This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Theology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Theology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TheologyWikipedia:WikiProject TheologyTemplate:WikiProject TheologyTheology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ancient Near East related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
I think the changes made by Radagast in the last 24 hours were a clear improvement to the article and do not support the sudden revert by In ictu oculi. As for the image of the Bible I inserted, and the reference to John 1:1-18 being called jpgs, graffiti and vandalism all I have to say is: "Excuse me Mr In ictu oculi, since when do myself (or Radagast) need permission from you to add images to a page?" Do you Mr oculi have an ownershiop certificate for this page, signed by a justice of the peace? If so, please post it herein, else respect the rights of other editors. I had also found the image inserted by Radagast informative since it was a clear illustration of the concept. And the reference to John 1.1 was removed by oculi from the See also section - that is relevant. That sudden revert by In ictu oculi was clearly unjustified. However, this storm in a teacup should not be allowed to turn into a major incident, so I will not revert oculi now, but wait for further response from Radagast who did most of the work, which was an improvement. After he responds, I support a revert of the oculi changes. History2007 (talk) 05:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello History 2007, I did not "revert" all Radagast's edits - please compare the difference between your 3rd edit and the state of the article after Radagast3's 27 edits
(cur | prev) 13:21, 25 May 2010 Radagast3 (talk | contribs) (5,413 bytes) (rm comment re hyphen, since McCready doesn't use it) (undo)
(cur | prev) 13:19, 25 May 2010 Radagast3 (talk | contribs) (5,463 bytes) (→Trinitarian: reword McCready quote to match what the book says, fix citation) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:31, 25 May 2010 Radagast3 (talk | contribs) (5,541 bytes) (→Denial of the pre-existence of Christ: tag) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:30, 25 May 2010 Radagast3 (talk | contribs) (5,533 bytes) (→Trinitarian: tags; page 11 of what?) (undo)
(cur | prev) 12:27, 25 May 2010 Radagast3 (talk | contribs) (5,441 bytes) (link to Logos.; Citation style tag because of multiple incomplete book references with missing page numbers) (undo)
....but equally a good number of them aren't fine. Notably when Radagast3 has let his personal views spread into the introductory paragraph. Radagast3's chosen view is given 1. first place, and 2. double the size of the other views, it doesn't have to spread into the introductory paragraph too. In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Given History2007's backing I've re-reverted several of my changes, and made a few other improvements. I've also put the maintenance tags back -- all citations should give page numbers, not just the name of a book.
I think it's reasonable for the article lead to clearly state what the doctrine is, before launching into a discussion of who accepts it and who doesn't. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
May I suggest that no one let this turn into a huge debate please? We could all call our 12 lawyers and appeal to the supreme court and so on, but this is not a huge issue and is best handled by a simple discussion and addition of text, links and references to the article. All the effort that goes into this talk page will be better used in improving the article. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sorry, but frankly my inclination is just to walk away from the article and abandon it to the overwhelming energy of Radagast3... all the more when I see Wikipedia:Citing sources, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Assume good faith being lobbed around. We aren't going to even get beyond the opening sentence of:
...as in the New Testament passage John 1:1-18, where Christ is identified with a pre-existent Divine being called the Logos or Word. Many adherents of liberal Christianity do not accept this belief.
Anything not backed up by proper citations with page numbers is subject to deletion down the track; simply giving a book title doesn't meet Wikipedia:Verifiability, and may hide serious errors (as in the ref to Coleridge, where I chased down the citation and he actually said almost the complete opposite of what the article originally had).
