Talk:Holy Spirit in Christianity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Disambiguation

With the creation of Holy Spirit (Christianity) the need arises to disambiguate Wikilinks using WP:piped links in articles where the Holy Spirit is mentioned only in a Christian context, such as Trinity or Christianity. An easy way to do this would be using the "what links here" tool. Or you could just remember to check anytime you come across a link to the Holy Spirit article. Thanks. Ltwin (talk) 05:30, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Page symmetry

There is a page called God the Father and a page called God the Son, so is there need for a page called God the Spirit by itself? Or should material on that just be added here? History2007 (talk) 16:15, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I think Holy Spirit covers it. Ltwin (talk) 18:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, and how about "God the Spirit" vs "God the Holy Spirit" ? History2007 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

The lede

The lede is so long, I have not even read it. Needs a 50% trim. History2007 (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

First ¶ of the lede and the first ¶ of the Christian Belief section (which almost directly follows) seems unnecessarily redundant. Mannanan51 (talk) 00:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Christian Belief section

First. The Christian belief section had been introduced in the old article that was not focused on Christianity alone so the lead paragraph didn't only speak about Christianity.

Now, we know this article focuses solely on Christianity.

There is no need to dumb down the lead in favor of a "only beliefs" section. It would be much better to have the small section removed altogether as it doesn't provide any new content from what it is already on place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.29.181 (talk) 05:11, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Do you mean this? --------------------------- To most Christians the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is Almighty God.[1][2][3] The Holy Spirit is seen by Christians as one Person of the Triune God who manifests as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases,[8] one being.[9] (Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.")[6] Jesus is presented in the Gospels as the prophesied Messiah, who baptizes not with water but with the Holy Spirit and with Fire.[Lk 3:16] Jesus, just before his Passion, during Last Supper, promises to send from the Father another Paraclete to the world, the Holy Spirit, The Spirit of Truth[Jn 14:26] who, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, after the Ascension of Jesus to Heaven, commands, exhorts, comforts, rules the Apostles of Jesus Christ and his church as the invisible Spiritual Presence of God. The theology of the Holy Spirit is called pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Lord and Giver of Life in the Nicene creed. He is The Creator Spirit, present before the creation of the universe and through his power everything was made in Jesus Christ, by God the Father. He is credited as He Who inspires and allows to interpret all the sacred scripture and leads prophets, both in Old Testament and New Testament. By His Power, Jesus Christ was conceived virginally in the womb of the virgin Mary.[Lk 1:35] He descended over Jesus in a corporal way, as a dove, at the time of his baptism,[Mt 3:16] and a voice from Heaven was heard: "You are my Beloved Son".[Lk 3:22] He is the Sanctifier of souls, the Helper,[Jn 15:26] the Comforter,[Jn 14:16] the Giver of graces, he who leads souls to the Father and the Son from Whom He proceeds. Christians receive the Fruits of the Holy Spirit by means of his Mercy and Grace. The Holy Spirit is a person, and also does the work within the person of becoming more Christlike as Christians surrender to his will. -----------It's a bit OR and and no sources. Is this what you want to remove? In ictu oculi (talk) 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, this is one of the most important articles on Christianity, the Christianity tag has to be prominent (expanded). 190.251.29.181 (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

No, sorry I can not agree and reverted to last version by In ictu oculi per WP:BRD. History2007 (talk) 06:50, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but i did not agree to the changes of ictu oculi before: The addition of the christian belief section in the old article and changing this article. and you can see how the non-trinitarism/trinitarism debate doesn't belong to a section called new testament. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.162.243 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. And in addition you have 2 editors opposing you, so you can not revert them both and continue. Please follow Wiki protocols. The oculi version should remain there while we discuss it. This, by the way, is not a major issue and I think there is some duplication, but such a large deletion is probably not needed. And let us see what he has to say as well, given that he knows the topic so well. History2007 (talk) 07:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello. Looking objectively at this I can't see anything that isn't very much neutral, and has refs/sources. The bit that's been removed has spelling problems (that's okay English isn't everyone's native language), but more to the point no source/ref, so wouldn't be kept anyway. I think History2007 is handling the material fairly and correctly. As to "non-trinitarism/trinitarism doesn't belong to a section called new testament" it isn't in New Testament, it's under Christian:

5 Variations in Christian doctrine

• 5.1 Catholicism
• 5.2 Eastern Orthodoxy
• 5.3 Protestantism
• 5.4 Restoration Movement and Churches of Christ
• 5.5 Pentecostalism
• 5.6 Non-Trinitarian views

o 5.6.1 Unitarian and Arian

o 5.6.2 Modalist groups

o 5.6.3 Latter Day Saints

Keep In ictu oculi (talk) 20:26, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

co-editors:

Belief, Doctrine, Dogma amounts about the same only with different level of accuracy and certainty. Belief can be individual or General to the church, Doctrine is a theological explanation from the scripture, Dogma is an infallible Belief: A belief held by All the fervent.

The article as it is, with the distribution it has, contains the following errors:

1. the lead or Summary paragraph doesn't cover all the article. The lead paragraph is meant to be an overview of the article.
For the Holy Spirit article you should discuss (and therefore the lead should provide an overview to):

- The Holy Spirit is God and third person of The Holy Trinity

- The Holy Spirit sent by Jesus

- The Holy Spirit actions (as Creator, Paraclete, Revealer of Scripture)

- The Holy Spirit within the church and the apostolic mission

- The Holy Spirit in sacred scripture as opposed to a theological invention

- The debate on the Trinitarism / non-Trinitarism. The Filoque debate.

As it was, the lead was covering it all. and the article was expanding it. (the way articles should be).
Now it only covers the first item so it is not possible to know at once quickly everything in regards The Holy Spirit.

2. Debate on Trinitarism/non-Trinitarism doesn't belong to a section called new Testament.

3. The Role of the Spirit during creation can be quoted from the Old Testament in the Genesis (I had not introduced the in line quote yet). The Role of the Trinity during creation can be quoted from The Old Testament. Proverbs 8 (again I was pending to introduce the inline reference): All the Holy Three Persons are Creators in one God. so as soon as old Testament in-line references are provided it doesn't belong to the New testament section.

