Talk:Son of God/Archive 1

Archive 1

WikiProjects

This article could be a part of many more WikiProjects, like Judaism, for example. Kdpssps (talk) 23:41, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Classification errors?

It strikes me that several of the New Testament quotations in the section "New Testament Passages" are incorrectly categorized. In particular, as I understand it, Jesus *never* refers to himself as "Son of God" in the Synoptic Gospels. (He does refer to "Son of Man" in the third person, presumably referring to himself, several times.)

Several of the cited passages would better be classified together, I think, as "Others (unsuccesfully) challenge Jesus to call himself the Son of God."

   * Matthew 4:3
   * Matthew 4:6
   * Matthew 26:63-64
   * Mark 14:61-62 (equivalent expression)
   * Luke 4:3
   * Luke 4:9
   * Luke 22:70  

Jcfreed (talk) 09:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

what does the x do to the son of God every place when you put a close on it and turn off the computer.?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.103.157 (talk) 08:05, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 

Son of God usage in Judaism vs. Christianity

The phrase "son of God" or "daughter of God" is most often used in the vernacular to refer to any Jew as being one of the "chosen" people of God. As such, anybody of the faith, is a either a son or daughter of God. The Old Testament prophets such as Ezekial and Elijah refer to themselves as being "a son of God". Christians refer to Jesus as "the" son of God and not just "a" son of God because in the Christian faith he is part of a trinity of equality with God the Father and the Holy Spirit.

However, Jesus never, at any time in the bible, ever directly refers to himself as "the" son of God. The appellation Jesus uses in reference to himself is "son of Man". Christians who are aware of this fact cite his appearance before the Sanhedrin as proof that the term applies to Jesus by relating the question in the New Testament put to him by the High Priest of the Jewish Temple, Caiaphas, in which the priest is alleged to have asked him if he is "the son of God".

It should be noted, however, that it is most unlikely that Caiaphas would ever have asked Jesus that question simply because the Jews did not believe that the Messiah was "the" son of God but rather "a" son of God, the same as other Old Testament prophets who referred to themselves, as such. Consequently, if Caiaphas had asked that question in the context of the Messiah, then "the" son of God is either a mis-translation and/or a false interpretation of Jewish doctrine in the Christian New Testament. PVSalsedo71.198.211.97 11:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This article is not only about Biblical usage of "Son of God", it should cover all significant usages of the term in past and present, whether Biblical or not. In mainsteram Christian tradition Jesus is generally referred to as "the" Son of God, in accordance with the Apostolic Creed ("God's only begotten Son"). On the other hand, Christians generally call themselves "children" of God, but usually not "sons and daughters", to avoid confusion with the term reserved for Jesus only. This linguistic distinction should be clearly pointed out, even though its biblicity is controversial. (user LemonKing from Finnish Wikipedia)

This article, at least in its present form, is unquestionably biased toward Christian reading concerning this topic, particularly regarding the sentence, "However, the Messiah, the Anointed One, was uniquely called the Son of God, as in Psalm 2:7." In capitalization of the "Anointed One" as if there's only one anointed one, claiming the Messiah "was uniquely called the 'Son of God'" (again with Christian bias in capitalization), when it is a falsehood that there is only one called "son of God," are all highly biased toward Christianity. Additionally, the footnote provided with this sentence, while not particularly objectionable itself, does not in any way validate the Christological bias of this statement. This should be fixed. I will be monitoring this article while I prepare an NPOV substitute to correct this serious problem. Big Mac (talk) 14:08, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

As the first sentence in the article states, this article is primarily about "Christian theology", with some comparison with other fields. Hence it is not POV, but focused. An article on Islamic theology has to deal mostly with Islam, not Christian interpretations of Islam. Same here. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Headline text

[[^{Removed from article: In Greek Mythology you will find many Sons (and Daughters) of God, but apart from mythology it was very common to call a wise and holy person Son of God. The early Cristians named Jesus a Son of God, to say he was a wise and holy person indeed. This all within Roman Civilisation, with many many Gods around, in the Helenistic melting pot. Later, when Cristians were in power, they said Jesus is the only Son of God, so the Christians were very human indeed. any of this true? ---rmhermen}]]:Well, there were many sons and daughters of Zeus, but calling him "God" seems a confusion of the issues. As for the conclusion that Christians were very human indeed--can one person be more human than another? The last sentence seems like a candidate for the scrap heap. "Christian" does indeed have an "h" between the C and the R. And "Hellenistic" has two l's. I can't speak for the content, though. It sounds like filler for bad jokes and other deleted nonsense, though it may just need considerable expansion and citation. --Koyaanis Qatsi

The bit about Christians calling Jesus "a Son of God" because he was "a wise and holy man" is tripe. Jesus was recognized as the only Son of God by his followers (see John 3:16, Hebrews 11:17, 1 John 4:9, and 1 John 5:5 for examples), and his enemies in the Jewish power base plotted his death because Jesus claimed equality with God (see John 5:18, for example). <>< tbc

