Talk:Homoousion

Untitled

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)

...What? 05:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.80.155.48 (talk)

heteroousios

heteroousios should be redirected to this page, i would but not sure how 66.68.208.245 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Why here? Why not towards Arianism? Jacob Haller 04:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Is heteroousios a neologism? Arianism was homoiousian (like substance). 75.0.4.78 22:40, 15 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 108.4.148.52 (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.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Coming_of_the_Huns

Fxm12 (talk) 20:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

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)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Homoousion/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following 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.

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)

Use of "nature"

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)

Article Name

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)

• Support move to nominative case in the title. Sorabino (talk) 16:15, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
• Comment @Jpacobb and Jfhutson: Given this exchange you once had I think that you'd be interested, if possible, if still present/active, to comment and/or vote. Thanatos|talk|contributions 20:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose I have only just seen this. Homoousios is an adjective and the nominative singular of the neuter is homoousion. When dealing with concepts Greek usage allowed, even favoured, the formation of nouns by putting the neuter article to before the neuter form of the adjective. At least in British academic circles the concept of "of the same substance" is refered to as "the homoousion". Prestige has a chapter with this title in God in Patristic Thought, Bettenson refers repeatedly to "the homoousion" in his introductory remarks to his The Later Christian Fathers. Kelly (Early Christian Doctrines ch. x) has a series of section headings: "The Return to the Homoousion"; "The Homoousion of the Spirit: Athanasius" ... The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church has the corresponding entry under the head of "homoousion". While world-wide usage may favour "homoousios" there is no grammatical argument in favour of a change of title. — Jpacobb (talk) 22:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

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)

@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)

Requested move 4 April 2020

Homoousion → Homoousios – Transliterations of Greek adjectives are normally put in the masculine form, not the neuter. Bealtainemí (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

• Article titles are normally nouns. Dekimasuよ! 04:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
  • The main interest in the term (because of its most important and most discussed use) derives from its inclusion in the Nicene Creed (ὁμοούσιον τῷ Πατρί, "consubstantial with the Father"). There it is an adjective, masculine gender, accusative case, but when discussed elsewhere the grammatical case is different. The noun corresponding to ὁμοούσιος is not ὁμοούσιον but ὁμοούσία (homoousia). Bealtainemí (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: Transliteration, etymology, or grammar are only secondary here, and can/shloud be explained in the article. The name of the article should reflect the predominant usage of the term describing the concept in English schorlarly literature, as exemplified by User:Jpacobb in the section above (more examples welcome, of course). WikiHannibal (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Sorry, @WikiHannibal: I don't see where User:Jpacobb is supposed to have shown that in English scholarly literature "homoousion" is used rather than "homoousios". Google Books shows that both are used. If in those that Google Books gives for "homoousion" you search for "homoousios", you find that, in perhaps nearly all, the nominative form "homoousios" is present also, in general almost as frequently. In those that Google Books gives for "homoousios" a search for "homoousion" generally gives "Did you mean homousios". To me this seems to indicate that in scholarly literature, "homoousios" is normal rather than "homoousion". Am I mistaken? Jpacobb, who has been inactive on Wikipedia for most of a year, actually wrote: "my impression is that "homoousios" is probably more widespread in general use and would be the more convenient key-word for the general reader".Bealtainemí (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
• Support, per New Catholic Encyclopedia. Colin Gerhard (talk) 09:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)