Talk:Holy Spirit/Archive 1

The Holy Spirit is "From" God . . .

Removed un-biblical reference to the Holy Spirit as being "from" God. The entire paragraph was supporting, so it was also removed. The entire paragraph seemed to be unnecessary and unneeded anyway. --Abrent (talk) 03:43, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Remove Gendered language

I know the use of the word 'He' is used to show respect to God but this is an encyclopedia. Use the word it to refer to the Holy Spirt. (unsigned anon)

What does this being an encyclopedia have to do with it? What other encyclopedias have ever done this? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 15:11, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, the Holy Spirit is refered to as an it in the Bible --Master 03:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Could someone show me exactly WHERE is the Holy Spirit, or any other part of the trinity, refered to as anything other than male pronouns in the bible? (unsigned anon)

To the above writer: Thank you. If anyone thinks that the Holy Spirit is referred to as an "it" in the Bible, Im sorry but you must not know too much. And because this is an encyclopedia we must take extreme care to stick to the facts. The fact is that the Holy Spirit is considered to be God/a god by Christians and is referred to as "He". --Babieboy2786 20:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Greek verbs do not have a gender, so any assigned to it is the interpretation of the translator. Unfortunately, that plus adding the word "the" and capitalizing the "H" and "S", help to perpetuate that holy spirit is a person every time it is used in the Bible. At the very least, this article should contain a section that addresses the gender issue. -- Aletheia humas eleutheroo 20:10, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

No, but ancient Greek nouns do (see Ancient_greek_grammar#Nouns). Of course, as with many other languages, ancient Greek assigned a "grammatical gender" to nouns rather than "natural gender". For example, "flesh" (sarx) was feminine while "body" (soma) was masculine. "Foot" (pous) was masculine while "mouth" (stoma) was neuter. Bottom line, it would be worthwhile to find sources that examine the grammatical evidence on this point, but we can't settle it by arguing that the Greek language didn't have gender. EastTN (talk) 18:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation Page Needed

The term Holy Spirit appears to have several meanings, and is found in other non-Christian texts. Another page with the same title already exists in the encyclopedia. Therefore, it is necessary to have a disambiguation page for this term in order to avoid confusion. --AlmoatazBellah 05:33, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. -- Aletheia humas eleutheroo 20:11, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The other page is so short that I don't believe a disambiguation page is needed. I would copy any information from that page to this and make it a redirect. If the amount of information grows we can make separate pages as necessary. DJ Clayworth (talk) 20:47, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Well the term Holy Spirit is not exclusive for the Christian Religion, so as this causes an ambiguation, a dismambiguation page is needed.--Merliomar (talk) 11:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A disambiguation page isn't required. A disambiguation link will suffice (done). See WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.--Jeffro77 (talk) 11:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of Latin grammar (sancti vs. sanctus)

This article mentioned that the latin translation of its subject is "Spiritus Sancti". I presume this was the result of the commonly used phrase "in nomine patris et filii et spiritus sancti", translating to "in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit." The problem is that the three stand in genitive case in this phrase. In the context of the article, however, it is obvious that the nominative case should be used, which is "spiritus sanctus".

And in case you are asking yourselves why it is not "spiriti sancti", the word "spiritus" is subject to the u-declension rather than the more common o-declension pattern. The genitive case is marked through a more stressed pronounciation of the "u", much like the English "oo" (as in "too").

Presumably, the original/intended translation would have read "in the name of the father, of the son and of the Holy Spirit."

WHERE SHOULD I PUT THIS????

I'm really not sure where to put this? I got it from Holy Spirit as of Protestantism and decided to merge it. It's a list of things believers believe the Holy Spirit does based on the Bible.

*Impel people - Matthew 4:1, Mark 1:12
*Constrain people - Acts 16:6,7
*Empower people to perform signs & wonders and cast out demons - Luke 4:14, Matthew 12:28, Acts 1:8, 10:38, Romans 15:19, I Corinthians 2:4
*Inspire people to speak and teaches them what to say - Mark 12:36, 13:11, Luke 12:12, Acts 2:4, 6:10, 21:11, 28:25, I Corinthians 2:13, 12:3, 2 Peter 1:21
*Reveal things unknown - Luke 2:27, John 14:26, 16:13, Acts 11:28, I Corinthians 2:10, Ephesians 3:5
*Speak to people - Acts 8:29, 10:19, 11:12, 13:2, 15:28. 20:23, 1 Timothy 4:1, Hebrews 3:7, 1 John 4:2, Revelation 2:7,11,17,29, 3:6,16,22, 14:13, 22:17
*Be put to the test by men - Acts 5:9
*Be lied to - Acts 5:3
*Be resisted - Acts 7:51
*Be blasphemed against - Matthew 12:31. Mark 3:29, Luke 12:10
*Be grieved - Ephesians 4:30 be stifled or quenched - 1 Thessalonians 5:19
*Be insulted - Hebrews 10:29
*Dwell in Christians - Romans 8:9,11, I Corinthians 3:16, 6:19, 2 Timothy 1:14, 1 John 3:24
*Rest upon Christians - 1 Peter 4:14
*Witness events - Acts 5:32
*Comfort - Acts 9:31
*Appoint to positions - Acts 20:28
*Enable people to change their lifestyle - Romans 8:13, Galatians 5:16,22-23
*Intercede for people - Romans 8:27
*Search out and know things - I Corinthians 2:10
*Impart supernatural abilities - I Corinthians 12:4-11, Hebrews 2:4
*Clean and make holy - Romans 15:16, 1 Peter 1:2

Alvinrune ^TALK 23:20, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you should put it in a new section of the article. Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 03:12, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Holy Spirit

Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost are one and the same. The spirit of God given by God to help believers; the gift Jesus spoke of who would come in his place.

Can anyone verify this statement, from the "Gender of the Holy Spirit" section?: 'The term "Holy Ghost" is widely used by American Christians, whereas "Holy Spirit" is the common European term.' I noticed it was originally added by 83.70.192.43, who also seems to have vandalized the Leprechaun article. So, it would be good to make sure this isn't a case of subtle vandalism by inserting false information.--209.108.217.226 03:22, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Term "Holy Spirit" is translated "Holy Ghost" in the 1611 KJV, because of culuteral venacular--it is commonly translated "Holy Spirit" in *every major tranlsation today (NIV/NAS/ESV/TL) So the aforementioned statement is inaccuarte--josh@dbrower.com

"The term "Holy Ghost" is widely used by American Christians, whereas "Holy Spirit" is the common European term.'"

I have worshipped with many congregations among four denominations in the South: Church of Christ, Methodist, Baptist, Church of God. I cannot say how Europeans refer to the Holy Spirit, but in my experience churches in the U.S. refer to the Holy Spirit and not the Holy Ghost.

--Bill Blue 20:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)Bill Blue--Bill Blue 20:14, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Holy Spirit in Pentecostalism

I just deleted this text:

The Holy Spirit plays a more central role in Pentecostalism than in most other types of Christianity.