Well certaintly that was what they came to believe at some point; whether they always believed that or whether the belief was a later development is an open question, as is whether all of Jesus' followers believed that or whether it was only some group. The New Testament was written several decades after Jesus' death, and certaintly its authors did not represent the full range of thought in earliest Christianity (otherwise, why is it filled with warnings about 'false teachers'?). So exactly what the earliest followers of Jesus believed we don't know. -- Simon J Kissane

so the only candidate for restoral is "[In Greek society] it was very common to call a wise and holy person Son of God"? Hm. What was intended by this article, anyway? A historical examination of people claiming to be the Son of God? Or a partisan screed about Jesus Christ? Regardless of what was originally intended, what should it be? Has anyone other than Jesus claimed to be the son of God? --KQ

yay, another opportunity for a LIST O' LINKS - Son of God, the List! Actually, I vote that this was a partisan screed, and personally suggest a deep breath, a quick edit to remove the worst parts, remembering the idea of sonship (in which all Christians become Sons of God), and moving on to other articles. --MichaelTinkler

There are several fairly obscure references to sons of God in the Old Testament. e.g. Genesis (6:2) writes about sons of God marrying daughters of men. In the New Testament, John (1:12) says of Jesus "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name". The Lord's prayer begins with the words "Our Father", suggesting that according to Jesus we are all sons or daughters of God. In contrast, however, there are many passages where Jesus is referred to as *the* son of God, or as the *only begotten* son of God. This suggests that there are two distinct traditions being melded in the gospels, or perhaps two distinct phrases both being translated as "son of God". --Martin Gradwell.

The "Our Father" correlates with Jesus (supposedly?) saying "The Father" and not "My Father". Something like "none is greater than the father" or some such thing. I have no idea, no bible handy and not worth searching for it. JoeHenzi 07:10, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"No idea and not worth searching for" translates into "do not bother reading my commentary, since I confess not knowing the value of what I am saying." Curiouscdngeorge (talk) 02:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

No citations?

The sources used in the creation of the article should be cited in the article. - ChessPlayer 01:27, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Listings of other "Son(s) of God"

I don't know when this will be seen next, although religion is a hot topic on wikipedia.. There should be a listing for other "Sons of God". It would help with historical research as Jesus Christ isn't the only one ever believed to be the Son of God. It's pretty lame that we have only Hebrew vs New Testament stuff. Don't get me wrong, I want to add them myself, but I'm not an expert on the topic and I could only add things which I found on other sites (which don't reveal their sources). I'll come back and make a listing if I can. Problem is most Internet/Google/Yahoo! searches bring back results based on stuff which is against Jesus, something I'd like to stay away from as a "real" source. Get what I mean? If anyone can help, please do. JoeHenzi 11:50, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Other "Children of God"

I noted no reference to Sons or Children of God in the Greek tradition prior to Alexander the Great. Thus, I have inserted a reference to Plato's Apology in the the section "Son of a god in other belief systems." I am not sure this is the best place for this and my citation may need to be tidied up.The Berndogger (talk) 22:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC) The only Son of God"David Thomas Collins or who's birth rite is David Ra Serious Ennead Kriss Junior" who lives today and was born on the 22/8/67.He resides at 10/33 holland st Fremantle Western Australia.God Allmighty,Sirus Serious David Ennead Senior has taught me the battle plan's on how Man is to beat armaggedon.My Email address is drsj1033@yahoo.com.au please contact me as we wish to save a war,Mathew 24:19'22.The kat's are back,My last previous life was when I was senior Lord Richard Granthey dob 1667 were it was proved I was the son of God at the spanish inquisition.This is a genuine plea for help to our government's who wish for eternal life. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.171.197.84 (talk) 11:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

/*In the New Testament*/

Could someone please make this text a readable one? The New testament is inspirtational but difficult to understand. For someone wants to learn about the Son of God in the New Testament, the text is not very enlightening. Maybe someone should paraphrase some of the quotes into normal sentences about what the Son of God is. Thank you.

Son of God is just a human-made expression (indeed it could be found in too many languages). Therefore a reader can understand it the way he likes. And based on how the reader has decided to see its meaning (its idea), this expression could be real to him or not. So obviously, I am able to explain only what it represents to me (and not necessary to you too). To me, if a being is said to be a son of '???'... the '???' may or may not be a father/mother of that son. For example when I hear that someone is called 'son of city', 'son of evil' or even 'son of b***h', I never think that 'city' and 'evil' has to be in any way a kind of real father to this person. The same applies when I have agreed that Jesus is 'Son of God'. I am myself a 'son of being/power' beyond my humble father's/mother's body. In other words, we, Jesus as I simply speaking, both came from God (sorry Atheists) but this doesn't mean that Jesus and I we are made of the same nature, as I and my pets don't need to be of the same nature too even if we are created from the same origin. In brief, the expression 'Son of God' or 'son of God' has no real useful information in itself before knowing first what 'God' in them could mean. MKAKJBF (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

Much of the section "Son of God" in Judeo-Christian terms seems to include unattributed conclusions about how biblical phrases and translations are used or should be translated. Without attribution, it amounts to POV original research. -Rholton 13:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I cleaned up the New Testament section extensively and removed the tags. Because there was so much text I was unable to reconcile, I'm including it here in case someone else wants to try.--Ephilei 07:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The question arises as to whether the term "son of God" possesses in the New Testament the same sense found three centuries later at the time of the Nicene creed. However, the New Testament teaching that God appeared in the form of man (as Jesus) does not depend on whether "Son of God" normally has this Nicene meaning. John's Gospel explicitly says that God appeared in the form of man (Jn 1:14; cf 1:1), and Paul taught that Jesus created the world (Colossians 1:16). This eventually affected the Christian usage of the term "son of God", as Raymond Brown explains.

