text:
Christology

In Christianity, Christology is a branch of theology that concerns Jesus. Different denominations have different opinions on questions such as whether Jesus was human, divine, or both, and as a messiah what his role would be in the freeing of the Jewish people from foreign rulers or in the prophesied Kingdom of God, and in the salvation from what would otherwise be the consequences of sin.

The earliest Christian writings gave several titles to Jesus, such as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and, which were all derived from Hebrew scripture. These terms centered around two opposing themes, namely "Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God", versus adoptionism – that Jesus was human who was "adopted" by God at his baptism, crucifixion, or resurrection.

From the second to the fifth centuries, the relation of the human and divine nature of Christ was a major focus of debates in the early church and at the first seven ecumenical councils. The Council of Chalcedon in 451 issued a formulation of the hypostatic union of the two natures of Christ, one human and one divine, "united with neither confusion nor division". Most of the major branches of Western Christianity and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to this formulation, while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches reject it, subscribing to miaphysitism.

Definition and approaches
Christology (from the Greek Χριστός and -λογία), literally 'the understanding of Christ', is the study of the nature (person) and work (role in salvation) of Jesus Christ. It studies Jesus Christ's humanity and divinity, and the relation between these two aspects; and the role he plays in salvation.

"Ontological Christology" analyzes the nature or being of Jesus Christ. "Functional Christology" analyzes the works of Jesus Christ, while "soteriological Christology" analyzes the "salvific" standpoints of Christology.

Several approaches can be distinguished within Christology. The term Christology from above or high Christology refers to approaches that include aspects of divinity, such as Lord and Son of God, and the idea of the pre-existence of Christ as the Logos ('the Word'), as expressed in the prologue to the Gospel of John. These approaches interpret the works of Christ in terms of his divinity. According to Pannenberg, Christology from above "was far more common in the ancient Church, beginning with Ignatius of Antioch and the second century Apologists." The term Christology from below or low Christology refers to approaches that begin with the human aspects and the ministry of Jesus (including the miracles, parables, etc.) and move towards his divinity and the mystery of incarnation.

Person of Christ

A basic Christological teaching is that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine. The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ apparently (prosopic) form a duality, as they coexist within one person (hypostasis). There are no direct discussions in the New Testament regarding the dual nature of the Person of Christ as both divine and human, and since the early days of Christianity, theologians have debated various approaches to the understanding of these natures, at times resulting in ecumenical councils, and schisms.

Some historical christological doctrines gained broad support:
 * Monophysitism (Monophysite controversy, 3rd–8th centuries): After the union of the divine and the human in the historical incarnation, Jesus Christ had only a single nature. Monophysitism was condemned as heretical by the Council of Chalcedon (451).
 * Miaphysitism (Oriental Orthodox churches): In the person of Jesus Christ, divine nature and human nature are united in a compound nature ('physis').
 * Dyophysitism (Eastern Orthodox Church, Catholic Church, Church of the East, Lutheranism, Anglicanism, and the Reformed Churches): Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, after the Incarnation; articulated by the Chalcedonian Definition.
 * Monarchianism (including Adoptionism and Modalism): God as one, in contrast to the doctrine of the Trinity. Condemned as heretical in the Patristic era but followed today by certain groups of Nontrinitarians.

Influential Christologies which were broadly condemned as heretical are:
 * Docetism (3rd–4th centuries) claimed the human form of Jesus was mere semblance without any true reality.
 * Arianism (4th century) viewed the divine nature of Jesus, the Son of God, as distinct and inferior to God the Father, e.g., by having a beginning in time.
 * Nestorianism (5th century) considered the two natures (human and divine) of Jesus Christ almost entirely distinct.
 * Monothelitism (7th century), considered Christ to have only one will.

Various church councils, mainly in the 4th and 5th centuries, resolved most of these controversies, making the doctrine of the Trinity orthodox in nearly all branches of Christianity. Among them, only the Dyophysite doctrine was recognized as true and not heretical, belonging to the Christian orthodoxy and deposit of faith.

Salvation
In Christian theology, atonement is the method by which human beings can be reconciled to God through Christ's sacrificial suffering and death. Atonement is the forgiving or pardoning of sin in general and original sin in particular through the suffering, death and resurrection of Jesus, enabling the reconciliation between God and his creation. Due to the influence of Gustaf Aulèn's (1879–1978) Christus Victor (1931), the various theories or paradigmata of atonement are often grouped as "classical paradigm", "objective paradigm", and the "subjective paradigm":
 * Classical paradigm:
 * Ransom theory of atonement, which teaches that the death of Christ was a ransom sacrifice, usually said to have been paid to Satan or to death itself, in some views paid to God the Father, in satisfaction for the bondage and debt on the souls of humanity as a result of inherited sin. Gustaf Aulén reinterpreted the ransom theory, calling it the Christus Victor doctrine, arguing that Christ's death was not a payment to the Devil, but defeated the powers of evil, which had held humankind in their dominion.;
 * Recapitulation theory, which says that Christ succeeded where Adam failed. Theosis ('divinization') is a "corollary" of the recapitulation.
 * Objective paradigm:
 * Satisfaction theory of atonement, developed by Anselm of Canterbury (1033/4–1109), which teaches that Jesus Christ suffered crucifixion as a substitute for human sin, satisfying God's just wrath against humankind's transgression due to Christ's infinite merit.
 * Penal substitution, also called "forensic theory" and "vicarious punishment", which was a development by the Reformers of Anselm's satisfaction theory. Instead of considering sin as an affront to God's honour, it sees sin as the breaking of God's moral law. Penal substitution sees sinful man as being subject to God's wrath, with the essence of Jesus' saving work being his substitution in the sinner's place, bearing the curse in the place of man.
 * Governmental theory of atonement, "which views God as both the loving creator and moral Governor of the universe."
 * Subjective paradigm:
 * Moral influence theory of atonement, developed, or most notably propagated, by Abelard (1079–1142), who argued that "Jesus died as the demonstration of God's love", a demonstration which can change the hearts and minds of the sinners, turning back to God.
 * Moral example theory, developed by Faustus Socinus (1539–1604) in his work De Jesu Christo servatore (1578), who rejected the idea of "vicarious satisfaction". According to Socinus, Jesus' death offers humanity a perfect example of self-sacrificial dedication to God.

Other theories are the "embracement theory" and the "shared atonement" theory.

Early notions of Christ
The earliest christological reflections were shaped by both the Jewish background of the earliest Christians, and by the Greek world of the eastern Mediterranean in which they operated. The earliest Christian writings give several titles to Jesus, such as Son of Man, Son of God, Messiah, and Kyrios, which were all derived from Hebrew scripture. According to Matt Stefon and Hans J. Hillerbrand:

"Until the middle of the 2nd century, such terms emphasized two themes: that of Jesus as a preexistent figure who becomes human and then returns to God and that of Jesus as a creature elected and 'adopted' by God. The first theme makes use of concepts drawn from Classical antiquity, whereas the second relies on concepts characteristic of ancient Jewish thought. The second theme subsequently became the basis of 'adoptionist Christology' (see adoptionism), which viewed Jesus' baptism as a crucial event in his adoption by God."

Historically in the Alexandrian school of thought (fashioned on the Gospel of John), Jesus Christ is the eternal Logos who already possesses unity with the Father before the act of Incarnation. In contrast, the Antiochian school viewed Christ as a single, unified human person apart from his relationship to the divine.

Pre-existence
The notion of pre-existence is deeply rooted in Jewish thought, and can be found in apocalyptic thought and among the rabbis of Paul's time, but Paul was most influenced by Jewish-Hellenistic wisdom literature, where Wisdom' is extolled as something existing before the world and already working in creation. According to Witherington, Paul "subscribed to the christological notion that Christ existed prior to taking on human flesh[,] founding the story of Christ[...] on the story of divine Wisdom".

Kyrios
The title Kyrios for Jesus is central to the development of New Testament Christology. In the Septuagint it translates the Tetragrammaton, the holy Name of God. As such, it closely links Jesus with God – in the same way a verse such as Matthew 28:19, "The Name (singular) of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".

Kyrios is also conjectured to be the Greek translation of Aramaic, which in everyday Aramaic usage was a very respectful form of polite address, which means more than just 'teacher' and was somewhat similar to 'rabbi'. While the term expressed the relationship between Jesus and his disciples during his life, the Greek Kyrios came to represent his lordship over the world.

The early Christians placed Kyrios at the center of their understanding, and from that center attempted to understand the other issues related to the Christian mysteries. The question of the deity of Christ in the New Testament is inherently related to the Kyrios title of Jesus used in the early Christian writings and its implications for the absolute lordship of Jesus. In early Christian belief, the concept of Kyrios included the pre-existence of Christ, for they believed if Christ is one with God, he must have been united with God from the very beginning.

Development of "low Christology" and "high Christology"
Two fundamentally different Christologies developed in the early Church, namely a "low" or adoptionist Christology, and a "high" or "incarnation" Christology. The chronology of the development of these early Christologies is a matter of debate within contemporary scholarship.

