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

[Soapy]

You have the wrong definition of ghost for the context.

The end.

Before you go, tell what THE CORRECT definition, in your own words, is for ‘Ghost’…

I’m just seeing if you can do more than just copy and paste definition, or whether you actually UNDERSTAND what you are talking about?

 

[Soapy]

So you dislike the Romans but insist on using Roman terminology?

Lmao.

Please, what are you going on about… what is the context of your point/question?

Objectivity does not exclude benefits. The Romans brought many great things to the now, United Kingdom that are wonderful. But their RELIGIOUS aspects - no! Moreover, they didn’t try to spread their Roman religious beliefs to Britains.

Can you be more focussed and not meander off into off topic points. Try to keep them focused on the thread TOPIC!!

 

[Rival]

Before you go, tell what THE CORRECT definition, in your own words, is for ‘Ghost’…

I’m just seeing if you can do more than just copy and paste definition, or whether you actually UNDERSTAND what you are talking about?

I study Old and Middle English. I gave you the actual sources linguists work with. I photographed a book I own (one of many), I linked you to the Anglo-Saxon Compendium (an academic source for Middle English) and other Middle English sources.

Old English is English up to 1100 or 1150.

Middle English is from 1100-1150 to around 1500.

I am well versed in these sources and can read them reasonably well.

The definition of 'ghost' (or one of them) is what you are using 'spirit' to mean. This is fine. These words are synonyms, just like many Latin and Germanic derived words are, such as write/inscribe house/mansion seat/chair etc. It is the same with ghost/spirit.

I enjoy studying this and it saddens me to see English so misunderstood.

 

[Tamino]

The Anglos-Saxons were PAGAN in their religious belief. Therefore it is extremely unwise to take definitions of their terms and apply them to the Christian belief.

That, is, exactly his fallacies, misrepresentations, and duplicities, come about.

Ok, let me put this into the context of a different modern language, then.
German.
German still owes a lot of its modern uniform expression to Martin Luther and his 16th century bible translation.
In German, it's "Heiliger Geist" . It was translated like this by Luther and there is still no alternative term available.
Look it up.
German has the word "Geist", obviously in a etymological relationship with "ghost".
We don't have "spirit", we have never integrated this specific Latin term into our language. If you want to translate "spirit" into German, "Geist" is literally your only option.
German "Geist" has the range of meaning of "apparition of a dead person", "spirit" and even "mind"... all grouped around the core concept of "something immaterial"

Yeah, German is a pagan language. As is English. Even Latin and Greek are the languages of pagan peoples that got adapted to express judeo-christian concepts since the creation of the Septuagint.

Some of those pagan languages have separate terms for "holy spirit" and "ghost of a dead person". Other languages don't have this. In English, apparently, the meaning has seen some changes over time, resulting in a mix of the Anglo-Saxon "ghost" and the latin-based "spirit" as terms for the same entity.

So what? Do you want to speak Hebrew only to avoid "contamination" of Christianity by pagan concepts? Just a hint: then you'll have to kick out a lot of Augustine, Boethius and other "church fathers"... and potentially the gospel of John, while you're at it. Christianity contains a lot of originally pagan ideas already.

 

[Rival]

Ok, let me put this into the context of a different modern language, then.
German.
German still owes a lot of its modern uniform expression to Martin Luther and his 16th century bible translation.
In German, it's "Heiliger Geist" . It was translated like this by Luther and there is still no alternative term available.
Look it up.
German has the word "Geist", obviously in a etymological relationship with "ghost".
We don't have "spirit", we have never integrated this specific Latin term into our language. If you want to translate "spirit" into German, "Geist" is literally your only option.
German "Geist" has the range of meaning of "apparition of a dead person", "spirit" and even "mind"... all grouped around the core concept of "something immaterial"

Yeah, German is a pagan language. As is English. Even Latin and Greek are the languages of pagan peoples that got adapted to express judeo-christian concepts since the creation of the Septuagint.

Some of those pagan languages have separate terms for "holy spirit" and "ghost of a dead person". Other languages don't have this. In English, apparently, the meaning has seen some changes over time, resulting in a mix of the Anglo-Saxon "ghost" and the latin-based "spirit" as terms for the same entity.

So what? Do you want to speak Hebrew only to avoid "contamination" of Christianity by pagan concepts? Just a hint: then you'll have to kick out a lot of Augustine, Boethius and other "church fathers"... and potentially the gospel of John, while you're at it. Christianity contains a lot of originally pagan ideas already.

