![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Extensive formatting & some reordering added to this section to clarify flow of discussion.
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. If we are unable to talk this out I will move up the chain of command if necessary.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.121.230.51 (
talk) 00:36 & :55, 18 December 2005
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, CrazyInSane has reverted himself. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:59, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
Surely at least a lk to
Christ the Logos is needed.
--
Jerzy•
t 02:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed from the Etymology section the following:
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)
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
(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
(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)
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)
My first reaction to
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:
(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:
--
Jerzy•
t 09:12, 21 November 2008
& 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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
Antiquities_of_the_Jews#Manuscripts 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
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)
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)
Mannafredo says about that source [8]
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)
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)
Lead currently reads:
I propose to streamline the wording as follows:
You'll see that there are several changes here:
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)
Several weeks later, I've revised the first paragraph along the lines suggested by Macrakis. It now reads:
Is this OK? Can anyone do better? Cheers, CWC 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Requested move/dated|Christ}}
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)
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)
By the way, this episode prompted me to make this suggestion as a policy change. History2007 ( talk) 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
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 " this other in black & white, 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)
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)
I've tidied up (most of) the references via {{ cite book}}. Some possible issues:
Huon ( talk) 01:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 05:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
@ TonyTheTiger: Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable of this subject enough to make significant improvements. The nominator, User:History2007, has WP:vanished before the review began, and the article is far from GA quality in my opinion. The best thing to do now is probably to withdraw this nomination.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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</ref> """ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:9552:5000:C477:D671:639C:5AD8 ( talk) 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
"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)
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
Extensive formatting & some reordering added to this section to clarify flow of discussion.
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. If we are unable to talk this out I will move up the chain of command if necessary.
— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
67.121.230.51 (
talk) 00:36 & :55, 18 December 2005
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.
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Okay, CrazyInSane has reverted himself. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 15:59, 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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).
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)
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)
Surely at least a lk to
Christ the Logos is needed.
--
Jerzy•
t 02:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
I removed from the Etymology section the following:
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)
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
(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
(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)
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)
My first reaction to
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:
(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:
--
Jerzy•
t 09:12, 21 November 2008
& 04:55, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
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
Antiquities_of_the_Jews#Manuscripts 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
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)
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)
Mannafredo says about that source [8]
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)
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)
Lead currently reads:
I propose to streamline the wording as follows:
You'll see that there are several changes here:
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)
Several weeks later, I've revised the first paragraph along the lines suggested by Macrakis. It now reads:
Is this OK? Can anyone do better? Cheers, CWC 15:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
{{
Requested move/dated|Christ}}
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)
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)
By the way, this episode prompted me to make this suggestion as a policy change. History2007 ( talk) 18:10, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
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 " this other in black & white, 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)
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)
I've tidied up (most of) the references via {{ cite book}}. Some possible issues:
Huon ( talk) 01:11, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: TonyTheTiger ( talk · contribs) 05:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
@ TonyTheTiger: Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable of this subject enough to make significant improvements. The nominator, User:History2007, has WP:vanished before the review began, and the article is far from GA quality in my opinion. The best thing to do now is probably to withdraw this nomination.-- FutureTrillionaire ( talk) 23:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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)
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</ref> """ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F2C0:9552:5000:C477:D671:639C:5AD8 ( talk) 19:05, 29 August 2020 (UTC)