Talk:Christ

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Should this be a clarification page instead of a redirect? 'Christ' has two meanings: one refers to the role or function of messiah; one specifically refers to Jesus Christ, for whom 'Christ' has become part of his name. Since these are two meanings of equal significance, and since a search for 'christ' wouldn't necessarily indicate that the person was looking for one meaning or the other, it seems that this should be a clarification page that offers both choices.

This article is now an exposition of the term Christ rather than a disambiguation page. Trc | [msg] 09:01, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Propaganda

This page is mostly edited to enhance one particular POV rather than add to the general content. Can I ask people to refrain from preaching an entire religion on a page about a religious term - links to further information on a specific religion are all that's needed.

Eg - Islamic edits, Esoteric edits both recently.

The introduction paragraphs do not need all POV included, only the definition and generally accepted root (which is from the Hebrew messiah).

Any thoughts anyone?

[edit] GraemeL-you are breaking the vandalism rule

You should not be removing relevant content and then not giving any reason. This is your warning that I am starting the arbitration process with you. Hopefully you will take this seriously, as many of us want to maintain the credibility of Wikipedia. (unsigned User:Whatif

Look, you can't post links on any site, this has nothing to do with King Abdullah of Jordan, and your pet theory that he is involves with the Anti-Christ. Wikpedia is not the place for pet theories, and PoV forks with external links. Dominick (TALK) 12:37, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
LOOK lakes were made to jump in ! (unsigned User:69.228.118.115)
Added sig. Thanks for the thought of the day. Dominick (TALK) 15:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

Codex-with all respect why did you take off the article on the Dead in Christ? The article you directed me to is not correct. The final judgment the article speaks of happens 1007 years after the event Paul refers to. The event referred to in the article is the great white throne judgment. Whatever you personal understanding is I would hope to change your mind by studying the material at this web site. www.truthroom.com. Please do not stop the flow of information especially when it is well researched and footnoted.

---Isn't this just an advertisement without even a sig? And on for cookery at that?

Luke 21:36 Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man.

Jesus himself is encouraging us to watch and pray that we escape the terrible things that will come on the earth. Watch for what, answer the rapture, pray for what, answer that we may escape tribulation. How can dead people watch they they might escape...it is to late death got them.

In 1 Thes 5:6 Paul encourages us again to watch, Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober. Again how can dead people in the grave watch ? Please consider these things before editing out this information.

I have no idea where you are coming from, but as I stated in the comment field, I removed it, because it claims Paul made reference to "the Rapture". You may be surprised to learn that a great many Churches around the world have no such thing as a "Rapture" anywhere in our teaching, quite simply because it is not mentioned in the Bible. The only Churches that teach this stuff about a "Rapture" are a few Protestant Churches, mostly in the United States, and it's something they invented in the 1800's. That's why other Churches elsewhere never picked it up, and if you try to write in the article "Christ" anything about Paul teaching there will be a "Rapture", it's going to get challenged by members of those other Churches who do not share your POV. Again, "Rapture" is a NEW TEACHING. Don't confuse it with "Resurrection of the Dead", which is a very real Biblical teaching. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:32, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

And sorry, I don't have time to read Truthroom.com or see any Hollywood's movies (funded by whom?) brainwashing people into believing in the Rapture (something not found in Scripture ANYWHERE), but please, read up on wikipedias policies regarding "Neutral point of view". If we say in the article "Christ" that St Paul endorsed the concept of "rapture" (a 19th century creation anyway), then that just wouldn't be Neutral; that would be taking sides against all the Churches that have solidly maintained tradition for 2000 years. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

I would ask that you spend some time before acting as an editor, please consider this.

1 Thes 4:17 Then we which are alive and remain shall be [caught up] together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.

The word [caught up] is the greek word harpazo it means 1) to seize, carry off by force 2) to seize on, claim for one's self eagerly 3) to snatch out or away

This is the literal greek meaning, the word rapture is a literal english word and can also be used. This is where the confussion comes in. I am not a follower of tradition, tradition by defination is a mindless pursuit. Would you be agreeable to me using the the term [catching away] in the article in place of rapture since this is actually the way the scripture reads ?

