Talk:John 1:1

Unsourced statements removed
I have removed the following statements as they have been tagged "citation needed" for several months: If anyone can find a source to back up these claims, feel free to re-add them. —Angr If you've written a quality article... 10:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The term Logos originated in Greek philosophy, where Heraclitus used it to mean the fundamental structure of the universe. It also appears to have a connection to Hebrew Wisdom literature.
 * Many have seen this as evidence that there was a syncretism between (Christian) Christology and (secular) Platonism.

Goethe?
Hi there, I'm just curious if anyone else thinks anything about Goethe's commentary on the verse is sorely missing. For those not in the know, he goes through different translations of Logos in regards to 1:1, translating "word" also as meaning and power, before settling on deed. I think something about it should be in there. Anyone with me? 208.81.93.123 (talk) 07:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

There should be a mention. Hey, it's not like Goethe is a nobody! Gingermint (talk) 06:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Goethe could be mentioned in a "usage in culture section." You're referring to a passage from Faust which isn't exactly "commentary".  'Tis writ, "In the beginning was the Word!" I pause, perplex'd! Who now will help afford? I cannot the mere Word so highly prize; I must translate it otherwise, If by the spirit guided as I read. "In the beginning was the Sense!" Take heed, The import of this primal sentence weigh, Lest thy too hasty pen be led astray!</li> <li>Is force creative then of Sense the dower?</li> <li>"In the beginning was the Power!"</li> <li>Thus should it stand: yet, while the line I trace.</li> <li>A something warns me, once more to efface.</li> <li>The spirit aids! from anxious scruples freed,</li> <li>I write, "In the beginning was the Deed!</li> </ul>

LazyMapleSunday (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Odd Usage
"Of the Gospels, John has the highest Christology". I believe I understand the intent of the author, but that usage strikes me as strange (compare "highest physics"). I would think "Of the Gospels, John has the most exclusive statement on the nature of Christ" or "the most emphatic expression of Christ's nature" would be clearer. I hesitate to change the verbiage without knowing exactly what the author was trying to convey. Cyclone77 (talk) 15:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Theology
I don't think it's accurate to say that the competing beliefs are whether Jesus is God or Jesus is God's son. Trinitarians believe that Jesus is the son of God. Concerning this verse, I think the controversy is (perhaps too obvious to mention?) whether Jesus is God, or is a god. Acbranch (talk) 06:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Since there is no response, I will change the Theology section to say that the controversy is over whether Jesus was the one and only God, or was a god, lesser than and completely distinct from God. Acbranch (talk) 06:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this talk page is dead, but anyway: this statement is false: "The former belief [Jesus is the God] requires an understanding that God is both infinite as well as finite (having a “beginning”), whereas the latter belief [Jesus is a lesser god] holds that God is infinite, and that Jesus had a beginning." I know that the Catholic faith would hold the former position, but would not say that God is finite or has a beginning, and I am sure this holds for most other trinitarian Christian belief systems. That being said, I think it would be nice to have a bit more explanation in this section, not sure what would need to be said though. Belegdal (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
 * PS I notice this is being discussed below, q.v.Belegdal (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Possibly confusing introduction?
"This verse, and the continuation of the ideas introduced in it throughout Johannine literature, connected the Christian understanding of Jesus to the philosophical idea of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom literature, and set the stage for later developments in Trinitarian theology and Christology."

I am trying to understand what this sentence means, and am having difficulty. I am sure it is an honest attempt to achieve a clear explanation of something (or maybe three somethigs, it seems), but it leaves this reader confused.

There is no cited reference explaining exactly how this verse "connected the Christian understanding of Jesus to the philosophical idea of the Logos and the Hebrew Wisdom literature", and when and for whom.

'Logos' and 'Wisdom Literature' are hyperlinked, but those articles do not explain the "connection" mentioned here. The 'Logos' article does mention the various sources and times the term has been relevant in history as separate occurrences, but there is no explanation of this stated "connection" between the Biblical verse and the Greek philosopher's use of the term. Just because various writers use a similar term, does not in itself mean their writings are "connected". I am confused. The 'Wisdom Literature' article offers nothing helpful.