Broðer!!



I need to get Luther's translation again.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ok, let me put this into the context of a different modern language, then.
German.
German still owes a lot of its modern uniform expression to Martin Luther and his 16th century bible translation.
In German, it's "Heiliger Geist" . It was translated like this by Luther and there is still no alternative term available.
Look it up.
German has the word "Geist", obviously in a etymological relationship with "ghost".
We don't have "spirit", we have never integrated this specific Latin term into our language. If you want to translate "spirit" into German, "Geist" is literally your only option.
German "Geist" has the range of meaning of "apparition of a dead person", "spirit" and even "mind"... all grouped around the core concept of "something immaterial"

Yeah, German is a pagan language. As is English. Even Latin and Greek are the languages of pagan peoples that got adapted to express judeo-christian concepts since the creation of the Septuagint.

Some of those pagan languages have separate terms for "holy spirit" and "ghost of a dead person". Other languages don't have this. In English, apparently, the meaning has seen some changes over time, resulting in a mix of the Anglo-Saxon "ghost" and the latin-based "spirit" as terms for the same entity.

So what? Do you want to speak Hebrew only to avoid "contamination" of Christianity by pagan concepts? Just a hint: then you'll have to kick out a lot of Augustine, Boethius and other "church fathers"... and potentially the gospel of John, while you're at it. Christianity contains a lot of originally pagan ideas already.

To add to the fun. In Danish ghost is spøgelse where as Holy Ghost is Hellig Ånden.

 

[Rival]

@Soapy, these are my sources.

Edit: I missed three...

 

[Tamino]

To add to the fun. In Danish ghost is spøgelse where as Holy Ghost is Hellig Ånden.

Oh, wow, those are unexpected.
is the 'spøgelse' related to 'Spuk' perhaps?
And for 'Ånden' I cannot think of a similarity with any language I know, but according to Wiki it's from an old Germanic root with the meaning of "breath" (ånd - Wiktionary, the free dictionary) , which seems an apt translation of Hebrew ruah Strong's Hebrew: 7308. ר֫וּחַ (ruach) -- wind, spirit

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, wow, those are unexpected.
is the 'spøgelse' related to 'Spuk' perhaps?
And for 'Ånden' I cannot think of a similarity with any language I know, but according to Wiki it's from an old Germanic root with the meaning of "breath" (ånd - Wiktionary, the free dictionary) , which seems an apt translation of Hebrew ruah Strong's Hebrew: 7308. ר֫וּחַ (ruach) -- wind, spirit

Google is your friend. Yes, spuk is connected to spøgelse.
As ånd it seems to be right as to ånde means to breathe where as a noun it means breath.

 

[McBell]

Holy Ghost is literally the English translation of Latin Spiritus Sancti. I have shown examples of this from the Anglo-Saxon Gospels.

This is what we have been telling you this whole time.

Whatever you ideology is it's disallowing you to read what is right infront of your face.

Give this up and explain yourself, please.

Good luck.
I have no interest in a discussion with someone who refuses to take their head out of their backs the sand.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Before you go, tell what THE CORRECT definition, in your own words, is for ‘Ghost’…

ghost - verb: what @SalixIncendium is doing to this thread.

 

[SalixIncendium]

@Soapy, these are my sources.

Edit: I missed three...

I knew Stitch was one of your sources!

 

[SalixIncendium]

Okay. Now I'm ghosting this thread.

 

[Rival]

I knew Stitch was one of your sources!

Damn! I'm caught.

 

[Rival]

I knew Stitch was one of your sources!

You can't out-Stitch me!

 

[Soapy]

I study Old and Middle English. I gave you the actual sources linguists work with. I photographed a book I own (one of many), I linked you to the Anglo-Saxon Compendium (an academic source for Middle English) and other Middle English sources.

Old English is English up to 1100 or 1150.

Middle English is from 1100-1150 to around 1500.

I am well versed in these sources and can read them reasonably well.

The definition of 'ghost' (or one of them) is what you are using 'spirit' to mean. This is fine. These words are synonyms, just like many Latin and Germanic derived words are, such as write/inscribe house/mansion seat/chair etc. It is the same with ghost/spirit.

I enjoy studying this and it saddens me to see English so misunderstood.

‘Too much study befuddles the mind!’… a well known phrase!!!

This is one good reason that Scientific communities are the greatest unbelievers in YHWH God. Your own expressing of dressing of the fact that you study ancient Anglo-Saxon, has distracted you from the real issue. It matters not to you that the Anglo-Saxons, like the Romans, were PAGANS.

