Matthew 28:19 – Trinity corrupted verse

[Marymog]

It seems that the Jews had a copy of Matthew's Gospel in Hebrew (and Matthew may have written his Gospel first in Hebrew, and either later wrote a Greek version or somebody translated it from Hebrew to Greek), which they studied and used in their arguments against the Christians. Most Christian Scripture documents were destroyed by order of the Roman Emperor Diocletian from about 303A.D. but the Jews were able to preserve their copy (the Romans didn't persecute the Jews in the same way). I don't think it still exists (that I know of) but in 1380 a Spanish Jewish Rabbi called Shem-Tob ben Isaac Shaprut published a work called Eben Boḥan (The Touchstone) in which he included the complete Gospel. As I mentioned in my first post, in 1987 Dr. George Howard published an English translation of Shem Tob's Matthew Hebrew Gospel. A scanned copy of part one (containing the Gospel in Hebrew and English) of the second edition of the book is available for download at http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf (56.1MB).

Thank you. I’m even more confused now. Earlier you said the fact that it still exists shows that God wants it preserved but now you are saying that you don’t think it still exists? Can you see why I’m confused?

Also I don’t understand is if God wants it preserved, what is he waiting for? Why doesn’t he have it revealed to the world? It certainly would clear up a lot of confusion amongst us Christians and squash all these conspiracy theories going around.

BTW....”keithr”. That is an unusual word. What does it mean?

God bless...Mary

 

[keithr]

You said “that the Catholic Church has willingly lied about Matthew 28:19” and “in general lied to the world”.

As @Mungo pointed out in post #3 the writer(s) of The Didache along with Turtulion, Origan and Cyprian all affirm “baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” before the alleged corruption in the 4th century. Based on your logic are they all liars also? Wouldn’t THEY be the original liars to the world? Where they Catholic?

The implication was that because the Catholic Church knew that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language and that they (the Church) had corrupted their Greek manuscripts, that they were deliberately concealing the truth. How many members of the Church knew about it I don't know - probably not many.

Yes, I would say that all those that taught to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were either deliberately lying or just repeating what they had been taught and were mistaken.

Also, based on your logic, wouldn’t the conspiracy to included “baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit” have been started in the late 1st or early 2nd century since The Didache was written BEFORE Matthew?

Yes, the confusion over who Jesus was, and other confusions, started fairly early. It was why the Roman Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, to decide once and for all who Jesus was and end the disputes, because he wanted Christianity to be the single harmonising religion in the empire. He was politically motivated, and because the bishops could not make their minds up Constantine suggested that Jesus was "of one substance with the Father", which the bishops were too frightened to reject (they'd been debating for about 2 months, and it was only about 12 years earlier that the Romans stopped persecuting Christians).

After Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favour for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to clarify the formula. That council agreed to place the Holy Spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to officially come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds.

Thus, in the fourth century AD, the apostasy (abandoning of something that one once believed in) foretold by Jesus and the apostles (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first”) came into full bloom. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry.

 

[keithr]

Thank you. I’m even more confused now. Earlier you said the fact that it still exists shows that God wants it preserved but now you are saying that you don’t think it still exists? Can you see why I’m confused?

The words have been preserved, even if the original first handwritten parchments have been lost. In the same way, all of the Bible has been preserved even though the original first handwritten documents have been lost.

Also I don’t understand is if God wants it preserved, what is he waiting for? Why doesn’t he have it revealed to the world? It certainly would clear up a lot of confusion amongst us Christians and squash all these conspiracy theories going around.

It is revealed - you can find it on the Internet for free!

BTW....”keithr”. That is an unusual word. What does it mean?

My first name is Keith, but I can't use that as a username. My surname begins with the letter R so I used the username keithr. Simple!

 

[keithr]

Thank you. I agree. It is clearly not there. Would it be fair to say that your “summary or implication from those pages“ is really just an opinion since what is being alleged is clearly not there?

No, because I didn't quote from those pages - they were brought up by other contributors to this discussion.

Also, since you are using Encyclopedia Brittanica as a source to validate our beliefs, did you know that on the link you provided it also says; Although there is no actual account of the institution of baptism by Jesus, the Gospel According to Matthewportrays the risen Christ issuing the “Great Commission” to his followers: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matthew 28:19–20).“

Again, I wasn't using that source in my original post, it came up later in the confusion over what the Catholic Encyclopedia II did or didn't say on page 263. The fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica quotes the KJV version of Matthew is not surprising, but it doesn't detract from my original revelation that the oldest Matthew manuscript we have - the Hebrew version of Matthew (or a 14th century copy of it) - doesn't include the corruption that is inconsistent with the the rest of the New Testament.