Again, who made this "connection", when, and how? I think this either needs a cited reference, or maybe should be rewritten to better achieve the intended goal of the author (whatever that was), or just left out, since it doesn't seem to say anything, or at least it is unclear as to just what it is trying to say.

The latter half about setting "the stage for later developments in Trinitarian theology and Christology" is also a bit obscure. Does the author mean this verse was the one stage-setting event, was a key foundation, played a significant role, or was just another topic for discussion in these later developments? I think this could be better written and cited to achieve whatever goal was intended.

Please comment. Thejamesg (talk) 19:00, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

More confusion.
"Second, the word theos in the original text cannot grammatically have the definite article.[5] John 10:35 has similar usage of Greek word theos (god), with and without ho (the) when describing human rulers as "gods"."

To this reader the second sentence seems to negate the first, and the reference does not explain the seemingly categorical grammar rule being proposed here.

It seems to me that maybe this little section could be written as a simple presentation of what key sections of the verse have arguably optional renderings from a translator's perspective. That would simply demonstrate to the reader that this verse is challenging to each and every translator from Greek to English, and where those challenges lie. Thejamesg (talk) 19:27, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

logos = wording
The root idea of 'logos' (which no doubt predates the Greek language) is 'word'. Used as a verb (wording) it would mean using the faculty (that humans possess and animals lack) of speech or of thinking in words. In other words the faculty of 'reason'. We are familiar with 'God is love' but 'God is logic' seems strange. but the 2 concepts arent as far apart as they seem. when we love others we are able to humble ourselves and see things from others point of view. Likewise being 'logical' requires that we see things from the point of view of external reality as opposed to our own subjective point of view. It is this faculty, this wisdom, that separates us from the animals.

Lemmiwinks2 (talk) 04:39, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Second, the word theos in the original text cannot grammatically have the definite article
What does this suppose to mean?--Vassilis78 (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * This incoherently located paragraph seems to belong in the Grammar section's discussion of the definite article. Downstrike (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of it may even be redundant. However, the entire point of the inclusion of these remarks is missing, as if their context is missing.  I suspect they are vestiges left behind by careless editing, but I've been unable to identify which editing this was. Downstrike (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Since these sentences seem to be misplaced, and I cannot even figure out what they are trying to say, I am going to remove them to help un-clutter this article.Acbranch (talk) 02:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

NWT
The consensus at Talk:New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures was that that article's discussion of John 1:1 was of undue length there at that article, and the material would be more appropriate here at this article. It is entirely expected that editors familiar with the topic may be able to incorporate some or all the deleted material into this article. --AuthorityTam (talk) 20:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Grammar
"Apparently, it has been misused by some to defend the deity of Christ." This statement contains both the weasel word "some" and the biased label "misused." I would recommend changing "misused" to "used" and specify exactly who uses Colwell's rule to defend the deity of Christ. -Kyledi (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

"... and the Word was fully God." (NETBible)
"...and the Word was fully God." (NETBible)

Commentary: Or “and what God was the Word was.” Colwell’s Rule is often invoked to support the translation of θεός (qeos) as definite (“God”) rather than indefinite (“a god”) here. However, Colwell’s Rule merely permits, but does not demand, that a predicate nominative ahead of an equative verb be translated as definite rather than indefinite. Furthermore, Colwell’s Rule did not deal with a third possibility, that the anarthrous predicate noun may have more of a qualitative nuance when placed ahead of the verb. A definite meaning for the term is reflected in the traditional rendering “the word was God.” From a technical standpoint, though, it is preferable to see a qualitative aspect to anarthrous θεός in John 1:1c (ExSyn 266-69). Translations like the NEB, REB, and Moffatt are helpful in capturing the sense in John 1:1c, that the Word was fully deity in essence (just as much God as God the Father). However, in contemporary English “the Word was divine” (Moffatt) does not quite catch the meaning since “divine” as a descriptive term is not used in contemporary English exclusively of God. The translation “what God was the Word was” is perhaps the most nuanced rendering, conveying that everything God was in essence, the Word was too. This points to unity of essence between the Father and the Son without equating the persons. However, in surveying a number of native speakers of English, some of whom had formal theological training and some of whom did not, the editors concluded that the fine distinctions indicated by “what God was the Word was” would not be understood by many contemporary readers. Thus the translation “the Word was fully God” was chosen because it is more likely to convey the meaning to the average English reader that the Logos (which “became flesh and took up residence among us” in John 1:14 and is thereafter identified in the Fourth Gospel as Jesus) is one in essence with God the Father. The previous phrase, “the Word was with God,” shows that the Logos is distinct in person from God the Father.

