What means these: Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit?

Theology
62

So here are some thoughts that im going to try on. Trying them on because they must be tested with the word rightly divided. The best blog I ever read on this subject was by Erica Jackson.

And I will have to find it and share it because I dont want to get her revelation wrong. But for now I’ll share my recollection.

Yes she said there were still 3 forms that God manifested Himself in. Yet the spirit, transforms
for lack of better words to Holyghost which is the full form we have to defeat the world, Satan and the devil( my words) when we are in complete faith.

I am also taking something from the Video prophet Graffa..

Which He was saying as far as my understanding and recollection went, that all three manifestations of God ( or 2) had to be there when one exercised their gifts.

Now one thing I do believe is that in the so called great commission (as Willard my favorite Theologian and Philosopher +) in the Baptism in the name of the F, S,HG, that one should not merely see water. That this is speaking of the Baptism or surrounding one in the presencen of God; reality.

Because we cant deny that in the Batism in the red sea that God was not with His people.

So my question is when one is doing works for the kingdom should God’s presence be there?

Now JESUS SAID He would send another like Him…(And I just saw something…of course I have to check out what comes to my mind.)

But these people had already believed what?
That Jesus was the Messiah.

His disciples were told to wait until they were endued with power from on high…the cloven tongues that set upon each would definitely be a sign of that, imo. But the manifestation came from within those who believed the word.

So here we might find 3 things

Power or annoiting coming on
The word having already been received
The manifestation

Interesting enough none of these are the person;
But what is happening to or something in the person.

What it sounds like is God verifying God in a person.

But time to get up…part 2 on “Trying Things On”

63

I read once, that a linguist scholar say, that “ghost” in 1611 connoted 'spirit’ or ‘breath’ not a spectral apparition,

This is accurate. Originally “ghost” just meant “spirit”, in the modern period the term “ghost” has slowly come to mean, in popular usage, a particular kind of spirit–the spirit of a dead person. Which is why we see, through the early modern to modern period of English a preference for “Holy Spirit” rather than “Holy Ghost”. “Holy Ghost” is the older form, it’s what English speakers were using for centuries, consider Luke 1:35 (Anglo-Saxon translation from the Wessex Gospels, c. 990 AD)

Ða andswarede hyre se engel: Se Halga Gast on þe becymð, and þæs Hehstan miht þe ofer-sceadað; and forþam þæt halige, þe of þe acenned byð, byð Godes Sunu genemned.

My clumsy attempt to clarify the meaning here by using more up-to-date English:

“And answered her the angel: The Holy Ghost on you shall come, and the Highest might you over-shadow; and therefore that holy thing of you born, be God’s Son so-named”

Compare the 1611 KJV

And the Angel answered and said vnto her, The holy Ghost shall come vpon thee, and the power of the Highest shall ouershadow thee. Therefore also that holy thing which shall bee borne of thee, shall bee called the sonne of God.

Here’s the more familiar 1769 (Oxford) update of the KJV most English-speakers are familiar with:

And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

And here is how the ESV renders it

And the angel answered her, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.

The most obvious thing is that “Holy Ghost” is predominant before the modern era, even the early modern translations of the 1611 and 1769 use “Holy Ghost”, but this is slowly changed in newer translations over time with “Holy Spirit”; as “Holy Spirit” was becoming more predominant to refer to the Third Person of the Trinity among English-speaking Christians. And today “Holy Ghost” tends to only be used in archaic contexts (old form translations of Scripture, the Creeds, hymns, liturgies, etc).

Much in the same way that many English-speaking Christians continue to use the more archaic form of the Lord’s Prayer with “Hallowed be Thy name” even if our Bibles, our hymns, and all our other liturgical materials use a more contemporary English. It would be a simple thing to say “Our Father in heaven, Your name is holy” but centuries of tradition, sentiment, and nostalgia means that one still finds the Lord’s Prayer recited using the older translation, with all the archaisms.

This is about the only context, in the modern age, one will still come across “Holy Ghost” rather than “Holy Spirit”. Where archaisms are retained.

