Talk:Monothelitism

message: I reviewed this article for GA status and I have some comments that could help to improve the article:
-I found it hard to read.  For example, in the history section, the paragraph breaks come at unnatural points, breaking a single chain of thought into multiple paragraphs.
-I think that the intro assumes too much background knowledge from the reader.  
-A GA is normally backed up by a greater amount of verifiable references.  
-There is no picture, but I don't think this is a problem.  It is hard to imagine what an appropriate picture would be, unless you can find a work of art that relates to this concept.
I hope this article continues to improve so it can reach GA status. ike9898 02:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for giving the article a look.  As this is a fairly technical concept in the Chistological debates of the 5th/6th cent., I am not quite sure how to make it more accessible and would appreciate any suggestions.  Again, thanks for looking, my main goal was to get another set of eyes on the article now that its not a stub.  I'll give it a pass with more references at a later date, and see what I can do about paragraph syntax.  Pastordavid 05:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed "good article" nomination

message: I know this is an ignorant question, but what's the orthodoxy that monothelitism contradicts? What is it about monothelitism that's wrong? Does Jesus have two natures and two wills, or what? Jonathan Tweet 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I answered that by saying "The Christological definition of Chalcedon stated that Jesus was one person with two natures (the diphysite position)."  But I can see that the article should be clearer that the Christ was 1 person with two complete natures (i.e., both a human and divine will).  Thanks, I'll get on that ... maybe once I get through the holidays.  07:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Honestly, my problem was that I didn't understand the significance of the council of Chalcedon. You learn something new every day.Jonathan Tweet 00:01, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  orthodox position 

message: What does it mean to have "two natures"?  What does it mean to have "two wills"?  What actions of Jesus (historical or fictional) are used to prove or disprove any assertions about how many "wills" or "natures" he had?  I'm sorry, this article gives lots of facts about which groups of people supported which views, but no information whatsoever about what these views actually mean!  Why was there ever any debate at all?  Imagine what the heliocentrism article would be like if it talked about Aristarchus and Copernicus, but never mentioned the earth, the Sun, or the Solar System.  It would be a lot like this article.  Useless.
: The significance is that people were trying to determine exactly what it meant for Christ to be both God and man.  You don't think it is significant for Christians to know about Christ? Jhobson1 (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all believers in one will believe in a simply divine will, no. As the article mentions there is some belief in one "theandric will" meaning one will that is both divine and human. This latter view happens to be the most common view among the Oriental Orthodox, for instance. Deusveritasest (talk) 22:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who cares? 

message: The article says "Pope Honorius I — Condemned at Constantinople for his failure to combat Monothelitism".  That is weasel-worded, I suspect by some Catholic who refuses to admit that a pope was in error.  Honorius did more than just "fail to combat Monothelitism", he actively supported it. Jhobson1 (talk) 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pope Honorius 

message: I added on a phrase to the first sentence that explains the origins of Monothelitism.
"Monothelitism (a Greek loanword meaning "one will") is a particular teaching about how the divine and human relate in the person of Jesus, known as a Christological doctrine, that began in Armenia and Syria in 633 C.E. "
I just thought it would be important.
Source
Gray, Patrick The Defense of Chalcedon in the East. Leiden, the Netherlands: E. H. Brill, 1979. 
This source primarily focuses on the aftermath of the Council of Chalcedon in the Eastern Orthodox Church.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.174.215.30 (talk) 07:04, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added on some Important Information 

message: The header says that Monothelitism was a doctrine that espoused two natures and one will. Later it says that Monothelitism was a development of Monophysitism. These seem to be contradictory statements, seeing as how Monophysitism espouses one nature, not two. Deusveritasest (talk) 03:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradicting sentiments in header 

message: The lead section has two paragraphs. The first which I largely wrote around two years ago, and a second which is just a horrid attempt to explain what someone sees as bias in the article. I have removed the second paragraph, but am placing it here below just in case someone wants to salvage it and include it in the article as an alternate viewpoint (although sources and citations would be nice). Oatley2112 (talk) 15:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of text from lead section 

message: This article is based on old and out-of-date sources. It ignores the long-standing debate over whether the 'monotheletes' really did deny Christ a human faculty of will (or 'natural will'). See my article 'Monotheletism: A Heresy or a Form of Words?' in Studia Patristica 48, (2010), 221-32, which argues that the difference between monotheletism and dyotheletism was merely terminological. For a good statement of the contrary position see Demetrios Bathrellos, 'The Byzantine Christ' (Oxford 2004), 60-98. Prof. Richard Price. 29 July 2013.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Meredith (talk • contribs) 08:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please contribute.  You cannot cite your own article, but you can cite whatever reliable sources you cited in that article.  Esoglou (talk) 11:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New article needed