I know that Pentecostals think this is so, and I used to be a member of an Assemblies of God church myself. However, it's a very one-sided statement, and in my own not so humble opinion, isn't at all accurate. I could make a similarly biased statement regarding the role of the Holy Spirit in Pentecostalism, but it would be just as biased. Instead, more details or qualification would be appropriate, for instance comparing the role of the Holy Spirit with other specific groups, or it could be left out as is. Wesley

Or one could say 'in Pentecostalism less attention is paid to God the Father'. I agree, Wesley. The statement is unbalanced and must be redone if it is to be retained. "Contemporary 'Pentecostal' groups stress the practice of the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit'."? We need to make it clear that this movement is Contemporary (not Modern - modernity, in history of religion, sets in with 1648) and that it is their opinion about themselves rather than mere truth. MichaelTinkler

I'm not sure the statement is biased or inaccurate, although perhaps it might be better to say Pentecostals place more emphasis on the Holy Spirit rather than using the phrase "more central role." Of course, what is really needed is to revamp the article on Pentecostalism, which in its current form is awkwardly written at best. —Eric

The article on Pentecostalism is probably the best place to address this in detail, and a cross link from this Holy Spirit article would be fine. If we were to say they stress the practice of the 'gifts of the Holy Spirit' I think it would also be necessary to describe what they mean by that (speaking in tongues, healing, etc.) and what others may mean by that. As for having more emphasis... have you ever attended a Catholic or Orthodox celebration of the Eucharist and counted how many times they pray, "Glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit", and variations thereof? Now attend a Pentecostal Sunday morning service and count how many times prayer, praise or worship is actually directed to the Holy Spirit (and the Father and Son for comparison while you're at it), and I'd be surprised if they were that far ahead, if at all. Of course the Orthodox and Catholics are also reminded of the Holy Spirit through various icons (typically depicted as a dove), and are thereby called to additional worship, as well as other disciplines. And of course, in the liturgical year, Pentecost is by far the longest season, which could suggest greater emphasis as well; I think the icon of Pentecost is probably most often the one to greet an Orthodox believer at the door, as that varies with the liturgical season. If that's not enough there's always the obscure Filioque clause argument; though I think Pentecostals probably use the Apostles Creed rather than the Nicene Creed? There are other ways to "measure" emphasis or centrality as well, of course... I just think it would be difficult to substantiate that statement comparing with other "types" of Christianity.

Another way of saying it might be something like "The Pentecostal movement places special emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit; see Pentecostalism." Would that work? Wesley

Excellent and insightful comments. Just to add another semi-random example (because I'm familiar with it), the flame (representing the H.S.) is as prominent in the symbol of the United Methodist Church as is the cross. So you're right; it may not even be that Pentecostals place more emphasis, but it certainly a different emphasis. I'll add the suggestion you gave and see if it sticks. And if I ever feel like tackling it, I'll revamp the Pentecostalism article a bit. —Eric

The change looks good to me, for what it's worth. And yes, I certainly agree that the Holy Spirit has a prominent place in Methodism (used to be one of those, too), and in at least most of the rest of Christianity as well.  :-) Wesley

Someone keeps putting this paragraph into the article's INTRODUCTION.

While the Holy Spirit is acknowledged as God in all mainstream denominations, he is given particular emphasis in Pentecostal churches. In those churches he is seen as the giver of natural and supernatural gifts, such as tongues and prophecy, to Christians.

For reasons which have been discussed, such a paragraph belongs in a section or article on Pentecostalism, such as Holy_Spirit#Pentecostalism, or Pentecostalism Thanks.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with you here Tam, and for reasons which I pointed out further on in this discussion page. I draw your attention to the two contributors who recommended "The Pentecostal movement places special emphasis on the work of the Holy Spirit", and said nothing about where in the article it should go. Your move duplicated information in the Pentecostalism section. Maybe you could explain your reasoning in the appropriate section of the talk page. DJ Clayworth (talk) 19:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Please, besides this section, which other "appropriate section" concerns "Holy Spirit in Pentecostalism"?

I'm not saying the material has no place in the article; I'm saying it has no place in the introduction.

If the moved information duplicates existing information, it should be removed rather than re-moved.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 19:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with AuthorityTam. The best place to mention special emphasis of the Holy Spirit by Pentacostals is in the Pentacostal section. Inclusion in the lead seems to be undue weight.--Jeffro77 (talk) 10:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I think a substantial number of people will come to the article looking for the more 'sensational' aspects of the Holy Spirit. To me it makes sense to give them a sentence in the introduction as to where to look next. If people come here looking for info on "those people that are always calling on the Holy Spirit", but not knowing the word "Pentecostalism", then they may never find the section they are looking for. I would point out that the lead contains a sentence on the history of the finalization of the Trinitarian doctrine, a matter that is of interest to far fewer number of people than Pentecostalism. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are encyclopedic, not promotional.--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

When did "helping readers find the information they are looking for" become promotional? Helping readers find what they are looking for is...encyclopedic. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:09, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, DJ Clayworth's advocacy concerns his idea about 'helping readers who are interested in Pentecostalism find what they are looking for'. That's promotional.--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make assumptions about my motivation. If the lead of President of the United States includes the fact that the current incumbent is Barack Obama does that count as being promotional for him? I think it entirely reasonable that in an article about the Holy Spirit, the head of the article should include a reference to a movement that places special emphasis on him? Why is that a problem? DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Just as there are countries besides the United States, so there are Christian religions besides Pentecostalism. Your example would be more apropos if an article on President forced Barack Obama into its introduction; whether that was done by an Obama cheerleader or by a knuckleheaded editor, either would be wrong.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

The article President of the United States does indeed mention Barack Obama in the introduction, which is entirely proper and precisely my point. There have been other presidents besides Obama - does mentioning him alone constitute promotion? (By the way, I'm going to assume that when you refer to 'knucklehead editor' you are entirely talking hypothetically). DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah.

So, it's been discerned that an article on President of the United States could appropriately highlight by name a specific President of the United States in its introduction; similarly, an article on a particular Christian religion could highlight its unique ideas in its introduction.

The sentence insisted upon by DJ Clayworth, for example, might appear in the introduction to an article entitled Holy Spirit of Pentecostalism.

But...

That's different from the article we're Talking about.

A more general article, such as an article entitled President or Holy Spirit, wouldn't in its introduction highlight (for example) a particular U.S.President or a particular religion's unique ideas about Holy Spirit. Readers will note that Wikipedia's article on President certainly does NOT highlight Barack Obama; neither should Wikipedia's article on Holy Spirit highlight Pentecostalism.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

President of the United States mentions in its lead one particular president, who is likely to be of particular interest to readers (the current one). That is not promotion, it is usefully serving readers. I use it as an example of how some articles do this quite legitimately. Now you found an article that does things differently - congratulations, but the fact that not every article writes like that doesn't mean that no article should write like that. Finding examples like that is irrelevant.