And the Word was fully God. John’s theology consistently drives toward the conclusion that Jesus, the incarnate Word, is just as much God as God the Father. This can be seen, for example, in texts like John 10:30 (“The Father and I are one”), 17:11 (“so that they may be one just as we are one”), and 8:58 (“before Abraham came into existence, I am”). The construction in John 1:1c does not equate the Word with the person of God (this is ruled out by 1:1b, “the Word was with God”); rather it affirms that the Word and God are one in essence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.164.195.125 (talk) 06:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

God is not "finite" in any sense.
Presently, the section entitled "Theology", reads as follows: "The two competing beliefs which cause some controversy over this scripture center on whether Jesus was the one and only God, or was a god, lesser than and completely distinct from God. The former belief requires an understanding that God is both infinite as well as finite (having a “beginning”), whereas the latter belief holds that God is infinite, and that Jesus had a beginning." I completely DISAGREE with the proposition that "The former belief requires an understanding that God is both infinite as well as finite . . . ." I believe if God were to descend from His heavenly throne to tell us the correct rendering of John 1:1, He would tell us to render it, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." I also believe that God is entirely infinite, and in no way can be considered "finite". When God deigned to come to earth in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, He made it possible for humans to distinguish the second person of The Trinity -- Jesus -- from the first person of The Trinity -- God. But His doing so in no way requires or constrains the conception that "God is finite." I respectfully submit that this clause -- "The former belief requires an understanding that God is both infinite as well as finite (having a “beginning”), whereas the latter belief holds that God is infinite, and that Jesus had a beginning" -- is totally illogical and utterly without scriptural support, and should be deleted. Ripcord65 (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

- And I believe He'd say "And Divine was the Word". - Sherman


 * I agree, and I think most trinitarian Christian belief systems would accept Jesus as the one and only God without considering God to be finite as well as finite. So: I have deleted it. Done and done.Belegdal (talk) 05:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation of Scholars who Support the English Translation "the word was a god"
The author cites Dodd and Harris as supporting the possible translation "the word was a god." However, both of these citations are incorrect since neither Dodd nor Harris actually suggests this possibility. Dodd and Harris only note that it's possible grammatically. But both scholars are actually (and independently!) making the point that this constitutes a lack of warrant for the translation and that since a mere possibility based on grammar alone is greatly insufficient as grounds for this translation, it is a translation which should be rejected!

This misuse of sources may suggest that the writer is trying to add legitimacy to a viewpoint when that legitimacy doesn't exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Teshodou (talk • contribs) 21:34, 22 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Did they (Dodd and Harris) actually say or imply the translation should be rejected, or just that grammar was greatly insufficient alone to be reliable grounds for the translation?

More importantly, the references 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 are all quotes, but there is no information about where the quotes came from, unlike 15 which has a quote followed by a book and page number. Is this sufficient for citing, and even if so why wasn't the sources given anyway? I.e. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT --Aresilek (talk) 02:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

According to Matthew Henry...
This paragraph needs some work. It's really difficult to figure out what is actually being quoted as there are no quote marks apart from "the Word". The citation given is from 2002 and no longer working. I think it may be appropriate to use more than one commentary to re-write this more articulately. Below is Matthew Henry's commentary, which is already quoted and Clarke which is another commentary I thought might be useful.

[http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=joh&chapter=001| Clarke, The Gospel According to St. John, Notes on Chap. I.] Verse 1. In the beginning] That is, before any thing was formed-ere God began the great work of creation. This is the meaning of the word in Ge 1:1, to which the evangelist evidently alludes. This phrase fully proves, in the mouth of an inspired writer, that Jesus Christ was no part of the creation, as he existed when no part of that existed; and that consequently he is no creature, as all created nature was formed by him: for without him was nothing made that is made, Joh 1:3. Now, as what was before creation must be eternal, and as what gave being to all things, could not have made all things, must necessarily be the ETERNAL God.