2 Likes
64

"When the Lord brought it to me, He said that the Holy Ghost is the transfigured or glorified form of Jesus. We don’t have to say, “in the name of The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit and The Holy Ghost .” The Holy Ghost is the full form of Jesus that we now have access to in order to overcome Satan. It is the form of Jesus in which carries the fullness of His power. It is the evolved form of The Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ or The Holy Ghost are two different things (Romans 8:9 – 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.)" Erickajackson.com article by JACKSON

66

Here Ericka says:

**

*The Holy Ghost is the full form of Jesus that we now have access to in order to overcome Satan

*. It is the form of Jesus in which carries the fullness of His power. It is the evolved form of The Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God or the Holy Spirit and the Spirit of Christ or The Holy Ghost are two different things (Romans 8:9 – 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.)" Erickajackson.com article by JACKSON

CORLOVE13
It certainly makes sense seeing in
1 Corinthians it says:

but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the **

power of God

**. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: but we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness; but unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called: but God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty

67

Could you show me where you find this?

Gen 19:31 Now the firstborn said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on the earth to come in to us as is the custom of all the earth

Clearly in this verse ‘our’ means 2.

I think you could leave out your point about ‘our’ meaning 3 or more. We are always only indwelt by the Holy Spirit, Jesus is at the right hand of the Father. :slight_smile:

68

In the original biblical languages of Hebrew and Greek, the word for “our,” a first-person plural pronoun, does not specifically require a minimum of three people, granted. It simply indicates more than one person. The exact number two, three, or many more is determined by the specific context in which it is used.

In certain passages like the one I was referring to, Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image”, God refers to Himself using plural pronouns. Christian theology interprets this as a reference to the Trinity’s three persons; the grammatical form itself indicates plurality, not specifically a minimum of three.

Of course, in some places, it would indicate two, as you point out, and some three. In all, it is always more than one. Hope this helps.

Peter

69

Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit

Both use Holy Pneuma

So what is the same and what is different?

This is for those who believe there is a difference in wording.

70

Such CONFUSION! There really ARE no such thing as ‘ghosts’- the returning ‘immortal souls’ of dead one. The word ‘spirit’ breaks down as ‘wind’ in ancient Hebrew. Denoting POWER! Need I say more?

71

Welcome @TheQuestion. Glad you are here. Are you denying that the Holy Spirit is a real living being? If so, let’s talk about it.
Peter

1 Like
72

Everyone has an opinion

73

What is the difference between Abram and Abraham?

What is the difference between one person being a boy and a man.

What is the difference between eternal life and life eternal?

Or Jesus Chist vs. Christ Jesus

If Jesus was the word made flesh when He came in the world, how would one define or show a person no longer in the world as a human.

What would be the task they could take on that they couldn’t or didn’t while living in the body and why?

74

Finally found a read that’s similar to my thoughts

Fact is that in the interpretation of these and similar texts (which have been used to support an erroneous idea of the “counsel of peace,” H.H.) we may never lose sight of the distinction between the Person of the Son in the divine nature and the Person of the Son in the human nature. In His human nature the Son is subordinate to God as His Father. In the divine nature He is co-equal with the Father. In His human nature He stands in relation to God as one that is sent stands to one that sends him. In His divine nature He is, together with the Father and the Holy Spirit, Sender, not Sent. His human will is subordinate to the will of the Father. But in His divine will He is One with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

H. Hoeksema

Only issue with this…is they could have used Holy Ghost. And somewhere along the line, in this study is for one to understand the spirit of the Holy vs. The holy ghost…

This to me is quite the poetic puzzle

If one could poetisize a butterfly then maybe one can describe what takes place from Holyspirit to HolyGhost. It may make sense to say God is the Holy Spirit, and Jesus the Holy Ghost. But it’s location, location, location. Things spoken of from where God is and in what form He takes on.

The most amazing of what I see is God is God…that God uses Himself…

75

No! I learned better!

76

@anon3111385, have you ever considered the possibility that these “experts” that you rely on for the “correct” interpretation may be leading you astray from the true interpretation of God’s Word based on its own assumptions and meanings? I think that I see that problem in your references.