4. ALSO: The article as it is, is a horrendous case of editing without knowledge and with no order, it doesn't seem a coherent edit. only copy pasting parts from here to there. It cannot be called an stable version, when Christian Belief section is a copy paste of an old version of the "now" New testament section that is in fact an overview of all the article (overviews should go in the lead paragraph).

5. Furthermore Christian Belief section (and so New testament section) is expanded in Christian Doctrine section that, as stated before, Belief and Doctrine differ on that one is personal or General (clearly stated) and the other one is theologically expanded. what it is written in both New testament and Christian Belief sections are not theologically expanded as they are scriptural statements (plus the overview of the discussions) from the now old lead now somehow duplicated (two different copy paste of lead paragraph edits) on Christian belief and New testament sections serve as an overview to the Mainstream Doctrines section. Within the article you shouldn't have overview sections of other sections. There is enough with one overview section or lead paragraph. so two overview (or even one) sections within the article body to another section is an edit mistake.

6. The article is entirely a Christian perspective. all The article is part of a series on Christianity not just one section. the tag therefore should be for all the article

Now about the editions

1. The edition introduced on 4 of April (Holy Spirit (4 April)) was introduced with no discussion at all. The edition was very low quality as it has been stated had sections duplicated, non descriptive lead section, overviews within article body, etc. It was reverted (Holy Spirit (8 april)) to allow discussion from the user who performed those actions. The discussion didn't take place.

2. The further edition performed was to remove the Christian Belief section as it has been stated it is an overview to other section and a duplicated content from the lead so it is poor editing. (Holy Spirit (8 april second edit), discussion was put in place afterwards (ok, it should have been in advance). The edit was reverted to that of April the 4th that as stated was done with no discussion so it cannot be called an stable edit. The edit should have been reverted to Holy Spirit (1 April) instead.

So:
- About the lead paragraph it cannot be like it is (as of April the 9th) as it was never agreed to perform the changes on April the 4th.
- The removal of Christian Belief section (a in body overview to another section) we are discussing here.

We should, therefore, go back to latest real stable edition of 'April the 1st' (Holy Spirit (1 April)) plus the minor copy edits that have taken place since then(links, punctuation etc), then discuss the lead paragraph changes and other sections as pointed out extensively. Thanks, waiting for your comments. 190.71.19.114 (talk) 19:15, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Now, that is the RIGHT way to do it. You have concrete suggestions and some of them such as the lede problems seem valid to me. Of course just going back to the version on April fool's day may sound like a joke, but we should certainly incorporate many of these suggestions after discussion. There are so many of them, however, that it is hard to figure out. I would suggest waiting to see what other people have to say as well, but my suggestion would be to fix the current version, rather than go back. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As stated before : (up until April 1), the lead was covering it all. and the article was expanding it. (the way articles should be). Now it only covers the first item so it is not possible to know at once quickly everything in regards The Holy Spirit. We are leaving a non agreed and debated change on April 4 as the permanent version of the article whilst other users come in and discuss which might take time. 190.71.19.114 (talk) 19:55, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

My friend, don't sweat the lede. They can be changed in 2 days after a suitable discussion. Please wait a day or two for other comments, thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ignore my specific comments up above --- I think that's to a different IP. I have no problem with going back to April 1, but I'd like to go back to April 4 to remove that line about "Aramaic Matthew" as well. What History2007 says seems right to me. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

They are probably the same editor, using different login sessions from EPM TELECOMUNICACIONES and the conversation seems consistent. So it seems that April 1 has no support except our IP friend (who should probably create an account anyway, given the contributions and link corrections on other pages too). So my suggestion would be to start from the April 4 and gradually make the fixes suggested by the IP above, doing them in "small logical chunks" to see if anyone objects, one chunk per day. Then they can be discussed if necessary.

I think the lede is way too short now, as he said, so how about fixing the lede first without redecorating everything else? Then the distinction between belief and doctrine is also a valid point after that, and the sections can follow the lede, expanding it. This article does need help, but not a rewrite. History2007 (talk) 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I see a "I have no problem with going back to April 1" only he would like the Aramaic Mathew (and epistles and so on) statement removed. We can go back to April 1 plus the copy edit changes since then, plus the "Aramaic Mathew" edition (we shall open another discussion here for that, to further expand as to the reasons for having been introduced / the reasons for being removed). Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.71.19.114 (talk) 21:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think I read that too quickly. So let it be April 1. Then please go back to that, then gradually fix the beliefs/doctrines, etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:48, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

done. 190.71.19.114 (talk) 22:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Ooooh, come now, that was too easy. We thought you were going to make good improvements as you suggested above. The lede is way too long now.... History2007 (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

First things first. First it was to revert to an agreed stage (and that has consumed unnecessarily way too much time, hasn't it?). then to proceed, that is to discuss what is left and I presume, it may take some considerable time. 190.251.24.174 (talk) 02:10, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, as I said the best way would be to make your changes slowly every few days and now that we all know what everyone else thinks, there may need to be no long discussions anyway. We have already discussed a lot. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Can I please repeat History2007 request that the IP 190.71.19.114 register. It's very difficult to follow. Plus we can all see where you live :) In ictu oculi (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

ok. I will temporarily register so as to better follow up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.136.193 (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Content / Structure

The Lead section

As it has been stated before, the Holy Spirit article should discuss (and therefore the lead should provide an overview to):

- The Holy Spirit is God and third person of The Holy Trinity

- The Holy Spirit sent by The Father and by Jesus

- The Holy Spirit is Love and Gift (as Creator, Paraclete, Revealer of Scripture, Giver of graces (Gift), etc)

- The Holy Spirit within the church and the apostolic mission

- The Holy Spirit in sacred scripture as opposed to a theological invention

- The debate on the Trinitarism / non-Trinitarism. The Filoque debate.

Suggestion: Holy Spirit in prayer. The idea that the Holy Spirit leads to what should be prayed for, etc. E.g. as in Talking to God: the theology of prayer by Wayne R. Spear 2002 ISBN 1884527132 pages 58-61 and Intercessory Prayer: Modern Theology, Biblical Teaching And Philosophical Thought by Philip Clements-Jewery 2005 ISBN 0754638286 page 24-27. A section will then be needed on that. History2007 (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

that is very good, the Holy Spirit is the One that leads to prayer and helps during prayer (actually He prays on our behalf). Actually it was included in: He is credited as he who inspires and allows to interpret all the sacred scripture and leads prophets, both in Old Testament and New Testament 1Cor 2:11... He is the Sanctifier of souls, the Helper,Jn 14:26... He Who leads souls to the Father and the Son from Whom He proceeds...

