Talk:Christology

Hello everyone! I’ve noticed that the recent Mosaic hasn’t any mention in this article. My query is this: where do we put this find in the article (besides the lede)? Update: I just made a citation for it, but I don’t know where to add it in the article. Obviously in the lede, but it also needs some grounding in the main body. ^[1] Wolfquack2 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion you might want to add it to the section Post-apostolic controversies since the mosaic seems to date to aaround 230 CE, which is around the same timeframe as the other issues discussed in that section. This is a very fascinating finding indeed. Silverfish2024 (talk) 19:55, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Sounds good! Wolfquack2 (talk) 17:36, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Regarding tthis revert, which moved the Loke-info out of the note anf back into the body of the article, and restored

His argument has been particularly well received, obtaining the endorsement of noted scholars Dale C. Allison Jr., Chris Tilling, Tucker Ferda, and Christine Jacobi.^{[1][2][page needed]}<!--Concerns the argument being well received, endorsed by these scholars, and the scholars being 'noted' (only one of them having a Wikipedia entry casts some doubts on the last claim).-->

this puts undue emphasis on a single voice (Loke), noticed but rejected by Larry Hurtado; and typically, we don't use promo-blurbs to "endorse" a publication (see also WP:SPAM). Note that a pagenumber had already been requested... Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 08:55, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
NB: Loke, The Origin of Humanity and Evolution: Science and Scripture in Conversation: "Addressing the intense debate in science and religion in light of evolutionary population genetics, Andrew Ter Ern Loke argues that the theory of evolution as understood by mainstream scientists is compatible with Scripture. Loke asserts that resolving this area of perceived conflict would greatly benefit both scientific and religious communities, and contribute to the spiritual quest of humankind." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 09:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Nothing in your highlighted quote cites Loke or Hurtado, so claiming it puts an undue emphasis on Loke does not make sense. The endorsements by scholars are not in the written text but are featured by the publisher's website, so it has a source. Pointing out that scholars endorse a book is not a misleading promotion. Wikipedia is not the one endorsing the book in the quote. I suppose the phrase 'particularly well received' does not have a citation, so I agree that can be removed. Silverfish2024 (talk) 13:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Even for a normally reliable publisher, we look askance at materials intended to promote their books, just as we would review quotes that run in movie ads. This is more extreme -- all four quoted folks are authors of other Eerdmans titles, so they have a financial connection that would encourage them to provide upbeat blurbs for their publisher. This material should not be assumed important or even accurate. --- Nat Gertler (talk) 01:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we should add Monothelitism and/or monoenergism; maybe Aquileia (Three-Chapter Controversy) too Braganza (talk) 06:35, 8 April 2025 (UTC)

If possible, please add a recent relevant new publication on that topic: Reinhold Bernhardt, Christ the Representative: Toward a Representational Christology (Studies in Systematic Theology 27), Leiden 2025. DOI 10.1163/9789004734203. Wisstheol (talk) 14:48, 22 October 2025 (UTC)