You study with little to no idea about what is Spiritual and what is earthly. Pagans are earthly … You can see that every aspect of their world is the result of many SPECIFIC GODS. It is therefore clear that they then should believe in SPIRITS which were always malevolent, causing havoc among humanity, hauntings, etc.

Do you say they only use the word, ‘Ghost’, for ‘Non-Malevolent Spirits’? So I ask you to provide evidence of such…. And you haven’t.

Why? It should be the first thing you did - but you cannot… can you?

And thus, how can there be a ‘Holy’ malevolent Spirit?…, a Holy ‘Ghost’?? Which IS the topic question!!!

The answer, for Anglo-Saxon, belief, is that they incorporated THEIR PAGAN BELIEFS into that which they applied when they were taught Christianity.

As a matter of fact, look at his the trinity is viewed? YHWH God said that the Israelites must not have any other God but He. … Why did YHWH say that? Because Pagan tribes worshipped MULTIPLE GODS.

Is YHWH’s command not clear?

Yet, trinity advocates worshipping THREE GODS… yeah, and albeit, claiming that these THREE GODS ARE BUT ONE GOD…

That is a pure example of melding the Command of YHWH GOD into a Pagan belief of multiple Gods. It ‘appears to satisfies’ BOTH sides but in reality is an abomination of

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, Your God, is ONE [Only] God!’

But the topic is about the Spirit OF YHWH which advocates here seem to want to call ‘A melevolent Spirit’, a ‘GHOST’.

It is your deep ‘study’ that keeps you from understanding what you see, and dismissing what you have been shown!

 

[Soapy]

ghost - verb: what @SalixIncendium is doing to this thread.

Ghost: A Malicious Intervention

Yeah, you are right!!

 

[Soapy]

Okay. Now I'm ghosting this thread.

Ghosting…’ - An immature or aggressive ending of a relationship’

It’s funny how you guys are now using the term in exactly the way it is defined … Yet were so anti-intelligence about it when in a debate!!!

 

[Rival]

‘Too much study befuddles the mind!’… a well known phrase!!!

This is one good reason that Scientific communities are the greatest unbelievers in YHWH God. Your own expressing of dressing of the fact that you study ancient Anglo-Saxon, has distracted you from the real issue. It matters not to you that the Anglo-Saxons, like the Romans, were PAGANS.

You study with little to no idea about what is Spiritual and what is earthly. Pagans are earthly … You can see that every aspect of their world is the result of many SPECIFIC GODS. It is therefore clear that they then should believe in SPIRITS which were always malevolent, causing havoc among humanity, hauntings, etc.

Do you say they only use the word, ‘Ghost’, for ‘Non-Malevolent Spirits’? So I ask you to provide evidence of such…. And you haven’t.

Why? It should be the first thing you did - but you cannot… can you?

And thus, how can there be a ‘Holy’ malevolent Spirit?…, a Holy ‘Ghost’?? Which IS the topic question!!!

The answer, for Anglo-Saxon, belief, is that they incorporated THEIR PAGAN BELIEFS into that which they applied when they were taught Christianity.

As a matter of fact, look at his the trinity is viewed? YHWH God said that the Israelites must not have any other God but He. … Why did YHWH say that? Because Pagan tribes worshipped MULTIPLE GODS.

Is YHWH’s command not clear?

Yet, trinity advocates worshipping THREE GODS… yeah, and albeit, claiming that these THREE GODS ARE BUT ONE GOD…

That is a pure example of melding the Command of YHWH GOD into a Pagan belief of multiple Gods. It ‘appears to satisfies’ BOTH sides but in reality is an abomination of

• ‘Hear, O Israel, YHWH, Your God, is ONE [Only] God!’

But the topic is about the Spirit OF YHWH which advocates here seem to want to call ‘A melevolent Spirit’, a ‘GHOST’.

It is your deep ‘study’ that keeps you from understanding what you see, and dismissing what you have been shown!

So you have been proven wrong and can't argue properly with me based on actual linguistics and sources. Understood.

You are coming out with the fact that you are here because you want to bash the Trinity as Pagan and you are making a frankly ludicrous argument to try to prove a point.

It didn't work.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

So you have been proven wrong and can't argue properly with me based on actual linguistics and sources. Understood.

Even the claim the Anglo-Saxons and Romans were pagans, is false for the whole relevant period.
So if that is the level of understanding, then yes, it explains a lot.