Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost?

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:


This is heresy unless you mean something than you wrote. There is a clear distinction between the Father and the Son and we should it as if there is. If this is what you mean, you are in contradiction to clearly revealed Scripture.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


I find it hard to believe because Scripture does not make a distinction between their
voices. You are imposing something on a translation of Scripture, something not found in
the original language texts. Scripture makes a distinction between God the Father, God the
Son, and God the Spirit. It does not throw in a fourth person, God the Ghost.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is Jesus God, then why call God Jesus, Is the Holy Spirit, the Holy Ghost, why call the
"spirit", "Ghost"???

The Translators did make a distinction between them, one Spirit, one Ghost, even though they are "one", WHY???

Do you accept that "ALL Scripture" is "inspired", by the "Spirit", if you do, they "WHY"
did the Spirit inspire the translators to make this "distinction"??
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We're all made to "drink of the same "Spiritual Rock", (1Co 10:4) but for the
Church, it's easy to drink, (fresh)(Spiritual crucifixion) however when Israel
drinks of this same water, it will be "Bitter", "In tribulations", to drink of this
water will mean physical death for them, (not worshipping the antichrist).

This is an example of what I am talking about. You are introducing something foreign to
the text.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only thing "foreign" is your lack of knowledge, when the "Church", "drink of Jesus's
cup", Mt 20:22 , it's a "Spiritual Crucifixion" of the "old man",

Ro 6:6 Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with him,

However when the Jews "drink of this cup" during the tribulation, it will result in their
"physical death", not a "spiritual death".

Re 13:15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the
beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the
beast should be killed.

Re 6:9 And when he had opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of them that
were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held:

A "spiritual crucifixion" is "sweet" to accept compared to the "bitter" truth that to "drink
of Jesus's cup" will require you to give up your "physical life", as during tribulations.

Jas 3:12 Can the fig tree, my brethren, bear olive berries? either a vine, figs? so can no
fountain both yield salt water and fresh. (at the same time)

The "fountain" doesn't yield "fresh" and "salt" water at the same time, God doesn't deal
with both "Jews" and "Gentiles", at the same time.

Israel is "blinded" (Ro 11:7) until the "church is Rapture", (fulness of the Gentiles) Ro
11:25, the "VINE" doesn't try to harvest "figs" during this time period, (Fig Tree is
writhed up) the "water" we drink is "fresh", (easy to drink, spiritual crucifixion)
however the "water" will be "bitter", (salt) (hard to drink, resulting in physical death) when the Jews
have to drink it for salvation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a basic principle of hermeneutics that you are ignoring. It says, Scripture cannot
mean what it never meant. It is illegitimate to take an author's words about one subject and
apply to another.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm not "mixing subjects", I'm just taking you into "area 51" and showing you "secrets" the
"carnal mind" never dreamed of.

As you've seen, I've shown you how these "verses" fits in with many other parts of the Bible,
no verse "stands along", it has a place within the "whole context" of the Book.

As with the name "Holy Ghost", you've never seen how "precise" the Bible is written,
these "Names", "Titles" all contribute to help explain the "whole Bible".

 

[rlvaughn]

Scott: "Why does the KJV translate the Greek phrase hagios pneuma 'Holy Spirit' in some places and 'Holy Ghost' in others?...is this an error?" No, this is not an error. To use two different words that can have the same meaning is not an error. But it has been a source of confusion to many people.

Chris: "Actually, in Greek, pneuma never means ghost, but only wind or spirit. And the Hebrew ruach never means ghost either, but breath, wind, or spirit." To say this is to say too much, when ghost can mean the same thing as spirit. Though we seldom do it today, the words can still be used interchangeably. And, for example, 'pneuma' is used by Matthew and John when referring to Jesus yielding up the 'ghost'. It certainly doesn't mean an apparition like Casper or Slimer, but rather His spirit. We still use that expression today. "the word ghost only appears twice in the NASB - in Matt 14:26 and Mark 6:49 - and both times it is a translation of the Greek phantasma; meaning an appearance, or apparition." This conforms to the modern growth of our language. Almost every time people use the word 'ghost' today they do mean an apparition.

If one will chart the semantic range of the words 'spirit' and 'ghost', one will find there is a strong overlap of the two. To me this would say the only part of the question of error would be in why the translators chose to use two words, not the fact that they did so. To do so is to hold them to a higher standard than we hold ourselves, who regularly use different words to discuss or the define the same things, both in our writings and in our conversation.

 

[Pastor Larry]

RL, the issue is not the semantic range of "Spirit" and "Ghost." The issue is the semantic range of "pneuma."

 

[Rockfort]

&lt; And there's no distinction between "God the Father" and "God the Son",
"and we should treat it that way". &gt;

Putting more stoopidity on display? Read Mark 13:32:

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (KJV)

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (NAS)

There is a distinction, or the Son could not be ignorant of something the Father knows.

