Talk:Kingly office of Christ

Context/POV

I have used the POV template because I believe this article is written in an authoritative tone that presumes the reader will agree with the religious connotations of the article. While that may be the tone of the referenced material (Easton's Bible Dictionary) it should not be the tone of the Wikipedia article ([Wikipedia is not a soapbox]). I have used the context template because the article does not seem to fully explain the relevance of this idea of Christ as mediator (which sect of the Christian religion does this apply to -- it seems almost esoteric or even monastic, what historical relevance does this have, etc). Kooky (talk) 07:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources + comprehension issues

The template says "This article provides insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject." Well, I do consider myself pretty much familiar with the subject, and I certainly am familiar with the three offices of Christ, and yet I don't get the mediator part in this article at all. I have been used to think of the priestly office as the mediator office - which makes sense to me - , and the way this article describes it is not really very helpful.

Also, this article has a very serious source/ citation problem. The second reference (Hebrews 8:5) ist just plain OR and doesn't really support much anyway, and all the rest of the article is completely unsourced. Especially those three points really need citation, in my opinion, and if you are going to quote the Pope, you might as well do it properly too.

Apart from my initial question, there are more comprehension issues. Despite being familiar with theology and church, I have no idea what is meant by "he urged to restore all things in Christ". Neither is the rest of the article very comprehensible. --93.212.228.146 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, perhaps this should be cleaned up and folded into the Christ the King article. Mannanan51 (talk) 03:30, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

Srnec proposed merging the article Christ the King into this article, but never initiated a discussion of the proposal. For the sake of administrative efficiency, I've opened a discussion of the proposed merger at Talk:Christ the King. Please feel free to weigh in on the various options available, so that a consensus can be reached on whether the merge the two articles, and if so, at which title. I'll move any substantive replies here to the discussion there, in order to keep the discussion together in one place. P Aculeius (talk) 14:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]