Talk:God the Son

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Edit history from previous incarnation of this article

message: 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)
thread_title:  To whom it may concern 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Some general comments 

message: 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)
thread_title: Books that "do not include it" & refs

message: 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)
thread_title:  NT caption 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Terminology

message: :(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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: @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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Term

message: 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)
thread_title: Removal of sourced content

message: 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)
thread_title:  God the Son