Talk:Homoousion

message: ACE = ? ... I'm guessing the intent is to use CE (as opposed to AD) but I'm not sure. I checked the main page for ACE as an acronym and got nothing that makes sense.  (I raised the same question under "Homoiousian" as it needs to be either replaced or clarified on both.
:Yes, like most human beings, I do make errors. On the other hand, there is no excuse and no logical justification for your wise-ass tone and complete disregard for polite standards of discourse which require that you sign you name when making comments on talk pages. --Lacatosias 07:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it necessary or wise to use "CE" when we're talking about something this specifically Christian?--T. Anthony 11:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: ...What? 05:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: heteroousios should be redirected to this page, i would but not sure how 66.68.208.245 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Why here? Why not towards Arianism? Jacob Haller 04:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is heteroousios a neologism? Arianism was homoiousian (like substance). 75.0.4.78 22:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: "Arianism" describes several different theologies. IIRC, Arius used both "hetero-" and "homoiousios" and even accepted "homoousios" with certain reservations. 
Philostorgius book 3, chapter 5 and book 6, chapter 5, refer to "different substance." Other expressions from the period include, forgive my ignorance of Greek, "homoios" (?) or "similar" and "dissimilar" (the latter found in the term "anomean" or "anomoean"). Jacob Haller 01:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  heteroousios 

message: In the statement "The term, officially adopted by the First Council of Nicaea, was intended to add clarity to the relationship between Christ and God the Father within the Godhead" the phrase "was intended to add clarity" presupposes the correctness of the Homoousian and later Trinitarian views.  I suggest it be modified to present a more impartial view. Jnelsonleith (talk) 13:47, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarity vs. partisan position 

message: Alexandria, Antioch, and Constantinople were centres of theological warfare. The whole north of Africa, too, was rent by the strife of the Donatists, who upheld their particular schism by iron flails and the war-cry of "Praise to the Lord!" But minor local controversies sank to nothing when compared with the huge argument of the Catholic and the Arian, which rent every village in twain, and divided every household from the cottage to the palace. The rival doctrines of the Homoousian and of the Homoiousian, containing metaphysical differences so attenuated that they could hardly be stated, turned bishop against bishop and congregation against congregation. The ink of the theologians and the blood of the fanatics were spilled in floods on either side, and gentle followers of Christ were horrified to find that their faith was responsible for such a state of riot and bloodshed as had never yet disgraced the religious history of the world. Many of the more earnest among them, shocked and scandalized, slipped away to the Libyan Desert, or to the solitude of Pontus, there to await in self-denial and prayer that second coming which was supposed to be at hand. Even in the deserts they could not escape the echo of the distant strife, and the hermits themselves scowled fiercely from their dens at passing travellers who might be contaminated by the doctrines of Athanasius or of Arius.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_of_the_Huns
Fxm12 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any truth to this passage from Arthur Conan Doyle's ''The Coming of the Huns''? 

message: As the recently inserted note indicates, this article is wrongly named at the moment.  A check on the indices of standard reference works by authorities such as Frend, Chadwick, Kelly and Bettenson shows that this subject appears under either "homoousios" (Frend, Chadwick) or "homoousion" (Kelly, Bettenson & Ox. Dict. Chn. Church).  The first is the masculine nominative singular of the adjective, the second is the accusative form which actually appears in the Creed of Nicea. Purists would probably opt for the later since the phrase 'to homoousion' would function as an acceptable noun to refer to the concept and its use at Nicea, but my impression is that "homoousios" is probably more widespread in general use and would be the more convenient key-word for the general reader. I would settle for either alternative and shall delay a formal proposal to move the art. until other editors have expressed an opinion.
I have found the words "anomeans" and "homoeans" used in technical works and the Oxford Dictionary and presume that the term "homoousians" would refer to the supporters of "homoousion/s" rather than the central concept itself. Jpacobb (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Some additional sources: A Concise Dictionary of Theology (2003), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology and Westminster Dictionary of Theology have "homoousios", Global Dictionary of Theology has no entry, but refers to "homoousios". Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy has homoousion. I'm torn, but I think I prefer "homoousios". --JFH (talk) 02:42, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better title: "homoousios" or "homoousion"? 