No because it's still a pov... Also, that is YOUR definition of tradition, but it is anathema to me... It's all these breaks with tradition that are causing all the problems with modern man, if you ask me... So why don't you keep your opinion, I'll keep mine, and in the article, we'll just stick to the facts that everyone recognizes? ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 02:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

The greek language is the most descriptive language known to man. I believe that was intentional. The definition of tradition is as follows according to dictionary.com A mode of thought or behavior followed by a people continuously from generation to generation; a custom or usage. I called this a mindless pursuit since the religion I grew up in taught me procedure without practical meaning. If one were to be practicing a bad tradition it should be changed, not changing it is what is wrong with man. I suspect that this article is mealy reporting on the broadest definition of the word christ, which is a generic term for anointed. Many religions are looking for their christ and they are different from each other. With that said I thank you for your time.

I have added an external link section. If this section or link are removed I will go up the chain of command to keep them here. Wikipedia should not be limited by the bias of a few.

I, too, have a big problem with the information posted on Truthroom.com. The Truthroom team takes factual data (past and current events in the form of news articles) and blends it together with speculation in order to bolster a personal belief or opinion. I don't believe the link has much relevance on Wikipedia, other than to support a personal theory. - Cybjorg 10:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


Copied from the AMA Request for Assistance page... And Cybjorg this isn't a place to carry the debate from the page to another forum, if you would like an advocate please make a separate request but don't continue the debate here.

   --Wgfinley 04:03, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hebrew please

Could we have the Hebrew form (in Hebrew letters) of the word for Messiah please? m.e. 08:58, 17 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, it needs a bit more than some Hebrew now, as the article has just been completely rewritten. It needs editing from a Jewish perspective. At the moment, it presents the 'Old Testament' as a lead-up to Christianity. m.e. 09:47, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)

There is an article now, rather than a disambiguation. The Old Testament is presented, and the New Testament, in chronological order. If more details of the Jewish anointing or Messias are desired, why not insert them? Trc | [msg] 10:02, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
others can do a better job than me. m.e. 11:35, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
The article states that Jesus status as Christ is rejected by a majority of Jews. It would be more accurate to write "virtually all" Jews (The article seems to suggest some significannt minority does recognize Jesus Christ). There are a few that consider themselves Jewish that worship Jesus Christ, but their Jewishness is questioned by most Jews. Judaism is not a particularly dogmatic religion on the whole, and is tolerant of heterodoxy. But worshipping Jesus is essentially out of bounds. One can only speculate that centuries of brutal oppression had a role in solidifying this attitude.
Second-- and this is a question not a statement-- it strikes me that the relationship between the ideas of Moshaich and Christ (Jesus or not) is quite subtle. From the Jewish perspective, they might not be equivalents.

[edit] ιησου χριστου

Not vandalism. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

(Transliteration : JESOU CHRISTON) ~~~~ ( ! | ? | * ) 21:16, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

The correct spelling in Greek is Ἰησούς Χριστός (in the nominative), transliteration Iēsous Khristos or Christos. I have corrected it in the article. --Macrakis 15:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Egyptian etymology

The Egyptian etymology for "christos" is a fringe theory propounded by one Tom Harpur, apparently.[1][2] There is a perfectly respectable Indo-European etymology for this word.[3] I have removed the Egyptian etymology. --Macrakis 15:47, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you mean Tom Harpur, professor of New Testament, former Rhodes scholar, and priest ? He seems notable enough in the field for his view to be expressed, even if with the caveat that it is viewed as somewhat fringe. --Victim of signature fascism 18:00, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Being a Rhodes scholar isn't really that notable, they have 90 a year. I don't think it is neccessary to include this fact here, it seems to justify the significance of his theory which is really a separate issue. Saying where he was a professor is sufficient. Davidfraser 18:10, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Replacing another user's comments about Christ that are repeatedly deleted

