This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rhema (doctrine) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It seems that the point of this doctrine is to answer how a Christian believer internalizes the teachings of Christianity so they become real, and able to be lived out for them. A doctrine that considers the process of how the text of the Bible is internalized in Christians. So the separation of text from "living word" is made. If this is correct it seems some other Christian groups flip the terminology around holding that rhema is dead text until it gets supernaturally activated into logos.
Here it would seem that they are holding logos as activated word and rhema as text, listing it alongside gamma -- (perhaps confusing rhema as a letter of the Greek alphabet as gamma is?). Not sure how common this is but mention it here for others to be aware of. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Self-published information is not automatically barred from Wikipedia as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA.
The subject of the article is one of religion/metaphysics that can not be objectively proved by any neutral editor.
The article has presented, at length, theologians putting forward positive claims about Rhema doctrine, neutrality requires noting negative claims by opposing theologians.
The author of the self-published GotQuestions is not presented in the article as putting forward objective fact but of putting forward his own opinion. That author is an unquestionable authority about what his own opinion is.
If one wants to hold that the author's opinion is wrong and is therefore unreliable than one must explain how they can unbiasedly prove questions of metaphysics.
The inclusion of the quote is presented to not take sides on the matter and maintain neutrality within the article.
--- Wowaconia ( talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a few that I quickly found. [1] [2] [3] [4] I did find a lot of self-published material, but these sources seem to meet WP:RS which I'd argue many of the ones used do not. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
a random priest or pastor published that in WP:SPS.That's not gonna fly. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
A better initial summary is needed for skim-readers! 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:154A:3EB4:5E46:ABB0 ( talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Rhema (doctrine) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
It seems that the point of this doctrine is to answer how a Christian believer internalizes the teachings of Christianity so they become real, and able to be lived out for them. A doctrine that considers the process of how the text of the Bible is internalized in Christians. So the separation of text from "living word" is made. If this is correct it seems some other Christian groups flip the terminology around holding that rhema is dead text until it gets supernaturally activated into logos.
Here it would seem that they are holding logos as activated word and rhema as text, listing it alongside gamma -- (perhaps confusing rhema as a letter of the Greek alphabet as gamma is?). Not sure how common this is but mention it here for others to be aware of. -- Wowaconia ( talk) 15:39, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Self-published information is not automatically barred from Wikipedia as per WP:SOCIALMEDIA.
The subject of the article is one of religion/metaphysics that can not be objectively proved by any neutral editor.
The article has presented, at length, theologians putting forward positive claims about Rhema doctrine, neutrality requires noting negative claims by opposing theologians.
The author of the self-published GotQuestions is not presented in the article as putting forward objective fact but of putting forward his own opinion. That author is an unquestionable authority about what his own opinion is.
If one wants to hold that the author's opinion is wrong and is therefore unreliable than one must explain how they can unbiasedly prove questions of metaphysics.
The inclusion of the quote is presented to not take sides on the matter and maintain neutrality within the article.
--- Wowaconia ( talk) 19:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Just a few that I quickly found. [1] [2] [3] [4] I did find a lot of self-published material, but these sources seem to meet WP:RS which I'd argue many of the ones used do not. Doug Weller talk 12:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
a random priest or pastor published that in WP:SPS.That's not gonna fly. tgeorgescu ( talk) 03:27, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
A better initial summary is needed for skim-readers! 2A00:23C5:FE0C:2100:154A:3EB4:5E46:ABB0 ( talk) 20:56, 8 February 2021 (UTC)