| Matthew Henry, An Exposition, With Practical Observations, of The Gospel According to ST. John, Chapter 1 The evangelist, in the close of his discourse (v. 18), plainly tells us why he calls Christ the Word—because he is the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, and has declared him. Word is two-fold: logos endiathetos—word conceived; and logos prophorikos—word uttered. The logos ho esoµ and ho exoµ, ratio and oratio—intelligence and utterance. 1. There is the word conceived, that is, thought, which is the first and only immediate product and conception of the soul (all the operations of which are performed by thought), and it is one with the soul. And thus the second person in the Trinity is fitly called the Word; for he is the first-begotten of the Father, that eternal essential Wisdom which the Lord possessed, as the soul does its thought, in the beginning of his way, Prov. 8:22. There is nothing we are more sure of than that we think, yet nothing we are more in the dark about than how we think; who can declare the generation of thought in the soul? Surely then the generations and births of the eternal mind may well be allowed to be great mysteries of godliness, the bottom of which we cannot fathom, while yet we adore the depth. 2. There is the word uttered, and this is speech, the chief and most natural indication of the mind. And thus Christ is the Word, for by him God has in these last days spoken to us (Heb. 1:2), and has directed us to hear him, Mt. 17:5. He has made known God’s mind to us, as a man’s word or speech makes known his thoughts, as far as he pleases, and no further. Christ is called that wonderful speaker (see notes on Dan. 8:13), the speaker of things hidden and strange. He is the Word speaking from God to us, and to God for us. John Baptist was the voice, but Christ the Word: being the Word, he is the Truth, the Amen, the faithful Witness of the mind of God. Jainsworth16 (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

SBT
One Good accurate article has finally been writing to explain John 1:1 so as anyone can understand it. No need for 37+References when one explains it all. I TRULY hope Wikipedia will not remove the link out of their own bias to certain truth. They and anyone is welcome to e-mail SBT on comments on how to modify the page to fit Wikipedias rules and guideline if need be. One Good accurate article R/in Open http://simplebibletruths.net/GODorgod.htm.

From the librarian@simplebibletruths.net SBT has ask Wikipedia for help in the last with no response. They take the easiest Pass of Resistance and cut an article off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Godyverde1 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 10 May 2012
 * I have already set out clearly on your user talk page multiple reasons why that page is not suitable to be cited here as a source. – Fayenatic L ondon (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Relation to Genesis 1?
I'm amazed no one's mentioned this...--MacRùsgail (talk) 18:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Literal English not actually "literal".
I believe there is a mistake in the chart that ends with a "Literal English" section. What is presented as 'literal' English actually seems to be a 'translation' instead of a 'transliteration'. I believe it is easy to miss because of the many alternate English words offered in parenthesis. I believe the alternates only obscure and should either be removed, or moved down to a last box below the Literal English. Also, the heading Literal English should probably be changed to English Transliteration.

Compare the following copied from the chart (I removed the alternate English words from the "Literal English" so you can follow and see that what is presented is not literal. It is not a transliteration as it should be, but a translation instead: Does anyone else notice the misaligned words in the English, and the totally missing word?

An aligned English transliteration would probably look like:

I propose: 1) The row be called "English Transliteration". 2) The text of the English Transliteration be placed in the correct word order. 3) The missing word "the" be placed in it's correct place. 4) The alternate English translations be moved to a following row, or deleted. Thejamesg (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Colwell misquoted
The link isn't to Colwell article on Journal of Biblical Literature.

At this link http://www.areopage.net/ColwellRule.pdf you can read the exact text referred to Jh 1,1:

The opening verse of John’s Gospel contains one of the many passages where this rule suggests the translation of a predicate as a definite noun Kai theos en ho logos looks much more like “And the Word was God” than “And the Word was divine” when viewed with reference to this rule. The absence of the article does not make the predicate indefinite or qualitative when it precedes the verb, it is indefinite in this position only when the context demands it. The context makes no such demand in the Gospel of John, for this statement cannot be regarded as strange in the prologue of the gospel which reaches its climax in the confession of Thomas (John 20,28).