I'm replacing these comments that User:Ril keeps suppressing, for like the fifth time. He says they are off-topic, but if the topic is Christ, I don't see why he should be so concerned about it unless he thinks he is the police of the discussion pages who can decide who else's discussion can stay and whose he will delete. Just because you'd rather not read it, Ril, doesn't mean this user can't have his say on the discussion page. If you'd rather not read it, just ignore it, don't try to pretend it was never posted. This is not Communist Albania. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I've removed them. We don't allow the talk pages of either Communism or Albania to contain a large tract adressing the audience about how good communism/albania is, it isn't relevant.
  • Wikipedia is an encyclopedia
  • Talk pages are for discussing the article
Therefore talk pages are NOT for evangelism. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 21:14, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New structure according to subjects

Created a new structure according to the subjects relation in each paragraph without editing them. It seems more comprehensive this way for all those users who may want to study all the presented data at the article. Also added the conception with which I identify myself (and some sources to it, book and external link). Hope these structure may be consensual. Regards --GalaazV 03:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Disambig move

Anyone notice that Christ has turned into a disambig page? What do people think? I personally liked it the way things were. It doesn't seem like CIS talked about this bold move anywhere.--Andrew c 22:45, 16 May 2006 (UTC) PS. Because of this move, we now have over 1000 internal links pointing to a disambig page. --Andrew c 22:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... I understand the need for disambiguation but this burdens a lot of editors. Perhaps move the page back and place a disambiguation at the top of the Christ article to refer those looking for Jesus to this article. —Aiden 01:30, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, good grief, when did this happen?
I don't understand. If people are looking for Jesus Christ, Jesus Christ redirects here (and not, oddly enough, to the Christian views article). "Jesus Christ" means that "Jesus is Christ," which was the whole point in having a separate Christ article—not a redirect, not a disambig page, but an article on the concept that is central to Christianity.
It looks to me like someone is trying to separate Jesus from Christ. To say Jesus is the Christ, the anointed of God, is a central Christian doctrine, but Christian doctrine goes beyond that. In Christianity, "Christ" designates everything that (Christians believe that) Jesus is—see Christology—as the article originally explained. Something is seriously amiss. IMHO the destruction of this article to a dismbig page is just plain Antichristian. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I really don't think there were ulterior motives. A lot of Christians refer to Jesus simply as Christ (more in writing than in speech) and thus someone searching may mean that rather than the title. Like I said, the issue could be solved by moving the page back and putting a disambig header at the top of the 'Christ (title)' page. 01:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Edit conflict. Ulterior motive or not, this raised my ire because it seems to deny that Christians believe that Jesus is Christ (and what the title "Christ" means to Christians).

