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 -----
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 -----
Sent: June 28, 2005 06:54
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic
for the eternal sonship of Christ
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
