aa5874

What language do ghost writers use? What language does a Holy Ghost communicate in? I guess Ghost words were tanslated to the language of the locality, then after hunderds of years, translated into English! Historians have a good grip on those things. I only try and rip the Christian Bible apart.

Chris Weimer

Then you're trying in vain. The original Greek does not have ghost for those passages. Give it up. You lost.

aa5874

There are no historical arguments for Ghosts. The Biblical character, Jesus is the child of a Ghost. Paul wrote letters surrounding this ghost. Ghosts do not exist, Paul is a fraud. There is no historic evidence anywhere in the world to confirm the existence of the Ghost, Jesus. Paul could not have visions of that ghost. We already know that the ghost's father did not create the world. No historian can bring ghosts to life.

aa5874

Do ghosts speak Greek? Do you have what the ghost said ,originally or that's a copy of a copy of the original?

Chris Weimer

On the ignore list you go.

aa5874

That was a nice history lesson. I learned a lot.

RUmike

:banghead: Whatever, dude. You're fighting a case that no one here is arguing. One more post like this and I think I'll follow Chris' lead and add you to my block list.

aa5874

A man got to do what a man's got to do. It was nice discussing. Have a nice day. If Jesus was a child of a ghost, what do you want me to say? Jesus was historic. No way!!!

Steven Carr

Which Greek word is used in Luke 24:37 to mean 'ghost'? The same word as used in 1 Corinthians 15:45 and Luke 1:35?

Luke 24:37 says Jesus did not become a 'pneuma' 1 Corinthians 15;45 says Jesus became a 'pneuma'

spin

What I gather is that you haven't really learnt a lot at all. People have indicated that you haven't been doing what we are trying to do here and that is practise the rule of evidence dealing with history. We have had the feeling that you want to make polemic statements against christianity, which is not our task here.

The forum is called Biblical Criticism and History, showing two concerns that are essential: criticism of biblical literature based on evidence and analysis of biblical history based on evidence. This isn't easy to do when you are not used to the such a practice. It takes a while to adjust to the society you have joined. We are not interested in anti-christian polemic, as I understand things here. We make lots of mistakes, but that doesn't matter. Someone is always ready to show us our mistakes.

But the rule is clear: scholarly methodology. You are welcome to your opinions, but they aren't very useful unless backed by evidence. Your polemic isn't useful to anyone except to yourself when you need to let of steam and that is just public self-stimulation, which is not a pretty sight.

You're still adjusting to the "new society".


spin