However, I agree it is not evidently clear from those lines the prominent role of the Holy Spirit in prayer and a clearer statement has been added to further round up. Ctmv (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I think we can have 4 paragraphs per WP:LEAD, as follows:

1. - Intro: The Holy Spirit is God and third person of The Holy Trinity

2. - The Holy Spirit sent by The Father and by Jesus

- The Holy Spirit is Love and Gift (as Creator, Paraclete, Revealer of Scripture, Giver of graces (Gift), etc)

3. - The Holy Spirit within the church and the apostolic mission

- The Holy Spirit in the life of the faithful, their prayers, etc.

4. - The Holy Spirit in sacred scripture as opposed to a theological invention

- The debate on the Trinitarism / non-Trinitarism. The Filoque debate.

So this may work. History2007 (talk) 10:06, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There are several views as to how to proceed according to the actual state of the article:

View 1: The way the lead section is written right now mostly provides the needed overview and needs little in terms of copy/edit

Analyzing from the list of topics that should be included:
- The Holy Spirit is God and third person of The Holy Trinity

For the majority of Christians, the Holy Spirit (prior English language usage: the Holy Ghost from Old English gast, “spirit”) is the third person of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is Almighty God. The Holy Spirit is seen by Christians as one Person of the Triune God, who revealed His Holy Name YHWH to his people Israel, sent His Eternally Begotten Son Jesus to save them, and sent the Holy Spirit to Sanctify and give Life to his Church. The Triune God manifests as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, one being. (Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.")

comments: completed.

adding up to this there are statements that need serious review here, that, whilst, backed by recognized 20th century sources I think, in my very incapable view, they quite oppose the teachings of the biggest Christian denominations and the historic theologians (or Doctors) whose views are more respected and accepted than those of the sources quoted, However, it might be a case of misunderstanding or of out of context. My comments are about the definition of Holy Person in the Holy Trinity. please discuss in the separate section (Definition of Person in the Holy Trinity) as to not to clutter here in excess. Ctmv (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

- The Holy Spirit sent by The Father and by Jesus

Jesus is presented in the Gospels as the prophesied Messiah, who baptizes not with water but with the Holy Spirit and with Fire.Lk 3:16 Jesus, just before his Passion, during Last Supper, promises to send from the Father another Paraclete to the world, the Holy Spirit, the Spirit of TruthJn 15:26 who, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, after the Ascension of Jesus to Heaven, commands, exhorts, comforts, rules the Apostles of Jesus Christ and his church as the invisible Spiritual Presence of God.

comments: Arguably it is missing the part of being sent from the Father, although in subsequent inline quotations it is specified. Maybe there's room to improve it by adding the clarification of being sent by the Father. Practically completed.

- The Holy Spirit is Love and Gift (as Creator, Paraclete, Revealer of Scripture, Giver of graces (fruits), etc)

The theology of the Holy Spirit is called pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is the Eternal Love of the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Lord and Giver of Life in the Nicene creed. He is credited as he who inspires and allows to interpret all the sacred scripture and leads prophets, both in Old Testament and New Testament 1Cor 2:11. By his Power, Jesus Christ was conceived virginally in the womb of the virgin Mary.Lk 1:35 He descended over Jesus in a corporal way, as a dove, at the time of his baptism,Mt 3:16 and a voice from Heaven was heard: "You are my Beloved Son".Lk 3:22 He is the Sanctifier of souls, the Helper,Jn 14:26 the Comforter,Jn 14:16 the Giver of graces Who is called Gift, He Who leads souls to the Father and the Son from Whom He proceeds. Christians receive the Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit by means of his Mercy and Grace 1Cor 12.

comments: (this is the theology overview part). completed.

- The Holy Spirit within the church and the apostolic mission

The Roman Catholic Church, The Eastern Catholic Church, The Orthodox Catholic Church trace back their origins back to the Jewish Apostles and to Jesus Himself through Apostolic Succession. The Moment on which the Church of Jesus Christ on the earth is said to begin is during the event known as Pentecost on Which the Holy Spirit descended as visible Tongues of Fire on the disciples, Apostles and the Mother of Jesus, Mary Acts 2. The Apostles were strengthened in bravery Acts 2:14,17 and Authority Jn 20:22,23, received the capacity to speak in Tongues (Glossolalia) Acts 2:4 which allowed them to start the Missionary duty to spread the Gospel the world over. The early Christian Apostles, began administering the Sacraments in the Name of The Father, and of The Son and of The Holy Spirit, based on the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth.

comments: completed.

- The Holy Spirit in sacred scripture as opposed to a theological invention

The Active presence of the Holy Spirit is recorded in the New Testament and early Christian writings.

comments: The way it is, the statement seems isolated, given that scriptural references are provided. However on a previous edit it contained mention to early Jewish Writings that might seem of overview interest. separate discussion will follow.

- The debate on the Trinitarism / non-Trinitarism. The Filoque debate.

However, Several Christian divisions adopted different approaches and thus their understanding of the mystery of the Holy Trinity variates. Some Christian denominations are deemed Trinitarian and others as non-Trinitarian. Among the Trinitarians, who are mostly Apostolic Churches, some minor differences do still exist, where Eastern and Orthodox Catholic Churches claim the Holy Spirit proceeds only from the Father (and "through" the Son), the Roman Catholic Church maintains that the Holy Spirit proceeds from both the Father and the Son, in what is known as the "Filioque".

comments: completed.

Final comments: The section is mostly completed with no content suitable for trimming given the considerable amount of articles that relate to The Holy Spirit article, that if all of them would be placed in the article body it would become amazingly big.

View 2: a single paragraph is better for the lead

Comments: As it has been extensively discussed, the lead paragraph needs to be comprehensive due to the sheer extension of content in wikipedia that refers to the Holy Spirit in Christianity (thus this is a parent article). leaving only one paragraph most likely will left plenty to be untold/un-summarized/un-exposed thus not as informative (although the complete content could be found within the article body or in the many associated articles: The information should be exposed generally and then expanded).

