Talk:Passion (Christianity)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus / Catholicism / Eastern (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (marked as Mid-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy (marked as Mid-importance).
 

==ckasldklaskdlaskdEloi, eloi lama sacachthani in the references should be changed to Eloi, eloi lama sabachthani in the references. I'm not sure how to do this, though.

Removed[edit]

I have removed the following from the article:

Once associated with sin and crime, the concept of passion as wholehearted devotion to an idea or to an ideology has become part of the stock-in-trade of New Agers wishing to gush about their fashionable fads. Business managers, defining a mythical ideal employee, now demand passionate commitment. The emotional intensity-level of teenagers has replaced the detached realism of sober rational adults as a societal aspiration in some such circles.
(Compare fandom in popular culture.)

To me, this looks like yet another anti-new age rant - do New Age-ists really use the word in a way any different to anybody else - combined with a bit of social misanthropy. Charming, but not for the wikipedia, methinks. --Camembert

OK, now I see why crime was added. Should have read the talk before I edited the article. I will remove both love and crime.

Meaning[edit]

If I understand Etymonline correctly, already in Late Latin there were two different meanings of "passio":

  • suffering, enduring; from Latin pati
  • intense emotion; from rendering Greek pathos. Attested usage of "passion" meaning emotion in English from 1374.

In short: not all meanings derive from the former. --Nikai

"Late Latin" means 4th century and later Latin, the Latin of the Christianized Empire of Late Antiquity. I am restoring the accurate information that was deleted by Nikai. On the whole, the better sort of Wikipedians delete with a cautious hand. --Wetman 14:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  1. You apparently don't accept the fact that there is more than one source (one Latin, one Greek), but you didn't care to explain why. The point, by the way, is only that there is more than one source. If you did accept this, we would agree that the last sentence of the first paragraph, which you just restored, is plain wrong.
You've misread Etymonline, which explicitly states that passio is a Late Latin rendering of Greek pathos. Pathos is just not part of the etymology of passio in the sense that this article discusses. No real need to reach for possible proto-Indo-European roots either. (Wetman 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  1. I object to the language used in the first paragraph. I feel offended by the term "informal or colloquial context". This sentence gives the impression that the use of "passion" in any other context than the suffering of Jesus would be somehow incorrect.
It's just a clarifying remark that would send a reader who's looking for other meanings back to Passion (disambiguation), which makes it all plain and clear. (Wetman 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))
  1. I object to the naming of the article. In my opinion "passion" should be a disambiguation page, primarily because of people who unsuspectingly link to "passion" in another context than the suffering of Jesus.
  2. I disagree with you in respect to editing style. I remove information which I consider wrong, one time, and will continue to do so. However, I don't fight. You reverted me twice. I didn't revert you. If I feel offended by your content, others may feel similarly. Maybe one of them is more passionate about it. No need to waste any more of my time. Have a nice day.--Nikai
The better sort of Wikipedians realize that sometimes what one "considers wrong" might possibly be misinformed. When one realizes that, one does what one can to set things right. (Wetman 20:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC))
Nikai is right that there's no need to double-disambiguate the word. This article only describes the passion of Jesus, and once the dab notice is there, there's no reason to mention it again in the opening paragraph. —Wahoofive | Talk 06:44, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The Passion of Christ[edit]

Just found this article and have worked on it.

Sorry guys! but I must say that the English expression here was clumsy. please remember that people with limited English also read these pages.

  • highly abreviated language like "Thorn coronation" doesn't work because it is neither a common expression, a biblical expression or clear. It's merely short. "Crown of Thorns" is far more meaningful.I removed several of these, reversed things (with the addition of a little word here and there like "of". Another example is "metal studded whip" instead of "whip with metal studs" It's about clarity.
  • there is a lot of interesting information inserted in the wrong places. The paragraph that relates the Passion as it is written in the gospels is not the right place for lengthy dissertations on every aspect of the passion, including archeological details. These interesting asides all have a place under a different heading, and I have put them there, but unfortunately lost some of the references, which I will endeavour to fix.
  • Unless you are writing a novel, its best to dispense with descriptive words like "stated" and "argued" when what is really called for is "said", even if it is boring and repetetive. I removed a few of these, including one "Jesus argued" when, in fact, Jesus wasn't making an argument in any sense of the word. He made a statement of fact, followed by another statement which may be considered prophetic.