Feel free to reword the lead, which should (1) briefly indicate the nature of the doctrine and (2) give some indication of who holds it and who doesn't (and you had used the term "liberal theology" in the article body for theologians denying the doctrine). -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have added "in the traditional view", which of course might be improved on. I hope In ictu will stay with the article. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably an improvement (at least, I can live with it) -- although the Dunn book seems to suggest that even those who deny the doctrine would accept that John 1:1-18 teaches it. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have continued to improve the referencing, and split Oneness Pentecostals into their own section, since unlike all the other groups, the issue with Oneness Pentecostals is whether they accept the doctrine. -- Radagast3 (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
History 2007, your "see also" link to John 1:1 is preserved, even though it duplicates John 1:1 in the text. As to the jpgs. I actually didn't realise the jpg of the first chapter of the Vulgate was yours,
But again, why do we have to have either picture here? Wouldn't John 1:1.jpg be better on [[John 1:1] and GodtheSon.jpg better on the Doctrine of the Trinity? Why not a jpg of Phil 2:7, or a pic of Friedrich Schleiermacher, or a diagram of Isaac Newton's view? Or why not just leave the article as text? In ictu oculi (talk) 08:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the diagram helps to illustrate what "pre-existence" means, but it's not quite ideal. I had actually reworded the caption slightly to clarify that "God the Son" continues to be used for the incarnate Logos. -- Radagast3 (talk) 09:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Having a suitable picture is better than not having one. Personally I think the diagram is useful, although the statement in the caption that "God the Son" ceases to be used after the Incarnation does not seem right to me. I also like the Bosch here, which I added yesterday to God the Son. The few medieval images showing all the Trinity sending the angel of the Annunciation were specifically designed to emphasize this point & would be the most relevant if we have one of them. Please hide your editorial comment at the top. Johnbod (talk) 08:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I have voted elsewhere I see no need for a merge. However, regarding images and pictures, I would just leave it in the hands of Johnbod, who has more knowledge of the intersection of art and religion than most Wikipedia editors. I would suggest that we all let Johnbod select the art, given his knowledge of the topic. I think a good Bible image with the Gospel of John would be nice, and the benefit will also be to teach the reader something about Bibles. The image I selected is not necessarily the best and the one I added to John 1:1 the other day, taught me about the Ostromir Gospel, of which I had not heard 48 hours ago. So the image captions can be instructive to readers, as well as writers. History2007 (talk) 11:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we get a citation for medieval art usually depicting God as the Son? And perhaps some of the Bosch caption can go into the main text (possibly as a subsection on the doctrine as reflected in Christian art). -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is actually a separate debate, and after I wrote that article and John enhanced it, I have forgotten most of the content now! However, it even has an image of Jesus creating the oceans, and some references to that type of representation. History2007 (talk) 08:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The middle section of God_the_Father_in_Western_art mentions the use of Jesus as the Logos; it depended on the scene - obviously for the Baptism of Christ all three of the Trinity are represented, usually by Christ, dove and Hand. The Hand of God article explains where this form was used too - I suppose that article slightly glosses over that this is often the "Hand of the Logos" in fact - when sometimes the hand becomes replaced by a small bust in a roundel, this is the Logos, not GTF. I can certainly ref the use of the Logos. The earliest GTF shown in the Garden of Eden that I can think of is in the Très Riches Heures du Duc de Berry of c. 1410. But Jesus/Logos depictions go back more than 1000 years before that. Johnbod (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. I'm aware that many subtleties of theology are reflected in Medieval Art, but it isn't always easy to track references down. -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, it was the other way around. If Medieval artists did not respect and reflect the subtle elements of theology of the time, they would have the life beaten out of them. Art was a long way from Andy Warhol in those days. History2007 (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The diagram looks better to me, but what do I know.... Now as part of my correspondence course in theology, can one of you explain what "the end of time" means and how it is different? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Radagast3. I changed the quotes you gave for Lardner and Biddle for the following reason: the point being made in that part of the article is that Lardner and Biddle, people we know to be unitarians, believed (in contrast to unitarians like Priestly) that Jesus was miraculously conceived in the womb of a virgin -- so I have tried to select quotes that verify this point more accurately. I hope you understand. Thanks. Woofboy (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are excellent quotes for that purpose. However, I've restored the original quotes as well, since we also need citations to show that Biddle and Larner were in fact Unitarian (a fact that is only obvious to experts). There may in fact be better quotes for that 2nd purpose. We also need some sort of quote for Priestley: I can only assume that somewhere in the cited block of more than 30 pages he denies both the pre-existence of Christ and the virgin birth. However, for all 3 people, a reliable secondary source may be better than the current primary sources. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need to show Biddle and Lardner were Unitarians in this article: that would be better placed in the articles on the individuals, or on a Unitarian article. The article also states that Bernard Ramm was a theologian and that Friedrich Schleiermacher was a German -- although no reference is given for either. Those facts can be verified by reading the articles about those people. But, I don't really mind. Woofboy (talk) 21:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really mind either -- it's just that belief or disbelief in the pre-existence of Christ is the main point of this article. -- Radagast3 (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The main point of that section is specific groups and scholars that deny the doctrine which is the topic of the article, hence the section title "Denial of the doctrine." -- Radagast3 (talk) 07:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've added an opening sentence to the section to reflect that. Think I'm more at ease now. :) Thanks for the patience. Woofboy (talk) 08:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've restored Oneness Pentecostals to their own section. Some members of the movement have identified with Modalistic Monarchianism, which might logically be grouped with Unitarianism, while others claim to accept the pre-existence of Christ, at least in some sense. The answer to "Do they accept the doctrine" seems to be "It's complex", suggesting that it would be POV to place them either in the "for" or the "against" groups. -- Radagast3 (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually you've de-restored it, so undone, and restored to the default - that people should be allowed to speak for themselves about their own belief. Strange idea I know. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Irrespective. They say they believe it. Anyone can accuse anyone of anything. Please turn the == back into === and put them back where they say they belong. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
SOME of them say they believe it, others, such as Dulle, do not. -- Radagast3 (talk)
Radagast3 please leave the intro paragraph neutral
It's neutral as it is:
"The pre-existence (or preexistence) of Christ refers to the doctrine of the ontological or personal existence of Christ before his conception. One of the relevant Bible passages is John 1:1-18 where, in the Trinitarian view, Christ is identified with a pre-existent divine being called the Logos or Word, but where other non-Trinitarian views question the aspect of personal pre-existence or question the aspect of divinity, or both."
Can you please stop inserting your opinions. This is not Radagastapedia In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This should be included here; according at least to Orthodox theology, Daniel's vision refers to God the Son, not God the Father as the West mostly thinks. Johnbod (talk) 19:56, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Off and on I hear from various theologians about old testament passages that mention Christ. I believe that a list of such passages is crucially necessary for this article.
Gen. 3:15 The "He" cannot refer to the woman nor the serpent. It must be the world's oldest messianic prophesy.
Gen. 49:10-12 'The scepter shall never depart from Judah' could refer to King David. However, when Israel is destroyed and the line of David ends, the scepter has still not left Judah. Jesus was a direct decedent of both David and Judah (Mat. 1, Luk. 3, Isa. 11, and Rev. 5:5). Jesus is also associated with "Shiloh" in this verse. In fact, "Until Shiloh comes" has the same numerical value as "Messiah".
Lev. 16:18-22 Clearly, the only way to atone for sins is with a spotless sacrifice. Compare with Joh. 1:29, Heb. 9:11-14, and Rev. 5:6-7.
Num. 24:16-17 Balaam saw an 'almighty', (Isa. 9:6-7) and like a star he shall come 'out of Jacob'. (Mat. 2:1-2) He shall 'crush a forehead' (Gen. 3:15).
Deu. 18:18-20 Who could be a prophet greater than Moses? See Act. 3:18-26, 7:37, Heb. 11:23-28 & 40. If Jesus sinned, he would have been killed by a righteous God (Mat. 4:1-11, Luk. 4:1-14, and Heb. 2:18).
Jos. 5:13-15 Joshua worshiped the "angel", which he readily excepted (Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9, Col. 2:18). This proves that he was no angel, but Christ himself.
Judg. 6:12-14 This "angel" is referred to as "the LORD" (YHWH) and was therefore not an angel.
2 Sam. 7:12-17 Jesus, the direct decedent of David, will establish a kingdom that will last forever. (Isa. 32-35)
1 Kin. 8:27 Shall God dwell on Earth? he did through Christ. (Joh. 1:13-14, Philip. 2:7-8)
Job 19:25-27 Job "knew that his redeemer lived". This is said in the present tense, even though it was said over 1600 years before the virgin birth!.
Psa. 22 Here, David speaks of the Messiah in the first person!. Did Jesus dictate this Psalm? Compare with Mat. 27:35, 40-43, 46, Mar. 15:24, 29-32, 34, Luk. 23:33-37, Joh. 19:18, 23-24, 28, 30 & 33.
Psa. 110 Here, David copies the words of 'his lord', but because he is the King, his only lord is Jesus. Compare with Mat. 22:41-46, Mar. 12:35-37, and Heb. 5:5-6, 7:15-17, 21-22.
