That is simply not necessary in one text, while other texts do support the divinity of the Spirit. Your hermeneutic from the beginning is one that requires an all-in-one statement for a doctrine, which is simply the what the Holy Spirit works. Like the body of Christ, there is an interdependence in which there is one book, but many "members" complimenting each other. Scripture is like a wind orchestra, with the Spirit sounding thru individual distinctive sounds but making harmony unto the Lord.
, your strongest verse for the divinity of the Holy Spirit is Matt 28:19 but as I just pointed out, controversy exists as to whether those were the exact words of Jesus or a paraphrase that reflected baptismal practices of the late 1st century church?
It does not matter whether these were the verbatim words of Christ, and duplicate accounts such as the trial of Christ indicate the Holy Spirit expanded on what Christ said at times to provide a more comprehensive revelation.
But what matters is whether the text is Scripture, and from beginning there was nothing to indicate you were going to engage in doubting even the great commission as being Scripture. And if so, there is little point in providing Scriptural warrant for you on anything here, as most any text can find "scholars" who doubt it, which you can invoke to disallow what is provided.
For such scholars do not stop with MT. 28:19, but hold or depend upon others who assert the Greek MSS of the text of the New Testament were often altered by scribes. Thus we dealing with a whole new topic, which is not simply Scriptural support for the Trinity, but what even qualifies as Scripture.
Are a Christadelphian by any chance? Or what?
Here," some "scholars" subscribe to a da Vince code type assertion that Mt. 28:19 was a later interpolation added during or after the Council of Nicea in a.d. 325 when the Trinity became accepted.
Yet there is absolutely no textual variation whatsoever for Matthew 28.19 in the extant manuscripts, ("In all extant MSS, ...the text is found in the traditional form" - Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics), and substantial historical witness to Mt. 28:19 supports it, including,
the First Apology by Justin Martyr (a.d. 155) chapter 61: “…Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are born again, for they then receive washing in water in the name of God the Father and Master of all, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit. .
Tertullian, c. 200 AD, in On Baptism, Chapter XIII: "For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: "Go," He saith, "teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."
Against Praxeas, chapter 2 says, "After His resurrection ..He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost".
Hippolytus (170-236 AD in Fragment Part II.-Dogmatical and Historical --Against the Heresy of One Noetus, "gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost."
Cyprian (200-258AD) in The Seventh Council of Carthage Under Cyprian: And again, after His resurrection, sending His apostles, He gave them charge, saying, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth. Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." and alludes to the same passage in other places as well.
Gregory Thaumaturgus (205-265 AD) in A Sectional Confession of Faith, XIII: "....the Lord sends forth His disciples to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"
The Didache, chapter 7. Concerning Baptism. And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water.
Meanwhile, it remains that one can blaspheme the Son and be forgiven, but not the Spirit, thus denoting deity, while you do not blaspheme a "thing," but a person.
And it is absurd to assert that "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all," (2 Corinthians 13:14) merely teaches the Spirit is a "created being of very high rank"! (post #142)
As if the Spirit of God who searches the mind of God and is never even inferred to have a beginning but is shown as intrinsically being part of God is some created being, while at the same time you see no evidence for the Spirit being himself a being! This is a new and desperate measure.
Thus faced with evidence for the personhood of the Spirit, you complain that does not show His divinity, and then faced evidence for His divinity, you complain some scholars think it was added, and that that the Spirit of God was a created being, but not a person!
You are not being reasonable now, but evidence that you are determined to hold to your opinion despite whatever evidence is presented.
We get to commune with ANGELS of high rank?
Colossians 2:18
Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you.