--PaoloDiTarso (talk) 14:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

What confession at John 20,28? That Jesus had been resurrected? I see no confession, only an exclamation. HockeyCowboy (talk) 01:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Matthew Henry Misquoted
Or: What a difference leaving one word (“with”) out of a statement can make! The following is a quote which can be found at the link below it; in which I've emphasized some very important phrases in regards to why I made a change in the text of the article:

“The Word was with God, (1.) In respect of essence and substance; for the Word was God: a distinct person or substance, for he was with God; and yet the same in substance, for he was God, Heb. i. 3. (2.) In respect of complacency and felicity. There was a glory and happiness which Christ had with God before the world was (ch. xvii. 5), the Son infinitely happy in the enjoyment of his Father's bosom, and no less the Father's delight, the Son of his love, Prov. viii. 30.”

URL for quote above: http://www.ccel.org/ccel/henry/mhc5.John.ii.html

The point being: In regards to person-hood or personality (if you will, since the way we as human beings use the word 'person' and personality of ourselves is far from being accurate when applied to GOD, but unfortunately, are the only words we have available for use), the “Word” (or Jesus in light of John 17:5) is a “distinct person” or personality apart from “God” whom Matthew Henry clearly understood to be a reference to God 'the Father' in this verse.

I made this change since Matthew Henry was being misquoted; not to become involved in any disputes over theology. Whatever discussions may arise about John 1:1, it's simply dishonest and unfair to such authors to misquote them in an effort to bolster one's particular theological beliefs in regards to this verse.

Note: There was a reference in the main article to this quote by Henry elsewhere, but the page was _not found_, so I changed the reference in the article to the one I gave above.

Daniel B. Sedory (talk) 10:22, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Citation needed: A source of vigorous debate among Bible translators.
I put a "citation needed" next to this claim, which seems dubious:

The proper rendering into English from the original Koine Greek text continues to be a source of vigorous debate among Bible translators.

Can this claim be supported with reference to the journals used by professional translators?

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on John 1:1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070404191849/http://www.apostolic.net:80/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm to http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier;">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS;"> Talk to my owner :Online 00:53, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:QUOTEFARM concern
Do we really need all these versions listed? I'm particularly concerned by the entries that are 100% exactly the same as others in the same list. Can't we trim this down a bit? CC: related to our discussion at Template talk:John.  Jujutsuan  ( Please notify with &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; &#124; talk &#x7C; contribs) 10:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

A different interpretation
There is a different interpretation of this verse in the book: Codes of Reality! What is language? LINK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:D184:3B18:D586:38C9:273E:598B (talk) 11:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on John 1:1. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070404191849/http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm to http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.apostolic.net/biblicalstudies/colwell.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120501105745/http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/John_1-1.php to http://www.thethirdangelsmessage.com/John_1-1.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:05, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Poverty of sources
If we compare with, which is poorer in WP:SOURCES? Ancient writings aren't WP:RS by default. So I suggest reverting to the version which is richer in WP:RS and delete WP:OR based on Ancient writings. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

While some statements appear to contain original research, or editorializing, they are not so egregious that simple edits could not have resolved them, or that sources could not be provided in allotted time. Two minutes is not enough time for any discussion to consider revision. General consensus on handling original research is to allow the tag to stand for 7 days pending discussion, unless the information presented is clearly false or offensive, which does not appear to be a warranted assertion here. I perceive many of the edits performed by Bdub2018 were corrections and added references, which are useful, and corrections to misstatements. Original form reverted to by Tgeorgescu also contains ancient sources, which he has left alone, and his reversion has reintroduced some errors that had been corrected, including false and misleading representations of sources, materially false statements, and some references removed by Bdub2018 that point to sources that no longer exist and has harmed the article to that extent. This reversion appears to have been made in bad-faith. I am restoring it to its former state and tagging the top of the page, pending consensus of other editors. "Richer" sources can be introduced in a constructive manner.B.robertrit (talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC) WP:SOCK comments stricken


 * See WP:DUCK. WP:OR is banned as a matter of WP:PAG and WP:QUOTEFARM has been explained by others above. Just count how many real WP:RS (i.e. modern WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP, not Ancient bollocks) has and how many real WP:RS  has. Arithmetically is that simple. the article is composed primarily of tertiary and opinionated sources, with a unilateral disregard and apparent disdain for ancient historic testimony &mdash; that's his/her POV about WP:MAINSTREAM Bible scholarship, so definitely an WP:RNPOV issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:50, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

