----- Original Message -----
Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 2:25
PM
Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for
the eternal sonship of Christ
This term is in both creeds more than once Bill
So? If you are going to make reference to it, as
you have and continue to do, shouldn't you also want to understand its
meaning; this for your own benefit as well as the benifit of others, in order
that you not mislead them?
and you must believe all of it - according to the creeds to be saved.
This is another topic altogether, and is irrelevent
to the definition of the homoousion and its pertinance to your refusal to
acknowledge having been made aware of its meaning.
You can explain till the cows come home and it won't
change anything. If creeds were necessary Jesus would have
left
us with something more than what is known as the
Lord's Prayer.... But why make this into a personal thing??
You crack me up, Judy. Please go back now and answer
my questions:
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