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

The Holy Spirit
Our salvation begins with the baptism the Holy Spirit! You are not really a Christian unless you have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, nor will you be able to discern scripture deeply unless you have the Spirit dwelling in you.

"John answered them all, 'I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.' 18 And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them." Luke 3:15-18 (See this event in Acts 2:2-4)

We are SEALED by the Holy Spirit. That is part of His baptism. (Eph. 1:13)

John's water baptism was symbolic for the more significant and powerful baptism that Jesus baptizes us with, the Holy Spirit. All the disciples were water baptized yet did not receive power until Pentecost. They were "born again" and filled with the Spirit, Whom took up residence in them.

Matthew 29:18 could be erased and there would be overwhelming evidence in scripture stressing the importance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as being fundamental to the becoming a Christian.
The Holy Spirit appears 90 times in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is sacred to Christians.

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide in You forever - the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." John 14:16, 17
" But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all thi vs I have said to you."John 14:26 All three work together.
Btw, notice that in all scripture the Holy Spirit is identified as a person, "He" is the emphatic pronoun (ekeinos). Personification is not used and in the following summation, it is clear that He is God:
The Holy Spirit dwells in us, He teaches, guides, gives truth, counsels, leads, hears our prayers and everything, speaks, is omnipotent, searches all truth which means He is omniscient and is omnipresent since He lives in all Christians, He bears witness to Christ and glorifies Him, is wise, gives gifts, baptized us, makes promises, loves us, fellowships with us, sanctifies us, justifies us, convicts us of sin and grieves over us, He edifies us. I am sure I left something out. Oh yes, the fruit if the Spirit that He grows in us.
Keep this in mind:
"But whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath - to not forgiveness to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment." Mark 3:29 YLT
Me careful about speaking evil of the Holy Spirit. That could be in the form of lies, dishonor, disgrace, disrespect, etc. Defining Him as a force may be crossing the line?

 

[Marymog]

No, because I didn't quote from those pages - they were brought up by other contributors to this discussion.


Again, I wasn't using that source in my original post, it came up later in the confusion over what the Catholic Encyclopedia II did or didn't say on page 263. The fact that Encyclopedia Brittanica quotes the KJV version of Matthew is not surprising, but it doesn't detract from my original revelation that the oldest Matthew manuscript we have - the Hebrew version of Matthew (or a 14th century copy of it) - doesn't include the corruption that is inconsistent with the the rest of the New Testament.

It is true that you didn’t quote from those passages and they were brought up by other contributors. I was simply asking you if you agree that the summary by others of page 263 in the Catholic Encyclopedia is an opinion.

I didn’t allege that you were using that source in your original post. You used Britannica as a source in a different post. If you trust Britannica for a source to back up your Matthew 28:19 is corrupted theory then why not use Britannica to show the opposite. That was my point.

No big deal...I was just curious.

 

[Marymog]

The words have been preserved, even if the original first handwritten parchments have been lost. In the same way, all of the Bible has been preserved even though the original first handwritten documents have been lost.


It is revealed - you can find it on the Internet for free!


My first name is Keith, but I can't use that as a username. My surname begins with the letter R so I used the username keithr. Simple!

Thank you.

If, as you say, all of the Bible has been preserved then how is Matthew 28:19 corrupt? If that verse is corrupt then what other verses are corrupt?

No, I can’t find it on the internet. Would you provide me a link...Please? Thank you.

Thank you for the keithr clarification!

 

[keithr]

If, as you say, all of the Bible has been preserved then how is Matthew 28:19 corrupt? If that verse is corrupt then what other verses are corrupt?

I meant preserved in that we have copies of all books of the Bible, even if we don't have copies that are thousand of years old. The Israelites did a very good job of copying the words of the Old Testament Scriptures accurately. Christians, however, have not been so fastidious, and there have also been translation problems. As for other verses, well, 1 John 5:7 is a very well known corruption.

No, I can’t find it on the internet. Would you provide me a link...Please? Thank you.

I already provided the link in post #58, but it was also in my very first post in this thread, post #1. It's:

http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf

 

[Marymog]

The implication was that because the Catholic Church knew that the Jews had preserved a copy of the original Gospel of Matthew in the Hebrew language and that they (the Church) had corrupted their Greek manuscripts, that they were deliberately concealing the truth. How many members of the Church knew about it I don't know - probably not many.

