Talk:Holy Spirit/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Holy Ghost

Luke3:22 And the Holy Ghost descended in a bodily shape like a dove upon him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, Thou art my beloved Son; in thee I am well pleased.

It says Holy Ghost is man shaped, and come down the motion like a dove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benlu123 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

The normal interpretation of that passage is that the Spirit was in the shape of a dove. "in bodily form" doesn't necessarily mean human form - doves have bodies too. However if you have references to show that this is a widespread interpretation please post them here. DJ Clayworth (talk) 16:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Gender of "ruach"

The article claims that "ruach" (Hebrew: רוח, "spirit" or "wind") is a feminine word.

As a scholar of the hebrew language, a fluent speaker of said language I can the author of said mistake that "ruach" is a masculine noun. Fib12345 (talk) 23:40, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Serious POV

The lead and most of the beginning of this article is trinitarian POV. It does not take a scholar to see this. Would someone with a more neutral stance look at this please? Otr500 (talk) 01:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

NPOV request

I have read the talk page and now I am amazed. I am tagging this article NPOV (at this point). Key elements of Wikipedia are not "apply guidlines as you feel like it" or because a majority has a certain belief we are justified using POV. I have not seen anywhere that we can be neutral if there is "exactly" a 50-50 ratio of opinions or beliefs and that the ratio of neutrality deminishes as the ratio (of editors) leans one way or the other. I really do not have the time at present to get into this against a stacked deck but will brush up to accomodate any that can not find a Balance for the lead. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to further an agenda, political, religious, or other, to weasel, sway, or use a supposed "majority" as a reason to bend an article in one direction.

A neutral lead with appropriate sections (including "Trinitarian"} is a solution. This article, as written, is a mistitled Holy Spirit (Mainstream Trinitarian Christianity) and needs work. Otr500 (talk) 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

2nd NPOV request

All of the fine writers that have graced the pages of this article seem to be on vacation. I have made a legitimate request, seeking input and consensus, and received no response.

• The lead, as written, is not acceptable for an article concerning a subject that is of universal importance and with such varied beliefs listed in the body of the article.

"In Christianity, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is the spirit or essence of God. In Trinitarian Christian belief, it is the third person of the Holy Trinity. Pneumatology, is the theology of the Holy Spirit." I do not care what belief a person holds this is "not" a lead for this article and Wikipedia policies will back that up with too many instances to list. I "do not" wish to make changes to an article of such importance without the input from others. I actually do not even want to be the lead on such a quest so am asking (2nd request 3rd notice) for someone else to weigh in. Surely with all the brilliant minds floating around Wikipedia there are some that can assist with a lead to properly introduce the subject of an article and be shown as a not a weasel advertisement for "any" particular belief. I will have no choice but to remove the parts that violate Wikipedia policy and leave:

In Christianity, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is the spirit or essence of God. Pneumatology, is the theology of the Holy Spirit. This is not much for a lead. Any that wish to expound on any particular belief have ample opportunity to do so in the body of the article. Please do not mistake my request for lack of "boldness". I have read some disturbing entries in this talk that are most certainly POV leaning in presentation to lead the article in one particular direction and, under the title of this article, is not encyclopedic.

On a separate note could someone with more knowledge archive at least to the section #Holy Ghost. Otr500 (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know if I understand your objections to the current lead. If the bulk of the article concerns the Holy Spirit from a Trinitarian perspective, the fact that the Roman Catholic and various Eastern Orthodox churches pre-date (by 15 centuries) and VASTLY outnumber non-Trinitarian Protestant churches (in membership) would justly account for that. Are you really suggesting that "In Trinitarian Christian belief, it is the third person of the Holy Trinity" (or words to that effect) does not belong in the lead? If so, you are way, way off. --Griseum (talk) 01:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Griseum on this. Just because there are Christians who are not Trinitarian does not mean that Wikipedia cannot recognize that the vast majority of Christians are Trinitarian and believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity. Even if we were to agree with you, I am not sure what the solution would be. What would you expect us to do to balance out the lead? I suppose we could add "In non-Trinitarian Christian belief, it is not the third person of the Trinity," but somehow that seems obviously redundant and not very useful. The lead clearly says "In Trinitarian Christian belief." It is not saying that all Christian believe this, only that Trinitarians do. However as Trinitarians make up most Christians, it is perfectly right that this be mentioned in the lead. I see no POV issue. Ltwin (talk) 04:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am stating, and justifiably so, that the title of the article is not the Trinitarian Holy Spirit any less than it should be the Nontrinitarian Holy Spirit or any other added name.

If an editor(s) wishes to explain a particular belief, in such a universally accepted subject, such as placement in the Godhead, then an article with such intent can be created. I do believe the Trinity article, redirected from Holy Trinity, does satisfy that criteria

"If" Trinitarian is to be used then per WP:Manual of Style (lead section) due weight must be given to other views or opposing views since singular inclusion is controversial.

This means that some inclusion is imperative to be balanced to the article and not a particular belief that contradicts the title. The lead should be informative and interesting to get the reader to go farther. Suggestions: Expanding the term " Pneumatology", a brief inclusion that the Dogmas of (most) Christian entities arise in difference in interpretation of the role of the Holy Spirit. This includes fundamental differences between Trinitarians, Non-Trinitarians, as well as Non-Christians---and also if wanted the inclusion of Binitarianism,

Bitheism, and Ditheism.

