Talk:Christ (title)/Archive 1

Waiting for the second coming?
"Most Christians now wait for the Second Coming of Christ"

According to what source? Saying "most" seems silly here. The sentence intends to address the idea of a second coming of Christ, but does so poorly by making a statement about "most Christians" and by saying that they are "waiting" for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.125.99.254 (talk) 03:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If the said second coming is to bring about an eternal era of peace and harmony, wouldn't they? I don't think the article implies that we sit in our rooms every each day, crosses in hand and listening for the trumpets from the sky but I think every Christian will admit that this world is only a passing phase. 67.221.119.242 (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Christ
It is unfortunate that my improvement to the Christ page was reverted, for if you read the content of both Christian Mythology and Christian Theology you'd find that the content under Christian Mythology is a much better support link for the concept explained in the end of the first paragraph. Theology is more of a rational (near scientific) attempt to understand the subject matter with other scholars: in this situation the entirety of Christianity, in addition to and well beyond Jesus. The Mythology is basically "the Bible" (but not necessarily limited to that) and therefore IS the entirety of evidence that encompasses the concept of 'things pertaining to Christ'. If the "area of Christian theology" that pertains to the divinity of Jesus is Christianity, I'd eat my hat. Christian Theology does not equal Christianity. Christian Mythology //encompasses// Christianity. This said, I have not reinstated my edit as I don't want to get into a pissing contest with someone who obvious just changed my revision without any actual consideration. 68.37.6.213 (talk) 21:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Clarification page
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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.213.242.47 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2004


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

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.

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)

Egyptian etymology
The Egyptian etymology for "christos" is a fringe theory propounded by one Tom Harpur, apparently. There is a perfectly respectable Indo-European etymology for this word.  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)

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. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whatif (talk • contribs) 04:31, 29 December 2005
 * 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 !  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.228.118.115 (talk) (2 edits at 15:18, 29 December 2005
 * Added sig. Thanks for the thought of the day.  Dominick (TALK) 15:41, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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&mdash;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&mdash;see Christology&mdash;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). &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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. &mdash; 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 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. &mdash; CRAZY `( IN )` SANE 04:21, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not hypothetical. Here's the first 500:. Here's the next 500:. Here's the rest:. 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)

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)

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)

"...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)

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)

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).

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) "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'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
 * 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)
 * Agreed. It is entirely out of place (Anonymous Christian Scientist). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.230.6.162 (talk) 19:33 & :34, 30 November 2008

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? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirtol (talk • contribs) 08:23, 1 June 2007

I'm sorry if I make a mistake, This is my first post in wikipedia or any wiki for that matter. I'd like to start a discussion about certain aspects I find missing from this article.

I found there is no historical evidence to the existence of jesus Christ in this article, and all seems to be pointed at the gospels, which unfortunately even do some of us believe in them there is no way to prove they're fact or fiction.

Any ideas, how we can go about doing this?

Thanks, and please excuse me if I made a mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikizer00812 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Welcome to Wiki. There are many links to pages that talk about the historical evidence. Look at the info box with the term Jesus.  There are links to Historicity of Jesus, Historical Jesus, and Quest for the historical Jesus. Also don't forget to sign your posts. Marauder40 (talk) 17:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Christ the Logos
Surely at least a lk to Christ the Logos is needed. --Jerzy•t 02:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Esoteric def
I removed from the Etymology section the following:
 * The term "Christ" defines the embodiment of the Christ principle, or the principle of love. Esotericism

which is not etymological in nature. Perhaps there is some suitable place for it elsewhere in the article. --Jerzy•t 20:29, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Kudos -- I had noticed that, but got caught up in something else and wasn't able to remove it. Thanks for getting it first.Tim (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
 * [Tips hat] --Jerzy•t 22:42, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Modern X'ty
I noted & reverted (and rebuked the editor in question for edit-warring in) the recent change that interchanged "understands" and "states" in the lead sec'n, and summarized (believing Twinkle would give me the chance to do so) as if i'd already made a change into
 * Many modern Christians explicitly describe Christ as both fully human and fully God, while the Jewish tradition understands the Messiah as a human being without any overtone of deity or divinity.

