If you reject very early Christian historical teaching tradition, so be it (That's what cultists tend to do).
Please at least honor history -- and don't revise it.
Since this teaching has been around since the first, second, third centuries, etc...(and no, 'twasn't regarded as "heretical" then, either)...please stop your false accusations of us "inventing" something in the 21st century. (Your post #485)
Question at hand: How was the Holy Spirit regarded in the Early Church beyond the Scriptures I ALREADY cited?
* "If you are patient, the Holy Spirit that dwells in you will be pure. HE will not be darkened by any evil spirit...But if any outburst of anger takes place, immediately the Holy Spirit, WHO is sensitive, is constricted. For HE does not have a pure place, and HE seeks to depart."
* "Do not crush the Holy Spirit WHO dwells in you. Otherwise, HE may entreat...and withdraw from you."
* "The Lord has taught us most plainly by His words about the liberty and power of the Holy Spirit...saying, 'The Spirit breathes where HE will...'"
(Tertullian, c. 210, and Origen, c. 228...Novation c. 235 likewise taught the personality of the Holy Spirit)
Source: A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, David W. Bercot, editor, Hendrickson Publishers 1998, pp. 343-346
You're the one not embracing history. I don't care that "history" created the doctrine of the trinity. It's an evolved concept as the article points out. It's not provable by scripture but was given and developed through tradition..culminating in a clear statement nearly 300 years after Christ died.
Embrace your tradition. I prefer scripture.