Judy,
From your previous posts I believe that you said you prefer the use of
the word Godhead to Trinity since Trinity is not found in the Bible.
However, the mormons also use the word godhead to mean three separate and
distinct gods. Don't you think the term Trinity encompasses a real aspect of
the Godhead that the term Godhead itself does not encompass? I assume when
you say Godhead you are including all of the characteristics attributed to
the conecpt of Trinity. Am I wrong?
Perry
From: Judy Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [email protected]
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ
Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2005 09:00:34 -0400
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: [email protected]
Cc: [email protected]
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
----------
"Let your speech be always with grace, seasoned with salt, that you may know how you
ought to answer every man." (Colossians 4:6) http://www.InnGlory.org
If you do not want to receive posts from this list, send an email to [EMAIL
PROTECTED] and you will be unsubscribed. If you have a friend who wants to
join, tell him to send an e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and he will be subscribed.
