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

[URAVIP2ME]

Ghost is the spirit of a dead person. It's the spirit.

.... and our spirit is an impersonal " it " - Ecclesiastes 12:7 B
Also, at Numbers 11:17,25 we also find that God's spirit is also a neuter " it " and Not a spirit person

 

[Kathryn]

Oh lordy.

 

[firedragon]

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?

Dont go to English dictionaries. Greek.

 

[Rival]

Dont go to English dictionaries. Greek.

We are discussing the English word.

 

[firedragon]

We are discussing the English word.

Ah. Your wish. The OP does not say that though. It's speaking about "the third person of the trinity". Cheers.

 

[blü 2]

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’,

As I explained to you with some care in #217 above, that's not correct.

 

[Oeste]

The point of the post is to show that the Spirit of God is not a Ghost, and that we should never refer to it as such. At the same time, and in the same breath, a GHOST cannot be HOLY since it’s definition is ‘A Spirit of a dead person’.

I think your point missed its mark then. It happens.

Words and meanings change over time @Soapy. There is nothing "wrong" with referring to the Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost or vice versa, and as multiple posters have shown, words can have multiple meanings, and not simply the meaning you imply.

 

[Oeste]

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.'"

No @URAVIP2ME, Webster did not replace "...ghost with spirit because God's spirit "it" (Numbers 11:17,25) is Not an apparition."

He changed it because he understood that the common reader of the text, who did not have access to commentaries, would likely obtain a false sense of a word because like all live languages, English is in a constant state of flux. Think of how "gay" was used in 17th century literature. If the main character is described as "gay", and you, as a teacher, bring this word to a modern 8th grade English class, many in the class may assume you are not describing sexual orientation rather than temperament.

So rather than describe the protagonist as "gay", you may decide to "update" it to "happy" or "joyful" so as not to misrepresent this classical author's original intent to your modern audience.

You did not give a source but I think I've found it:

Throughout Webster's Revision of the King James Bible, the lexicographer replaced "Holy Ghost" with "Holy Spirit". Webster did so because he knew that in the Christians' Scriptures this expression did not mean "an apparition". In the preface of his Bible, Webster wrote: "Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes is, that some words are not understood by common readers*, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas*. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had been introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God."​

​

The problem with the older books was confusion on the part of readers as the language styles had been evolving over the years and a lot of meaning of the text in this Bible was being lost on the average reader.* Some passages were misunderstood. Grammar had evolved as well and the above changes made an easier read while purifying the language and making it more delicate.​

*As evidenced by the OP.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

No @URAVIP2ME, Webster did not replace "...ghost with spirit because God's spirit "it" (Numbers 11:17,25) is Not an apparition."
He changed it because he understood that the common reader of the text, who did not have access to commentaries, would likely obtain a false sense of a word because like all live languages, English is in a constant state of flux. Think of how "gay" was used in 17th century literature. If the main character is described as "gay", and you, as a teacher, bring this word to a modern 8th grade English class, many in the class may assume you are not describing sexual orientation rather than temperament.
So rather than describe the protagonist as "gay", you may decide to "update" it to "happy" or "joyful" so as not to misrepresent this classical author's original intent to your modern audience.
You did not give a source but I think I've found it:

Throughout Webster's Revision of the King James Bible, the lexicographer replaced "Holy Ghost" with "Holy Spirit". Webster did so because he knew that in the Christians' Scriptures this expression did not mean "an apparition". In the preface of his Bible, Webster wrote: "Some words have fallen into disuse; and the signification of others, in current popular use, is not the same now as it was when they were introduced into the version. The effect of these changes is, that some words are not understood by common readers*, who have no access to commentaries, and who will always compose a great proportion of readers; while other words, being now used in a sense different from that which they had when the translation was made, present a wrong signification or false ideas*. Whenever words are understood in a sense different from that which they had been introduced, and different from that of the original languages, they do not present to the reader the Word of God."​

The problem with the older books was confusion on the part of readers as the language styles had been evolving over the years and a lot of meaning of the text in this Bible was being lost on the average reader.* Some passages were misunderstood. Grammar had evolved as well and the above changes made an easier read while purifying the language and making it more delicate.​

*As evidenced by the OP.

Yes, grammar evolves but God's spirit is still Not a spirit person but a genderless "it" - Numbers 11:17,25
Here are a few KJV verses out of present-day use: Philemon verse 8; Genesis 25:29; Leviticus 26:16; Isaiah 14:23; Isaiah 58:8 B

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I think your point missed its mark then. It happens.
Words and meanings change over time @Soapy. There is nothing "wrong" with referring to the Holy Spirit as the Holy Ghost or vice versa, and as multiple posters have shown, words can have multiple meanings, and not simply the meaning you imply.

