|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Christianity||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
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)
- 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)
heteroousios should be redirected to this page, i would but not sure how 220.127.116.11 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
- "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)
clarity vs. partisan position
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)
Relatedly, the line "It is one of the cornerstones of theology in the true Christian Churches which are the ones that adhere to the Nicene Creed." seems a little chauvinistic. - Paul — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 11:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Any truth to this passage from Arthur Conan Doyle's The Coming of the Huns?
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.
Better title: "homoousios" or "homoousion"?
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)
- 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)
The comment(s) below were originally left at several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section., and are posted here for posterity. Following
|Considering that Homoousia is one of the key concepts by which majority Trinitarian Christians judge whether or not they believe other churches are technically "Christian" or not, it seems odd for this subject to receive such a low Importance ranking. Jnelsonleith (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)|
Last edited at 13:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 18:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)