(My change to that is in place now, but was done as a separate edit.) First, i want to make clear that i did not check back for the source of the sentence i temporarily reverted to, which was
 * Modern Christianity states that Christ was fully human as well as fully God, while the Jewish tradition understands the Messiah to be a human being – without any overtone of deity or divinity.

(with the same ref). The reversed version happened to get stuck under my nose, while locating the earliest revision of the other may be a substantial task. If someone wants to pursue that task to completion, and it turns out the "Christians understand/Jews state" formulation was the original, there's a pretty good chance i'll be willing to carry the water of similarly rebuking the first editor who reversed that. That being said, the passage is not symmetrical, and the rebuked editor's version is more PoV than the other; if that's not obvious to you, you can ask and i'll explain it. But actually, what caught my eye first, and frankly was more interesting and thus motivating for me (tho not as urgent as the reversion) was the blanket statement about "modern Christianity" in the version i reverted to. (See previous indented passage.) It may be that in a few generations, Jews for Jesus (and Zen Judaism and Chassidic Yoga for all i know) will be part of the Jewish tradition, but it's hard to imagine any real difficulty in drawing a reasonable temporal line that makes that statement about it unassailable. On the other hand, Unitarianism, Quakerism, and (at least) virtually all of the more centrist denominations are clearly part of Christianity as a matter of institutional history. It is highly PoV to suggest that the beliefs of Bishop Spong, perhaps John A.T. Robinson, and many less prominent 20th-century members of those denominations, who question or reject the formulation "fully human as well as fully God", are disqualified from Christianity. So, the choice of verbs aside, i have removed the monolithic description of modern X'ty. --Jerzy•t 22:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

European Christ
Who is that blond haired, blue eyed guy in all the pictures? Nobody from the middle east looks like that. Christ didn't have european blood? Or did he? Are there any accurate images of Christ? Which image is considered to be the most accurate? I heard that all the ethnic looking icons were destroyed after some conference. Is that true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.94.176.22 (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Usually = Jesus Christ
My first reaction to
 * In most society, the term Christ almost always refers to Jesus Christ, the biblical character.

was Shouldn't we get the theological role into the lead sentence (and make the troublesome version i removed promptly and thoroughly redundant)? My inclination is to go so far as to mention the role (too complex to make clear in the first sent), and to subordinate the etymology to that. Having gotten along this long without more explicit mention of the role, and in light of the rate of controversy and vandalism on the article, it seems to me worth trying to get it right on this talk page. So i'd like to hear others' ideas, and their reactions to this try:
 * Oh, that's redundant bcz we made that clear in the first sentence. Then...
 * 1) Jesus H. Christ on a fucking bicycle, it's not even true: it's most often a vague interjection of surprise or anger. Then...
 * 2) Reading more carefully, i see we've lead-sentenced the article as being about a word for "anointed" despite saying in the HatNote (that i may have writ), "about the Christian theological role", and we don't ever get around to saying that in the lead secn itself.
 * Christ is, in much Christian theology, the primary role attributed to Jesus, synonymous in that context with "Jesus Christ", and strongly linked in both its linguistic and conceptual history to the role of Messiah in Jewish theology. (In brief: "Messiah" is the anglicization of a Hebrew term, for which Khristós is a Greek translation; "Christ" is the anglicization of that Greek term.)

(I've slighted the valuable non-Latin-alphabet and exact-parts-of-speech material at this point, preferring to bring all the linguistic material together in the Etymol. secn.) Probably still continuing the same 'graph:
 * Early followers of Jesus who took him to be the Messiah (Christ) became known as Christians because of that belief; the majority of Jews reject this claim and still await the Messiah's appearance. While the Jewish tradition understands the Messiah as a human being without any overtone of deity or divinity,  many modern Christians explicitly describe Christ as both fully human and fully God, and Christology, an area of Christian theology, focuses on the nature of Jesus as the Christ, particularly explicating the relation between aspects of his person described as divine on one hand or as human on the other.

