Talk:God in Christianity

Problems with having God's true name on the page

Im a Christian, but his true name needs to be removed because Christians and Jews can find it offensive and don't want to see it. Gary "Roach" Sanderson (talk) 02:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

see WP:NOTCENSORED; we likewise do not avoid pictures of Mohammed. Jytdog (talk) 03:10, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

What Jytdog said. WP is by design full of many sorts of possible-to-see-as-objectionable things, see Wikipedia:Content disclaimer. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:00, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Lede change

Recently the lede changed from "God in Christianity", the article's title to "In Christianity, God". MOS:BOLDTITLE requests that we "include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English", which it can be. I request restoring the article title. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I believe the revision is grammatically better as it is Mediatech492 (talk) 17:33, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, you stated that in your edits, but it's not stylistically correct. Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Proper grammar is not "stylistically correct"? Really? Seriously? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediatech492 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

There's nothing grammatically incorrect about the way it was before Editor2020' preferential "grammar" was applied. That editor never claimed it to be a grammatical change. Rather, "altered title term to be only 'God', more accurate". @StAnselm: You made the change the first time on 2016-09-21 at 02:33:49Z and referenced WP:TITLEABSENTBOLD. @Editor2020: restored the previous format on 2016-09-21 at 02:33:49Z. The topic of the article is not only God, it is about the concept of God in Christianity. I'd reference God in Judaism, which prior to this edit less than six months ago was in the title's form. God in Islam has to somehow incorporate the word "theology", and since you shouldn't bold a link, has not had it linked. There is no God in Buddhism article, but that term redirects to Creator in Buddhism and starts with a negation of the thought. God in Hinduism starts with, "the concept of", and then launches into the article's title. Shall I run through additional religions? Since the title can easily be accommodated, and is grammatically correct that way, we would need a compelling reason to move away from the BOLDTITLE MoS. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:40, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

How should the top line be bolded?

Me and Walter Görlitz have reverted each other multiple times over the title term. The reverts with edit summaries are here, here and here. Before we start a serious edit war, let's take the discussion over here. Relevant policy can be read at MOS:CONTEXTLINK. The debate is basically over the following:

1. God in Christianity is...
2. In Christianity, God is...

I, of course, stand with my own proposal that is #2. The topic of the article is something that is both scholarly and popularly referred to as "God", in the context of Christianity. The context should be stated separate to the topic itself. Compare the titling of neighboring articles God in Islam and God in Judaism which all speaks about "God" in a format of "In Bar, Foo is..." since the articles are about Foo the context of Bar. I believe this speaks for itself. Thankful for cooperation, thankful for Wikipedia, Gaioa (click to talk) 11:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

• Proposal No. 1 agrees with MOS:BOLDTITLE where it requests that editors "include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English", which it can be. It's not problematic to have it that way. Walter Görlitz (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Father section: advocacy for the removal of the statement that Yahweh was equated with Christ in the emergence of trinitarianism

Less political and thus less controversial sources should be used to support an assertion of a core early theological concept in an article on a large religion

1. The sources used risk violating NPOV, as they are explicitly ecumenical.

See the ecumenical bias controversy here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecumenism#Opposition_from_some_Orthodox_Christians

Content in regard to core early Christian theology should be able to be supported from less controversial non-ecumenical sources.

This is especially pertinent since much of the ecumenism controversy stems from anti-ecumenical arguments from one of the earliest Christian denominations (Orthodox Christians), which observably tends to put more emphasis on the writing of early Christian Patriarchs than do most other denominations.

See the Amazon book description of one of the cited sources:

"The editorial perspective of the Global Dictionary of Theology is an ecumenical evangelicalism that is receptive to discovering new facets of truth through listening and conversation on a global scale".

The bolded statement is code for new research. It at least sheds enough doubt on the appropriateness of the sources used in supporting a theological statement in regard to early Christian theology in Wikipedia. Surely, if the theological statement in question is true, then it can be supported with better / less controversial sources.

To state that it cannot, in my opinion, would be prima facie evidence toward a willingness to facilitate the presentation of information that violates NPOV.

Remember that the theological statement in question is in regard to early Christianity. It is not a statement made in regard to newer denominations or theologies.

To illustrate a parallel editing standard: one would not be able to successfully justify using an explicitly ecumenically minded Judaic secondary source, to assert law or theology, in an article on the advent of Orthodox Jewish theological thought. At least without a section challenging or noting any controversy. I would challenge whether such a citation would survive at all.

(See further below for my arguments in regard to the theology-in-question's absence in both Orthodox and Roman Catholicism).

So, why would we assume that such a controversial and explicitly goal oriented sources do not similarly risk violating NPOV here and across the other related articles where the statement in-question is presented? This statement is repeated across several articles.

The primary source writings, or an early witness to the thoughts of these early patriarchs, who were specifically involved in the development of the Trinitarian theology for the early Church, would provide the basis for any secondary source assertion that Yahweh was equated with Christ in the early justification for the formation of the trinitarian theology.

Quoting such a primary source, as the pertinent editor does with the Matthew 11:27 scripture to support his other "key idea" assertion in regard to the trinity's foundation (presented in the very same sentence as the theology in-question), would go far to negate any POV taint from the ecumenical sources cited.

