“Yes, but the main point still stands.”
Your main point never stood. It’s been demolished by the fact that the Holy Spirit is called God, and is sent from the Father, at the request of the Son, and is differentiated from the Father.
“There is no instance in scripture where the holy spirit is shown in the Godhead with the father and the son.”
I have already shown you multiple instances. It’s not my fault you won’t read them.
“I’ll take the name calling gladly. :-)”
Fine with me, as long as you don’t take the name of “Christian.”
“I’m grateful at least that you didn’t try to refute the historical development of the trinity doctrine.”
It is my custom to ignore such arguments, since they’re instantly refuted by showing that the doctrine originates from the scripture.
Since you didn’t dispute the scriptures I quoted nor the conclusions, other than to pretend entirely that they don’t exist, I am grateful that you are no threat to Christianity.
“And you made no effort to explain why the first apostles were documented in scripture only baptizing in the name of Jesus.”
Why would I have to? You didn’t reply to the scripture wherein Paul bids farewell in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. You also didn’t properly reply to the baptismal formula given by Christ Himself, only just asserting that it must be wrong, because it does not fit with the theology of your Jehovah’s Witness-lite religion. Just because it says, “in the name of Jesus Christ, and receive ye the gift of the Holy Ghost” does not follow that they didn’t use the baptismal formula that includes the Father and the Holy Ghost. They are not denying that the Holy Spirit does not exist, since they mention Him immediately. And would you deny the Father as well? It is enough that I have already shown that the Father and the Holy Spirit are included in the baptismal formula, and that they frequently appear altogether, Father Son and Holy Spirit.
You are also so ignorant of the scriptures that you don’t even comprehend what is going on with baptism in the first place. What was it that Christians believed was going on here? That they would be baptized in water, signifying a spiritual reality that occurs by the direct power of God: Namely, the baptism and infilling of the Holy Spirit.
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Thus it is the baptism by the Spirit directly, whom you deny exists, that is the greater blessing which the water only signifies. In fact, the infilling of the Holy Spirit isn’t dependent on water baptism, as Cornelius, for example, and his entire family in Acts 10 are baptized with the Holy Spirit prior to water baptism.
Act 10:44-47 While Peter yet spake these words, the Holy Ghost fell on all them which heard the word. (45) And they of the circumcision which believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because that on the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy Ghost. (46) For they heard them speak with tongues, and magnify God. Then answered Peter, (47) Can any man forbid water, that these should not be baptized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we?
Thus, to even mention the baptism, is to immediately affirm the existence of the Holy Ghost whom you deny.
“That’s an historical fact.”
Sorry, but I already proved you wrong. Just because you won’t reply to my arguments, but will only keep repeating the ones from your religious cult, doesn’t make you a threat to authentic first century Christianity.
Unless you would like to discuss this without insults and name calling I’ll let you have the last word. Discussing this is obviously causing you distress. Take care and God bless.