--Jerzy•t 09:12, 21 November 2008 & 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why have Islamic View but no other
Why is there an Islamic View section of Christ, but no Jewish, Hindi, Rastafarian, etc. I find this section on bordering bias (in placement, not in content), but at least lacks NPOV. It insinuates/implies Islamic View is the only religion which recognizes Christ in any way. Expand or strike section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.79.160.209 (talk) 17:29, 20 January 2009
 * Strike is not an option. The remedy for lack of balance, except where the detail strays beyond notability, is addition of balancing material. There may be a suitable tag along the lines of expand, in the meantime. --Jerzy•t 04:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

What did Josephus actually record?
Antiquities_of_the_Jews makes clear that no one can be sure what Josephus said and what has been attributed to him by Christian scribes, so i reworded from
 * ... Flavius Josephus records ... the following description of Jesus

The hint that he (born 37 CE, Jesus died in 26–36) was relying on any first-hand knowledge is also diluted in the process. --Jerzy•t 04:27, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Christ is holding a Coke in the Sermon on the Mount Picture
Look closely at the Sermon on the Mount image in the Christ page. Somebody has photoshopped a Coke (ie. Coca-Cola) into his raised hand. Maybe someone with better knowledge of wiki editing can clean this up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.162.144 (talk) 02:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I figured out how to remove it. Check the history to see the offending photo. I'm not sure if I should delete it from wikipedia or not, or even how I would do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.19.162.144 (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Irrelevant
Mannafredo says about that source


 * Austerlitz -- 83.236.20.7 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Hindu view
The Hindu view section doesn't seem very Hindu-like and in fact seems to be the theology of one person. In other words I am dubious that he represents any general view of Hinduism. I propose deleting that section entirely. SQGibbon (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's been three days so I'm going to delete it. SQGibbon (talk) 01:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Focus, weight and WP:RS
I had not looked at this article before, but it seems to breach so many Wiki-policies, it is hard to list them. As a start, it gives much space to various non-mainstream items with sources such as: "stenographic report of a lecture, Los Angeles." which clearly fails WP:RS but takes a lot of space. And there is some astronomical diagram attached to it. Seems to border on billboard advertising within an article which gets 2,000 views a day. Given that the esoteric groups have a very small number of followers (by definition I guess, else would not be esoteric) they can not take so much space, due to WP:WEIGHT. I think a serious trim of the fringe items is needed, and expansion of the general, mainstream concept of "Christ" should take place. History2007 (talk) 11:45, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments: Yes, there are problems here. Currently, the quotations generally do not add anything to the article, interrupt reading and nudge the article into WP:QUOTEFARM territory. Where quotations contain notable information, they should be pruned down or replaced by brief summaries (and/or the quotation moved into a nota bene section). The article places undue weight on particular "Heterodox Christian views" while completely ignoring others. The labelling of "Orthodox" and "Heterodox" can themselves be subject to a charge of promoting a PoV (I have changed the headings to more neutral terms). Much of the "Orthodox" portion of the article is duplicated by the Christology article, so one wonders whether this article would better be switched a redirect, with some of the material integrated into that article. The article ignores the concept of "false christs" and "anti-christs" which are more important as a general concept to explain than individual "heterodox" theologies (unfortunately, the Christology article also fails to explain this concept). The article gives no information or link to the soteriological underpinnings of the term "Christ" in "Orthodox" traditions. "See also" notes should be eliminated from the reference footnotes (they can be placed in a separate "See Also" section if notable), and the embedded list from the Apostle's Creed would better be summarized in a single, prose sentence. So, there is quite a bit needing to be done in order to advance this article. &bull; Astynax talk 18:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I mostly agree. A minor point would be that I see Christ and Christology as being inherently different topics in that one is the study of the other. So just as there are distinct articles on mineral and minerology and cosmetics and cosmetology and cosmos and cosmology, these two articles should be distinct. And a new reader should not really be burdened with the weight of Christological arguments, just to get information on the word Christ. Apart from that I mostly agree with you.


 * I am about to set aside some time to fix things little by little, beginning with the etymology, then we can move on from there. Cheers. History2007 (talk) 18:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Some wording issues
Lead currently reads:
 * Christ is the anglicized version of the Greek term Χριστός (Khristós) meaning "the anointed one".[3] This word was used to translate the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), usually transliterated into English as Messiah or Mashiach. In popular usage—even within secular circles—the term usually refers explicitly to Jesus of Nazareth.

