Bible Study Holy Spirit & Holy Ghost... One in the same?

[Georges]

In this application yes I have....why? because it doesn't align with Judaism....What does it align with? Hellenist Philosophy? maybe...as trinitarianism developed from our Christian fathers who a great deal of them were schooled in Greek philosophy...point being...in Judaism, the Holy Spirit is not a person...it is a thing.


I dislike a great deal discussing Paul....because he uses Gnosto-mystery terms in his letters....Paul presents things the others (Apostles) don't such as the above...but as I suggested to Vic as well in posts above, Cyber, does your spirit not greive? Is your spirit separate from your body as it's own entity?

Hellenist philosphy? No way, the Jews didn't like the Greeks or their culture very much.

Hellenist philosophy for sure. I agree with you that the Jews didn't like the Greeks....heck the Jews of Israel didn't like the Hellenized Jews outside the land....but then again Christianity developed outside of Israel....Christianity didn't keep it's Jerusalem base, or it didn't keep the Leaders of the exiled Jerusalem church as it's authority....Christianity developed through the hellenist Roman Empire...many of the Christian forefathers were coverted Hellenists schooled in Greek philosophy...

Remember the Maccabees? Remember Hanukkah?

I agree...the Jews of Israel do not like foreign occupation...

The disciples later must have learned Greek to write their epistles but they almost certainly were not raised in a Greek culture or knowing the Greek language.

They most surely would have had a working knowledge of Greek and Latin, enough to get by. But...the disciples would not have been trinitarians either as it isn't a Jewish conception.

The priests in Acts called them uneducated.

Because they were from the Galilee....

Now Paul may have been educated in Greek (maybe) at a young age but he was raised in pure Pharisaism under one of the best Jewish teachers of the time: Gamaliel.

According to the early Nazarene/Ebionites, Paul was an adult covert to Judaism. Books have been written giving the evidence contesting Pauls claims...

Gamliel was as revered as Rabbi Shammai and Hillel in Jewish history, and Saul (to become Paul) was most certainly a devout and zealous Jew, being schooled in the Torah his whole life.

Gamaliel was the grandson of Hillel. Cyber, Paul always quoted from the Septuigent so he was a hellenist at the very least. Cyber, pick up a copy of "James the brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman. He presents a good deal of evidence suggesting Paul isn't what he claims to be. Here is a website that gives the gist of the book.
http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/james.html


And I also seriously doubt that John drew from Hellenist philosophy in his personal use of 'Logos'.

No...he didn't. Logos is the closed Greek word in definition to the Hebrew Memra.....

Many Greek words in the NT which may have had a pagan background in Greek culture were used in completely different ways in the NT. Agape (love) is a prime example. The NT redefined love, and showed what true love (agape) was. Agape had never been used in such a sense in the Greek culture.

I suggest that there are Greek words used that don't match up with Hebrew as well as they can...as is the case with many languages...culture and language does a lot to create some misconceptions....wouldn't you agree.

Cyber, would you consider looking over a pdf that I've sent to many on the forum...concerning the validity of Paul....actually, a pdf book of 18 chapters detailing the differences (biblically) between Paul and Jesus (and the Apostles). If so send me you email via pm.....

 

[cyberjosh]

Cyber...you bring up a good point. Question for you....what did the shin look like when Revelation was written? I have seen the alphabet's....and I will do the research on the alphabet at the time of the Revelation...

That's a good question, I'll look into it, but I do recall reading a study (in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls) that sought to determine if the late Hebrew script was still being used at Jesus' time and the answer was yes. But I've also seen other contemporary (to Jesus and the Apostles) artifacts, such as ossuaries that used the late script shin, which is no longer "W" looking but looks more like a branch (shows a closer resemblance to your avatar). Instead of having three lines coming off a base line like your avatar though it has two lines converging in a "V-like" base and the thrid branching off the right line.

Actually some modern Hebrew fonts write it that way today. The main point is that it would take some imagination to get three Vavs out of a shin. And for that matter a Zayin is also very easily mistaken for Vav because they lok so similar. But still...it's an interesting theory.

 

[Vic C.]

Vic...ever wonder why the HG isn't mentioned in the OT? Type a search for Holy Ghost in http://www.blueletterbible.com....you will find no mention of it in the OT....and that is the problem.....No Ghost....it's a bad misnomer...