Yes, I would say that all those that taught to baptise in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit were either deliberately lying or just repeating what they had been taught and were mistaken.


Yes, the confusion over who Jesus was, and other confusions, started fairly early. It was why the Roman Emperor Constantine called the Council of Nicaea, to decide once and for all who Jesus was and end the disputes, because he wanted Christianity to be the single harmonising religion in the empire. He was politically motivated, and because the bishops could not make their minds up Constantine suggested that Jesus was "of one substance with the Father", which the bishops were too frightened to reject (they'd been debating for about 2 months, and it was only about 12 years earlier that the Romans stopped persecuting Christians).

After Nicaea, debates on the subject continued for decades. Those who believed that Jesus was not equal to God even came back into favour for a time. But later Emperor Theodosius decided against them. He established the creed of the Council of Nicaea as the standard for his realm and convened the Council of Constantinople in 381 AD to clarify the formula. That council agreed to place the Holy Spirit on the same level as God and Christ. For the first time, Christendom’s Trinity began to officially come into focus. Yet, even after the Council of Constantinople, the Trinity did not become a widely accepted creed. Many opposed it and thus brought on themselves violent persecution. It was only in later centuries that the Trinity was formulated into set creeds.

Thus, in the fourth century AD, the apostasy (abandoning of something that one once believed in) foretold by Jesus and the apostles (e.g. 2 Thessalonians 2:3 “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first”) came into full bloom. The development of the doctrine of the Trinity was just one evidence of this. The apostate churches also began embracing other pagan ideas, such as hellfire, immortality of the soul, and idolatry.

Thank you.

I don’t understand how the earliest Christian historical writings from the 1st and 2nd century say baptize in the name of the Father, Son Holy Spirit AND Scripture says baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit AND every handwritten and printed Greek text contains the full version of Matthew 28.19 but YOU believe that the verse was added to Scripture hundreds of years later after Nicaea ? That makes no sense to me! That is one major conspiracy.

Mary

 

[Marymog]

I meant preserved in that we have copies of all books of the Bible, even if we don't have copies that are thousand of years old. The Israelites did a very good job of copying the words of the Old Testament Scriptures accurately. Christians, however, have not been so fastidious, and there have also been translation problems. As for other verses, well, 1 John 5:7 is a very well known corruption.


I already provided the link in post #58, but it was also in my very first post in this thread, post #1. It's:

http://www.kingdomofyisrael.org/s/w...spel-of-MATTHEW-by-George-Howard-Part-One.pdf

Thank you for the clarification on preserved books of the Bible ...it was helpful.

I apologize. I somehow missed that link you provided earlier. I have to run some errands but will look at it later and get back with you.

Mary

 

[Mungo]

The Holy Spirit
Our salvation begins with the baptism the Holy Spirit! You are not really a Christian unless you have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, nor will you be able to discern scripture deeply unless you have the Spirit dwelling in you.

Saying you are not real Christians until you have received the so-called "baptism by the Holy Spirit" is both insulting and wrong.
Nor does it belong in this thread.

 

[David in NJ]

How can a man know God? Does God, Himself / Singular one/ reveal Himself to us?
Answers: No and No
So how are we then Redeemed unto God? - Not by the Law - Acts 15:1-10
How then are we Redeemed unto God?
Answer: We are Redeemed unto God(Elohim/plural) through the Blood Sacrifice of the Son of God(Equal with God/ plurality of Elohim) and are baptized in Christ by the Holy Spirit of God(Elohim/plurality/ Father, Son, Holy Spirit)
"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as there are many so-called gods and lords), 6yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist." 1 Cor. 8:6 and John chapter 5 and John chapter 8 and John 15:26-27

The Scriptural Authority of God in His Full Deity is laid as a Absolute Foundation in Genesis and declared to Moses by God directly to Moses and us in Exodus 3:13-15
Then Moses asked God, “Suppose I go to the Israelites and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they ask me, ‘What is His name?’ What should I tell them?” God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” God also told Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’ This is My name forever, and this is how I am to be remembered in every generation.…"

The Lord Jesus Christ confirmed this to us - "When the Helper comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, that is the Spirit of truth who proceeds from the Father, He will testify about Me" John 15:26

Seek the Baptism of the Holy Spirit just as the Lord Jesus Christ directed us to do - Gospel of John and the Book of Acts

 

[keithr]

It is true that you didn’t quote from those passages and they were brought up by other contributors. I was simply asking you if you agree that the summary by others of page 263 in the Catholic Encyclopedia is an opinion.