Some say that the Gospel of John and the First Epistle of John have given the term "son of God" a meta-physical and dogmatic significance. Many hold that the Jewish Alexandrian Logos concept has had a formative and dominant influence on the presentation of the doctrine of Jesus' sonship in the Christian writings. The Logos in Philo is designated as the "son of God"; the Logos is the first-born; God is the father of the Logos ("De Agricultura Noe," § 12; "De Profugis," § 20).

However, since in Matthew's Gospel God himself specially speaks from heaven to call Jesus his Son (Matt 3:17), and since the devil assumes that the true "son of God" can perform miracles (Matt 4:3), and since Jesus says he will judge all men (25:31), the Gospel of Matthew does not simply present Jesus as a good man. According to this theory, all the authors of the New Testament and all the first century followers of Jesus which these earliest Christian books of the New Testament represent, collectively misunderstood a basic claim of Jesus, while all who did understand happened to leave no surviving records. Many scholars find this theory historically unconvincing.

Christians believe the Resurrection of Jesus vindicates Jesus's claim to a unique relationship to the Father.

This article is superfluous and reeks of apologetics. It covers a narrow point of view that favors evangelism. My opinion is that this article should be merged with a general article on Jesus. People who want to discuss what Son of God means should do so through theology groups. Burpboohickie (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Beware of vandalism promoting the use of "Prophet of God" instead of "Son of God"

Watch out for edits promoting an Islamic agenda on this article. I found that a user with the IP address 203.99.179.49 made changes to the entire article, indiscriminately replacing all instances of "son of God" with "Prophet of God." This was clearly done in an effort to promote the Islamic view of Jesus, which is that Jesus was not the son of God, but instead just a prophet of God and only human. The same user also falsely altered an article pointing out the Christian origins of a Mosque. This was overturned, as seen here.

Lurker972 Posted a section here entitled "'B'nei' does not mean 'prophet'" regarding this issue, but I removed it as it is no longer necessary. Please watch out for other changes relating to these things.

Zefhous 22:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I deleted a relatively long section added to the beginning of the article that was obviously propagandistic.--195.236.222.1 (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Rama (in "Other Beliefs" Section)

Why is Rama listed ad half-God when Hindus believe HE is God? And in any case HE and His brothers are not "Sons of God" so I don't think that should be written here. Shruti14 12:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Augustus

Nice job, Lima.Eschoir 23:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Out-of-place changes

Some explanations too long to put in an edit summary and that seem required because of the another editor's insistence.

I have removed the very long discussion about the Aramaic expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) in the Old Testament (Dn 3:25) from the account of the Greek phrase ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ (ho huios tou theou) in New Testament professions of faith in the Greek language (Ac 8:37, 9:20; 1Jn 4:15, 5:5; Jn 20:31).

What language Jesus spoke is also unrelated.

"Jesus traditionally spoke only Aramaic, and consequently it is not known what term they used." On the contrary, it is indeed known what term "they", the writers of the cited passages, used. Those who deny that Jn and 1Jn were written by one of the Twelve Apostles will also question whether that writer spoke Aramaic, and the same holds for the writer known as Luke. "They" used the term "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ".

"Jesus quoted referring to himself, presumably in Aramaic, translated into Greek as the Son of God". Most commentators do not suppose that the writers meant to quote exact words of Jesus, rather that they expressed their understanding of him. And they understood him as ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ. Lima 11:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Astounding that you would say "What language Jesus spoke is also unrelated." After all your word parsing in Greek, I would think any neutral observer would be entitled to know it didn't apply to the quoted participants.Eschoir 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand. Who are the "quoted participants"? The Gospels that the article quotes as attributing to Jesus the declaration that he is "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ", that attribute the same statement to others and that make the same statement themselves do so in Greek. I would have thought that what they meant is what counts. I find it hard to think of you as one of those who imagine that the writers had, so to speak, a recording of Jesus' exact words and were simply translating those words from Aramaic to Greek. Surely you are not that kind of fundamentalist. Lima 19:15, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps by the puzzling phrase "quoted participants" you meant those to whom the four Gospels attribute the declaration, including, I suppose, Jesus, but perhaps excluding the demons. 1) The Gospels are only four books of the New Testament, and "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" is used repeatedly also in the other books. 2) The Aramaic language would be indeed poor if it could not express "son of God" by anything clearer than "בר־אלהין". One of the first lessons in studying Hebrew and Aramaic (after learning the alphabet) is to learn how to distinguish between "son of a king" and "son of the king". Even the long screed that you copied into the article late last night stated clearly that Aramaic can distinguish the one true God from other "gods". Yes, for understanding what the New Testament writers meant by "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" it is indeed irrelevant what language Jesus and his disciples and even the demons spoke. Lima 20:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

If Eschoir wants to tag the article with an objection to primary sources - I do not agree with his classification of such tagging as a "minor" edit - would he please indicate on Talk:

a) what part or parts of the article he is objecting to;

b) where does Wikipedia state that, "alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article". Without its context, this statement seems hard to reconcile with the fact that, for instance, for statements about what the New Testament says, the best source by far is the New Testament itself, a primary source.

c) in what way he believes the article violates the Wikipedia rule: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions". That article, which explains Wikipedia "official policy", lays down that "research that consists of collecting and organizing material from existing sources within the provisions of this and other content policies is encouraged: this is source-based research, and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia", and it envisages the use of primary, as well as secondary and tertiary sources, in the source-based research that it encourages.

