This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holy Spirit in Christianity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Holy Spirit for relevant archived discussions before March 2011.
I just want to point out that I find the article somewhat restricted to merely biblical refereces. Further differentiation is needed.
It would be good to provide some larger context such as attempted by Jean Gebser in his "Everpresent Origin". According to Gebser the (holy) spirit evolved from a soul quality as in the greek 'psyche' via the 'nous' and Heraklit's 'logos' to the logos of St. John's gospel. This would also address the unsigned comment added by 84.111.224.202 herunder.
According to Gebser, there is a far-reaching equivalency between the 'pneuma hagion' (holy spirit or holy ghost) and the 'mens divina', the 'spiritus sacer' as well as the 'animus divinus'. These were written about by Cicero, adopted by Seneca and further developed by one of the most important Church Fathers: Saint Augustin.
I am not a scholar of either hebrew or greek, but to me it does not make sense to equate "the spirit of god' of the old testatment with the 'holy spirit' of the new testament. Hskoppek ( talk) 10:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
In Hebrew, ruach means wind. But ruach hadvarim (literally wind of things) means the essence behind a statement/article/speech etc. So ruach hakodesh means the essence of god not as some distinct entity but as a concept. When ruach elohim is upon someone, it means they act in accordance with the essence of judaism. Nothing in terms using 'ruach' means a different being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.224.202 ( talk) 12:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The article has been revamped completely and it has improved on readability; It is now more accessible.
However the way the article has been revamped is trying to make a huge point, and that point is Awfully wrong; And it is that the Holy Spirit is an elaboration introduced in the New Testament only as opposed to a Divine Person who was revealing Himself and was being revealed by The Father and the Divine Wisdom to the entire creation:
- This Divine revelation is recorded in the Old Testament, including books that are considered canonical for the Judaism and Christianity alike.
- The References to the
Ruach Hakodesh, Spirit of God, God's Spirit, Breath of God in the old Testament are understood within the Christendom as references made to the Holy Spirit of Christ Who is the Holy Spirit of the Father. The reference provided for the affirmation that the term "Holy Spirit" only appears thrice (Acts and Pauline writings by Watson E. Mills) denies the official interpretation of Ruach Hakodesh within major Christian faiths as recorded in prominent theological works and the Roman Catholic Cathechism.
therefore:
- The article is summarized in the lead section by naming Synoptic gospels, Pauline and Johannine Works as the only basis for the validity of "the idea" of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person and so is the biblical references section expanded. So the article presents the reader with the idea of scarce or no Biblical references for the Spirit of God in the old Testament, and that is wrong; That one is a line of thinking commonly found on detractors.
- Biblical references for the Holy Spirit abound in the old Testament: In Genesis
[1], in Proverbs
[2], in Psalms
[3], also as of special note there is the Book Of Wisdom, that is considered canonical for most Christians and is a treaty on the Most Holy Trinity
[4].
- From those references and from many others the Church identifies God the Father as being the All-Mighty, the Divine Wisdom as being God the Son, and the Breath of God, the Spirit of God as being the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son. [5] [6]] Ctmv ( talk) 06:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Ctmv (
talk)
08:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Previous to the introduction of "the Son" into "the Trinity" [1], Yahweh and Elohim (hypothetically "The Holy Spirit") are never said to be "the Duality". Therefore, it seems plausible that concern for the use of both Yahweh and Elohim was causing confusion, and the term Elohim [2] was replaced by Holy Spirit (see the use of Ruach Elohim in the main article). Yahweh lacking in Angelic forces and Elohim having them (note the dove reference on the image caption on the main page). Elohim - having been noted in it's own article with not being considered plural though having the plural ending and indicating "God of gods" (aka "Lord of Lords") - controls the Heavenly Hosts [3] ... something that is not stated in regards to Yahweh. Thus separating Yahweh and Elohim into two different Divine forms. There have been books written about the reconciliation of the Hebrew tribes and the combination of the records for the two which now forms the modern day Bible (which was then edited countless times throughout history). I fully understand that there are those that are not going to accept that such reunification mergers of texts occurred and considered the current Bible as written is "perfect" even though it obviously has been edited repeatedly even during more recent history (including the removal of entire books from the Bible). The point being that Elohim with his Heavenly Host implies that Elohim is "everywhere" versus Yahweh thus Elohim most probably was simply renamed/rebranded as the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost in attempt to avoid confusion and unify Yahweh, Jesus, Elohim trinity into one single godhead [4] to preserve the idea of worshiping a single god and, therefore, not to be considered polytheistic [5] - which is something that was definitely looked down-upon by the Hebrew. WereTech ( talk) 04:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
<<"Since the first century, Christians have also called upon God with the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayer, absolution and benediction.[13][14]">>
That statement is not backed up by the sources cited. It's disputable if there even where Christians in the first century at all. It's even disputed if the phrase was not retroactivly put into the scripture (which is actually backed up by the sources cited). It rather sounds like someone is trying to generate fake historicity. I demand this baseless statement to be removed.
