What is the name of the Holy Spirit?

by moomanchu 38 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  fjtoth

  the passage in question is generally viewed as an interpolation (addition) to the text of Matthew, or if the passage was original it did not contain the words in discussion.

  There is a lot of support for this view at the following webpage:

  http://formerjw.homestead.com/mt19.html

  Would this apply to the father and the son also? Something don't quite jive here.

  It should be noted that the expression is "in the name [singular, not plural]." The Father and Jesus do not share the same name. The Father is never called Jesus, for example. In Bible times the notion of “name” had a significance it does not have today. As pointed out above, "name" had the meaning of "authority." What doesn't jive is the insistence of some that "name" here means the same as it does in English.

  Frank
• 

  Narkissos

  I'm inclined to think this is a wrong question to ask the text -- or, iow, the text itself doesn't beg for this question.

  First, an expression like eis to onoma + genitive (literally "into the name of...") must be taken as a whole: the stress is not on one of its components (i.e. onoma, name). Second, the expression occurs once for three parallel genitives (it is not "into the name of the Father, into the name of the Son, and into the name of the Holy Spirit), which makes the question of three different names all the more foreign to the text.

  It is definitely an early trinitarian formula (and, as PP suggested, probably a very late addition to the Gospel of Matthew). As a saying of Jesus it makes practically no sense.

  Eis (to) onoma + genitive is a traditional formula in the context of baptism (Acts 8:16; 19:5; 1 Corinthians 1:13,15). It is also reflected in the Pauline use of baptism eis Khriston, "into Christ" (Romans 6:3; Galatians 3:27; cf. 1 Corinthians 10:2, baptism "into Moses"). It also has several non-baptismal parallels in Matthew -- 10:41f, receiving someone "into the name of a prophet/disciple"; 18:20, being gathered "into my name" -- and elsewhere, e.g. Hebrews 6:10, work of love "into his name" -- all of which also have many rabbinical parallels using the Hebrew similar expression leshem, in the context of sacrifice, circumcision or ritual bath (which is very close to "baptism").

  If the underlying issue of the question is the "personality" of the Holy Spirit (whatever that means) in 4th-century theology, it is definitely out of the scope of this text. Even if there were a "name of the Holy Spirit" that would not make it ipso facto a "person," cf. Revelation 3:12: "I will write on you the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem that comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name." (Here too we have a sort of trinitarian formula but the name "new Jerusalem" doesn't make the "city" a "person".)
• 

  LittleToe

  Setting aside whether or not it's a literal name (for which I agree with Frank that the most likely answer is either Paraclete or alternatively Hagios-Pneuma), and whether or not it's an interpolation (which is unprovable, and beside the point for the sake of discussion pertaining to JW issues, since it's in the NWT), it clearly alludes to three "persons" (unless you're gonna argue that Father and Son aren't distinct persons, as the Modalists do).
• 

  Stealth453

  Amen...it's name is Amen.
• 

  jwfacts

  Jehovah.

  (2 Corinthians 3:17) 17

  Now Jehovah is the Spirit; and where the spirit of Jehovah is, there is freedom.. . .

  Then again i could be wrong, since the JWs added the word Jehovah into that Scripture. Ok then, the name must be Lord as the Greek word used here was Kurios. Then again, I am sure I am taking this scripture out of context. Help Nark!
• 

  Narkissos

  Ross,

  it clearly alludes to three "persons"

  As long as you don't forget the quotation marks on "persons," OK. Cf. my previous reference to Revelation 3:12.

  Lol @ Stealth.

  jwfacts,

  This passage is a midrash on Exodus 34, opposing Moses' veiled relationship to Israel (meaning the "veiled," inferior status of the "letter" written on stone tablets) to his unveiled relationship to the Lord (Yhwh in Exodus), implying the freedom of spiritual relationship to God, not mediated by the "letter". But of course "Christ" is meant in the latter (v. 14), and he is the "Lord" whom Christians turn (i.e. convert) to (v. 16) just as Moses turned unveiled to Yhwh.

  In Paul pneumatology and christology are not separated like in later Trinitarian doctrine. The Spirit is identified to the resurrected Christ (also 1 Corinthians 15:45). The Spirit of God is interchangeably the Spirit of Christ (Galatians 4:6).
• 

  Scully

  I never thought of the Holy Spirit as having a name like everyone else. When I hear the expression "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit" it reminds me of the police officer who says "Stop in the name of the law!" "The law" doesn't have a specific name, but it has a position of authority that commands respect.

  Or, like my youngest daughter suggested, "His name is George." With her, everything is named George. There's One-Eyed George the chipmunk. There's George the squirrel. There's George the daschund that she wants to have when she gets older.
• 

  Mastodon

  HS name is Ramón!
• 

  Terry

  
  
  Never is the confused state of mind more abundantly demonstrated than when it seeks to clarify a concept without particulars.
  

  
  
  The concept of HOLY SPIRIT is one of identity.
  

  
  
  If we remove the descriptive "HOLY" from the noun "SPIRIT" and do an inspection of the particulars it is most revealing.
  

  
  
  What makes something/anything "holy"? Why, it is set apart from others of its kind for SPECIAL purposes.
  

  
  
  In what way can an invisible persona be said to have others of its kind from which it can be singled out as "special"?
  

  
  
  My personality has facets which are manifestations of how I react and interact with outside/internal situations.
  

  
  
  Let us posit that God is a person with a personality for the sake of this discussion.
  

  
  
  When God gives SPECIAL attention to the needs of his creatures wouldn't His personality be manifest in a SPECIAL way which is unlike the attention he gives to those whom He chooses not to aid?
  

  
  
  For example, you show a different attitude and behavior towards your own children than you do to your neighbor's brats.
  

  
  
  When God's "own" need help and He is disposed to help those in need---wouldn't he manifest that "help" with a SPECIAL demonstration of aid?
  

  
  
  How is this not "HOLY"? The paraclete is aid to those in need. A bottle opener is a "helper" in one way and personal encouragement is a "helper" in another situation.
  

  
  
  As far as the designation of "Spirit" we are left with the nature of beingness which is not substantial. Which is to say we can only define "spirit" in metaphors, similes and literary contrivances since we cannot measure spirit in any tangible way.
  

  
  
  Now, having demonstrated all the above; let me say this.
  

  
  
  Since we cannot ever apply reasonable standards of investigation and discovery to the reports in Scripture which concern HOLY SPIRIT, aren't we left with mere conjecture, speculation and predisposition toward comfortable orthodoxy to color our conclusions?
  

  
  
  In other words, nothing can be proved using the bible. Ever.
  

  
  
  It is a buffet table spread with imaginings, reports, hearsay, speculation and assertion and we reach out and decorate our sald bowl with whatever suits our personal tastes.
  

  
  
  Nothing substantial can ever be said or settled beyond mere persiflage.