The "low Christology" or "adoptionist Christology" is the belief "that God exalted Jesus to be his Son by raising him from the dead", thereby raising him to "divine status". According to the "evolutionary model" or evolutionary theories, the Christological understanding of Jesus developed over time, as witnessed in the Gospels, with the earliest Christians believing that Jesus was a human who was exalted, or else adopted as God's Son, when he was resurrected. Later beliefs shifted the exaltation to his baptism, birth, and subsequently to the idea of his pre-existence, as witnessed in the Gospel of John. This "evolutionary model" was proposed by proponents of the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, especially Wilhelm Bousset's influential Kyrios Christos (1913). This evolutionary model was very influential, and the "low Christology" has long been regarded as the oldest Christology.

The other early Christology is "high Christology", which is "the view that Jesus was a pre-existent divine being who became a human, did the Father's will on earth, and then was taken back up into heaven whence he had originally come", and from where he appeared on earth. According to Bousset, this "high Christology" developed at the time of Paul's writing, under the influence of Gentile Christians, who brought their pagan Hellenistic traditions to the early Christian communities, introducing divine honours to Jesus. According to Casey and Dunn, this "high Christology" developed after the time of Paul, at the end of the first century CE when the Gospel of John was written.

Since the 1970s, these late datings for the development of a "high Christology" have been contested, and a majority of scholars argue that this "high Christology" existed already before the writings of Paul. According to the "New Religionsgeschichtliche Schule", or the Early High Christology Club, which includes Martin Hengel, Larry Hurtado, N. T. Wright, and Richard Bauckham, this "incarnation Christology" or "high Christology" did not evolve over a longer time, but was a "big bang" of ideas which were already present at the start of Christianity, and took further shape in the first few decades of the church, as witnessed in the writings of Paul. Some 'Early High Christology' proponents scholars argue that this "high Christology" may go back to Jesus himself.

There is a controversy regarding whether Jesus himself claimed to be divine. In Honest to God, then-Bishop of Woolwich, John A. T. Robinson, questioned the idea. John Hick, writing in 1993, mentioned changes in New Testament studies, citing "broad agreement" that scholars do not today support the view that Jesus claimed to be God, quoting as examples Michael Ramsey (1980), C. F. D. Moule (1977), James Dunn (1980), Brian Hebblethwaite (1985) and David Brown (1985). Larry Hurtado, who argues that the followers of Jesus within a very short period developed an exceedingly high level of devotional reverence to Jesus, at the same time rejects the view that Jesus made a claim to messiahship or divinity to his disciples during his life as "naive and ahistorical". According to Gerd Lüdemann, the broad consensus among modern New Testament scholars is that the proclamation of the divinity of Jesus was a development within the earliest Christian communities. N. T. Wright points out that arguments over the claims of Jesus regarding divinity have been passed over by more recent scholarship, which sees a more complex understanding of the idea of God in first century Judaism. However, Andrew Loke argues that if Jesus did not claim and show himself to be truly divine and rise from the dead, the earliest Christian leaders who were devout ancient monotheistic Jews would have regarded Jesus as merely a teacher or a prophet; they would not have come to the widespread agreement that he was truly divine, which they did.

New Testament writings
The study of the various Christologies of the Apostolic Age is based on early Christian documents.

Paul
The oldest Christian sources are the writings of Paul. The central Christology of Paul conveys the notion of Christ's pre-existence and the identification of Christ as Kyrios. Both notions already existed before him in the early Christian communities, and Paul deepened them and used them for preaching in the Hellenistic communities.

What exactly Paul believed about the nature of Jesus cannot be determined decisively. In Philippians 2, Paul states that Jesus was preexistent and came to Earth "by taking the form of a servant, being made in human likeness". This sounds like an incarnation Christology. In Romans 1:4, however, Paul states that Jesus "was declared with power to be the Son of God by his resurrection from the dead", which sounds like an adoptionistic Christology, where Jesus was a human being who was "adopted" after his death. Different views would be debated for centuries by Christians and finally settled on the idea that he was both fully human and fully divine by the middle of the 5th century in the Council of Ephesus. Paul's thoughts on Jesus' teachings, versus his nature and being, are more defined, in that Paul believed Jesus was sent as an atonement for the sins of everyone.

The Pauline epistles use Kyrios to identify Jesus almost 230 times, and express the theme that the true mark of a Christian is the confession of Jesus as the true Lord. Paul viewed the superiority of the Christian revelation over all other divine manifestations as a consequence of the fact that Christ is the Son of God.

The Pauline epistles also advanced the "cosmic Christology" later developed in the Gospel of John, elaborating the cosmic implications of Jesus' existence as the Son of God: "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come." Paul writes that Christ came to draw all back to God: "Through him God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven" (Colossians 1:20); in the same epistle, he writes that "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation" (Colossians 1:15).

The Gospels

The synoptic Gospels date from after the writings of Paul. They provide episodes from the life of Jesus and some of his works, but the authors of the New Testament show little interest in an absolute chronology of Jesus or in synchronizing the episodes of his life, and as in John 21:25, the Gospels do not claim to be an exhaustive list of his works.

Christologies that can be gleaned from the three synoptic Gospels generally emphasize the humanity of Jesus, his sayings, his parables, and his miracles. The Gospel of John provides a different perspective that focuses on his divinity. The first 14 verses of the Gospel of John are devoted to the divinity of Jesus as the Logos, usually translated as "Word", along with his pre-existence, and they emphasize the cosmic significance of Christ, e.g.: "All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made." In the context of these verses, the Word made flesh is identical with the Word who was in the beginning with God, being exegetically equated with Jesus.

Post-Apostolic controversies
Following the Apostolic Age, from the second century onwards, a number of controversies developed about how the human and divine are related within the person of Jesus. As of the second century, a number of different and opposing approaches developed among various groups. In contrast to prevailing monoprosopic views on the Person of Christ, alternative dyoprosopic notions were also promoted by some theologians, but such views were rejected by the ecumenical councils. For example, Arianism did not endorse divinity, Ebionism argued Jesus was an ordinary mortal, while Gnosticism held docetic views which argued Christ was a spiritual being who only appeared to have a physical body. The resulting tensions led to schisms within the church in the second and third centuries, and ecumenical councils were convened in the fourth and fifth centuries to deal with the issues.

Although some of the debates may seem to various modern students to be over a theological iota, they took place in controversial political circumstances, reflecting the relations of temporal powers and divine authority, and certainly resulted in schisms, among others that separated the Church of the East from the Church of the Roman Empire.

First Council of Nicaea (325) and First Council of Constantinople (381)
In 325, the First Council of Nicaea defined the persons of the Godhead and their relationship with one another, decisions which were ratified at the First Council of Constantinople in 381. The language used was that the one God exists in three persons (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit); in particular, it was affirmed that the Son was homoousios (of the same being) as the Father. The Nicene Creed declared the full divinity and full humanity of Jesus. After the First Council of Nicaea in 325 the Logos and the second Person of the Trinity were being used interchangeably.

First Council of Ephesus (431)
In 431, the First Council of Ephesus was initially called to address the views of Nestorius on Mariology, but the problems soon extended to Christology, and schisms followed. The 431 council was called because in defense of his loyal priest Anastasius, Nestorius had denied the Theotokos title for Mary and later contradicted Proclus during a sermon in Constantinople. Pope Celestine I (who was already upset with Nestorius due to other matters) wrote about this to Cyril of Alexandria, who orchestrated the council. During the council, Nestorius defended his position by arguing there must be two persons of Christ, one human, the other divine, and Mary had given birth only to a human, hence could not be called the Theotokos, i.e. "the one who gives birth to God". The debate about the single or dual nature of Christ ensued in Ephesus.

The First Council of Ephesus debated miaphysitism (two natures united as one after the hypostatic union) versus dyophysitism (coexisting natures after the hypostatic union) versus monophysitism (only one nature) versus Nestorianism (two hypostases). From the Christological viewpoint, the council adopted ('but being made one', κατὰ φύσιν) – Council of Ephesus, Epistle of Cyril to Nestorius, i.e. 'one nature of the Word of God incarnate' (μία φύσις τοῦ θεοῦ λόγου σεσαρκωμένη, ). In 451, the Council of Chalcedon affirmed dyophysitism. The Oriental Orthodox rejected this and subsequent councils and continued to consider themselves as miaphysite according to the faith put forth at the Councils of Nicaea and Ephesus. The council also confirmed the Theotokos title and excommunicated Nestorius.

Council of Chalcedon (451)

The 451 Council of Chalcedon was highly influential, and marked a key turning point in the christological debates. It is the last council which many Lutherans, Anglicans and other Protestants consider ecumenical.

The Council of Chalcedon fully promulgated the Western dyophysite understanding put forth by Pope Leo I of Rome of the hypostatic union, the proposition that Christ has one human nature (physis) and one divine nature (physis), each distinct and complete, and united with neither confusion nor division. Most of the major branches of Western Christianity (Roman Catholicism, Anglicanism, Lutheranism, and Reformed), Church of the East, Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy subscribe to the Chalcedonian Christological formulation, while many branches of Oriental Orthodox Churches (Syrian Orthodoxy, Coptic Orthodoxy, Ethiopian Orthodoxy, and Armenian Apostolicism) reject it.

