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