I propose to streamline the wording as follows:
 * Christ (Greek Χριστός (Khristós) 'anointed') is the New Testament word translating the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), the Messiah. In common usage—even within secular circles—'Christ' is generally treated as synonymous with Jesus of Nazareth.

You'll see that there are several changes here:
 * Following general Wikipedia usage, I've put the Greek-language source of the word in parentheses (cf. eulogy, genetics).
 * Rather than using the passive "used to translate" which doesn't specify who or what translates it this way, I've explicitly said that it is a New Testament usage.
 * Instead of focusing on the transliteration of מָשִׁיחַ, I've focused on the meaning Messiah.
 * In general, I've tried to make this more about the concept and less about the word, following WP:NOTDIC.
 * 'usually refers explicitly' is simply wrong. It is not 'explicit'; perhaps what was meant was 'unambiguously'. But I think it's simpler to say that in common usage, the two are synonymous.  That said, some Christian denominations seem to talk more about 'Christ' (Orthodox Christians) while others talk more about 'Jesus' (Protestants); it would be interesting to find some WP:RS on that topic....

I am not sure what is intended in the second paragraph by "its common reciprocal use Christ Jesus"'; what is claimed to be reciprocal here? Is 'reciprocal' being perhaps used to mean 'appositional'? If so, perhaps a better wording would be "The word is used as a title, hence the common apposition Christ Jesus...".

Comments welcome. --Macrakis (talk) 17:11, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Not a major issue, but as the next paragraph says it was the Septuagint that first translated the Hebrew mashiach (referring to the Messiah) into Greek, etc. So it is not just a NT item. And the way it is corresponds to what Pannenberg was saying I think. Bu using Greek first etc. is no big deal, yet the wording as is corresponds to the source, I seem to remember. I checked that a few times now - so many times I am too tired to look it up again and again.


 * Regarding reciprocal, I do not remember where that came from. History2007 (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I think "reciprocal" is about reversing the order (and changing which word is the noun and which the adjective): Jesus Christ vs Christ Jesus.
 * I think Macrakis's proposed wording is very good, much better than "usually refers explicitly". (I guess the intended meaning of that was "usually denotes".)
 * History2007 recently challenged me to find a RS for claiming that "Christ" usually refers to Jesus. I found 2 major dictionaries supporting that claim, which is probably sorta kinda almost good enough, but a better RS would be good for the article (and interesting reading). I have no idea where to find such a RS. Best wishes, CWC 14:30, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually your refs about the "usually denotes" were pretty good - that was why I did not say anything . If you like Macrakis's lede wording then go for it, but please also mention the Septuagint there because that is where it came from. History2007 (talk) 14:52, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Several weeks later, I've revised the first paragraph along the lines suggested by Macrakis. It now reads:
 * Christ (Greek Χριστός (Khristós) 'anointed') is the New Testament word translating the Hebrew מָשִׁיחַ (Māšîaḥ), the Messiah. In common usage—even within secular circles—'Christ' is generally treated as synonymous with Jesus of Nazareth.

Is this OK? Can anyone do better? Cheers, CWC 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it is not correct, for the usage predates the New Testament by a century, as the article says: "In the Septuagint version of the Hebrew Bible (written over a century before the time of Jesus), the word Christ was used to translate into Greek the Hebrew mashiach (messiah), meaning anointed." I will try to touch it up later. History2007 (talk) 16:06, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Page moved Christ (term) → Christ – The move to Christ (term) was completely undiscussed since 2006, had no consensus for the change, and I object personally to it on grounds that Christ and Jesus are theologically distinct terms, and a redirect from "Christ" to "Jesus" is erroneous simplification. Elizium23 (talk) 23:38, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Move back to Christ. Yes, no discussion at all, and these are two distinct terms as you said. And I have asked for a reversal of that and move protection thereafter, so any move would need a discussion, unlike this lightning fast move. History2007 (talk) 23:42, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Christ has acquired secular use as a unbiased name to refer to Jesus; it's not just the Christian world we need to consider with these naming conventions. As I noted in my move justification, Buddha is a title that redirects directly to the article for Siddhattha Gotama rather than a dictionary-like entry, so why should Christ be any different? This isn't Wiktionary, it's Wikipedia. Most will be searching for Jesus when they type Christ, not a dictionary entry for what the term "Christ" means.Crumpled Fire (talk) 23:46, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, they are really separate encyclopedic issues and if you look up Encyclopædia Britannica it does not equate Christ with Jesus neither does it say "Christ (term)". It just has an entry for Christ. The use of Christ (term) would be a really novel (pronounced s-t-r-a-n-g-e) encyclopedic construct.


