----- 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 yo u 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
