Talk:First Council of Constantinople

message: This source has some good information about this topic
Council of Constantinople
Could it be added to the main article?
Wjbentley 06:13, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good external article on Council of Constantinople 

message: Does the Council provide any theological information on the gender of the Holy Spirit ? There is of course a modern debate on this. ADM (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Not at all.  In Greek, "Holy Spirit" [pneuma hagion] is neuter.  All the relevant debates occured in Greek.  But many of the bishops were aware that in Hebrew, "Holy Spirit" [ruach ha-Kodesh] is feminine, and many were aware that in Latin, "Holy Spirit" [Spiritus Sanctus] is masculine.  This was not an issue that was important to them, and indeed I'm not aware that anyone in the ancient world commented on it at all.  However, what is absolutely clear from the early Christians' debates is that they believed that God the Father has no physical body or sexual gender, that the Son of God prior to his Incarnation had no physicaal body or sexual gender, and that the Holy Spirit has no physical body or sexual gender.  I think it is primarily English-speakers like you and me who inevitably associate grammatical gender with sexual gender, because we can't really fathom the purpose of grammatical gender in gendered languages.  (At least, I can't.) — Lawrence King (talk) 03:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Gender of the Holy Spirit

message: I was surprised to see this sentence in the paragraph:
Apollinaris' rejection of Christ having a human mind was considered an over-reaction to Arianism and its teaching that Christ was not divine
I am no religious scholar, but I have read the article on Arius and Arianism, and I do not see how Arius' statements could be construed as Jesus of Nazareth being non-divine.
Would it be less of a stretch to say "over-reaction to Arianism." ?
76.187.125.82 (talk) 05:09, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The word divine can be ambiguous, so I have revised this sentence to refer to "Arianism and its teaching that Christ was not God".  Arius' teaching was complex, and on some points there is dispute about what he taught.  But there is no dispute about his core assertion that Jesus was not God, but was rather the first creature created by God, created before the rest of the universe, and who subsequently became incarnate as Jesus of Nazareth.  If the articles Arius and Arianism don't clearly indicate this, then they need to be fixed.  — Lawrence King (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arianism description in the Theoretical Context? 

message: **The Council of Nicaea in 325 had not ended the Arian controversy which it had been called to clarify. By 327, Emperor Constantine I had begun to regret the decisions that had been made at the Nicene Council. He granted amnesty to the Arian leaders and exiled Athanasius because of Eusebius of Nicomedia. Even during numerous exiles, Athanasius continued to be a vigorous defender of Nicene Christianity against Arianism. Athanasius famously said "Athanasius against the world". The Cappadocian Fathers also took up the torch; their Trinitarian discourse was influential in the council at Constantinople.
There are several errors or problems with this paragraph.  First, it is highly subjective to say that Constantine "had begun to regret" Nicaea and its creed.  I would like to see the evidence to support such a view, as Constantine was a rigorous defender of his creed until he died (Arius was admitted back only when willing to sign it).  See, among others, Charles Odahl, Constantine and the Christian Empire, 2nd ed. (Routledge, 2013) pp. 262-263 "...he [Arius] swore an oath that he accepted the Nicene definition of Christ" (262).  It was not regret that motivated Constantine.
Next, Athanasius was not exiled in 327, so that statement is misleading.  Athanasius was exiled in 335-337 (8 years later), but not because of his Christological position.  Eusebius of Nicomedia (who was Arian but claimed to have accepted the Nicene Creed while Constantine was alive) was among those attacking Athanasius, but using political, not religious, motivations.  They claimed that Athanasius had threatened to stop the grain shipments from Egypt (again, Odahl, 260).
Third, another fifty years is captured in this brief paragraph.  One reading this might assume, wrongly, that the Cappadocian Fathers were contemporary to the only date given, 327.  They were decades later, writing in the 360s and following.
Unfortunately, I do not know all of the web coding, or html coding or whatever it is, to feel comfortable making these changes.  Someone should, though.
ShawnRagan (talk) 00:07, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theological Context incorrect 

message: The citation for the seventh cannon throws a lot of doubt on to whether it was even actually a canon 
https://ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf214.ix.viii.viii.html
I think there ought to be a note in the article stating there is some level of doubt around it Perplexedhellenic (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seventh Canon