Talk:Rhema

Christianity: Charismatic Low‑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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Charismatic Christianity.

Philosophy Low‑importance

	Philosophy portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

[Untitled][edit]

This article is not objective per the Wikipedia requirements. It is an objective viewpoint within the christian religion, but not objective to a non-christian. It seems to imply that "rhema" is true and only the different interpretations of "rhema" need be discussed. This is a religious viewpoint, but is described like it is truth/fact. This page also attempts to advertise christian media and foundations with the word "rhema" in the title/name.

Really does not make sense. This article describes rhema as a word from greek, meaning utterance, then says "it is found in this passage of the bible" and is listed as an article on christianity, it never states that rhema is anything more than a word used in the bible, as I am sure many other words are. horridly written article, very confused now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LFStokols (talk • contribs) 06:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. As someone who was raised Lutheran Missouri Synod, switched to generic evangelical then to Charismatic word-faith and Assemblies of God (and now agnostic) I'd have to say the article as written is spot on accurate. I'm no Greek scholar but if you speak with evangelicals and charismatic/pentecostals who actually know their theology you'll find this article sums up the idea of Rhema very accurately as to how they view it. Theological books concer as well. For example The seminal work "Foundations of Pentecostal Theology" (Duffield, Van Cleave, p. 81 and 331 clearly states that Rhema deals with spoken word or "utterance" such as the gift of "word of wisdom" (p. 331). This is why the spiritual gift of "word of wisdom" does NOT mean that the person has been gifted to be a wise person, if so the "word" would have been "logos". This "word" is a powerful authoritative word filled with the holy spirit.

Of course practically speaking the result is merely due to the speakers charisma and conviction about his message but theologically speaking in this context logos and rhema are quite different and the article sums it up in layman's terms well. Although I don't have the source with me I have read that theologically the Lutheran LCMS church agrees with this too. The claim that they are advertising is nonsense however. RHEMA Bible Church and School is simply named that. If you're going to get upset about that then you may as well never use the word "windows" either due to Microsoft Windows. RHEMA is also a very famous church and school so the article would be remiss to NOT have a link or mention of it.

References:

Duffield, G.P., Van Cleave, N.M. (1987). Foundations of Pentecostal Theology. L.I.F.E. Bible College, Los Angeles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robocoastie (talk • contribs) 05:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At least we all agree that this article is on the Christian concept, not a dictionary translation: could someone please amend the title (sorry, I don't know how) to "Rhema (Christian)"

Can we show that "it is from an objective viewpoint within the christian religion"? As a matter of history, theology inevitably raises POV concerns which require balanced citations. The article, above discussion and citations are all from a modern/evangelical/low-church POV of a classical subject, and could perhaps benefit from an orthodox/catholic balance.

Most English-speaking Christians wrongly think that "the Word of God" actually has the sense of "rhema". In order to make the comparison with Logos, it is necessary to explain that Logos (see its own article) bears a most unusual sense of "word". Jezza (talk) 19:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Articles can be moved, but I object to this specific move, for the article starts with the Greek use by Plato etc. and they were all pre-Christian. There is a section on Greek philosophers and they are pre-Christian, so this is not just a Christian article. I am glad you did not know the move command and that has saved some headaches already, but it is the down triangle next to the star on the top menu. However, sudden Wiki-moves are invitations to objections and such moves are best done after consensus. As is, there is no consensus for the move, and in my view, no sound logic for it. History2007 (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up[edit]

This article needs some improvement. Rhema is the ultimate in bible study as it furthers the understanding of how a word communicates its meaning from the bible to the reader via inspiration and the activity of the Holy Spirit. Rhema is also translated as word in English. The Greek words Rhema and Logos come in handy to distinguish between the definitive word of God and the personal word of God. Alan347 (talk) 11:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article quality[edit]

This article has zero references and has already been flagged as low quality. It seems to qualify as a Federal disaster area. Unless there are solid reasons not to, I will clean up the unreferenced items and add sourced material. History2007 (talk) 11:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Challenge[edit]

This statement is simply not true and has been removed: Rhema is Christ's utterance, while Logos refers to Christ himself. On multiple occasions Jesus says listen to my "logos". His spoken word if his Logos not only his Rhema. In fact these two words are used as synonyms. From NASB John 4:41 Many more believed because of His word [logos}; John 4:50 Jesus *said to him, "Go; your son lives." The man believed the word [logos] that Jesus spoke to him and started off. John 5:24 "Truly, truly I say to you, he who hears My word [logos], and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life. John 6:60 Therefore many of His disciples, when they heard this said, "This is a difficult statement [logos]; who can listen to it?" NOT EVEN OF JESUS' WORDS John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words [logos], were saying, "This certainly is the Prophet." Mark 2:2 And many were gathered together so that there was no longer room, not even near the door; and He was speaking the word [logos] to them. Mark 8:38 "For whoever * is ashamed of Me and My words [logos] in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will also be ashamed of him when He comes in the glory of His Father with the holy angels." Here they are equated John 12:48 "He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings [rhema], has one who judges him; the word [logos] I spoke is what will judge him at the last day. Rhema is not from God it is simply something spoken (there are MANY of the cases in the bible) Acts 16:38 The policemen reported these words [Rhema] to the chief magistrates They were afraid when they heard that they were Romans, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kyle.Mullaney (talk • contribs) 14:44, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]