Why do many Christians claim the Spirit of God is a Holy ‘Ghost’?

[Rival]

@Soapy what is the purpose of this thread?

Are you willing to be convinced you are wrong?

If not, you are preaching.

 

[vijeno]

ibteroretation

Huh?

It matters not what your mother tongue is

I gave you plenty of examples of the same word being used in German for both "apparition" and "spirit", all of which you chose to ignore. Anyway, for everybody besides you who cares to read but might have overlooked it: My point is that several languages, including hebrew, latin, greek and german, do use the same word for both, so it is not exactly surprising that english does the same, nor is it malicious, ignorant, or a problem in any way.

Erm, the witch of Endor ‘brought up’ the GHOST OF SAMUEL….

Ironically - though I'm sure the irony is lost on you - in the Endor passage, which you seem to call up as evidence for "ghost" in the sense of "apparition", the word ruach isn't even used. The witch is a
בַּעֲלַת־אוֹב
, a mistress of a spirit... or, as Strong commented, H178 - 'ôḇ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) - one who has a familiar SPIRIT.

Yeah, it would appear that even the most famous biblical scholars disagree with you.

Of course, you know that it was just a TRICK, and ILLUSION… don’t you?

The bible explicitly says that the woman saw Samuel.

You are in opposition to the bible.

So far, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I hereby officially stop taking you seriously. I looked into your posting history. All I saw, was dogmatic insistence with absolutely no sign of actual knowledge, but absolute conviction of knowing everything better than people who are actively trying to understand matters, hold degrees in relevant fields, and repeatedly tried to talk some sense into you.

 

[Soapy]

Some are!

But not very many

WERE… they pagans before being converted to Christianity?

The point being that they believed in SPIRITS of the dead who roamed the world of the living - haunting and causing havoc.

Why wouldn’t they incorporate their belief into the Christian version since it would be easier to convince others in that way. It’s like the trinity belief in three GODS who rule the world … except that the Roman Catholic added:

• ‘Yet they are not THREE GODS but ONE GOD’… which makes no sense at all

It’s far easier to convert a person to a one God belief (if the person previously believed in many Gods) if you wrap the new belief around they’d belief. So wrapping one God around three Gods works for Trinitarians. And because the church threatens anyone and everyone who dares to disbelieve the fallacy, the congregation accepts the fallacious belief and gets very angry if anyone should oppose them… since if they did believe it would mean defying the church… no no no!!! Not for their life!!!

 

[Soapy]

@Soapy what is the purpose of this thread?

Are you willing to be convinced you are wrong?

If not, you are preaching.

Is that a threat…. Oh dear!! I can see where you are going… Funny, I just wrote about that attitude…!!

I am showing you that there is no such thing as a holy ‘GHOST’. If I present evidence then how can that be PREACHING…?

Or, is it that you are failing in your debate and feel it’s your way to ‘kick .ss’ in fear that you could believe ?

 

[Soapy]

Huh?



I gave you plenty of examples of the same word being used in German for both "apparition" and "spirit", all of which you chose to ignore. Anyway, for everybody besides you who cares to read but might have overlooked it: My point is that several languages, including hebrew, latin, greek and german, do use the same word for both, so it is not exactly surprising that english does the same, nor is it malicious, ignorant, or a problem in any way.



Ironically - though I'm sure the irony is lost on you - in the Endor passage, which you seem to call up as evidence for "ghost" in the sense of "apparition", the word ruach isn't even used. The witch is a
בַּעֲלַת־אוֹב
, a mistress of a spirit... or, as Strong commented, H178 - 'ôḇ - Strong's Hebrew Lexicon (kjv) - one who has a familiar SPIRIT.

Yeah, it would appear that even the most famous biblical scholars disagree with you.


The bible explicitly says that the woman saw Samuel.

You are in opposition to the bible.

So far, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but I hereby officially stop taking you seriously. I looked into your posting history. All I saw, was dogmatic insistence with absolutely no sign of actual knowledge, but absolute conviction of knowing everything better than people who are actively trying to understand matters, hold degrees in relevant fields, and repeatedly tried to talk some sense into you.

You are funny!!!

Even the greatest Jewish leaders disagreed with Jesus Christ… Jesus Christ who was taught by Almighty God, Himself, and brought the testimony of God to mankind.