message: Substituted at 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: I think editors have just used "nature of [Christ, God, etc.]" colloquially in the sense of "quality of", "essence of". 
But "nature" is a very loaded term here because it implies creation. Try to avoid the term unless you are able to attribute it directly to a source, and/or you are consciously using it in its dictionary sense of "being born/created/made", otherwise you will just introduce further complications by accident. --dab (𒁳) 15:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of "nature"

message: The article, at least imo, should be renamed from the accusative to the nominative case form of the word. I have replaced in the article, excluding obviously the title and hence the lead and only once more when explaining the cases, all ACC instances with NOM ones. Even if no renaming takes place, it's one thing to quote sometimes the ACC form because that's how it's in the various Credos (being the object of the verb), therefore that's how some people not speaking Greek have come to know it; it's on the other hand ridiculous to e.g. translate a Greek ACC to Latin NOM or not to explain why books/sources about the subject, cited herein, use a seemingly different word/form. Thanatos|talk|contributions 08:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the grammatical gender, it is proper to say that Christ is "homoousios" with the Father, but no one would say that Christ is "homoousion" (nominative singular of the neuter), because noun "Christ" is a masculine noun, and in accordance with that corresponding adjective must be "homoousios" (nominative singular of the masculine). Sorabino (talk) 17:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: @Jpacobb: That would be the case if this homoousion in English is evidently a direct translation from such an attested Greek use of the form (and not simply the possibility thereof) (still usable btw in -modern- Greek though not common) on this subject or an English neologism, an indirect translation (say, by a classicist) evidently inspired by such a possible use in Greek and not simply a verbatim copy of the relevant masc. acc. sg. of the pisteuo/credo text. The latter case is in my view the very probable one; the former, i.e. what you're claiming doing, in my view, a rationalisation after the fact, seems far, far, far, far,... fetched.* If so, then it seems to me that retaining this name could only be justified if it has become de facto predominantly, prevalently standard and even then the error/"error" would have to be explicitly and boldly mentioned and explained in the article. *Though evidence to the contrary could easily change my mind.Thanatos|talk|contributions 02:05, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Name 

message: This article, most notably the Adoption in the Nicene Creed section, relies on 2-3 sources for citations. One of these sources -- https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/homoousion -- is used as the framework for the entire "Adoption..." section. After reviewing this website, it appears this article copies the aforementioned site's framework and language in many instances. Putting aside the obvious plagiarism issues in this article, the author in https://revelationbyjesuschrist.com/homoousion cites selectively chosen sources to come to a narrative that is vaguely based on primary and secondary sources and portrays this narrative as fact. The author of this wiki article then passes off this information as it was factually accurate. For instance, this article states as fact that Constantine pressured the bishops into adopting the Creed as he wanted it to be. However, there is no evidence indicating this happened. Additionally, there is no mention of Vicentius and Vito as papal legates. This claim that Constantine coerced in someway the bishops at Nicaea is also subverted by the fact that the Creed in question was upheld at the Second Ecumenical Council, 40 years after the death of Constantine. I don't know why the author decided to essentially copy and paste from the source linked to above, but this is poor authorship and presents one author's narrative as fact. I would suggest a recomposition of this section at least, along with more reliable sources that aren't driven by personal motives. 69.132.119.33 (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and I decided to Be_bold and revert all the offending edits. Not only do they blatantly plagiarize an unreliable source (EDIT: It's clear that the user is quoting his own blog, which is original research) but the user also has a history of inserting Fringe_theories into edits on other articles. Nautical Mongoose (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lack of source diversity and possible plagiarism in "Adoption in the Nicene Creed" 

message: It appears there was an editor with a strong distaste for saint Athanasius of Alexandria who cited fringe websites and tried to paint Arius as a hidden hero and Athanasius as the big bad evil guy. These edits violate Wikipedia's neutral POV and also are just bad and poorly sourced. Looking over some of the sources the editor provided, such as one under the website "revelationbyjesuschrist.com" it appears these sources believe in an Alexander Hislop-style "great apostasy" myth and also make claims about the Bible and saint Athanasius that are unsourced. There are also reliable sources mentioned, such as Hanson, Lewis Ayres and Rowan Williams, they are horribly quote-mined and distorted to support the position presented.
It might be better to lock this article for a few weeks to prevent further disruptive edits. Oogalee Boogalee (talk) 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple problems