88.152.128.228 (
talk)
22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG talk 00:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
– per WP:PRECISE and CONSISTENCY with related articles. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the text, again, because it fails both WP:OR and WP:V, and is IMO WP:UNDUE for the lede. Let me be more explicit in my concerns here. This edit:
References
is almost completely OR. I've never seen or known anyone to describe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in this way. I have seen several different groups define it several different ways. Trying to nail this down in the lede is problematic at best, and IMO is better left to the body of the article. I disagree with the value statement that this is "the most important info on the Holy Spirit," especially based on the amount of discussion on this point in the body of the article. If a subtopic gets a lot of attention in the body, then we summarize it for one or two sentences in the lede, otherwise it is undue weight to mention it in the lede.
Similarly, this edit:
References
has many of the same issues. The first sentence is completely OR without a citing source. The second sentence is not supported by the two cited sources. It looks more like it is a bad paraphrase with personal embellishments based on text in the body of the article, without actually checking the sources. Again, because the body of the article spends so little time on this topic, I question the necessity of having this in the lede. IMO, this is not a defining characteristic of the Holy Spirit. At least one other editor has agreed with the removal of the text and the onus is on the editor adding text, not the one removing. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
"Old Testament" and "New Testament" are standard, recognizable, durable names for specific things in Christian Biblical scholarship. Let's be clear here: this is an article on Christian Biblical scholarship. It is not about Judaism, Islam, Hebrew Scriptures, Hellenism, paganism, or anything but the Holy Spirit in Christianity. Therefore, there is no need to uproot the perfectly serviceable headings and cram in ugly, long-winded, unhelpful descriptions in search of some kind of bogus WP:NPOV that is not needed here. Thanks. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu: might be interested in this article too: the only thing in the "apocrypha" section that corresponds to a cited source is the quote, the rest is WP:OR. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It is very unusual to me how this article fails to treat the masculinity, or even the personhood, of the Holy Spirit. The whole subject is entirely avoided! There is not one pronoun referring to him, and there is no discussion of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person. It is as if someone applied MOS:GENDERID to a nonbinary or queer living person and deliberately avoided using any pronoun whatsoever. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Honest question: is the brief, and frankly underwhelming, section on Stoicism necessary in an article that is titled "Holy Spirit in Christianity"? Its surely an interesting topic, as the Stoics were monistic thinkers who equated pneuma with theos, cosmos, and soma (Gk. spirit with God, universe, and body). Notwithstanding, the article would be cleaner if the discussion were removed and perhaps discussed on pages about Stoicism or the concept of pneuma outside of Christianity. Thoughts? Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 04:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Protect me 197.221.232.139 ( talk) 20:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
"Acts 2:24" and "2 Cor 1:21" have bot red-tags sayin they are invalid bible book cites. (The problem was there before I undertook my spate of edits and corrections.) But I don't know what the correct citations should be or how to find them. (The holy spirit (and the force) are not with me in this regard.) Hello, Bible fans. Please help clear up the bot red-tags. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Even though the article is about the Holy Spirit in Christianity, I believe that next to the discussion of the Holy Spirit's presence in Judaism and Christianity (the "Rauch"), it is fair to bring the views of Quran as well. Quran mentions Holy Spirit (from God's narration) as "our spirit". The majority of muslims believe that this spirit must mean one of the archangels such as Gabriel, but there is no concrete evidence inside Quran that that is the case. Hence, Holy Spirit could be a completely different entity. 2601:646:8D00:2C0:BD0E:9604:7AA5:858A ( talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Holy Spirit in Christianity article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives:
1Auto-archiving period: 30 days
![]() |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, nor for engaging in Apologetics/ Polemics at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
See Talk:Holy Spirit for relevant archived discussions before March 2011.
I just want to point out that I find the article somewhat restricted to merely biblical refereces. Further differentiation is needed.
