Jump to content

Talk:Arius

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tgeorgescu (talk | contribs) at 00:36, 15 October 2019 (Ehrman). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article


English language change in "The First Council of Nicaea"

I did 1 change in section "The First Council of Nicaea", 3rd paragraph: "But Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded [...] that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) THAN the Father" to "But Athanasius is seen as doing the legwork and concluded [...] that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) AS the Father", as "of the same essence than" was a strange English formulation. That strange formula containing "of the same essence than" also appears in the referenced work: Matt Perry - Athanasius and his Influence at the Council of Nicaea - QUODLIBET JOURNAL.

Now English is not my first language, so I am not aware of all the implications of the formula "of the same essence than", as compared to "of the same essence as". Maybe the former one has some meaning. Maybe someone who is proficient and knowledgeable in the English language may give more information here. Ferred (talk) 17:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


I changed it again to "that the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) WITH the Father". This is motivated by the fact that the formula "with the Father" seems to be preferred in many texts; firstly in the Nicene Creed, also in the article on Homoousion, but also in Athanasius, Discourse 1 Against the Arians, part 9, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/28161.htm : "Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father's essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one in essence with the very Father". This formula may carry a significant meaning.

A quote from the original source would be better. Does the Athanasian Trinitarian defense refer to Athanasius' "De Decretis"? This is not clear. Ferred (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Further quotes from Athanasius, De Decretis, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm :

part 19: "For neither are other things as the Son, nor is the Word one among others, for He is Lord and Framer of all; and on this account did the Holy Council declare expressly that He was of the essence of the Father, that we might believe the Word to be other than the nature of things originate, being alone truly from God"

part 20: "But the Bishops [...] were again compelled on their part to collect the sense of the Scriptures, and to re-say and re-write what they had said before, more distinctly still, namely, that the Son is 'one in essence ' with the Father: by way of signifying, that the Son was from the Father, and not merely like, but the same in likeness , and of showing that the Son's likeness and unalterableness was different from such copy of the same as is ascribed to us, which we acquire from virtue on the ground of observance of the commandments. For bodies which are like each other may be separated and become at distances from each other, as are human sons relatively to their parents (as it is written concerning Adam and Seth, who was begotten of him that he was like him after his own pattern Genesis 5:3); but since the generation of the Son from the Father is not according to the nature of men, and not only like, but also inseparable from the essence of the Father, and He and the Father are one, as He has said Himself, and the Word is ever in the Father and the Father in the Word, as the radiance stands towards the light (for this the phrase itself indicates), therefore the Council, as understanding this, suitably wrote 'one in essence,' that they might both defeat the perverseness of the heretics, and show that the Word was other than originated things. "

part 30: "the Word is the Father's Image, and one in essence with Him" Ferred (talk) 00:37, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the phrase "[the Son was of the same essence (homoousios) with the Father, and] was eternally generated from that essence of the Father" the meaning of the word "eternally" is not very clear. Ferred (talk) 00:57, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For a discussion of this subject please see the page Talk:Arian controversy#Arian controversy and related articles — Jpacobb (talk) 01:05, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Arius. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:19, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Baptism

"Historians report that Constantine, who had never been baptized as a Christian during his lifetime, was baptized on his deathbed by the Arian bishop, Eusebius of Nicomedia."

That would mean it was during his lifetime, no? ( SailingOn (talk) 19:27, 3 December 2017 (UTC) )[reply]

It would mean towards or at the end of his life. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's what they intend it to mean, but that's not what lifetime means. I'm changing the sentence, Oxford dictionary states lifetime means "The duration of a person's life." I refuse to submit to bizarro English.( SailingOn (talk) 02:18, 4 December 2017 (UTC) )[reply]
Edit just noticed you fixed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SailingOn (talk • contribs) 02:19, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ehrman

Ehrman

52:07

arias arias was trying to figure out how 52:12 to explain the relationship of God the 52:15 Father and God the Son at this point in 52:18 Christian history every Christian knew 52:21 that Jesus was the son of God this is 52:23 not a decision that was being made 52:24 Christians had thought this for 52:26 centuries at this point 52:27 ever since the New Testament everybody 52:29 thought Jesus was the son of God the 52:31 question is if Jesus is the Son of God 52:34 how does he relate to God the Father 52:36 he's obviously a son but but in what 52:39 sense is he also God in what sense is he 52:44 also God everybody thought he was God 52:45 but in what sense is he God arias 52:49 solution was this arias said that in 52:52 eternity past way back in eternity 52:55 before anything else existed just God 52:57 existed and God brought into being his 53:01 son he begot a son Christ came into 53:04 existence Christ was a secondary 53:08 divinity a subordinate divinity not 53:12 equal in power and glory and Majesty to 53:14 the Father because he's the son he's not 53:16 the father the father is superior to the 53:19 son Christ the son then created the 53:24 universe and he eventually came into the 53:27 world as a human being and died for the 53:29 sins of the world was raised from the 53:30 dead or returned to heaven and is God 53:33 but he's a subordinate 53:35 divinity who came into being at a 53:37 certain point of time well that made 53:40 sense to a lot of people and still 53:42 probably make sense to a lot of people 53:43 because I mean what's the option I mean 53:47 if if he's totally equal with God then 53:50 that would mean that he can't be 53:52 Almighty because God would be Almighty 53:55 but if God's Almighty and he's Almighty 53:57 how's that work you can't have to all my 53:59 T's if two people are Almighty neither 54:01 one of them is all-mighty right so it 54:05

doesn't

— Bart Ehrman, Smithsonian Part Four - Constantine and the Christian Faith

Smithsonian Part Four - Constantine and the Christian Faith on YouTube Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arius&oldid=921299628"