There already was a disambig header at the top of the Christ article before this move. To wit: This page is about the title. For the Christian figure, see Jesus. For the Columbia Physics professor, see Norman Christ. I don't know who this Norman guy is, but this seems sufficient to me. Now the disambig is on top of the Christ (title) article, which is just plain strange.Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with all this. Plus, the fact that now we have way over 1,000 ILs pointing to a disambig page is just frustrating. Should we be bold and move the page back, or should we try to contact CrazyInSane first to try and find out their motives--Andrew c 01:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Having all those links pointing to a disambiguation page which includes the option to visit either Jesus or Christ (title) (with explanations of the differences) is much better than having all the links point to an article about the title, when in probably 90% of cases the intended link was to the Jesus article. (i.e. - "It was the time of Christ" would no longer incorrectly redirect to the article about the title). — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
To wit: "This is a disambiguation page: a list of articles associated with the same title. If an internal link referred you to this page, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article." It's always better to link directly to another article than to link to a disambig page. It's bad form to suddenly create 1000+ links to a disambig page all at once. You answered my objection over the use of the term, but I also agree with Andrew c. Are you now going to edit those 1000+ articles to point directly to Jesus or Christ (title)? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Another edit conflict. I was just going to say that since I cannot be calm about this, I'll shut up now and let others work it out. I just wanted to speak my mind, and I apologize if my ire made me uncivil. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Formal apologies for any discontent this move has caused. Perhaps I should have discussed this move prior, but I felt it wasn't that big of a deal. Here are the reasons for my move. I felt that almost all who entered "Christ" into Wikipedia's search were looking for an article on Jesus, and up until my action, this brought them directly to the page about the title. I think the recently created disambig page helps explain to users exactly what the difference between "Jesus", "Jesus Christ", and "Jesus of Nazareth" is. Since many people, even very secular persons (i.e. - AmericanAtheists.org) use the term "Christ" to refer to Jesus, I think it would be more appropriate to have this disambig page rather than have the "Christ" article be about the title. "Christ (title)" is much more fitting IMO due to the fact that most, when saying "Christ", are not talking about a title but rather about Jesus (i.e. - "Near the birth of Christ" now would no longer incorrectly redirect to the page about the title "Christ"). And since redirecting "Christ" to the "Jesus" article is unacceptable, I felt this was the best alternative. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
"Christ" is a title of Jesus. Within Christianity it has a theological use. Outside of Christianity it is associated with Christianity. The purpose of the Christ article (and the related Christology article) was to explain what it means that Jesus is called Christ. The Christ article originally explained that Christ is a title of Jesus, originally a translation of "Messiah," but that it has come to mean much more within Christianity. Now it says that "Jesus Christ" and "Christ (title)" are two different things. As the title "Christ" has a primarily theological usage, and is associated exclusively with Christianity even by nonchristians, I don't see how the title could be applied to anyone else. There have been other people called "Messiah." Has there ever been anyone else called "Christ," even by nonchristians? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now it says "the title that is applied exclusively to Jesus, meaning "anointed"." That answers my original objection, but as Andrew c pointed out, there is still the matter of the 1000+ articles pointing to a disambig page. It's considered bad form; articles should link directly to the appropriate other articles, not to disambig pages. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 03:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I had no idea that it was considered bad form to have so many links direct to a disambiguation page, but I find it almost painful to revert to the form we had before; having every link to "Christ" redirect to the article about the given title, not an article about Jesus. Actually, I think the only instances whereas those underlinking "Christ" intended for browsers to be redirected to the given title article, is when they are writing "Jesus Christ". Thus, I'm sure that 900+ of these hypothetical 1000+ articles that link to Christ were intended for the Jesus article. However, I suppose it's an inconvenience we'll have to deal with considering it is POV to have Christ redirect to Jesus, it's the Christian POV. It doesn't matter to me either way, but I'm in support of the disambiguation page, I think it helps explain the dilemma to browsers rather than blindly redirecting them to the title's article. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:03, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
CrazyInSane, people know what they're linking to when they link to Christ. If needed they'd do Christ (linking to Jesus) very easily. Many of the links in this article and others link to Christ as in the title, hence many article's mention of Jesus Christ (with two separate links). After reading these comments and seeing that there already was a disambiguation at the top of the Christ article, I see no reason why the move happened. —Aiden 04:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Though most of us at Wikipedia may consider ourselves educated, easily two-thirds of the general population has no idea that "Christ" is not the surname of Jesus or at least a permanent affixation. I thought the disambig page would easily explain to them the situation, much better than the disambig line at the top of the Christ (title) article. Many who use the link Christ do not put [[Jesus|Christ]] either because they are unaware the difference or assume "Christ" links to "Jesus". This proves that even Wikipedians are unaware that "Christ" is not part of Jesus' actual name. I understand that linking to a disambig page may be "informal", but I believe it's better than having it redirect to Christ (title) when it's more likely the intent was to link to Jesus. Personally, before my Wiki-days, I easily said "back around the time of Christ" in a (what I assumed was) completely secular manner. Many still do this and although the disambig at the top of the Christ (title) article may be sufficiant enough of an explanation, it fails to offer equal choice between what article the browser intended on visiting. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical. Here's the first 500: [4]. Here's the next 500: [5]. Here's the rest: [6]. That's somewhere between 1000 and 1500 articles linked to Christ.

Surely when you clicked the "move" button you saw the warning, "This can be a drastic and unexpected change for a popular page; please be sure you understand the consequences of this before proceeding. Please read meta:Help:Renaming (moving) a page for more detailed instructions." That's what I meant by bad form. It's a drastic and unexpected, and often disruptive, move.