Although the Chalcedonian Creed did not put an end to all christological debate, it did clarify the terms used and became a point of reference for many future Christologies. But it also broke apart the church of the Eastern Roman Empire in the fifth century, and unquestionably established the primacy of Rome in the East over those who accepted the Council of Chalcedon. This was reaffirmed in 519, when the Eastern Chalcedonians accepted the Formula of Hormisdas, anathematizing all of their own Eastern Chalcedonian hierarchy, who died out of communion with Rome from 482 to 519.

Fifth–Seventh Ecumenical Council (553, 681, 787)
The Second Council of Constantinople in 553 interpreted the decrees of Chalcedon, and further explained the relationship of the two natures of Jesus. It also condemned the alleged teachings of Origen on the pre-existence of the soul, and other topics.

The Third Council of Constantinople in 681 declared that Christ has two wills of his two natures, human and divine, contrary to the teachings of the Monothelites, with the divine will having precedence, leading and guiding the human will.

The Second Council of Nicaea was called under the Empress Regent Irene of Athens in 787, known as the second of Nicaea. It supports the veneration of icons while forbidding their worship. It is often referred to as "The Triumph of Orthodoxy".

Western medieval Christology
The Franciscan piety of the 12th and 13th centuries led to "popular Christology". Systematic approaches by theologians, such as Thomas Aquinas, are called "scholastic Christology".

In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas provided the first systematic Christology that consistently resolved a number of the existing issues. In his Christology from above, Aquinas also championed the principle of perfection of Christ's human attributes.

The Middle Ages also witnessed the emergence of the "tender image of Jesus" as a friend and a living source of love and comfort, rather than just the Kyrios image.

Reformation
John Calvin maintained there was no human element in the Person of Christ which could be separated from the Person of The Word. Calvin also emphasized the importance of the "Work of Christ" in any attempt at understanding the Person of Christ and cautioned against ignoring the Works of Jesus during his ministry.

Liberal Protestant theology
The 19th century saw the rise of Liberal Protestant theology, which questioned the dogmatic foundations of Christianity, and approached the Bible with critical-historical tools. The divinity of Jesus became of less emphasis or importance, and was replaced with an focus on the ethical aspects of his teachings.

Roman Catholicism
Catholic theologian Karl Rahner sees the purpose of modern Christology as to formulate the Christian belief that "God became man and that God-made-man is the individual Jesus Christ" in a manner that this statement can be understood consistently, without the confusions of past debates and mythologies. Rahner pointed out the coincidence between the Person of Christ and the Word of God, referring to Mark 8:38 and Luke 9:26 which state whoever is ashamed of the words of Jesus is ashamed of the Lord himself.

Hans von Balthasar argued the union of the human and divine natures of Christ was achieved not by the "absorption" of human attributes, but by their "assumption". Thus, in his view, the divine nature of Christ was not affected by the human attributes and remained forever divine.

Nativity and the Holy Name
The Nativity of Jesus impacted the Christological issues about his person from the earliest days of Christianity. Luke's Christology centers on the dialectics of the dual natures of the earthly and heavenly manifestations of existence of the Christ, while Matthew's Christology focuses on the mission of Jesus and his role as the savior. The salvific emphasis of Matthew 1:21 later impacted the theological issues and the devotions to Holy Name of Jesus.

Matthew 1:23 provides a key to the "Emmanuel Christology" of Matthew. Beginning with 1:23, the Gospel of Matthew shows a clear interest in identifying Jesus as "God with us" and in later developing the Emmanuel characterization of Jesus at key points throughout the rest of the Gospel. The name 'Emmanuel' does not appear elsewhere in the New Testament, but Matthew builds on it in Matthew 28:20 ("I am with you always, even unto the end of the world") to indicate Jesus will be with the faithful to the end of the age. According to Ulrich Luz, the Emmanuel motif brackets the entire Gospel of Matthew between 1:23 and 28:20, appearing explicitly and implicitly in several other passages.

Crucifixion and resurrection
The accounts of the crucifixion and subsequent resurrection of Jesus provides a rich background for christological analysis, from the canonical Gospels to the Pauline Epistles.

A central element in the christology presented in the Acts of the Apostles is the affirmation of the belief that the death of Jesus by crucifixion happened "with the foreknowledge of God, according to a definite plan". In this view, as in Acts 2:23, the cross is not viewed as a scandal, for the crucifixion of Jesus "at the hands of the lawless" is viewed as the fulfilment of the plan of God.

Paul's Christology has a specific focus on the death and resurrection of Jesus. For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus is directly related to his resurrection and the term "the cross of Christ" used in Galatians 6:12 may be viewed as his abbreviation of the message of the Gospels. For Paul, the crucifixion of Jesus was not an isolated event in history, but a cosmic event with significant eschatological consequences, as in 1 Corinthians 2:8. In the Pauline view, Jesus, obedient to the point of death (Philippians 2:8), died "at the right time" (Romans 5:6) based on the plan of God. For Paul, the "power of the cross" is not separable from the resurrection of Jesus.

Threefold office
The threefold office (Latin munus triplex) of Jesus Christ is a Christian doctrine based upon the teachings of the Old Testament. It was described by Eusebius and more fully developed by John Calvin. It states that Jesus Christ performed three functions (or "offices") in his earthly ministry – those of prophet, priest, and king. In the Old Testament, the appointment of someone to any of these three positions could be indicated by anointing him or her by pouring oil over the head. Thus, the term messiah, meaning "anointed one", is associated with the concept of the threefold office. While the office of king is that most frequently associated with the Messiah, the role of Jesus as priest is also prominent in the New Testament, being most fully explained in chapters 7 to 10 of the Book of Hebrews.

Mariology
Some Christians, notably Roman Catholics, view Mariology as a key component of Christology. In this view, not only is Mariology a logical and necessary consequence of Christology, but without it, Christology is incomplete, since the figure of Mary contributes to a fuller understanding of who Christ is and what he did.

Protestants have criticized Mariology because many of its assertions lack any Biblical foundation. Strong Protestant reaction against Roman Catholic Marian devotion and teaching has been a significant issue for ecumenical dialogue.

Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI) expressed this sentiment about Roman Catholic Mariology when in two separate occasions he stated, "The appearance of a truly Marian awareness serves as the touchstone indicating whether or not the christological substance is fully present" and "It is necessary to go back to Mary, if we want to return to the truth about Jesus Christ."

title: Christology


text:
Talk:Christology

Nomination for merging of Template:Christology
Template:Christology has been nominated for merging with Template:Jesus. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Bsherr (talk) 04:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * the entry seems to be missing? Joshua Jonathan  - Let's talk!  04:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Sorry, crossed the dateline but didn't notice. --Bsherr (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Crucificion ?
‘that Jesus was human who was "adopted" by God at his baptism, crucificion, or resurrection.’

What is this word? ‘Crucificion’

And please, please, please stop using the word ‘problematic’ to mean ‘troublesome’, or ‘difficult’ or ‘causing problems’. It is a horrible American misusage for which God will punish them. And you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:3102:BB00:E578:A461:8C8C:2F8C (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

 * Crucifiction or Crucifixion? Ericadamslives (talk) 01:58, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Crucifixion. Looking is dictionaries I see the like of "crucifiction ... Common misspelling of crucifixion." Vincent J. Lipsio (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Dyophysitism in the pre-existence of Jesus Christ the Unigenite
The article defines dyophysitism as the belief "Christ maintained two natures, one divine and one human, after the Incarnation". For the pre-existence of Christ, it is wrong. Christ had a twofold human-divine nature even before the Incarnation. The pre-existence of Christ and the dyophysitism are two aspects of a unique Christologic doctrine. It is true at least for a subset of Christians.

For them, Jesus Chist God is believed to be true man and true God from ever and forever: when Jesus Christ God was generated by God the Father before all centuries, He was generated in the male flesh, or equivalently, with a human-divine male Body.

Those who believe in the pre-existence of Christ the Unigenite, also believe that God the Father had from ever and forever a human-divine male flesh. It means that the dyophysite nature doesn't belong uniquely to God the Son, but it is also of God the Father. In the Nicene Creed, they are said to be made of the same substance: that substance are their respective two human-divine bodies and their common bodiless Holy Spirit God. They can be a unique God with two fleshes and divine bodies, thanks to their common bodiless Holy Spirit God. This is the reason why Jesus was alone on the cross and could be resurrected by the other two alive divine persons.

The Paradise hosts two thrones for three divine persons of the Most Holy Trinity.
 * Need and role of the Incarnation

The work of the Holy Spirit God in the womb of the Blessed Virgin Mary didn'cause nor create the male flesh of Jesus God, whereas it creates his mortal nature. Cristian Fathers said Crist lost the impassibility of the flesh of God the Father, becoming ortal like any of His human creatures, because Incarnation was order to death on the cross and the human salvation since the beginning of the work of the Holy Spirit God.