The weakness of depending entirely on secondary and tertiary sources is shown up in an interesting recent International Herald Tribune article. Lima 04:44, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

==Perhaps you should go write for the IHT. a) what part or parts of the article he is objecting to;

All parts where you present an original unattributed opinion and argue using primary sources.

b) where does Wikipedia state that, "alone, primary sources and sources affiliated with the subject of this article are insufficient for an accurate encyclopedia article". Without its context, this statement seems hard to reconcile with the fact that, for instance, for statements about what the New Testament says, the best source by far is the New Testament itself, a primary source.

It states that in the flag. I know it's hard for you to reconcile, you seem incapable of 'getting' wiki editinig. You don't just quote a primary source, you gloss it and explain it yourself, on yoour own authority. In fact, it is just your opinion that "for statements about what the New Testament says, the best source by far is the New Testament itself." There follows an unwritten corrolary, "for statements about what the New Testament means, the best source by far is Lima."

c) in what way he believes the article violates the Wikipedia rule: "An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions".

Because you make analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, and evaluative claims, in your own voice, based on your biases and presuppositions.

I await a response to the above. "Alone, primary sources, as you use the Bible, are insufficient" in an edit summary is merely a repetition of the unsourced statement mentioned in b) above. Lima 04:13, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Do yoou think i made it up?????!?!!?Eschoir 02:07, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I know "it states that in the flag" that Eschoir placed in the article. But where in Wikipedia official policy does it state that? Rather, does it state that in Wikipedia official policy, which seems, in the part I cited, to contradict the idea?

Please point out the analytic, synthetic, interpretative, explanatory and evaluative claims, and I will willingly correct them. Lima 07:37, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate the positive tone. I will flag the claims with the < ! -- inseert.Eschoir 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eschoir (talk • contribs) 14:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC) Eschoir 15:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Though the claim that it requires "expert knowledge" to tell that ho huios tou theou means "the son of God" rather than "a son of God" has been inserted into the article as a comment, I presume you are not really calling on me to quote a source that says that the Greek article is usually translated into English as "the". I can do so if necessary - what about Liddell and Scott as a source? - but quoting any source for something so elementary will look quite ridiculous in a serious article. Lima 16:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

===It's not a serious article, it's wikipedia. Yoou can't do original research in wikipedia. You have not "cleared up everything written by me in which Eschoir claims to see something more than is in the source." You have cited no secondary sources that make the points you are trying to argue. And you can't do the analysis yourself, however worthy and scholarly. You are writing for a chat room or bulletin board or blog. This is not that. There are rules that say all points of view may be represented if they come from non-original sources. Yoou can't take out sourced quotes even if they are anathema to you. And you need to source your assertions, even if they regard what are to you elementary translations, because the average reader is not convnersant in Greek. It shouldn't be hard to source the points you make. Is it? Or are you just not trying, because the conclusions you make are so obvious to you:Eschoir 17:35, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

"It's not a serious article, it's wikipedia." I still think Wikipedia articles should be serious.

"You can't do original research in wikipedia." I haven't. I have only quoted sources.

"You have not 'cleared up ..." Please indicate what else there is to clear up.

"You have cited no secondary sources ..." I have done better: I have cited the New Testament itself to show what the New Testament says.

"There are rules that say all points of view may be represented ..." Go ahead and put your view in with sources and without taking out other people's.

"You can't take out sourced quotes even if ..." I haven't, even if I think that the one that declares, against (as shown in Aramaic of Jesus) the views of others, that Jesus spoke no language but Aramaic is quite irrelevant.

"You need to source your assertions ..." To give Eschoir time to cool down, I will wait until tomorrow to quote dictionaries so as to "prove" that the New Testament words "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" do mean "the son of God" and, while I am at it, perhaps do the same for other words too. No, I will instead wait for Eschoir or anybody else who reads this to assure me that he really does believe that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" does not mean "the son of God". (It would also be interesting to learn what he thinks it does mean.) If Eschoir does maintain that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means something other than "the son of God", I will no longer hesitate to insert the "proof" into the article, justifying my action by the comment that an editor has disputed it. Meanwhile, good night. (Yes, I do know that it is not yet night in Atlanta. It will be before I get up.) Lima 19:09, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