I usually try and come up with something....even if it is far fetched.....

Well I tried with the explanation....how'd I do?

Dude, ghost appears in the KJV OT 11 times. It wasn't revealed as holy until the NT.

I must admit, you did an excellent job proving this is all nothing but semantics. Don't know why the KJ translators used Ghost in some places and Spirit in others... don't care either. ;-)

 

[Georges]

Cyber...you bring up a good point. Question for you....what did the shin look like when Revelation was written? I have seen the alphabet's....and I will do the research on the alphabet at the time of the Revelation...

That's a good question, I'll look into it, but I do recall reading a study (in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls) that sought to determine if the late Hebrew script was still being used at Jesus' time and the answer was yes. But I've also seen other contemporary (to Jesus and the Apostles) artifacts, such as ossuaries that used the late script shin, which is no longer "W" looking but looks more like a branch (shows a closer resemblance to your avatar). Instead of having three lines coming off a base line like your avatar though it has two lines converging in a "V-like" base and the thrid branching off the right line.

Actually some modern Hebrew fonts write it that way today. The main point is that it would take some imagination to get three Vavs out of a shin. And for that matter a Zayin is also very easily mistaken for Vav because they lok so similar. But still...it's an interesting theory.

Cyber....the point of the three Vav's I believe is to fool the followers of the beast....

IMHO...

In Rev, the Angels are told not to do any destruction until the 144000 are sealed (marked). I believe that the followers of the beast see that the 144000 are not harmed by the destruction and accept the "fake shin" that the beast offers.....Cyber, imagine the bottom of 3 Vav's drawn close together. It would look like a W or, close enough to fool someone (the average joe) into thinking it looks like the mark of the 144000. You (Cyber) might not be fooled, but to billy bob who lives on the north 40, the marks would look the same...

Also, another reason I believe the mark will be a shin is because of the phalacteries the religious Jews were. I think it is a precursor to the seal of the 144000.

 

[Georges]

Vic...ever wonder why the HG isn't mentioned in the OT? Type a search for Holy Ghost in http://www.blueletterbible.com....you will find no mention of it in the OT....and that is the problem.....No Ghost....it's a bad misnomer...

I usually try and come up with something....even if it is far fetched.....

Well I tried with the explanation....how'd I do?

Dude, ghost appears in the KJV OT 11 times. It wasn't revealed as holy until the NT.

ha ha ha..... :

I must admit, you did an excellent job proving this is all nothing but semantics. Don't know why the KJ translators used Ghost in some places and Spirit in others... don't care either. ;-)

OK....one of these days senor Vic....it'll dawn on ya....and you'll say..."That crazy Dude was on to something"....I did say "on to something" not "on something" :-D :-D :-D

 

[Vic C.]

OK....one of these days senor Vic....it'll dawn on ya....and you'll say..."That crazy Dude was on to something"....I did say "on to something" not "on something"

"I'll pick "on something" for 1,000 Alex." :-D

 

[cyberjosh]

They most surely would have had a working knowledge of Greek and Latin, enough to get by. But...the disciples would not have been trinitarians either as it isn't a Jewish conception.

I'm sorry but I highly doubt that. I've never seen any written evidence of greek or latin being taught in Israel during that time. Perhaps they may have orally picked up some words but I doubt they knew how to scribe the words. Certainly they wouldn't have been influenced by it much.

Because they were from the Galilee....

That doesn't prove much. And I'm not sure I get the implication.

According to the early Nazarene/Ebionites, Paul was an adult covert to Judaism. Books have been written giving the evidence contesting Pauls claims...

I don't care what the Nazarene/Ebionite sects said. Especially since they are on a list of heretics written against by Justin Martyr and other early Church fathers.

Cyber, pick up a copy of "James the brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman. He presents a good deal of evidence suggesting Paul isn't what he claims to be. Here is a website that gives the gist of the book.

I have a similar book called "Brother of Jesus" by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III. Hershel Shanks' presentation is wonderful but I don't really agree with Ben Witherington's views of the supposed differences between James and Paul.

No...he didn't. Logos is the closed Greek word in definition to the Hebrew Memra.....

