This template is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
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. tahcchat 06:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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)Reply[reply]
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. tahcchat 07:17, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you have now gives all the links anyway, so let us just go with that. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 24 September 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]