Talk:Jesus/Archive 58

message: As some of you may know, this article was originally titled "Jesus Christ"—evidence of the fact that many consider the term Christ as a surname, or at the very least a term that is associated with Jesus' name rather than a term asserting Jesus as a Messiah. The branding of Jesus as "Jesus Christ" on all kinds of secular media and even within Jewish or other non-Christian communities asserts this fact. Recently, I made an alteration in the first paragraph that addressed this issue. I believe it should be placed to casually and nonchalantly inform the general public (perhaps even those who typed "Jesus Christ" and were redirected to Jesus) that "Christ" is not a surname or other permanent fixture, but is in fact a title asserting the divinity of Jesus. User:Aiden reverted my edits and I'm certainly not going to re-revert until there is discussion about my proposal. Here is the requested alteration (you can suggest grammatical changes to it if you like)
-----
Current:
:"...also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. In this context, he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah"."
Proposal:
:"...also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ. Though the term "Christ" is commonly malinterpreted as a surname, it is actually a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah"."
-----
Please discuss. — CRAZY`(IN)`SANE 04:23, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current version clearly states Christ is a title not a surname in better wording. For one, we don't have any information to assert the claim that most people regard Christ as a surname and honestly I don't see the need to assert it when we clearly define it as a title. —Aiden 04:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a better word than "mailinterpreted" to put there, that seems pretty high level :/. Homestarmy 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "misinterpreted" a better word? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find malinterpreted in a dictionary (or on line.) The prefix 'mal' implies malicious rather than a mistake. Misinterpreted is probably the right word Johnmarkh 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Which raises an interesting question: at what point does a title become a name? Even allowing for that, it's still not necessarily a surname. As early as Paul, Christians have addressed Jesus as "Christ Jesus" as often as "Jesus Christ." Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend just avoiding the issue by leaving the paragraph in its current form. No need to make sweeping generalizations we can't support with references. —Aiden 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: An interesting point, John K. Early English surnames were often based on one's title or job, "Farmer", "Baker", "Earl", "Duke" and so on. A similar phenomenon seems to have taken place in the case of "Jesus Christ". » MonkeeSage « 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed alteration in opening paragraph 

message: :I think the current version clearly states Christ is a title not a surname in better wording. For one, we don't have any information to assert the claim that most people regard Christ as a surname and honestly I don't see the need to assert it when we clearly define it as a title. —Aiden 04:48, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a better word than "mailinterpreted" to put there, that seems pretty high level :/. Homestarmy 16:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Isn't "misinterpreted" a better word? Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can't find malinterpreted in a dictionary (or on line.) The prefix 'mal' implies malicious rather than a mistake. Misinterpreted is probably the right word Johnmarkh 17:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Which raises an interesting question: at what point does a title become a name? Even allowing for that, it's still not necessarily a surname. As early as Paul, Christians have addressed Jesus as "Christ Jesus" as often as "Jesus Christ." Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I recommend just avoiding the issue by leaving the paragraph in its current form. No need to make sweeping generalizations we can't support with references. —Aiden 17:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: An interesting point, John K. Early English surnames were often based on one's title or job, "Farmer", "Baker", "Earl", "Duke" and so on. A similar phenomenon seems to have taken place in the case of "Jesus Christ". » MonkeeSage « 02:40, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: I deleted the recent category addition which I think is inappropriate.  We have no evidence that when Jesus was alife he and his followers were considered a "cult" in the contemporary sense of the word.  That there are Christian cults today I do not doubt, but they ar enot led by Jesus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 09:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. —Aiden 17:56, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not aware of any evidence that suggests that during the lifetime of Jesus his followers were accused of being members of a cult.  Later, Christianity was definitely identified as being a cult.  Who does the leading of which religious organizations is left for someone else to identify; not us.  Storm Rider (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Christianity was identified early on as a "faction" [αἵρεσις (lit. "heresy")] or "schism" [σχίσμα] of Judaism; and many scholars of Judaism and Christianity, as well as sociologists of religion, use the term cultus to refer to the religious practice and body of a culture or sub-culture; however, a common modern English use of "cult" has the negative connotations of extreemism and totalitarian leadership which those other terms do not necessarily/usually have. So the term "cult" would likely be misleading, I think. » MonkeeSage « 02:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wasn't jesus killed because he was devoted to beliefs or practices that the surrounding culture or society considered to be far outside the mainstream? And that is exactly the definition of a cult as defined in the Cult article, and obviously jesus was considered the leader of his movement by his followers. I suggest reinstating the cult leader categorisation.--62.251.90.73 14:01, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, but don't hold your breath waiting for it to happen. Drogo Underburrow 14:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cult leader 