I'm not quite sure what you mean here. Why don't you supply me with some Greek words that you believe Paul uses in a pagan context. And for that matter you will have to accuse Matthew of applying pagan deistic thought to Jesus during his transfiguration by using the Greek word metamorphos in Matt. 17:2, a term which Luke actually avoids so as to not confuse his Gentile readers. Paul uses metamorphos also in Romans 12:2. So either they're both wrong or both right.

I suggest that there are Greek words used that don't match up with Hebrew as well as they can...as is the case with many languages...culture and language does a lot to create some misconceptions....wouldn't you agree.

I suppose...what are you getting at?

 

[Georges]

They most surely would have had a working knowledge of Greek and Latin, enough to get by. But...the disciples would not have been trinitarians either as it isn't a Jewish conception.

I'm sorry but I highly doubt that. I've never seen any written evidence of greek or latin being taught in Israel during that time. Perhaps they may have orally picked up some words but I doubt they knew how to scribe the words. Certainly they wouldn't have been influenced by it much.

I didn't say they had to be schooled in Greek or Latin....I said they most certainly had enough working knowledge of the language. I live in the DFW area and know enough spanish to not starve...I'm sure with the amount of exposure, they got by...what are we disputing here anyway?...I don't remember.

[quote:cfa41]Because they were from the Galilee....

That doesn't prove much. And I'm not sure I get the implication.

You quoted Acts on the unlearnedness of the disciples...I was merely pointing out that the Jews of Jerusalem thought the Galileans as being uneducated....not of the city so to speak...

According to the early Nazarene/Ebionites, Paul was an adult covert to Judaism. Books have been written giving the evidence contesting Pauls claims...

I don't care what the Nazarene/Ebionite sects said. Especially since they are on a list of heretics written against by Justin Martyr and other early Church fathers.

Uh...who?....You may not care, but you should...how do you know you're not backing the wrong side? With all due respect, do you know who these groups were? That is to say, I hope you didn't dismiss them because of what Martyr or anyone else said...The Nazarene/Ebionites were directly descended from the Church at Jerusalem. Of course Martyr is going to reject them...they were Jewish Christians...or Nazarene Jews.

Cyber, pick up a copy of "James the brother of Jesus" by Robert Eisenman. He presents a good deal of evidence suggesting Paul isn't what he claims to be. Here is a website that gives the gist of the book.

I have a similar book called "Brother of Jesus" by Hershel Shanks and Ben Witherington III. Hershel Shanks' presentation is wonderful but I don't really agree with Ben Witherington's views of the supposed differences between James and Paul.

Pick up Eisenman's as well (I got a copy for 5 bucks) the info is well worth it...Most bookstores have it for more....when you go to the bookstore, thumb through it...see if it looks interesting. I know there are excerpts on the internet on his book. He does a very good job at researching the historical/political involvements of Paul....ie. the Herodian connections etc...

No...he didn't. Logos is the closed Greek word in definition to the Hebrew Memra.....

I'm not quite sure what you mean here.

I mean John was using the Greek word that closest resembled the Hebrew concept of Memra (the creative word of God).

Why don't you supply me with some Greek words that you believe Paul uses in a pagan context.

Not the words....the phrasing (ideaology) of some of his statements...without boging down the thread, I'll supply you with this link from wikipedia that delves deeper into a borderline gnostic Paul....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism ... _Testament

Scroll down and read the parts that pertain to Paul...although wikipedia may be a resource subject to validity issues, it gives an idea of what is out there if you look for it...

And for that matter you will have to accuse Matthew of applying pagan deistic thought to Jesus during his transfiguration by using the Greek word metamorphos in Matt. 17:2, a term which Luke actually avoids so as to not confuse his Gentile readers. Paul uses metamorphos also in Romans 12:2. So either they're both wrong or both right.

I wish there were an original copy of Matthew (written in Hebrew) available....that I believe would answer a lot of questions...unfortuanately none are in existence anymore...so we are at the mercy of Greek translation....I will not apply pagan diestic thought to Jesus in the transformation. I think it is entirely compatible with Hebraic thought. The metamorphos word is consistant in both usages...it simply means change. Having said that, my contention with Greek is Hebrew....not Greek with Paganish words. In this case the difference between Ghost and Spirit.

I suggest that there are Greek words used that don't match up with Hebrew as well as they can...as is the case with many languages...culture and language does a lot to create some misconceptions....wouldn't you agree.

I suppose...what are you getting at?