Yeah, experts are always right!!! Right??

You know, like the church killed people who didn’t believe that the earth was NOT the centre of the universe…. When did they throw up their hands and embarrassingly admit they were wrong???

One extract states:

• ‘…it took until 1992, for a pope -- in this case, John Paul II -- to officially concede that, yes, the Earth isn't stationary in the heavens. Eight years after that, in 2000, John Paul apologized for the way the Catholic Church treated Galileo’

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Getting desperate won’t help you. Wrong is wrong no matter how you try to wrap it.

I tried my best to help you with this. I guess some people you just can't help, because they are convinced they don't need help.

 

[Oeste]

@Soapy:

I believe you were warned by @SalixIncendium , way back on post #2 , that it's not a good idea to quote mine.

Even if his avatar didn't clue you in, it was good, sage advice @Soapy. But here we are, 11 pages later with you claiming there are no other definition for terms like “Ghost” and “Spirit” than the ones you provide.

A ‘Ghost’ is a disembodied soul… Nothing more.

I hear you Soapy!
Just as a "Bark" is the sharp, explosive sound a dog or seal makes...Nothing more.

Also, ‘Ghosts’ are always associated in a negative context…

Of course! Barks are always associated with fear, anger, excitement, attention, or boredom.

Thomas was frightened because he thought that Jesus Christ was a ‘GHOST’

My mailman was frightened because he thought my dog was BARKING.

But you say that The SPIRIT OF GOD is the HOLY GHOST?? Isn’t that counter intuitive to reason?

Exactly! They also say my TREE has a BARK?? Isn't that just as counter intuitive to reason?

How can a malevolent Spirit be ‘HOLY’??

How can a Tree BARK?? I’ve walked through many a forest and park, and while their leaves may rustle in the wind, they have yet to bark.

A Spirit of a DEAD SOUL cannot communicate in the physical world…

And neither can a tree BARK! They simply cannot communicate in the physical world this way…

For example, “My dog has a very loud bark” but for some reason, they can’t come to terms that this is not my dog:

But thanks to your tireless efforts, you have provided our dear readers with even more insight and clarity into the strange world we Trinitarians inhabit @Soapy. You may have detected a “pattern” into our thinking that readers were heretofore unaware of!

But first, I would be remiss if I did not give voice to the question we know everyone is thinking:

Is my tree’s bite worse than its bark?​

For that, we need turn no further than to this Forum’s self-proclaimed Trinitarian expert, @Soapy. If he can answer the Ghost vs. Holy Ghost question we never thought to ask, then he can answer the bark vs. tree question in a similar, yet logically consistent manner.

Unless, of course, I am simply barking up the wrong tree.

 

[blü 2]

The Dictionary definition of a ‘GHOST’ is:

• ‘An apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image.’

How does this definition apply to what is called, ‘The Third Person’ of the trinity?

Take into account that a Ghost is ‘of a DEAD’ person - yet the Spirit of God is a ‘LIFE GIVING’ entity.

Is the term, Holy Ghost, just an example of malicious thinking and teaching, or is it just to be taken as ignorance in innocence thinking and preaching?

A condensation of the etymology of "ghost" in the Shorter Oxford might go ─
Old English gost cf German geist. The spelling with h is probably from Flemish gheest, first found in Caxton, and standard by the 16th century.

And, starting with the oldest, the meaning is
1 the soul or spirit
2 a breath or blast
3 a person
4 (1485) a good spirit; (1529) an evil spirit; (1618) an incorporeal being
5 The spirit of God, now only in Holy Ghost
6 The soul of a deceased person, spoken of as inhabiting the unseen world
7 The soul of a deceased person, spoken of as appearing to the living [...]

So it comes from perfectly good but now outdated standard English. In particular its use in the Anglican Book of Common Prayer (1549) is with high probability the reason for its continued use.

 

[McBell]

@Soapy:

I believe you were warned by @SalixIncendium , way back on post #2 , that it's not a good idea to quote mine.

Even if his avatar didn't clue you in, it was good, sage advice @Soapy. But here we are, 11 pages later with you claiming there are no other definition for terms like “Ghost” and “Spirit” than the ones you provide.