It would be good to provide some larger context such as attempted by Jean Gebser in his "Everpresent Origin". According to Gebser the (holy) spirit evolved from a soul quality as in the greek 'psyche' via the 'nous' and Heraklit's 'logos' to the logos of St. John's gospel. This would also address the unsigned comment added by 84.111.224.202 herunder.
According to Gebser, there is a far-reaching equivalency between the 'pneuma hagion' (holy spirit or holy ghost) and the 'mens divina', the 'spiritus sacer' as well as the 'animus divinus'. These were written about by Cicero, adopted by Seneca and further developed by one of the most important Church Fathers: Saint Augustin.
I am not a scholar of either hebrew or greek, but to me it does not make sense to equate "the spirit of god' of the old testatment with the 'holy spirit' of the new testament. Hskoppek ( talk) 10:46, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
In Hebrew, ruach means wind. But ruach hadvarim (literally wind of things) means the essence behind a statement/article/speech etc. So ruach hakodesh means the essence of god not as some distinct entity but as a concept. When ruach elohim is upon someone, it means they act in accordance with the essence of judaism. Nothing in terms using 'ruach' means a different being. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.111.224.202 ( talk) 12:03, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
The article has been revamped completely and it has improved on readability; It is now more accessible.
However the way the article has been revamped is trying to make a huge point, and that point is Awfully wrong; And it is that the Holy Spirit is an elaboration introduced in the New Testament only as opposed to a Divine Person who was revealing Himself and was being revealed by The Father and the Divine Wisdom to the entire creation:
- This Divine revelation is recorded in the Old Testament, including books that are considered canonical for the Judaism and Christianity alike.
- The References to the
Ruach Hakodesh, Spirit of God, God's Spirit, Breath of God in the old Testament are understood within the Christendom as references made to the Holy Spirit of Christ Who is the Holy Spirit of the Father. The reference provided for the affirmation that the term "Holy Spirit" only appears thrice (Acts and Pauline writings by Watson E. Mills) denies the official interpretation of Ruach Hakodesh within major Christian faiths as recorded in prominent theological works and the Roman Catholic Cathechism.
therefore:
- The article is summarized in the lead section by naming Synoptic gospels, Pauline and Johannine Works as the only basis for the validity of "the idea" of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person and so is the biblical references section expanded. So the article presents the reader with the idea of scarce or no Biblical references for the Spirit of God in the old Testament, and that is wrong; That one is a line of thinking commonly found on detractors.
- Biblical references for the Holy Spirit abound in the old Testament: In Genesis
[1], in Proverbs
[2], in Psalms
[3], also as of special note there is the Book Of Wisdom, that is considered canonical for most Christians and is a treaty on the Most Holy Trinity
[4].
- From those references and from many others the Church identifies God the Father as being the All-Mighty, the Divine Wisdom as being God the Son, and the Breath of God, the Spirit of God as being the Holy Spirit of the Father and the Son. [5] [6]] Ctmv ( talk) 06:00, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
Ctmv (
talk)
08:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Previous to the introduction of "the Son" into "the Trinity" [1], Yahweh and Elohim (hypothetically "The Holy Spirit") are never said to be "the Duality". Therefore, it seems plausible that concern for the use of both Yahweh and Elohim was causing confusion, and the term Elohim [2] was replaced by Holy Spirit (see the use of Ruach Elohim in the main article). Yahweh lacking in Angelic forces and Elohim having them (note the dove reference on the image caption on the main page). Elohim - having been noted in it's own article with not being considered plural though having the plural ending and indicating "God of gods" (aka "Lord of Lords") - controls the Heavenly Hosts [3] ... something that is not stated in regards to Yahweh. Thus separating Yahweh and Elohim into two different Divine forms. There have been books written about the reconciliation of the Hebrew tribes and the combination of the records for the two which now forms the modern day Bible (which was then edited countless times throughout history). I fully understand that there are those that are not going to accept that such reunification mergers of texts occurred and considered the current Bible as written is "perfect" even though it obviously has been edited repeatedly even during more recent history (including the removal of entire books from the Bible). The point being that Elohim with his Heavenly Host implies that Elohim is "everywhere" versus Yahweh thus Elohim most probably was simply renamed/rebranded as the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost in attempt to avoid confusion and unify Yahweh, Jesus, Elohim trinity into one single godhead [4] to preserve the idea of worshiping a single god and, therefore, not to be considered polytheistic [5] - which is something that was definitely looked down-upon by the Hebrew. WereTech ( talk) 04:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
<<"Since the first century, Christians have also called upon God with the name "Father, Son and Holy Spirit" in prayer, absolution and benediction.[13][14]">>
That statement is not backed up by the sources cited. It's disputable if there even where Christians in the first century at all. It's even disputed if the phrase was not retroactivly put into the scripture (which is actually backed up by the sources cited). It rather sounds like someone is trying to generate fake historicity. I demand this baseless statement to be removed.