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Rockfort:
&lt; And there's no distinction between "God the Father" and "God the Son",
"and we should treat it that way". &gt;

Putting more stoopidity on display? Read Mark 13:32:

"But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (KJV)

"But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone." (NAS)

There is a distinction, or the Son could not be ignorant of something the Father knows.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


My point exactly, why make a distinction between the Father and Son, both being the same, and Spirit, Ghost, both being the same.

Why was the Spirit's name changed to Ghost for the "Church age", because it was "sent in Jesus's name", not the Father's.

Spirit and Ghost distinguishes between the Father speaking and Jesus speaking.

Heb 1:1 God, spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son,

The Holy Ghost rapture and leaves this earth with the church, it's the "voice of the Briegroom", Jesus.


Failing to understand this distinction between the "Spirit" and "Ghost" is why Mid and Post trib: rapture "theories" are wrong.

 

[S. Baptist]

I've noticed that one of the signs of "carnal mind" mentality is that it always tries to assign a
"definite" value or definition to words, the Son can't be the Father, and the Father can't be the
Son, is a good example.

This leads me to the conclusion that understanding the "Trinity", how three can be one, or one
can be three, which defies carnal mind logic, is the first thing a person must come to terms
with before they can understand the Bible.

Without allowing the definitions to "Float" (for lack of a better word) Jesus can only be the
"Son", never the "Father", or the "Vine", or the "Word", all of which describes God in a
particular context within the Bible.

To the carnal mind, calling the "Holy Spirit" the "Holy Ghost", is to add another "dimension"
to God, because the Holy Spirit can't also be the Holy Ghost, as the son can not be the Father.

The Bible play tricks with the carnal mind, just when "IT" thinks it has the Bible figured out,
the Bible changes a name, changes it role, and the carnal mind believes it's a totally "new
Character".

WHY, because the old definition doesn't fit the "new character", and logic of the carnal mind
dictates that the Son can only be the Son, never the Father, or the Spirit can only be the Spirit,
never the Ghost.

CONFUSING??? only to the carnal mind.

 

[S. Baptist]

Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not; and it shall be given him.


God will one day bear witness as to the "truth" or "lie" of my words, whether they are of his wisdom or mine.

On that day, it won't matter to me who of this world agreed or disagreed with those words, but only if God agrees.

Spirit bears witness to spirit, and that's what's missing in your words.

[ November 05, 2001: Message edited by: Thomas Cassidy ]

 

[Chris Temple]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by S. Baptist:
CONFUSING??? only to the carnal mind.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, and apparently intentionally to show your "spirituality".

Most of your posts are sadly incomprehensible. You also appear to be hovering dangerously close to modalism or unitarianism.

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Chris Temple:


Yes, and apparently intentionally to show your "spirituality".

Most of your posts are sadly incomprehensible. You also appear to be hovering dangerously close to modalism or unitarianism.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.


Thanks for helping me make my point.

 

[rlvaughn]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
RL, the issue is not the semantic range of "Spirit" and "Ghost." The issue is the semantic range of "pneuma."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Pastor Larry, I respectfully disagree. The whole argument is really null and void unless "spirit" and "ghost" cannot the same thing. The English word "ghost" can mean just "spirit", rather than always meaning some kind of apparition.

 

[S. Baptist]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Pastor Larry:
RL, the issue is not the semantic range of "Spirit" and "Ghost." The issue is the semantic range of "pneuma."<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Was "God's spirit" present on the earth before Jesus came?

If so, Why did Jesus say God would sent the "Spirit", which was already here, and why did Jesus rename it, Holy Ghost???

The Holy Ghost is the Holy Spirit, as Jesus the Son is God the Father, but why the "name changing" for either the Spirit or God?

In the OT the spirit only decended on Priest,Prophets, Kings, and God was "I AM".

In the NT, the "GHOST" is "poured out" on "ALL FLESH", who believes and God is "JESUS".

As the "Father and Son" have different roles to play, both being the same, so does the "Spirit and Ghost", both being the same.

The KJV is written very "precise" but "liberal" intrepretations doesn't reveal that "precision", creating confusion in "doctrine"

As an example:
1Co 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump: for the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed.

Because of "spirit and Ghost" confusion, many don't know if this "last trump" is of the "SON" (Rapture) of the "Father", (end of time)and the faults doctrine of "Mid, and Post trib:" rapture enters.

One other distinction, to show how "precise" the KJ is written, the day of the Rapture is called:

"DAY OF CHRIST" 2Th 2:2

It's not called the "day of the Lord", because it is a "SEPARATE DAY", they "ARE NOT" the same day, and are "SEVEN YEARS" apart.

Da 9:27 And he (Jesus) shall confirm the (new) covenant with many (rapture church) for one week: (Seven years)

This of course is the "Marriage Supper" of the "Lamb" which the Jews were invited but refused to attend. Matt 22.

When you paint with a Broad brush, the "day of the lord" covers up the "day of Christ".

In the "Day of Christ" Jesus is only looking for his "Bride", not to be "lord of the whole Earth, He'll come back for that after "Supper".

 

[Chris Temple]

YEs, thank you, Administrator.