Talk:Monogenēs

This article was nominated for deletion on 21 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

Christianity High‑importance

	Christianity portal 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.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Occult

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Occult, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to the occult 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.OccultWikipedia:WikiProject OccultTemplate:WikiProject OccultOccult articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

IP sources[edit]

@Leszek Jańczuk:@StAnselm:@JohnChrysostom:@Editor2020: would you mind taking a look at today's IP edits and sources used. Seems to be overflow from the Sydney/Auckland Society of the Guardians. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 07:07, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@In ictu oculi: There is so much wrong with this article I don't even know where to start. (As an aside, I'm sorry for taking so long to get back to you -- I'm not on WP much anymore, due to real-life obligations, changes, and education, a change in my epistemology and ethics of knowledge so that I can't in good conscience participate on a regular basis -- I have to suppress my own principles too much in order to fall in line with WP rules, which isn't a pleasant, and, in the final reckoning, like arguing with a pig since I'm not Jim Wales. I've too much respect for what Schaeffer called 'true truth' as opposed to a warped quasi-Popperian 'verifiability', and some of the drama that was happening last I was here with the Chapters, especially UK). Even before the IP edits it was filled with garbage, and most of the IP edits (by 208.x.x.x if he's who you refer to) are not true (but, WP:TRUTH), but, even in accordance with WP policy of RS and verifiability (I forget the link), are not sourced reliably, nor are all of the assertions even in the sources provided -- and those are only the ones I've access to. It's WP:SYNTH at best, and giving a cloak of respectability to fringe shit by putting superscript numbers near it at worst. Send me a message and I should get an email alert and we can come back and work on the article and try to get it whipped in to something approximating a decent shape. Currently, regardless of the content, this is too long, unfocussed, full of trash, poorly formatted, poorly sourced, and extremely poorly weighted. When it comes to the word 'monogenes', reliable sources are 1. linguistics, 2. biblical scholars, and 3. classicists. Theologians are reliable insofar as they are respectable theologians, and insofar as they're used to support what's clearly marked as theological views of the word and its import. I'm rusty here, and not fully familiar with WP rules any more (I used to be nearly a lawyer), especially if they've changed, nor even familiar with the markup (let alone the new non-markup edit box -- wtf is that?) St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 01:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back... I'd put notable Theologians in as 4. under Christian views I suppose. It's a shame this is a notable stub but we don't have resources to develop articles further. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my first edit from mobile. We may not, as in most Wikipedians - but I do, as my dissertation was on the evolution of the Shema in to the homoousion, and included a heading that talked about generation (gennesis and genesis, monogenes, along with homoousious). I know I can't quote myself according to WP policy, but I have an extensive library of references applicable here, although I'm not sure whether this article should stand on its own, or where it should be merged. I'm willing to get back to work on theological, biblical, historical, and philosophical articles now, since I was defrocked (need to update my profile), became Reformed, and am out of a job except for guest lecturing and being a 24-year-old TA. So I've got time to spare and a personal library of ecclesiastical books over 3000 vols. in addition to most of the leading periodicals in several fields (although I'm maybe 4-6 issues out of date because I'm broke now and can't afford $10k a year in personal subscriptions since I'm no longer affiliated). Let me put my library at the disposal of Wikipedians insofar as I stay to my areas of competence, and those where true truth does not conflict with WP policy. Is there a PM function on WP? If so PM me, and let me know of some of these obscure articles in need of scholarly attention (which I suppose my shiny new ThD qualifies me for, if my MDiv and STB didn't already... yeah, yeah, I know, WP:CRED and pomposity). But I need to use the education somewhere, and outside of teaching, there aren't many places I can think of having a use for it. (And I know my stuff. I mean, really.) Speaking of that, if you know of any ideas for jobs for a gifted theologian and church historian, mediocre philosopher, or barely-halfway-decent exegete who is a defrocked priest who is skilled with modern tech/media, PLEASE let me know. I'm living on credit and beginning to sell the less-used parts of my library. Sorry for the irrelevant ramble. I'm tired and wired. St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, I'm seriously considering jumping in again, bureaucracy and non-ideal policies and distortions and all, to at least attempt to share the MASSIVE amount of knowledge (and refs) I've acquired with the world in some way. Have there been any major rule (like RS, SYNTH, OR) or process (RfA, Arbcom, etc.) changes in the 2-3 years I've been gone? Signed, CJA Mayo, aka St John Chrysostom ^Δόξα_τω^Θεώ 09:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC) (he is risen! [If my sig is still doxa go theou])[reply]

Ten years later I have to agree with your assessment here: this article is such a mess I wouldn't know where to start trying to fix it; throwing it out and starting over might be best.

The big issue is the total failure to analyze the word itself and explain why there was a shift from rendering it as "only begotten" to "unique", which is where the article ought to start! Dismalscholar (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified (February 2018)[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Monogenēs. 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:

When 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: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:18, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Scrambled[edit]

All sections after "Septuagint usage" are kind of scrambled up and need to be rewritten.Editor2020 (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]