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.
It is a clear error to believe that Stoicism and Epicureanism were Platonic philosophies. There are, as far as I know, no historical connections: Plato's heritage was preserved by the Middle Academy, which is a quite different school. Especially Epicureanism rests on a drastically different metaphysical basis: its atomistic materialism is the very antithesis of the Platonic Theory of Forms. Therefore, I've removed all references to these two doctrines. If someone wants to include them again, fine by me, but don't mention Plato in that context. Especially Stoicism should deserve a mention, since it does include a theory of the logos as world-reason which has some similarities to the Christian one. David ekstrand 22:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This page and Pre-existence of Christ should be merged. There is relatively little duplicate material, but the subjects are better treated together. at the moment there are no links between them, which should be sorted if they are not merged. Johnbod (talk) 20:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Hi there Johnbod. Can you please explain why you think "the subjects are better treated together"? For example give an example of a theological textbook which demonstrates the point. If you look at McCready he only allocates part of ch.5 to Logos. In fact, looking at McCready's contents page, if anything a merger would be the other way round: as Pre-existence of Christ is the umbrella subject then Logos (Christianity), John 1:1, kenosis (i.e. Phil 2:7), and incarnation, etc. etc. should all be merged as sections of the umbrella topic. However your observation that "There is relatively little duplicate material" perhaps shows that these are not the same subject. The topic of Logos (Christianity) is more than just Pre-existence of Christ and Pre-existence of Christ is more than just Logos (Christianity). So if you want to make links between them, by all means go ahead. Note that the Logos (Christianity) article currently does not link to kenosis or incarnation either. Nor does it mention Logos in Luke 1:2 or 1 John 1:1 (which I have just fixed). Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 21:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
No, to my mind that there is relatively little duplicate material just shows that neither article treats its subject that well - the complete absence of links connecting them is a giveaway here. They would be better together. There are countless books with different ways of organizing this material; let's see what others think. Johnbod (talk) 22:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
Weak Support Support merge, but uncertain as to which way the merge should occur. This article is actually a (somewhat dubious) WP:CFORK of Logos, and given John 1:1 as well, we probably have too many articles on "Logos," and could do with a good article on the 2nd Person of the Trinity. -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
Reject merge. Logos is only a WP:CFORK of Preexistence to the same extent that Mammon is a WP:CFORK of money. Logos is a subset of pre-existence verses (not that every Wikipedia article has to be loaded with Bible verses). As it stands "the giveaway" is right, Pre-existence of Christ deliberately doesn't go into detail, deliberately doesn't cite Bible verses, it just says what the 3 views are - Trinitarian, Arian and Unitarian, and gives academic refs and wikilinks for users to follow. If someone wants to go linking John 1:1, be my guest. Also Logos (Christianity) isn't that complete - I justed added Augustine on Ps.33:6, which is a bit obvious - so plenty more work to do on Logos (Christianity). Best regards. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
I must say I am extremely puzzled by these objections. For a start it is not true at all that "If you look at McCready he only allocates part of ch.5 to Logos". If you look at his index, it says: "Logos, see Word of God", and "Word of God" has a string of multi-page paasages throughout the book, and rightly so. That In ictu seems to think the absence of any link from Pre-existence of Christ to Logos (Christianity) the correct state of affairs is just bizarre. The vast majority of Christians through history (who have troubled themselves at all about these abstruse points) have regarded the Logos/Word of God as the appropriate term for the pre-incarnate Christ. This basic point is clearly stated in neither of these articles! In ictu says "Pre-existence of Christ deliberately doesn't go into detail" - well it should. Instead the article barely gets beyond a dicdef, and will make infinitely more sense rolled up into a section here, though some expansion is still desirable. As it is both articles badly let down readers who don't already know all about the subject. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I must agree. Unless you simply assert the bare fact of the Pre-existence of Christ (which the article currently does, concentrating heavily on groups which deny the doctrine), you have to explain what Christians mean by the Pre-existence of Christ, and that requires an answer of the form "Christians believe that Christ pre-existed as the Logos" -- and thus at least a cross-link, and preferably an article merge. -- Radagast3 (talk) 12:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
So many words in this merge discussion so far (pun intended). Let us wait for further opinions, then discuss more. History2007 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Could you please explain why you oppose the merge? -- Radagast3 (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