 * Moreover, as in Roman Catholic (term) which I started myself, the discussion is "about the term", how the term Roman Catholic came about, its history, usage etc. It is not about Roman Catholic theology or the Roman Catholic Church. This article's absolute focus is the "theology of Christ" not the term. This is the lead article for the Christology series - it is not about a term, unlike Roman Catholic (term), which is about the term. So the sudden move produced a total mismatch between the article title and its content. History2007 (talk) 00:44, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Agree with . --MrBoire (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Close RM and submit technical request for restore - Given that Crumpled Fire is a new user on en.wp I think we can assume good faith that he/she (i) didn't know that such a major move should be discussed first, (ii) didn't know that editing the redirect would lock the undiscussed move (per the famous ice Hockey block). Nevertheless we don't need a big RM, we need a restore and then gradually some discussion on Talk page. Elizium23, would you agree to putting in a technical request and then if Crumpled Fire wants to present a case for a RM it can be done citing some WP:AT related policies and guidelines. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
 * NB　I have seconded History 2007 at RPP In ictu oculi (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * And you made a very good point there, that the redirect of Christ to Jesus is highly offensive to Jews, given that Judaism still awaits Christ. A redirect which assumes Christ has already arrived as Jesus is totally WP:POV given that Judaism directly rejects that notion. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Move back to Christ; more than half the article is about the concept, not just the term. People looking for Jesus will find him linked in the very first sentence. Huon (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Right, and the hat note at the very top of this page has for long stated: This article is about the Christian theological role. I guess one could also add "for Jesus of Nazareth, see Jesus" to the hat note, in any case. History2007 (talk) 12:09, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * No opinion on where this eventually ends up, but WP:BRD suggests it should be moved back to where the previous consensus was until a new consensus is reached. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it was an admitted bold move, not only "without consensus", but without discussion. History2007 (talk) 18:37, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Close Requested Move The page was moved back. So procedurally speaking, this RM is no longer applicable (as noted at the top of this section) and may be closed either by the nominator or uninvolved parties. Discussions about page name may, however, continue on this talk page by all interested parties of course. History2007 (talk) 08:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I've untranscluded the requested move template, but whether or not Christ should be moved to Christ (term) should continue to be discussed here. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 13:04, 23 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:08, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Article title: subsequent discussion
By the way, this episode prompted me to make this suggestion as a policy change. History2007 (talk) 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Depiction of Christ
Hello, I open this new section because I think there's not neutrality in the picture of the "Christ Pantocrator". Wikipedia is supposed to be a website with a neutrality policy.

I think that the picture in the front page of the article is not neutral about how we Christians see Jesus. I say this because the hand gesture or hand sign made in the illustration is mainly and widely found in catholicism or catholic imagery, and it's made in many of the paintings of the Popes and other persons considered "saints" by the Catholic Church. Nevertheless, in the vast majority of the other Christian faiths, (which people so-call "protestants"), this hand gesture is not made, and it's not well received by many Christians non-catholics as me. Even in the Bible, Proverbs 6:13 says that an evil person motions with his fingers, and the hand gesture of that depiction of Christ is not based in the Bible, which shows how it is made in traditions of men popularized during the [[Byzantine, Medieval and Renaissance periods.

I just thought about this first, and changed This File by ", a picture of Jesus with the crown of thorns. I did not removed the "Christ Pantocrator" file, just moved it down... however, now it's just as the beginning.

