Template talk:Christology

A link to Life of Jesus in the New Testament

A link to Life of Jesus in the New Testament belongs in this template because the life of Jesus in the New Testament is a major source of theology about Christ (Christology).

Ah. I now see you reverted my edit so fast that when I when in to link past the redirect link you made me insert it again. - tahc ^chat 05:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It is a major source, but Christology doesn't focus much on the life of Jesus. StAnselm (talk) 05:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So, we agree that the life of Jesus in the New Testament is a major source of Christology and that

Christology doesn't focus much on the life of Jesus in the New Testament.

So, are the two topics still related?

• Yes.

May someone be reading about a Christology related topic want to read about the life of Jesus in the New Testament?

• Yes.

May someone be reading about the life of Jesus in the New Testament want to read about a Christology related topic?

• Yes.

That "Christology doesn't focus much on the life of Jesus in the New Testament" is not a reason to remove any of the links. If anything it is a reason to keep the links. tahc ^chat 05:27, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

It's a "see also" link in the Christology article, which seems about right. The NT foundation for Christology is dealt with in Christology#Apostolic Christology. It's just a fraction of what the NT says about Jesus, and the Life of Jesus in the New Testament article doesn't seem to talk about Christology at all. StAnselm (talk) 05:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

As I noted above, since anyone reading about the life of Jesus in the New Testament may want to read about a topic related to Christology, and the Life of Jesus in the New Testament article doesn't even link to Christology, these are all reasons to keep and not remove the template of links. tahc ^chat 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I do not see this as a big deal either way, in that it is about links not content. My feeling is that there are two groups of items:

• Topics such as Ministry of Jesus, Chronology of Jesus, Life of Jesus in the NT and places associated with Jesus. These are not subject to deep theological debate and relate to the flow of the gospel narrative.

• Christological / theological topics such as Person of Christ, Hypostatic union, Threefold office etc. These have long theo-book written on them.

Template:Gospel Jesus is related to the first group, this template to the second.

I am not even sure that Nativity belongs in this template. Now, we just had a lovely group of puppets bring attention to Son of man and I eventually fixed that, although had never wanted to. I think even Nativity should drop from this template and Son of God / Son of man be added - but not a major issue either way. Then this will be the "theologically heavy" template.

Now, the Template:Gospel Jesus really needs sections as I suggested there. Can I talk you guys into making suggestions there? That is the one that seems hard to grasp and should be able to telegram things quickly with shading of sections, etc.

Finally, Threefold office needs help if you guys want to pay attention to that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:12, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Nativity of Jesus doesn't really belong in the tempate. tahc ^chat 22:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Ok, fine. And no problem with the Son of God item, but it was using pre-existence first because it happened before. So the flow was that He pre-existed as the Word/Logos then was incarnated, then now Son of God, then Person of Christ, etc. Also the shorter form is just harder to read, and it is not a large template, so I hope you don't mind if I make them full terms again, so new users don't get confused. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

He was not "Pre-existent" and then "God the Son". He "God the Son" first and therefore "Pre-existent". Logos also seem to go before pre-existent to me (something can be "pre-existent" for only 5 minutes but still be pre-existent), but I can see that is less clear. It would however but the titles of Christ links together. tahc ^chat 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

What you have now gives all the links anyway, so let us just go with that. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)