![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 21. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"Platonic dualism" sounds misleading. ( A Thought Surgeon Named Crisis ( talk) 17:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC))
The fourth paragraph, which begins:
The Greek word Logos (λόγος) is traditionally translated as “Word.”
...is duplicated (almost?) word-for-word in the sixth paragraph, except that before its repetition, it is preceded by the sentence:
For Christianity, “that Christ is the logos implies that God’s immanence in the world is his rationality.
Looks like a copy-and-paste error. One or the other ought to be deleted. drone5 ( talk) 04:47, 4 March 2010 (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)
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.
In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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).[1] 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)
Should the paragraph (from "Although the term Logos" to "not separable in fact") be given its own section? Whose point of view is that? 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 02:27, 17 February 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)
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.
From an IP. 186.144.42.107 ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
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. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 04:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Logos (Christianity) →
Logos (religion) – Article content is no longer exclusively Christian.
WP:BOLD move was reverted.
Jujutsuan (
talk |
contribs)
13:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Logos (Christianity). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iep.edu/p/philo.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iep.edu/n/neoplato.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The "'Word of God' window" shows a worldly Jesus, in his human shape, preaching to people, leading the user to believe that the Logos is to be understood as the mere "words spoken by Jesus". The concept is defined in the article as much more intricate. The legend of the illustration doesn't help setting right this misunderstanding.
Also, in the phone version this picture jumps to an unintended position, becoming far too prominent.
Proposals? Arminden ( talk) 06:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Under the Bible section the original of "the word" is transliterated as "ho logou", but shouldn't it be logos, since ho is the nominative? Or perhaps "tou logou" if in the genitive. Confused Sea Creature ( talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
From Mundhir ibn Sa'īd al-Ballūṭī:
You may want to mention the implications of the Christian concept of Logos in the Quranic createdness debate. Error ( talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
References
These are considered by scholars to be two different men, the author of John and the author of Revelation, but they’re treated as the same man in this page. Fix needed. Wompser ( talk) 09:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose merge with Logos - Temerarius ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 2006 June 21. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
"Platonic dualism" sounds misleading. ( A Thought Surgeon Named Crisis ( talk) 17:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC))
The fourth paragraph, which begins:
The Greek word Logos (λόγος) is traditionally translated as “Word.”
...is duplicated (almost?) word-for-word in the sixth paragraph, except that before its repetition, it is preceded by the sentence:
For Christianity, “that Christ is the logos implies that God’s immanence in the world is his rationality.
Looks like a copy-and-paste error. One or the other ought to be deleted. drone5 ( talk) 04:47, 4 March 2010 (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)
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.
In ictu oculi ( talk) 09:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
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)
"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).[1] 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)
Should the paragraph (from "Although the term Logos" to "not separable in fact") be given its own section? Whose point of view is that? 24.191.87.42 ( talk) 02:27, 17 February 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)
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.
From an IP. 186.144.42.107 ( talk) 03:25, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
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. ( closed by non-admin page mover) — Music1201 talk 04:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Logos (Christianity) →
Logos (religion) – Article content is no longer exclusively Christian.
WP:BOLD move was reverted.
Jujutsuan (
talk |
contribs)
13:13, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Logos (Christianity). 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:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iep.edu/p/philo.htm{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.iep.edu/n/neoplato.htmWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The "'Word of God' window" shows a worldly Jesus, in his human shape, preaching to people, leading the user to believe that the Logos is to be understood as the mere "words spoken by Jesus". The concept is defined in the article as much more intricate. The legend of the illustration doesn't help setting right this misunderstanding.
Also, in the phone version this picture jumps to an unintended position, becoming far too prominent.
Proposals? Arminden ( talk) 06:40, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
Under the Bible section the original of "the word" is transliterated as "ho logou", but shouldn't it be logos, since ho is the nominative? Or perhaps "tou logou" if in the genitive. Confused Sea Creature ( talk) 19:13, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
From Mundhir ibn Sa'īd al-Ballūṭī:
You may want to mention the implications of the Christian concept of Logos in the Quranic createdness debate. Error ( talk) 10:53, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
References
These are considered by scholars to be two different men, the author of John and the author of Revelation, but they’re treated as the same man in this page. Fix needed. Wompser ( talk) 09:17, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
I propose merge with Logos - Temerarius ( talk) 17:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)