I'd like to know another opinions about this, not only mine and History2007's. --Goose friend (talk) 23:52, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Er, you are aware that Christ Pantocrator is a predominantly Eastern Orthodox image, right? And it is not the aim of this article to be solely biblically based. I do not think the reference to Proverbs has any relevance either; there are plenty of hand gestures which are customarily associated with unambiguously positive figures such as high priests. And I have no idea what the provenance or cultural status is of the image you attempted to substitute; it certainly doesn't have the widespread recognition as an image of Christ that the one you're trying to demote does. AlexTiefling (talk) 00:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The most important thing is to use an image that people associate with "Christ". I don't think there are any problems with the original image. Andrew327 00:27, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree with the points by Andrew and Alex. The image is not Catholic, well recognized and what one might even call an artistic treasure. Indeed it predates the Catholic/Protestant divisions. And it relates to the issue of the humanity/divinty which is a central element of Christian theology. So it is an ancient, well recognized image with artistic merit and suitable here. History2007 (talk) 01:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I too agree that a medieval icon designed to highlight one of the finer points of Christology is more appropriate than a modern drawing of unknown origin. Huon (talk) 01:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, but please, guys. Understand. You have points, but I still think it's NOT neutral. Christians are not only Eastern Orthodox and Catholics and I don't know which Protestant divisions the image "predates". The gesture is used mainly Catholic and Orthodox (yes),as well as in other circles that are not related to Christ in any sense. (see "Dragon symbol of the Cosmos" in whale.to)
 * Certainly, there aren't references about Jesus Christ flashing that hand gesture in any of the canonical gospels or the entire Bible. The article is about Christ!. I guess it's ok if you don't want to use the file of the drawing because of lacking of "historical relevance", but if you want a relevant and historical painting, please try something neutral.
 * What about this ones?: "Christ and Thorns", by Carl Bloch, "Christ, by Heinrich Hofmann" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goose friend (talk • contribs) 06:40, 7 January 2013 (UTC) --Goose friend (talk) 07:05, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * That image is from the 6th century AD. In other words, it was painted about 1000 years before the life of Martin Luther, and 500 years before the schism between eastern and western churches. If you don't understand how that makes it older than any Protestant divisions, you are objectively too ignorant to have your opinion on this subject taken seriously. Moreover, Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians make up significantly more than half of all the world's Christians. While I don't feel that numbers are everything, it does seem foolish to try and argue against such a widely accepted representation.
 * I don't know how often I have to say this: this is not a biblical literalist website. I absolutely do not care whether or not the Bible says that Jesus made any particular hand gesture. The faith of the church over two millennia has not depended solely on what is explicitly there in the letter of scripture. This page, indeed, is substantially about the church's identification of Jesus with the figure and concept of the Messiah.
 * And I really don't think that your freshly uploaded choice of two pictures by 19th-century German Protestants can really be said to be any more neutral; but they might be better used (assuming they are genuinely copyright-free) in our article Jesus. The image of Christ Pantocrator dates from a time when the Christian Church was more or less united (sorry, Copts!), and well illustrates a theological and christological approach, rather than just being a picture of a sad-eyed white guy that the artist says is Jesus. That theological view is, of course, anything but neutral, but Wikipedia is not here to endorse or condemn it. The picture is a good representation of the subject, and that's what counts. AlexTiefling (talk) 07:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree, and I think Goose friend should probably take a look at WP:CON regarding these consensus based discussions. By the way Goose friend, those more modern images you mentioned have some extra baggage of their own you may not be aware of, but I will not open that Pandora's box. The modern artists at times have associations that ancient images are free of. And I think Alex's summary of the divisions is right on the mark. History2007 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Folks, your words expose yourselves. See what you wrote and just remember that it was Jesus Christ who said that of every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment. I guess I can't debate with you about this topic anymore if this page, indeed, is really "substantially about the church's identification of Jesus with the figure and concept of the Messiah"... because then the page title should be called "Churches identification of Christ" instead of "Christ" [Jesus]. Who we think Christ is or how he is, should not be based on consensus anyway. If you believe Jesus is the Christ, I just hope that you don't care more about what Wikipedianity or Churchianity say, rather than what Christ himself said. --Goose friend (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia, as an institution, does not believe that Jesus is the Christ, and many individual editors don't think so either. This is not a tool for evangelisation; it is an encyclopedia. People come here for accurate, well-sourced information, not proselytising. But if you're so keen to defend the faith, why are you so hostile to the expression given to that faith by dozens of generations of Christians across the world? Why are you so anxious to substitute your own choice of recent images for one which reflects what was, at the time, 'believed everywhere by all believers'?
 * But if Christians are to confess that Jesus is the Christ, it is necessary for those terms to be defined in a non-tautological way. This page is about the right-hand-side of that equation: the Christ that Christians confess Jesus to be.
 * And I'd appreciate it if you'd acknowledge that you have understood my point above about how the image of Christ Pantocrator pre-dates all Protestantism by a whole millennium. AlexTiefling (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * So far, this discussion represents original research from those who claim that hand gestures are rejected by Christians in non-fringe denominations. We would need to see some reliable secondary sources which document the controversy over hand gestures and explain which Christian traditions reject them as contrary to their tradition and/or the Bible. Otherwise, all we have is your word for it. Then and only then can we explore the WP:NPOV implications of this icon. Elizium23 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you mean to reply to Goose Friend, rather than to me? AlexTiefling (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it was most probably addressed to Goose Friend. And the heart of the argument is valid: the discussion of the implications of the hand gesture have been mostly based on arm waving, sans sources. But the discussion is probably over now anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