There, you demonstrateed the flaw in your whole approach, in my view, when you use the term "prove." Wiki is not a place for proving. That implies an argument, and one side prevailing. Here is the land of NPOV. Now it is possible to show through published sources that one view is a minority view. Or an overwhelmingy unanimous view. But you can't utter it on your own authoirty, no matter how obvious.Eschoir 21:49, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Eschoir says Wikipedia is not the place for "proving". He treats it instead as a place for "showing". Well then, replace "prove" above with "show". Or, if Eschoir prefers, with "demonstrate" (as in "quod erat demonstrandum"). I leave aside the implied claim that it is easier to demonstrate, apparently on the basis of a single source that says so, that something is a minority view than it is to demonstrate that the New Testament makes a particular statement. Since he has not yet declared that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means something other than "the son of God", I am postponing the showing or demonstration of what it means, since, as far as I can see, the idea that "ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" means something other than "the son of God" is not even a minority view. Lima 04:08, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

All you have to do is source it with a nice secondary or tertiary footnote, brother. Don't argue it from primary sources on your own authority please. Isn't that easier?Eschoir 05:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you insist (though I think it is silly and though I have difficulty in determining whether a dictionary definition of the meaning of a word is secondary or tertiary, rather than primary).

I await the requested indication of where Wikipedia is supposed to say that a simple direct quote from a nice primary source is unacceptable. Lima 09:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I wanted to help out and have added a reference. I see that Pastordavid has also offered up something in his response at the editor assistance page. Hope that it helps. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. That's what I'm looking for, and what I'm trying to convince Lima to use. I thought about citing pastordavid's very valuable citation, butdecided I couldn't, as it is a stranger to me. I will take out what is consensus OR in the current cite. Eschoir (talk) 05:24, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed language change

Now:

If in that language he called himself "a son of God" or "the Son of God", a description that the New Testament writers frequently apply to him, while attributing it to Jesus himself in very few instances (see "New Testament passages" below), the question of the exact form of words he would have used is a matter of hypothesis. Unless it is held that Jesus, unlike contemporary Jews, was a polytheist, the expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) is excluded by a study by Doug Kutilek that explains that that phrase means "son of the gods", not "Son of God".[6]

Pursuant to input from Lima and pastordavid, I propose the following consensus change:

A lack of definite articles in the Aramaic language, coupled with a lack of primary Aramaic primary sources about the life of Jesus, make it impossible for modern scholars to demonstrate whether contemporary Aramaic speakers called him, or he called himself, either "a son of God" or "the Son of God." < ref > Unless it is held that Jesus, unlike contemporary Jews, was a polytheist, the expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) is excluded by a study by Doug Kutilek that explains that that phrase means "son of the gods", not "Son of God". < / ref >

Or another wordier track:

Though Greek New Testament writers frequently apply the title "Son of God" to Jesus, while attributing it to Jesus himself in very few instances (see "New Testament passages" below), a lack of definite articles in the Aramaic language, coupled with a lack of primary Aramaic primary sources about the life of Jesus, make it impossible for modern scholars to demonstrate whether contemporary Aramaic speakers called him, or he called himself, either "a son of God" or "the Son of God." < ref > Unless it is held that Jesus, unlike contemporary Jews, was a polytheist, the expression "בר־אלהין" (bar-elahîn) is excluded by a study by Doug Kutilek that explains that that phrase means "son of the gods", not "Son of God". < / ref > Eschoir (talk) 16:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

This checking before changing deserves congratulations and thanks. I regret I must disavow what is attributed to me above.

To speak of a "lack of definite articles in the Aramaic languages" is not quite exact. While not using a separate word, like the English "the", Aramaic expressed the idea of the definite article by the ending of the word, as in the Scandinavian languages. I quote:

One of the peculiarities of Aramaic compared to its sister languages is that Aramaic puts the definite article ­– the word meaning “the” – at the end of a word instead of at its beginning. So if you take the word keph, meaning “rock,” and add the article ­– simply the syllable a – you get kepha, “the rock,” which also happens to be the original Aramaic name of “Peter,” the nickname of Simon Bar Jona. It shows up in English bibles as “Cephas” (e.g., I Cor. 1:12). You can also see the definite article in golgotha, “the skull,” from Aramaic gulgulta. It also appears in the name of Martha, which means “the lady,” Tabitha, “the gazelle,” and in the word talitha, “the little girl,” used by Jesus during a healing according to Mark 5:41. Lima (talk) 17:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I should not have limited myself to making a remark on just the first words of Eschoirs proposed text. More important is the suggestion that "בר־אלהין" (which, as the quoted study pointed out, means "son of (the )gods") corresponds to "ὁ υἰὸς τοῦ θεοῦ" (the son of God). There may be other difficulties also, less grave than this, but I must hurry off now. Lima (talk) 18:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Stop confusing people

We need to make a distinction among

1. Yahweh
2. A Roman god
3. A Greek god

Therefore, the divinity of Julius Caesar—when he became a Roman god 2 years after his death—was of an entirely different nature than the divinity of Jesus.--71.108.20.188 (talk) 01:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it you wish to say that, accordingly, to quote "son of (a) god" used in connection with Julius Caesar does not indicate what "Son of God" applied to Jesus means. Lima (talk) 04:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I want to apply Occam's razor to make this simple and unambiguous; there is no need to multiply the meaning of "God."--71.108.11.89 (talk) 09:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Son of God vs. Son of Man

I have read that some people believe that Enoch is the Son of Man, while at the same time Jesus is also the Son of God. It would be a good idea to mention this somewhere. [1] ADM (talk) 12:42, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

