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

[Debbie Sawczak]

Since this has been asked again, and explicitly of all TTers, I will again ask what constitutes unscriptural terminology. A term can exist in only one language, except for very rare cases where it is borrowed with its meaning totally intact into another language. And there is no one-to-one correspondence between terms in one language and terms in another. What language are we talking about, then, and what version of scripture in that language? "Godhead", for example, is an unscriptural term if I go by sundry fine reputable English translations in my house. It is also unscriptural if we go by the original Greek, since it's not a Greek term, nor does its use in the KJV bear a one-to-one correspondence with any Greek word in the original. Nor is it used now by Christians with the same meaning it had for the KJV translators. This is not a trivial problem when people base their entire response to an argument on whether or not a term used in the argument "exists in the Bible".   When talking about God or what he is saying to us in the Bible, I am sure I use terms which are not in any translation or manuscript of Scripture. When I talk about what Shakespeare is saying in his plays, I also use terms which do not appear in any of his works or translated works, and would no doubt do so even if his works were the only vestige we had of him. I find it strange and arbitrary to make a rule of avoiding doing so.   Debbie      ----- Original Message ----- From: Lance Muir To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:09 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ 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 ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org 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