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 ..? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.4.133.34 (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2006


 * That is actually the way it is intended, in that the political influence of Jesus has to do with the "impact of Christianity" and not with the theological use of the term "Christ" which is the subject of this article. There are several other articles on the impact of Christianity (which happened long after the death of Jesus) but that is a separate topic altogether. History2007 (talk) 11:48, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to editors: Add a section for Old Testament references that pertain to the Christ/Messiah, like Isaiah 7.14, chapters 52 & 53, Daniel 7.13-14, and Micah 5. Perhaps a subsection with the agreement/disagreements among Jewish/Christian communities of old and current, like the prophecies under doubt by Jewish communities and why (such as Daniel 7.14) and under doubt by select Christian communities and agreed upon by generally all communities alike (like the Old Testament references of a servant of the Lord to come that generally aren't denied by believers of either faith because of their explicit wording). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.36.53.97 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

NPOV
This article is 100% written from the POV of Christians. Why doesn't it present the views of Muslims and Jews about Christ? Yes, it mentions that Jews don't accept Jesus as Messiah, but I only saw that in the lede, and didn't find in the article reasons why they do so, for example, based on messianic prophecies in the old testament, which almost always were not fulfilled by Jesus. It doesn't mention that Muslims believe Christ to be a prophet, but not savior. Or criticisms made by non-Christians along the history to the theological idea of Christ. The POV is very heavily unbalanced because only the Christian POV is represented. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 11:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you are looking for the separate articles Jesus or Jesus in Islam etc. Elizium23 (talk) 15:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I know they exist, as well as Jesus in Christianity. The name of this article is just Christ, not Christ in Christianity. And the POV is clearly unbalanced, representing exclusively the Christian POV. GreyWinterOwl (talk) 15:32, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Grey - what information do you want to be added to talk about a non-Christian "Christ" that would make this more NPOV in your mind? Because so far all I'm seeing is "This sucks and it should be fixed" without you offering a solution. If your complaint is from a Jewish perspective that there should be more dialogue about a Jewish messiah who has yet to come, please state that. If not, I'm not sure I understand your complaint since there is no "Christ" figure in other religeons. If this is simply a disbelief in Jesus as The Christ, I'm not sure that that is an issue for this page to solve. There are plenty of Wiki pages who discuss Jesus, the Christ, and Christianity from a non-Christian/mythology perspective beyond what Elizium has listed. Ckruschke (talk) 20:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I smell WP:FRINGE
I wish to call into question the veracity and reliability of the sources used to assert that this word is of Egyptian origin. The first one is an old scan of an older document ostensibly written by Willis Brewer, whose credentials as a politician seem to be a red flag as to the scholarship behind these assertions. The second reference is to the Rosicrucian Library, a WP:SPS at its finest, that cannot be held up as a reliable source due to its inherent agenda at proving a mystical religious truth through revisionist propaganda. Therefore, I don't believe an actual reliable, secondary source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking can be produced which supports the assertion that "Christ" is derived from an Egyptian word. Can we remove it from the article again, pending better sources? Elizium23 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 7 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Andrewa (talk) 10:02, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Christ → Christ (title) – After viewing achieves, I am request a moving of Christ to Christ (title) or alternatively Christ (term), and than have Christ redirect to Jesus. Several reasons why this is would be a beneficial redirect. Christians believe that Jesus is the one and only Messiah-Christ in Christianity, so it should redirect to Jesus. Though Christ or the Christ is a title that translates from Messiah, Christ is also used as a name for Jesus by the Secular community, sometimes, as blasphemy according to the religious Christian community. Secular usage has increased drastically for the title-name Christ or "Jesus Christ", another reason for Christ redirecting to Jesus. One example of a title redirecting to a target person who is believed to be that role, is with Buddha redirecting to Gautama Buddha, with the title at Buddha (title). Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv.   16:59, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Jesus is the most common meaning of "Christ" by far. --JFH (talk) 21:42, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree that Christ and Jesus are synonymous for Christians. The article Jesus is about the historic figure and includes information about Jesus in Judaism, Islam and the Ba'hai faith.  You may want to consider that you won't have a completely Christian article like there is on Christ as part of the consideration for voting to move.  In the alternative, we could also redirect to Jesus in Christianity for a purely Christian Jesus article. Lipsquid (talk) 23:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Point the reader to the most popular Jesus page because that's probably who they have in mind. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Should have clarified in my first post that it was a vote of support. Lipsquid (talk) 00:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Very sensible proposal, readers are much more likely to be looking for the article about the person rather than an article primarily about terminology..  IgnorantArmies  (talk)  04:35, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per common usage, but a link leading to this page should be the first item in a hatnote at the Jesus page. Randy Kryn 16:30, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you. A hatnote on the Jesus article will be needed. Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv.   17:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per all above.  ONR  (talk) 23:17, 9 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro feels a bit wordy and unfluid
The intro paragraphs are a bit clunky. I have begun to simplify.... First idea- take out the hebrew word origin of Christ- it is covered in the next section. TantraYum (talk) 22:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, yes I agree with this edit. I think if anyone readds it, it should be more simpler than what I wrote. My sentence was too long. Colliric (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Christ - name of Egyptian origin?
Rudolf Steiner mentions the deity we name Christ today was the same that was called by other names in previous old cultures many thousands of years ago. He mentions Osiris (Egypt), the power living in the 'Ehjeh asher Ehjeh' (I am the I am) in Hebrew Jewish, Apolla (Greek), Ahura Mazdao and Ormuzd (ancient Persia), Vishva Karman (ancient India). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1811:5382:4F00:39E7:54B0:DE2D:F6D (talk) 11:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Original Research. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

"Apolla"

The god is called Apollo or Apollon. Greek names ending in -a tend to be feminine. Dimadick (talk) 14:37, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The word is Greek, not Egyptian
This article, for some reason, claims that the Greek word χριστός (chrīstós) comes from Egyptian Krst. This is manifestly wrong. The noun actually comes from the Greek verb χρίω (chrī́ō), meaning "to anoint." The word χριστός therefore literally means "anointed one." Anyone who knows even the slightest bit of Greek would be able to tell you this. The verb χρίω ultimately comes from Proto-Indo-European *gʰrey- meaning "to rub" or "to smear." It has cognates in other Indo-European languages. For instance, the English word grime is ultimately derived from the same Proto-Indo-European root.

You can look up the word Christ on the Online Etymology Dictionary, on Wiktionary, or just about anywhere else and they'll tell you the same thing. If you look up the word χριστός in the Liddell-Scott, it will tell you the word comes from the verb χρίω. There is a broad scholarly consensus that the word χριστός is of Greek etymology. The notion that χριστός comes from Egyptian Krst appears to have originated with the eccentric nineteenth-century amateur Egyptologist and mystic Gerald Massey, who—as far as I can tell—did not know Greek. Massey essentially believed that all religious traditions could be traced back to ancient Egypt, which, of course, is incorrect. —Katolophyromai (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Etymology
Can someone please fix the broken reference text:

""" S.|title=The Imminent Second Coming|publisher=Trafford Publishing|isbn=9781466953536|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=O0PpaLrzElQC&pg=PA2 """ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:9552:5000:C477:D671:639C:5AD8 (talk) 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)