Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

Tue, 28 Jun 2005 04:10:46 -0700

Jt speaks of 'a greek word that is totally unscriptural' when speaking of God. What about:
'homoousios to patri'=of one being with the Father  This also was employed in speaking to the Arian heresy.  Do you (I'd address all on TT here) ever employ 'unscriptural' terminology when speaking of God? Is this a matter of principle with you? 
----- Original Message -----
Sent: June 28, 2005 06:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ

 
 
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 02:10:26 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
 It does not appear that we are talking about just the eternal Sonship of Christ  --  but something that is bigger and even more important.   Judy, please be careful, here, that in your zeal to disagree with me that you are not misrepresenting your own beliefs.
 
jt: I agree with the statement above JD
My belief is that our disagreement most likely goes all the way back to the council of Nicea in May 325AD where they eventually agreed to redefine God using a Greek word that is totally unscriptural - For this reason they had problems getting complete agreement - but the "Berean" bishops finally caved. 
 
This word "homoousion" or substance in the Nicean creed states that the son is one substance with the Father and the Spirit is the same substance also from where they get the procession.  Since God is a Spirit this makes no sense at all; what is it supposed to mean?  Maybe DavidM would be better able to explain it with his background in biology but it makes no sense to me at all. 
 
Apparently they were so fearful of Arius at Nicea that they ran with it - proceeding from there to what they call "the procession" and the myriad of other unscriptural religious dogma that has today reached it's apex in the present day rcc babylonian system.  jt

Reply via email to