On a more personal note, this reminds me of when some people proposed making Jesus a disambig page. That's part of the reason I reacted as strongly as I did. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 04:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

A RFM should have been filed due to the popularity of a page. There's a difference between be bold and this. I recommend moving the page back and then discussing the move. —Aiden 15:11, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The redirect has been edited into a disambig page, so we can't do a simple move (unless an admin deletes the disambig page). It would have to be a cut-and-paste. The other thing is that I'd hate to see a move war like I saw on the Isa and Timeline of false prophets articles (whatever their titles are now). Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:07, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, CrazyInSane has reverted himself. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for considering this issue. But CIS does have a point. There are a number of people who wikilink "Christ" when they are talking about Jesus. My POV is that if you are talking about a Palestinian man who walked this earth as a human, you are talking about Jesus. If you are talking about the Risen religious figure (post-easter) who appeared to Paul in visions and who may still be appearing to people to this day, then we are talking about Christ. Of course, the Christian POV is that they are the same person, or different aspects of the same person. Where a more skeptical view would be Christ is just a mythological archetype or something along those lines. I believe a similar distinction is used by Marcus Borg (and possibly Tom Wright) in their joint 'debate' book. I personally would like to see wikipedia use a similar distintion, where Christ always implies either a Christian POV, or a supernatural being, and Jesus always refers to a semi-historical man. But then, do we have articles that make this distinction? Could we cover both POVs in one article and have Jesus and Christ redirect to the same article? There definately should be an article about the title Christ, but CIS is correct in saying that is not the primary use of the word. So, these are my thoughts. Should we try to change things, or just leave everything as it was (perhaps trying to change some of the Christ links to point here, and leaving the disambig statement at the top of the Christ article)--Andrew c 18:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The title is itself religious, just as Buddha is a religious title for Siddhartha Gautama and others. Of course, to say Jesus walked the Earth is not the same as saying Jesus is Christ, just as acknowledging Siddhartha Gautama as a historical person is not the same as saying there is such a thing as a Buddha. On the other hand, has the title "Christ" ever been applied to anyone other than Jesus, or those who have claimed to be Jesus? I've heard of the term "Messiah figure" used in comparitive religion, but I have never heard the title "Christ" used in that way. The title "Christ" seems to be unique to Christianity, whether one is a Christian or believes that Christianity is a myth. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Motion to move this entire section (Christ?) to Talk:Christ. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 16:43, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for considering this issue. But CIS does have a point. There are a number of people who wikilink "Christ" when they are talking about Jesus. My POV is that if you are talking about a Palestinian man who walked this earth as a human, you are talking about Jesus. If you are talking about the Risen religious figure (post-easter) who appeared to Paul in visions and who may still be appearing to people to this day, then we are talking about Christ. Of course, the Christian POV is that they are the same person, or different aspects of the same person. Where a more skeptical view would be Christ is just a mythological archetype or something along those lines. I believe a similar distinction is used by Marcus Borg (and possibly Tom Wright) in their joint 'debate' book. I personally would like to see wikipedia use a similar distintion, where Christ always implies either a Christian POV, or a supernatural being, and Jesus always refers to a semi-historical man. But then, do we have articles that make this distinction? Could we cover both POVs in one article and have Jesus and Christ redirect to the same article? There definately should be an article about the title Christ, but CIS is correct in saying that is not the primary use of the word. So, these are my thoughts. Should we try to change things, or just leave everything as it was (perhaps trying to change some of the Christ links to point here, and leaving the disambig statement at the top of the Christ article)--Andrew c 18:32, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
The title is itself religious, just as Buddha is a religious title for Siddhartha Gautama and others. Of course, to say Jesus walked the Earth is not the same as saying Jesus is Christ, just as acknowledging Siddhartha Gautama as a historical person is not the same as saying there is such a thing as a Buddha. On the other hand, has the title "Christ" ever been applied to anyone other than Jesus, or those who have claimed to be Jesus? I've heard of the term "Messiah figure" used in comparitive religion, but I have never heard the title "Christ" used in that way. The title "Christ" seems to be unique to Christianity, whether one is a Christian or believes that Christianity is a myth. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 19:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] that move