The OP....Ghost and Spirit....

[/quote:cfa41]

Thanks Shark...No harm in reading the pdf....just mo info...

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I don't know how else to put it.....A Ghost is a spirit with a sheet over him...it is someone's soul....
...

Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

 

[Georges]

I don't know how else to put it.....A Ghost is a spirit with a sheet over him...it is someone's soul....
...

Mat 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned.

Not so my friend....but keep trying...I post a lot...your bound to find something somewhere...taken out of context of course.... :angel: :angel:

Gabby....Does Casper the Friendly Ghost have a sheet over him? Do not most people in their Childhood picture Ghosts as things flying around with a sheet covering them? What is the difference if I picture the trinity as Being Jehovah, Jesus, and a Casper like figure who has no name? I'm not busted on anything....Yes Gabby, a Ghost is a Spirit (a point I haven't denied). I just suggest you and many others are using the wrong definition of Spirit to prove there is a separate spirit entity other than what permeates from Jehovah's being. Having said that again, Jehovah's Holy Spirit is not a Ghost. Jehovah's Holy Spirit is Isa 11:2. If you can take 7 attributes of Jehovah, and make them into a sheet covered spook....congrats....but to be quite frank, I'm getting tired of tryin to set you straight on it....so I'll let you have the last word and I'll bug out.

 

[Atonement]

Georges,

Casper the friendly Ghost? Sheets covering them etc etc. I see a lot of Hollywood in your post. The OT did not have Ghost in sheets or Casper, who by the way is my brother in law -joke-

The Greek word used in most of your post is στοιχείο It's
meaning is Ghostlike which is that of a Spirit..

I do know a little Greek, and you should know the different languages and the terms used before posting something that you think is absolute..

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

Gabby....Does Casper the Friendly Ghost have a sheet over him? Do not most people in their Childhood picture Ghosts as things flying around with a sheet covering them? What is the difference if I picture the trinity as Being Jehovah, Jesus, and a Casper like figure who has no name? I'm not busted on anything....Yes Gabby, a Ghost is a Spirit (a point I haven't denied). I just suggest you and many others are using the wrong definition of Spirit to prove there is a separate spirit entity other than what permeates from Jehovah's being. Having said that again, Jehovah's Holy Spirit is not a Ghost. Jehovah's Holy Spirit is Isa 11:2. If you can take 7 attributes of Jehovah, and make them into a sheet covered spook....congrats....but to be quite frank, I'm getting tired of tryin to set you straight on it....so I'll let you have the last word and I'll bug out.

Casper??? You are basing your theology on cartoons.

 

[cyberjosh]

I didn't say they had to be schooled in Greek or Latin....I said they most certainly had enough working knowledge of the language. I live in the DFW area and know enough spanish to not starve...I'm sure with the amount of exposure, they got by...what are we disputing here anyway?...I don't remember.

We were discussing this to determine whether Greek culture would have had a significant impact on the people of Israel, which you accused Paul of falling under.

You quoted Acts on the unlearnedness of the disciples...I was merely pointing out that the Jews of Jerusalem thought the Galileans as being uneducated....not of the city so to speak...

That doesn't mean they weren't right. And actually thats part of the marvel of it, God working so powerfully in people that aren't even skilled/taught as teachers or leaders. Like God using Moses who was "slow to speech" to stand up to Pharoah. Humbleness in position is reflected in both circumstances. For that matter that's why God gave Paul his "thorn in the side" to keep him from becoming prideful. God used men that were unable to fulfill His will on their own, and by His power enabled them to do amazing things.

Uh...who?....You may not care, but you should...how do you know you're not backing the wrong side? With all due respect, do you know who these groups were? That is to say, I hope you didn't dismiss them because of what Martyr or anyone else said...The Nazarene/Ebionites were directly descended from the Church at Jerusalem. Of course Martyr is going to reject them...they were Jewish Christians...or Nazarene Jews.

Justin Martyr is a credible Christian resource and was one of the first Christian apologists (100 A.D.) to write against false "versions" of Christianity. Another early Church Father who lived after Justin Martyr, St. Ireneus (130-202 A.D) wrote against the Ebionites for their heresies. Read here for a very breif synopsis of what they believed (just a few paragraphs). It was definately gnostic: they believed that Jesus was a naturally born man and that Christ decended upon Jesus when he was baptised, and that Christ left Jesus when he was crucified. That's why I do not consider anything which that sect has said as credible.