"Our house, our rules is a blunt way of saying that the Wikipedia community has a set of norms that govern how the encyclopedia is built: norms about what kind of sources we use, about how we handle conflict, and so on. Those norms include not using self-published internet sources, not making blanket statements about ethnic groups (Jews, in this case) without support, not editing against the consensus of editors, and so on. You may consider discussion of those norms as 'off-topic,' but the Wikipedia community tends to think they are important. Wikipedia articles aren't 'owned' by individuals, but they are 'owned,' in a sense, by the Wikimedia community and the consensus of editors. When an editor, like yourself, decides they want an article to go in a direction other than what the majority of editors want to do, the majority of editors typically preserve their preferred version. Adding material to an article, and then having other editors take that material out, is part of the normal editing process. It's not 'force' and it's not 'vandalism.' It happens to all of us. I'm pretty sure that none of us have our edits here accepted by the community 100% of the time. Learning to abide by Wikipedia's communal decisions is an important part of getting along here as an editor. And if you don't want your editing to be limited by the Wikipedia community's particular goals and methods and decisions, the good news is that there's plenty of other outlets for your work, like perhaps Conservapedia, or getting a personal blog. At the end of the day, Wikipedia really is the private project of the Wikimedia Foundation. It is, roughly, a service that provides summaries of the contents of mainstream scholarship, in the specific sense that 'mainstream scholarship' has here at Wikipedia. It's really not an experiment in treating all views equally, and if you think it is, you're likely to wind up frustrated. Alephb (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2018 (UTC)"


 * Quoted from Talk:Adam. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Changing quotes
Bastardizing quotes is one of the most serious offenses inside Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:25, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

This article needs to be deleted.PiCo (talk) 19:58, 2 April 2019 (UTC)


 * I would not shed any tears. Alephb (talk) 02:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit war
There was far too much original research going on to allow it to stand inside the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 04:18, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That is no "original research", all of the information is available public...

' "The Arians of the 4th century interpreted this verse by putting a full stop after «God was», and "the Word" was placed as the beginning of senctence in the next verse." '
 * Source: Commentary of the Roman Catholic Bible Translation to Hungarian by György Káldi, revised in 1927, after citing patristic evidences (Basil and John Chrysostom,):
 * Isten volt, isteni lényegű volt az Ige. Itt az alany az Ige, Isten az állítmány. Az ariánusok az «Isten volt» után pontot tettek, de helytelenül. Ezen tételben: „Isten vala az Ige,“ Isten az állitmány, mi kitűnik abból, hogy a görögben nincs névelője; „az Ige“ pedig a tétel alanya, úgy hogy értelme ez: Az Ige, mely öröktől Istennél vala, isteni természetű és mivoltú; – mint ezt az Isten Fiáról az egész új szövetség tartja (Rom. 9,5. Zsid. 1,2–13. és több helyen.). Három van tehát ezen első versben kifejezve: Az Igének örökkévalósága, személyisége és Istensége.
 * Which in English: "was God", the Word had a divine essence.. Here the subject is the Word, God is the predicate.  The Arians put a period [full stop] after "was God," but incorrectly.  In this statement: "The Word was God," God is the predicate, which is evident from the fact that there is no definite article in the Greek; "the Word" is the subject of the statement, so the meaning is this: The Word, which was with God from eternity, was of divine nature and essence; – as the entire New Testament maintains this about the Son of God (Rom. 9:5, Heb. 1:2–13, and in several other places). Therefore, three things are expressed in this first verse: the eternity of the Word, its personality, and its divinity." 84.1.18.182 (talk) 14:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 *  According to the Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible translation, "and the Word was {what} God {was}", the footnote for this verse explains the difficulty: 
 * I really have no clue what's wrong with this resource ... 84.1.18.182 (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * My edit was: The formulation of John 1:1a "In the beginning was the Word..." (as opposed to "became", or "is created", or "came to be", as in John 1:3) was an important reference during the Arian controversy, since Arius asserted that the Son was a perfect creature, at most a kind of demigod subordinated to the Father. Arius insisted ‘there was when he [the Logos was not.’ The opponents of the Arianism pointed out that according to John 1:1a the Son "in the beginning" already "was", not became, and consequently is not a creature, and did not come into existence in time, but is eternal like the Father.
 * Source: In 318, Arius, a priest of Baucalis, propounded the doctrine that Christ is not fully divine (Oxford, 1209; Encyclopedia of Religion, 54). “Arius asserted that the Son was a perfect creature, at most a kind of demigod subordinated to the Father” (Encyclopedia of Religion, 20) The Father alone, Arius argued, … is ungenerate, source without source, self-existent. Therefore the Father alone is truly eternal…. (Catholic Encyclopedia, 297) “Jesus must be a creature, albeit one who was exalted and achieved union with God. … Arius insisted ‘there was when he was not.’ Arius was simply fulfilling the Stoic-shaped logic of trinitarian reflection prior to Origen, for he assumed that the expressed word of God (the Son) was inferior to the inherent reason of God (the Father). (Oxford, 1209) Subordinationism suggests “… that the Father is somehow prior to the Son and the Spirit. … It was this tendency, pursued by Arius and others, which the Nicaene and Constantinopolitan creeds set out to avoid. (Oxford, 1211)
 * Hence your edit, "Arius, however, never claimed that the Logos were a creature, but, on the contrary, the Creator of all creatures." is false.