Copy + paste moves are not allowed - they break the terms of the GFDL. You need to move the edit history as well - which can be done with the "move" function (see the "move" tab at the top of the page). Unfortunately, now that the copy+paste has been done the move function won't work - it needs a empty space to move to, so I've had to list the move from Christ (title) at requested moves to get help from an admin to do this. Clinkophonist 00:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

As requested, I have moved it back. Since "Christ" was not an empty space, I had to delete it and its talk page before I moved "Christ (title)" to "Christ". However, there were apparently edits and changes to "Christ" during the period that the article was located at "Christ (title)"; it wasn't just one edit for the redirect. There are now 14 deleted edits for the talk page, and 21 for the article page. Should I restore them so that they become part of the history? AnnH ♫ 00:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
AnnH: I think so. I tried to manually restore as many as possible to the main article, but I probably missed some. » MonkeeSage « 07:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I restored one of the missing talk page edits, which was a cut-and-paste from Talk:Jesus. The section was discussing this article, not the Jesus article, and belongs here. I cannot restore the rest of the talk page edits myself, but they were all referring to the sudden moves of this page. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 11:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion needed

The information provided in the article is mostly from the theological christian beliefs. How about if we can add historic perspective to it too? That will help establish a more detailed and complete article and will take in account the political influence of Jesus on the history of religons as well. Suggestions ..?

[edit] Krishna and Christ???

Hi..I was intrigued upon reading that Krishna and Christ could be the same historical personages. There is an Indian professor who makes the same claim. I wanted to know the source of this info and whether this can be taken as a valid proof of the claim. There is another theory floating around saying that Jesus travelled to Kashmir and lies buried there. My question is this: how much of it is speculation and how can we separate fact from fiction and pseudo-history? Please clarify. Sriram sh 09:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I'm quite studied on the history of Christ, and I would give the idea little creedance to the possibility. To be honest, there are a lot of theories about Christ (people have rampantly speculated about him since the early 2nd century), and so just about any idea about Christ has been theorized by someone. Here's the evidence against it:
  • Christ is the Greek word for "Messiah", an ancient Hebrew term, completely unrelated to Krishna, a Hindu word for "Black."
  • The idea that 1st century Jews would borrow from a Gentile religion (a term, roughly translated as "pagan") is heavily doubtful; they were very pious, and considered worship in any other religion to be idolatry. The New Testament follows closely along the same vein as well.
  • Any idea that Jesus came to India, while theorized as early as the 4th century (I believe) by an Indian scholar, is equally doubtful. Within a hundred years of his death, there were many people who cropped up and claimed "secret" knowledge of Jesus' life that hadn't been revealed to others; indeed, this would have to be such secret knowledge, because it was unheard of anywhere for 3 centuries. What's more, he would have had to let people in India know he was there, and they would have somehow have recognized him for who he was all those centuries later (keep in mind, many people didn't recognize him as special even among his own people). Anyway, it would be the modern equivalent of me theorizing that King George III actually visited Pakistan, with no evidence of it whatsoever.
I'm not out to burst your bubble, but the scholarship here is probably pretty bad. Granted, religions often do borrow from one another, but this is a poor place to theorize on such a merge. If it's even in the article, it should be given a heavy caveat. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Oh BTW, I see some notes in the article about the similarities, but one must keep in mind that people are often able to draw similarities between religions. For example, early in China we hear of an apple and a snake that lead to evil. I believe there are other examples with Christ as well, not just Krishna. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 01:26, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Given that there is no etymological relationship between Christ and Krishna I've removed the comparison from etymology--Ryan Wise 17:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "...Christ ...said to have lived a life of a shepherd"

I have not read anywhere in the New Testement that Christ lived the life of a literal shepherd. I understood he was a carpenter's son and itinerant rabbi. Perhaps he "shepherded" people - but I do not think he "lived the life of a shepherd". Anyone aware of extra-biblical evidence for this statement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.191.59.1 (talk • contribs)

