward; and he that receiveth a righteous man in the name of a righteous man, shall receive a righteous man’s reward,” more modern translations say, “receives a prophet because he is a prophet” and “receives a righteous man because he is a righteous man,” or similar. (RS, AT, JB, NW) Thus, Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament (1930, Vol. I, p. 245) says on Matthew 28:19: “The use of name (onoma) here is a common one in the Septuagint and the papyri for power or authority.” Hence baptism ‘in the name of the holy spirit’ implies recognition of that spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.

Originally posted by galveston75
Thanks for the question and see if this helps.

How baptized in its “name.”
At Matthew 28:19 reference is made to “the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit.” A “name” can mean something other than a personal name. When, in English, we say, “in the name of the law,” or “in the name of common ...[text shortened]... spirit as having its source in God and as exercising its function according to the divine will.

Okay, that is a good explanation, I accept that. But I still can not
see how a lack of name other than a descriptive name has any
bearing on personhood. God the Fathers name is also a descriptive
name, so is Jesus (meaning God saves or the salvation of God),
even Satan is a descriptive name, and Jesus talks to demons, unclean
spirits or wicked spirits, which go without names or have descrptive
names, like "Legion", because they are many. Is Satan and these
unclean or wicked spirits also just active forces of something and
what could this something be?

You also quoted from Robertson's Word Pictures, which I have in my
library in 6 volumes. Are you aware that A.T. Robertson believed
the Holy Spirit was a person? Other great scholars like F.F. Bruce,
John N. Darby, R.C. Trench., J.H. Thayer, Marvin R. Vincent, W.E. Vine,
and Robert Young also believed that the Holy Spirit was a person.
In fact, I am not aware of any great Biblical scholar that has stated
that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but just the active force of God.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Okay, that is a good explanation, I accept that. But I still can not
see how a lack of name other than a descriptive name has any
bearing on personhood. God the Fathers name is also a descriptive
name, so is Jesus (meaning God saves or the salvation of God),
even Satan is a descriptive name, and Jesus talks to demons, unclean
spirits or wicked spirits ...[text shortened]... olar that has stated
that the Holy Spirit is not a person, but just the active force of God.

Well wouldn't you agree that we as humans do use and assign each other names and it most cases in the Bible as well as most liturature thru all of history we use names. It's something that was started by our God with the first human pair Adam and eve.
So usually we use names for all live beings both physical and spiritual. It's the thing we have done forever.
I guess we could call one by an attribute they may have such as "Kind Person" or " Cruel Ruler" but it's just not the norm and not a proper name as we are all used to using.
But one would think somewhere in the Bibles speaking of the Holy Spirit and if it was a real spirit being that could seperate itself from the other two of this triad of Gods, it would have a simular name such as the names Jehovah, and Jesus. But it just doesn't happen.
The terms God and Lord are just a descriptive title, not a name.
And no, Satan and his demons are not just a mindless force but are real spirit living creatures as the Bible makes very clear all throught the scriptures. But they also have a force or power that they can also use for their plans just as God would use his own Holy Spirit or force to accomplish his plans. All spirit beings have this power but the Bible obviously describes God's as "Holy" and beyond the strength of the wicked spirits.
And no I'm not familiar with Robertsons books myself, but he is agreeing with the explinations of the word "onoma" that can often be used in describing something not alive.
Such things as a metaphor often include names to describe something like wind or a storm of some force that is not a living conscience being.
As for as Bible scholars studying the Bible, especially with the influance from centeries ago with the introduction of the trinity a few hundred years after Jesus died, it has no doubt greatly affected this misunderstanding of exactly what the Holy Spirit is.

Originally posted by galveston75
Well wouldn't you agree that we as humans do use and assign each other names and it most cases in the Bible as well as most liturature thru all of history we use names. It's something that was started by our God with the first human pair Adam and eve.
So usually we use names for all live beings both physical and spiritual. It's the thing we have done f ...[text shortened]... doubt greatly affected this misunderstanding of exactly what the Holy Spirit is.

Well, I think I will stick with the consensus of the scholars on this
because I really don't believe there is enough evidence to say the
Holy Spirit is just being personified by everyone, including Jesus.
I have asked all the questions I can think of at this point. But
your answers have not made me believe the Holy Spirit is only an
active force, while all the other spirits are persons.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, I think I will stick with the consensus of the scholars on this
because I really don't believe there is enough evidence to say the
Holy Spirit is just being personified by everyone, including Jesus.
I have asked all the questions I can think of at this point. But
your answers have not made me believe the Holy Spirit is only an
active force, while all the other spirits are persons.

Just one of many scriptures for you to consider and ponder on is this.

1Cor 8: 4-6:

4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 But we know that there is only one God, the Father, who created everything, and we live for him. And there is only one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom God made everything and through whom we have been given life.

Consider it says in verse 4 there is ( 1 ) God. But it mentions "many God's" in verse 5. But again in verse 6 it again mentions ( 1 ) God again. And in speaking of Jesus it also says ( 1 ) Lord.
A couple things here to reason on is first no mention of the Holy Spirit at all and when speaking of God it says ( 1 ) only and with Jesus ( 1 ) only.
If these two were part of some trinity and as most call it a "mystery", why would these scriptures be worded in this way? Would this not have been a perfect time to explain who these two were in this description? Would you not think that God in wanting us to know him and have a relationship with him and his Son, not use this opportunity to have this explained even in these few verses that he was not 1 God but in fact was 3 God's in 1? But no, nothing of the sort is even slightly mentioned here to describe some type of Trinity type co existance.
And you will find no explination anywhere else in the Bible, God's own words to us.

Originally posted by galveston75
Just one of many scriptures for you to consider and ponder on is this.

1Cor 8: 4-6:

4 So, what about eating meat that has been offered to idols? Well, we all know that an idol is not really a god and that there is only one God. 5 There may be so-called gods both in heaven and on earth, and some people actually worship many gods and many lords. 6 B ...[text shortened]... ce.
And you will find no explination anywhere else in the Bible, God's own words to us.

You may be right or wrong. I thought it was clear to all Christians
until you brought up this idea that the Holy Spirit was not a person.
Anyway, I can't see this belief affecting our salvation. For it Jesus,
the only begotten Son, that saves us. Halleluyah!

Originally posted by RJHinds
You may be right or wrong. I thought it was clear to all Christians
until you brought up this idea that the Holy Spirit was not a person.
Anyway, I can't see this belief affecting our salvation. For it Jesus,
the only begotten Son, that saves us. Halleluyah!

Well the problem with a belief in a trinity is that it is not at all Bible based, it was never believed by the early Christians nor the Jews before that and the trinity as has been discussed and shown by ample evidence that it has deep paganistic origins. That is a problem to God as he demands from us to be pure in our worship without any untruths or "leaven".
To get the salvation your looking for we have to make sure we're worshipping him with truth.
And acrtually the JW's are not the only monotheistic religion.