Assuming a mortal quality on his pre-existing ehternal and human-divine flesh, Jesus became also capable of experience tears (flevit super illam), pain during the Passio as well as effort (Simon of Cyrene who aided Jesus for the transport of the cross), but also the illness 8ebven if for the latter there is are biblical evidences). Even with those mortal qualities, the Unigenite never ended to be true man and true God, and, being God,  he couldn't and he didn't share with the human creatures the sin, the error and the afterthought.Philosopher81sp (talk) 10:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Divinity of Jesus
Divinity of Jesus currently redirects to this page, but as a hotly debated topic in itself I think it may need a page of its own, separate from other topics discussed on this page such as salvation, etc. There are easily enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Any thoughts? Relinus (talk) 08:46, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

A mistake concerning the Human/divine person of Christ
Christ is truly human and truly God, thereby 2 natures in one person. But His person is not Divine/human, but only divine.'''A basic Christological teaching is that the person of Jesus Christ is both human and divine. The human and divine natures of Jesus Christ apparently (prosopic) form a duality, as they coexist within one person (hypostasis). There are no direct discussions in the New Testament regarding the dual nature of the Person of Christ as both divine and human.''-Under the rubrique "Person of Christ" OTHEr ARTICLES THAT DENY THE HUMAN PERSON OF CHRIST https://www.catholic.com/magazine/online-edition/is-jesus-a-human-person https://www.reasonablefaith.org/question-answer/P70/was-christ-a-divine-human-person Thank you for your attention, may the Lord bless your day. 86.221.145.153 (talk) 19:17, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Talk:Christology


text:
Complaint

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought (the defendant(s)) that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy (either money damages or injunctive relief). For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading.

In Civil Law, a "complaint" is the first formal action taken to officially begin a lawsuit. This written document contains the allegations against the defense, the specific laws violated, the facts that led to the dispute, and any demands made by the plaintiff to restore justice.

In some jurisdictions, specific types of criminal cases may also be commenced by the filing of a complaint, also sometimes called a criminal complaint or felony complaint. Most criminal cases are prosecuted in the name of the governmental authority that promulgates criminal statutes and enforces the police power of the state with the goal of seeking criminal sanctions, such as the State (also sometimes called the People) or Crown (in Commonwealth realms). In the United States, the complaint is often associated with misdemeanor criminal charges presented by the prosecutor without the grand jury process. In most U.S. jurisdictions, the charging instrument presented to and authorized by a grand jury is referred to as an indictment.

United States
Virtually every U.S. state has some forms available on the web for most common complaints for lawyers and self-representing litigants; if a petitioner cannot find an appropriate form in their state, they often can modify a form from another state to fit his or her request. Several United States federal courts publish general guidelines for the petitioners and Civil Rights complaint forms.

A complaint generally has the following structural elements:
 * Caption and heading - lists name, address and telephone number of the filing attorney or self-representing litigant at the top of the complaint. The case caption usually also indicates the court in which the case originates, names of the parties and a brief description of the document.
 * Jurisdiction and venue - this section describes why the case should be heard in the selected court rather than some other court or forum.
 * Parties - identifies plaintiffs and defendants.
 * Definitions - optional section which defines some terms used throughout the document. The main purpose of a definition is to achieve clarity without needless repetition.
 * Statement of facts - lists facts that brought the case to the court.
 * Cause of action - a numbered list of legal allegations (called "counts"), with specific details about application of the governing law to each count. In this section the plaintiff usually cites existing Law, previous decisions of the court where the case is being processed, decisions of the higher appellate courts, and cases from other courts, - as an analogy to resolve similar questions of law.
 * Injury - plaintiff explains to the judge how the actions of the defendant(s) harmed his rights.
 * Demand for relief (also known as the prayer for relief or the ad damnum clause) - describes the relief that plaintiff is seeking as a result of the lawsuit. The relief can include a request for declaratory judgment, a request for injunctive relief (non-monetary relief), compensatory and actual damages (such as monetary relief), punitive damages (non-compensatory), and other relief.

After the complaint has been filed with the court, it has to be properly served to the opposite parties, but usually petitioners are not allowed to serve the complaint personally. The court also can issue a summons – an official summary document which the plaintiff needs to have served together with the complaint. The defendants have limited time to respond, depending on the State or Federal rules. A defendant's failure to answer a complaint can result in a default judgment in favor of the petitioner.

For example, in United States federal courts, any person who is at least 18 years old and not a party may serve a summons and complaint in a civil case. The defendant must submit an answer within 21 days after being served with the summons and complaint, or request a waiver, according to FRCP Rule 12. After the civil complaint has been served to the defendants, the plaintiff must, as soon as practicable initiate a conference between the parties to plan for the rest of the discovery process and then the parties should submit a proposed discovery plan to the judge within 14 days after the conference.

In many U.S. jurisdictions, a complaint submitted to a court must be accompanied by a Case Information Statement, which sets forth specific key information about the case and the lawyers representing the parties. This allows the judge to make determinations about which deadlines to set for different phases of the case, as it moves through the court system.

There are also freely accessible web search engines to assist parties in finding court decisions that can be cited in the complaint as an example or analogy to resolve similar questions of law. Google Scholar is the biggest database of full text state and federal courts decisions that can be accessed without charge. These web search engines often allow one to select specific state courts to search.

Federal courts created the Public Access to Court Electronic Records (PACER) system to obtain case and docket information from the United States district courts, United States courts of appeals, and United States bankruptcy courts. The system is managed by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts; it allows lawyers and self-represented clients to obtain documents entered in the case much faster than regular mail.

Filing and privacy
In addition to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, many of the U.S. district courts have developed their own requirements included in Local Rules for filing with the Court. Local Rules can set up a limit on the number of pages, establish deadlines for motions and responses, explain whether it is acceptable to combine a motion petition with a response, specify if a judge needs an additional copy of the documents (called "judge’s copy"), etc. Local Rules can define page layout elements like: margins, text font/size, distance between lines, mandatory footer text, page numbering, and provide directions on how the pages need to be bound together – i.e. acceptable fasteners, number and location of fastening holes, etc. If the filed motion does not comply with the Local Rules then the judge can choose to strike the motion completely, or order the party to re-file its motion, or grant a special exception to the Local Rules.

According to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), sensitive text like Social Security number, Taxpayer Identification Number, birthday, bank accounts and children’s names, should be redacted from the filings made with the court and accompanying exhibits, (exhibits normally do not need to be attached to the original complaint, but should be presented to Court after the discovery). The redacted text can be erased with black-out or white-out, and the page should have an indication that it was redacted - most often by stamping word "redacted" on the bottom. Alternately, the filing party may ask the court’s permission to file some exhibits completely under seal. A minor's name of the petitions should be replaced with initials.

A person making a redacted filing can file an unredacted copy under seal, or the Court can choose to order later that an additional filing be made under seal without redaction. Copies of both redacted and unredacted documents filed with court should be provided to the other parties in the case. Some courts also require that an additional electronic courtesy copy be emailed to the other parties.

Attorney fees
Before filing the complaint, it is important for plaintiff(s) to remember that Federal courts can impose liability for the prevailing party's attorney fees to the losing party, if the judge considers the case frivolous or for purposes of harassment, even when the case was voluntarily dismissed. In the case of Fox v. Vice, the U.S. Supreme Court held that reasonable attorneys' fees could be awarded to the defendant under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1988, but only for costs that the defendant would not have incurred "but for the frivolous claims." Even when there is no actual trial or judgment, if there is only pre-trial motion practice such as motions to dismiss, attorney fee shifting still can be awarded under FRCP Rule 11 when the opposing party files a Motion for Sanctions and the court issue an order identifying the sanctioned conduct and the basis for the sanction. The losing party has a right to appeal any order for sanctions in the higher court. In the state courts, each party is generally responsible only for its own attorney fees, with certain exceptions.

England and Wales
In 1883, the Rules of the Supreme Court replaced the term complaint with statement of claim. This was then replaced in 1998 with particulars of claim by the Civil Procedure Rules, which also replaced the word plaintiff with claimant as part of a drastic reform of English legal terminology. Thus, in England and Wales, a claimant now initiates a claim by filing a claim form (instead of a writ of summons), and either pleads particulars of claim on the claim form itself or as a separate document.

title: Complaint


text:
Talk:Charles Evers

Older comments
OK, I cut this text and move it here, because i want someone to repair it. It is biased and opinionated, provides very few details (birth year, etc). I'd love to see it fixed, but as it is, it doesn't pass as an encyclopedia article.

Biased text removed - unsubstantiated comments marked in red.:

Evers is nearly a lifelong resident of the deep South state of Mississippi, whose racial mores are probably the most conservative in the nation, and whose lynchings and other violence toward Black people is notorious.

Evers has fearlessly spoken out against racism and racial violence all his life. But Evers has always seen the good in the White people of Mississippi. He has never wanted to live elsewhere.

Over the next 5 years, he repeatedly risked his life to sign up thousands of new Black voters.

He has also served as an informal advisor to a diverse collection of politicians, many of whom have had little use for each other. These include Lyndon Johnson, Robert Kennedy, George Wallace and Ronald Reagan.