I believe other names of the Holy Spirit, referred to such as "Pneuma" and others, should be edited into the lead. The First heading needs to be edited to reflect information consistent with the contents. THEN- A section on "Trinitarian" belief, before the breakdown, and leading to the sub-sections (related), can be included. This main section and subsections will then be Hugh or of considerable size indicative of the reported size of Trinitarian beliefs in society. This will lead to a well rounded article, balanced, NPOV, and acceptable to remove the tags. Also, by including the lacking information the lead will be expanded considerably to reflect a nice look to go along with a nice article. Whew! so this is a few thoughts needing comments. Otr500 (talk) 02:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are difficult to interpret. I do, however, stand by my previous assertion that the current lead is acceptable and NPOV. --Griseum (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

• The above comment flabbergasts me. I could see I might have been lacking in other comments but I gave reasoning and possible suggestions for inclusion of information for a better lead, in what would be referred to as "in plain English", to solve issues. I receive a reply that either I did not write in plain English or the parties replying have some problem with "all" (since no reference was offered as to what particular part was "difficult to interpret") of my comments, but at least enough was understood to give comments that there was no POV but, "the current lead is acceptable and NPOV.". I may not be the brightest bulb in the lamp of the universe, and may actually have fallen off the proverbial turnip wagon, but a non sequitur statement; to present that one does not understand another but knows that he is wrong, is not conducive to a discussion, a consensus, or a better article. I did look back to see if my comments slipped into a Word salad. Certainly, as described above but apparently not understood, the lead (as written) can be edited to reflect the full scope of the title so neither the lead can be called into question or the title. I gave suggestions, as comments requested, and none were commented on. I would like to assume the reason was not understanding or lack of clarity but I am having some trouble with this. I am "not" requesting the removal of anything. I am requesting that material presented in the lead be balanced, more complete, and in good faith seek a consensus to that end. The above, "In Trinitarian Christian belief.", standing alone, is exactly what I am referring to so I gave a suggestion, "a brief inclusion that the Dogmas of (most) Christian entities arise in difference in interpretation of the role of the Holy Spirit. This includes fundamental differences between Trinitarians, Non-Trinitarians, as well as Non-Christians...".

With that said I would ask that editors weigh in with constructive comments that would include reasoning concerning solicited and given comments. Considering that, being valid, my suggestions includes "other sides of the coin" (not redundant), and an other than a singular point of view, with the fact that there are other points of views to follow in the body of the article. With fair editing (consensus) I feel some form of inclusion of the suggestions I provided would enhance the article. Otr500 (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

In continuing for clarity I would suggest that the first section be edited and appropriate parts moved into a section that would be titled, "Trinitarian Christian belief", or such to:

• 1)- Set the tone for subsections of beliefs that hold this view, provided there is consensus and acceptance.
• 2)- Allow for the lead inclusion of "Trinitarian", of which currently there is none, to be included.
• 3)- Consolidates references, especially from the lead, for the article to flow seamlessly.

By-the-way, at this point, the "bulk of the article" does not exactly address "the Holy Spirit from a clear Trinitarian perspective" anyway, being introduced and then sort of dropped. "Trinitarianism" or the "Trinitarian Christian belief" surely would be doctrine or belief within Variations in Doctrine. Since it would be a core doctrine to those that are of like belief this could be the first sub-section within the section, or directly under "Variations of doctrine" explaining this in detail. This would certainly tie in what appears to be "hanging elements" that are discussed. That would be somebody else's decision or project but just ideas.

The lead however, introduces "Trinitarian", and "Holy Spirit" and the section "Christian doctrine" introduces "mainstream Christianity" and "trinity". To the average reader there would be a clear loss of continuity and possible assumptions that need not be there. The are clear sections on "other beliefs" to include "Nontrinitarian" but no actual reference to the proclaimed belief introduced in the lead. If, as claimed, the Trinitarian belief is "mainstream" and includes the majority of christian beliefs there is ample opportunity to touch on, discuss, or at the least provide references (even if inline) to back this up, or point to articles that add to this information. I am "not" questioning this just making a valid point.

I think, for an article this size, that the lead is very lacking to promote interest to read farther into this article. It seems to me that with editing, (and expanding) the sections at least by one (or a lead in under Variations in Doctrine), the ensuing clarifications will make a better article.

I hope that my ideas are more clear or understandable than previous. I am sure that it should be understandable now that my suggestions are an attempt to improve the lead, add information consistent to the article, and in conflict with what might have been previously surmised, actually expand (certainly by adding to the body) the "fact" that the "Trinitarian belief" is mainstream, and certainly a view held by the majority of the Christian world, as citations, references, and sources will bear out. Facts are "facts" and even if disagreed with can not be repudiated.

While I am being bold I mean no ill will but since suggestions are flowing I will add that, "Symbols of the Holy Spirit", being placed obstructively between "Christian doctrine" and the very related "Variations in Doctrine", could be moved to above Fruit of the Spirit. If symbols are considered attributes (or maybe manifestations) but at any rate related, these can be sectioned with subsections, but it seems can be all grouped together. It would also seem that the section, "Holy Spirit" or "Holy Ghost", would be far closer to the top. It does explain and give definition to the subject that is also the title. For some reason I would think it would be the first section or maybe a paragraph in the lead.

So if you will please look at what I have written, and consider some variation of the first suggestion for the lead (included for ease of reference);

Suggestions: Expanding the term " Pneumatology", a brief inclusion that the Dogmas of (most) Christian entities arise in differences of interpretation of the role of the Holy Spirit. This includes fundamental differences between Trinitarians, Non-Trinitarians, as well as Non-Christians---and also if wanted the inclusion of Binitarianism, Bitheism, and Ditheism. While considering this and possibly considering the other suggestions, along with ensuing edits, this article can be indicative of a good article and maybe even a featured article. Otr500 (talk) 19:35, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Otr500, I am glad you are taking a passionate interest in this article. Thanks for clarifying your suggestions. I think you might be perceiving POV-pushing and potential conflict where there isn't any, but I generally agree with your ideas. Here are mine:

• I don't think the current lead is biased or POV, but that doesn't mean it I'm adverse to improving it. Maybe something like “Trinitarian, Non-Trinitarian Christians and various Non-Christian groups hold fundamental differences in belief about the Holy Spirit” could be the third sentence of the lead. Leaving the second sentence in place seems okay to me, and important enough to include in the lead, but I can imagine other variations of text that would serve the same purpose.
• “Variations in Doctrine” and “Non-Trinitarian views” are already major sections in the article. “Non-Christian views” is also a section in the article. While there is always room for improvement, this article seem to be on the right track.
• As for expounding on the term “pneumatology" a bit, talking about Bitheism, moving stuff around, or whatever else you want to do, all these things could potentially improve the article if done right.
• I do understand why certain passages in the article might irk you. I think (for example) that the sentence “Within mainstream Christianity, the Holy Spirit is one of the three persons of the Trinity” could be improved. For this one, I'd suggest “The Holy Spirit is one of the three persons of the Trinity for the majority of Christians, including Catholics, Eastern Christians, and many Protestants.”
• Likewise, I see the problem with the first section being labeled “Christian doctrine” when it is really about Trinitarian Christian doctrine. Wikipedia is a work in progress, right?

In summary, I don't think the current lead is unacceptable but agree it could be expanded. I don't see the article as needing emergency surgery, but I see room for improvement along lines you have suggested.--Griseum (talk) 03:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Improving an article is a good thing and I do not see any catastrophic occurrence requiring "emergency surgery" either. I had to conclude other business but I will see what I can do and comment here for consensus. If someone comments, considering a forming consensus, lets start a new section like Article Improvement or the like and retire this section--but not before I can look back at what was discussed. Otr500 (talk) 01:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

inappropriate references

I noticed a couple of unacceptable cites. First of all, there's a couple to geocities websites and geocities doesn't exist anymore. Those I saw used in relation to reference 44. Also, reference 31 is to biblelight, a personal website by a non-expert. The exact URL is also to a foreward about a book, which really isn't usable in wikipedia no matter who wrote it. I figure that alternative sources can be found for the article, which is why I'm not deleting anything yet.Farsight001 (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the refs but kept the text itself; no sense in keeping useless refs. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

Surprise! As I understand it the Trinitarian belief, referred to as believing in the Trinity, is a view held by the majority of Christian denominations, and is therefore regarded as Mainstream Christianity. This requires prominence, not so much sentence placement, and thus a lead-in. From what I read in WP: DUE it does not mean equally balanced but balanced in presenting views equal to the prominence of material. I bet you didn't expect that? It would be great though if there is a reference (foot note behind Mainstream Christianity) that points to some number availability. I am sure it is out there. Of course this is just a quick thing I threw together and I would not pretend to think great or even acceptable, just a start for ideas. I added material concerning the Trinitarian belief (with prominence reflected in size) but I have no actual idea if the complete content is sought, changes are needed, or if I missed the proverbial nail by a "country mile" since that is not my forte. The point is I am trying (and I hope not too terribly) to create a lead, that can stand alone, that is inclusive, that is indicative of the contents, and probably satisfies Wikipedia criteria to remove tags. Also note there are now references in the lead.

• The contents of the first section can be replaced (gave a suggestion) down to, "The Holy Spirit is believed...", as now the Trinitarian part is moved up for mentioned prominence. If there is a desire to change or trim down Trinitarian belief some of the other ideas might be sought such as a Trinitarian lead-in under "Variations in Doctrine" with other trinitarian beliefs listed as sub-sections. That is not that important but would look good if acceptable. I also noticed under "Catholicism" there is no mention or link to Trinitarian Order and this seems odd.
• Also Oneness Pentecostal is obviously a sub-section of "Non-trinitarian views". I have not forgot about moving "Holy Spirit or Holy Ghost up towards the top and moving some of the other things but the lead is far more important. The good news is if you don't like it you probably can't shoot me. What did I screw up and how to fix?

Suggestion for the lead;

In Christianity, the Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, is the spirit or essence of God. Pneumatology is the theological doctrine or Christian theology of the Holy Spirit. The Dogmas of Trinitarian and Non-Trinitarian Christians, along with various Non-Christian groups, hold fundamental differences in belief about the Holy Spirit.

Pneumatology refers to the study of the Holy Spirit. The English word comes from two Greek words: πνευμα (pneuma, spirit) and λογος (logos, teaching about). Pneumatology would normally include study of the person of the Holy Spirit, and the works of the Holy Spirit. This latter category would normally include Christian teachings on new birth, spiritual gifts (charismata), Spirit-baptism, sanctification, the inspiration of prophets, and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in Christians.

The Trinitarian belief, referred to (or also known ) as believing in the Trinity is a view held by the majority of Christian denominations, and is therefore regarded as mainstream Christianity. Trinitarians ascribe to the belief that teaches the unity of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three persons in one Godhead. The doctrine states that God is the Triune God, existing as three persons, or in the Greek hypostases, but one being.. As such he is personal and also fully God, co-equal and co-eternal with God the Father and Son of God. He is different from the Father and the Son in that he proceeds from the Father (or from the Father and the Son) as described in the Nicene Creed. His sacredness is reflected in the New Testament gospels which proclaim blasphemy against the Holy Spirit as unforgivable.

First section

Christian doctrine

Christians believe that the Holy Spirit leads people to faith in Jesus and gives them the ability to live a Christian lifestyle. The Holy Spirit dwells inside every Christian and each one's body being his or her temple.1 Cor 3:16 Jesus described the Holy SpiritJn 14:26 as paracletus in Latin, derived from Greek. The word is variously translated as Comforter, Counselor, Teacher, Advocate, guiding people in the way of the truth. The Holy Spirit's action in one's life is believed to produce positive results, known as the Fruit of the Holy Spirit. Otr500 (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I moved things around for continuity per talk comments. It was out of place to discuss some about a subject, go into differences, discuss more, then more on differences, that was not a result of the continued discussions. That amounted to having two sections on "Variations in doctrine". I did not do anything on the lead and first section, pending comments, so I left them alone. Otr500 (talk) 00:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I cleaned up the contents adding appropriate sub-sections. Restoration Movement and Churches of Christ is inclusive but the Church of Christ/Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) is non-trinitarian. [1]. I checked some of the others but the answer was evasive. Otr500 (talk) 08:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Improvements