Pick up Eisenman's as well (I got a copy for 5 bucks) the info is well worth it...Most bookstores have it for more....when you go to the bookstore, thumb through it...see if it looks interesting. I know there are excerpts on the internet on his book. He does a very good job at researching the historical/political involvements of Paul....ie. the Herodian connections etc...

The so-called "herodian connections" are conspiracy theories facbricated for convenience.

Not the words....the phrasing (ideaology) of some of his statements...without boging down the thread, I'll supply you with this link from wikipedia that delves deeper into a borderline gnostic Paul....

I have to ask, what do you think of the account(s) given about Paul in the book of Acts? Because if you cannot believe Acts then you cannot believe St. Luke, and if you cannot believe Luke then you cannot believe the Gospel of Luke. And if you cannot believe the Gospel of Luke then many things which we thought we knew about Jesus are not true, especially the many things surrounding his birth.

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

I have to ask, what do you think of the account(s) given about Paul in the book of Acts? Because if you cannot believe Acts then you cannot believe St. Luke, and if you cannot believe Luke then you cannot believe the Gospel of Luke. And if you cannot believe the Gospel of Luke then many things which we thought we knew about Jesus are not true, especially the many things surrounding his birth.

Good point, Shark.
To follow that thought to the next step, if you chose not to believe that the Scriptures written by Paul are true, and therefore can not trust Luke (Seeing as how he traveled with Paul) then it seems to me that one must be leaning on their own understanding. If we think it a righteous thing to lean on our own understanding, then we need to toss out the writings of Solomon as well.

Pro 3:5 Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.

 

[Georges]

I didn't say they had to be schooled in Greek or Latin....I said they most certainly had enough working knowledge of the language. I live in the DFW area and know enough spanish to not starve...I'm sure with the amount of exposure, they got by...what are we disputing here anyway?...I don't remember.

We were discussing this to determine whether Greek culture would have had a significant impact on the people of Israel, which you accused Paul of falling under.

Cyber...Paul uses the Sept to quote OT scripture...why?....Paul was born and raised in Tarsus.....Paul is connected with the Herodians....of course he is influenced (in some way) with Hellenism, Gnosticism and there is even Mystery Religion language in his epistles...

[quote:d690d]You quoted Acts on the unlearnedness of the disciples...I was merely pointing out that the Jews of Jerusalem thought the Galileans as being uneducated....not of the city so to speak...

That doesn't mean they weren't right. And actually thats part of the marvel of it, God working so powerfully in people that aren't even skilled/taught as teachers or leaders.

Agreed...somewhat

Like God using Moses who was "slow to speech" to stand up to Pharoah.

But even Moses had Aaron to do the talking....didn't he?

Humbleness in position is reflected in both circumstances. For that matter that's why God gave Paul his "thorn in the side" to keep him from becoming prideful.

Yet Paul was very boastful......so much so James in his epistle mentions "the tongue" in a possible condemnation (lack of a better word).

God used men that were unable to fulfill His will on their own, and by His power enabled them to do amazing things.

Hence the bestowing of his Holy Spirit on those he chooses...

Uh...who?....You may not care, but you should...how do you know you're not backing the wrong side? With all due respect, do you know who these groups were? That is to say, I hope you didn't dismiss them because of what Martyr or anyone else said...The Nazarene/Ebionites were directly descended from the Church at Jerusalem. Of course Martyr is going to reject them...they were Jewish Christians...or Nazarene Jews.

Justin Martyr is a credible Christian resource and was one of the first Christian apologists (100 A.D.) to write against false "versions" of Christianity.

I know who Martyr is....I was being silly....

Another early Church Father who lived after Justin Martyr, St. Ireneus (130-202 A.D) wrote against the Ebionites for their heresies.

Cyber, if he writes against the Ebiionites, he writes against the Chruch of Jerusalem because that is who the are descended from...

Read here for a very breif synopsis of what they believed (just a few paragraphs). It was definately gnostic: they believed that Jesus was a naturally born man and that Christ decended upon Jesus when he was baptised, and that Christ left Jesus when he was crucified. That's why I do not consider anything which that sect has said as credible.