Let's take another example, the article Mohammed. That mentions Islam in its lead, because Mohammed is a major focus of Islam. Is that promoting Islam? By your logic it is. If we continue your line of argument then we should relegate any mention of Islam to a special section Mohammed in Islam. Clearly we don't want to do that, and the logic is the same here. Pentecostalism is a movement that places special focus on the Holy Spirit, and it makes sense to mention it. I'm not even sure what your problem with that is. DJ Clayworth (talk) 13:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

This is another analogy I think will be regretted.

Does the article on Muhammad mention denominations such as Sunni, Shi'a, or Sufism in its introduction? No.

Similarly, the article on Holy Spirit properly mention Christianity, but not individual denominations.

Incidentally, could we be more careful to jog our comments over? Some tend to align theirs with the comments above, which makes it harder to follow the thread.

--AuthorityTam (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Mohammed mentions Islam because Islam is a movement that is particularly focussed on Mohammed. Sunni soes not focus on Mohammed noticeably more than Shi'a. Pentecostalism does focus on the Holy Spirit noticeably more than other Christian denominations. Hence we should mention it. No, I don't indent because if I did we would be halfway across the page by now DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Nonneutral POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AuthorityTam (talk • contribs) 21:11, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Unless you have a reliable source saying this it is frankly non npov, but even if you did have a source it still doesn't belong in the lead. I'm sure other christian denominations would say that they put just as much emphasis on the Holy Spirit. And for the record I'm Pentecostal. Ltwin (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Shekinah

Can any knowledgeable person discuss the term "Shekinah" in this subject? Thanks.

I'll put in a little information on Shekinah, but I can't find a reference, so I'll be writing from memory. What this means is that others should PLEASE correct me. Also, as I understand it, the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Shekinah glory of God was made primarily by the Babylonian Talmud, which I don't know about.

Secondly, the last edit seemed awefully preachy. I happen to agree with it, but I'm not sure it's appropriate for an encyclopedia. I'll see if I can't do something to get the npov thing going again. Kpearce

Removed non-encyclopedic content

Removed this sermonette:

According to one Christian: "All matters pertaining to the doctrine of the Holy Spirit should, therefore, be of special interest to us who live in this age of special privilege. Yet how ignorant is the average Christian concerning matters pertaining to the Spirit. The Christian church today needs to heed Paul's exhortation: "Now concerning spiritual gifts (or, perhaps better, "matters pertaining to the Spirit"), I would not have you ignorant." May it not be that the reason why the sin against the Holy Spirit is so grievous is because it is a sin committed in the light and with the knowledge of the clearest and fullest revelation of the Godhead. We cannot, therefore, afford to remain in ignorance of this all-important doctrine."

It's clearly a quotation, but there's no attribution. Surely we should know who said this? Who are they, does anyone besides that person hold this view? An encyclopedia should document persons, places, ideas, events, etc.; it should NOT try to persuade, as is obviously the intent of this paragraph. Wesley 17:51 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)

I did that. The quote was from the last editor. I was trying to get npov without deleting anything, but, as I noted, it was a rather difficult task, and that was the best I could do. Probably better off deleting it anyway. kpearce

Gender again

Hate to jump on the recent addition; just trying to be helpful. Anyway, it reads like this:

The Old testament word for spirit is 'ruwach', meaning wind, breath, inspiration,and the OT Hebrew noun is always feminine. In the "Odes of Solomon'; the oldest surviving Christian hymnal, the Holy Spirit is female. The original tongue of the Hebrew or Aramaic would translate 'Holy Spirit' as female. Also, Greek would translate 'Holy Spirit' as either female or more likely 'neuter in reference to the subject' and it only became 'He' in Latin and English bibles.

The hymn to the Holy Spirit we use in the Orthodox church begins Heavenly King, Comforter, Spirit of truth... and I've heard it sung in a Greek Orthodox church as well, even though the Greek word pneuma is generally feminine. This usage certainly predates English Bibles and might predate the Latin; I'm not sure of exactly how old this particular hymn is. Of course many or most ancient prayers to the Holy Spirit do not directly suggest either male or female gender.

Clearly, the ancient church traditions refer to the Holy Spirit in feminine rather than masculine terms. It is important to speak of the Holy Spirit, the Comforter and Reconciler, with a feminine pronoun. The mother aspect of God is real and Holy. The functions of the Holy Spirit as characterized in Biblical texts are often those which have been associated with women: consolation, inspiration, emotional warmth, and birth of the spirit.

Which church traditions exactly? Which church fathers, or truly ancient hymns? The Holy Spirit of course is without physical form or physical gender. The early church fathers always spoke of God being completely dispassionate, not changing according to emotions; I don't know whether this is entirely compatible with the notion of emotional warmth you're proposing. In any case, if an encyclopedia article is to say that something is important, it should say who thinks it is important: the entire Church, Christian feminists, or whomever.

I agree. First, the lexicons at http://bible.crosswalk.com say that the Hebrew word is, in fact, feminine, but the Greek is neuter (as it was suggested might be the case). However there are a few important issues at stake here. Firstly, I was unable to determine the gender used in the pronouns. Someone who has an interlinear Bible could check the endings of the pronouns in John 14 where it speaks of the comforter. Generally speaking, if they end in omicron (or omega) sigma they are masculine, and if they end in alpha they are feminine. That is about the extent of my knowledge of Greek, so don't ask me on anything beyond that. Secondly, the Bible teaches that each of us has a spirit (our own spirit, as opposed to the Spirit of God within us). I would think that either all spirits are neuter or else my spirit is masculine and a woman's spirit is feminine. The structure is neuter or feminine, but that does not even necessarily tell us what the grammatical gender is. The Latin words "nauta", sailor, and "agricola", farmer, are feminine by structure but always appear with masculine adjectives and pronouns. In addition, even if the Holy Spirit is, in fact, neuter rather than masculine, it is still proper to refer to Him with masculine pronouns in English. This is because the masculine pronoun in English (and, indeed, all Indo-European languages, and many others) can be used in a gender indefinite sense, which is to say that feminine pronouns ALWAYS refer to female persons or things, but masculine pronouns sometimes refer to persons or things whose gender is unknown, as in the phrase "...when a driver comes to a stop sign he..." (incidentally, here in the state of Washington our drivers guide says "she" in all such places, which is imporper grammar). The neuter pronoun in English cannot refer to persons, but only to impersonal things. Since the Holy Spirit is indisputably a person rather than a thing (if you believe in the Bible), it is not right to refer to Him with neuter pronouns in English.