Well it seems that what was attributed to the Catholic Encyclopedia II was actually meant to be for Britannica Encyclopedia 11TH edition. I think it's a bit complex, and difficult to deduce that "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". It does say "we know more clearly what baptism became after the year 100 than what it was before". It also says,

"The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The Teaching of the Apostles, indeed, prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost [1], but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of the Lord - the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of Christ was still so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid."​

[1] I presume they are referring to the corrupted Matthew 28:19 here!​

So the mention of 3rd century widespread baptism in the name of Jesus only at least shows that there was resistence to the change from the "normal formula of the New Testament", even 100 years later.

I didn’t allege that you were using that source in your original post. You used Britannica as a source in a different post. If you trust Britannica for a source to back up your Matthew 28:19 is corrupted theory then why not use Britannica to show the opposite. That was my point.

Well I would not try to use it to argue against the evidence I found elsewhere which is newer information (the 11th edition of Britannica Encyclopedia was published in 1910 - 1911, whereas the English translation of the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew was published in 1987)!

 

[keithr]

I don’t understand how the earliest Christian historical writings from the 1st and 2nd century say baptize in the name of the Father, Son Holy Spirit AND Scripture says baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit AND every handwritten and printed Greek text contains the full version of Matthew 28.19 but YOU believe that the verse was added to Scripture hundreds of years later after Nicaea ? That makes no sense to me! That is one major conspiracy.

I didn't say that the verse was corrupted hundreds of years after Nicaea, I said it was corrupted sometime (probably soon) after Nicaea. The whole point of my first post (#1) was to explain how every Greek copy of Matthew we have had access to has been copied from the corrupted version(s), with earlier uncorrupted versions having been destroyed in the 22 years between Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" and the Council of Nicaea, with the exception of the Hebrew version of Matthew, which was preserved by Jews and translated into English in 1987.

As Eusebius writes: "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place" (H.E. viii 2).

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

Saying you are not real Christians until you have received the so-called "baptism by the Holy Spirit" is both insulting and wrong.
Nor does it belong in this thread.

You are mistaken. The OP is trying to invalidate Matthew 28:19 as it reads. I am merely stating the fact that "you must be born again" to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said He would send Him, didn't you get the memo?
So I guess you don't believe you have been baptized by the Holy Spirit nor do you have Him dwelling in you?
You can go on through life pretending, but your spiritual transformation requires the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Wrangler]

Saying you are not real Christians until you have received the so-called "baptism by the Holy Spirit" is both insulting and wrong.
Nor does it belong in this thread.

Agreed. IMO, only one thing qualifies one to be a real Christian. Do you follow Jesus?

Lip service can be paid to words like "savior" and "lord." Action tells the story. The fruit of your labor reveals this truth. I doubt most Christians have experienced the Holy Spirit. I know a good friend of 3 decades has not. Yet, he is a believer and tries to live as Jesus taught.

When I explained my experiences with the HS, he felt left out. I don't know why I was graced but he was not. I admire him sticking with the faith.

 

[Enoch111]

The whole point of my first post (#1) was to explain how every Greek copy of Matthew we have had access to has been copied from the corrupted version(s), with earlier uncorrupted versions having been destroyed...

You are still promoting your fairy tales. "Every Greek copy of Matthew was corrupt"! Really? And you expect Christians to believe this rubbish? "Uncorrupted versions were destroyed"?

So all the early Christians were complicit in a conspiracy to destroy the true Bible and promote a corrupted Bible???? Until the JWs (and/or any other Anti-Trinitarians) came along and made a fantastic discovery! And that discovery was that the Holy Trinity is not found in the Bible. Wow! Well self-deception is only one degree better than deceiving others.

 

[Mungo]

You are mistaken. The OP is trying to invalidate Matthew 28:19 as it reads. I am merely staying the fact that "you must be born again" to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Jesus said He would Him, didn't you get the memo?
So I guess you don't believe you have been baptized by the Holy Spirit nor do you have Him dwelling in you?
You can go on through life pretending, but your spiritual transformation requires the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

We are born again in (water) baptism and we also then receive the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.
It is (water) baptism that we become children of God and enter the New Covenant.
But again this thread is not about that.