 * You also removed this:
 * In order to condemn Arianism, the First Council of Nicaea formalized the creed, according to which the Son is "begotten from the Father before all ages (æons), Light from light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, of the same substance (homoousios) with the Father". At the same time, the synod anathemized those, who say 'There was a time when He was not;' or 'He was not before he was made;' or 'He was made out of nothing,' or 'He is of another substance' or 'essence,' or 'The Son of God is created,' or 'changeable,' or 'alterable'.
 * Still don't understand why... 84.1.18.182 (talk) 14:33, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Because making statements which are not supported by references (footnotes) is banned by the website policy WP:OR.
 * What I wrote about Arius is not my own opinion, but verifiably published by the highly regarded Bible full professor Bart Ehrman.
 * And do not WP:CITE WP:RS via Jehovah's Witnesses pamphlets, those are notoriously unreliable and cannot even be trusted to copy/paste correctly.
 * Other sources cited by you are far too old and partizan (apologetic) to be considered reliable. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not from a JW pamphlet, but from the Wikipedia itself, which you can find on the page of Nicea Council: its aim was to condemn the Arians stance of the createdness of the Son.
 * Arius asserted that the Logos is not fully divine, not eternal, but the first created being. Check the encyclopedias I've cited above.
 * I'm not JW, I am RC, so you fully misunderstand my stance and intentions. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 14:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Nope, for Arius the Son was begotten by the Father, and the Son has created all creatures. So creature=stuff created by the Son, in Arian parlance.
 * Arius was not considered dangerous because he were a madman uttering silly-sounding memes, but because a large chunk of the Christian clergy found that his views were fundamentally orthodox. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The Arians indeed used the phrase "begotten" (the could not avoid it, since it clearly used in the NT), but asserted that "begotten" in this sense is just another word for creating. That's why the Orthodox fathers needed to use the formula to condemn this view.
 * If Bart Ehrman does not not agree on this, he should debate this with Church Fathers from that century. You can check yourself from the original sources from that time, this is what the debate was about.
 * For his part, Pope Alexander I of Alexandria stated that Arius' beliefs were as follows: "There was a time when God was not Father, and the Son was created out of nothing. The Son is a created product and is not like in substance to the Father. He has come into existence whereas the Father has no origin. The Son is mutable and alterable while the Father is not. The Father is invisible to the Son. The Father created the Son in order to create humans. The father and the son are not consubstantial. Arius also argued that the word homoousios (consubstantial, or having the same substance) should not be used to describe the relation between God the Father and God the Son: Father and Son are not consubstantial according to Arius." 84.1.18.182 (talk) 15:09, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I cited the EOB Orthodox Bible footnote literally, not cited any JW pamphlet at all. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 15:15, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Meh, the Church Fathers had a vested interest in denigrating Arius, and certainly would not have shied from telling a pious lie or more. So, basically you know his writings from what his enemies told about him.
 * And I already knew it was a difference of a iota and what those two similar sounding words mean. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * If someone says in this matter, the Fathers falsely represented the Arianists' view, the burden of proof still lies on them.
 * Check the page Arian creeds, Arius wrote a letter to Alexander in which he stated that the Son is creature... so not just his opponents claimed that he stated this, but himself. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 15:23, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * No, friend, Wikipedia trusts Ehrman because that WP:RS isn't dated. And Ehrman is far from alone, other WP:RS can be WP:CITEd, see Arianism.
 * So, basically your sources reflect the state of WP:SCHOLARSHIP from the 1920s, not from the 2020s. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that fundamental new sources have emerged on this issue that would completely shake this perspective. But this article is not about Arinism itself, but only about this verse and how it was translated and interpreted by some schools of thought, etc.
 * If you want to write about this, then write it in the article about Arianism, then argue with them about it there. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 15:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Our allegiance is to WP:RS/AC in every article. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * That is non sequitur.
 * Your link says: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view."
 * I have cited numerous reliable sources above. 84.1.18.182 (talk) 14:18, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * WP:RS/AC literally means what it literally means. It is not a denial that other sources exist.
 * Also, I'm afraid that in terms of WP:BESTSOURCES your sources are extremely poor. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Publications by or for religious institutions should never be taken at face value. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:19, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * What does "Oxford, 1209; Encyclopedia of Religion, 54" refer to? Can you please provide full information, i.e. author/editor, full title, what do the numbers refer to, is Oxford the publisher. If it is available online a link would also be helpful. Thanks. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Yup, the IP still has to make a case why the Eastern Orthodox Bible would be WP:RS, since it is basically WP:SPS. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I tried to find something supporting it, but came up empty. Which is also why I voted for deletion of the corresponding article. -- Random person no 362478479 (talk) 06:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The Encyclopedia of Religion [New York, Macmillan Publishing Company, 1987]
 * Available also here: https://archive.org/details/encyclopediaofre0010unse_q8y4 84.1.18.182 (talk) 10:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