In 1997, Charles Evers published a memoir 'Have No Fear', written with assistance from Andrew Szanton.

The following was added to Evers, Charles (which was redirected to this page) and needs to be integrated with the foregoing.

He has been an entrepreneur as well, and -- unlike many in the civil rights movement -- a pioneer in linking Black political progress to Black economic progress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manning Bartlett (talk • contribs) 04:17, 6 December 2001 (UTC)

This is hagiography, not an encyclopedia article. "Various shady enterprises" - what a crock! If you mean illegal, say so - or better still, be more specific and let us make our own minds up about whether the ends justified the means. Until somebody tones down the sugar, there's no way in the world this can be brilliant prose. I would like to help, but I don't know much about this guy. --Robert Merkel — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conversion script (talk • contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2002 (UTC)

Biography assessment rating comment
The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- KenWalker | Talk 02:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Dahmer demonstration.jpg
The image Image:Dahmer demonstration.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

 * That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
 * That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. --19:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Tone and sources
Some of the article sounds as if taken from a "puff piece" and none of it has citations. Need better sourcing and improving the tone.--Parkwells (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A Republican?
Judge Pickering is referred to as Evers' "fellow Republican". What evidence is there that Evers is a Republican, other than it being in the info box? It's not mentioned elsewhere in the article. 75.200.153.39 (talk) 01:03, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

title: Talk:Charles Evers


text:
Talk:Cogito, ergo sum

Predecessors restored
The section "Predecessors", however well documented and philosophically relevant, has been - I hope inadvertently - deleted. I restored it in another place, after "Introduction" and without the misleading Hamlet quotation. On the other hand, the section "Criticisms" only repeats the misunderstanding, as if the Cogito would have been for Descartes a syllogism. Descartes himself responded to it, as it appeared in the "Objections" to his Meditations, and in the article it is explained in the first paragraph of the section "Introduction". In this discussion, User:Mel Etitis explains it correctly as well. But some people seem to prefer writing (or deleting) before reading. --Sokoljan (talk) 13:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

the really long latin phrase
could someone tranlsate the really long latin phrase in the introduction.

✅. Racconish  Tk 16:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

References in popular culture
This is a common theme in movies and television: "The Matrix," "Inception," etc. .. I just felt this could be something worth mentioning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.172.104 (talk) 01:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Unnecessary Images?
The two images under the Criticism section have little to no relevance to the section or the article at all, and seems they were put there only to be captioned. Style makes no mention of using images in this way, furthermore it looks unprofessional and doesn't add anything. I am deleting them. Ajoones (talk) 23:44, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

 * I generally disagree. The perfect article does recognize the usefulness of images to break up large amounts of text for the sake of reader engagement. What's more, I have always found that a picture and caption provides a good opportunity to summarize the text beside it. Far from "unprofessional", I think images used this way make for a more pleasant read - especially for highly visual audiences like myself.

 * That having been said, the question mark picture was a little weak. Less so Rodin's Thinker. My point would be that, rather than removing images completely, I would always prefer to see them replaced with even more creative, helpful metaphors or examples.-Tesseract2 (talk) 04:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

 * You make a good point, and a relevant picture would definitely be more aesthetically pleasing. Feel free to revert my edit or add a better picture. Ajoones (talk) 06:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Small change to beginning
I deleted the section saying that Descartes had not used the term 'therefore' in the meditations because he wanted to avoid the implication that the cogito depended upon an inferential argument.

Although this is the kind of thing that you sometimes read in introductory texts, there is simply no textual evidence for it at all. Indeed, as the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy points out, the idea that the meditations doesn't contain an inferential argument for the conclusion whilst the Discourse does is dead wrong: the meditations is the place where the argument is most explicitly developed.

Of course, Descartes in the objections and replies, and later letters, did sometimes assert that the cogito was not based on a syllogism (see Williams' book for a sophisticated and moderately plausible interpritation of exactly what he meant). The point remains: in Meditations 2 he phrases it as an arugment.

BTW, here's what I think: the argument leads us to the cogito conclusion, but isn't required to justify it. The 'cogito ergo sum' argument is propoganda, but isn't justification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.129.189 (talk) 10:48, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I think therefore I am/exist?
Why are there two translations given in the text "I think therefore I exist" and later on "I think therefore I am"? Sarahhofland (talk) 06:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The traditional, and best-known, translation is "I think therefore I am". That's also the most literal translation.  However, the meaning is closer to "I think therefore I exist" in modern word usage. Piquan (talk) 10:39, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, it can't be clearer than that. Sarahhofland (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Cannot Figure Out How To Post Properly section

Just a question regarding modern extrapolations, or colloquialisms of the phrase: Is it proper to note them, or reference them? If so, how is it done?

I am asking regarding this phrase that brought me here: Cogito ergo armatum sum

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_does_Cogito_ergo_armatum_sum_mean

66.66.148.239 (talk) 12:18, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The response to the Lichtenberg point is from Kant, not Williams
Williams refers to the argument later in the book as "of course, just an argument from Kant" from, I believe, the Prolegomena. Typical Williams to not make it clear in the Cogito chapter. The slogan from the Critique is "the rational psychologist mistakes the unity of apperception for the perception of a unity". Clearly this needs fixing. Maybe I will do it at some point. —Sean Whitton / 16:30, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Kierkegaard.......not quite the breakdown I recall.....
I'll certainly yield to the authors here, but I remember that a fundamental tenet to the Kierkegaard criticism was that, yes, the I does in fact presuppose the existance of its own narrator, but that the breakdown is something more akin to:

 * I think therefore I am
 * I think
 * I

Tgm1024 (talk) 20:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"You not think, therefore I am, and You are"

 * "I think, therefore I am"

Using Game Theory,

I think that you think, though You do not think, therefore I am and You are (relative to me). You are DEAD!

Likewise, I think You think that I think, therefore I am, You are and I am. (I2+You)

Likewise, I think You think I think, though You do not think I think, therefore I 2 am and You2 are. You are ALIVE!

Are both I the same, when think(s) are different? NO, I change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.134.212.105 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's neither an example of game theory nor what "think" means in this context. The cogito is using the intransitive sense of "cogitate", not the transitive sense of "believing X to be true". My beliefs about your state are entirely based on my sense experiences, which can't be trusted prior to the deus ex cogitatione which restored Descartes trust in the external world. At that point, there's no need to bring the cogito into it. I think you exist because I again trust my senses that you're taking up space and wasting my time on the internet. — Llywelyn II   03:52, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

"original French statement" -- capitalization
The article begins:
 * Cogito ergo sum (French: "Je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a philosophical Latin statement proposed by René Descartes.

The original, in Discourse, appears as a non-capitalized, mid-sentence phrase:
 * "Mais aussitôt après je pris garde que, pendant que je voulois ainsi penser que tout étoit faux, il falloit nécessairement que moi qui le pensois fusse quelque chose; et remarquant que cette vérité, je pense, donc je suis, étoit si ferme et si assurée, que toutes les plus extravagantes suppositions des sceptiques n'étoient pas capables de l'ébranler, je jugeai que je pouvois la recevoir sans scrupule pour le premier principe de la philosophie que je cherchois."

Capitalization of the phrase quite arguably contributes to the assumption that "I think therefore I am" was a complete statement in and of itself. (It is often restated as a sentence.) That, in turn, discourages many from any further exploration to discover Descartes' intent.

As indicated further down in the introduction, Descartes repeated this phrase mid-sentence in Principles of Philosophy (here in Latin), where he referred to the phrase as a proposition:

 * "Ac proinde hæc cognitio, ego cogito, ergo sum, est omnium prima & certissima, quæ cuilibet ordine philosophanti occurrat."
 * English: "This proposition, I think, therefore I am, is the first and the most certain which presents itself to whoever conducts his thoughts in order."

What if we begin the article:
 * The phrase "cogito ergo sum" (French: "je pense donc je suis"; English: "I think, therefore I am") is a Latin proposition by René Descartes.

Parallel minor adjustments should then made elsewhere in the article for consistency. humanengr (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What a poorly-taken understanding. In every example you cite, Descartes is explicitly setting off that thought as a separate proposition—as a distinct sentence. The punctuation and capitalization in the original have no bearing on the fact that it's perfectly correct to discuss the proposition itself as a single laconic expression. It's what Descartes himself was doing. — Llywelyn II   03:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies, had missed this. While it might be perfectly correct to capitalize it in some contexts, not only Descartes but most others don't -- see, e.g., this Google ngram. Humanengr (talk) 02:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

NEW SECTION: In Descartes' Writings
The historical provenance should be made clear in a new section entitled "In Descartes' Writings". I've gathered the relevant material in my sandbox. (NB: This pulls in the "Ac proinde …" and translation sentences from the current summary -- to address criticism re summary length; it also includes the dubito, ergo cogito, ergo sum material that had been in the summary.)