The source quoted seems to give no ground for this. I have not found in it the phrase "Son of God". Besides, saying that Enoch is the “son of man” throughout the Similitudes (i.e. in that book) is not the same as saying that "Enoch is the Son of Man" (upper-case terms). Besides, the review gives a very negative judgement on the thesis proposed by Maurice Casey. Lima (talk) 18:17, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Trinity navigation box

I am in the process of trying to create navigation templates for each of the core articles of the Christianity WikiProject. One such template has recently been created for this topic at Template:Trinity. If anyone has any suggestions for how to change the template, they are more than welcome. I personally think they would most easily be seen if added below the link to the template at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Core topics work group/Templates, and would request that the comments be made on that page below the template. Please feel free to make any comments you see fit on any of the other templates on that page as well. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:02, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Son of God in Christianity

Why is Yahweh linked in this section. Faro0485 (talk) 13:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Son of the Holy Spirit

In the early says of Christianity, there was a minority of heretical Christians who suggested that Jesus was actuallly the Son of the Holy Spirit, given that the Holy Spirit is God and that he was seemingly involved in the divine conception of Jesus through his mother Mary, the Theotokos. This view notably appears in the Nag Hammadi gnostic writings. Now, it appears that this idea was rejected early on by the Church Fathers, especially Saint Augustine, because Jesus is more commonly known as the Son of the Father. Anyways, it would be a good idea to try to retrace the origins of this somewhat heretical teaching and try to determine the influence that it might of had in early Christianity. ADM (talk) 23:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Caesarion - Augustus - Alexander the great etc

Relevant? Yes. Disputed? No.

How is for example Augustus and Alexander the great or other historical references relevant to this article if Caesarion is not? If this article is to be only about christian views, then article should be splitted for example Son of god, jesus, so in that way yes disputed.WillBildUnion (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Explain relevance. According to the article, Caesarion was named "Son of God", and then killed. Augustus was named "Son of (a) god", and ruled. And we don't have a source for the claim that he was named "son of (a) god". — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:56, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there? Where you awaken on your history classes? And the killing of Caesarion is based only on Augustus/Octavian Propaganda. There are plenty of sources and the best one are Egyptian papyrus, Dendera temple and Temple of Armant, claiming Caesarion is not only a god, but a son of god. But what do these Egyptian names of Caesarion tell you?

   * Iwapanetjer entynehem
   * Setepenptah
   * Irmaatenre
   * Sekhemankhamun

   * "Heir of the God who saves"
   * "Chosen of Ptah"
   * "Carrying out the rule of Ra" or "Sun of Righteousness"
   * "Living Image of Amun"

He was a son of god.

And to let people know, I am working on articles to make them better and with sources. You Arthur Rubin have started to terrorize my edits, stalk and harass. Could you be anymore kinder? WillBildUnion (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WillBildUnion, you need to back down until you are calm enough to assume good faith. If multiple experianced editors are taking issue with your edits, then it is a pretty good sign that your frustration is a result of your inexperiance with this site. Accusing other editors of terrorizing your edits, stalking you, and harassing you are serious charges, not something you can just throw around in a temper tantrum. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Like Augustus, Caesarion needs his own section.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? What effect has he had on history except for getting knocked out of the way so that Augustus could rule? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:12, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Sure these articles cant be written by Augustus propaganda? From Augustian point of view? There is more to support Cleopatra's plan to take over Roman Empire than Octavian having or succeeding killing of Caesarion. By the way, im reading "Res gestae divi Augusti" right now, which of course is very Augustian point of view.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:25, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

If it's just propaganda, why didn't they make Caesarion out to be a bad guy, and why are the sources pretty open that Augustus had Caesarion killed for petty political reasons? That's a pretty good indication that it's not just propaganda. And what effect did Caesarion have on history? Not "well, he could have had this effect," but what did he actually do except die? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

His death is not supported by historians and is thought to be propaganda of Augustus.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Caesarion needs an own section. However, the article(s), of the person is under a work on process as well as the donations (expanding and sourcing), which will be redone. In the meantime, section for the subject is not relevant, as the content of the section will be dictated by the articles under redoing.WillBildUnion (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't seen any evidence that Caesarion was specifically referred to as either "son of god" or "king of kings". You have him as the heir and appointee of gods, but that's all. As for his death, I know of no evidence that his "death is not supported by historians". Paul B (talk) 22:32, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing tags at head of article

I came across this article in my travels, and noticed the 4 huge tags at the top. Gee, this must be an awful article, I thought - look at the list of things wrong with it...

So I read it, and, I have to say, I have no idea why those tags are there.

Oh, there'll be an explanation for the tags on the talkpage - I thought. Sadly, no, though it's hard to understand how it could be tagged so prominently without such an explanation. There's a small discussion in the preceding section, but it doesn't seem in any way to warrant this garish display of tags - other than that, I see no discussion for 10 months.

Anyway - I'm being bold and removing the tags so that other users don't experience the same confusion I did. If anyone wants to explain why I'm wrong, and revert me, please do - I'd love to see the reason this deserves 4 great big tags plastered across the top.

