Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:17, 24 November 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / Theology Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Mid-importance).

Edit history from previous incarnation of this article

This page should not be deleted- I did not want to put so much information there, but it was necessary to understand exactly why Jesus was called "God the Son" instead of just "Jesus Christ". Though it may repeat some information, it neither goes into a long explanation of it nor does it attempt to "muddy the waters"... henceforth, I do not believe it should be deleted. Thank you.

The information was not encyclopedic and came across as biased. In any case, the information could have been added to the Jesus and/or Christianity article(s). -- Jwinters | Talk 18:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This information would be more properly added to the Jesus article. There is no need for it to have an article of its own. (RookZERO 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Current version - redundant?

This article appears to be redundant. It should be reformatted to link to the article Jesus which covers the same topic. (RookZERO 18:49, 31 May 2007 (UTC))

I disagree. God the Son is a technical term in Christian theology with a complex meaning of it's own. While, according to Christian Theology, it refers to the same person as Jesus of Nazareth, it has different connotations - e.g. the fact that Jesus of Nazareth is a human title about His nature as a human being, while God the Son is a divine one, about His nature as part of the Trinity. TJ 10:53, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

This could still be explained within the Jesus article (and, in fact, it is). (RookZERO 17:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

At no point in the Jesus article does the string "God the Son" arise. Furthermore, an indepth look at the phrase as used in trinitarian theology etc would certainly not fit within the Jesus article.

Quite what the phrase "Son of God" is doing in this article I don't know. That has it's own article over at Son of God. The two terms should not be confused. TJ 18:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

If this article really need to be kept seperate from Jesus due to undue weight issues, it could still probably be merged with Son of God. (RookZERO 19:18, 1 June 2007 (UTC))

Not really, Son of God is actually a title with fairly significantly different connotations (although it seems likely that God the Son did grow out of it.) God the Son should be more about the eternal Son, His role in the Trinity, doctrines of Christology, etc - much of that might potentially fit into Christian views of Jesus (although I think this topic deserves its own article, because it is a distinctive topic that isn't easily fit into that - indeed, it isn't even mentioned in there at present, and couldn't really be in depth as the term, without removing a lot of other stuff), but not either Jesus or Son of God

That said, the article at present could probably be merged - it's just that it's worth having an article here, so it's worth keeping this one as a stub. TJ 19:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The term Son of God exists in this article for a few reasons:

• to distinguish it from the term God the Son;
• to establish that son of God exists in the Bible as a generic phrase, applicable more widely than Jesus; and
• hence to clarify the uniqueness of the term God the Son, which applies only to Jesus.

The two terms are inextricably connected, although distinct, which would not be so were the standard phrase *God the Second rather than God the Son. In adopting the latter form, the church fathers avoided the subordinationist heresy and subsumed Jesus own reference to himself as eternal Son of the Father.

Effectively, Son of God has two senses when applied to Jesus. The one word son is used to describe two different kinds of relationship. Firstly, it means he is Messiah, heir to David's throne and the true Israel (established from OT references to Son of God). Secondly, it means he is the pre-incarnate second person of the Trinity, as per John 1 and Jesus frequent allusions throughout that gospel, where the terms like the Son and my Father, rather than Son of God are used. It is this second sense that theology has come to express by the formula God the Son, to mark it as belonging to Jesus alone.

The same double sense of father is true of the first person of the Trinity also. He is Father of all creation, but He is Father of Jesus before creation. He has never been called *Father of God, only God the Father. So confusion doesn't arise with the Father in the same way as it does with the Son.

Now I've got to gather the references to the history of theology on this matter. Alastair Haines 04:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

To merge or not to merge

Continuing my point from 2 years ago, and considering what people have said about why this article shouldn't just redirect to Jesus, the article should be merged and redirected to Trinity. -- Jwinters | Talk 15:47, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge means copy then delete.

I think copying information in whole or in part from this article into Jesus, Christian views of Jesus, Son of God and Trinity are all excellent ideas. If they do not already make any reference to God the Son those articles are lacking an essential element of discussing their topics. So I would support that part of your proposal.

I can't see why an argument to merge, if appropriate, couldn't be made vice versa, though. For example, why not copy Christian views about Jesus under this topic, since God the Son is a much more accurate description of the Christian view of Jesus than is Son of God? Then delete Christian views about Jesus. I don't seriously suggest it though.

I'm trying to work out what constitutes an argument for a merger, that is, for the delete part of it. Normally, I would think it refers to cases where at least two, maybe more, smallish articles would be better subsumed under a common title for ease of presentation. The most common case would seem to be where there are only two articles and one is somewhat larger and logically prior.

The main thing is that some articles reach a kind of a maximum size, at which point subarticles need to be created. The other thing is that some articles deal with topics of such limited scope that it's hard to even fill a screen with info about them.