View 3: the lead section is too extensive

facts:
1. The article lead is about 30% longer than in similar articles.
2. The extra length is mostly due to the wording chosen for including the Trinitarism and filoque debates (on such debates The Holy Spirit is central thus the need to further amplify the idea).
3. The length is on par with other prominent articles in wikipedia.
comments:
- There seems to be nothing to be trimmed.
- However further summarization could be enforced but only without leaving any of the items necessary for the lead as pointed out in the beginning. Discuss here any such possible further summarization.

Thanks.
190.251.18.255 (talk) 08:35, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually WP:LEAD says that the lede should be no more than 4 paragraphs. So we need to break it up to 3 main elements that make 3 somewhat longer parags, and a short intro parag. I made a prayer suggestion above too and a suggestion for 4 parags based on your material. That may just work fine. History2007 (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. let us allow some time to come up with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.136.193 (talk) 15:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I have introduced a further summarization that allows the article to comply with the guidelines as per the posted requirements. the lead is now on par, in terms of length, with articles such as Jesus of Nazareth and even shorter than Jesus in Christianity article. I have introduced it with no prior discussion you may well argue on selected topics if need be, but i wanted to focus the discussion on something else:

Reviewing the contents, the meanings and the references I have stumbled upon a sentence that I had not quite gone through before and having analyzed it and compared it with first class sources I think it will require extensive discussion specially in the discussion section of the article it was borrowed from.

Follow the discussion down below Definition of Person in the Holy Trinity

Ctmv (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The lead section as it is complies with Wikipedia standards both, on structure and on length. No need for tagging nor is it there need to add more expansive content nor to trim. Ctmv (talk) 18:10, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I do not agree. Neither the lede nor the article is even approaching perfection as you suggest. History2007 (talk) 19:09, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Please Point out the reasons why in your view there is a transgression to Wikipedia policy in this regard.

Please note as well that relevant discussion about this regard had taken place already. Ctmv (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I am generally pretty unhappy about the readability of the article, and the extra emphasis on superscripts that stop the flow upfront. The whole article is hard to digest, with all the bold all over, long disconnected sentences, and little flow. The lede is just too detailed upfront with the etymology there, no need for it- loses the reader upfront. And the super-overkill on the superscript Bible references in the lede is unnecessary. The lede does not need all those references. In general those refs are best put in as footnotes, it is just too hard to read.

Some general comments:

• The Symbolism section is actually well structured, so I would leave that alone.

• The sections on Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Pentecostalism have no references at all! The Pentecostalism discussion is much longer than the others - not necessary.

• Referencing is pretty bad. The Etymology section has just one reference - and taht is to a Guardian article! Lord have mercy!

• As is the Variations in Christian doctrine is the dominant part of the article. There is actually more agreement than disagreement, so that needs to change.

• The Christian belief is pretty incomplete and only the first paragraph has a reference. It misses key issues such as "1 Thessalonians 1:6". This section is far from perfection.

• The Mainstream doctrines is just "disconnected" jumping from Christ to fruits to gifts etc. In fact the whole series of articles on Seven gifts of the Holy Spirit, Fruit of the Holy Spirit, etc. are in pretty bad shape, as evidenced by the flags on them. And teh redirection of Gifts of the Holy Spirit to Spiritual gifts etc. is really unnecessary, etc. So many problems there.

• The issue of the separation of actual "Biblical references" from later theology that followed them has been missed altogether. Pretty much a tangled presentation overall.

So overall, problems, problems, problems, and the lede is just a long summary of these problems. History2007 (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. and sorry for the delay there's no much time these days.

agreed. The article body in general lacks a lot, in terms of content and copy/edit.

About the lead, the tag complains about the length of it. the article has 32k chars. so 4 paragraphs complies with the norm.

structure is met with 4 paragraphs and length is on par with other similar articles...

Thus, The tag is not suitable.

The referencing was introduced precisely because the sentences are theological/scriptural statements that sadly, due to the

model of wikipedia, may be challenged/removed/altered in favor of a more community agreed version that sometimes can even

oppose the true meaning.

On a normal article, be it scientific or encyclopedic, it is very rare that in-line references are even used. It is usually preferable to have all the sources of information at the end for the reader to go and do his own research homework.

However, it is even an (unwritten) norm that, whenever a theological statement is written, it is followed by either, the scriptural cite that backs it, or the theological work from which the idea was borrowed from. It can be seen in prominent works like encyclicals and catechism. Ctmv (talk) 04:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

This discussion is really beside the point now. I had not planned on working on this article, but now that a new editor added material, will have to. The body will change based on his addition, so lede should wait. And refernces as used in this article are like 99% of Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 05:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Definition of Person in the Holy Trinity

- in The First paragraph of the article we can actually find this statement, properly referenced, and the book itself is well known:

(Personhood in the Trinity does not match the common Western understanding of "person" as used in the English language—it does not imply an "individual, self-actualized center of free will and conscious activity.")

The referenced book, The Story of Christian Theology, 1999, ISBN 139780830815050, is acredited to Roger E Olson, an evangelical Arminian professor of theology.

- I don't have the book in my hands but that quite reads opposite to this other reference:

the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances.

comments: Note How this reference adds the term "individuality" to the definition of "person" and how it opposes the previous definition (in the story of Christian theology) as "personhood does not imply an individual center of free will".

In complete form:

:I answer that, Although the universal and particular exist in every genus, nevertheless, in a certain special way, the individual belongs to the genus of substance. For substance is individualized by itself; whereas the accidents are individualized by the subject, which is the substance; since this particular whiteness is called "this," because it exists in this particular subject. And so it is reasonable that the individuals of the genus substance should have a special name of their own; for they are called "hypostases," or first substances.

Further still, in a more special and perfect way, the particular and the individual are found in the rational substances which have dominion over their own actions; and which are not only made to act, like others; but which can act of themselves; for actions belong to singulars. Therefore also the individuals of the rational nature have a special name even among other substances; and this name is "person."

Thus the term "individual substance" is placed in the definition of person, as signifying the singular in the genus of substance; and the term "rational nature" is added, as signifying the singular in rational substances.

This is taken from:

Summa Theologiæ (Summa_Theologica), 1920 edition (originally written in the 13th century) ascribed to a certain Thomas Aquinas, saint and named Doctor of the church.