Now, what I REALLY need to know is, why on earth is this page called Passion (Christianity) instead of the name that it is actually known by - The "Passion of Christ"? I would not let the fact that there has been a movie of that name put me off. It seems like a really strange and clumsy decision. I suppose there is a reason. I won't change it, without feedback.

My spelling is hopeless! So are my typos. Could someone please correct them?

--Amandajm 04:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Christ is a title applied to Jesus ONLY by Christians, and thus is hugely biased to include that in an article title. To call something ..... of The Christ presumes that the person in question actually is a Christ, and is the only Christ, both of which are biased pro-mainstream-Christianity positions. Wikipedia has a policy of Neutral point of view, and so such article titles are not permitted unless they are actual published names of documents etc. (e.g. the title of a book). Clinkophonist 12:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

'Christianity, Astrology And Myth', Wright, L.M. 'See also'[edit]

The book in question is essentially the text of my MA thesis entitled, 'Pagan Ritual And Myth, In The Early Christian Church'. It does indeed cover many aspects of the Jesus Myth, Christian festival et al...As an example, the first eight chapters are headed: (1)Rebirth of a Myth, (2)Christianity And The Sun God, (3)The Dying And Resurrected Saviour God,(4)Stars And Their Portents, (5)The Virgin Mother Of The World, (6)The Cave And Stable Myth, (7)Slaughter Of The Innocents, (8)Miracles...................etc. There are 16 chapters, 230pp, inc' Bibliography, and Index.The work is therefore accademically sound, and relevant to many diverse aspects of Christianity. Larry Wright, 28/03/07

As a courtesy to other editors, it is a Wikipedia guideline to sign your posts on talk pages, user talk pages, and WikiProject pages. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments and your user name or IP address and the date will be automatically added along with a timestamp. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). For further info, read Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines. Thank you. I have also left you a comment on your most recent IP address's talk page because this matter affects a number of pages you have been visiting.-Andrew c 15:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Treatment under the Four Gospels[edit]

The article here currently reads, "The narratives of the Passion are found in the four canonical gospels, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Three of these, Matthew, Mark, and Luke are known as the Synoptic Gospels, give very similar accounts. The Gospel of John includes additional details." While in general this is somewhat true, it's not true for this topic. A word for word comparison between Matthew 26:30-57, Mark 14:26-53, Luke 22:39-54, and John 18:1-13 shows that only Matthew and Mark have wording in common. They are very similar, altho not identical (for instance, Matt. 26:34 v. Mark 14:30). Luke is only similar enough that one can recognize that this is an account of the same events. Same for John. After an appropriate time, say 3 months, for discussion here, I will modify the article's wording a little to indicate this.Friendly Person (talk) 18:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

The first sentence seems misleading. It implies that "passion" is somehow related to the English euphemism "passing" for "dying". But passio, as discussed above, refers to suffering. Surely the Passion of the Christ refers to his suffering, not the point of transition (in human terms, "death") per se? Cynwolfe (talk) 17:00, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure it did - wasn't it just the modern coy American euphemism? But corrected anyway, along with other mistakes. Johnbod (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I meant "English-language" euphemism—for some reason, I find the verbal form "he passed" nauseating (what did he pass?), whereas "he passed away" at least sounds like a gentle intransitive euphemism. Is this only an American barbarism? That's good to hear, though worse for the article. Anyway, a "passion" without suffering would seem to vitiate the theology of the ordeal. Cynwolfe (talk)
Since passio redirects here, and since some martyr accounts are called a passio, should we also take the Latin into account in the intro? Cynwolfe (talk) 18:17, 27 April 2013 (UTC)