RSN
See Reliable sources/Noticeboard. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Copy/paste from Arianism
Arianism (, Areianismós) is a Christological doctrine first attributed to Arius (c. AD 256–336), a Christian presbyter from Alexandria, Egypt. Arian theology holds that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, who was begotten by God the Father with the difference that the Son of God did not always exist but was begotten/made before "time" by God the Father; therefore, Jesus was not coeternal with God the Father, but at the same time Jesus began to exist outside time as time applies only to the creations of God.

Arius' trinitarian theology, later given an extreme form by Aetius and his disciple Eunomius and called anomoean ("dissimilar"), asserts a total dissimilarity between the Son and the Father. Arianism holds that the Son is distinct from the Father and therefore subordinate to him. The term Arian is derived from the name Arius; it was not what the followers of Arius' teachings called themselves, but rather a term used by outsiders. The nature of Arius's teachings and his supporters were opposed to the theological doctrines held by Homoousian Christians, regarding the nature of the Trinity and the nature of Christ.

There was a controversy between two interpretations of Jesus's divinity (Homoousianism and Arianism) based upon the theological orthodoxy of the time, one trinitarian and the other also a derivative of trinitarian orthodoxy, and both of them attempted to solve its respective theological dilemmas. Homoousianism was formally affirmed by the first two ecumenical councils; since then, Arianism has always been condemned as "the heresy or sect of Arius". As such, all mainstream branches of Christianity now consider Arianism to be heterodox and heretical. Trinitarian (Homoousian) doctrines were vigorously upheld by Patriarch Athanasius of Alexandria, who insisted that Jesus (God the Son) was "same in being" or "same in essence" with God the Father. Arius stated: "If the Father begat the Son, then he who was begotten had a beginning in existence, and from this it follows there was a time when the Son was not." The ecumenical First Council of Nicaea of 325, convened by Emperor Constantine to ensure church unity, declared Arianism to be a heresy. According to Everett Ferguson, "The great majority of Christians had no clear views about the nature of the Trinity and they did not understand what was at stake in the issues that surrounded it."

Arianism is also used to refer to other nontrinitarian theological systems of the 4th century, which regarded Jesus Christ—the Son of God, the Logos—as either a begotten creature of a similar or different substance to that of the Father, but not identical (as Homoiousian and Anomoeanism) or as neither uncreated nor created in the sense other beings are created (as in semi-Arianism).

Cited by tgeorgescu (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)