Would this work as the lead section, preceding what is now the Introduction (which would be renamed "Interpretation")? Or should the new Intro contain only the first sentence in the sandbox and the rest of the material split off for a section at the bottom of the article? humanengr (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

suis vs. sois
Descartes himself said "je pense, donc je suis". But doesn't "je pense, donc je sois" seem somehow more grammatically correct in French? (The subjunctive doesn't work as well in English -- "I think, therefore I be", but it does work in French...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2620:0:1000:1502:26BE:5FF:FE1D:BCA1 (talk) 22:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

 * Just in case anyone is still interested at this point, no, there is no case whatsoever for the subjunctive sois being needed here. The questioner is probably half-remembering the fact that the subjunctive is required in the subordinate clause following the verb penser used in the negative: Elle ne pense pas que cela soit possible (She doesn't think that's possible), as opposed to Elle pense que c'est possible (She thinks it's possible). Penser in the interrogative, rare in present-day French, can also take the subjunctive when the person asking the question already thinks the response will be negative: Pensez-vous que ce soit possible? (You don't really think it's possible do you?), as opposed to Pensez-vous que c'est possible? (Do you think it's possible?). But in D's statement, there's no negative, no interrogative, and no subordinate clause, so no case for the subjunctive. Your resident French pedant, Awien (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Other Forms Section
The italicization of the final extended Latin quote in this section changes in the middle of it. I didn't want to change it in case the author meant something, but it looks to me like a typo... Cogito-Ergo-Sum (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

 * Thanks for the catch -- I removed the italics. (I had intended boldface, but now see it's better plain.) humanengr (talk) 15:47, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

pronunciation of cogito ergo sum
The Latin pronunciations, both as rendered in modern English and in Classical Latin, were initially included in June 2013. The reader is referred to the Reference Desk/Language discussion on rendering OED pronunciation for Latin words in IPA on recent edits. The below continues that discussion:

The original version of ‘sum’ was transcribed as per OED and Collins as ‘sʊm’. Subsequent edits changed that to 'sʌm'. It is proposed now to include both versions so the article would begin:

Cogito ergo sum (, also , Classical Latin: , "I think, therefore  I am") … humanengr (talk) 07:17, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

 * Fine by me. — kwami (talk) 07:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Naahh. See below, in addition to which it's inaccurate: plenty of speakers use the French g; no one spoke classical Latin in Descartes time and most current Latin doesn't use it either; and we aren't proscriptivist here. Leave it to the Wiktionary entry. — Llywelyn II   03:06, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, I accept the conclusion above: pronunciation belongs on Wiktionary -- but then there should be a Wiktionary link. But where? I tried putting a Wiktionary template understand the Descartes box, but this leaves it well down the page, and not very obvious to anyone who wonders how to pronounce the Latin. Is it possible to add a Wkt link as a footnote somehow? Suggestions? Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

MISSING INFORMATION.
By leaving out Dubito (as promoted by religious people), you have changed the message of Descartes. His doubting (Dubito) of religious authority is the beginning of his thinking (Cogito). Then, because he can think about things (not be a pawn in the game of "controlling people with religion." ie the Dark Ages) he concludes that he does exist (Ergo Sum). I'm very disappointed with this omission. It also should go under Teleology since that article promotes "Ends" and ignores the rejection of same. 63.245.178.216 (talk) 19:04, 9 June 2014 (UTC) Randy C Hamilton
 * Please clarify -- are you referring to a particular section of the article? 'Doubt' appears over 20 times on the page; 'dubito' and 'god' 3 times each. humanengr (talk) 19:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum
a more accurate translation is - i doubt, therefore i am
 * That would be "dubito", not "cogito". --Pfhorrest (talk) 07:33, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I.e., that's a less accurate translation. — Llywelyn II   03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Responses
Not sure how important he is these days but Franz von Baader's cogitor ergo cogito et sum seems like a pretty clear homage, even if he did reject Descartes as slippy on the slope to atheism. — Llywelyn II   03:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTADICTIONARY
French pronunciation of French, let alone laundry lists of English mispronunciations of Latin, don't go here. They go in Wiktionary. It would be different in a case like Thailand where the recognizably "correct" pronunciation doesn't follow standard English orthography, but to the extent that the cogito has a "correct" pronunciation, it's a perfectly straightforward one. Further, the IPA mess of regional variations to the pronunciation (which didn't even include the British pronunciation of ergo yet) is just an eyesore. — Llywelyn II   04:08, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's a link to the Latin entry for cogito ergo sum for the curious. Variant French and English pronunciations could be added [edit: there ], since they both use this expression as well. — Llywelyn II   03:03, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Computers do not think.
I would like to point out that even though this conversation is actually using a computer zipping bytes through the ether, it does not have even the inkling of an idea that it is doing so. Yet, it still exists. This does not, therefore, prove existence on non-existence. It just asserts that the observer can state he exists even though he may be disembodied as a spirit.-- Michael Flower (talk) 06:04, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * a. Of course it knows that it's sending the packets of information. If the internet weren't checking the packets for errors, receipt, &c., it wouldn't work.

 * b. Regardless of that, your 'argument' is a non sequitur. If the computer weren't thinking or aware in the sense Descartes intends, then it falls outside the scope of his argument entirely. You probably mean something closer to a rock exists and doesn't think, therefore Descartes is wrong that thinking is a necessary condition for existence. However, that's not something he ever argued. You only know the rock's existence from your senses and, from his vantage of extreme doubt, it could be doubted. The assumption of the rock is already the assumption that your senses are perfectly valid. Fine, in its way, for getting through your life but completely irrelevant to Descartes's project of seeing if it's possible to philosophically ground our understanding without the initial use of information from our untrustworthy senses. — Llywelyn II   03:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Regarding WP:OR
I saw you had mentioned this article on Jimbo's talk page here. (FYI. I am well familiar with the phrase and Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy having studied it in graduate school.)  This article and another I looked at (An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding) appear to me to be more WP:OR than anything else. I brought this up at the second article here and at WikiProject_Philosophy here and the only response was from (thank you):
 * Unfortunately, many of the very best philosophy pages lack Wikipedia acceptable references. It is what it is. It takes scarce expertise and time to make corrections, then the pages need to be protected against well meaning but ignorant editors and just plain vandalism. BlueMist (talk) 21:28, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * If this happened on the GMO pages, all h*ll would break lose. LOL.  Do you have any thoughts on this issue and if we can do something about it?  --David Tornheim (talk) 02:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Just try to dedicate some time every week to find sources to fill the page with published opinions, and perhaps keep those pages on a to-do list as a reminder to yourself. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The Plato section of those who preceded him in the cogito ergo sum section seems off
I think the attribution of Plato as preceding Descarte in his cogito formulation is wrong and should be removed. The order is wrong, for in Plato it is the sensibleness of the external world which indicates there is something which is sensing, and this makes absolute sense given Plato's epistemology being tied to his ontology of the forms. However, in denying Platonism as Descarte did his epistemology starts with doubting the sensibleness of the external world, and it was this very doubting with caused him to retreat to the formulation of the cogito as being the stable existent internal subject. In short, Plato is an inverse Descartes and does not precede him. In Plato the external illuminates, while in Descarte it is the internal. My guess is Plato would have though Descartes extremely misguided. In fact, Catherine Pickstock in her work "After Writing" convincingly ties Descartes epistemology to the Sophism of Plato's opponents and lays out in some detail how Platonic and Descartian epistemology and ontology are diametrically opposed."I think therefore I am", it can be said, is a direct refusal of Plato's epistemology, not indebted to it.Jgayaldo (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Your raising this issue prompts broader review of the Predecessors section in that, up to discussion of Adi Shankar, the focus is on the literal cogito rather than Descartes's intent as captured by Thomas in the dubito (see the intro and Other forms sections). Perhaps the preceding 'predecessors' shouldn't be presented so much as earlier claimants but rather as referents for contrast? humanengr (talk) 12:03, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Criticism section is too long
Philosophical articles and articles in similar topics often have much 'critique', meaning disagreeing response from others in the field, but this one is ridiculous. The criticism section shouldn't be half of the article. It makes the statement look like it has been debunked into oblivion when in reality it's still an important concept in philosophy. I'm going to cut a lot of this section per WP:UNDUE. Some of the criticism isn't even criticism; as noted above, Heidegger says the statement could be shortened and is a bit awkwardly formed, not that it's wrong. Some of the others very generally criticize the concept, not the statement. I'll remove the sort of overview thing because the only criticism of things like these should be addressed as criticism from others in the field. It shouldn't be a compressed collection of individual criticisms. Prinsgezinde (talk) 11:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @, Thank you for this edit. Re your “it’s still an important concept in philosophy”, perhaps we need some mechanism for indicating views that diverge from its use, per the intro, “to form a secure foundation for knowledge in the face of radical doubt.” E.g., Peirce, “rejected Descartes' appeal to universal doubt and revised the scope and the function of doubt within the process of scientific investigation. His principal concerns with Descartes' radical doubt were ...”. Not sure how to best make this connection here or in the radical doubt article. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Comma in “cogito, ergo sum”
[prompted by consideration of this edit]

Descartes wrote it with a comma in French (1637) and Latin (1644). Gutenberg and the cited The Philosophical Works of Descartes, rendered into English, Haldane and Ross (1911), both include a comma in their English translations.