I hear you Soapy!
Just as a "Bark" is the sharp, explosive sound a dog or seal makes...Nothing more.


Of course! Barks are always associated with fear, anger, excitement, attention, or boredom.


My mailman was frightened because he thought my dog was BARKING.


Exactly! They also say my TREE has a BARK?? Isn't that just as counter intuitive to reason?


How can a Tree BARK?? I’ve walked through many a forest and park, and while their leaves may rustle in the wind, they have yet to bark.



And neither can a tree BARK! They simply cannot communicate in the physical world this way…

For example, “My dog has a very loud bark” but for some reason, they can’t come to terms that this is not my dog:

View attachment 93002​

But thanks to your tireless efforts, you have provided our dear readers with even more insight and clarity into the strange world we Trinitarians inhabit @Soapy. You may have detected a “pattern” into our thinking that readers were heretofore unaware of!

But first, I would be remiss if I did not give voice to the question we know everyone is thinking:

Is my tree’s bite worse than its bark?​

For that, we need turn no further than to this Forum’s self-proclaimed Trinitarian expert, @Soapy. If he can answer the Ghost vs. Holy Ghost question we never thought to ask, then he can answer the bark vs. tree question in a similar, yet logically consistent manner.

Unless, of course, I am simply barking up the wrong tree.

A most excellent post that I fear will be completely lost on the one it is for.

 

[Soapy]

@Soapy:

I believe you were warned by @SalixIncendium , way back on post #2 , that it's not a good idea to quote mine.

Even if his avatar didn't clue you in, it was good, sage advice @Soapy. But here we are, 11 pages later with you claiming there are no other definition for terms like “Ghost” and “Spirit” than the ones you provide.


I hear you Soapy!
Just as a "Bark" is the sharp, explosive sound a dog or seal makes...Nothing more.


Of course! Barks are always associated with fear, anger, excitement, attention, or boredom.


My mailman was frightened because he thought my dog was BARKING.


Exactly! They also say my TREE has a BARK?? Isn't that just as counter intuitive to reason?


How can a Tree BARK?? I’ve walked through many a forest and park, and while their leaves may rustle in the wind, they have yet to bark.



And neither can a tree BARK! They simply cannot communicate in the physical world this way…

For example, “My dog has a very loud bark” but for some reason, they can’t come to terms that this is not my dog:

View attachment 93002​

But thanks to your tireless efforts, you have provided our dear readers with even more insight and clarity into the strange world we Trinitarians inhabit @Soapy. You may have detected a “pattern” into our thinking that readers were heretofore unaware of!

But first, I would be remiss if I did not give voice to the question we know everyone is thinking:

Is my tree’s bite worse than its bark?​

For that, we need turn no further than to this Forum’s self-proclaimed Trinitarian expert, @Soapy. If he can answer the Ghost vs. Holy Ghost question we never thought to ask, then he can answer the bark vs. tree question in a similar, yet logically consistent manner.

Unless, of course, I am simply barking up the wrong tree.

Thanks, Oeste. The Trinitarians can always rely on your input when it find themselves at a loss as to how to devise a solution to a fallacy they believe.

The inane response from you just proved my point.

I have CONSISTENTLY directed my posts responses to the thread question which addresses the Scriptures and the SPIRIT OF GOD.

My point was that the word, ‘Ghost’ CAN NEVER apply to the Spirit of God, and therefore there can never ever be such a thing as a ‘Holy GHOST’,

A ‘Ghost’ is defined as a ‘The SPIRIT… of… a dead person ….. [roaming the living world in hauntings and causing havoc]’.

The debate was certainly not about any diverse definition of ‘Ghost’ not in keeping with the point and purpose of the thread topic….

Stay on topic, Oeste.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Stay on topic, Oeste.

Aww...did someone promote you to mini-mod while I was away?

I, for one, love @Oeste's creative approach in attempting to communicate to you what many others here already have. I find it sad that all the work that was put into this creative approach was lost on you.

 

[Soapy]

Aww...did someone promote you to mini-mod while I was away?

I, for one, love @Oeste's creative approach in attempting to communicate to you what many others here already have. I find it sad that all the work that was put into this creative approach was lost on you.

Of course you do. Everyone is allowed to like who they want to like.

His input was certainly not lost on me… Do you think this is my first encounter with Oeste….!!!