And of course that depends on the website, for of all the research I've done on them...I've never read anywhere that they considered "The Annointing" as having descended on him at the baptism, although I agree with that statement....That is exactely what the Messianic Isa 11 states...Jesus is empowered with the HS at his baptism, in essence that makes him the annointed one at that point...it is then he becomes energized with God's Holy Power. As far as Christ leaving Jesus, I haven't heard of that in my studies (although I'll research it again, and again). I do not agree with that...and would be very surprised if that were true. Now, I will concede that one group believed that Jesys was born of a virgin, and one group that he was naturally born....either way it doesn't matter, he was comissioned at his baptism.

Pick up Eisenman's as well (I got a copy for 5 bucks) the info is well worth it...Most bookstores have it for more....when you go to the bookstore, thumb through it...see if it looks interesting. I know there are excerpts on the internet on his book. He does a very good job at researching the historical/political involvements of Paul....ie. the Herodian connections etc...

The so-called "herodian connections" are conspiracy theories facbricated for convenience.

Well then, I take it you read the book and disagree with it....if not, I'll leave your statement as it is...what about Josephus? fabricated for convenience? Damascus Document? Pseudo Clementines? Habakuk Pesher?

Not the words....the phrasing (ideaology) of some of his statements...without boging down the thread, I'll supply you with this link from wikipedia that delves deeper into a borderline gnostic Paul....

I have to ask, what do you think of the account(s) given about Paul in the book of Acts?

Cyber...did Paul say himself he was all things to all men....To the Jewish Christians he became law abiding....To the Gentiles, he became a man without the Law....The Paul of Acts and the Paul of the letters appear to be two different men....I used to refer to him as the Chameleon Paul...but was reprimanded for it...Don't forget...Luke was Paul's back pocket boy....If James (the real leader of the Church under Christ) had a personal biographer...I think we would have a different Acts of the Apostles....as it is, the book should be titled "Acts of the Apostle"....

Because if you cannot believe Acts then you cannot believe St. Luke, and if you cannot believe Luke then you cannot believe the Gospel of Luke.

You have to take both very seriously....If the Gospel of Luke lines up with the others (check and balence), then it's all good...Acts is very useful if you keep in mind it is written from a Gentiles perspective.

And if you cannot believe the Gospel of Luke then many things which we thought we knew about Jesus are not true, especially the many things surrounding his birth.

Of course you raise a good point...and as I've said if it matches the other Gospels then there is no problems....Cyber, surely you understand that the NT has been tampered with and edited....


I was just reading today that even the story of the "Woman caught in Adultery" was not in the earliest Greek manuscripts...but I still have to look into that....The thought that Jesus kept the Torah perfectly but apparently let an "alleged" adultress go free, doesn't appear to make him Torahally pure.....But, if the story is a later addition.....

[/quote:d690d]

Cyber....as I told you in pm....I'm a little burned out on the forum...and this particular thread especially....let me know (cheers, jeers) on the pdf...

 

[Georges]

Gabby....Does Casper the Friendly Ghost have a sheet over him? Do not most people in their Childhood picture Ghosts as things flying around with a sheet covering them? What is the difference if I picture the trinity as Being Jehovah, Jesus, and a Casper like figure who has no name? I'm not busted on anything....Yes Gabby, a Ghost is a Spirit (a point I haven't denied). I just suggest you and many others are using the wrong definition of Spirit to prove there is a separate spirit entity other than what permeates from Jehovah's being. Having said that again, Jehovah's Holy Spirit is not a Ghost. Jehovah's Holy Spirit is Isa 11:2. If you can take 7 attributes of Jehovah, and make them into a sheet covered spook....congrats....but to be quite frank, I'm getting tired of tryin to set you straight on it....so I'll let you have the last word and I'll bug out.

Casper??? You are basing your theology on cartoons.

No Gabby....as I've tried every other way to explain it...I just tried to put it in simple terms you would understand....not sure if it worked... :

 

[Georges]

Georges,

Casper the friendly Ghost? Sheets covering them etc etc. I see a lot of Hollywood in your post. The OT did not have Ghost in sheets or Casper, who by the way is my brother in law -joke-

The Greek word used in most of your post is στοιχείο It's
meaning is Ghostlike which is that of a Spirit..

I do know a little Greek, and you should know the different languages and the terms used before posting something that you think is absolute..

Atonement, Gabby, et al....consider this...read it completely and carefully.

