Talk:Son of God (Christianity)
 | This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Text has been copied to or from this article; see the list below. The source pages now serve to provide attribution for the content in the destination pages and must not be deleted as long as the copies exist. For attribution and to access older versions of the copied text, please see the history links below.
|
Dead Sea Scrolls
editHi @Jonney2000: Would you please explain your removal of the Dead Sea Scrolls section to the Son of God article? That's OT, not uniquely Jewish (like, say, the Talmud or Gabriel's Revelation). The Judaism section there has the link to the OT section here. Thanks. Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 19:18, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- Those Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish writing and not OT. Many Dead Sea Scrolls are not OT. Jonney2000 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- (refactored your sig up to the last line; hope you don't mind) Okay, that makes sense. But when you copied them over, the paragraph on DSC Deuteronomy got lost. I'm going to restore it to both articles, since it fits both "Old Testament usage" and "Dead Sea Scrolls". Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} | talk | contribs) 07:07, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
- Those Dead Sea Scrolls are Jewish writing and not OT. Many Dead Sea Scrolls are not OT. Jonney2000 (talk) 20:20, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
- I moved Deuteronomy to sons of god where it fit better. Jonney2000 (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Nontrinitarian Christian beliefs
editNontrinitarian Christians refer to Jesus as the son of god, but this contradicts the lead of this article which suggests that "son of god" refers to the trinity. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
- I took the mention of the trinity out of the lead. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Would be good to add original Greek terms
editThis article does not contain any original Greek terms (or Latin ones, or any other original languages of the text); they are also not present in Son of God. Would be good to add them. Υφ22 (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
Neutrality of Synoptic Gospels section
editThe second paragraph of this section is not written in a neutral point of view. The paragraph says Jesus "presented himself" as X, or that Jesus "made himself out to be" Y, or "Jesus claimed [z]". It is well-established that we have no first-person writings attributed to Jesus, and the above claims are based on passages in books from the New Testament (and the editor does not use correct Wikipedia style for attribution). This paragraph needs to be reviewed to confirm whether the statements made in it are actually from the source given at the end of the last sentence of the paragraph, and if so, need to be edited to say "According to [source], Jesus" etc. 165.85.46.132 (talk) 21:52, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
On second look, I saw that the "source" cited at the end of the paragraph was: For this subsection and the themes treated hereinafter, compare Gerald O'Collins, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford:Oxford University Press (2009), pp. 130–140; cf. also J. D. G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, Edinburgh: T&T Clark (1998), pp. 224ff.; id., Christology in the Making, London: SCM Press (1989), passim; G.D. Fee, Pauline Christology: An Exegetical-Theological Study, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson (2007), pp. 508–557; A.C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eedermans (2000), pp. 631–638. So at best it is an explicit admission that the paragraph is synthesis, and taken together with the unencyclopedic tone of the paragraph, the best course of action seemed to be a deletion of the entire paragraph. 165.85.46.132 (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2024 (UTC)