I am busy with a few things today, but will do in a few days. By then mor eopinions may have arrived. History2007 (talk) 13:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
Radagast, briefly, mathematician to mathematician, the issue is that there are 3 separate elements here, one is a definition, the other two are axioms: 1. Logos is a definition of set of 5 characters, and that article does a semi-reasonable job of discussing how that sequence of characters came about etc. It is ok, not great, let it be, or improve it later. 2. Logos (Christianity) is about an equality assertion stating that Logos and Christ are equal. This equality assertion involves no concept of time. 3. Pre-existence of Christ is a separate assertion, that refers to time, and indeed one may say spacetime. In fact, the nice diagram that you added to that page (and was removed by In ictu oculi via a kneejerk revert that is being dealt with elsewhere) clearly illustrated that issue. Hence 3 separate elements need separate treatments. Better treatments for sure, yet separate treatments. History2007 (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I still think it should be merged somewhere, but God the Son, which I had originally overlooked, might be the better target. That, like this Logos article, is over-weighted with Biblical passages and not that much else. Johnbod (talk) 11:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Actually John I think the Pre-existence of Christ as a term and concept is clearly a "stand alone item" and really deserves more than a redirect to anywhere else. E.g. here and here too the term is used on its own, separate from discussions of God the Son. So it really needs a page by itself, because it is an assertion by itself. And that is the beauty of hypertext - it all links. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well none of it did link at all, which is starting to be sorted now, but I still would prefer to see more integration. None of the articles is that long. Johnbod (talk) 12:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Well, long live the link. Let us all add links instead of typing here. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Oppose merge. The Logos christology is not limited to the pre-existence of the Son of God: it is a philosophical doctrine that has generally to do with the conception of the status of Jesus between the uncreated God and the created cosmos according to the ontology of middle-platonism. Needless to say that the article, as it apperars now, is extremely poor. It doesn't even discuss the basic features of the Logos christology. Many things have to be explained as regards to how this doctrine was introduced by Justin the Martyr (according to the pattern set by Philo of Alexandria), how it was developed by Theophilus of Antiohia, Origen and Arius, and how it was abandoned by the supporters of the Nicean christology and the Trinitarians. It was the orthodox christology of 150-350 C.E. and afterwards it was rejected and considered heretical.--Vassilis78 (talk) 20:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
The concept of the Logos is embraced by most mainstream Christian groups today, so I'm not sure who "declared it heretical." -- Radagast3 (talk) 00:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The article God the Son, again I think not initially linked to from Pre-existence of Christ, can also be brought in here, and might be a better merge target. That is a rather more comprehensive treatment. Heaven only knows what other unintegrated articles on the topic may be out there. Johnbod (talk) 07:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Dear Radagast, the mainstream Christian denominations may use the title Logos or Word because it is found in the Bible. Yet they do not embrace what is technically called "Logos Christology", that is, the mainstream Christology of 150-350. The Logos Christology says that Logos is lesser to God as regards the divine essence and Logos acts in subordination to God as His functional tool for the accomplisment of His Will. Accoding to Justin, Theophilus of Antiohia, Tertullian, Arius and others, Logos as a person was not co-eternal to God, but he was brought into existence when God decided to create the universe. So, there are very specific and clear reasons why the Logos Christology was abandoned and considered heretical when, at the late 4th century, the Trinitarian theology was formulated.--Vassilis78 (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
That may be the case, and something on it should be added - why don't you do it - but it is a somewhat separate subject from the continuing tradition/interpretation of the Christian Logos after the issue had been sorted out. Johnbod (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
I will add starting from today.--Vassilis78 (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
If that is true, that would mean there are different meanings of "Logos Christology." However, I am certainly surprised at the attribution of those beliefs to Justin and Tertullian (who coined the term "Trinity"). Not so surprised at their attribution to Arius. -- Radagast3 (talk) 10:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
Subordinationism is relevant here, and probably adequate as the main article on the subject; I'm not an expert. Whether additional material should go here or God the Son I'm not sure. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Need for pictures and diagrams, and duplication thereof?