That is true, Christ never lived the life of a literal shepered. However, we are refured to as sheep, I don't reme,ber the refrence right now, but there is a verse in the new testement that shays, "All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned everyone to his one way..." So, if we are sheep, technically, he is our shepherd. I can't think of it now, but I think he is called the Good Shepherd in Psalms. If you have a bible, check it out, if you don't find it, Psalms is still pretty good reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.241.30.167 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Christ was often referred to as a shepherd in a metaphorical sense, in the same way as God was referred to as a shepherd in the old testament, or David. Christ was called the "good shepherd", supposedly because he was the best of shepherds. But it was not literal - if he had any literal profession before his preaching ministry, it was indeed carpentry or some similar work. -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right; that reference on the page is misleading; please feel free, by all means, to be bold and edit it. :) -Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 06:24, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article focus

I am offended and my faith is offended by the focus of this article.

If this is supposed to be an article about the principle figure in Christianity, why are the first two outline points about discussing the concept of ANNOINTING?

Annointing means to cover with a holy ointment, holy water, baptism or some such. Christ never mentioned annointing in his teachings. Neither did any of his disciples. I do not count John the Baptist as one of his disciples, and neither does the old or new testaments.

This article was written by a BAPTIST, for BAPTISTS. I'm a Christian, but I'm not a baptist, and baptists are hardly the most numerous denomination among Christians. Christ, his life and teachings mean a lot more to me than any discussion of annointing, which belongs in a discussion of JOHN THE BAPTIST, who was very likely derranged, as the Bible depicts him

What is needed here is a new/different author/, and preferably, of a different faith.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.106.60.44 (talk • contribs)

Hello. If I may explain... this article is not about Jesus, but the title itself "Christ", which literally means "the anointed one. It is thus appropriate that anointing is discussed in-depth here. For the article on the Christian figure, see Jesus. Please understand that the naming scheme of Wikipedia is not always perfectly intutive. You would do well to look for notices at the tops of articles which define the actual focus of the article, as the title often provides insufficient context.
I'm sorry that you have been offended by what was obviously just a misunderstanding, but you must try not to be so offensive yourself, or you will have a hard time helping make Wikipedia of NPOV. Please be civil at all times. -- Rmrfstar 17:54, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Tom Cruise as Scientologist Christ

The issue isn't that the information wasn't sourced, it was the nature of the source. In order to make a claim like this, the source should be more reliable than a brief news item under the heading "Bizarre" from the Sun. But I'll let other editors decide if they think the source is sufficient and the decision can be made from there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Janejellyroll (talk • contribs) 07:02, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The huge Christian Science section.

Why does a minority and only debatably Christian group have a section of its own on a summary article? Zazaban 23:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how small or large the section should be, but M-W.com, brief as those definitions are, does give the Christian Science definition of the Christ "4Christian Science : the ideal truth that comes as a divine manifestation of God to destroy incarnate error"

To me that means that the Christian Science definition has brought some new light to the meaning of the Christ that isn't reflected in other definitions. A light that is worth noting.Simplywater 04:24, 13 March 2007 (UTC)


I have a question about the manifestation of the Christ in other worlds. Are there specific references that you have found that information from? I'm not really sure what your source is there.Simplywater 04:17, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I went through and tried to edit this article so it would read more smoothly. I took out "Jesus of Nazareth, born of a virgin, who was the Christ," because Eddy writes in Science in Health that "The word Christ is not properly a synonym for Jesus, though it is commonly so used." pg 333 Simplywater 04:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

That point I was trying to make is that it's not nearly notable enough to even be on a summary article. Put it in the christian science article not here. Zazaban 02:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the definition isn't destingushable enough from other definitions? Simplywater 06:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I mean that Chistian Science isn't large enough to have a place on this article. Zazaban 23:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)


I do believe Zazaban is attempting to state that they (or atleast heir POV on this subject)don't meet wikipedia notability standards/requirements.Kairos (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)