I tolerate his responses only as it gives an opportunity to correct wrongful ideologies that others know good enough not to express. I mean, they know it’s wrong and don’t say it… but Oeste will say it and so I can say, ‘Sorry, that’s not true from my perspective - which I show him from the scriptures’.

Are you imagining that those who speak the truth will never be opposed (Take that whichever way you like!) and if they are opposed then it’s wrong to voice an opinion as to the correct theology?

Things would show themselves as true or false if responders answered question in SPIRIT AND IN TRUTH. This means that if they see something that doesn’t meet with reality then they should admit it rather than devise get-outs and fantasy responses… or, in many cases, not answer the question but do like politicians do . Devices their own question and answer that instead - making them appear to be furnishing a response though it’s not what was asked!!

Someone answering in honesty and truth would have no need to devise alternative answers to straightforward questions.

 

[Soapy]

A most excellent post that I fear will be completely lost on the one it is for.

And your point being….??

 

[McBell]

And your point being….??

That they created a most excellent post that will be completely lost on you.

Hopefully that explains it.
Otherwise I gonna need to get out the crayons.

 

[Soapy]

That they created a most excellent post that will be completely lost on you.

Hopefully that explains it.
Otherwise I gonna need to get out the crayons.

You mean like. ‘Water off a duck’s back’?

Oh, I see… you were making a quip….

Sorry, your point was lost on me!

But when are you going to input something pertaining to the thread topic and not just reference what others said… as if you really don’t want to embarrass yourself by stating your view???

So, I ask you:

1. ‘Does God have a Ghost’?
2. Is there such a thing as ‘The Ghost of God’?

 

[McBell]

You mean like. ‘Water off a duck’s back’?

Oh, I see… you were making a quip….

Sorry, your point was lost on me!

Seems any point that shows you to be flat out wrong is completely "lost" on you.

But when are you going to input something pertaining to the thread topic and not just reference what others said… as if you really don’t want to embarrass yourself by stating your view???

Been there, done that, was not impressed.

So, I ask you:

1. ‘Does God have a Ghost’?
2. Is there such a thing as ‘The Ghost of God’

1. Sure, why not.
2. There is if god wants there to be.

 

[McBell]

as if you really don’t want to embarrass yourself by stating your view???

Stating my honest opinion of this thread, your conduct in this thread, etc is a complete and utter violation of pretty much every rule.

See, I am not nearly as politically correct in real life.

Add the fact that you have already proven beyond and doubt you are not the least bit interested in any view that is not your own, your sad attempt at baiting is more entertaining than effective.

 

[vijeno]

A ‘Ghost’ is defined as a ‘The SPIRIT… of… a dead person ….. [roaming the living world in hauntings and causing havoc]’.

A ghost is defined as a spirit? So, the holy ghost is the holy spirit, then?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

A ghost is defined as a spirit? So, the holy ghost is the holy spirit, then?

A ghost is an apparition spook and Not a spirit person as the angels are.
Back in 1883 Noah Webster replaced ghost with spirit because God's spirit " it" (Numbers 11:17,25) is Not an apparition.
Webster's reasoning was, " Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had when introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do Not present the reader with the Word of God.'"
God's spirit (see Psalm 104:30) is Not the Father but a powerful force, His dynamic energy, that God uses.
An impersonal neuter " it '"as also found at Ecclesiastes 12:7 B

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The Dictionary definition of a ‘GHOST’ is:

• ‘An apparition of a dead person which is believed to appear or become manifest to the living, typically as a nebulous image.’

How does this definition apply to what is called, ‘The Third Person’ of the trinity?
Take into account that a Ghost is ‘of a DEAD’ person - yet the Spirit of God is a ‘LIFE GIVING’ entity.
Is the term, Holy Ghost, just an example of malicious thinking and teaching, or is it just to be taken as ignorance in innocence thinking and preaching?

Could be in some parts of the King James the word Ghost was used instead of God's spirit.
Please notice Job 27:3 as to where we find God's spirit
Like God's spirit (Numbers 11:17,25) is an impersonal "it" so is our spirit an "it" - see Ecclesiastes 12:7 B
So, No way is a genderless "it" a person, but a powerful force that God uses - Psalm 104:29-30