Otr500, your suggestions as described here sound like a move in the right direction. But I think recent changes made to the lead, including overuse of scriptural quotes (do we really need "Mt 3:16 Mk 1:10 Lk 3:22 AND Jn 1:32" to verify "dove"?) and the self-referential "This article describes the beliefs...", are very bad. It doesn't look or read well. --Griseum (talk) 12:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are right. Although if there is a reference that points to a particular instance being used it is probably good to point to it. Probably can be used just as well as a reference without the clutter. What would you suggest. Otr500 (talk) 00:27, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

• If someone wishes to add something concerning some aspect of, "a dimension of unreality and confusion has surrounded his person for a long time.", please reword it. I could not improve or expound on the sentence at all. Who has been confused? To someone that is not familiar with calculus the process would be confusing, and maybe unreal. This does not mean that calculus is unreal or confusing. What is "a long time"? Otr500 (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

I can't say what this sentence is supposed to mean and I didn't see a source so to me it deserves to be removed. But personally I have felt like many people and even many Christians don't really "get" the Holy Spirit. If someone could find a source that discusses the common everyday view or understanding of the Holy Spirit by Christians it could be an interesting contribution to the article; though I'm not sure if there are any such sources. Ltwin (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead Paragraph

Is in Trinitarian Christianity where the theology and dogmas about the Holy Spirit are more clearly showcased. Done with that in the lead section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.223.4.35 (talk) 07:27, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, it would be better if the phrase "is mentioned in Aramaic Matthew and the Canonical gospels" appeared later in the lead. It seems logical that the first thing a person should find out when reading the article is "what is the Holy Spirit" and the question "where is he mentioned" comes later. Ltwin (talk) 17:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I agree. - Ret.Prof (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It is still not clear from the introduction what Holy Spirit means. I had an impression that Holy Spirit is something like a spiritual/information field by means of which God can act on the material world and communicate with people. Someone who rejects Holy Spirit can not be redeemed because he rejects communication with God, and so on. Biophys (talk) 23:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's hard to say exactly what the Holy Spirit is outside of a specific theological framework, such as Trinitarian, etc. A Catholic's definition of the Holy Spirit will be extremely different than a Jehovah's Witness' definition. Ltwin (talk) 02:26, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean description in New Testament (the paracletos left by Jesus). There should be some clear explanation in introduction, unless this can not at all be explained.Biophys (talk) 05:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah ok. Well parakletos means one who is "called to one's aid". It's often translated as "comforter" (in the Old English sense of "strengthener"), "advocate", "counselor", or "helper". John 15:26 records Jesus saying that when the Paraclete comes he will testify of Jesus. He speaks (Acts 13:2; 21:11; Revelation 2:7, 11, 17, 29), he teaches (John 14:26), he intercedes (Romans 8:26-27), he guides (John 16:13; Acts 16:6), he gives commands and ordains (Acts 13:2; 20:28), and he works miracles (Acts 8:39; Romans 15:19). I'm getting this from Foundations of Pentecostal Theology, and I think most Christians would agree with this. I can add something about what is said in the New Testament similar to this if no one objects.

About the rejecting the Holy Spirit thing it goes like this. I don't know where exactly, but in the Gospels Jesus mentions that those who sin against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven. I have always heard it explained this way: 1)The Holy Spirit convicts people of sin and reveals the knowledge of Christ and the grace of God to them, 2) People have the ability to resist the conviction and the leading of the Holy Spirit, 3) The Holy Spirit can be grieved, 4) There is a point after being resisted and rejected that the Holy Spirit will no longer convict someone of their sins because he will not force himself on anyone, 5) When this happens, a person is no longer convicted of sin and thus can never repent of his sin thus making it impossible for him to be forgiven. A common question that is asked is "How do I know if I've committed the unpardonable sin?" If you are feeling convicted of your sins and your need for God's grace then you have not committed the unpardonable sin. That's a little long, but that's how it has been taught to me, but I don't know if all Christians teach it like this. Ltwin (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! No objections of course (I read New Testament with explanations by theologists). I just wanted to tell that introduction should more clearly explain what Holy Spirit is. Do I understand correctly that all divine action is accomplished by the Holy Spirit on the orders from the Father and the Son? Biophys (talk) 01:45, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if all action is done by the Holy Spirit. From my understanding (and I may be wrong), the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are of one mind. The Father is on the throne in Heaven and Jesus is by his side, but the Holy Spirit is leading and guiding the church and is the presence of God in the earth. Of course I'm not a theologian and that may be very simplistic and even wrong. So I guess you could say that when it comes to the church it is the Spirit which is doing the will of the Father and testifying about Jesus. I'll have to read more into that, but it's really hard to separate the Father, Son, and Spirit so neatly. They are too interrelated.Ltwin (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

"Jesus, just before his Passion, during Last Supper, promises to send from the Father another Paraclete to the world, The Holy Spirit". Hence it is actually Holy Spirit who is currently acting on the Earth on behalf of the Church (all believers) and humanity, if I understand correctly.Biophys (talk) 02:15, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

recent wrong changes

dear editors:

1. Do not perform such deletions on this article as performed on March 9, 2011.
2. Be sure you have a minimum understanding of theology.

Errors in March 9 version:
(The true reasons that point out the errors (not quoting the errors here))

I. islam calls angel Gabriel as a holy spirit (a created spirit, a creature) and by no means they refer to The Lord, The Giver of Life, The All Mighty God Christians refer to when Christians say The Holy Spirit.