These are the reasons for removing the tags:

• The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.
  

The article contains references to: Christian, Islam, Baha'i, Greek, Roman, Persian, Rastafari, Egyptian and more.
Feel free to add more sourced viewpoints, but the tag hardly seemed appropriate given the wide coverage.

• The examples and perspective in this article or section might have an extensive bias or disproportional coverage towards one or more specific regions.
  

Redundant tag - seems to say largely the same as above - removed for same reason.

• This article lacks historical information on the subject.
  

There are over 20 references in the refs section to historical work, links to, and discussion of, half a dozen historical texts of different religions, a section on Ancient Rome, Greece, Baha'i, etc, etc...

• This article lacks historical information on the subject. Specifically: the article is written too much from a one point of view
  

I'm not listing it all again - see above.

I'm genuinely sorry if I'm missing the obvious - and if that is the case, as I said, please explain and revert me.

 -  Begoon (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Quality, focus & refs

I only looked on here recently, and must say that quality is inconsistent at best and pretty low in many cases. Some problems:

• The section on "other belief systems" has no references except one website, and is just sitting there. The Baha'i section is just a general discussion of their belief system without a single reference to "son of God". I think it would just be enough to say they do not believe Jesus to be the Son of God, that is all - the rest is not about Son of God.

• The Islam section also just needs to say they do not believe it, but sentences such as "According to The Qur'an, Jesus was neither killed nor crucified." have nothing to do with Son of God. And the section has almost no references.

• The New Testament passages section is in a long list form and full of external links. No need to make it harder to read that way. And that section should "discuss the concept" not just be a list. And the general approach in Wikipedia now is to use Wikisource - I have a program that just converts the links to Wikisource and can just do that.

• The long and almost never ending list of specific passages in the New testament groups them according to Greek usage, separating θεοῦ υἱὸς from υἱὸς θεοῦ from ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ , etc. There are zero references for this categorization. They can not stay as such with no references, and they say very little to the average reader anyway. Unless refs are added, the grouping needs to be abandoned.

• Some other sections are totally "reference free", e.g. Jesus as divine, Jesus as godly, Singular "son of God", Plural "sons of God", etc. Primaries do not really count as references, but make it look like there are refs.

• Many other references are not WP:RS by any measure, e.g. a "Inscription on Porta Tiburtina" in Rome. Please, give us a break. These are joke references that need to be cleaned up. Many of the things that look like references just point to some less than WP:RS websites and need to be cleaned up or deleted.

• And some key issues have not even been discussed in enough detail. The concept of Son of God in Christianity is inherently related to the Trinity but that term only happens once in passing within the Christian section.

• The term "Christology" never appears within the article, although Son of God is an important aspect of Christology. It is time for serious improvements here.

Given that this article gets viewed several hundred times a day, I think it is not good to have it in this type of state. It is time for clean up. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Bahai text

I do not really know the Baha'i story in detail, so I have not reverted this edit. But we need an explanation why this text is incorrect, given that it comes from WP:RS sources:

`Abdu'l-Bahá considered it blasphemous to call Jesus "Son of God" and in general the Bahá'í consider Jesus one of 9 manifestations with no unique role as the "Son of God".

• 'The Baha'i faith: its history and teachings by William McElwee Miller 1974 ISBN 0878081372 page 226

• World Religions Through a Christian Worldview by Pat Zukeran 2008 ISBN 160647068X page 62

Now, how do we establish exactly how the Baha'i view Son of God? Do they believe that Jesus was "Son of God"? Do they believe he had Virgin Birth, etc. as in Christianity? That long quote does not help, the situation is unclear as is. Please clarify if that edit is to remain. And we need more references, you not just remove existing references saying they are wrong. The refs said that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:15, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Those two texts are not reliable sources. The first is an anti-Baha'i polemic which has been discounted, and the second is the view of a Christian apologetic. Both do not reliably portray Baha'i beliefs. The Guardian of the Baha'i Faith Shoghi Effendi, who was the appointed interpreter of the founder's texts wrote "It is true that Jesus refers to Himself as the Son of God, but this, as explained by Bahá'u'lláh in the Íqán, does not indicate any physical relationship whatever. Its meaning is entirely spiritual and points to the close relationship existing between Him and the Almighty God." Also see this article with what is a secondary source discussing the Baha'i belief on Jesus' station including the title Son of God. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I looked at that article, and it makes the situation very clear: "The Bahai position on Son of God is less than clear and subject to interpretation by various Bahai scholars." And interpreting it requires knowledge of various other items in that religion. The article specifically says: "Bahá'í writings say nothing about the title 'Son of God (or 'only begotten Son of God)" but that much can be said about it. So is that right? So I think something like that needs to be mentioned. My feeling is that unlike the Gospels that come out and say "Son of God" right and left, the issue in Bahá'í is far less than clear, and based on later interpretations. So I think you guys who seem to know more about that topic should fashion some statement like that, because the current text makes it look like the belief was as strong as in Christianity, and it certainly is not. A good indicator for that is that the term Son of God does not appear even once in the page Bahá'í Faith - I was trying to see what that article says about it. It says nothing. While that title is central to the Gospels and Christian articles. So there is a big difference there. It is not in any way central to Bahá'í teachings. History2007 (talk) 14:41, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the term Son of God is not central at all to the Baha'i Faith. I'll rewrite the section later tonight when I have some more time to research the topic in greater detail. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:13, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Ok, that would be better than my trying to fix it by guesswork. And the current long quote here is about 'Son of man' which is a different item - although related. So if you are to include a direct quote please make it about Son of God, not Son of man. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Pretty nice fix Jeff.... and boy are you up late. Now, the only change I would suggest is to have a link to station of manifestation to somewhere in the Bahai article because that will not be clear to most readers, then it will be a good description overall. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully the extra link I provided is what you mean. Otherwise, I'm not sure I understand the link you are referring to. Regards (PS. It's not really that late in the East Coast in Canada. -- Jeff3000 (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good link. And sorry, when you said tonight I thought you were in the UK. Anyway, good fix, wherever the internet works. History2007 (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