Are you saying God's spirit (Psalm 104:30 is a spirit Ghost rather than a neuter "it" as found at Numbers 11:17,25
Since (it) God's spirit (it) is Not a person, then I don't find anywhere that God's spirit is a Ghost person

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Ah. Your wish. The OP does not say that though. It's speaking about "the third person of the trinity". Cheers.

A person is Not an "it" but has gender. An "it" is genderless - Numbers 11:17,25
God does Not send forth Himself according to Psalm 104:30 but God sends out His spirit (it)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Oh lordy.

or rather No lordy. God's spirit is an impersonal powerful force that God used to create the visible realm - Psalm 104:30

 

[URAVIP2ME]

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

Angels are 'spirit persons' but angels arenot ghosts persons
God is a 'Spirit Person' but God's spirit is an impersonal powerful force God uses to create what is invisible and visible - Psalm 104:30
When we hear of school spirit we do Not think of school spirit as a person
When we think of a high-spirited horse we do not think of the horse as a spirit person horse, or ghost person horse

 

[firedragon]

A person is Not an "it" but has gender. An "it" is genderless

Absolutely fantastic argument for the statement. Seriously fabulous.

By the way, when I say "OP" it means "Opening Post".

God does Not send forth Himself according to Psalm 104:30 but God sends out His spirit (it)

What is this?

 

[vijeno]

or rather No lordy. God's spirit is an impersonal powerful force that God used to create the visible realm - Psalm 104:30

How does an impersonal force fly above water? (Gen 1:2)

 

[URAVIP2ME]

..................................................................................What is this?

God's spirit is His powerful-and-strong active force, His abundant dynamic energy that He uses to cause something to happen
- Isaiah 40:26; Psalm 104:30

Just as a power-plant grid supplies energy as demand is needed, so God sends forth His impersonal spirit to supply what is needed as circumstances change.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

How does an impersonal force fly above water? (Gen 1:2)

Fly, or move, or was moving over Earth's waters. Water before land - Psalm 104:6; Psalm 33:6

 

[Oeste]

Hi URAVIP2ME,

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this but I don’t see your argument as much different from Soapy’s.

Soapy provided a rigid definition of ghost, and you provide an equally rigid definition of spirit. Your post goes a bit further having augmented your argument with “proof texts”.

To reiterate, you appear to:

1. Define spirit as an impersonal, "dynamic energy" of a person or entity:

God's spirit (see Psalm 104:30) is Not the Father but a powerful force, His dynamic energy, that God uses.​

​

Like God's spirit (Numbers 11:17,25) is an impersonal "it" so is our spirit an "it" - see Ecclesiastes 12:7​

2. Offer several “proof texts” in support:

See Psalm 104:30, Number 11:17, 25, Ecclesiastes 12:7, etc. where the spirit is referred to as an “it”.​

3. Base your conclusion on the fact that “it” is considered an impersonal pronoun, thus anything “it” refers to must be impersonal as well.

Like God's spirit (Numbers 11:17,25) is an impersonal "it" so is our spirit an "it" - see Ecclesiastes 12:7​

​

So, No way is a genderless "it" a person, but a powerful force that God uses - Psalm 104:29-30​

​

Yes, grammar evolves but God's spirit is still Not a spirit person but a genderless "it" - Numbers 11:17,25​

One of the first things I noticed from your post is your usage of terms and definitions. You use the term “spirit person”. I cannot find the term “spirit person” anywhere in scripture. Thus, I will go with your definition of "spirit" and the standard definition of "person".

You’ve already defined God’s and our spirit as “…an impersonal it ”. However, scripture tells us God IS Spirit:

Scripture​

God is Spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth. (John 4:24)​

​

Since (it) God's spirit (it) is Not a person, then I don't find anywhere that God's spirit is a Ghost person​

Conclusion:​

Combining what Scripture says about God with what URAVIP2Me says about spirit, we conclude God is spirit and a Spirit is an "it" that is not a person.​

I don't think the WT will be onboard with that.

Scripture speaks and tells us that "Spirit" is what GOD IS, but You speak and tell us Spirit is simply something God HAS.

You need to resolve this discrepancy URAVIP2ME.

When you definine Spirit as an impersonal "it" or force, you define God as impersonal also.

SPIRIT PERSON?

Your definition of “Spirit”, IMO, rips any personal attributes from God, but then the term “person” surreptitiously attempts to add it back. Using your terms, I have “Spirit Person” meaning “An impersonal 'it' person”.

The problem here is that we cannot find the term “spirit person” or the concept of an “impersonal 'it' person” in scripture. I suspect this is because “spirit” is ALREADY extremely personal to the entity being described. My spirit is personal, not impersonal to me, and your spirit is personal, not impersonal to you.

When God’s Spirit fills a room, I expect to feel closer to God, and I expect to feel HIS presence. I do not expect to feel closer to an impersonal "it" or force.