 

[Marymog]

I didn't say that the verse was corrupted hundreds of years after Nicaea, I said it was corrupted sometime (probably soon) after Nicaea. The whole point of my first post (#1) was to explain how every Greek copy of Matthew we have had access to has been copied from the corrupted version(s), with earlier uncorrupted versions having been destroyed in the 22 years between Diocletian's first "Edict against the Christians" and the Council of Nicaea, with the exception of the Hebrew version of Matthew, which was preserved by Jews translated into English in 1987.

As Eusebius writes: "I saw with mine own eyes the houses of prayer thrown down and razed to their foundations, and the inspired and sacred Scriptures consigned to the fire in the open market place" (H.E. viii 2).

You are right. You didn’t say that it was corrupted hundreds of years after Nicaea. I knew in my head you didn’t say that but for some reason I unintentionally typed that in my post and I apologize.

You have me so confused. You believe that every Greek copy of Matthew we have has been copied from corrupted version(s)? If you believe that wouldn’t it be logical to say that we have to question everything in Matthew?

We have thousands of manuscripts, some of which date back to the fourth century (like Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus) and these manuscripts contain the standard reading of Matthew 28.19. They differ from one another in many places so it is not like Constantine (or whoever)forcibly standardized all the New Testament manuscripts in a.d. 325. Those later manuscripts are copied from earlier ones. Thus, a later, or even medieval manuscript, could preserve a very early reading. Simply put: There is no evidence of an alternative version of Matthew 28.19 in any of these manuscripts.

For your hypothesis to be correct someone would have had to destroy all of the manuscripts containing the “original” version of Matthew 28.19 and replace them with new ones with the longer reading. That is quite a conspiracy theory you are putting forth and that conspiracy requires a level of control that did not exist at that time.

But I digress....I suspect we will never agree on this.

The FACT is we have historical Christian writings that talk about how Christians were using the trinitarian method in baptism in the Apostolic age and we still are today; 2,000 years later. Instead of coming up with a logical argument to dispute any of that you just say they were wrong. That’s not an intellectual defense. That is just your opinion....in my opinion

Mary

 

[David in NJ]

The Holy Spirit
Our salvation begins with the baptism the Holy Spirit! You are not really a Christian unless you have been baptized by the Holy Spirit, nor will you be able to discern scripture deeply unless you have the Spirit dwelling in you.

"John answered them all, 'I baptize you with water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.' 18 And with many other words John exhorted the people and preached the good news to them." Luke 3:15-18 (See this event in Acts 2:2-4)

We are SEALED by the Holy Spirit. That is part of His baptism. (Eph. 1:13)

John's water baptism was symbolic for the more significant and powerful baptism that Jesus baptizes us with, the Holy Spirit. All the disciples were water baptized yet did not receive power until Pentecost. They were "born again" and filled with the Spirit, Whom took up residence in them.

Matthew 29:18 could be erased and there would be overwhelming evidence in scripture stressing the importance of the baptism of the Holy Spirit as being fundamental to the becoming a Christian.
The Holy Spirit appears 90 times in the New Testament. The Holy Spirit is sacred to Christians.

"And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide in You forever - the Spirit of Truth, Whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you." John 14:16, 17
" But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, Whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all thi vs I have said to you."John 14:26 All three work together.
Btw, notice that in all scripture the Holy Spirit is identified as a person, "He" is the emphatic pronoun (ekeinos). Personification is not used and in the following summation, it is clear that He is God:
The Holy Spirit dwells in us, He teaches, guides, gives truth, counsels, leads, hears our prayers and everything, speaks, is omnipotent, searches all truth which means He is omniscient and is omnipresent since He lives in all Christians, He bears witness to Christ and glorifies Him, is wise, gives gifts, baptized us, makes promises, loves us, fellowships with us, sanctifies us, justifies us, convicts us of sin and grieves over us, He edifies us. I am sure I left something out. Oh yes, the fruit if the Spirit that He grows in us.
Keep this in mind:
"But whoever may speak evil in regard to the Holy Spirit hath - to not forgiveness to the age, but is in danger of age-during judgment." Mark 3:29 YLT
Me careful about speaking evil of the Holy Spirit. That could be in the form of lies, dishonor, disgrace, disrespect, etc. Rending Him as a force may be crossing the line?

I firmly believe in the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - this is separate and distinct from being baptized into the Body of Christ unto Salvation.
Our salvation does NOT begin with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit - No scripture states that. As a matter of fact - the scriptures state the opposite.

I do not have time right now to list the order laid out in scripture by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Apostles - I am working.
PEACE to you Brother