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

[Bill Taylor]

Judy, I perceive you to be so prejudiced against Athanasius et al as to be unapproachable on this topic. Have a nice day.   Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 7:00 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ The problem at Nicea is the same problem today - which is that the word itself is unscriptural; it had no precedent then and has none today - that is, if we are using the same scripture. jt   On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 06:45:43 -0600 "Bill Taylor" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: JT  >  This word "homoousion" or substance in the Nicean creed states that the son is one substance ...   The word homo means "same" and the word ousia is an ontological term; it speaks to "being" and "existence."All the to-be verbs go back to this root: is, are, am, etc. When Jesus refers to himself as the I AM, this word is at its root. When God said "I am who I am" this is the idea at its root; hence there are two witnesses to this claim. This is not a "new" word, Judy. It's new to you. If the word "substance" trips you up, think of it like this: It means "of the same being."   Bill     ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: truthtalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, June 28, 2005 4:54 AM 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