Talk:Holy Spirit in Christianity

Untitled

See Talk:Holy Spirit for relevant archived discussions before March 2011.

Origins of Holy Spirit beyond biblical references

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)

Reference of the old testament does reflect the true meaning/idea of the words

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)

Serious problem with the Article: No old Testament references: The Holy Spirit is not a new "Concept" introduced in the New Testament

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)

Three years later and it is still not done by WP editors. I added the brief line containing the terms that are found in Jewish scripture and that are understood as the Holy Spirit the Third Person of the Holy Trinity. Like I said earlier, the article revolves too much about how Joanine and Pauline literature make mention of the Holy Spirit when He is mentioned across the entire new testament and in key passages in the Old Testament.

It was missing a section with the names that are used in reference to the Third Person of the Holy Trinity, and there are more than three terms in Jewish literature that are understood as The Holy Spirit by Christians, leave alone three references altogether in the entire old testament. I'm adding a total of 9 Jewish terms that are understood/translated to Holy Spirit within the realms of Christendom and 7 Greek terms as well.

Ctmv (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Previous to the introduction of "the Son" into "the Trinity", 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 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 ... 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 to preserve the idea of worshiping a single god and, therefore, not to be considered polytheistic - which is something that was definitely looked down-upon by the Hebrew. WereTech (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

First Century?

<<"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)

Well, to begin with, we have the historical letters of Paul written in Koine Greek within the first century, that's a historical fact for which there are WP articles in place, and only with that one the existence of Christians is proved as far back as First century AD. It is also very well known, and there is a wikipedia article about that, that a literary piece, known as the Gospel to the Hebrews, circulating in Alexandria around the second century, and surviving in fragments and quotations from early predominant figures within Christendom, was present in the early history of Christendom, that'd prove Christians in the second century. Also the Gospel of Luke is thought to have been composed circa 80 AD and as early as 100 AD with some historians finding traces of it being reviewed as late as the second century, that one again would prove Christians in the first century.

so to say that "It's disputable if there even where Christians in the first century at all" is clearly a false claim by your side, IP user; The fact that there were Christian authors within the first century more than proves the existence of Christians in the first Century. Now, the late first century Gospel of Luke/Acts of Apostles clearly makes reference to the baptism and to the Christians being called like that by the first time in Antioch-Syria.

Having said that, obviously we Can say Historically that there were Christians in the first century AD but Historically there's little to no direct evidence of masses of peoples receiving Christian baptism in the first century, if that's what you're looking for. There is, however, pictographical evidence from the 1st and 2nd AD that the crucifixion of Yeshua had been widely accepted as a real historical event in the collective imaginary of the Roman Christian communities, and that only means that due to the archeological remains there is more than enough historical proof for an expanding Christian community in Rome in the 2nd AD. To this day, the most accepted historical vision on the events of the crucifixion is that it is a real event that happened in the first half of first century. All of that is pointing us to the fact that if there were at least two persons who were calling themselves Christians and were being baptized then the sentence would true; As we have Paul who was baptized and we have his companions in different trips Mark, Barnabas and Luke, then the sentence is true; But we also have archeological evidence of an early Christian community and therefore it is only logical to think that they were following the practices of Paul, Barnabas and Luke. 186.144.42.107 (talk) 23:31, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Second IP User, it seems that you became so deeply wound up with writing a dissertation to refute the off-hand remark that First IP User made, you completely forgot to address their main issue. And that was, the claim that Christians have been "calling upon God with the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" since the first century, which, his point of contention, is there is no evidence to support this; and furthermore, that there is evidence that said phrase was retroactively inserted into scripture.