Finally, I don't understand how anyone could possibly see this as being important, unless they wanted to use it to manipulate Scriptural teaching on the role of women. Nevertheless, I'll leave this open for discussion a while and not delete the change just yet. -- kpearce

I'd have to admit (grudgingly, speaking personally) that the line of reasoning reflected in the last two paragraphs of the article has become academically important. The argument there is used to give crediblity to the "gender-neutral" translations of the Bible and revisions of prayers and hymns used in liberal Protestant worship, for example. Folks who like to find parallels between Christianity and everything from gnosticism to goddess-worship also love this stuff. Feminist ideology has driven this to be sure; but, that isn't a factor all on its own. There are real historical and textual issues involved, too. It's not our business to decide what is "important" and "holy", in a theological sense, as the article presently does. And, while I have to admit that it's informative for describing some significant contemporary issues, it is by no means neutral to dictate the conclusions that should be drawn. Mkmcconn 21:32 Apr 23, 2003 (UTC)

Yes... I think one of the goals of at least some feminists is to reaffirm the value of women and womanhood, which they believe is necessary to counterbalance centuries of patriarchal oppression. It would be nice if the person who added these paragraphs would chime in here to correct our speculations though. As always, POV needs to be attributed or cut, and in this case I think it would be better to attribute it. But the attribution needs to be accurate, which is difficult without the poster's input or other source of domain expertise. Wesley

I'm going to attempt some npov changes without removing any information. I don't think I can get to a completely neutral point without more information, but I'll at least avoid inserting my own bias. Kpearce

It now is clear to me that some people want to create a detailed discussion of how people translate words for God into English, and want to relate this to sexism and all sorts of other issues. This has nothing to do with the term Holy Spirit as such, but rather has to do with all English names for God, such as Holy Spirit, God, Father, etc. As such, it is now appropriate to remove this detailed discussion from here, and create a new entry on it. (This is standard Wikipedia practice when a digression becomes long and moves off into a distinct topic.) RK 17:54 30 May 2003 (UTC)

I think you're right on the money. This article should make a brief mention of the overall issue and link to the new article for more detailed discussion. That article could perhaps have a subsection on ways "Holy Spirit" has been translated. Wesley 19:28 30 May 2003 (UTC)

Just added a link to Pneumatology. If anyone enjoys adding references to biblical passages, have a go on the pneumatology page

In reply to the statement above "Since the Holy Spirit is indisputably a person rather than a thing (if you believe in the Bible), it is not right to refer to Him with neuter pronouns in English." from kpearce: I personally very much disagree with this, backed up with my own research and own beliefs, that it is "indisputable" the God's spirit is a person. If one does not believe such, then making what should grammatically be neutral (pneu'ma), as it is in most Greek manuscripts (ref: New American Bible), to a masculine is a valid questionable action. Furthermore, the personal belief that humans have spirits (Read Ecclesiastes 3:19-21, 9:5, 10) is no basis for asserting the 'indisputability' that all references to God's spirit be non-neuter, when the Greek is neuter. Oscillate 18:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

You're of course correct regarding the Greek: ta pneuma, the spirit, is neuter. I also agree that Kpearce's statement is questionable from a Biblical stance -- but this article does not primarily address Biblical uses of "the holy spirit," but rather its subsequent use in Christianity. While gendered languages, including Greek, do not add 'personhood' through the use of gendered articles, English, a non-gendered language, does. (In French, you would use "elle" to refer to a fountain pen, but this isn't implying that the pen has personality or consciousness. If you used "she" to refer to a fountain pen in English, you would be making this implication.) If you use 'it,' therefore, you're making the statement "The Holy Spirit is NOT a person," which would push this article, largely on the place of the Holy Spirit in Christian doctrine, into POV, by advancing your "own research and own beliefs," which I believe is against Wikipedia "no original research" rules. Makrina 05:18, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, which is why I'm not going to add anything like that to the article, and was simply replying within the discussion ("indisputable" doesn't and shouldn't appear in the main article anyway). Oscillate 15:35, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Some Ancient Greek corrections for the discussion (the article is correct in its information). The greek is "to pneuma" not "ta pneuma" a neuter noun of the third declension [1]. to is the neuter single article, ta the plural. Also the earlier latin analogy is correct, but not relevant. pneuma is of the third declension not the first (feminine) declension despite appearing to end with an alpha in the nominative form. All other forms have a t as in the plural nominative and accusative, pneumata. As stated in the article parakletos is masculine and as such always uses the masculine article ho. However, more commonly the neuter article is used corresponding to the more frequent use of the term hagion pneuma. To my knowledge the feminine article is never used. P.S. some might say that "free gift" is better translation of charisma since the word is derived from the verb "to favor" and the common word for gift is "doron" which includes the Greco-Roman concepts of gift-exchange and reciprocity, also the word is etymologically related to the greek word for grace, a relationship that is obscured by in the translation of gift. In fact, in a standard dictionary entry for charisma, "gift" alone is not even option [2]. PPS I don't know on what basis, but I don't think the concept of the holy spirit as feminine is limited to feminists as I remember reading about it in Thich Naht Hahn's book Living Buddha, Living Christ. Nonetheless, I can't find any basis in scripture for this belief.

We spend way too much time on gender questions, since gender is a feature of created beings that is in part reproductive. In the Christian tradition as I've read it over the years, spirits are un-gendered. They are described with gender in their dealings with us because we can relate better to them that way. (The same idea lies behind speaking of "the hand of God", though we have no idea if God has a hand or not. We understand it better, we can grasp it.) Jesus' gender is important to Christians precisely because Jesus is not just the divine Son of God, but also a Human who has arms, legs, little toes, nose hairs, and private parts. Focusing on a spirit's gender is to spend valuable time chasing after what isn't there.

If spirits had genders, than Jesus would not have had to come as a man, seeing as he already would be one.

Holy Ghost

'Holy Ghost' should not be redirected here (to the Holy Spirit article). The 'Holy Ghost' article was very informative about how LDS, Pentecostals, and others insisted on using this obsolescent term, and the term itself. It was not an article about the Holy Spirit, but rather focuses on why certain groups insisted on using the former name that He was generally called. Rlquall 22:39, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Then the title of the 'Holy Ghost' article should have said that it was about the term, not the being. Those who were trying to find out about the Holy Ghost - the being are best directed by link to 'Holy Spirit', because to LDS, Pentecostalists, et al., that is the same being they're looking for.

Please don't make generalizations. Most Pentecostals are absolutely using the term "Holy Spirit". Its only the ones who insist on using the King James Version of the Bible as the only correct translation who only use the "Holy Ghost" term. Ltwin (talk) 19:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I just removed a sentence that inferred that LDS believe there is a difference between Holy Spirit and Holy Ghost; in fact, they are one in same for LDS. It is accurate to state that LDS still use the term, "Holy Ghost" more often than Holy Spirit. I suspect this is more a result of only using the KJV Bible than anything else. Regardless, both terms are used and are understood to be the same thing within LDS theology. --^StormRider 19:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Chrisma": is it a typo for "charisma"?

or is it a specialized usage? If so, it needs at least a stub. --Wetman 16:54, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• It's a separate word that means 'anointment'. The word is related to Christ. I don't know how etymologically related is to charisma, although I doubt it. Pictureuploader 13:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This sounds similar to "chrism," which is what we call the oil that has been specially prepared and blessed to be used in anointing people, particularly when "chrismating" them. Chrismation is the rite by which people are received into the church. Wesley 19:09, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Christian template

I don't think the Christian template should be here as it implies that the Holy Spirit is a Christian concept, whereas it is also Jewish and Rastafarian. The templarte misleads, and the template is wrong to claim so, --SqueakBox 17:26, Apr 10, 2005 (UTC)

Yes I agree, but The Holy Spirit is still part of The Trinity. Perhaps we create three new articles about the Holy spirit, one for each religion that applies to this term? Funnybunny (^talk/_{Counter Vandalism Unit}) 03:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Spirit is far mor that simply a Christian, Jewish, and Rastafarian concept. The Baha'i Faith, Islam, The Druze Religion, Sabeanism, etc. All of these faiths have the Holy Spirit as aspects. Only in Christianity is the Holy Spirit seen as part of the trinity, and it would be wrong to say that the Holy Spirit is more prominent in Christianity. This article probably ought not to be part of the Christian Template, or other articles ought to be created for some of the more major other faith's interpretation of the Holy Spirit. Aeroplane 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Can the Conceptions of God template apply?Aeroplane 01:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Processed Triune God"? Huh?

