Talk:Jesus Christ

Hmm... I hope Connel can read this, as I do not know how else to contact him. Anyway, this is a continuation of a discussion we had last night regarding to the "interjection" entry of this word. Adding a "!" to the interjective use of this word was a good idea and helps to clarify that it is a different term than the proper noun, Jesus Christ (a reference to the historical/religious figure Jesus of Nazareth). My only remaining suggestion would be to add something to the interjection clarifying that it is an improper use of "Jesus Christ." I've made a minor edit to this effect; see what you think.


 * Yes, I did find this (eventually).
 * Actually, my suggestion on your talk page was more along the lines of adding something like this (after the interjection section):


 * ===Usage note===
 * The use as an interjection is considered profane (especially in America) as a violation of the third commandment of the Ten Commandments.
 * --Connel MacKenzie 14:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Islam
I thought Muslims believe God to have no son, so I looked it up on Wikipedia:
 * In Islam, Jesus is considered one of God's important prophets, a bringer of scripture, and the product of a virgin birth; but did not experience a crucifixion. Islam and the Baha'i Faith use the title "Messiah" for Jesus, but do not teach that he was God incarnate.

Please keep this in mind in making any edits. DAVilla 19:08, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ
Proper noun, not interjection: A name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish man whom Christians and Muslims believe to be the Messiah, or Christ.

More of the same mass addition of entries contrary to consensus. It is beginning to seem wilfully anti-community. When does it become vandalism? DCDuring TALK 16:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * As an aside, the proper noun sense of Jesus Christ here requested for deletion was placed to the entry upon its creation, on 16 April 2004 by GABaker. It was not created as part of mass addition of entries.