In so far as merger means copying info from this article into others conceptually related to it, be bold! Just do it. If they're already crowded, just link here. Question answered, we need this namespace.

In so far as merger means deleting this article I will oppose this until it can be demonstrated that it is impossible to fill a screen with sourced information about the meaning and history of debate regarding both the phrase God the Son (de dicto) and its referent (de re).

Given enough time, either I or someone else will eventually demonstrate how much is covered by this topic by actually writing it up.

It's a massive topic. The earliest Christians were Jews. They were expecting a Son of God to come. After working out Jesus was this Son of God, they worked out this Son was God himself, and became Christians, believing Jesus is God, the Son. It took a couple of hundred years for them to sort it all out. Alastair Haines (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

To whom it may concern

A rather large block, largely of biblical quotation, has recently been added under the Jewish view section. While this is clearly disproportionate to the total text of the article at its current revision, and has some internal commentary that is not completely adequately sourced, I urge others not to delete it. Ultimately, what it says is a fair representation of Jewish consensus from rabbinic times and across modern Jewish denominations.

Ultimately, we need considerably more text covering the Christian POV, since the term "God the Son" is used only by Christians. However, criticism of the view does arguably start with Jewish criticism, rather than any non-Jewish criticisms. I can see an argument that since God the Son depends on interpretation of the New Testament, rather than the Hebrew Bible, critics who accept the NT as canonical, but reject the Nicean understanding of it may be considered to have first "right of reply".

Ulitmately, though, we will need to decide how much this article needs to rehash the opinions of groups that reject the claim of Jesus' divinity. I can see an argument that this article is the natural place to do that. But Wiki is big and there are many articles, there may well also be another place to list all notable groups that object to this point.

So the bottom line is, please do not delete the Jewish objections until sufficient time has elapsed to allow: (a) a quorum to gather and (b) this noble body of editors to try to reconcile one another to a common mind on the way forward. Without any such documented "audit" trail, one who would simply delete is consigning the article to instability regarding serious questions. Alastair Haines (talk) 10:13, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Some general comments

Nice article. I think the Judaism section is too long, and I'd like to see something about GtS and the early heresies. (Could tie in with the Judaism part - Christianity as a Jewish heresy?) But, nice article. PiCo (talk) 09:22, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions PiCo. I've worked out that I need to focus my attention at Wiki to things where I know the sources best, especially where I've had the privelege of spending more time with them than most. It is an enjoyable and educational experience to attempt to document matters of personal faith in reliable, neutral ways. Especially when others offer feedback in the same spirit. :) Alastair Haines (talk) 06:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I've put this article on my watchlist. I'm tired of articles which are subject to controversy - I want to be involved with pleasant comrades who know their subject and are ready to be civil. (Personally, I do not know this subject, but I'd like to contribute editing skills.) PiCo (talk) 08:22, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

If Jesus did not become the Son of God until after his incarnation, who was He before when He was there at creation in Genesis? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.123.178.16 (talk) 02:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't bother trying to figure this out. This whole "Son of God" and yet also, miraculously, "God the Son" BS is the absolute stupidest thing I have heard in a very long time. Theonlyedge (talk) 23:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Books that "do not include it" & refs

I do not see huge errors in this article, but "beating about the bush" comes to mind when reading this. Why is there a long discussion on Islam when they do not believe in God the Son. Why should other unrelated topic take up attention here. And there is also a whole pile of text on Jewish beliefs that exclude it. The article says: The expression "God the Son" is not used in the Hebrew Bible. However, it has the following references to "sons of God" then goes on and on quoting..... There is a separate article on Sons of God, that material belongs there, not here.

I am sorry, but overall I am unhappy with all this beating about the bush here on topics that do not apply (and the article says they do not apply). There should be more on "God the Son" and less on "religious books that who do not write about God the Son, but write on other things"... I think a serious trim and many more references are in order here. History2007 (talk) 01:54, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

NT caption

The caption that accompanies the Hieronymus Bosch painting states, "In Medieval art God was depicted ... as God the Son." This is a bit dogmatic when the Cranach painting in the Garden of Eden article does not appear to depict God the Son. (See also Bosch's other contemporaries, Jacob de Backer, and Domenichino). Mannanan51 (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Terminology

Why is there this idea that Jesus was always God the Son but only the Son of God after the Incarnation? From a Catholic standpoint, Christ was always the Son of God and God the Son. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.192.134.169 (talk) 20:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Have removed the footnote reference to the "eternal subordination of the Son" in the lede as 1.) it is not mentioned in the article. 2.)It is unclear as to in what Church this continues as "orthodoxy to this day". While it may be true of Southern Baptists, it is not necessarily held by other denominations. 3.) It appears to be a rebuttal to some feminist views -also not mentioned in the article. Mannanan51 (talk) 06:43, 15 December 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