II. In Judaism the theology of the holy spirit is not developed, thus even though they have very clear the references to the Spirit of God, they only, always, refer to God as YHWH or Adonai (The Lord) in spoken language (to avoid direct usage of the Holy Name). For Christians YHWH Is God the Father. Jewish don't have the understanding of the Holy Trinity (nor do they accept it), that mainstream understanding only began with the teachings of Jesus (YHWH saves), a Jew, to his Jewish Apostles, but the theology of the Holy Spirit makes no part of current Judaism.

III. Holy Spirit is not a term, leave alone for Christians. Christians confess that The Holy Spirit is God All Mighty and receives the same Adoration and Glory as YHWH and Jesus and that this Holy Trinity is Three Persons but Only One God, the same Only One God of the Jewish, The Only One God.

Sorry but please see W:NPOV, the article has to be neutral. [2] reverted.In ictu oculi (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

due to further deletion by user User:In_ictu_oculi, Here are his mistakes (and the reasons are already pointed out). This user points out that holy spirit is a term that is equivalent across Abrahamic faiths when it isn't. In Christianity, from the teachings of Jesus, The Holy Spirit is God. In Judaism The Spirit of God is understood by Jewish as perhaps a quality of God. About Judaism One could argue that it is just a simple small thinking away deducting from the writings of old Testament that the Spirit of God is God Himself, but the Jewish scholars haven't done that thinking and thus any idea of Trinity or Duality is rejected.

Now, there are other totally different usages of a term written as ´holy spirit´ that do not refer to God directly. in Islam they call an angel as a holy spirit.

dear User. Please you are not being accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.251.111.128 (talk) 16:41, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Other religious

There are other articles for other religions, see Holy Spirit (disambiguation). Why my edits were reverted? My edit was clearly explained in edit summary. They were reverted without explanation (and I guess without considering the merit). Unless you explain why other religions must be mixed into Christianity article, I will insist on restoring of my edits. I don't think it is a good practice to revert other persons without reasonable objections beyond "I think something must be wrong here, so I better revert". Yceren Loq (talk) 03:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

This is not solely a Christian article, but a discussion of all views about the Holy Spirit, and it's a concept that is spoken about in many religions. You cannot just remove content that is well sourced, just because you disagree with it. This page needs to be written in a summary style, where there is content about all views, with links to daughter articles with more detailed views, and that's exactly what is done in this article. The disambiguation page you point at is not specifically related to the topic of the Holy Spirit, but is much broader. Also, you need to assume good faith which is a core policy of editing in Wikipedia. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 03:57, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

(1) I don't disagree with anything written. I was saying it was misplaced. You need to assume good faith yourself, read other people's comments and comment back accordingly, not just slap the revert button in their face. (Now that my displeasure with your act is vented out, I must say that you have reasonable points, but this is what you must do in the first place: talk, per your own advice, not just revert, as if I was a vandal or stupid.)

(2) The fact that dismabig page is broader does not defeat my statement that holy spirits in other religions are written in other articles.

(3) If you insist on "summary style" then I must say that the article is extremely heavily biased towards Christian view, and starting fom the very introduction.

Concluding, there is an easy way for our conciliation:

1. For preservation of long page history, this article must be moved to Holy Spirit in Christianity
2. The non-Cristian part moved to Holy Spirit (which would become a redirect)
3. In Holy Spirit, a summary section written about Christian views, per summary style you mentioned.
4. A new introduction must be written, "the summary of alll summaries".
5. Are there any sources which discuss the genesis of the concept and compare across religions? This info is missing from the current article (or not very apparent from it, since it is (95% Christian views).

Please comment. Yceren Loq (talk) 15:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

That is article has more Christian content is not an issue, because of undue weight issues. In regards to your recommendation, there is some I agree with, and some I don't. If you want to create a Holy Spirit in Christianity, go ahead and create one, but this page shouldn't be moved. Then you can further summarize/shorten the Christian content in this page. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 16:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Users :)

Please note that since 2 Dec 2010 this page has not just been about Christianity, but for' a certain type of Christianity.

Dec 1* In Trinitarian Christianity, The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is, Himself, Almighty God.

became

Dec 2* The Holy Spirit is the third person of the Holy Trinity—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and is, Himself, Almighty God.

So this is a fact, Wikipedia says that the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity, Almighty God.

Note: "is"

On that basis the Holy Spirit (Islam), Holy Spirit (Judaism) and Holy Spirit (Non-Trinitarian Christianity) should be deleted as contradicting this page. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:48, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

A set of confusing pages

I must say the set of pages about this topic (Holy Spirit, Spirit of God, etc.) is an amazing mess. It is even hard for me to figure out how many pages exist about this and what they are about. I think any new reader will be totally confused.

I do not have a clear solution for how to fix these pages, except that Spirit of God is most probably inappropriate as a simple disambiguation page and should become a top level clarifying article that leads to the others. Wikipeda does not have a consistent story here, at all, e.g.

• Prana is asserted to be similar to Qi but is not listed as Spirit of God.
• Kami, being highly multifaceted, probably do not belong on the Spirit of God page.
• Brahman is asserted to be the same as Godhead but listed there anyway, and probably does not belong there.

And of course, many of the articles on Paraclete, Godhead (Judaism), Gender of the Holy Spirit have multicolored "low quality flags" on top of them. What a mess.

I am sure that In ictu oculi is correct that "Holy Spirit (Non-Trinitarian Christianity)" would be a contradiction in terms, because the entire debate about being non-Trinitarian was about that. So Non-Trinitarian Christianity can not be discussed as having a "Holy Spirit". However, Wikifact is not usable as a reference and we need a better WP:RS reference.

What I am not sure about is if Non-Trinitarian Christianity has a Paraclete. I think it may, but I am not sure at all, so let us first figure that out before we try to find our way through this fog. If we manage to answer that question with solid WP:RS references, then we may be in a better situation to continue.