77

Everyone has an opinion…Some people God has revealed things to, and others have looked into the matter. It is one thing to address what you see and the reason you believe it is true using references and proper understanding being guided by the Holy Spirit, or having a teacher who has a gift and its been revealed to through proper study…AND another to disagree for the sake of tradition which I see it seems you are doing…

So if ya have nothing to add to the subject with references of how holy pneuma is different or why it’s not then…you have not saw anything…

78

“Ghost” is a matter of fable- NOT in the Bible, except for church translators.

79

Nothing too difficult here…

Genesis 1:26 is one of those verses where the grammar is straightforward, but the interpretation is debated. The Hebrew text undeniably uses first-person plural forms:

נַעֲשֶׂה (naʿăśeh) - “let us make”
בְּצַלְמֵנוּ (bəṣalmēnû) - “in our image”
כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ (kidmûtēnû) - “according to our likeness”

What is not disputed is the morphology; the debate concerns who the “us” refers to.

Many scholars also note that the very next verse returns to the singular:

"So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them." (Genesis 1:27, ESV)

The Hebrew of Genesis 1:27 repeatedly uses singular verbs:

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים (vayyivrāʾ ʾĕlōhîm) - “And God created”

The verb וַיִּבְרָא (vayyivrāʾ) is third person masculine singular, emphasizing that the one God alone performed the act of creation.

This juxtaposition, plural deliberation in verse 26 and singular action in verse 27 is precisely why Genesis 1:26 has generated so much discussion in both Jewish and Christian interpretation.

Observe, if you will…

Breaking it down:

בְּ (bə) = “in”
צֶלֶם (ṣelem) = “image”
־נוּ (-nû) = our

Gen 1:26 וַיֹּ֣אמֶר H559 vai·Yo·mer said אֱלֹהִ֔ים H430 E·lo·Him, And God נַֽעֲשֶׂ֥ה H6213 na·'a·Seh Let us make אָדָ֛ם H120 'a·Dam man בְּצַלְמֵ֖נוּ H6754 be·tzal·Me·nu in our image כִּדְמוּתֵ֑נוּ H1823 kid·mu·Te·nu; after our likeness וְיִרְדּוּ֩ H7287 ve·yir·Du and let them have dominion בִדְגַ֨ת H1710 vid·Gat over the fish הַיָּ֜ם H3220 hai·Yam of the sea וּבְע֣וֹף H5775 u·ve·'of and over the fowl הַשָּׁמַ֗יִם H8064 hash·sha·Ma·yim, of the air וּבַבְּהֵמָה֙ H929 u·vab·be·he·Mah and over the cattle וּבְכָל־ H3605 u·ve·Chol all הָאָ֔רֶץ H776 ha·'A·retz, and over all the earth וּבְכָל־ H3605 u·ve·Chol every הָרֶ֖מֶשׂ H7431 ha·Re·mes and over every creeping thing הָֽרֹמֵ֥שׂ H7430 ha·ro·Mes that creepeth עַל־ H5921 'al- on הָאָֽרֶץ׃ H776 ha·'A·retz. upon the earth

But then…Immediately afterward we read:

וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ

Vayyivrāʾ ʾĔlōhîm ʾet-hāʾādām bəṣalmô

“So God created man in His own image…”

Observe…

This is why interpreters debate what the plural means, but not whether the plural exists. The plural forms are undeniably present in the Hebrew grammar. The real question is theological:

Is God addressing the heavenly court?
Is this a plural of deliberation?
Is it an adumbration of the Trinity?

People disagree on the interpretation, but the Hebrew morphology itself is quite clear: Genesis 1:26 contains first-person plural forms, while Genesis 1:27 immediately reaffirms that the one God alone created humanity.

This is not a verse I will use to establish the Triune Godhead, there are plenty more.

My 2 cents.

J.

1 Like
80

Correct you are @TheologyNerd AI can be “tweaked” and is useless for theological studies.

J.

81

It is a very fascinating imagination you have, Johan!

Yehovah and His son were at least present.

82

I don’t disagree @TheQuestion, just saying this is NOT a verse I will go to to prove the Trinity.

J.

1 Like