I would generally agree. Paul never invokes all three together in conjunction as being God. He never speaks of invocation of the Holy Ghost at all. He does invoke Jesus alongside God, but note he never says, nor even implies that Jesus is God. It is always "God our Father and his Son our Lord Jesus Christ" or something of like nature (also specifically refers to Jesus being called as/declared to be his son - no of that 'only begotten son' stuff). The Holy Ghost he discusses in far more abstract fashion, and while he clearly considers God and/or Jesus to be the source of the Holy Ghost, or the latter as being some type of intermedium/channel by which they speak and act through humans, absolutely nothing in his writings indicate that he considers it to be a full separate "person of God" whose name gets "called upon" alongside God and Jesus (note, for example: not once does he mention "the name of the Holy Ghost"); and, it is my opinion that he would likely find any such notion heretical. Firejuggler86 (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 30 July 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Moved — JFG ^talk 00:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

---

• Holy Spirit (Christianity) → Holy Spirit in Christianity
• Holy Spirit (Islam) → Holy Spirit in Islam

– per WP:PRECISE and CONSISTENCY with related articles. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:39, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

• Support. These are subtopics of Holy Spirit, not different meanings of the term. —  AjaxSmack  23:19, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support —Aristophanes68 (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
• Comment: What about Holy Spirit (Judaism)? Ltwin (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
  • Same: move to Holy Spirit in Judaism. SSTflyer 16:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    • Yes, I forgot to add that. Move Holy Spirit (Judaism) to Holy Spirit in Judaism. ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 19:13, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support sounds reasonable. SSTflyer 16:19, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
• Support per WP:NATURAL. We avoid (in policy) parenthetical disambiguation when possible, and need to do it much more (in actual practice).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  09:06, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

OR and V in lede

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:

All three Synoptic Gospels proclaim "insulting the Holy Spirit" (insulting the good intention of a person by saying that it is evil, disliking or maliciously hating a person because he/she is innocent or good, self-righteously using "goodness" as justification for hurting or harming others, not appreciating or disliking goodness, etc.) as the only unforgivable sin.

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:

The Holy Spirit is described as the goodness, intelligence, and talent found in the human being. A good, intelligent, prodigious, understanding, or humble person is said by the trinitarian to be "filled with Holy Spirit". The virtuous characteristics (goodness, love, joy, self-control,etc.) of a person are according to doctrine the "fruits" of the Holy Spirit, while the individual abilities (like understanding and knowledge) are labelled by the doctrine as the Spirit's "gifts" (Greek charisma, in English charism).

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)

The other editor merely stated that I should've made a compromise, not just reverted entirely. Diferent denominations describe the sin in deiffernet ways, but they all mean the same thing. Or are you in favor of a more stereotypical, quickly sourceable definition? Something like this: "Outright rejecting ("rebelling against")the "voice" that tells one to embrace the grace of God."?Gonzales John (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to put it back for now. Please give me a week to provide sources, amd please be patient.Gonzales John (talk) 03:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:CONSENSUS, WP:ONUS, and WP:BRD. I am completely justified with regard to policy to remove the text until sources are provided or until a consensus has been reached on the talk page. If a consensus for the new edit is reached, but I object and still have concerns, I am not justified in removing the consensus edit but have to make a case on the talk page. Your original additions and minor fixes have no consensus, no sources, and do little to nothing to address the WP:V, WP:OR, and WP:UNDUE concerns I raised above. Before re-adding the text (as I will be reverting it shortly), please propose the text here on the talk page so we and other editors can discuss prior to it being reinserted. WP:3O and other WP:DR avenues might be useful if you think this is inappropriate. --FyzixFighter (talk) 12:36, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Headings for OT and NT

"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)

Your claim, I take it, is that—regardless of their original meanings—the terms "Old Testament" and "New Testament" are now simply names for two collections of texts and provide no characterization of their referents. I see your point. After all, the New Testament is hardly new.

Your reversion of my edit was therefore appropriate. The insults above, however, were not.