The dubito elaboration already has the comma.

The cogito appears 11 times in the article — including the title and a template at the bottom.

I’m inclined to go with the above provenance. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Requested move 2 May 2018

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move the page as proposed at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasu よ! 04:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Cogito ergo sum → Cogito, ergo sum – Inserting comma to comport with Descartes's usage, key English translations, etc. -- see last section on Talk page. Humanengr (talk) 02:15, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nomination. The unpunctuated form will, of course, remain as a redirect.   Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 02:45, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support; makes sense and seems consistent with sources. ╠╣uw [ talk ]  09:20, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Unsure. According to the article, Decartes never used this exact formulation; the closest he came was "ego cogito...", which as far as I've heard is never quoted.  So what we say is more of a paraphrase, and paraphrases don't inherit punctuation; they either require punctuation inherently or they don't.  And in Latin this phrase doesn't require it, which may be why it's seldom cited with a comma.  To be perfectly strict, Latin was originally written without punctuation as we know it, but we apply it for readability.  Now we would definitely place a comma there in English, but I don't think we would in Latin unless quoting the original phrasing, "ego cogito, ergo sum".  But that's not how we'd normally say it in Latin, which might be at least part of the reason why it's never quoted that way.  Cogito ergo comma optionalis, igitur ut scripta aliis, sine puncta.  P Aculeius (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
 * @, thx for those considered comments and for prompting a further search --> Descartes did pen "cogito, ergo sum" in the posthumous 1683 Inquisitio veritatis per lumen naturale (which was eventually re-published in Adam et Tannery). Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 03:55, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * It's certainly relevant if he ever used that exact phrasing, although it's still not straightforward if everyone is in fact misquoting or paraphrasing what was said on another occasion (and what really is the difference between paraphrasing something said on one occasion, and misattributing an exact quotation to the wrong source?). But there's still one issue: how is the phrase usually quoted/used?  It's fair to say that Descartes formulated the same thought in multiple wordings, and that one of them corresponds exactly to the proposed title, while none of them corresponds precisely to the present title.  But if the phrase is usually, or almost always, presented without a comma, then the current title reflects the phrase as commonly known, even though it's not exactly how Descartes penned it.  And that's okay, too.
 * Sometimes familiar sayings aren't word-for-word what the source said. Descartes never uttered the words, "I think, therefore I am", but we remember the phrase that way as though he wrote in English, as well as the Latin version, while the French version is relatively unknown.  Einstein never said precisely, "God does not play dice with the universe," and Caesar never spoke the words, "et tu, Brute?" according to the only sources that quote him.  But those paraphrases would be found under the titles as we remember them, more or less, rather than the exact original wording.  So the question becomes not, "did Descartes use a comma", but "does this phrase usually include a comma?"  Either way the article should provide Descartes' exact wording (on multiple occasions, probably).  But the title should be how the phrase is usually presented in English-language sources, not how he actually said it.  That said, if there's a pretty even split in usage, then the move should go ahead, with the note that it's often presented without a comma.  Normally I would look for Google ngrams to check book usage, but there are two problems; first of all, commas are an operator in the search method, and I don't know whether we can search for them.  Second, the occurrence of the phrase in copies of Descartes would tend to skew the results.  So I think we need to see if there's another way to ascertain how the phrase is usually presented in English-language sources.  Then maybe we'll know whether this article ought to go under the proposed title.  P Aculeius (talk) 04:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * The first 100 hits in a simple Google search for "cogito ergo sum" show that most primary reference sources include the comma— Britannica.com, phrases.org, Dictionary.com, Merriam-Webster, Collins English Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, Wiktionary, Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy, WordReference.com. Oxford Academic and Oxford Reference omit it (though not exclusively on their sites). The other top-100 hits are majority no comma.
 * I’m good with change title and include footnote per your suggestion re “it’s often presented without a comma”, appending that to fn ‘a’ in the body — along with a brief reference to Descartes’s use of the phrase. Humanengr (talk) 13:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Here's my proposed addition to footnote 'a':
 * "As far as is known, Descartes used the phrase as such only once. It appears there and in most reference works with a comma, but is often presented without a comma."
 * Humanengr (talk) 18:27, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

 * Support - the punctuated phrase seems to be the most common way this topic is referred to (even if it is or is not accurate from Descartes writing). -- Netoholic @ 06:56, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

dubito … "A better version" or "A fuller form" ??
130.56.207.177 made this edit to the lede, changing "A fuller form, penned by Antoine Léonard Thomas …" to "A better version, articulated by Antoine Léonard Thomas". I favor the former as the latter introduces a judgment of quality, and does so without source. I'll hold off reverting pending discussion here. Humanengr (talk) 21:21, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Ok, that’s long enough. ‘Fuller’ is better than ‘better’. I’ll leave 130…’s ‘articulated’. Humanengr (talk) 02:48, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Grammatical categorization of ‘I think’ and ‘I am thinking’ in French, Latin, English
I added a parenthetical at the end of the Translation section for a categorization of ‘I am thinking’ as ‘progressive aspect’.

Here's a start on additional grammar-related material:
 * 1) Wiktionary identifies the French pense, the English 'think', and the Latin cogito as present tense.
 * 2) A general French language site, aside from using the cogito as an example for identification of ‘Je pense’ as French present tense and 'I think' as English simple present tense, indicates that the French tense can also correspond to the English continuous or progressive present. (The Wikipedia article on Continuous and progressive aspects does not provide a cite for its "French does not have a continuous aspect per se”.)
 * 3) A blog post titled 'Your pocket-sized guide to… French philosophy: René Descartes': "… The common English translation – 'I think therefore I am' – actually weakens the argument. The French version conveys his argument more successfully because ‘je pense’ can mean ‘I am thinking’ as well as ‘I think’. ‘I am thinking’ more clearly suggests that one exists as a result of their ability to think." However, the cite does not explicitly label the grammatical forms.
 * 4) Similarly, Rob Pope in Textual Intervention: “[N]either Descartes’ French version (Je pense, donc je suis) nor his Latin version (Cogito, ergo sum) admits … a distinction [between ‘language’ and ‘logic’] in purely verbal terms; for neither language distinguishes between progressive and non-progressive forms of the present tense (though each does have other means of signalling duration). Consequently, is it here the case that users of English (which has non-progressive and progressive forms of the present tense) are left with a problem - and a possibility - not routinely available to the users of French and Latin?”
 * 5) An Answer Key to A Primer of Ecclesiastical Latin: A Supplement to the Text by John F. Collins: "In most instances, the verbs in the following sentences may be translated alternatively in the progressive aspect: puts to flight / is putting to flight. When you translate Latin, you need a larger context to decide which aspect to use. …"
 * 6) Translating Latin Tenses into English on JSTOR: "The development of the progressive aspect has made impossible any easy correlation of English to Latin tenses … ."

I also searched for but have not yet found a cite that considers the 'gnomic aspect' vis-à-vis the “I think” translation. The WP article on gnomic aspect indicates that when it is “[u]sed to describe a tense, the gnomic is considered neutral by not limiting action, in particular, to the past, present, or future. Examples of the gnomic include such generic statements as: 'birds fly'; 'sugar is sweet'; and 'a mother can always tell'." From the footnote: "These three examples may all be said to be in the present tense, but it is equally reasonable to consider that tense and temporality are simply not relevant to the examples, as all three express generic truths that are not limited by a specific placement in time or construct regarding the flow of time." (The “birds fly” and other examples seem in line with Blackburn’s “I ski” in the Translation section as they all carry the sense of “I occasionally” or “I can …”. I haven’t yet tracked down the cites from the gnomic article for examples and discussion there.)

Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:15, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

 * Worked it through; hopefully it flows well enough; will add something directly from Lyons when I get access, unless someone finds that first. Humanengr (talk) 02:20, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Parmenides "For to be aware and to be are the same"
@, your addition needs a cite to a reliable source. Humanengr (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Misunderstanding
Though the intent of the author was to acknowledge his own existence, the phrase is often used as a positive affirmation for individuals who aspire to "be" or become something greater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7204:EEA8:B168:FE67:488C:7020 (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

 * Do you have a cite for that? Humanengr (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

ego cogito, ergo sum in lead sentence
An IP inserted ego in the first sentence without edit summary. Google and Google Scholar show many more hits for cogito, ergo sum than ego cogito, ergo sum; reference works use the former. GS shows 2x the hits for <"Truth by Natural light" OR "Recherche de la Vérité" "cogito ergo sum"> than <"Principia Philosophiae" OR "Principles of Philosophy" "ego cogito ergo sum">; those that cite Principia use it much more so for "cogito, ergo sum" than "ego cogito, ergo sum". Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 22:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cogito, ergo sum


text:
Casimir III the Great

Casimir III the Great (Kazimierz III Wielki; 30 April 1310 – 5 November 1370) reigned as the King of Poland from 1333 to 1370. He also later became King of Ruthenia in 1340, and fought to retain the title in the Galicia-Volhynia Wars. He was the last Polish king from the Piast dynasty.