Isa. 6 In the year king Uzziah died, Isaiah saw Christ. Compare with Joh. 12:37-41.
Dan. 3:25 A 'son of the gods' or the Son of God.
Dan. 9:22-27 A powerful prelude to the Messiah; giving dates, names, and reasons (v. 24).
Dan. 10:16 Here, Daniel sees face to face with "the Son".
Hello Nate5713, the following I have moved from article here to Talk.
-- Please help to improve the wording of this section to meet Wikipedia's standards. However, I would not appreciate anyone remove items from this list. --
Gen. 3:15 The "He" cannot refer to the woman nor the serpent. It must be the world's oldest messianic prophesy.
Gen. 49:10-12 'The scepter shall never depart from Judah' could refer to King David. However, when Israel is destroyed and the line of David ends, the scepter has still not left Judah. Jesus was a direct decedent of both David and Judah (Mat. 1, Luk. 3, Isa. 11, and Rev. 5:5). Jesus is also associated with "Shiloh" in this verse. In fact, "Until Shiloh comes" has the same numerical value as "Messiah".
Lev. 16:18-22 Clearly, the only way to atone for sins is with a spotless sacrifice. Compare with Joh. 1:29, Heb. 9:11-14, and Rev. 5:6-7.
Num. 24:16-17 Balaam saw an 'almighty', (Isa. 9:6-7) and like a star he shall come 'out of Jacob'. (Mat. 2:1-2) He shall 'crush a forehead' (Gen. 3:15).
Deu. 18:18-20 Who could be a prophet greater than Moses? See Act. 3:18-26, 7:37, Heb. 11:23-28 & 40. If Jesus sinned, he would have been killed by a righteous God (Mat. 4:1-11, Luk. 4:1-14, and Heb. 2:18).
Jos. 5:13-15 Joshua worshiped the "angel", which he readily excepted (Rev. 19:10, 22:8-9, Col. 2:18). This proves that he was no angel, but Christ himself.
Judg. 6:12-14 This "angel" is referred to as "the LORD" (YHWH) and was therefore not an angel.
2 Sam. 7:12-17 Jesus, the direct decedent of David, will establish a kingdom that will last forever. (Isa. 32-35)
1 Kin. 8:27 Shall God dwell on Earth? he did through Christ. (Joh. 1:13-14, Philip. 2:7-8)
Job 19:25-27 Job "knew that his redeemer lived". This is said in the present tense, even though it was said over 1600 years before the virgin birth!.
Psa. 22 Here, David speaks of the Messiah in the first person!. Did Jesus dictate this Psalm? Compare with Mat. 27:35, 40-43, 46, Mar. 15:24, 29-32, 34, Luk. 23:33-37, Joh. 19:18, 23-24, 28, 30 & 33.
Psa. 110 Here, David copies the words of 'his lord', but because he is the King, his only lord is Jesus. Compare with Mat. 22:41-46, Mar. 12:35-37, and Heb. 5:5-6, 7:15-17, 21-22.
Isa. 6 In the year king Uzziah died, Isaiah saw Christ. Compare with Joh. 12:37-41.
Dan. 3:25 A 'son of the gods' or the Son of God.
Dan. 9:22-27 A powerful prelude to the Messiah; giving dates, names, and reasons (v. 24).
Dan. 10:16 Here, Daniel sees face to face with "the Son".
If anyone wants to use the talk page as a sandbox then by all means, but to not be original research every one of the Bible quotes above would need a page reference from a reputable print commentary or source. Some of the above list have been used for just what the section head says. But most are what most historical and modern sources would simply count as prophecies. If you have references please provide. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:18, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see the misunderstanding. My list seemed to have disappeared the day after I wrote it, provoking me to re-write it. However, the entries are not the same in both lists because I took out some of the sillier ones (like Proverbs 30:1), and added some better ones (like Judges 6:13).