The next question after that would be: what are the exact titles in Judaism and Islam? And I do not have the answers there without doing research. Do you guys have answers there with solid WP:RS references? History2007 (talk) 17:30, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I think "is an amazing mess" about sums it up. Just dealing with the first question first. Wikipedia does structure out "big" topics common but distinct across various religions:

• God
  • God (Judaism)
  • God (Christianity)
  • God (Islam)
• Heaven
  • Heaven (Judaism)
  • Heaven (Christianity)
  • Heaven (Islam)
  • Heaven (Buddhism)
  • Heaven (Hinduism)
  • Heaven (Taoism)

And no, Holy Spirit (Non-Trinitarian Christianity) wasn't serious, it's already here as a large section, just denied in the lede since Dec 02. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

In answer to Q2. Yes Non-Trinitarianism, like Judaism, has a paraclete, I'm not sure about Islam. Historically Unitarians conceived of the Paraclete in John and 1John being the same, namely Christ. Not sure what other N-T groups think.

I have added the neutral line:

The Holy Spirit is a term originating in the Hebrew Bible, though understood differently in the three main Abrahamic religions.

And 2 refs

• John R. Levison The Spirit in First-Century Judaism 2002 p65 "Relevant Milieux : Israelite Literature : The expression, holy spirit, occurs in the Hebrew Bible only in Isa 63:10-11 and Ps 51:13. In Isaiah 63, the spirit acts within the corporate experience of Israel.."
• Emir Fethi Caner, Ergun Mehmet Caner More than a prophet: an insider's response to Muslim beliefs about Jesus and Christianity" 9780825424014 2003 p43 "In Surah al-Nahl (16:102), the text is even more explicit: Say, the Holy Spirit has brought the revelation from thy Lord in Truth, in order to strengthen those who believe and as a Guide and glad tidings to Muslims."

I'll try and find an Arabic copy of Surah 16 :102(Arabic: سورة النحل, Sūratu an-Naḥl, "The Bees") In ictu oculi (talk) 04:28, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. Yes, http://quran.com/16/102 - the Arabic text says الروح القدس Al-Ruh Al-Quds, with the definite article repeated, as normal; Holy Spirit. As a source you may add Sulaymān Bashīr Studies in early Islamic tradition 2004 p334 "and aided by the Holy Spirit (ruh al-quds, as in Qur'an 2:87; 5:110; 19:27)", though as I said it should have a double Al- Al-. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

So now let me ask:

• Do I take it that Holy Spirit (Islam), and Holy Spirit (Judaism) are good page titles? If they are, why are they separate on their own and there is no Holy Spirit (Christianity)?

• Exactly what religions/beliefs use the term "Holy Spirit"? Apart from Islam, Judaism and Christianity which ones? Bahá'í is mentioned, but I do not know if they use the exact term or a variation thereof.

• Per WP:COMMONNAME is the term used in Islam "Holy Spirit", "Spirit of God" or "Holy Spirit of God"? I could not easily decide this by a few simple searches. How is that determined here?

Overall I see this as a pretty confusing and disorganized article, which can be easily improved by some deletions, e.g.

• The Gender of the Holy Spirit section is just too long here, given that there is a Main.

• The artistic items should really move out to make this more cohesive, given that the art is all Christian. The art section has very little "art history content", and of course zero references, as many other sections here. If/when the Christian items move to their own page, the art should move with that.

• I do not think the "Non-Trinitarian views" section needs multiple subsections, some with 1 line. Just one section title is enough.

And I find the repeated use of bold in the text confusing and the overall text hard to read. But separating out and reducing the size of sections such as Gender will start an improvement process.

And how about doing this:

• Spirit of God becomes a top level page that is not just a disambig and refers to various concepts including Holy Spirit.

• Holy Spirit also becomes a much shorter page that refers to 3 o 4 religions.

• Holy Spirit (Christianity) gets the Christian material.

• I will find some time to do justice to Holy Spirit in Christian art at some point, as in the other artistic set of articles - can probably do it in May 2011.

Ideas? History2007 (talk) 08:16, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi History2007

(1) Probably (A) en.wikipedia has different demographics to Arabic/Hebrew Wikipedia, and/or (B) because the Holy Spirit is not a person in Islam or Judaism, or indeed non-Trinitarian Christianity so generates less art/literature/.

(2) Spirit of God will be non-Abrahamic religions too, Sikhism and Bahaism are part-Abrahamic but I don't think Sikhs use the term Holy Spirit, re Bahais no idea.

(3) Yes the term "Holy Spirit" is exactly the same in Jewish & Muslim uses, despite the meaning being closer to English Unitarian usage.

In Arabic al-Ruh al-Quds "The-Spirit The-Holy" is the standard term in the Arabic New Testament as in the Quran, as also on the interwiki link to ar.wikipedia.

ar.wikipedia has:

1 الروح القدس في الأديان

1.1 الروح القدس في المسيحية

1.2 الروح القدس في الإسلام

1.3 مواضيع متصلة

1 Holy Spirit in the religions

1.1 Holy Spirit in Christianity

1.2 Holy Spirit in Islam

1.3 related topics

In Malay http://ms.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roh_Kudus the "Spirit Holy" also gets a 50/50 split between Christianity and Islam.

Same will probably be true in Urdu, Bengali and other Islamic/Christian shared languages.

In Hebrew Ruah ha-Qodesh "Spirit The-Holy" is again the same in Hebrew Torah as Delitzsch New Testament. See McNamara.

he.wikipedia has a disambiguation page for Ruah ha-Qodesh and then splits Ruah ha-Qodesh (Natzrot) i.e. (Christianity), and Ruah ha-Qodesh (Yahudot) i.e. Judaism.

(4) Gender - support

(5) Non-Trinitarian - support (though Modalists and Arian/Unitarian will still need keeping separate as they fall on 2 sides of Trinitarian re H.S.)