Casimir inherited a kingdom weakened by war and under his rule it became relatively prosperous and wealthy. He reformed the Polish army and doubled the size of the kingdom. He reformed the judicial system and introduced several undying codified statutes, gaining the title "the Polish Justinian". Casimir built extensively and founded the Jagiellonian University (back then simply called the University of Krakow), the oldest Polish university and one of the oldest in the world. He also confirmed privileges and protections previously granted to Jews and encouraged them to settle in Poland in great numbers.

Casimir left no legitimate sons. When he died in 1370 from an injury received while hunting, his nephew, King Louis I of Hungary, succeeded him as king of Poland in personal union with Hungary.

The Great King

Casimir was born on 30 April 1310 in Kowal, Kuyavia, the third son of Ladislaus the Short and Jadwiga of Kalisz. He had two brothers who died in infancy and three sisters: Kunegunda, Elżbieta, and Jadwiga. When Casimir attained the throne in 1333, his position was in danger, as his neighbours did not recognise his title and instead called him "king of Kraków". The kingdom was depopulated and exhausted by war, and the economy was ruined. In 1335, in the Treaty of Trentschin, Casimir was forced to relinquish his claims to Silesia "in perpetuity".

Casimir began to rebuild the country and strengthen its defenses. During his reign, nearly 30 towns were supplied with fortification walls and some 50 castles were constructed, including castles along the Trail of the Eagle's Nests. These achievements are still celebrated today, in a commonly-known ditty that translates as follows: inherited wooden towns and left them fortified with stone and brick (Kazimierz Wielki zastał Polskę drewnianą, a zostawił murowaną).

He organized a meeting of kings in Kraków in 1364 at which he exhibited the wealth of the Polish kingdom. Casimir is the only king in Polish history to both receive and retain the title of "Great", as Bolesław I is more commonly known as "the Brave".

Reforms
Casimir ensured stability and great prospects for the future of the country. He established the Corona Regni Poloniae – the Crown of the Polish Kingdom, which certified the existence of the Polish lands independently from the monarch. Prior to that, the lands were only the property of the Piast dynasty.

At the Sejm in Wiślica, on 11 March 1347, Casimir introduced reforms to the Polish judicial system and sanctioned civil and criminal codes for Great and Lesser Poland, earning the title "the Polish Justinian". In 1364, having received permission from Pope Urban V, Casimir established the University of Kraków, now the oldest university in Poland. It was regarded as a rare distinction, since it was only the second university founded in Central Europe, after the Charles University in Prague.

Politics and expansion
Casimir demonstrated competence in foreign diplomacy and managed to double the size of his kingdom. He neutralized relations with potential enemies to the west and north, and began to expand his territory eastward. He conquered the Ruthenian kingdom of Halych and Volodymyr (a territory in the modern-day Ukraine), known in Polish history as Red Ruthenia and Volhynia. By extending the borders far south-east, the Polish kingdom gained access to the lucrative Black Sea trade.

Succession
In 1355, in Buda, Casimir designated his nephew Louis I of Hungary as his successor should he produce no male heir, just as his father had with Charles I of Hungary to gain help against Bohemia. In exchange Casimir gained a favourable Hungarian attitude, needed in disputes with the hostile Teutonic Order and the Kingdom of Bohemia. At the time Casimir was 45 years old, and so producing a son did not seem unreasonable.

Casimir left no legal son, however, begetting five daughters instead. He tried to adopt his grandson, Casimir IV, Duke of Pomerania, in his last will. The child had been born to his eldest daughter, Elisabeth, Duchess of Pomerania, in 1351. This part of the testament was invalidated by Louis I of Hungary, however, who had traveled to Kraków quickly after Casimir died (in 1370) and bribed the nobles with future privileges. Casimir III also had a son-in-law, Louis VI of Bavaria, Margrave and Prince-elector of Brandenburg, who was considered a possible successor, but he was deemed ineligible as his wife, Casimir's daughter Cunigunde, had died in 1357 without issue. Thus King Louis I of Hungary became successor in Poland. Louis was proclaimed king upon Casimir's death in 1370, though Casimir's sister Elisabeth (Louis's mother) held much of the real power until her death in 1380.

Society under the reign of Casimir

Casimir was facetiously named "the Peasants' King". He introduced the codes of law of Greater and Lesser Poland as an attempt to end the overwhelming superiority of the nobility. During his reign all three major classes — the nobility, priesthood, and bourgeoisie — were more or less counterbalanced, allowing Casimir to strengthen his monarchic position. He was known for siding with the weak when the law did not protect them from nobles and clergymen. He reportedly even supported a peasant whose house had been demolished by his own mistress, after she had ordered it to be pulled down because it disturbed her enjoyment of the beautiful landscape.

His popularity with the peasants helped to rebuild the country, as part of the reconstruction program was funded by a land tax paid by the lower social class.

Relationship with Jews
On 9 October 1334, Casimir confirmed the privileges granted to Jews in 1264 by Bolesław V the Chaste. Under penalty of death, he prohibited the kidnapping of Jewish children for the purpose of enforced Christian baptism, and he inflicted heavy punishment for the desecration of Jewish cemeteries. While Jews had lived in Poland since before his reign, Casimir allowed them to settle in Poland in great numbers and protected them as people of the king. About 70 percent of the world's European Jews, or Ashkenazi, can trace their ancestry to Poland due to Casimir's reforms. Casimir's legendary Jewish mistress Esterka remains unconfirmed by direct historical evidence.

Relationships and children
Casimir III was married four times:

Aldona of Lithuania
On 30 April or 16 October 1325, Casimir married Aldona of Lithuania, daughter of Grand Duke Gediminas of Lithuania and Jewna. They had:
 * Elisabeth of Poland (ca. 1326–1361); married Duke Bogislaus V of Pomerania
 * Cunigunde of Poland (1334–1357), married Louis VI the Roman, the son of Louis IV, Holy Roman Emperor
 * Anna

Aldona died on 26 May 1339. Casimir remained a widower for two years.

Adelaide of Hesse
On 29 September 1341, Casimir married his second wife, Adelaide of Hesse. She was a daughter of Henry II, Landgrave of Hesse, and Elizabeth of Meissen. They had no children. Casimir started living separately from Adelaide soon after the marriage. Their loveless marriage lasted until 1356, when he declared himself divorced.

Christina Rokiczana
After Casimir "divorced" Adelaide he married his mistress Christina Rokiczana, the widow of Miklusz Rokiczani, a wealthy merchant. Her own origins are unknown. Following the death of her first husband she had entered the court of Bohemia in Prague as a lady-in-waiting. Casimir brought her with him from Prague and convinced the abbot of the Benedictine abbey of Tyniec to marry them. The marriage was held in a secret ceremony but soon became known. Queen Adelaide renounced it as bigamous and returned to Hesse. Casimir continued living with Christine despite complaints by Pope Innocent VI on behalf of Queen Adelaide. This marriage lasted until 1363–64 when Casimir again declared himself divorced. They had no children.

Hedwig of Żagań
In about 1365, Casimir married his fourth wife Hedwig of Żagań. She was a daughter of Henry V of Iron, Duke of Żagań and Anna of Mazovia. They had three children:
 * Anna of Poland, Countess of Celje (1366 – 9 June 1422); married firstly William of Celje; their only daughter was Anne of Celje, who married Jogaila of Lithuania when he was king of Poland (as Władysław II Jagiełło). Anna married secondly Ulrich, Duke of Teck; they had no children.
 * Kunigunde of Poland (1367 – 1370)
 * Jadwiga of Poland (1368 – ca. 1382)

As Adelheid was still alive (and possibly Christina as well), the marriage to Hedwig was also considered bigamous. Because of this, the legitimacy of his three young daughters was disputed. Casimir managed to have Anna and Kunigunde legitimated by Pope Urban V on 5 December 1369. Jadwiga the younger was legitimated by Pope Gregory XI on 11 October 1371 (after Casimir's death).

Title and style
Casimir's full title was: Casimir by the grace of God king of Poland and Rus' (Ruthenia), lord and heir of the land of Kraków, Sandomierz, Sieradz, Łęczyca, Kuyavia, Pomerania (Pomerelia). The title in Latin was: Kazimirus, Dei gratia rex Polonie et Russie, nec non Cracovie, Sandomirie, Siradie, Lancicie, Cuiavie, et Pomeranieque Terrarum et Ducatuum Dominus et Heres.

Film

 * Casimir III the Great is one of the main characters in Polish historical drama series Korona królów (The Crown of the Kings). He is played by Mateusz Król (season 1) and Andrzej Hausner (season 2).
 * Casimir III the Great is mentioned in a speech by Amon Göth in the film Schindler's List.

Video games

 * Casimir features as a playable leader in the 2010 strategy game Civilization V, having been added in its 2013 expansion, Brave New World.
 * Casimir also features as a ruler in the strategy game Crusader Kings II.

Currency

 * Casimir is featured on the obverse of the 50 Polish złoty banknote, with his regalia on the reverse.

title: Casimir III the Great