You are correct, exactly half of my list are famous Messianic prophecies. Let's face it, if God the Son was known, even predestined, since the beginning of time, it does add to the Trinitarian view. The rest are hard to reference, being that I simply heard those verses from various theologians and pastors I've talked to, but I will try to get their names and professions as references ASAP.--Nate5713 (talk) 01:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a blog, the guidelines on sources require users to cite (typically) printed reference sources; and a pastor you have talked to would be disqualified as OR and POV. References of the sort you're looking for aren't hard to reference in fundamentalist-evangelical materials. I've done one for you. from Alpha Teach Yourself the Bible in 24 Hours by W. Terry Whalin. But you might be better finding a blog rather than an encyclopedia. Cheers In ictu oculi (talk) 14:32, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While I obtain these sources, I would like to make a point which is quite a pet peeve of mine. Why is it that places like Wikipedia always require references from the modern day? After all, I did cite the Bible, as well as interpretations from the New Testament, yet I am still required to come up with references simply because my sources are too old. Does living in the modern day necessarily make us smarter or wiser? Wouldn't make more sense too reference people who were actually there, rather than people who live thousands of years after the fact? I will humor you for now, but we must keep in mind that some of the items on my list (like Ps. 110:1, Isa. 9, and Dan. 10:16) should theoretically require only scripture and common sense. Cheers--Nate5713 (talk) 13:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my list again. With references.
Gen. 3:15, prophesy, "By the seed of the woman, we are here to understand the Lord Jesus Christ, who, though very God of very God, was, for us men and our salvation, to have a body prepared for him by the Holy Ghost, and to be born of a woman who never knew man, and by his obedience and death make an atonement for man's transgression, and bring in an everlasting righteousness, work in them a new nature, and thereby bruise the serpent's head, i.e. destroy his power and dominion over them." George Whitfeild, c.1750, who also said, "We generally look for Christ only in the New Testament; but Christianity, in one sense, is very near as old as the creation."
Jos. 5:13-15, actual appearance, It is generally considered, by theologians such as saw christ&f=false John R. Rice, that Joshua met up with a pre-incarnate Christ.
Judg. 6:12-14, actual appearance, this reference give a whole list of appearances in the book of Judges.
2 Sam. 7:12-17, prophesy, at David's death, it was prophesied that his decedent would be the Messiah.
Psa. 22, actual appearance, the power of this Psalm should require only common sense. Nonetheless, it is also rendered here.
Psa. 110, actual appearance, my reference? there could be no better than Christ, (who was actually there) as quoted in Mat. 22:41-46 and Mar. 12:35-37. My quote? Jesus when he said, "If David then calls Him (Christ) ‘Lord,’ how is He his son?”.
Isa. 6, actual appearance, verse 8 reads, "Also I heard the voice of the Lord, saying: 'Whom shall I send, And who will go for Us?'" Us? Is their diversity in the Godhead?
Dan. 3:25, actual appearance, this powerful chapter is in this commentary.
Dan. 9:22-27, prophesy, This is the only known prophesy to give the exact date for the Messiah.
Dan. 10:16, actual appearance, Daniel met "the Son", what more can any commentary or translation say?
In addition to the ones above, we might also consider Gen. 1:26, 3:22, and 11:7.
Hi again Nate. There probably are among that list some references which do count as a notable source or church indicating a specific Christophany and should be footnoted as Wikipedia content sources either in the general subject Pre-existence of Christ or in the more relevantChristophany article. However, I've looked at a few (about a third) of your refs and when I got to the webpage "Wil Pounds is the Field Director for the Honduras Baptist Dental Mission" I stopped, for now. These aren't notable sources; Wesley would be a notable source. As to formatting a Wikipedia comment we need to format "Wesley identified verse X as a Christophany" REF author publication name year page no. /REF. Can you please read Wikipedia:Citing_sources and then follow the methods/guidelines given. All the best In ictu oculi (talk) 15:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nate I've just looked at a few more. Sorry, but I still haven't seen one (which surprises me because I'd expec there to be some which aren't either (a) Christophanies already mentioned in the article, or (b) not Christophanies.
I think you need to read the articles on antitype and prophecy to distinguish what is the difference between a Christophany and an antitype or a prophecy. For example Gill " 1 Kin. 8:27, prophesy, Gill's commentary on the whole Bible is my reference. "....... that's an antitype, figure, the altar isn't an appearance by the pre-existent Christ in the Old Testament. Perhaps you could ask a pastor to discuss the difference or recommend a book, sorry I can't be of help here, this is really a discussion for a Christian blog or forum not an encyclopedia talk page, sorry In ictu oculi (talk) 15:46, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"There probably are among that list some references..." clearly you haven't quite made a full judgment.