By the by, the jpgs, the second of which (see above - the nice diagram which came midway among the 27 edits by Radagast3 in Pre-existence of Christ, and which my knee is to blame for reverting) is original artwork by Wikipedia user Alistair Haynes found on God the Son. Unfortunately my knee found that perfectly appropriate on God the Son, but did not consider that it needed to be duplicated on an overview of the various views subject - unless there were 4 similar diagrams for the 4 other opinions on wikimedia commons. In which case my knee would concede that there is some balance involved. I think the John 1:1 jpg would look good in John 1:1 or Logos (Christianity). But, note, John 1:1 it is not the only pre-existence verse in the NT, and some who believe in pre-existence don't use John 1:1 to prove it, and vice-versa.
It seems to me weird that no one has ever mentioned that "logos" main meaning in ancient Greek is "cause", not "word". "Word" is secondary meaning. It is also used with this meaning today (I am Greek). It also seems to me that in certain sentences it matches better but this just an opinion of mine. It could be mentioned, I guess. Anyway, I dont intend to start talk wars here, it is just my 2 cents. Alexopth1512 (talk) 23:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Tense - Past and more past - confusion or purposeful, correct or explain?
"Word and related terms in earlier Jewish tradition prepared the way for its use here to denote Jesus as revealer of the unseen God (see Wisdom 9:1-4, 9, 17-18; Ecclesiasticus 24:1-12). The Jewish-Alexandrian theologian and philosopher Philo wrote extensively about the Logos in ways that are reminiscent of New Testament theology."
It seems that the Jewish-Alexandrian theologian and philosopher Philo wrote around the time of the birth of Jesus. The New Testament followed the birth of Jesus. Hence, Philo's writings cannot be reminiscent of something that occured later (The New Testament). However, parts of Philo's writing can remind the reader of parts of the New Testament - the reader, today, coming after both Philo and Jesus. --Blumrosen (talk) 05:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC) Updated --Blumrosen (talk) 03:37, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Right, as in edit summaries, cleaned up. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 13:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
Why does the section Logos as Word, Wisdom, Old Testament Revelation exist? Logos means "word", with a secondary colour of "reason" – not "wisdom" which is an entirely different thing and which translates "sofia". The only source for the initial paragraph of that section uses a sourced citation as a "source", but that citation mentions logos, not sofia. I believe the section is some editors confused own synthesis/personal essay, and should simply be removed and preferrably eternally forgotten. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 19:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
Who are these unknown individuals that are cited by name in the body of the article?
Again, and Again, you find articles of this relevance being written around the writings of unknowns. For an article on someone of the relevance (historical, cultural, spiritual) of Jesus, do make use of AAA cites. i.e Agustine of Hippona, Theresa of Jesus, Thomas Aquinas, or other Patristic era theologians.
names as N.T. Wright, Stephen L. Harris and others DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH HISTORICAL, SOCIAL OR CULTURAL TRANSCENDENCE SO AS TO BE MENTIONED BY NAME IN THIS ARTICLE.
I know WP policies allow for such practices but I call upon the editors of the WP to try a little harder and not to use their favorite preacher, author, as a source for articles related to Christianity, and I mean to avoid mentioning by name present day preachers, theologians, professors, ministers, heads of congregations, popes, etc. FOR THIS CALIBER OF AN ARTICLE, AS A GENERAL RULE, YOU SHOULD QUOTE ONLY THOSE WHO HAVE ALREADY PASSED AWAY AND WHOSE WRITINGS GENERATED ENOUGH SOCIAL IMPACT, IN LIFE AND AFTERWARDS, AS BEING CONSIDERED AS RELEVANT, THAT IS, FOR ARTICLES RELATED TO BI-MILLENARIAN CHRISTIANITY.
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: No consensus to move the article has been established within the RM time period and thus defaulting to not moved. (non-admin closure) — Music1201talk 04:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose. The tiny section on Islam does not establish "logos" as a "name or title of Jesus Christ" in Islamic theology. Srnec (talk) 04:12, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
Oppose exactly per Srnec. Of course no other religion uses the term untranslated, or derives their usage from the Xtian one. Johnbod (talk) 12:04, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
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.