The truth is that it won't be found because it doesn't exist. But prove me wrong. Be consistent with the writing style used for the second "key idea", and use it for the first as well. Allow the research in the controversial secondary source to be critiqued for POV and/or original research.

Or don't, and allow an ahistorical statement to stand in Wikipedia, in regard to early Christian theology, using controversial sources and without the context of a reinforcing citation.

Do we have any Orthodox Christian (or otherwise early Church) secondary sources that could better substantiate that trinitarianism arose from the belief that Christ was equated with Yahweh?

Roman and Orthodox theologies do not currently include explicit Christ = Yahweh theology

2. Both Roman and Orthodox Catholicism are the oldest surviving large Christian denominations, and can be said to be the representatives of the Church from the time that the Trinitarian doctrine was introduced.

There is no present Orthodox nor Roman Catholic mainstream theology that equates Christ with Yahweh. It doesn't exist. Cite it if you have it.

It will serve to be a much better source than those that currently exist. The source should have Church approval.

This theology was not later changed. If so, provide a citation in regard to the change. The fact is that it never existed. It would be a widely acknowledged and repeated theology if true, due to how central it would be to Catholicism. This theology is not biblical, nor is it in any liturgy nor catechism.

Though, this argument also stands alone and early "Yahweh is Christ" justification statement for early trinitarian formation would have to be proven independently.

The statement that Christ is equated with Yahweh is, however, found throughout later-developed protestant theologies. Mormonism being one theology that holds it to be true. This theology is expressly taught to every Mormon child and convert. In contrast, it is not taught to Catholics because it is not a founding theology of Catholic trinitarianism.

This protestant theological development presents a risk of theological drift, which is dangerous when a later theology is presented as a historical fact of an earlier theology.

Wikipedia needs to strictly guard against this if it wishes to stay a reliable source of information, which is another reason why the current ecumenical sources are not reliable nor appropriate. There will always be religious motivation for altering the historical record, and Wikipedia will be a target for that action. Better sources are required to guard against altering historical reality via the information that Wikipedia presents.

Assumptions in regard to

Assumptions about text meaning are not a valid process.

3. The term "Yahweh" is not used in the printed Septuagint nor the Vulgate, nor is it in an early New Testament.

To make an educated guess that the translators meant to write the tetragrammaton but did not is original research. Thus, it cannot be assumed that any translation of these texts, nor reference to them, means to imply a word or one of its variants that is not there.

I believe that this type of assumption, on the part of editors, may cause them to give credence to low quality sources.

No one knows the actual reason why "Yahweh", nor one of its variants, is not translated into Greek or Latin early texts and instead why more general terminology is used instead.

Any assumption is not valid, absent a credible citation that isn't referencing another person with a guess (it doesn't exist). Thus, any reference to "Lord", "God", or "Father" in the New Testament, or by Christian Patriarchs, cannot be assumed to refer to the term "Yahweh" that isn't used in their Old Testament texts.

This is why explicit and Church-endorsed theological assertions are important in cutting through the theological noise. These should be the sources used.

Christianity and Judaism are different religions, with differing mythologies and differing theological concepts. To assume any syncretism when differing terminology is used is an academically faulty methodology.

When assumptions are made in regard to cross-text parallel meaning, they may be faulty

4 "Yahweh" is, by far, the least used name for God in the Tanakh. . (see below for a link to the article in full).

https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/epn_6_wenham.html

Combining this fact with what we know of the early Israelites from an anthropological sense, it cannot be assumed that the various terms used for "God" in the Tanakh all refer to the same God.

That doesn't imply that different names necessarily refer to different gods, but neither can it be assumed that differing names for god across a religious document that invokes a long heritage of ancient mythology is all referring to the same god. "El" and "Elohim" (plural) were the salutary and/or generalized names for Canaanite deities, and it is now held that Israel and Canaan were continuous in history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_ancient_Israel_and_Judah#Late_Bronze_Age_background_(1600%E2%80%931200_BCE)

It is also thought that Yahweh may have been representative one of the gods in the Canaanite pantheon, which would make sense form the standpoint of tribal competition. http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Yam_(god)#Connections_between_Yam_and_YHWH

Thus, even if one wishes to take a leap of original research and assume that the terminolgy used in early Christian old testament texts sometimes refers to "Yahweh", you wouldn't be able to assume that the early Christian Patriarch use of the term "Lord", "Father", etc refers to Yahweh specifically.

It could refer to "El", and except by later Jewish theological assertion as Yahweh gained prominence, this doesn't necessarily mean that El, Elohim, and Yahweh were the same god at any one point in the Tanakh as it was originally written and intended.

This illustrates the fault in assuming personal references when the terminology doesn't comport across books.

Of course, this is ignoring the lack of solid evidence in the first place for Yahweh being equated to Christ by the early Church Fathers or any other non-controversial trinitarian theology development source that one could reference.

Advocacy to remove the statement Christ was equated to Yahweh for early Trinitarian theological development, unless a much better source can be found

I have a feeling that this article will be left as it is. However, absent better support for the theological assertion in question, it will represent a distortion of both Christian theological development.

Milner33 (talk) 19:41, 27 May 2018 (UTC)