Talk:Christianity

message: There has been a fair bit of editing to and fro regarding the languages field in the infobox, and it is much better if we discuss it here and gain a consensus. It should either refer to the languages of the original texts (in which case Latin should be removed) or official non-vernacular church languages (in which case Old Church Slavonic and others need to be included as well). StAnselm (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, it should only include the original languages of the faith, the Old Testament was written in Hebrew and Aramaic (later translated to Greek in the Septuagint) and the original New Testament was written in Greek. Where Latin comes into play is according to the Sacred language Wikipage which cites the Gospel of John, "Jesus King of Jews" was inscribed upon the cross in Greek, Hebrew and Latin. I believe it's probably best to include the original languages of the faith. Latin does start to play an official role in the Church until the 4th century with Ecclesiastical Latin however I guess what we are trying to figure out is if Latin in the form of Classical Latin can be considered a language of this religion. I learn towards no. Completely Random Guy (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Languages 

message: While I agree that, generally, WP:HONORIFIC suggests removal of honorifics except when ubiquitous or necessary for disambiguating, the honorific “Christ” is so integral to “Christianity” that it should be retained in this case. Thoughts? Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Masterhatch (talk) 21:07, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I fail to see a legitimate reason why Jesus should be followed up with this non-neutral honorific in this article when he is regarded to be Christ only by adherents of Christianity. I'm not saying that it's not informative, but to the average reader who may or may not be familiar with the topic and wants to read an objective article, it does not make a good case. Chronikhiles (talk)  15:29, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: The honorific “Christ” is the root of the terms “Christian”, “Christianity”, etc. It is far more than just being informative: it is foundational and the focus. Furthermore, being “neutral”, in this case, does not argue for its removal: it argues for allowing it in an article where that honorific is the whole point. Allowing it to remain does not imply WP’s endorsement of the title - it only provides an accurate reflection of the religious adherent’s viewpoint - while removal may represent anti-religious non-neutrality. As such I do not find any argument that “Christ” should be struck from “Christianity” persuasive. Other articles that do not focus on “Christ”, sure. Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:09, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not a honorific, and it is not used for courtesy reasons. Christ (the "anointed one") is the title given to the expected Messiah, reflecting the ritual anointing of kings and religious leaders. Dimadick (talk) 23:10, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I'm not arguing for Christ to be struck from Christianity, but from the historical person called Jesus, especially in the very first paragraph of the lead. The distinction between the historical Jesus and Jesus, the second person of the Trinity, is blurred here. Chronikhiles (talk)  02:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

text: Strong keep. It's there in the first sentence to explain where the word Christianity comes from. StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of honorific “Christ”