88.152.128.228 (
talk)
22:51, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG talk 00:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
– per WP:PRECISE and CONSISTENCY with related articles. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I've removed the text, again, because it fails both WP:OR and WP:V, and is IMO WP:UNDUE for the lede. Let me be more explicit in my concerns here. This edit:
References
is almost completely OR. I've never seen or known anyone to describe blasphemy against the Holy Spirit in this way. I have seen several different groups define it several different ways. Trying to nail this down in the lede is problematic at best, and IMO is better left to the body of the article. I disagree with the value statement that this is "the most important info on the Holy Spirit," especially based on the amount of discussion on this point in the body of the article. If a subtopic gets a lot of attention in the body, then we summarize it for one or two sentences in the lede, otherwise it is undue weight to mention it in the lede.
Similarly, this edit:
References
has many of the same issues. The first sentence is completely OR without a citing source. The second sentence is not supported by the two cited sources. It looks more like it is a bad paraphrase with personal embellishments based on text in the body of the article, without actually checking the sources. Again, because the body of the article spends so little time on this topic, I question the necessity of having this in the lede. IMO, this is not a defining characteristic of the Holy Spirit. At least one other editor has agreed with the removal of the text and the onus is on the editor adding text, not the one removing. -- FyzixFighter ( talk) 12:38, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
"Old Testament" and "New Testament" are standard, recognizable, durable names for specific things in Christian Biblical scholarship. Let's be clear here: this is an article on Christian Biblical scholarship. It is not about Judaism, Islam, Hebrew Scriptures, Hellenism, paganism, or anything but the Holy Spirit in Christianity. Therefore, there is no need to uproot the perfectly serviceable headings and cram in ugly, long-winded, unhelpful descriptions in search of some kind of bogus WP:NPOV that is not needed here. Thanks. Elizium23 ( talk) 02:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
@ Tgeorgescu: might be interested in this article too: the only thing in the "apocrypha" section that corresponds to a cited source is the quote, the rest is WP:OR. Elizium23 ( talk) 18:17, 3 January 2021 (UTC)
It is very unusual to me how this article fails to treat the masculinity, or even the personhood, of the Holy Spirit. The whole subject is entirely avoided! There is not one pronoun referring to him, and there is no discussion of the Holy Spirit as a Divine Person. It is as if someone applied MOS:GENDERID to a nonbinary or queer living person and deliberately avoided using any pronoun whatsoever. Elizium23 ( talk) 04:14, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Honest question: is the brief, and frankly underwhelming, section on Stoicism necessary in an article that is titled "Holy Spirit in Christianity"? Its surely an interesting topic, as the Stoics were monistic thinkers who equated pneuma with theos, cosmos, and soma (Gk. spirit with God, universe, and body). Notwithstanding, the article would be cleaner if the discussion were removed and perhaps discussed on pages about Stoicism or the concept of pneuma outside of Christianity. Thoughts? Quartzgoldbling ( talk) 04:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Protect me 197.221.232.139 ( talk) 20:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
"Acts 2:24" and "2 Cor 1:21" have bot red-tags sayin they are invalid bible book cites. (The problem was there before I undertook my spate of edits and corrections.) But I don't know what the correct citations should be or how to find them. (The holy spirit (and the force) are not with me in this regard.) Hello, Bible fans. Please help clear up the bot red-tags. Thanks. – S. Rich ( talk) 22:16, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Even though the article is about the Holy Spirit in Christianity, I believe that next to the discussion of the Holy Spirit's presence in Judaism and Christianity (the "Rauch"), it is fair to bring the views of Quran as well. Quran mentions Holy Spirit (from God's narration) as "our spirit". The majority of muslims believe that this spirit must mean one of the archangels such as Gabriel, but there is no concrete evidence inside Quran that that is the case. Hence, Holy Spirit could be a completely different entity. 2601:646:8D00:2C0:BD0E:9604:7AA5:858A ( talk) 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)