Peter Brown (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

In the apocrypha

@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)

The claim that "in the Semitic branch of early Christianity the femininity of the Spirit and her role as Jesus' mother are made explicit" can perhaps be supported. Jewish Christian § Nazarenes mentions a "Christology characterized by the belief that the Holy Spirit is Jesus' Divine Mother"; we can't, of course, cite Wikipedia, but a source is provided. Now we have to pursue that source. Peter Brown (talk)

Please do not remove appropriately-placed maintenance templates. Especially after asking for them to be placed. Elizium23 (talk) 23:10, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23:Excuse me? As I have explained in edit summaries, I do think that the maintenance summaries I have removed were not appropriately placed. You are most welcome to explain why you think that the placements were appropriate.

And I really don't see how quoting the Gospel of Thomas can be construed as original research.

Peter Brown (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter M. Brown, Yes, well. There are numerous assertions wrapped up in that small paragraph, added by an IP, reverted elsewhere as WP:OR. I placed a tag on each assertion that needs a source, because I can't see how a single source would bundle them all together, as you yourself have found upthread in the "Jewish Christian" article that may support one (1) claim.

The original research I tagged is the claim that the femaleness of the Spirit would seem to have excluded a conception by the Spirit. Now I don't know about you, but we don't normally write in Wikipedia's voice that something "would seem" because either it is or it isn't in a source. Elizium23 (talk) 23:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

OK. We are agreed that

... in the Semitic branch of early Christianity the femininity of the Spirit and her role as Jesus' mother are made explicit ...

needs a source. I will try to find one.

If the Spirit is female, however, then it seems to follow that the conception of the Messiah in Mary's womb takes on a different aspect; the Spirit can't be seen as Jesus' father. Compare Luke 1:30 –35, where the Spirit clearly takes on the father role.

The angel said to her, "Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favour with God. And now, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you will name him Jesus ... Mary said to the angel, "How can this be, since I am a virgin?" The angel said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore (διο) the child to be born will be holy; he will be called Son of God ..."

Jesus will be a son, with both father and mother, and Mary's question is answered, as it would not be if she saw the Spirit as female. Luke's view of the conception is at odds with the author of the Gospel of Thomas and no additional {{Citation needed}} is called for. Perhaps the Wikipedia text should be edited to refer to "the conception of the Messiah" instead of "the conception and birth of the Messiah", since all would agree that a pregnant woman will ordinarily give birth, however the conception took place. Also, "the Jewish view" is much too broad; this is, at most, the view of some Jewish Christians. Further qualification is needed.

Now, is a further {{Citation needed}} for the claim that "The New Testament writers' view assumes a form sometimes fundamentally different from that of the Jewish view in certain respects"? If the view of Jewish Christians was that Jesus was not conceived by the Spirit, that view differs markedly from Luke and also Matthew. Of course, there were lots of other NT writers, so perhaps the article should be edited to refer only to some of the writers.

Now, I have to agree that we don't normally write in Wikipedia's voice how something "would seem", and it isn't appropriate in this case either. How about our replacing "would seem to have excluded" by just "excluded"?

I await your response.

Peter Brown (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Peter M. Brown, how about we write articles by finding sources first and summarizing them, rather than trying to justify all of this piece by piece? Elizium23 (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

As I do not have ready access to a major library, my Wikipedia editing is largely limited to sharpening up others' articles. Though I've been active on Wikipedia since 2010, I do not "write articles". In restoring the Apocrypha subsubsection of Holy Spirit in Christianity and deleting maintenance templates, I was trying to be helpful, and I will make the edits proposed above if you do not object. I will try to find a source for the statement about "the Semitic branch of early Christianity" through inter-library loan from my local library, but "finding sources" is not principally where I can contribute. Peter Brown (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I am satisfied that the cited book supports most of what is said in this paragraph, except for the first clause, which is more or less a "sky is blue" case. Elizium23 (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@Elizium23:Does my edit today address your concerns? I got a look at the Koch article through interlibrary loan. I haven't yet obtained access to the Murray book, but if it doesn't support the 4th century Nazarene rejection of the Spirit as responsible for Mary's pregnancy, the sourced quotation from the Gospel of Philip should be sufficient. Peter Brown (talk) 22:40, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, no, because apparently we can't decide if it's a view or view and whether it's the NT or the Synoptic Gospels, so a source needs to be provided which solidifies those shifting sands. Elizium23 (talk) 21:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know what you think needs deciding.