PROOF TEXTING

When your definition works only for a few verses, but not all of them, it’s considered “proof texting”. Proof-texting is generally defined as taking isolated quotes (ie: at text) and establishing a position that may not be the author’s original intent.

Don’t get me wrong; Proof texting can be used for the purpose of exegesis, but not with isolated quotes missing their general context. In many instances, proof-texting is simply used to establish a proposition in eisegesis, or as some have put it: “A text without context is a pretext for a proof-text”.

This is a good example:

God does Not send forth Himself according to Psalm 104:30 but God sends out His spirit (it)​

You make the hard and fast rule God does not send forth Himself according to Psalm 104:30, yet when we read Numbers 11:25 we see just the opposite:

Then the Lord came down in the cloud and spoke with him, and he took some of the power of the Spirit that was on him and put it on the seventy elders. When the Spirit rested on them, they prophesied—but did not do so again. (Numbers 11:25)​

There is no doubt that the Lord came down Himself here, which invalidates any claim that “God does not send Himself” when the plain reading of Numbers 11:25 shows that He does. You make it seem as if Psalm 104:30 is contradicting Number 11:25!

Discussion

God DOES send forth Himself, and Psalm 104:30 does not show otherwise. Conversely, Number 11:25 does NOT show God needs to descend from the clouds in order to go forth, as shown by Psalm 104:30. God can go forth any way He wants to, and attempting to restrict God for the sake of doctrine is bad exegesis.

Also, simply because God put His Spirit on Moses, and later put it on 70 elders, does NOT mean that the Spirit of God is an “impersonal it”. The usage of “it” simply references a thing, person or entity previously described. Neither does it mean the person, thing, or entity described is genderless. It can simply mean that the sex was not determined or important to the narrator or speaker.

Here are more examples of an impersonal “it”:

Some of the locals claimed that after the angel descended from the sky, it was seen moving across the field. ("It" is an angel, previously noted).​

​

The baby was in danger, so she moved it to another ward. ("It" is a baby, previously described).​

​

Whoever it was began to jump up and down and wave frantically. ("It" is genderless, but that does not mean the person itself has no gender).​

Conclusion:

"It" is an impersonal pronoun and/or genderless, but to conclude this means the angel, baby, or person "it" references is also impersonal or genderless is unfounded.

Likewise we can conclude the same for spirits as well:

URAVIP2ME:

A person is Not an "it" but has gender. An "it" is genderless - Numbers 11:17,25

God's spirit is still Not a spirit person but a genderless "it"

The unclean spirit

43 “When an unclean spirit comes out of a man, it passes through waterless places in search of a resting-place and finds none.+ 44 Then it says, ‘I will go back to my house from which I moved,’ and on arriving, it finds the house unoccupied but swept clean and adorned. 45 Then it goes and takes along with it seven different spirits more wicked than itself, and after getting inside, they dwell there; and the final circumstances of that man become worse than the first.+ That is how it will be also with this wicked generation.”

According to URAVIP2ME, each "it" disqualifies this unclean spirit as a person. It also makes the unclean spirit genderless and neuter.

This is strange, as even the Watchtower acknowledges the Nephilim as SONS of God who became fallen angels or unclean spirits:

The Bible account says that “the sons of the true God began to notice that the daughters of men were beautiful.” (Genesis 6:2) Those ‘sons of God’ were actually spirit creatures who rebelled against God when they “forsook their own proper dwelling place” in heaven, materialized human bodies, and “began taking as wives all whom they chose.”— Source​

How does a genderless, neuter "it" even notice that the daughters of men were beautiful? One would think that if they were truly "genderless" or "neuter" they would desire neither or both men and women as well.

As such, the idea that a person or entity referred to as “it” must itself be impersonal, genderless, or neutered is a grammatical fallacy.

Lastly, I can’t help but remember that the Watchtower claims Jesus was raised as a “spirit” creature.

After his death as a human, Jesus was resurrected to heaven, where he resumed life as a powerful spirit creature​

The idea that Jesus was raised as a powerful but impersonal, genderless, “creature” (IT) sounds more reconcilable with a Stephen King novel than anything found in scripture. It’s unfortunate, but as described in your post it’s may be one of the first things that comes to a modern reader’s mind.

Hopefully you will present to forum readers a less dogmatic but more flexible definition(s) that retain fidelity to the author's original intent and the robust usage of the word “pneuma” (spirit) we find in our modern language and scripture.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The ^ above ^ post # 247 is too long for me to answer all
God is a Spirit and angels are spirits. True the word 'person' does Not appear but God and angels are spirit persons
Please see Hebrews 9:24 because Jesus appears in the presence of God, and God has a home location 1st Kings 8:39

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Matthew 12:43-45; Luke 11:24-26 KJV does Not contain the word "it" as we find in the Greek.
However, at Genesis chapter 6 all of the fallen angels are classed as 'sons' as we also find at Job 1:6; Jude verse 6; 2nd Peter 2:4