The article begins "The Holy Spirit, or the Holy Ghost, is the name used in the New Testament referring to the processed Triune God, or the third Person of the Holy Trinity." What does that mean? I don't recall ever seeing God spoken of as "processed", and I can't guess what it might be trying to say. Why not just begin with something like "The Holy Spirit, or Holy Ghost, in Trinitarian Christian belief, is God, the third Person of the Holy Trinity", and go from there to explain 1) what that means, and 2) that "some other religions, and some non-Trinitarian Christians" have other views and beliefs". Frjwoolley 20:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The term "processed" refers to the nature of the Holy Spirit. This nature is most famously articulated in the Nicene Creed (RCC version): "We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son."

While the Father is unbegotten (Summa Theologica) and the Son is "begotten, not made" (Nicene Creed), the Holy Spirit "proceeds" from the Father (Nicene Creed) and (for those churches that accept the filioque clause) the Son.

A full explanation of the theology behind this would produce a separate article. In short, the heresy of Monarchianism denied that the Holy Spirit was a separate person of the Trinity, and the heresy of Pneumatomachianism denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. The Second Ecumenical Council, refuting both heresies, determined that the Spirit “proceeds” from the Father, establishing that the Holy Spirit is both divine of the same essence (ouisa) as the Father. Hence, the Holy Spirit “proceeds” from the Father, and can be referred to as “processed.”

However, while I recognize the source of “processed,” I also recognize that the average reader could easily be confused by the reference. I think it would be better articulated simply as “the third person of the Trinity.” Other thoughts?

Essjay 07:11, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to modify the first sentence. Frjwoolley 23:12, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Fruit or Fruits?

is "Fruits" correct?

if plural - fruits and singular - fruit 
                     -Anish Girdhar

Lutheran views

Who adds them first? Kahkonen 20:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Nobody? Kahkonen 10:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

History of the Concept

I was a little disappointed to find that there is no discussion of the historic development of the modern conception of the Holy Spirit. I am no scholar but I believe that the Holy Spirit was originally thought of as having a transformed inner character or something like this, and the thought of it being part of the trinity came later (the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible I believe). I hope someone more knowledgeable than I can add a section on the history evolution of this concept. --72.20.152.138 16:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC) DT Strain. Dec 21, 2005.

Hebrew word for Goddess does not mean "abomination."

I removed the sentence which read

"and both the Old Testament and New Testament are important and true; the Old testament is, of course, translated from the Hebrew texts and in Hebrew the word for "Goddess" also means "abomination," often in reference to Astarte. See "Hebrew Pronunciation" under "Astarte" here: [3]"

because that is false. The only place where the translators of the KJV of the Bible used the word "goddess" is in 1 Kings 11:5, & 33. In those places the Hebrew words are elohi, which is the feminine possesive form of el, which is translated god (both designating the God of Israel, and the gods of the nations). Though some equate the word "goddess" with the word "abomination," such is only mere opinions, and is not based on the Hebrew meanings of the word. Even the link the writer of that sentence provided does not lead to any such conclusion. Just because some consider goddesses as abominations, doesn't mean that the Hebrew words mean such. Though to the Isrealites the false goddesses were to be consider abominations, so were the false gods (males).

The Hebrew word eloah (upon which elohi is based), is the feminine form of el. It should be translated "goddess," as its masculine counterpart el is translated god. Though Eloah appears around 50 times in the Old Testament, translators almost uniformly refuse to translate its true feminine nature. user anyone7 8:25 CST, March 20, 2006

I don't know what relevance it has to this article, but Eloah is most definitely NOT the feminine of El -- see Talk:Elohim. AnonMoos 08:00, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Montanism

The sentance "Claims of divine inspiration stemming from the Holy Spirit have been occurring throughout the history of Christianity (see Montanism)."

which has the reference of Montanism is right but somewhat negative. Between the time when Montanism happened to the time when Pentacostal movement happened, there are a lot of people (some maybe called saints some may not) in both the Orthodox Church and the Roman Catholic Church have performed miracles with the clear power of the Holy Spirit. Even during the modern days, some "offical miracles" are verified by modern science.

Wording

In the third paragraph of the first section of the article, one can read the following:

Christians believe that it is the Holy Spirit whom Jesus mentions as the promised "Comforter" (i.e. "strengthener", "fortifier") in John 14:26.

The above sounds as though there is an ambiguity as to the identity of the promised "Comforter" in John 14:26, an ambiguity which there doesn't seem to be, in the following taken from the King James Version of the Bible for example:

But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.

Grumpy Troll ^(talk) 15:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC).

advocate or intercessor are more literal translation of the term paraklētos, nicer too because they keep legal associations which the ancient Greek had.[4]

Good point. The sentence should be clarified. —Aiden 16:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

NPOV problems

I added the NPOV tag for a couple of reasons:

• Per the Manual of Styles, do not capitalize "He" or "Him" when referring to the Holy Spirit. (Of course , capitalization is appropriate when the pronoun occurs at the beginning of a sentence, or when found in a direct quotation in which the original author DID capitalize the word). The problem is complicated by the fact that the Holy Spirit's gender isn't really specified-- I usually think of the Holy Spirit as a little bit more of an "it", but if the male gender is the most common, that's fine.
• Similarly, words like "One" that refer back to the Holy Spirit should also not capitalized (keeping in mind the exceptions listed above).
• In an article on religion, it's absolutely critical to attribute sentences to sources, and attribute the views to christianity. You're writing about a subject that we can't, NPOVly, say exists-- so even sentences like "The Holy Spirit is ..." become problematic.
• Similarly, it's important everything we say about the subject be verifiable. So, take the sentence "The Holy Spirit is the One who guides a person to correctly interpret the word of God and He helps each person reach new levels of understanding." That's not verifiable. Maybe Jesus is the one who does that. Or maybe the Father does that. Or maybe, I dunno, Vishnu does it. At a minimum, opinions like this need to be attributable to a source-- ala "According to Christianity..."

I just did a really quick reading, so those are just my first suggestions-- there may be more issues, but those things should be plenty to work on for a while. --Alecmconroy 21:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Verifiability is not a neutral criteria for a theology article.Andycjp 07:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether verifiability is a 'neutral criteria', all statements must be verifiable for inclusion in Wikipedia articles, and articles are not exempted from this requirement simply on the basis that they are 'theological'. Obviously much of the content of an article such as this cannot be 'verifiable' in the sense of proving articles of faith that lack actual evidence. However, statements made in the article should still contain sources to provide verifiability of what the article says is believed. Additionally, as stated by Alecmconroy above, the article should not state beliefs as if they are proven facts. In both of these areas, this article is still in need of a lot of work.--Jeffro77 (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think there are two types of verifiability and I am not sure which one is being used where in this discussion:

• Source verifiability, i.e. a specific book says that Proposition A is true.
• Empirical verifiability, i.e. Proposition A is actually the case.

An example would be diets. A book may say that you may gain/lose weight with a certain diet, but for the verification of that diet one would need a large NHS grant. I think religious issues should be verified with respect to their source, but empirical evidence is of course beside the scope of Wikipedia. The best/only way is to use words such as believed/reported/stated/etc. that attribute the fact to a source without stating the existence or lack of any empirical evidence. However source verifiability is essential in all cases. Cheers History2007 (talk) 23:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Third Wave

Can we have some verification of the sources of this material - it sounds like it is re-worked from C. Peter Wagner writings from in the 80's Kdschwartz

(Made this a separate section - 201.51.228.217 19:40, 9 December 2006 (UTC))

Gender pronouns for the Holy Spirit

Article uses "He" for the Holy Spirit in various places.

1) The masculine pronoun sounds really odd to me. As I understand it, the Hebrew term רוח הקודש Ruah haqodesh, from which the English term "Holy Spirit" ultimately derives, is feminine, right?

2) As mentioned in the NPOV problems section above, per Manual of Styles, this should not be capitalized in any case.

Appreciate your thoughts on this. -- 201.51.228.217 19:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Hebrew Ruach has feminine grammatical gender, Greek Pneuma has neuter grammatical gender, and Latin Spiritus has masculine grammatical gender. So what? All inanimate nouns in those languages must have gender assignment due to the nature of the grammatical systems of the languages (like the grammatical systems of French, Spanish, German, Russian, etc. today). The important fact is that the Holy Spirit is never spoken of as a personified feminine in the Bible -- you would have to go to the Gospel of the Hebrews for that. AnonMoos 08:09, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Evidently, the best kept secret in Judaism is that there is a "personified feminine in the Bible." Here is the testimony of one who has done an honest investigation of the matter -

- Raphael Patai is an internationally known anthropologist, Orientalist, and Biblical scholar. Dr. Patai is the author of more than six hundred articles and many books, including The Hebrew Goddess, from which I'll quote.

- After explaining that the traditional Jewish concept of God being masculine only, and after he mentions how traditional Judaism "stressed the moral and intellectual aspects of religion, to the relative neglect of its effective and emotional side," he says, "It is characteristic of this development, as well as of the incipient reaction to it, that as against the thousands of new religious laws contained in the vast compendium of the Talmud, one finds in it only one single significant addition to the realm of religious faith: the loosely sketched, vague aspects of God's Presence, called the Shekina, of whom more anon." The Hebrew Goddess (1990 ed.), p. 29-30.

- Then, speaking of the Shekina, he says,

- "In the Kabbala, as in Philo, 'Kingdom' is the female aspect of the deity (in the Kabbala 'Kingdom' is the tenth Sefira and identical with the Shekhina, the personified, female "Presence" of God) ..." Id., p. 79.

- "Shekhina (sh'khinah) is a Hebrew abstract noun derived from the Biblical verb shakhan discussed above and means literally 'the act of dwelling.' These abstract nouns, constructed from the verbal root-letters with the added -ah suffix, have the feminine gender. In actual usage, the term Shekhina, when it first appears, means that aspect of the deity which can be apprehended by the senses. Whenever the original Hebrew Biblical text speaks of a manifestation of God through which He was perceived by man, the Targum Onkelos interpolates the term Shekhina." Id.. 99.

- "... a word must be said about the relationship of the two Talmudic concepts of the Shekhina and of the 'Holy Spirit.' As A. Marmorstein has convincingly shown, these two concepts were used synonymously in the Talmudic period. When, therefore, a Talmudic teacher speaks of the Holy Spirit, he may as well have used the term Shekhina." id. 105.

- "It was a Talmudic tenet that the physical presence of the Shekhina in the Temple, or in any other place on earth, was of such a nature that it could be localized, and her movements from place to place followed. The classical expression of this view is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda ben Idi in the name of Rabbi Yohanan bar Nappaha (a teacher in Tiberias who died in 279 C.E.), according to which the Shekhina went through the following ten stages of wandering:

- "From the ark-cover she moved onto the Cherub; - from the Cherub onto the other Cherub; - from the second Cherub onto the threshold of the Temple; - from the threshold into the court of the Priests; - from the court to the altar in the court; - from the altar onto the roof of the Temple; - from the roof onto the wall; - from the wall into the city of Jerusalem; - from the city into the mount of Olives; - from the mount into the desert.

- "The idea is that each of these stations in the wanderings of the Shekhina took her to a place more remote than the previous one from her original dwelling place over the ark-cover. It was, of course, the sins of Israel which caused the Shekhina thus to go into exile. In the desert, the Shekhina waited six months for Israel to repent. When they failed to do so, she said in desperation, 'Let them perish!'

- "According to another version, the Shekhina dwelt for three and a half years on the nearby Mount of Olives, and cried out from there three times a day: 'Return, you backsliding children!' When all this proved futile, she began to fly around and say, 'I shall go and return to my place till they acknowledge their guilt,' that is to say, she withdrew to heaven to wait there for repentance to bring redemption." Id.., 101, 102.

I asked my Hebrew teacher, a Jewess, what was the difference between El, Eloah, and Elohim. She said that there was no difference. Then I asked her why did one of them have a plural ending (im). She said that "this refers to the Plurality of Majesty. The greatness of God." Then I asked her why one of the words has a feminine ending (ah), and what does it (Eloah) mean, seeing it is still a different word. After some thought, her reply was "This refers to the personal God, the one who is with us." It was obvious, through further questioning that this referred to the Holy Spirit, the holy Shekinah, both of which were shown by Patai to be feminine.

There is a lot of solid evidence from Jewish sources (Rabbis, writings and scholars) in the The Hebrew Goddess to the effect that from the earliest times the Jews worshipped a feminine counterpart of the Father. Patai is not alone in that thought, and other able scholars have written similar things. I would like to see a review of The Hebrew Goddess by some of the Jewish scholars AnonMoos is relying on. The very word "Father" implies "Mother." Fatherhood cannot even be understood without Motherhood to define it. Anyone7 05:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how this relates to the Holy Spirit in the Christian context. It actually seems to fit more with the concept of a Heavenly Mother. Bytebear 07:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Your first sentence shows why this article is in dispute. That is, what do you mean by "the Christian context." Which Christian's context - Judeo-Christian, Greek-Christian, Roman/Latin - Christian, some Protestant-Christian, etc.? How can there be any Christian concept other than that revealed in the Holy Scriptures? The revelation of the Holy Spirit in the Hebrew and Aramaic OT is not any different from that in the Greek NT, but the matter has been confused because the Greek language uses a neuter word for Spirit, while the Hebrew uses a feminine one, and Latin uses a masculine one. If we were listening to Jesus some 2000 years ago, He would be speaking of the Holy Spirit in the feminine gender only. This is witnessed by His conversation with Nicodemus in John 3. When Jesus said, "Except a man be born again," Nicodemus was thinking of being born of a female, not a male, for he said, "can he enter the second time into his mother’s womb, and be born." What is of particular note here is even though the Greek word for Spirit (Pneuma) is neuter, all of the Greek words in those verses which speak of being "born" of the Spirit are the feminine form of gennao - meaning "born" (feminine), not "begotten" (masculine). That is not seen in books such a Strong's Concordance as they often only give the root words, and not the actual word.

So, any "Christian context" must be viewed in the light of the Hebrew revelation for it is unto them that "oracles [words] of God" have been committed (Ro 3:2). But the problem lies in the fact that the Jews have tended to downplay both the gender and personality of the Holy Spirit in order to avoid the question of there being a begotten Son. Then, a great number of Christians tend to think that Jesus only became the Son of God when He was conceived in Mary's womb, rather than before He created the worlds. They think that the Holy Spirit ("Holy Ghost" KJV) is a male who literally impregnated Mary, not considering that that would make the Holy Spirit His Father, and not the Father, Himself. Those Christians who see the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as all being the same Being just write the whole thing off as a mystery. But, concerning the incarnation, it is written,"Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me." Heb 10:5. So, the Holy Spirit did not impregnate Mary as a male would do, but simply approached near unto her and worked a miracle upon her seed, causing it to become fertile, and the only begotten Son of God condescended to become a part of it. The words, "come upon you" simply mean "approach near unto," and the word "overshadow" means "invest with preternatural influence " i.e., work a miracle.

Where does this leave us? Pretty much back at the beginning because a concensus cannot be reached with everybody ignoring the Hebrew revelation, and building ideas on false premises. Any suggestions?Anyone7 02:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ruah haqodesh" is actually masculine

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that Ruah haqodesh is a grammatical feminine in Hebrew. Please check this again. While the word ruah can be either feminine or masculine, in the phrase Ruah haqodesh it clearly takes a masculine adjective, always takes a masculine verb, and is a masculine phrase. The comparable (but not identical) term Shekinah however is feminine, and may conceivably represent a feminine aspect, but not Ruah haqodesh... Thank you... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

The fact that people say that Ruah can be either masculine or feminine is a thing of Modern, or even Medieval Hebrew, and not of Biblical Hebrew. While your basic facts of the gender of those two words are correct, the conclusion is based a long held prejudice. That is, that women cannot be holy, only men can. In the mind of the above writer if I was to speak of a particular "holy woman" in Hebrew, he would assign a masculine gender to that woman, which, of course, would not be correct. The problem in that kind of thinking is that people do not take into consideration why some words are masculine, and others feminine in Hebrew.

It all comes down to origins. That is, the masculine gender of the word "qodesh" comes from the fact that the first Holy One is God, our Father. Therefore, anything or anyone who can be considered "holy" carries by the word's origin the masculine concept of holiness which originated with the Father, even though they may be a female, or even "Ruah."

In Genesis 1:2, both the word Spirit and the word "moved" are feminine. So there is a case where Ruah does not take a masculine verb.

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that the words Spirit (Ruah), Law (Torah), and Wisdom (Hookmah) are all feminine in Hebrew and those are the very things the devil had to push out of his life in order to try and exalt himself above Elohim who created man and woman in His image. Therefore, he hates everything feminine. Wisdom (the Holy Shekinah, the Holy Spirit), She says, "whoso findeth me findeth life, and shall obtain favour of the LORD. But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." Prov 8:35, 36. Anyone7 03:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's pretty heavy... you're right... spirit can take a female verb, just like hand or soul etc. too, even with a male speaking of his own! Or Elohim, as in Gen 1:2... no doubt about that... I agree with every single word you just said... many terms for Elohim's spirit encompass the feminine and qodesh only happens to be a masculine, there is also the feminine adj. qadoshah ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

What is just as interesting is how Elohim speaks in both the masculine and feminine gender -

In Hebrew all pronouns also have (had) gender. Today it is taught that the different forms of "I" and "We" are interchangeable. They make no attempt to explain why all other pronouns have definite gender. Could this be because the Holy Spirit has inspired the writers of the Scriptures to record Elohim as speaking in both forms?

ANI – this is what a man would generally use to say "I." ANOCHI – this is the FEMININE form of "I."

In Genesis 28:13 & 14, Elohim says, "...I [ANI – masculine] ...will ...give it [the land]." Yet in verses 15 & 16 Elohim says, "...I [ANOCHI – FEMININE] am with thee, and will keep thee."

From this it is easy to see that the One pronouncing the promise is speaking in the MASCULINE gender, while the One who promises to "BE WITH" and "WILL KEEP" us is speaking in the FEMININE. Here we are shown the Father and the Holy Spirit.

Genesis 7:4 "...I (ANOCHI) will cause it to rain..."

Genesis 15:1 "...I [ANOCHI] am thy shield,..."

Genesis 15:14 "...I [ANOCHI] Judge:..."

Genesis 31:13 "I [ANOCHI] am the God of Bethel,..."

Genesis 46:3, 4 "I (ANOCHI am God,...I will there make...

"I [ANOCHI] will go down with thee..."

Exodus 3:6 "I [ANOCHI] am the God of thy Father..."

Exodus 3:12 "...Certainly I [ANOCHI] will be WITH thee'..."

Exodus 4:11 "...have not I [ANOCHI] WILL BE WITH ...and TEACH..."

Exodus 4:15 "...I [ANOCHI] will be WITH..."

Exodus 4:23 "...I [ANOCHI] will slay thy son..."

Deuteronomy 5:6 "I [ANOCHI] am the Lord..."

Deuteronomy 31:23 ":and I [ANOCHI] will be WITH thee."

Isaiah 51:12 "I [ANOCHI], even I [ANOCHI], am HE [SHE] that COMFORTETH you:"

It is clear from these texts that the God who is to be "WITH" us" – the Holy Spirit – spoke in the FEMININE gender and is of WHOM woman is made "In the image and likeness."

Though there are places where females are recorded to have used the masculine pronoun "ani," the matter again comes down to character. That is, was the woman speaking in a masculine character? Nonetheless, Elohim uses both the male and female voices.Anyone7 20:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Gender continued

There are no feminine (or masculine) 1st person pronouns in the Hebrew language. See discussion on Talk:Elohim. AnonMoos 13:11, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I was going to say I've never heard of Hebrew genders for the first person pronouns, so the assertion that anoki was ever a female variant of ani would require a Reliable source. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, if you insist on saying that there is no masculine nor feminine forms of the first person singular in Biblical Hebrew (not the Hebrew of the Mishnah, nor of the Medieval period, nor of the Modern period), then simply explain the difference between Ani and Anochi as used in the verses I quoted above, and especially as used in Genesis 28:13 & 14 (KJV). That seems like a fair request. If gender is not present in those pronouns (as it is in all other pronouns), then what is the real difference between those two words, and why is Elohim recorded as using both?Anyone7 00:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Even if you are right, it would take a Reliable source who says the same, for it to have any use or application on Wikipedia... ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:40, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't the question come down to who would be considered reliable by whom? I think you know where I am going with this. 2000 years ago there was a division in Judaism as to how to interpret the facts of the holy Scriptures. Many of the Jews and many of the priests came to realize that the Godhead consisted of more than just one Being, while others flatly refused to accept that fact. Thus there has been an ongoing dispute as to the meaning of the words which support one view or the other. Isn't that the true history of the matter? For the first 25 years of the Christian movement they had no other writings than that which is today called by many the Old Testament. So they used those Scriptures alone to prove the existence of a divine Son, and many Jews received that testimony. But, those who did not accept that view did, and continue to do, all in their power to disprove, by the Scriptures, that idea. So, again, who would be considered reliable by whom?

For example, some Christians will not accept any view which is contrary to the Roman Catholic view, even though they admit that that body went into apostasy. The same may be said of the numerous Protestant sects (and even the Sadducees and Pharisees) who cling to their own traditional interpretations regardless of whether or not they are sound in all regards.

So it appears that the only way to present the matter at hand is to acknowledge that their are diverse opinions, and there is not really any reliable source which can be considered such by all involved. If there is an alternative, please let me know.Anyone7 16:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure there are diverse opinions... But if you name even a source that only 'you' would consider reliable, that's better than no source at all... with no source at all, it looks like Original research (for example, if you were the first person ever to figure out that anoki meant I-female, and to publish that theory here) ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 16:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the first "source" I read on anochi being the feminine first person singular was in the book The Bible in the Hands of its Creators, by Moses Guibbory. But that book is highly controversial for many of the other things it contains. Here is a link to another "source" which says that anochi is feminine. Once you are on the page, just do a search for anochi. http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFour/NamesOfAngelsInGenesis.htm But, as I asked before, will someone please explain the difference between Ani and Anochi as used in Biblical Hebrew, and especially as used by Elohim.Anyone7 02:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

What about passages like Genesis 15:2, where Abram refers to himself using the Anochi form of the first person pronoun. Are we to understand that Abram is feminine in this passage (just like the "Holy Spirit" supposedly is in Genesis 15:1)?!? Seems rather far-fetched wouldn't you say? Sorry, but claiming Anochi is feminine seems to me like just another dishonest theory conjured up in order to promote an ideology.142.179.131.116 08:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Folds, Holy Spirit was feminine(and not a *person* as Father and Son were) in very early Christianity but later became masculine(2nd or 3rd century?) and a person. --Aminz 05:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Aminz,

the Holy Spirit was not feminine. The word for Spirit has a femine genus in Hebrew and Aramaic (Ruach)*, male in Greek (Pneuma) and in Latin (Spiritus). But in each case, this is only the grammatical gender, not a "natural" one: The entity described with that word however has no gender, as it is spirit. (BTW, neither does God the Father ... only the son has one by virtue of his incarnation).

Regarding the person, this all depends on what you mean by person.

Is it what the ancient Romans meant by this (and the Greeks by Proposon), a mere role or mask?

Is it the modern notion of personality, of being an individual person distinct from all others?

The theological meaning relevant here is no longer the first and far away from the second (thought this theological language has helped in the development of the second meaning). Another Greek equivalent was Hypostasis.

As for "very early Christianity" I do not doubt that you are honestly referring to what you read, but be cautioned: we do not know (in a scientific sense) a lot of things about early Christianity. Just because we don't hear about a certain concept doesn't mean it's not there. The definition of a dogma is innovation but making explicit something that was already there implicit. Of course, this is a comment of faith, so take it or leave it. But keep the caution in mind nonetheless. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:00, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

• PS. Reading the beginning of this section I must add that my knowledge of Hebrew is third hand and low rate at best. Therefore I willingly yield to superior knowledge. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Ruah (spirit) may be masculine or feminine in Biblical Hebrew. It is feminine in Modern Hebrew. In Rabbinic Texts (Talmud and Midrashim) it is almost invariably feminine. The Rabbis' use of Ruah HaQodesh/Holy Spirit, like the Shekhinah/Divine Presence was feminine. This is shown by the verbs used to show Ruah HaQodesh (Holy Spirit) speaking in all primary texts. The first person on the previous thread who wrote about Ruah HaQodesh being masculine didn't understand that the grammatical form here is sm'ichut, or the construct form, and that "HaQodesh" being masculine doesn't make Ruah "masculine." Pardon me if my format isn't correct, as I am new to editing. 13 January, 2008Wellsprings (talk) 04:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

please fix this

"Like all religions, christianity is false" this statement is a personal point of view, could you please remove it, there is no proof as to weather it is false or true, would greatly appreciate it.

why? it is TRUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.95.174.80 (talk) 01:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the fact you cannot prove whether or not a religion is true or not, unless it contradicts itself or cannot be supported by historical evidence...(Technically you could prove whether or not a religion is true or not...but you would have to be dead to know whether or not it is true...but if you were dead it would be kind of hard to prove who's right...)

(I'm not trying to disprove Christianity, for I'm a Christian myself...and that would be like shooting myself in the foot...)

Project Gnome (talk) 20:33, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Bahai section

I restored the section on Bahai; I don't think it falls under the undue weight policy. When I've seen that policy used, it is invoked against burdensomely long sections which prevent the POV of a "fringe" group. The Bahai faith is important enough that I would assume most people have heard of it, as have I, and the section is hardly long enough to be burdensome unto the article. Carl.bunderson 05:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

does it matter male or female

it doesnt matter if the holy spirit is male or female ..if you only believe that there is a holy spirit you shall receive 75.109.187.226 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC) a believer

In-universe

This page has the same problem as the J. R. "Bob" Dobbs page—it discusses a fictional creation without mentioning that it comes from a work of fiction. chbarts 04:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

And just reverting the edit is not going to fix the problem. --chbarts 04:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The article begins with "In mainstream Christianity..." and includes a Christianity template on the right. If that's not enough, second section of the template is "The Bible". That deals with your tag, so I am removing it. Carl.bunderson 04:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The J. R. "Bob" Dobbs page has the same kinds of marks, minus a template which doesn't exist for Church of the Subgenius pages. Therefore I'm removing the in-universe template from the Dobbs page. --chbarts 11:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but again, you cannot prove whether or not a religion is true or not, unless it contradicts itself or cannot be supported by historical evidence... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Project Gnome (talk • contribs) 20:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)