• Whether "it's a view or view"? Those aren't genuine alternatives.
• Whether it's the NT or the Synoptic gospels? What is "it"? As the Synoptics are part of the NT, any view expressed in the Synoptics is ipso facto expressed in the NT.

We shouldn't suppose, without evidence, that the NT has a single view of the role of the Holy Spirit in initiating Mary's pregnancy. It's possible that John did not see things this way, as he seems to have viewed the appearance of the Spirit as an event that lay in the future at the time of Jesus' ministry. It's also possible that James didn't even believe in the Holy Spirit. These are mere possibilities, of course, but they provide reason to avoid attributing, to all the NT writers, Matthew and Luke's view of the initiation of Mary's pregnancy. A weaker claim, which I advocate, is to attribute the view just to the Synoptics.

I therefore concur in Editor2020's change from "The New Testament writers' view is" to "The New Testament writers' views are". We should not imply — at least without evidence — that the writers all agreed with each other.

I have now made further edits and welcome your reaction.

Peter Brown (talk) 01:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Masculine

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)

I agree. Would you like to make some edits to increase readability? Quartzgoldbling (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Section on Stoicism

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)

The relation between Stoicism and Christian pneumatology is a notable topic which has been the subject of multiple monographs, e.g.:

• Buch-Hansen, Gitte (2010). It is the Spirit that Gives Life: A Stoic Understanding of Pneuma in John’s Gospel. Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, 173. Berlin: De Gruyter.

• Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (2010). Cosmology and Self in the Apostle Paul: The Material Spirit. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Leisegang, Hans (1919). Der Heilige Geist: Das Wesen und Werden der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis in der Philosophie und Religion der Griechen. I.1. Die vorchristlichen Anschauungen und Lehren von PNEUMA und der mystisch-intuitiven Erkenntnis. Leipzig: Teubner.

See also:

• Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (2012). "Logos and pneuma in the Fourth Gospel". In Aune, D. E.; Brenk, F. E. (eds.). Greco-Roman Culture and the New Testament: Studies Commemorating the Centennial of the Pontifical Biblical Institute. Novum Testamentum Supplements, 143. Leiden: Brill. pp. 27–48.

• Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (2016). "Stoicism in early Christianity: The Apostle Paul and the Evangelist John as Stoics". In Sellars, John (ed.). The Routledge Handbook of the Stoic Tradition. London: Routledge.

• Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (2017). John and Philosophy: A New Reading of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

• Levison, John R. (2009). Filled with the Spirit. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans. (also deals with the relation between the Holy Spirit in Judaism and the Stoa)

• Martin, Dale (1995). The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University Press.

• Rasimus, Tuomas; Engberg-Pedersen, Troels; Dunderberg, Ismo, eds. (2010). Stoicism in Early Christianity. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic.

• Sorabji, Richard (2004). "Stoic First Movements in Christianity". In Strange, Steven K.; Zupko, Jack (eds.). Stoicism: Traditions and Transformations. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. pp. 95–107.

• Stowers, Stanley (2017). "The Dilemma of Paul's Physics: Features Stoic-Platonist or Platonist-Stoic?". In Engberg-Pedersen, Troels (ed.). From Stoicism to Platonism: The Development of Philosophy, 100 BCE-100 CE. Cambridge: Cambridge University press. pp. 231–253.

• Tieleman, Teun (2014). "The Spirit of Stoicism". In Frey, Jörg; Levison, John R. (eds.). The Holy Spirit, Inspiration, and the Cultures of Antiquity: Multidisciplinary Perspectives. Berlin: De Gruyter. pp. 39–62.

The solution would thus be to expand the section on Stoicism on the basis of these and other sources rather than to remove it. ☿ Apaugasma (talk ☉) 08:36, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the significance of the holy spirit in a Christian's life?

Protect me 197.221.232.139 (talk) 20:01, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

invalid bible book cites

"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)