The story of Saul and the witch of Endor....the witch calls up the ghost of Samuel....the Hebrew word for spirit (as in Ghost, Samuel) is

1Sa 28:9 And the woman 0802 said 0559 unto him, Behold, thou knowest 03045 what Saul 07586 hath done 06213 , how he hath cut off 03772 those that have familiar spirits 0178, and the wizards 03049, out of the land 0776: wherefore then layest thou a snare 05367 for my life 05315, to cause me to die 04191 ?

Consider the Strong's definition of spirit (0178)

Hebrew for 0178

Pronunciation Guide
'owb {obe}

TWOT Reference Root Word
TWOT - 37a from the same as 01 (apparently through the idea of prattling a father's name)
Part of Speech
n m
Outline of Biblical Usage
1) water skin bottle
2) necromancer
b) necromancer, one who evokes the dead

[color=red]c) ghost, spirit of a dead one[/color]

d) practice of necromancy
3) one that has a familiar spirit

This is a completely different word that is used for the Holy Spirit in Hebrew...

Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness [was] upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Hebrew for 07307

Pronunciation Guide
ruwach {roo'-akh}

TWOT Reference Root Word
TWOT - 2131a from 07306
Part of Speech
n f
Outline of Biblical Usage

1) wind, breath, mind, spirit
a) breath

b) wind

1) of heaven
2) quarter (of wind), side
3) breath of air
4) air, gas
5) vain, empty thing

c) spirit (as that which breathes quickly in animation or agitation)

1) spirit, animation, vivacity, vigour
2) courage
3) temper, anger
4) impatience, patience
5) spirit, disposition (as troubled, bitter, discontented)
6) disposition (of various kinds), unaccountable or uncontrollable impulse
7) prophetic spirit

d) spirit (of the living, breathing being in man and animals)

1) as gift, preserved by God, God's spirit, departing at death, disembodied being

e) spirit (as seat of emotion)

1) desire
2) sorrow, trouble

f) spirit

1) as seat or organ of mental acts
2) rarely of the will
3) as seat especially of moral character

g) Spirit of God, the third person of the triune God, the Holy Spirit, coequal, coeternal with the Father and the Son

1) as inspiring ecstatic state of prophecy
2) as impelling prophet to utter instruction or warning
3) imparting warlike energy and executive and administrative power
4) as endowing men with various gifts
5) as energy of life
6) as manifest in the Shekinah glory
7) never referred to as a depersonalised force


These are 2 different Hebrew words....Owb is the Hebrew word for Ghost....I never see a reference to the HOLY OWB...

Ruach is the Hebrew word for Spirit (not Ghost) and excluding the trinitarian addition to Ruach....it is clear that it is not a spirit entity as OWB is....

 

[John the Baptist]

Holy Spirit & Holy Ghost... One in the same?


Surely! It is the same invisible third person of the Godhead. One person is Spirit, & the others are documented by their self, as having an 'image' who we were patterned after..

---John

 

[Gabbylittleangel]

No Gabby....as I've tried every other way to explain it...I just tried to put it in simple terms you would understand....not sure if it worked... :

George, it is not a question of your having to choose between cartoons or Greek language. It is a question of truth. God is able to speak to me in terms that I can understand. No matter how simple. Telling me something that is not true, is not true whether you said in Greek or with animation. :-?

I have a choice to make here. To believe Scripture, or to believe something else. When given a choice between God and anything else, I always choose God. I BELIEVE THE BIBLE.

I believe that the ghost in these verses is the same thing as the word spirit.

Gen 25:8 Then Abraham gave up the ghost,
Job 3:11 Why died I not from the womb? [why] did I [not] give up the ghost when I came out of the belly?
Mat 1:18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
Mat 3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and [with] fire:
Mar 15:37 And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost.

 

[Georges]

Holy Spirit & Holy Ghost... One in the same?


Surely! It is the same invisible third person of the Godhead. One person is Spirit, & the others are documented by their self, as having an 'image' who we were patterned after..

---John

Congrats John....I think you and are create the longest posts...this is the shortest one I seen you ever make... :D and for once I understand what typed...it is going to be a good day... :D

Still...no matter how many definitions I post and supporting scripture...folks will still hold on to what has been proven questionable...John have you read the whole thread...your statement is 5 pages behind....