Assumption of Biblical Power of Christ?Edit

One of Jesus' most notable acts was purported to be the resurrection of Lazarus. Since the immortal Flint claimed to have been Lazarus, it seems that Jesus did not actually bring him back to life. However, it is equally likely that Flint was embellishing his own history and may not actually have been Lazarus.

Would it be equally appropriate to say something along the lines of "it is also equally as likely that Christ didn't actually have the power of resurrection, which was incorrectly attributed to him based on Lazarus' hardiness, and longevity"? Or would that be too controversial to bother with?

I'm being serious about this, and only looking at things from the MA point of view. It would *seem* theres an assumption happening here. I'm not trying to be a jerk, and I'm not trying to "make a point". If this subject is more trouble then its worth, I'll be happy to just leave it alone. I have a feeling I'm not the first to bring this subject up in some way (I read the discussion pages about BCE/CE, versus BC/AD).

Feel free to tell me not to go there, and I wont. -- Hossrex 02:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see a problem discussing this.
I think the assumption that Jesus did actually have the power to resurrect people is avoided because the first sentence only states that he purportedly did so.
In any case, to avoid any misunderstandings the last sentence should probably read "It is also possible that Flint..." – Cleanse 03:05, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
I made the change.– Cleanse 03:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Should be removed as a nitpick and speculation. We don't know that Flint didn't actually die at that time and indeed was resurrected by Jesus. — Morder (talk) 20:54, October 19, 2009 (UTC)

Added Enterprise referenceEdit

I just added a reference to Archer finding the situation with Surak's teachings familiar to Christ's. However, as he never actually referenced Jesus, I understand if some find this to be speculatory, but I felt the implication was pretty clear. Just wanted to post my interpretation here in case anyone disagreed. -Angry Future Romulan 16:09, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

I'm tempted to remove it. As you say, Jesus was not actually mentioned, and the idea of lost texts is hardly unique to Jesus. For all we know, it could refer to other Abrahamic events, such as the loss of the ArK of the Covenant, or non Abrahamic faiths. Or, even more likely, the fact that the idea of lost texts from that far back is common in a great many Earth religions. To pin this on Christ alone without evidence is an extreme stretch. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:18, May 25, 2010 (UTC)
Agreed to remove it. I think the way it was said was done on purpose so the viewer would attribute their own faiths/beliefs to the statement. This could apply to even the non-religious so it's pretty speculative to attribute that "sounds familiar" to christ alone. — Morder (talk) 17:31, May 25, 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, people! {Deep breath}...okay, I'll remove it. -Angry Future Romulan 14:10, May 26, 2010 (UTC)

Funny...I personally always thought of it as Christ (and if I had to pinpoint it, I still would), but only after seeing this interpretation did I really think more and see that it could've been so many different things--Ten-pint 19:29, June 2, 2010 (UTC)

"Good Shepherd" Edit

The entire premise of VOY: "Good Shepherd" is based, as Janeway said, on the "parable of the good shepherd," which AFAIK, is only directly found in the Gospels.

She never mentioned Jesus, but she's obviously referring to him; how many other famous earth people told "parables" about a "good shepherd" going after the missing sheep (and with a seemingly great opportunity cost/highly illogical & dangerous) when most were safe?

But, this isn't the place for speculation or Bible stories. (I'm just aiming for completeness.) What is the consensus regarding adding a reference to that? Yes? No? Put in background?

I'm wondering the same thing about the Christianity article. It seems like a case for MA: Use common sense, but still.......?

(Sorry about my lack of brevity. Trying to work on that!)

Cepstrum (talk) 14:26, January 26, 2011 (UTC)

"Taking the Lord's name in vain" Edit

I have today removed two instances of this phraseology from the article. Please remember that this is an in-universe article, and thus must be written in a way which adheres to the facts of the episode as closely as possible. The Star Trek universe, so far as I recall, has no concept of blasphemy like this. As far as I know, the phrase, "taking the Lord's name in vain", or similar, simply doesn't exist in this fictional universe. Such language should not be re-added o the article unless proof of such language can be found.
czechout@fandom    <span style="">01:39:25 Tue 06 Sep 2011 

For the record, the removed comment follows:
I disagree with the removal. The phrase "taking the Lord's name in vain" doesn't have to have been said in the Trek universe for it to be done by a character in said universe. We can trust common sense to tell us that's what was being done.--31dot 02:13, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Common sense clearly covers what was being said, and how, since both time frames are relatively contemporary. Removing this information seems to me to be strictly adhering to the letter of the canon policy against the spirit of it. - Archduk3 02:42, September 6, 2011 (UTC)
Common sense (and religious postering) aside, the edit removed an exact account of what Cochrane said ("sweet Jesus") and replaced it with an euphemism, for absolutely no good reason. I have no ideological issue with the new phrasing, but in this case it's in no way an improvement; It's removing information in favor of a vague expression. -- Capricorn 22:51, September 8, 2011 (UTC)

Missing refEdit

"Storm Front". I'd add it except I can't tell who Carmine is talking about from the transcript. --LauraCC (talk) 20:38, February 3, 2016 (UTC)