 * Other Biblical characters whose multi-word name is currently in Wiktionary include Mary Magdalene, Virgin Mary and John the Baptist. --Dan Polansky 11:04, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Yair rand (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, let the non-dictionary projects handle the non-dictionary material. Mglovesfun (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Obvious keep. We might not know where or how to draw a line in the sand, but those of you who are trying to draw it where the waves roll in even in low tide are going to be very disappointed. DAVilla 17:23, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we have to vote on each proper noun? Please note that "attributive use" is no longer available as a rationale, by vote. As a senior statesman of the project, do you have any proposals that would be likely to gain consensus? DCDuring TALK 17:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You are kind, but a statesman does not speak his own mind. More objectively, I can only say this is a highly divisive issue. I have suggested criteria before, but no, the proposal did not gain consensus. DAVilla 18:13, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * When does listing things in RfD become vandalism? Keep. -  17:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing never. Mglovesfun (talk) 17:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 17:42, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep, at first, due to the lack of explicit reasons for deletion. I would expect a strong context to back up accusations like "contrary to consensus", "wilfully anti-community" and "vandalism"; or, even better, no accusations at all, in favor of a substantial and peaceful discussion. Moreover, "Jesus Christ" has the benefit of widespread use, and linguistic relations with Christianity and related concepts. Finally, its pronunciation and translations may be used by Christians in the process of learning a second language and using it to practice their religion, among other people with other interests. --Daniel. 18:17, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I say keep. I can think of instances where the term is used generically in the sense of saviour/salvation ("yeah man, he's my own personal Jesus Christ"). Leasnam 18:20, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Out current definition, "A name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish man whom Christians and Muslims believe to be the Messiah, or Christ", says nothing about salvation. If someone were to read our entry in order to know what "my own personal Jesus Christ" meant, he'd be disappointed. So — you may argue — let's add that he's also known for salvation. Okay, change it to "A name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish man whom Christians and Muslims believe to be the Messiah, or Christ, and to save people from damnation". Then what about him as a miracle-worker? Or as someone betrayed? Or as a carpenter? Or as a teacher? Okay, let's add them in! "A name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish carpenter whom Christians and Muslims believe to be the Messiah, or Christ, to have performed miracles, to have taught moral lessons, to have been betrayed, and to save people from damnation". Heck, why don't we just write a whole encyclopedia article while we're at it? &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You forgot the part where he cursed the fig tree. :-P DAVilla 19:03, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * With all due respect that's bordering on the ridiculous. Please quit. Otherwise I could come to the conclusion that you have a personal issue with the subject matter (and I don't really need to know). I think it's fine the way it is. Wiktionary should have an entry for this term, as it is just that--a term, even if only cursory and descriptive. If the sense I mentioned above needs to be added, because it's in current use (keeping all personal feelings, for or against, out of the equation), then add it. It's a topic, an entry, and should be treated as such. Leasnam 19:02, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You may come to that conclusion, but you'd be mistaken. I have no issues with the referent of this name, but I do have an issue with including it in a dictionary. If the sense you mentioned needs to be added, because it's in use (current or otherwise: we also include old terms), then, you say, we should add it: that's what my previous post here was in response to: it makes the entry into an encyclopedia article. (I bet we can find three hits for each of the facets I mentioned.) I don't know what your last sentence, Leasnam, "It's a topic, an entry, and should be treated as such" means, really, but at the least you seem to be conflating topic and entry, which may be a large part of the problem here: a dictionary is for entries (words), not topics (their referents). &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 19:24, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just what I mean--it's a topic (encyclopedic) and an entry (dictionary). It should be treated as an entry here, which it currently is (kinda). I'm fine with it being an entry. It does not need deletion, just a little amendment perhaps. Leasnam 19:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * okay, I've added a second sense. I think it helps to maintain the first though as a point of reference for the second. With it, it makes more, well, sense. Leasnam 19:44, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. Thanks. --Daniel. 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The definition "A name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish carpenter whom Christians and Muslims believe to be the Messiah, or Christ, to have performed miracles, to have taught moral lessons, to have been betrayed, and to save people from damnation" does not look bad, because it does shortly explain who the guy is. Similarly, the entry Leonardo da Vinci could be defined with the arguably long sense "An Italian painter, sculptor, architect, musician, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor, anatomist, geologist, cartographer, botanist and writer."
 * msh210 (who himself voted to delete the discussed entry) obviously used long senses in this discussion to argue that everything that "Jesus Christ" has done (or, perhaps, the notable things that he has done) wouldn't fit a small dictionary sense, thus would be more suitable to an encyclopedia article. However, a huge difference of complexity between an encyclopedia article and a dictionary entry for the same concept is not a privilege of Jesus Christ, or of individual persons.
 * When defining common nouns, one must also choose the wording that conveys the most basic, simple and explanatory details of a given concept. For example, a dog may be defined as "A domesticated member of the Canis lupus familiaris of the Canidae family." without mentioning every detail of its behavior, appearance, races, taxonomy etc. There is a dictionary entry with few words (and hopefully some good pictures) to point out what is the animal, and an encyclopedia article to explain in-depth about it. --Daniel. 21:27, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not too thrilled by the current definition ("1.A name for Jesus of Nazareth, a Jewish man whom Christians and Muslims believe to be the Messiah, or Christ"). I think it's too personal. I would prefer something along the lines of: 1. A name for Jesus of Nazareth, a first century Jewish prophet and teacher deemed the Messiah, or Christ, in Christian and Muslim faiths. Leasnam 04:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * One difference (the only significant one AFAICT besides the date) that I see between those two is that the latter calls him a "Jewish prophet and teacher" which (a) may easily be (mis?)interpreted as meaning that he is considered by Judaism to have been a prophet and teacher, which is incorrect and (b) anyway is referring to him as a prophet, which is a claim of a religion like his being the messiah, so should, as the latter is, be marked as such. (I'm writing this only in answer to the immediately preceding post of Leasnam's. My view remains that we should not have this sense at all.) &#x200b;—msh210℠ (talk) 05:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, see now Leasnam 22:48, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it might be important to understand that a definition that consists of multiple attributes of an individual could become quite difficult to attest. It is extremely unlikely that a single citation will demonstrate that the usage refers to all of the attributes. Perhaps non-gloss definitions would be appropriate ways to avoid encyclopedic content about single individuals in competition with the mother ship. DCDuring TALK 11:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am amazed that people consider this to be a "word"... --Yair rand (talk) 06:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. --Vahag 16:44, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep It can be called a word, in its linguistic sense. It's not a standard 1st name + surname construct. Lmaltier 17:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

kept -- Prince Kassad 20:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew translation
Looks like it means "Jesus the Nazarene". Is there really no standard way to handle the 'Christ' part in Hebrew? Maybe המשיך? (my spelling might be off, but I mean ha-mashiakh) --Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 17:21, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * or —Stephen (Talk) 22:25, 23 July 2012 (UTC)