Talk:Basil of Caesarea/Archive 1

Archive 1

Arianism doesn't deny the divinity of Jesus

It understands it in very different terms, but as written the statement is BS. Jacob Haller 03:15, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Arianism states that Jesus is not divine in the same sense that God the Father is divine. It says of the second person of the Trinity, "there was a time when he was not"--which is a denial of the fullness of divinity (eternal existence is a divine attribute). Arians taught that God created the Logos first, and then through him created everything else. The Church teaches that the Logos is homoousios ("of the same essence") as the Father (the Semi-Arians attempted to wiggle out of the problem by saying that Jesus was of a "similar" essence—homoiousios—with the Father). To quote the article on Arianism:

The letter of Auxentius, a 4th century Arian bishop of Milan, regarding the missionary Ulfilas, gives the clearest picture of Arian beliefs on the nature of the Trinity: God the Father ("unbegotten"), always existing, was separate from the lesser Jesus Christ ("only-begotten"), born before time began and creator of the world. The Father, working through the Son, created the Holy Spirit, who was subservient to the Son as the Son was to the Father. The Father was seen as "the only true God." 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 was cited as proof text:

One cannot be an Arian and at the same time accept the fullness of divinity in Jesus. The sentence in the article which you are disputing is stating the church's assessment of Arianism (which anyone is free to agree with or not), and thus is not BS, but an accurate statement of fact. MishaPan 15:47, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

My copy of the letter (in Heather & Matthews, Goths in the Fourth Century pp. 137ff) states:

[Wulfila] showed that a difference does exist between the divinity of the Father and of the Son, of God unbegotten and God only-begotten, and that the Father is for his part the creator of the creator, while the Son is the creator of all creation; and that the Father is God of the Lord, while the Son is God of the created universe.

Now you might argue that this is inconsistent, that this evades the issues, etc. But it's clear that Auxentius et al. affirmed that Jesus was/is divine, while asserting that He was/is divine in another way than the Father is. To state that Arianism "denies the divinity of Christ" is to suggest to any modern reader unfamiliar with the controversy, that Arianism understands Jesus in much the same manner as Islam, Bahai, or certain forms of modern Unitarianism. Do you see what I'm concerned with?

I suggest replacing the text:

To save the Church from Arianism, which in denying the divinity of Christ[dubious — see talk page] is considered one of the most damaging heresies to the Church,[3][neutrality disputed] Basil entered into connections with the West,

With something like:

Basil saw Arianism, which considers the Word the first created being, as a threat to Christian teaching on the divinity of Jesus, and made connections with the West to combat it,

I'll gladly hear your suggestions. Jacob Haller 00:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Any suggestions for good biographical sources?

Can anyone suggest useful biographical sources? I thought I could use Rousseau (1994) but have found it only marginally useful. Majoreditor (talk) 17:45, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

One of my encylcopedias has an extensive bibliography. I will post some of it to your user talk this evening. Pastordavid (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions; I'll swing by the library in the next few days and see what I can find. Majoreditor (talk) 22:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I finally got some more useful source material from the library. I'm starting to read through it and will incorporate it into the article in a few days. Cheers, Majoreditor (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm slowly adding material as I find time to read biographical material. I think we can get this to GA-class standards over the next couple of months at this rate. Majoreditor (talk) 04:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, at the rate I'm going it may take longer than expected. Sigh. Majoreditor (talk) 03:54, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

GA review

Unfortunately, I don't believe that this article is not ready for GA status at this time. I feel that it doesn't meet the following criteria:

• Well-written: Copyediting is needed for problems with the prose ("during the last 4th century" stood out to me), but mainly for punctuation, which is a problem throughout the article.
• Verifiable: I have added "citation needed" tags to the unreferenced paragraphs. The article needs to be thoroughly sourced before it is ready for GA level (every statement that could be challenged, and a minimum of one reference per paragraph).
• Broad in coverage: The hidden note in the "Influence in monasticism" section says, "this section needs LOTS of expanding. Will need to discuss how he is the Father of Eastern monasticim and how he influenced Western monasticism".

I believe that this is a considerable amount of work, so I am going to fail the nomination. I hope that these comments are helpful in future improvements to the article. I urge you to address these concerns (and preferably place the article for peer review) and then look at renominating the article. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 02:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't say that I disagree with the GA reviewer. The article is about halfway ready at this point. The first half of the article is in reasonably good shape; I haven't started to work on the second half. Majoreditor (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon further consideration, I see that GaryColemanFan has overtagged the article with citation requests. His statement ...a minimum of one reference per paragraph is contrary to policy. Please see Good Article guidelines for details. Majoreditor (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)