message: The amount of vandalism going on is seriously outrageous. This is why the article should not have been unprotected, or better yet, only registered users should be able to edit Wikipedia. —Aiden 22:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Permanent semiprotection is against the protection policy, I believe. Preventing IPs would kind of defeat the "encyclopedia that anyone can edit" theme (I say kind of because anyone can register an account and then edit, so technically, anyone can edit). I can't imagine there ever being a concensus to block all IPs... perhaps you should try proposing it? Either way, I sprotected the article. --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes I understand, but as you said anyone can register an account. I realize it'd be a major change in Wikipedia policy and it probably won't happen, but it continues to be my wish. None-the-less, thanks for the sprotect. —Aiden 22:31, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem. :-) --Lord Deskana Dark Lord of the Sith 22:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess Jesus is just a really popular figure. Can't say im surprised, I mean, the promise of eternal salvation for sins (which everyone has commited) is certainly quite a prominent one, made all the more prominent by Him being God and sacrificing Himself for the world. Homestarmy 01:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: in what the hell was jesus was he black or muslim or just a plain jew looker tell me--206.176.124.227 15:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try reading the article. —Aiden 15:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or try reading Race of Jesus Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 14:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: race of jesus 

message: Perhaps it needs another page, but some mention of Jesus' sexual orientation ought to be made. There seem to be four major view points on the subject:
1. He was heterosexual, possibly married and had childen
2. He was homosexual, as evidenced by living with men and various quotes in the bible (see link below)
3. He was bisexual
4. He was not remantically involved with anyone (seemingly unlikely)
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm has some basic info. I feel this is an important, if controversial topic and deserves mention. Mojo-chan 17:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Quite bluntly, I sort of think its silly. But then, it would be an excellent opportunity to answer a common wisecrack at Jesus, that simply because Jesus didn't "hang out" with women more that it somehow made Him gay. We'd need better citations from religioustolerance.org however, in my experience, its notorious for glossing over important parts of Christianity and being pretty bad at generalizing in other instances. Homestarmy 18:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the subject of a related article, Sexuality of Jesus. Now if you'll excuse me, I'll have see if we're still debating whether or not Christianity is monotheistic. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 18:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual orientation 

message: Move them to other articles. Skinnyweed 16:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Im not entirely certain what we could possibly cut out :/. Homestarmy 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Some of the historicity section delves too much into history of canon then of Jesus. —Aiden 19:43, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why pick on the historicity section? To be balanced we'd have to trim all the sections. We already do have the subarticles for them. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 21:25, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, folks! What about moving the details of the date of Christmas to the Chronology of Jesus article? --CTSWyneken 21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems fair enough, im not so sure that Jesus's exact birthdate really helps readers understand Jesus more myself. Homestarmy 00:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Very long. 82kb 

message: How come the cross is black in all the articles about Christianity and about this one about Jesus? Dot Bitch
:I think someone changed the template symbol thing. Homestarmy 03:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: the cross is black

message: I'm going to ask in all ignorance: why is this article Jesus, and not Jesus Christ? Stevage 09:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because "Christ" is a title used by Christians. This article covers all perspectives on Jesus of Nazareth, both Christian and nonChristian. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 11:02, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: article name: Jesus or Jesus Christ?