Yes, right. But this reminded me how hard I have been trying not to work on this article.... It needs a serious clean up. A lot of unsourced statements and also irrelevant items, e.g. if it is Christian theology as it starts by saying why are there other religious sections which say they do not pertain... If you could clean it up, that will be appreciated. You obviously know the topic. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 09:17, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted footnote four as it says nothing at all about either Jesus being the incarnation of the Holy Ghost, or Saint Michael as God the Son ...the statement it would seem it was supposed to support. Made a series of small incremental edits, in the event someone takes issue with something, they can revert what they don't like.Mannanan51 (talk) 23:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC)mannanan51

10/25/2012 Edit

Removed a sentence "So, in Christian theology, Jesus was always God the Son, although not revealed to humanity as such until his incarnation." since previous manifestations of God, such as the burning bush, are considered also to be God the Son under Trinidadian doctrine, or so it was explained to me by a Russian Orthodox priest. This might not be universally accepted but since this sentence adds nothing not previously mentioned except to deny the concept I thought it was better to remove it.--Shai Halud (talk) 20:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Term

(cur | prev) 00:45, 22 November 2014‎ User:ReformedArsenal (talk | contribs)‎ . . (8,853 bytes) (-298)‎ . . (Reverted good faith edits by In ictu oculi: Sorry dude... but Rhodes doesn't say what you've attributed to him on p25... and your other source doesn't support what you've said either. (TW)) (undo | thank)

It was p.258, the second March 5 1881 source is not brilliant. Still given that the article already says that "God the Son" doesn't occur in the Bible and we all know that it doesn't I think the comment in toned down form has to stand. What would be interesting is a confirmed "first use" source. Probably Dunn is the place to look. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:ReformedArsenal you're edit-warring against 2 editors. You've removed a blindingly obvious statement "the term 'God the Son' doesn't occur in the Bible, and I'm well aware that Rhodes disagrees with Oneness Pentecostals, that's why his recognition of the obvious is worth citing rather than the other 20 sources on Google Books. In ictu oculi (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

@User:ReformedArsenal Please tell me on what use of "God the Son" was exactly mentioned in the New Testament? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:41, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not claiming it is used in the New Testament. However, the veracity of the claim doesn't warrant putting it on WP without WP:RS. We don't get to just put stuff on WP because it is true, but because a SOURCE says it is. It should not be difficult to find a reliable source that says this, so just find the source and put the claim back in. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

JudeccaXIII I have left a message on the User's Talk page referring to John Hick, the full citation in relation to Dunn: Hick J. The Metaphor of God Incarnate p.31 "One notes that it does not aspire beyond the pre-trinitarian notion of 'Son of God' to the properly trinitarian idea of 'God the Son'. This would be a better replacement for the second source (1881 is way too old). In ictu oculi (talk) 02:48, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not edit warring. You first put a misattributed quote up, which I removed. Then you put a misinterpreted quote up... which I also removed. Those are two distinct edits. In the correctly cited quote, Rhodes is characterizing the Oneness Pentecostal argument, which argues that since the term does not appear that it is not valid. His statement is in THAT context. It is not Rhodes positively stating that the term does not appear. If this is so obvious, then it should not be difficult to find a source that clearly states it. I have no problem with having the statement in the article (since it is true) as long as there is a WP:RS for the claim. ReformedArsenal (talk) 15:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

It be better to just leave the old one and add the most updated source for verifiability. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 02:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

User:ReformedArsenal, you are now edit warring. Since you now say "I have no problem with having the statement in the article (since it is true) as long as there is a WP:RS for the claim." I am restoring the text with the Hicks citation. In ictu oculi (talk) 22:13, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure you know what edit warring is. You have again put in the incorrectly used Rhodes citation... Rhodes is not positively asserting that the term does not appear, he is asserting that that is what the Oneness Pentecostals argue. The Hicks citation does not say that the term does not appear, at least not in the section that you have quoted. Do you have an available source for the Burnap citation? As it stands it is not WP:V, and again the Rhodes source is out of context. I'll leave the statement, but your sources cannot stand as they are. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

RfC: Statements regarding term "God the Son" not existing in the Bible

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I do not have a problem with the claim appearing, as it is a true claim. However, we need to have a WP:RS to establish it. The sources being used currently are not WP:V and thus are not sufficient.

• Rhodes - Rhodes quote is NOT the author asserting that the term does not appear. In context, the author is saying that this is what Oneness Pentecostals argue. It is a misuse of Rhodes to say he is supporting this claim
• Hicks - Hicks does not clearly say (at least not in the quotation provided by the other editor) that the term does not appear. Either the quote needs to be expanded, or the source needs to be replaced.

• Burnap - I have been unable to find a copy of this source to verify the context of the quote or if it was said at all. As such it is not a verifiable source and needs to be replaced. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• Start-Class Christianity articles
• Mid-importance Christianity articles
• Start-Class Christian theology articles
• Mid-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment