Talk:God the Son

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)

This is an important topic in Arian controversy and related topics. This article helps bring light to the issues at hand within those issues. The article is important to the community in and of itself. Therefore it should not be merged or deleted. Endercase (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2017 (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)

Try Google Books:

["term God the Son"

["title God the Son"

["phrase God the Son"

Not exactly a shortage of sources stating that the term/title/phrase is not found in the NT In ictu oculi (talk) 04:08, 1 December 2014 (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)

I don't know why you can't find Burnap.

Charles Voysey (theist) (1828–1912), English Anglican priest in the The Langham Hall pulpit Theistic sermons 1878 states

It may be fairly questioned whether the term ' God the Son ' can be legitimately derived from the second paragraph of the Apostles' Creed at all. But even if this were allowed to pass, it is absolutely untruthful to make the child affirm ...

This illustrates the problem, the idea that the term ' God the Son ' can be legitimately derived from the second paragraph of the Apostles' Creed is already controversial enough even in 1878, that it goes beyond the obvious even in the 1870s to need to state in print that every clergyman knows - that Deus Filius is a term derived from credal affirmation, not the New Testament text. So we will not find many 20th or 21st Century scholarly texts stating something as obvious as David Kemball-Cook Is God a Trinity? 0954221117 p110 0954221117

However the term 'God the Son' does not occur in the Bible. No New Testament writer uses the phrase 'God the Son' or 'Eternal Son'. In fact the biblical context for the term 'Son' properly refers to a man, not to a divine person.

Or George Fowler Contending for the Faith 0595394035 2006 p4

The term, 'God the son' is a man-made religious term. As son Jesus was begotten, he was not the “eternal son”. There is no such expression in the bible as “eternal son”. This expression is man's way in trying to justify their theology, which ...

Of course these are authors who intention is to point out that the term is not in the New Testament, which is why they're raising the subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

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

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

---

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.

@ReformedArsenal, Are you stating that "God the Son" was actually written in the New Testament? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nope, I'm simply saying that when we make a claim, that it needs to be sourced. We don't get to just make claims, even true claims.ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:57, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

User:ReformedArsenal, you have blindly failed to see that the term "God the Son" not used in the Bible is already mentioned and sourced under sections "Old Testament" & "New Testament" in the article. The facts are sourced, and the verification needed to verify the sources have been supported by these facts. — JudeccaXIII (talk) 03:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You're right, I didn't see that the claim was also made in the OT section. I've requested a citation there as well, since the citation of the Jewish Encyclopedia makes no reference to the phrase "God the Son" in any format, and is the only cited source in the OT section, and the NT sources are precisely what is in question. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• 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)

• To mention that the term "God the Son" does not exist in the Bible is itself misleading. Jesus had been called God, and the creator of all things. It may be the case that Jesus was not given that title, but it is disingenuous to use that to support any argument that the New Testament does not hold to Trinitarian Monotheism. And besides, you need a source which explicitly states that "God the Son" is not mentioned in the New Testament.--TMD Talk Page. 16:05, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
• Ridiculous -- the term evidently does not exist in the Bible (not in English Greek or Latin). This is a fact, and no one here denies this fact. We have Dunn's work being discussed in relation to the fact, we have an anti-JW Evangelical writer mentioning the fact in relation to Oneness Pentecostals. User:ReformedArsenal you agreed the term is not in the Bible, you're agreeing above, and the content was already in the article - so I would put this RFC in the category of WP:DISRUPTIVE behaviour. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:47, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

F. Donald Logan A History of the Church in the Middle Ages 2002 pages 9/10 "The Christian orthodoxy that emerged held to a Trinity: one God and three divine persons. It was later to be summed up in the Athanasian Creed: Ita deus pater, deus filius, deus spiritus sanctus, Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est deus. (Thus, God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, Yet not three gods but one God.").

• • In ictu oculi... you seem to be confused about a variety of things.

1. Dunn's work contains a non-referrant "it" in the quote supplied. Without the context of the work, we have no way to know what "it" is. Christian theology? The New Testament? The Old Testament? The Bible as a whole? The most recent Best Buy advertisement?
2. Rhodes is characterizing the Oneness Pentecostal's argument, which includes the assertion that the term does not appear. He is not stating or arguing in the cited passage that it does not appear.
3. The fact that something is true, does not mean that we can put it on wikipedia without a WP:RS. To do so is a violation of WP:OR. You are not an expert in the field. If you are, feel free to refer to something you have published that makes this claim.
4. Your Logan citation is a great citation... it just doesn't state what you're arguing. If this were a debate in the Trinity article and you wanted to supply that as evidence for a section arguing that Triadology was a later development... you'd be all set. However, you need a source that actually states that the term in question is not in the Bible... not simply sources that imply it or require readers to infer it.
5. What is WP:Disruptive is to continually attempt to add something into an article with no citation when a citation has been requested. The citations you have supplied are not sufficient for the reasons I have indicated above, and per the standard dispute resolution process I have initiated an RFC to gather a wider variety of perspectives and input in order to obtain concensus. This is not disruptive... this is how Wikipedia works. If you want to bring this before administration, you're certainly free to do so. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:00, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:ReformedArsenal - did JudeccaXIII "add it", I thought it was already there? In any case JudeccaXIII didn't launch this RFC, you did. Disruptive editing is a pattern of editing that may extend over a long time or many articles, and disrupts progress towards improving an article or building the encyclopedia. At this point you're just being WP:POINTY here: Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Your point seems to be that this blindingly obvious fact is only mentioned in books that need to mention the blindingly obvious, which happen to be books that need to mention the blindingly obvious to show that they disagree. This is a simple fact - the term is not in the New Testament because, fact, it is a term from the Athanasian Creed and preceding credal writings. The rest is just time wasting, others' time being wasted by you. If you don't like the easy hits in Google Books (which inevitably are 18th 19th Century writers and a few modern non-Trinitarians) then please use your time to find the citation you want said by writers you approve of. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi... it is not my job to support a claim entered in an article by someone else. The claim is unsourced, and as such can be removed by someone according to WP:RS or WP:OR. It isn't disruptive editing to remove an unsourced claim. It is disruptive editing to insist that a claim be included in an article without a verifiable source. If you want the article to be included in the claim, then find one that actually says what you are trying to prove... none of the sources you have cited do so. As I said before, the purpose of an RFC is to attract other editors who can weigh in so a broader consensus can be reached. I respect that process, it seems to be you who has a problem with it. If you think I'm being disruptive, then bring it to administration. Until then, let the RFC run its course. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I remain of the impression that this RFC is Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, but lets get on with fixing it. it is indeed your job to put some effort into article sourcing if you are agreeing with a fact simply challenging the source. I have never seen before an editor (a) agree with a statement being facturally correct, (b) remove the said text they admit is factually correct, (c) make apparently no effort to look for better sources, (d) start an RFC with effectively no outcome in sight except a source sifting process. If that's usual constructive behaviour then this is the first time.

I ask you please save everyone else the trouble by looking through the 50 odd sources holding the statement uncovered by these searches

"term God the Son"

"title God the Son"

"phrase God the Son"

And choose a source you yourself accept, for the fact you agree is factually correct. Thank you. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

In ictu oculi, I don't really have any desire for the claim to be in the article, because I don't really think that the claim bears any particular significance. As someone who desires to have the claim in the text, it is YOUR job to source it. I looked at the first 5 or so of the results in the first term, and all of them were self published. I'm not going to do your work for you. If this is such an uncontroversial claim, it should not be difficult to find a WP:RS that substantiates it. Until then, the CN tags stand. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

"I don't really have any desire for the claim to be in the article" - yes we're aware of that. There are about 30 books in those searches all saying the same thing, that "God the Son" (or "Deus Filius") is a credal term not found in the New Testament. They evidently are not all "self published" given that many of them are from the 19th Century. Again you yourself had said that you recognise that it is a fact, even though you have no desire for the fact to be in the article. Make the effort, look at all those 50 odd sources and find one you like. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

You know... if you spent even a fraction of the effort toward simply solving the problem, as you are toward trying to convince me to do the work to support a claim that YOU want in the article that I don't really care about... this would have been resolved several days ago. I said that I looked at the first 5, and they were all self published... so your silly exaggeration are a waste of everyone's time. If you want the claim in the article, find a source from one of the many sources you've identified, and source the claim. ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2014 (UTC)\

"You know... if you spent even a fraction of the effort toward simply solving the problem" -- User:ReformedArsenal the problem is you. You yourself have admitted the Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue element of your removal here. You're deleting the content because as you say "I don't really have any desire for the claim to be in the article". There have been sources offered and you refuse to pick one. On the basis of this I am thinking a topic block on you from religion articles would be beneficial to the project. In ictu oculi (talk) 13:32, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

• Uninvolved editor here via RFC. Just a thought. If the claim you're sourcing is "God the son" as a phrase does not appear in the bible, the bible is a sufficient source for that claim, contents of a source can be Primary sourced. You would need other sources discussing it to make that claim important, and you have those. SPACKlick (talk) 11:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  Can you cite a Wikipedia Policy that cites this? It seems that under this understanding, I could add to almost any article "X book does not use Y phrase" and would not need any source at all to back it up. This seems to be rather, especially in the case of a text which originates in a different language, to be a bit of WP:OR. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

  Certainly falls under WP:BLUE, if nothing else. There's nothing wrong with looking for or requesting a WP:RS explicitly stating a fact you've noticed; that said, it is patently disruptive and unhelpful if you were to claim that an easily-established fact is WP:OR without one and remove it from the article. It stays while you look for some source that satisfies you, pending a source to the contrary. [edit: With the caveat that that general treatment does not apply to anything remotely unkind in a biography of a living person. Christian doctrine to the contrary, though, Jesus doesn't really qualify, pending His Second Coming.] — LlywelynII 02:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
  For the record, thanks for your informed and careful reading of the sources. You're certainly spot-on with your criticism (e.g.) of I.i.o.'s misunderstanding of his quote. You veered into unhelpful WP:POINTiness, though, when you forgot the very first thing you said: "I do not have a problem with the claim appearing, as it is a true claim". So leave it and keep looking for your WP:RS that helpfully states the obvious in the meantime. — LlywelynII 04:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Llyweln, We're not talking about the Cat in the Hat here... we're talking about a book that is millions of words long, written in three different dead languages. To claim that a particular phrase does not appear in the text would require substantial language knowledge and research. Beyond that, I would be surprised if the average Christian knew that the phrase didn't appear in the New Testament, let alone the average person. It certainly is not obvious. I didn't NOTICE that the phrase isn't there, I hold two masters degrees in Christian theology and history, a Bachelor's degree in Biblical studies, and a minor in Koine Greek and Hebrew. I have studied the text in depth. I have to disagree with you that this falls under WP:BLUE because of the fact that it is not obvious and not common knowledge. I don't have a problem with ANY true claim appearing on Wikipeida... but claims that are not obvious or common knowledge (which this is not) require sourcing.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

• • I question the purpose of this RFC- the term doesn't exist in the King James bible. I have no reason to doubt it doesn't exist in other versions. I think the sources in place should be considered reliable and I restored them. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
    • Elmmapleoakpine, I have no reason to doubt the term doesn't exist in other versions, because it doesn't exist in other versions. But we need a reliable source to substantiate the claim. The two sources you restored are problematic for reasons I have outlined above, most egregious is the Rhodes quote, which is taken completely out of context. When something is in dispute, it is inappropriate to act to edit it until the dispute is resolved. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
      • ReformedArsenal- This is puzzling to me. The phrase is not in the bible. Upon reflection- why does this particular assertion/statement even need a source? If it does really need a source then why not use database search result I provided? Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 00:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
        • It needs a source because that is how Wikipedia works. The text was originally written in a language that the vast majority of people do not speak, so an expert source stating that the phrase does not exist is required. Teh reason I don't just use the database search is because it isn't my job to support other people's claims. I don't think the claim is particularly notable, so I'd prefer it isn't in the article. It is true, so if someone wants to put it in and properly source it, I have no problem with that. Bottom line, if you want the statement in the article, find a source that actually supports the claim. ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
          • You seem to be focused on truth, rather than verifiability. The lack of mention in the Bible is not sufficient grounds for including it in the article.--TMD Talk Page. 22:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

User:TMDrew in almost all Christianity topics we include Bible usage. Where a term is in current use if it is not mentioned in the Bible and would be expected to be, we also mention that. The fact that this particular term is not mentioned in the Bible is both mentioned in sources and considered notable in sources. See:

"term God the Son"

"title God the Son"

"phrase God the Son"

Remembering that several sources have been offered and rejected by Reformed Arsenal, the current invitation is for the objecting editor to select a source which he himself accepts, for the fact he agrees is factually correct. You also could select a source. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:23, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

User:ReformedArsenal, here is another quote (elderly indeed as they all are) by a sacked Anglican. Is Charles Voysey (theist) acceptable as a source? In ictu oculi (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

An Examination of Canon Liddon's Bampton Lectures on The Divinity of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ By A Clergyman Of The Church of England. Trubner & Co., London (1871) Charles Voysey, ‎Henry Parry Liddon "Not to mention more scholastic and abstract terms, the appellation God the Son occurs nowhere in the Scriptures. Yet, given the position, ' Christ is indeed God,' and that appellation arises by natural, inevitable suggestion, and is sure to be often substituted for the Scriptural Son of God, which, if not emptied of intrinsic meaning, cuts away the attributes of and independent, Self-contained Subsistence."

• All the Divine Names and Titles in the Bible (Herbert Lockyer, Zondervan, 1988) does not list the specific combination of words "God the Son" as appearing in the Bible. "The Son," yes; "Son of God," yes; but not "God the Son." Zondervan is fairly conservative (enough so, in fact, the more Zondervan materials I see in a Sunday school classroom, the less likely I am to attend that church, though likewise a complete absence of Zondervan materials in a Protestant church will equally unnerve me), so their lack of inclusion is pretty solid proof that the phrase doesn't appear in the Bible. That doesn't mean that the phrase is spiritually wrong, though such matters are not for Wikipedia to decide.
• The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J (Geoffrey W. Bromiley, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 1995) lacks an entry on "God the Son," because their entries only use phrasings found in the Bible. There is an entry on Son of God that mentions the "God the Son" doctrine in Early Christianity, but not the Bible. The entries Person of Christ and Christology likewise do not contain the phrase "God the Son." Eerdmans is also fairly conservative.

Also, the easiest way to prove that the statement "The term "God the Son" is not found in the Bible" is wrong is to provide an instance in the Bible where it is (and evidence that this was reliably translated). If one cannot, common sense would indicate that it's probably not in the Bible. Again, that doesn't mean the term is necessarily spiritually wrong, but judgements as to whether it's right or wrong do not belong here.

So: what sources are there that say the exact phrasing "God the Son" is used by the authors of the Bible? Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Ian, We do not add claims based on WP:Truth, we add them based on WP:V. The fact that the term does not appear in a work that is millions of words, in three different languages, simply is not an obvious fact and does not fall under WP:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Except that sources have been provided that demonstrate the absence of the term in the Bible, and you have rejected them and provided no counter sources. At no point have I claimed that this is "sky is blue" territory, and I did provide additional citations that demonstrate its absence. Please actually respond to what I wrote instead of a misquotation of what someone else wrote. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ian.thomson, the only source which could possibly exist are those discussing the double copying error in Minuscule 1985 such as Bart D. Ehrman here- 1996 cited by Wallace below:

Daniel B. Wallace Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament 0825489067 Page 255 " “neither of the other expressions (“God even Christ,” “God the Son”) occurs in this way in Paul” (Orthodox Corruption, 86)."

Minuscule 1985 error is also mentioned by Harris:

Murray J. Harris Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus 2005 p278 And in binitarian and trinitarian passages or formulations, only the Father, never the Son (or Spirit), is called ... are found, one never finds ho theos ho uios (7) Footnote:."Minuscule 1985 has this reading in Gal. 2:20"

Maybe User:ReformedArsenal will allow Harris "one never finds ho theos ho uios"? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

unthreaded from quotation from Orthodox Corruption: Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the quote that you have here on page 255 of this book, can you double check the page number? ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

It's still plenty present in 86 of Ehrman's Orthodox Corruption, which is linked. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Then by all means, add the source so we can be done with this. I have said multiple times, I have no problem with this claim being present in the article, but it is a claim that needs a source. Ehrman is a WP:RS for this kind of claim, so by all means add it in.ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:39, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

resuming prior order Ian.thomson (talk) 17:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with this source, although I looked on page 278 and the surrounding pages and did not find the quoted statement. Could you provide a broader context for the quote and possibly a link to the edition you are using? ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Well given the silence of ReformedArsenal to earlier communications, I am inserting those 3 refs into the article and redirecting the redlink Minuscule 1985 to where the refs are inserted. God the Son#New Testament. It seems the minuscule has zero notability beyond this unique scribal error so doesn't justify a stub. As for ReformedArsenal now deleting stable content that the Athanasian formula is not found in the Hebrew Bible that goes beyond Wikipedia:You don't need to cite that the sky is blue to thinking maybe WikiProject Judaism should be notified of such a change? In ictu oculi (talk) 01:18, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been anything but silent, and I don't recalling deleting anything about the Athanasian formula... could you provide a link to the diff where I did this, it may have been a mistaken edit. ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:14, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

• Delete This article is POVFORK of Son of God. You're wasting time about proving a negative. This is not how we write an encyclopedia. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Chris troutman why not delete Jesus as a POVFORK of God as well? Please see below In ictu oculi (talk) 00:49, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

A John Hick reader John Hick, ed. ‎Paul Badham - 1990 p115 "And as Christian theology grew through the centuries it made the very significant transition from 'son of God' to 'God the Son', the Second Person of the Trinity."

I question if this is just pointing out the term isnt used, or if its non use is trying to prove the Bible does not call the Son God? If its the latter it is incorrect. AlbinoFerret 02:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree the term doesn't exist in the Bible. Saw mention of the controversy on the noticeboard and just provided URLs for the controversial citations. --7157.118.25a (talk) 00:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

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

Removal of sourced content

Related to the above discussion User:TMDrew would you please explain why you have removed without comment the following triple-sourced reference to the only late NT minuscule containing the term? In ictu oculi (talk) 23:24, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

One late minuscule (ms 1985) contains a double scribal error in Galatians 2:20, in which a correction to a first error has reproduced the term "God the Son" as a second error instead of "the Son of God". refs: Bart D. Ehrman Orthodox Corruption of Scripture 1996 p.86 / Daniel B. Wallace Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament 0825489067 Page 255 citing Ehrman: " “neither of the other expressions (“God even Christ,” “God the Son”) occurs in this way in Paul” (Orthodox Corruption, 86)." / Murray J. Harris Jesus as God: The New Testament Use of Theos in Reference to Jesus 2005 p278 And in binitarian and trinitarian passages or formulations, only the Father, never the Son (or Spirit), is called ... are found, one never finds ho theos ho uios (7) Footnote:."Minuscule 1985 has this reading in Gal. 2:20"

God the Son

Greetings. I wanted to state the fact that in Greek Orthodox terminology, God the Son (Θεὸς Υἱός) is being referred to as Θεὸς Λόγος as well. The word "Λόγος" has many meanings in Greek, and can be translated in English as "Word", "Reason", "Meaning", and it probably has other meanings as well.

My question is, what is the correct Orthodox translation of "Θεὸς Λόγος" in English by Theological aspect? "God The Reason", "God the Word", or something else? Is someone able to answer?

Thank you, --Στέλιος Τ. (talk) 09:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)