John 5:23 and 5:26

Based on the question about these, I looked up other refs to be sure the statements were supported. The Wiersbe Bible Commentary (I added the ref) specifically says that he: "claimed equality in another area, namely, equal honor with the Father (John 5:23)" But I still reworded it so it sounded less dramatic than before because other sources were not as emphatic in that type of wording. The same with 5:26. History2007 (talk) 14:17, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

While not directly relevant to your point in this thread, it's surely worth mentioning that when Psalm 2 talks about the "son of God" it's talking about the king of Judah, not some supernatural being.

Good point. Found a RS ref for it and added it. History2007 (talk) 10:43, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

See p.79 of Among the host of Heaven: the Syro-Palestinian pantheon as bureaucracy; maybe even better is the note to Ps.2:7 in Apologetics Study Bible (pg.790). PiCo (talk) 01:14, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually I think Esoglou was editing those paragraphs a short while ago and he probably knows more about Psalm 2 than myslef, so I think the two of you guys need to figure it out. History2007 (talk) 08:25, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

What is there to figure out? Have we some disagreement? Esoglou (talk) 10:57, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I was just suggesting some useful sources.PiCo (talk) 11:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Moved here from God the Son

Small part of duplicate unsourced material moved from the wrong article here:

According to the Jewish religious tradition, Judaism does not consider the Hebrew Bible to be prophetic of Jesus becoming the Son of God:

• Psalm 2:4–11. "He Who sits in heaven will laugh, the Lord will mock them. Then He will speak to them in His anger, and in His wrath He will terrify them: "I Myself have anointed My king, over Zion, My holy mountain! " I am obliged to proclaim that HASHEM said to me, "You are My son, I have begotten you this day. Ask of Me and I will make nations your inheritance, and the ends of the world your possession. You will smash them with an iron rod ; you will shatter them like a potter's vessel. " And now , O kings, be wise; be disciplined, O judges of the earth. Serve HASHEM with awe that you may rejoice when there is trembling." The psalm is about King David encountering the Philistines. David is called the begotten son of HASHEM.

The expression "God the Son" is not used in the Hebrew Bible. However, it has the following references to "sons of God":

• Genesis 6:1–4. "And it came to pass when Man began to increase upon the face of the ground and daughters of man were born to them, the sons of the rulers saw that the daughters of man were good and they took themselves wives from whomever they chose. And HASHEM said, "My spirit shall not contend evermore concerning Man since he is but flesh; his days shall be a hundred and twenty years " The Nephilim were on earth in those days - and also afterward when the sons of the rulers would consort with the daughters of man, who would bear to them. They were the mighty who, from old, were men of devastation."

• Psalm 82:6. "A psalm of Asaph: God stands in the Divine assembly, in the midst of judges shall He judge. Until when will you judge lawlessly and favor the presence of the wicked, Selah? Dispense justice for the needy and the orphan; vindicate the poor and impoverished. Rescue the needy and destitute, and deliver them from the hand of the wicked. They do nor know nor do they understand, they walk in darkness; all the foundations of the earth collapse. I said, "You are angelic, sons of the Most High are you all. Arise, O God, judge the earth, for You shall seek Your inheritance among all the nations."

• Hosea 2:1. "Yet the number of the Children of Israel will be like the sand of the sea, which can neither be measured nor counted; and it will happen that in the place [of their exile] where it was said to them, 'You are My people', it will be said to them, 'Children of the living God'.".

• Job 1:6; 2:1. "It happened one day: The angels came to stand before HASHEM, and the Satan too, came among them" (in 1:6; 2:1).
  • Job 38:7. "When the morning stars sang in unison and all the heavenly beings shouted, (...)"

In the post-biblical literature, however, the Biblical title Son of God is used in several ways only some of which refer to the Jewish Messiah. According to Judaism, it is falsely applied to Jesus.

FINISH {This is only a third of it)In ictu oculi (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Right, the God the Son article was/is in need of help anyway. I had been trying very, very hard not to work on that! But I just cleaned up format there, and there are still problems there, as you know. However, this pile of text above is "best forgotten" in my view, for it adds nothing to any of the articles I think. This article here seems stable after edits by a few editors, so can we leave it as is for now, until there is another end of the world prediction in October 2011? Then, we may not even have to work on it... History2007 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

Hear, hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.244.193 (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2012 (UTC)