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

[Bill Taylor]

Looks like Bill is ready to take his ball and go home again -  What a shame we can't discuss issues like civilized ppl.  jt   Judy, this is an ad hominem argument. The truth is, I have attempted do discuss the issue with you ad nauseam. You have refused to accept responsibility for your double standard, making excuses rather than just admitting that you hold others to a different standard than yourself. Until you are ready to take responsibility for your actions, what is the point in prolonging the exchange? Please drop the attacks and deal with the issues at hand, either that or let it go, as I have suggested.   For example, you might explain to us why you refuse to acknowledge my explanation to you, concerning the homoousion. You know very well that I explained to you the meaning of this Greek word: that it means "of the same being"; that it contains the root for such to-be verbs as "is," "are," and "am." You know I explained to you further that Athanasius makes reference to Jesus' "I AM" statements in conjunction with the Old Testament name of God and his declaration, "I am who I am" and concludes from this that the Son is of the same being as the Father. And so you know as well that his reasoning is indeed quite biblical, even if you happen to disagree with it. You know all of this -- yet you ignore my explanation of this word, choosing instead to press on with your inflammatory rhetoric, stating today that the word "means substance but since God is Spirit I don't know how that flies. I notice that some have changed it to essence." You do this knowing even as you are writing it, Judy, that the root meaning of this word has been explained to you. Why did you do this, if not to be contrary?   Moreover, Judy, "substance" is not Athanasius' word. He never spoke it. He was a Greek speaker. "Substance" is an arguably poor translation of Athanasius' term ousia, but a translation nonetheless. You do a disservice to yourself and others when you attempt to argue that this is the word which the Nicene theologians used; for they did not use it. I told you if you are having difficulties thinking of it in terms of "substance," to think of it instead as "being": the Son is of the same being as the Father. Yes, this is in reference to a Spirit being; however, not all spirits are the same Spirit as God. Do you recognize this? Some of them are created beings, which is what Arius claimed the Son to be; i.e., a created being. Athanasius said No, he is not created; he is of the same being as the Father. Hence, the topic at hand at Nicea was the specific nature of the "being" of the Son as he relates to the "being" of the Father -- a very important discussion indeed, and one, I might add, which is still relevant to us today, as witnessed in our recent exchanges.   Bill ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 10:23 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ     On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 11:53:59 -0400 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Judy, don't you see that your use of the word "symphony " is a perfectly acceptable thing to do.   I recently invited you to the Great Dance that this Symphony causes us to perform.     jt: Right! The great "perichoresis" that I have such a problem with - Can you find scriptural grounds for this? I mean in the New Testament. Paul never spoke about any dance - neither did any other writer of an epistle that I know of and the faith had already been once delivered to the saints.   Now, in the following, you express regret for the use of "symphony."  It is not that things are "getting .... complicated."  Rather,  it is because your use of of an "unbiblical word" makes criticism of others for that very reason, untenable.  ............  and you know this.     jt: No, it's because so many "so-called" theologians have done so much damage to the faith "once delivered to the saints" that I don't want to be part of anything like that. Neither do I choose to entertain any of those old rc religious spirits.   What you do not seem to allow is that words like "Godhead" are no more of God (nor less, I might add) than your use of "being Berean" or "symphony" or "triune" or whatever.  Understanding the limitations of words -- describing "color" when the picture is in "techno-color,"    God actually teaches us through EVEN our translations of the sacred text  --  i.e. the Greek text, in this case.     jt: I don't have near the problem with words that some of you seem to have; in fact the ones in my old trusty KJV make all the sense in the world to me. Imagine that and I don't even know the Greek.   Your move away form the use of "symphony" is a tactical move  --  and will not be forgotten.  You have fired the volley and it cannot be returned for reasons of tactical maneuverings.  JD   jt: Hey JD, you and Bill are all into this tactical stuff.  I don't even think like that.  Looks like Bill is ready to take his ball and go home again -  What a shame we can't discuss issues like civilized ppl.  jt         Symphony: from Greek sumphni, from sumphnos, harmonious: sun-, syn- + phn, sound.  Harmony: Simultaneous combination of notes in a chord; a combination of sounds considered pleasing to the ear. Harmonious: Exhibiting accord in feeling or action; having component elements pleasingly or appropriately combined: a harmonious blend of architectural styles. Characterized by harmony of sound; melodious; exhibiting equivalence or correspondence among constituents of an entity or between different entities;  symmetrical; existing together in harmony; "harmonious family relationships."   jt: Bill please forget the symphony - I regret having said anything, it is getting way to complicated.   You continue to uphold your "symphony" description, but you criticize my use of perichoresis to speak of the same inner relations (which by my view is an actual indwelling). This is a double standard, Judy. IF you refuse to see it, then so be it.