(6) Art - support

(7) Restructure + page move - support

Your suggestions all sound reasonable to me.In ictu oculi (talk) 12:46, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so let us wait for a few more comments. As a side note, WP:COMMONNAME does not care about other language usage at all, and only English usage matters there. I am probably not the best person to address the non-Trinitarian parts, so you should perhaps do those. But it will be fun for me to do a better job on the art. So unless there are objections, we can later do it as you suggested. It is a good idea to get some good material into Spirit of God as well, for at the moment is pretty confusing. History2007 (talk) 13:04, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Support moving the Christian material to its own page. Ltwin (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, in the meantime, given that there were no objections to a separate art page, and that it has to expand a lot in order to get it right, I made a Main for it to reduce the clutter here. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Given that there were no objections to a separate Christianity page, as in the other 2 pages Islam and Judaism, I made that page. What needs to be done now is to cut back on the Gender section that is just too long here, given that it has a separate article. I do not know that topic that well, so could one of you guys who knows it better reduce that by 70% or more, and move the material to the Main please? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll have to pass on the Christian Gender section. The Jewish comment looks like pure OR, moved to Talk:Holy Spirit (Judaism) just in case. Well done on the main.In ictu oculi (talk) 11:55, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I will just move it over to the Main and hope for the best. History2007 (talk) 12:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it looks much more organized now, and I suggest any additional material beyond the possible comparison of these religions should go the corresponding Main pages, to keep this as a top level referral page. I am going to stop on this for now, given that I had not even planned to work on it as of 3 days ago. History2007 (talk) 13:13, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation (Updating links in other articles)

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)

That's a very good observation indeed. I hope everyone who are aware of the introduction of this separate article on the Holy Spirit, covering only from the Christian perspective, can edit the specific links as you ask for. Thanks. 190.251.22.164 (talk) 03:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

On a second thought, There are way too many articles that refer to Holy Spirit in Christianity in contrast to the very few that refer to the Spirit of God in Judaism and so on. so you all have to concede in Wikipedia the in line references to the Holy Spirit article are mostly trying to find a Christian content. Isn't there a way (robot) to make all the current in line references to the Holy Spirit to point to the Holy Spirit (Christianity) so only the very few non-Christian/Global in line references are manually corrected to point this main article? 190.251.22.164 (talk) 04:31, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

If we had a robot that smart, we would use it for vandal blocks. History2007 (talk) 08:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The fact that " There are way too many articles that refer to Holy Spirit in Christianity in contrast to the very few that refer to the Spirit of God in Judaism and so on" suggests that Holy Spirit (Christianity) belongs at the default Holy Spirit. This article belongs at Holy Spirit (Abrahamic faiths), or better still not at all. It currently is a cross between Holy Spirit (disambiguation) and some discussions of Judaism and Islam's opposition to the idea of a Triune God. jnestorius^(talk) 22:08, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You are probably right, but making the Christian version the default is asking for debate and waste of time. Too many people will object within the next 2 years. So I would suggest to keep it as is. History2007 (talk) 22:12, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

At a minimum, move Holy Spirit (disambiguation) to Holy Spirit and get rid of the current misbegotten runt of a page. jnestorius^(talk) 07:05, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jnestorius, the problem with giving the Christian page on any subject (eg. Heaven (Christianity)) priority over Heaven (Judaism) etc. is that most Christian subjects were Jewish before they were Christian. Rather than being a "misbegotten runt," the current page Holy Spirit gives fair lead in to the three Holy Spirits in the three Abrahamic religions that have the term "Holy Spirit". Anything wrong with that? This disam page wouldn't be a good idea to move, Special:WhatLinksHere/Spirit_of_God. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, this generated debate that will not improve anything. So I still say let us keep it as is. History2007 (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

The assumption of a single article is that there is a commonality which is discussed in the base article, with the differing specifics in the various child articles. That is true for Heaven but you have not shown it to be true for Holy Spirit. If the Christian subject derives from the Jewish subject that can be mentioned in both articles, as is done for example with Pesach and Easter. You don't need to create an Abrahamic Spring Feast article to discuss the commonality (although there is Passover (Christian holiday), that's not equivalent).

This article does not establish any commonality between the idea of "Holy Spirit" in the 3 Abrahamic faiths. Quite the opposite; it does nothing but explain the differences between them. One could start from a dab page with ten items and create a new page with a summarystyle paragraph for each of four of those ten; that would not establish that there is a single underlying concept uniting those four and not common to the other six. I suggest you work on explaining the putative commonality rather than merely doing summarystyle of the child articles.

BTW I have also created a separate Holy Spirit (disambiguation) page and overhauled Holy Ghost (disambiguation), and changed the hatnotes accordingly. Is there evidence that Jews or Muslims use the term "Holy Ghost"? If not then Holy Ghost should redirect to Holy Spirit (Christianity) jnestorius^(talk) 10:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Jnestorius. Go ahead, you're more than welcome to trace some commonality of the Holy Spirit between the 3 Abrahamic religions in the lede, if it's sourced. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:14, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, my claim is that there is no commonality, and hence no basis for the article. If you accept there is no commonality, why does this article exist? If OTOH you assert there is in fact some commonality, it is up to you to produce the evidence. jnestorius^(talk) 12:13, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There is commonality in my view: they all think there is "something" out there, but In ictu oculi probably has more formal theological reasoning to give you, but I am 99% sure that an Afd of this article will fail after wasting time. History2007 (talk) 12:48, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jnestorius,

You're correct about Holy Ghost, that's a King James-ism, and Christian only (I fixed it).

Otherwise,

Can I please ask for clarification -- whether you think there is no commonality between Judaism, Christianity and Islam in all matters (God, Heaven, Hell, Messiah, Satan, Paradise, Soul, sacrifice, angel....) or just this one subject Holy Spirit?

If the answer is the former then I'd find that an unusual view. Even in anti-Islamic and anti-Jewish evangelical texts the commonality is the root of the polemic. If the latter, maybe you haven't considered muslim and Jewish teaching on this subject. See this chart (which I assume to be Christian polemic?) Compare the first boxes; Sura 2:253 is a clear Quran reference to Luke 2 (whether or not one reads later Haddith gloss about Gabriel into the text). There's really no commonality there? Difference requires commonality, imagine how a box for Hindu Holy Spirit would look.

Secondly, it's already been shown above that Arabic and Hebrew wikipedia have an equivalent of this commonality page. Given that many English-speaking wikipedia users will also be Jewish or Muslim the onus is on someone saying that on English Wikipedia the article Holy Spirit must default to Christianity to justify it. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:38, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

There are two separate issues:

1. Whether there are grounds for an Abrahamic-commonality "Holy Spirit" article
2. Whether the default "Holy Spirit" article should be the Christian one, the disambguation, or the Abrahamic-commonality one.

Obviously, if the answer to #1 is "No", that affects the answer to #2. But let's ignore #2 for now and concentrate on #1.

There is commonality between Judaism, Christianity and Islam in many matters, including all the examples you list. However, not all those in the list have a Wikipedia article which includes all the Abrahamic faiths and excludes every other faith. As to whether there is any commonality on the specific subject of "Holy Spirit", I have no opinion; this article currently offers no evidence. Rather than debating with me on the Talk: page, it might be quicker if you just cite your evidence on the article page. Even if there is commonality, a separate article may not be appropriate; I gave the example of Pesach and Easter without Abrahamic Spring Feast. To take your example, if Sura 2:253 is a reference to Luke 2, that can be discussed in Holy Spirit (Islam), Gospel of Luke, Biblical narratives and the Quran, Injil and/or Jesus in Islam. How do you see it fitting into the current Holy Spirit article? jnestorius^(talk) 14:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jnestorius

Sorry, but I personally don't feel the need to attempt to fill the article with "commonality" simply because someone else on the talk page is requesting it. As before if you feel it's needed, then by all means please feel free to do so yourself based on your knowledge of the three religions.

Also, I've never heard anyone describe either Easter or Passover as "Abrahamic Spring Feast" so I'm not sure what the point is of this comment?

Anyway, so what you're proposing then is that Holy Spirit be left empty, and just have Holy Spirit (disambiguation), Holy Spirit (Judaism), Holy Spirit (Islam) and Holy Spirit (Christianity). Is that correct? I don't have a problem with that. Except of course, someone coming from a non-religious or non-Abrahamic background (which would be the bulk of the world, outside America) might want to come to Holy Spirit, as a common subject of all 3 Abrahamic faiths and see a paragraph about each. Like Heaven, or God.

In ictu oculi (talk) 16:09, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Well of course if Holy Spirit is deleted then either Holy Spirit (disambiguation) or Holy Spirit (Christianity) will move into the empty space. And if the hypothetical non-Abrahamist comes across "Holy Spirit" and wonders what that means, I would recommend Holy Spirit (disambiguation). They should be able to work out from the context of the source that mentioned "Holy Spirit" whether the Jewish, Christian or Islamic concept is the relevant one in the particular context. As regards your obligation to provide commonality, the current article amounts to a WP:SYNTHESIS. You are claiming that the Jewish, Muslim, and Christian concepts are variants of a single idea rather than separate ideas that happen to have the same name. You are not explicitly claiming that, but the claim is implicit in the very existence of the article. If you make the claim, you must back it up. jnestorius^(talk) 16:42, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jnestorius

Non-Abrahamists aren't hypothetical, in the UK they make up 90% of the population. It's very likely indeed that some, most, Wikipedia users will want to read an article about Holy Spirit that reflects all 3 Abrahamic faiths.

And, surely it hardly needs anyone to "claim" that Jewish, Muslim, and Christian concepts are variants of a single idea rather than separate ideas that happen to have the same name, for the same reason that no one has to prove that Abraham (Christianity), Abraham (Judaism), and Abraham (Islam) are variants of a single idea rather than separate ideas that happen to have the same name, and the existence of a single Abraham article is WP:SYNTHESIS, or the article on Heaven is WP:SYNTHESIS because it isn't all about Heaven (Christianity). For example do you think they are "separate ideas that happen to have the same name"? Do you think there's no connection?

In any case Wikipedia can't be tilted to the assumption that the Christian definition is the one that matters, as in the comment "of course if Holy Spirit is deleted then either Holy Spirit (disambiguation) or Holy Spirit (Christianity) will move into the empty space." Why not "of course if Holy Spirit is deleted then either Holy Spirit (disambiguation) or Holy Spirit (Judaism) will move into the empty space."? Seriously - after all Jewish teaching on the Holy Spirit predates Christian teaching on the subject by around 1000 years.

But back to that double question:

• Do you think they are "separate ideas that happen to have the same name"?
• Do you think there's no connection?

In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let me make a suggestion that may be illuminating: find a few existing articles that ought to wikilink to the current Holy Spirit article, rather than one of the other articles like Holy Spirit (Christianity). jnestorius^(talk) 16:50, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I did that earlier today and found 1 almost immediately, Joel. Now that's a perfect example of why a common Holy Spirit article needs to exist in Wikipedia as more than a stub.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:COMMONNAME again

RE: "God the Spirit" vs "God the Holy Spirit" which one do you guys consider the common name in English? And a on the talk page for Holy Spirit (Christianity) do either need a page? History2007 (talk) 16:32, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

"God The Holy Spirit" 190.251.22.164 (talk) 04:01, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Both "God the Spirit" + "God the Holy Spirit" are Trinitarian theological terms occuring fairly evenly from the 4th Century onwards. I wouldn't have thought they needed a separate article but can be mentioned under the Christianity/Trinitarian subsection.In ictu oculi (talk) 17:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, no new article and we will mention both. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Holy Persons

Now Holy Person redirects to saint. Probably needs a disambig page when upper case. History2007 (talk) 16:33, 15 April 2011 (UTC)