Why am I so obligated to only cite people in the modern day? does the opinions of the people actually there not matter? or are the theologians nowadays any smarter than those in the Bible? can people in more recent years, given a fancy diploma (a recent invention), instantly and miraculously determine what people saw who lived thousands of years before they were born? Why would I cite mortals in a fallen would when I can cite God himself?
"Jesus identified chapter 110 (of Psalms) as a Christophany" REF Saint Matthew the Tax collector, The Gospel according to Matthew c.30 A.D., 22:41-46 /REF. How's that?
'Tis a stupid question to ask "who?" when I and others say, "some say...". Obviously WE do. I say that that a person who compiles an encyclopedia based on eye-witness accounts (and not just re-interpretations in the last 50 years) is far smarter in the long run than those who rely only on people who know nothing on what they're talking about.
Am I undermining Wikipedia's policy? No, I am just re-explaining it to you. You told me I could not quote my local pastor; now you say I can, clearly you need someone to better interpret the policy for you. There is nothing in the policy that demands quotes from modern commentaries only. All it says is, "reliable, verifiable sources". I've asked various people on Wikipedia what a "reliable, verifiable source" strictly means. As a strict policy, all they're answers differed. Clearly a "reliable, verifiable source" can be anything from actually reading the Turin Papyrus yourself to quoting a website made yesterday. As long, of course, as those references in the modern times can be supported by consecutively older references. And not the other way around.
"when I got to the webpage "Wil Pounds is the Field Director for the Honduras Baptist Dental Mission" I stopped." That is not one of my references. I only give relevant, verifiable sources. Period. --Nate2357 (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nate. Believe me I am trying to be helpful. No I did not say you should quote your local pastor as a source on Wikipedia, I suggested that maybe you might want to take your discussion to him, the difference between a Christophany and prophecy and a foreshadow]] etc etc. That's all In ictu oculi (talk) 00:08, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline showing Christ's pre-existence as God the Son shows it only as after creation but before incarnation. The diagram needs to make clear that Logos/God the Son existed even prior to creation, but (as it already shows) that He was just not referred to as Son of God until after incarnation.
I agree. The diagram was unescessary, and seems to imply that the Son was created by the Father. The diagram should depict the Son's eternalness, as well as his uncreatedness. 68.192.134.169 (talk) 19:59, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually the G of God the Son is to the left of the C of Creation. Overall, diagram helps, I remember thediscussion after which another user added it. I added italics to before so that should clarify it. History2007 (talk) 21:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The timeline diagram (second image down) seems to incorrectly imply that the Son was created, existed only between Creation and the Incarnation, and that He could change. Of course, this is not true.
The diagram should be edited to remove this confusion, and to show Jesus as eternal, unchanging, and uncreated. 24.191.87.42 (talk) 01:22, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. However, I must say that the opponents of the proposal, although unanimous, didn't present much better argumentation than WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:BECAUSEISAYSO. I would join Amakuru's appeal to document the asserted convention and bring some consistency to the topic. No such user (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have something of an informal convention that articles about episodes in JC's life on earth use J, those about theological topics use C. This broadly reflects what sources do, though of course the Pre-existence of Christ does not feature much in Sunday schools etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:48, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CommentJohnbod Your point is not valid. The resurrection is technically a "theological" topic by a secular viewpoint and not "historical" to most secular scholars. So why is it not at Resurrection of Christ? of course the Pre-existence of Christ does not feature much in Sunday schools and what is that suppose to mean? That does not seem to have anything to do with this requested move. Ḉɱ̍2nd anniv.18:35, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The belief in the resurrection of Jesus was the key event in the history of Christianity: no belief in resurrection of Jesus would have meant no Christianity. So be it a figment of imagination or a hallucination, it still is a major topic in the historical research of Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant point here is that was an, in fact the final, event in the life of Jesus on earth, so we use "Jesus". Jesus is the name Christ had on earth. Johnbod (talk) 02:48, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: please could you provide a citation for your assertion that Jesus is the name Christ had on earth? I know plenty of people nowadays continue to pray to "Jesus" even though he is self-evidently not on earth any more. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Johnbod. Normally, I'm a huge fan of consistency moves of this sort, but there's an actual conceptual difference here (even if a lot of, especially American, Protestants blur the distinction). — SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 21:03, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. To even talk of the Pre-existence of Jesus is appallingly bad theology, Jesus did not exist before the Incarnation... but we report the bad as well as the good here, so check usage. Oh dear, I admit I was surprised and disappointed to find 44 thousand ghits for "Pre-existence of Jesus" -Wikipedia. But I got almost 1.75 million for "Pre-existence of Christ" -Wikipedia, and even though the first few were titled Pre-existence of Jesus I'm a little reassured. Assuming that most of those ghits are on the same topic, as it appears, the existing name is the more common one as well as the correct one theologically. Books and scholar will I'm sure be even more on the side of righteous logic rather than popular error. Breathe a sigh of relief and oppose in good conscience. God is good. Andrewa (talk) 08:49, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see two big assertions in the oppose !votes above that are not backed up with evidence. (1) That "theological" topics use Christ, while "lifetime" topics use Jesus; in fact we have some theological concepts using Jesus, such as Resurrection of Jesus and Ascension of Jesus (which, as pointed out above, would not be recognised as historical events by secular historians), while some lifetime events use Christ, for example Temptation of Christ. And (2) the assertion that Christ and Jesus mean different things. In fact, as far as I'm aware, the term Christ only came into existence after Jesus' death, and refers exclusively to him; could we have some reliable source citation for the idea that they're different? I'm somewhat inclined to support this proposal, as there is a lack of WP:CONSISTENCY at the moment, and it seems arbitrary, but I'm open to being persuaded there is a genuine difference out there in the sources. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 10:25, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Post-close comments: There is already broad consistency, as pointed out. The nomination was trying to break consistency down. I don't know how to deal with arguments as weak and muddle-headed as "we have some theological concepts using Jesus, such as Resurrection of Jesus and Ascension of Jesus (which, as pointed out above, would not be recognised as historical events by secular historians)". If people don't understand the distinction between Jesus and Christ, I suggest they start at our articles - noboby has suggested merging these. If Temptation of Christ is a problem, deal with that there. Johnbod (talk) 13:43, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was preparing an answer but the RM was closed resulting in an edit conflict. Perhaps it's just as well, it's a bit of a wall of text.
There are several books with titles such as Jesus or Christ?. I'm afraid I don't have any of them with me at this moment, but what follows is from such books.
The phrase Jesus Christ only came into use after the (reported at least, depending obviously on your beliefs on the subject) Resurrection... Jesus was never called that in his lifetime. And this was on Jesus' own instructions, for example after the Confession of Peter.
The Gospels and to some extent the Epistles describe events before the Resurrection, but were written afterwards. The pre-existence claim comes from several sources, as described in the article, and sourced there. I suspect that some of the sources are misquoted however. When in John 17 Jesus refers to the glory which I had with thee before the world was and thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world (speaking to God the Father on each occasion), does he mean himself as Jesus, or himself as the Logos, which according to John 1 was there in the beginning and became flesh, and dwelt among us?
The conventional reading is that before the Incarnation this Logos was already part of the Trinity, but not yet Jesus, and became Jesus at the Incarnation. So it makes no sense to talk of the Pre-existence of Jesus. But we have seen that some (who in my opinion should know better) do exactly that, and my opinion counts for nothing.
We need sources... but what will they tell us? Some do talk of the Pre-existence of Jesus. Most avoid this phrase, for the reasons I have given, but a very significant minority do use it. They do not include any major translation of the Bible AFAIK... some translate John 1 as before all else was Christ was (or similar), but none as before all else was, Jesus was.
I think we should follow this convention for two reasons. Firstly as I have said, Christ is by far the majority usage (see Google). Second and perhaps more important, using Jesus here is POV. There is no dispute among authorities that it's valid to call the Logos Christ in this context, but there is much controversy over whether Jesus can be used. Even if it were the majority view that it could (and it isn't, most say it can't) then we'd still want to avoid the POV term if possible, to respect the minority view. Fortunately, we don't have that tricky decision to make, the non-POV alternative is also the majority view.