- and it also contradicts this other reference

Matthew 24:35-37 (English Standard Version)Mt 24:35–37

35 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

No One Knows That Day and Hour

36"But concerning that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only. 37 For as were the days of Noah, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

comments: Note How this reference states the Father knows something that the Son does not and how it opposes the previous definition (in the story of Christian theology) written like "personhood does not imply an individual center of free will and conscious activity". It contradicts because the Father is conscious in knowing the day and hour the earth will pass away but the Son doesn't have that knowledge, so that, in my poor understanding, that the Father is a Holy Person consciously different from the Son, that together with the Holy Spirit they are One Substance but three different Persons.

Because of this reasons I would like that statement replaced by a theological statement accepted by the major Christian communions in the way it is officially formulated in reference to the definition of Holy Person in the Holy Trinity.

and of course I would continue this discussion to the Talk:Trinity article where it belongs to Ctmv (talk) 09:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I have found that the lead paragraph in the article Holy Trinity better resembles both the gospels and the theological works of declared Doctors of the church (plus it is less characters) I'm going to edit this one to better resemble that and going to continue this discussion in the other article's discussion page as the aforementioned sentence is part of that article's body not the lead. 190.251.35.19 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag on belief section

There is a tag "This section duplicates, in whole or part, the scope of other articles" with no explanation. I am not sure where it came from, but needs an explanation. I am removing it, until it is clarified, because this is the article where that material should be discussed. History2007 (talk) 07:46, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Holy Spirit according to Apostle Paul

I think the material just added on Pauline views is pretty good, although pretty long and without WP:Secondary sources. It is a good beginning for a biblical section, but as is it sits in the denominational. I will move and tidy it up later. But a good addition, I think. History2007 (talk) 16:30, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how it is not original research, but if you want to keep it I will not stand in your way. Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

At the moment it is half way between WP:OR and WP:RS because it has solid WP:Primary sources, but no secondaries. I left a message for the editor who added it, suggesting that he should get the 2ndary sources. Do not tell him, but I did not revert him, based on Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers hoping that he would learn the ropes, etc. So in a few days, if he does not add WP:Secondary sources we will either have to revert it as WP:OR or add sources ourselves. I am pretty sure there are secondary sources for most of it, but I only have 10 other pages to fix today, so I hope he will do it.

On that note I think this article really needs to follow the usual route of having a Biblical references section with subsections on Pauline and Johannine perspectives, then go through the views of the usual suspects from Augustine to Aquinas to Luther, Calvin, to Bulgakov and Rowan Williams, etc. That needs to be done, but will take time. History2007 (talk) 19:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

No response here from the editor, so I will move the material here, until 2ndary sources can be added little by little. History2007 (talk) 05:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it took a while to find the article... will scrutinize WP:OR / WP:RS, some references shall be found even as I have not as many hours per week for the project as I wish.
The article was put in denominational section primarily due to limited time and a bit of ignorance.
Now, looking at references in "approved" sections of Holy Spirit, it appears that the vast majority falls into two categories: 1) the Scripture and 2) other wikipedia articles. Will find sufficient balance; may take time, be patient. Itiswritten98 (talk) 22:24, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

No problem. The Bible is over 2,000 years old, so a few weeks makes no difference. However, your addition of that material prompted me to try and clean up the rest of the sections, which needed help anyway. So I have started clarifying the Luke and John issues, and that should take a few days. Then the Pauline material you had really needs to be reduced to a suitable proportion with respect to those and continue the Biblical references. Whatever happened after Paul is then a subject for the Christian denominational discussions. I will try to help find references for your material too - not all of it can be supported, but there are certainly valid statements therein. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, your comment about this article lacking 2ndary sources elsewhere is right - it is in poor shape overall. I have started adding them as I expand the Biblical references section, which now has a 2ndary source for every claim. The rest needs to get those too. And the general future direction for Wikipedia is using Wikisource links rather than external sites, so I used those, and they should really be used elsewhere too, and they are easier to read because they give the before and after text too. History2007 (talk) 06:08, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I think, I know where to get suitable (may even be excellent) 2ndary references. Thank you for our help, History2007. In my perspective the article, as it is large, can and shall be split into parts:
1) "Power of Holy Spirit" - entirely new section in "Power", the whole land currently unexplored and undescribed by denominations
2) "Love of Christ in the New Testament" (which is exclusively consist of obedience to commandments of Christ); there "Love as it comes with the Holy Spirit" (?) shall well fit.
Thus Holy Spirit according to Paul will just give summary and refer to outside sections. Shall I publish my proposals below in talk for WP:Consensus ?
Are you also editing in "Love", "Faith", "Three of knowledge (of good & evil) and other Christian sections? Itiswritten98 (talk) 01:40, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the topic Holy Spirit in the Pauline epistles should really become an article on its own, get a summary here and a "Main link". Given that there is a Wikipedia page is called Pauline epistles, it should have a summary there too. It is a WP:Notable topic, but you need to make that point when you write that article. I think you will need to make that clear to make the new page survive. If you do not add enough justification upfront, the new article will get a WP:Afd flag and it will be more work to make it survive.

Then that article can have a section on "Power of the Holy Spirit". I added a sentences already about 1 Thessalonians 1:5, but there is more that can be added to the new page. The book The power of God in Paul's letters by Petrus J. Gräbe should be listed in that page to show it is a notable topic.

I think it would be best to do this one step at a time. You can start the page on Holy Spirit in Pauline epistles, but focus on the power aspect first, using Gräbe's book as a basis. Then gradually expand that to other issues, given that power is not the only aspect and being shaped by the Spirit is another key issue that starts in 1 Thessalonians.

Then there can be a summary here that leads to that age, but that topic will probably be long enough to deserve its own page. I think two other books that you can mention on the new page to establish notability are:

• The Pauline Metaphors of the Holy Spirit by Erik Konsmo, 2010
• The origins of Pauline pneumatology by Finny Philip, 2005

The existence of these books establishes that as a notable topic and the page can then survive without any Afd fanfare. History2007 (talk) 06:54, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

A lot can be taken from uncanonical and apocryphal scriptures, these authors were less bound by theology of modern days. Even (OT times) Wisdom of Solomon 1:5 says of "Holy Spirit of discipline... (! ! !)" I'm working on it, unfortunately I cannot promise it will be ready in August... I sent you a private email with more details... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itiswritten98 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Holy Spirit according to Apostle Paul

Apostle Paul defined Spirit of God so:
For the Spirit God gave us does not make us timid, but gives us power, love and self-discipline. 2Tim 1:7 (NIV)
For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 2Tim 1:7 (NKJV)

Thus, following features of the Holy Spirit are underlined:

1. Power
2. Love
3. Self-discipline (also: sound mind, sound judgement)
4. Come to an end of fear (timid)

It must be noted that the Apostle reported the ultimate act of Holy Spirit – deliberate entry inside of the person (heart) and staying there:

“...Believe me that ... the Father is in me...” John 14:11

“ ...God has sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts ” Gal 4:6

“ ...according to the power that works within us” Eph 3:20

“ ...so that the power of Christ may dwell in me.” 2Cor 12:9

I. So, in his definition the Apostle positioned the power the first (in importance):

Jesus knew this power well and promised the same power also to his disciples:

“...you are to stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” Luk 24:49
and also

“... John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit ... you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you…” Act 1:5–8

This power was routinely used to heal sick and to raise dead:

”... with authority and power he commands the unclean spirits, and they come out!” Luke 4:36

“...power was coming from Him and healing them all” Luke 6:19

“...Jesus, perceiving in Himself that the power proceeding from Him had gone forth...” Mark 5:30

Once received the power of Holy Spirit, His disciples also used it to proclaim the gospel, heal sick and raise dead:

“… for our gospel did not come to you in word only, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit …” 1Thess 1:5

“… according to the power that works within us ” Eph 3:20

Referring to the last days, Scripture indicates that the power of Holy Spirit will be forfeited:

“…in the last days difficult times will come. For men will be … holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power...” 2Tim 3:1–5

Indeed, the process of forfeiting the power (and thus the Holy Spirit) was already underway in Apostle Paul’s days:

“...will find out not only how these arrogant people are talking, but what power they have. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power.” 1Cor 4:19–20

Yet, Scripture also mentioned, that time will come when everything will be restored (the teaching, as it was originally taught by Christ) Mat 17:11 ...

II. Telling us about the Holy Spirit, Apostle Paul places Love right after the power:

What characterises love as the part of the Holy Spirit? It is written:

”... Love is patient,

love is kind.

It does not envy,

it does not boast,

it is not proud.

It does not dishonor others,

it is not self-seeking,

it is not easily angered,

it keeps no record of wrongs.

Love does not delight in evil but

rejoices with the truth.

It always protects,

always trusts,

always hopes,

always perseveres.

Love never fails...” 1Cor 13:4–8

As we can see (below) Love as the part of the Holy Spirit is a gift of God (it is written: “God is love” and also “Spirit of Love”). This pure love resides inside of the person heart, it manifest itself (internally) towards all people on earth – all ages and sexes and races... This state of being cannot come as a result of extensive meditations or other known spiritual practice – this is the gift of God, the Holy Spirit, it comes by faith in Jesus Christ – as a part of the Holy Spirit:

“Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God; and everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. The one who does not love does not know God, for God is love.” 1John 4:7–8

III. Apostle Paul (and other Apostles) also describes the Holy Spirit as a spirit of self-discipline (or sound mind).

“But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest … I myself should become disqualified.” 1Cor 9:27

“Who among you is wise and understanding? Let him show by his good behaviour his deeds in the gentleness of wisdom.” James 3:13

“Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world.” James 1:27

IV. Finally, the love, which comes with the Holy Spirit, brings to an end any and all fears, anxieties, nervousness, etc. Apostle John said it plainly:

There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear John 4:18

For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. 2Tim 1:7 (NKJV)

Definition

The article fails to define the subject in specific terms. A vagueness that pervades most Christian denominations. 'Spirit' is 'animus' in Latin, the basic force which transforms organisms into living and moving entities. And which distinguishes, by its presence, a living thing from a corpse - as in, e.g., a 'spirited horse'. In Genesis 2:7, God is described as creating man from two ingredients only; dust, and His Breath. The latter presumably a synonym for 'spirit'. Since neither of these two are likely candidates for commission of 'sin', what exactly is the one unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost? Refusal to admit its presence? i.e. Humanism (which has no need of God) as versus Spiritism (Transcendentalism, which has no need of man), or insistence that our true nature is matter, and that spirit doesn't exist?

Questions needing answers include: Is the 'holy spirit' the same as 'the kingdom of God within' described in Luke? The Christ-principle with which Jesus was one? The light of the world which the Sermon on the Mount informs us we are? Is it omnipresent, or does it enter at birth, or is it bestowed by grace? Or is the bestowal merely one of the consciousness of its ever-presence? Does man have a spirit, or does spirit have him? Which is the real identity, flesh or spirit? Does man become conscious as spirit after dropping the body, or know nothing till 'resurrection' (whatever that may mean)? Is 'Salvation' acquired via the Holy Spirit, regardless of belief in some being (Jesus, Buddha, Krishna, etc) that has become fully conscious of it? Is the Holy Spirit that which was referred to in "I am the way, the truth and the life", in which case religious exclusivism is erroneous?

The Jesuit priest Teilhard de Chardin said: "We are not humans, here on earth, having a spiritual experience. We are spirits, having a human one". Is this a heresy?222.152.75.253 (talk) 21:41, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

You got it right at the top: "A vagueness that pervades most Christian denominations". It is not the purpose of Wikipedia to go beyond what scholarly sources say or what denominations teach. Wikipedia summarizes scholars, not try to educate them. As for de Chardin Humani generis said he was a no-go (read his page) and since then confusion has set in. But it is not the goal of Wikipedia to settle the differences between de Chardin and Rome, but to summarize them. History2007 (talk) 21:57, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The controversial 1950 papal encyclical "Humani generis" condemns some opinions held by De Chardin, but does not name either him or the book in which he expresses them, "The Phenomenon of Man". Both popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI more or less praise/accept his views.

Presumably Wikipedia must state the totally conflicting statements of scholars on this, and admit that there is no real consensus among Christians as to what the Holy Spirit is, in spite of its being a part of the trinity and a fundamental tenet of belief and comprehension to every denomination?222.152.75.253 (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Anyway de Chardin is beside the point here, and is page says all those already. As for the presumably part, may be, if WP:RS sources can be found. History2007 (talk) 05:27, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

"Intercede"?

I disagree with the passage "As a comforter or Paraclete, one who intercedes, or supports or acts as an advocate, particularly in times of trial." It makes the Holy Spirit sound like a saint or intercessor more than God Himself. I think it is meant to mean that the Holy Spirit intercedes with the person, not God, but it should be reworded so that is more clear. 70.34.80.119 (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I have been meaning to fix all those red links and a few things there, but it will probably be a month or so before I get to it. But what you say i snot exactly right I think, so unless you have WP:RS sources we should wait. Please provide sources if you do have, for our personal opinions matter not, either way. History2007 (talk) 18:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 688 The Church, a communion living in the faith of the apostles which she transmits, is the place where we know the Holy Spirit: ...- in prayer, wherein he intercedes for us; Also let's look at this quote: 2741 Jesus also prays for us - in our place and on our behalf. All our petitions were gathered up, once for all, in his cry on the Cross and, in his Resurrection, heard by the Father. This is why he never ceases to intercede for us with the Father. If our prayer is resolutely united with that of Jesus, in trust and boldness as children, we obtain all that we ask in his name, even more than any particular thing: the Holy Spirit himself, who contains all gifts. So it is clear that the three Persons of the Trinity actively intercede with each other, and it is entirely correct that the Holy Spirit intercedes with God the Father on our behalf. This doesn't make the Holy Spirit any less than God, it simply emphasizes the economy of the distinct persons in the Holy Trinity. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Elizum. You are, of course, right. I was just too busy with other things to look it up, but that should settle it. Intuitively intercede does not work downwards, but your source is fine and settles the issue. History2007 (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Word used for Holy Spirit in the Old Testament

Yesterday, I added a short para to the Etymology and usage section noting Old Testament usage, but was reverted, with the note "May well be true, but needs WP:Secondary sources and also will fit better in the general Holy Spirit page, not here."

The paragraph was taken almost verbatim from Holy Spirit (Judaism), and most of the content is also already noted in Holy Spirit. I apologise that I forgot to include the reference. I have now replaced the para, complete with reference, because I believe it is relevant here as well.

My motivation for adding the para is that I am currently taking part in an Alpha course, and at this week's session, Nicky Gumbel introduced ruach as the Hebrew for (Holy) Spirit, and then spent 10 minutes running through a fair number of references within the OT, before moving onto pneuma and the NT. Obviously, he referred throughout to the Christian belief that the Holy Spirit is a distinct "person" within the Trinity, and made no mention of the Jewish belief, which differs markedly on this issue.

Tens of thousands of people will attend Alpha courses this year, and it seems highly likely that I will not be the only one to refer to this article for further information. In view of the differences between Jewish and Christian beliefs on the personhood of the Holy Spirit, I believe that it is appropriate to allow three lines in Holy Spirit (Christianity) to summarise the OT usage.

However, I see that a small number of editors have made this into one of the best articles in Wikipedia, and if the consensus among you remains that the para is inappropriate here, I shall bow to your judgement. Enginear (talk) 13:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, with all those justifications and all that reasoning, all I have to say is no, no and no. Sorry, but your statements are inapplicable on multiple grounds:

• The fact that you are taking some course is no justification for an entry in Wikipedia. Had you been taking a cooking class, it would have had the same impact.

• This article is about the "Christian teaching" and the overall article Holy Spirit is about the comparative view of Jewish, Christian, other perspectives. What you added should go there, not here. Comparative items go to the top level article which relates and cross-positions them. That is obvious.

• Per WP:STATUSQUO you need consensus to add it, not delete it. So there is no need to be condescending on that issue. So per STATUSQUO I will revert it again, until there is consensus to add it.

And I do not think this is one of the best articles in Wikipedia. It has a long way to go in fact. It just takes time to fix it. It is on my path to fix in 2012. But there is no point in distracting from the core topic of this article with an item that should go in the top level comparative article. I moved the text there anyway, now that you had a ref. History2007 (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

For the record, my comments were clearly deferential, as from an ordinary worker to a master, not condescending, as from a master to a lesser mortal. Condescension is often marked by phrases such as a reference to a world-famous and successful course as "some course". That is not my style.

I was about to say that we differed on how we ranked Wikipedia articles, but having now read the bottom section on your user page, I feel we are not so far apart -- it is rare for me to find an article on a subject where I have above average (but not expert) knowledge, where there is a high number of "facts per inch", everything essential which I know on the subject is included in a balanced fashion, and yet I cannot spot at least one error. When I do find one, I rejoice. I suppose I did exaggerate when I said this was one of the best articles on Wikipedia, but what I meant was that I was really pleased that an article on such an important subject had passed that test.

I am not yet convinced that my addition is best placed only in the top level HS article (and the HS(Judaism) article I copied it from), but not in the HS(Christianity) one. However, I am happy to wait until you have had time to complete breathing them all into life, when no doubt your reasoning will become clear.

We do appear to differ on the interpretation of WP:REVERTING. I had assumed, from reading your first reversion edit summary, that you were mainly concerned that a (possibly controversial) statement had been added to what Christians believe to be a WP:BLP, without attribution. I therefore added a good quality reference, explained why, IMO, the article would benefit from the inclusion, since you had (in my eyes) expressed doubt rather than a clear decision on that, and submitted the revision. I therefore believed, and still believe, that it is outside the scope of WP:STATUSQUO. WP:BOLD is more applicable, and indeed, if I had not been bold, you would not have had the material to insert in the top level HS article, where you think it belongs. (To clarify, I am not asking for it to be reinstated; merely stating that, IMO, your reference to WP:STATUSQUO was inappropriate.)

By the way, I agree with your User page views on "haphazard consensus", though I believe an even greater concern than sets of students, who will generally accept an authoritative reasoned argument, is multiple sockpuppets of a rogue user -- User:Wonderfool, for example, has a habit, more now on Wiktionary than here, of inventing many sockpuppets, even having them argue with each other, until he has enough to be able to win a vote to promote one of them to be an Admin, in order to, for example, launch a spree of blocking other admins, culminating in deleting the Main page. In hindsight, it's a pity I riled you by being "PC" and mentioning consensus, when actually you have written the vast majority of the article, and I am happy to let you WP:OWN it even if that does go against wikiquette.

So in the end, there is only one thing where I believe you have made a serious mistake which you should correct promptly. You will be aware, from the wikilink I gave you, that the Alpha course had, by three years ago, been attended by over 15 million people, that in 2008 alone it was used by nine major Christian denominations/traditions in 163 countries, and that it is "controversial" due to the prominence it gives to the Holy Spirit. I said that it was highly likely that some of those on this year's courses would visit the HS pages in search of more information. A reasonable reading of your comment above is "That is no more likely than if it were a cookery class." I suggest that could be construed as a libel of Nicky Gumbel, who gives the relevant talks (via DVD) to approaching a million people each year, and who is, incidentally, a qualified barrister, although I cannot believe he is litigious. I believe it would be better for the gravitas of Wikipedia if you clarified your meaning, rather than leaving us sounding like a populist newspaper.

And finally, I notice that while you were perhaps preoccupied by me, you reverted an anon who had merely converted the article's initial hatnote by using the preferred Template:about, leaving the article visually unchanged except for use of the preferred italic hatnote font, but more prepared for any future global change of hatnote format. You may wish to reinstate that edit, to allow the article to comply with WP:HAT. Enginear (talk) 21:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

1. You should read this page and this page.

2. 15 million people, or 15 billion makes no difference how many people take a course. I had never even heard of the course and no course affects Wiki-content.

3. The item you had added is already in the Holy Spirit page, verbatim, so is available in Wikipedia. Time to read this again and calm down. It is not a question of not having the item, it is a question of which page it goes to.

4. I do not even know who Gumbel is but if he does not have time to sue himself, I recommend hiring this firm. I think they would provide effective representation and it would be fun.

Time for you to read this again and calm down. History2007 (talk) 21:42, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ousia

I have a little bit of a problem here.

I think the current wording of the first paragraph in the lead section (as of feb 2012) reads like 3 Divine persons that share one essence (as it was modified from the previous wording). That, according to my interpretation, sounds similar to what the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church is trying to deny, that is:

Current Wording: The Triune God manifests as three persons (Greek hypostases), sharing one divine essence (Greek: ousia), together called the GodHead.

Roman Cathechism: The divine persons do not share the one divinity among themselves but each of them is God whole and entire

clearly the current wording expresses (maybe by mistake) something the catechism denies. It's not one God divided in 3, It is One God in Three Persons each of which is God Entirely. nor is it 3 persons make up one God (like ingredients or parts of a God) it is the 3 persons are equally God yet it is one God, indivisible. The mystery of the Holy Trinity is that each Divine Person is the Holy Trinity, each Divine Person is the supreme reality of God, that is: each Divine Person (hypostases) is the Divine Essence.

I'm thus reverting to the previous wording that at least doesn't fall into those mistakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.113.170 (talk) 06:15, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Two paragraphs repeated

the sentences "The New Testament includes over 90 references to the Holy Spirit.[4] The sacredness of the Holy Spirit is affirmed in all three Synoptic Gospels which proclaim blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as the unforgivable sin.[5]" and "The theology of spirits is called pneumatology. The Holy Spirit is referred to as the Lord and Giver of Life in the Nicene creed.[35]" are repeated in the article twice. 186.31.13.81 (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Will take a look and touch up later. History2007 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I will wait for 3 days and 3 nights, otherwise I will proceed with this and the other undos in case there are not convincing reasons.186.31.13.81 (talk) 17:57, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

But you must read WP:LEDE before 2 days and 2 nights. E.g. "Lord and Giver of Life" appears in the article twice and that is fine because one of them is in the lede, which reflects the body. There is no policy against that and in fact the lede is supposed to do that. So your comment is because you have not read policy carefully. No need to delete that, and in fact against policy to delete it. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the page I was looking for it. From it I got even more future editions for the article based on the following:"...significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article"-"not everything in the lead must be repeated in the body of the text". "editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section"186.31.13.81 (talk) 18:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, there is a rumor that WP:LEDE says that... So there is no need to delete those items. Anyway, I touched up the first sentence, and added some items, but I do not see any problems elsewhere. History2007 (talk) 22:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

REgarding of the title of "holy" for the word trinity

the Article of the Trinity, doesn't give references as being named the Holy Trinity but simply, Trinity. I quote it:
<<"In like manner also the three days which were before the luminaries,
are types of the Trinity [Τριάδος], of God, and His Word, and His wisdom.
And the fourth is the type of man, who needs light, that so there may be God,
the Word, wisdom, man.">>

among other examples.
While the concept of Holy Spirit is accurate and based in the primary sources, the Trinity doesn't go along with a holy title. Lest there is no evidence I shall fix it after three nights and three days. 186.31.13.81 (talk) 15:36, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Time to read WP:V now. Wikipedia can not be a source for Wikipedia. Not that it matters, but as a separate exercise in arithmetic do a search in that article to see that the term "Holy Trinity" is used there anyway, although that is beside the point. I guess by the time we are done here, you may actually get to figure out the policies at least, if not the theology. History2007 (talk) 16:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

the fact that it is identical in the wikiarticle does not mean it doesn't have a source. Here you are: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/theophilus-book2.html go to CHAP. XV.--OF THE FOURTH DAY. 186.31.13.81 (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Time to read WP:RS now. That web site is not WP:RS and can not be the basis for anything in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 09:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Then it is time to clean the article called trinity since it uses "that website" here in the Wikipedia :), Be my guest186.31.13.81 (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

A lot of other pages use non-WP:RS and need to be cleaned up. I will leave that page to others to clean up. History2007 (talk) 18:19, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Single Source in Old Testament Section

The section Biblical References#Old Testament relies entirely on the Jewish Encyclopedia. That's not so great because, first,

A single source is considered less than ideal because a single source may be inaccurate or biased. Without other sources for corroboration, accuracy or neutrality may be suspect. By finding multiple independent sources, the reliability of the encyclopedia is improved. (See T:ONES)

and, second, because the Jewish Encyclopedia is a tertiary source, whereas Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on secondary sources. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 14:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Request for input: "Historic Baptist" teaching on Spirit baptism

Could editors knowledgeable about historical Baptist teachings on the baptism with the Holy Spirit please contribute to the relevant section of that article. An editor recently created this section but its sources seem to be drawn primarily from Landmark Baptist points of view. It would be great if we could have information from good, reliable sources representing the full range of non-charismatic Baptist churches for this section. Ltwin (talk) 19:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)