Talk:Apocatastasis

message: From article: Augustine of Hippo was against the doctrine and wrote against it, and was formally pronounced Anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543.
Was Augustine pronounced Anathema or was Apocatastasis pronounced Anathema?
:In response to that anonymous question, I examined the history of this file to see what was intended. It looks as though a typo was introduced and left uncorrected. Prior to a revision by Geogre at 20:50, 31 March 2005, the passage read thus:
::"It is based on the Biblical passage in 1 Corinthians 15:28, and was extensively preached in the eastern church by St. Gregory of Nyssa in the 4th century. It was formally condemned by the Synod of Constantinople in 543."
:I have added an "it" into the new sentence to restore this meaning:
::"Augustine of Hippo was against the doctrine and wrote against it, and it was formally pronounced Anathema by the Synod of Constantinople in 543."Bob.appleyard 15:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Was Augustine pronounced Anathema? Incorrect? 

message: Though I detect a slight bias in the article it seems to stem from lack of information rather than anything intentional. I would make the changes but being new to wikipedia I would prefer to post something on the discussion page first.
First, there is an implication in the article that Apokatastasis was predominately an eastern theology, but though it could be said to have originated in the School of Alexandria such western fathers as Ambrose of Milan also supported the doctrine, and Jerome supported it at first but later changed his posistion. Basil the Great, who opposed the doctrine, also wrote that the great majority of Christians supported the doctrine during his time. It should also be noted that Gregory the Theologan (Gregory of Nazianzus) is also regarded as a supporter of the doctrine.
Secondly, while Constantinople 543 condemned Apokatastasis it should be noted than though these Anathemas were submitted to the Fifth Oecumenical Synod (Constantinople II, 553) and the Anathema specifically against Apokastasis (or more specifically, against the belief that hell is not eternal) was not ratified, even though it was firmly supported by the Emperor, and is absent from the Anathemas against Origen in Constantinople II.
Thirdly, the origin of Apokatastasis should probably be noted, like much of Alexandrian theology it is a tenant of neo-Platonism and can be found as a central theme in Plotinus' Enneads.
Finally, it should be noted that there is modern support for the doctrine even within more traditional expressions of Christianity. For example the monastic Silouan the Athonite (a highly regarded modern (d. 1938) saint in the Eastern Orthodox Church) supported the doctrine of universal salvation.
What I have written here is somewhat biased in favour of the doctrine I will admit, but it's in the discussion page. Changes should probably be made to the main Article that reflect the heavily disputed nature of this issue during the first eight centuries of Christianity.
*A pronunciation guide (I don't know thepreferred  conventions), at least to emphasis on the antepenultimate syllable, ApocaTASTasis, would aid the reader. --Wetman 05:50, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, anonymous, I've put what you wrote above in the article. Now you have to provide the references. Thanx! Caroline1008 12:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with this article 

message: This has been tagged since Oct 2008 "Basil the Great (330-379), who opposed the doctrine, wrote that the majority of Christians believed it. Citation needed|date=October 2008 " this is perhaps traceable to one of the claims of John Wesley Hanson (1899) p.106, but Hanson has no source and misreads Basil, so deleted. In ictu oculi (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced / incorrect historical claim removed

message: Seeing as "present day usage" remains problematic how about removing the term completely and simply have this:
:Reference works
:In late 19th to 21st Century reference works, as shown in the following works listed in chronological order, apocatastasis is generally defined as involving some form of universal reconciliation, though some more recent works note that this may not be what Origen and others meant by their use of the word.
Is there any problem with that wording?In ictu oculi (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I see that you have difficulties with the word "usage", seeing it as implying that apocatastasis is a subject of specific speculation today.  Would "understanding" be OK?  Is the new text that I have put in the article acceptable?  Esoglou (talk) 09:27, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

text: I'd still prefer 'In late 19th to 21st Century writings' to in 'recent writings' but yes otherwise that's fine. Thanks. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your understanding.  I think "In late 19th to 21st-century writings" would clash with the preceding paragraph's "During the 19th and early 20th centuries".  I still don't see the usefulness of citing Gretillat, Köstlin and Batiffol, but if you want them ...  Esoglou (talk) 10:44, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference works para, change of intro sentence

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Apocatastasis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708123721/http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apocatastasis to http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Apocatastasis
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:25, 8 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: This article is almost an avertisement for the Christian Universalist position, with most of the citations coming from ideologized/heavily biased sources. Almos all needs to be re-written, using neutral sources with only minor contributions from ideologized material. In fact I have noticed a special effort across several articles to try to push the idea that Early Christianity was Universalist; which can be a a legitimate religious belief but not a verifiable historical fact. 
I will accept removal of the NPOV tag when most of the facts are backed by well known textbooks or any similar widely read and reputable sources. El Huinca (talk) 22:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Does it not describe the foundations of the theoretical position and the texts that its advocates cite? How often in history this this TYPE of Christian universalism appear?  Why? Why was it rejected? MaynardClark (talk) 19:09, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Severe NPOV violation 

message: Should this article not also cite 1 Corinthians 15:28 as textual directive toward thinking of an ultimate Apocatastasis?
"In that way, God will be all in all. NIV. When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God ..." Bible Gateway    
https://www.biblegateway.com › verse MaynardClark (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: If you know of sources that use this text as justification for the belief, then yes. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:14, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand "it", one reads the text(s) and asks oneself and others, "What are we doing to do about these texts and what they seem to be saying?" (when we read them "on the surface level").  Then the person and/or the group would ask: "Are there any pre-existing hermeneutical options (for us in light of our reading these texts)?" and "Are they 'acceptable' (to us)?" MaynardClark (talk) 19:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I got a little lost there, but to be clear, we don't publish any kind of original theories or facts here, so it's not up to the editors at Wikipedia to decide what should or shouldn't be the perspectives on religious doctrine, just to report what others are saying. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: 1 Corinthians 15:28