Any clearer? Sorry I have not given sources, but I've tried to show why they won't help much. I will have a go when I get back to unpacking my library! Andrewa (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrewa: thanks for the update, that's well explained, and makes some sense - I'll take your word for it that the books you mention confirm this narrative. Given the common name shwon through sourcing, and the fact that actually there is some consistency in the theological/historical articles being differently named (although Temptation of Christ is possibly an outlier that should be changed to Temptation of Jesus?) I have no real issue with this close. Where I would disagree with you is in what we'd do if the sources actually predominantly said "Pre-existence of Jesus". WP:POVTITLE makes it clear that contrary to our policy for article bodies, titles are allowed to be POV if they also follow WP:COMMONNAME (and I think in borderline cases we would prefer a NPOV title). But as you say, that's not an issue here. Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clear explanation, Andrewa. While it is not presented in a form suitable for a "local naming guideline" (somewhere at WT:CHRISTIANITY), it is a fine reference for a potential future naming discussion. No such user (talk) 14:02, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that the temptation of Christ is an outlier. It is not in error, as Christ can be used at any time, but breaks the rule that such events in his earthly life are described using the name Jesus. Temptation of Christ appears as a title for many artworks, some of them quite significant, and is again a majority view. I'm not sure why, I suspect because of the influence of the artworks concerned.
I doubt we can usefully have a naming convention as such. It would go against usage in some instances, and there is no need in terms of disambiguation. I think we just have to follow usage in reliable sources, case by case. If we did have a convention, I'd suggest we use Jesus Christ in naming of articles about events after the Incarnation,and Logos before, but explicitly allow exceptions where common use can be established. It's likely that under those circumstances, the convention would have no practical effect on naming whatsoever... not even to shorten discussion. It might even complicate things and waste time, rather than simplifying things and saving time.
Use of Jesus as a name for the ascended Christ, particularly in personal devotions, is very common particularly in Protestant circles (young ladies in University prayer meetings seem to use no other name) and spreading to others, long to the despair of some Roman Catholic writers. But this is not a theological error in the same way that Pre-existence of Jesus would be. Again, I think we just need to try to determine common usage case by case. Here a convention might help if I'm right that things are changing, but my gut feeling is it would also be a net minus.
I note the naming of commons:Category:Temptation of Jesus Christ and wikiquote:Temptation of Christ, but of course as open wikis these are neither of them reliable sources. The wikiquote page name probably just follows the naming of the Wikipedia article at the time it was set up... very unreliable! (;-> But again, neither is in error in my (admittedly irrelevant) theological view.
Just BTW, I'm an elder and sometimes preach in the Uniting Church in Australia and other local Protestant denominations (out in the bush where I live the barriers tend to either be very strong or nonexistent), so while I'm not a reliable source, if any of my sermons are ever published then they would probably be reliable sources. Many churches now do regularly publish sermons online, either in audio format or text or both, I just haven't scored it yet AFAIK although I have appeared on some very restricted distribution CDs that shouldn't be counted IMO but technically might be! Scary? (;-> Andrewa (talk) 18:33, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Christ" is usually used in art history in the titles of all the standard scenes from the life of Jesus, so much more appropriate on Commons. Johnbod (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can't help wondering: What bearing could this preoccupation with Jesus's pre-Creation existence (or non-existence) possibly have on our real business—how we conduct ourselves on Earth in accordance with God's wishes? Doesn't it seem irreverently beyond our station for us to go second-guessing this sort of thing, when we could be spending the same time trying to be better, more worshipful, more humane people? Frankly, these attempts to puzzle out of every fine-grained detail of God's Plan seems more like a display of dissatisfaction with the relatively low-tier, subservient position God has, in His great Wisdom, granted us in his Divine Strata (at least until afterlife promotional opportunities begin to appear). It reminds me of how some people try to feel more significant by forming theories about celebrities. Imagining one can do such impertinent, gossipy things on a cosmic scale wouldn't look too good from Above, would it? Rather presumptuous, I'd think. Perhaps some modesty and humility would suit us more than struggling to comprehend something as infinitely mysterious as the earliest stirrings of God's intentions, and whether His Children—or whatever you'd call Jesus, technically—have been around equally long. Might we be better advised to stop, take a breath, and remember who we are? Just saying. – AndyFielding (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
.jpg)
.jpg)