SBT
Page is for-Homoousion-C.E
Jesus and JehovahOrYahweh are the same person and of the same substance
according to the Nicene--Creeds.
Gr. homoousion - from homos, same, and ousia,
essence; Lat. consubstantialem,
of one essence or substance, Sbt Notes-Know Man Knows GODs’ (J-or-Y)- substance.That is an Imaginary Concept. A-Fact.htm-so that concept is an Intentional-Fallacy.
Homoousion Is Not Used By Bible writers–Compare-2 Tim 3-16-17-& Will
the Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look at Today's Evangelical Church in
the Light of Early Christianity, by David W. Bercot (Scroll
Pub, 1989, excerpts from pages 129-132,
135, 93-94, 97-98) open [book review] CatholiCity
- Simplified From the Catholic Encycllopedia and sbt links for Comparison. SBT Strives to bring YOU -Pure spiritual milk 1-Pet 2:2 (open-1&-2:2 (No GPP mixed in SBT articles open SbtCN). Also See TRL2.htm & T-Simplified.
The word that
made Jesus God—Homoousion. Also See Worship/Theology A Pro Nicene--Creed--Word--
The-Word- used by the Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ. Arius had taught that the Son, being, in the
language of Philo(Philo.htm), the Intermediator between God and the world, was not eternal, and
therefore not of the Divine substance, but a creature brought forth (Prov8-22)-by the Free-Will of GOD -J-or-Y (See ARIANISM F-M-P & 58.htm ) Homoousion was indeed used by
philosophical writers (Not Bible
writers 2 Tim 3-16-17 TL2 P N-C-)
to signify "of the same or similar substance"; but as the unity of
the Divine nature wasn't questioned, the Word
carried the fuller meaning: "of one and the same substance". However,
not only is homos ambiguous; the word ousia itself was often
taken as equivalent to hypostasis (person), as apparently is the case in
the anathema attached to the Nicene Symbol. And therefore the affirmation of
the identity of nature might be taken in the heretical sense of the Sabellians,
who denied the distinction of person. It was only after many years of
controversy that the two words acquired their distinct meanings, and the
orthodox were able to describe the Trinity as one in ousia and three in hypostasis
or persona. Previously to the Council of Nicaea, Tertullian had already
used the Latin equivalent of Homoousion, conceding to Praxeas the Sabellian
that the Father and the Son were unius substantiae, of one substance,
but adding duarum personarum, of two persons (Adv. Prax., xiii). And
Dionysius of Alexandria used the actual word in a letter to Dionysius of Rome
(Athan., "De dec. Syn. Nic.", xxv, 26) and again in his letter to
Paul of Samosata. On the other hand, Origen, who is, however, inconsistent in
his vocabulary, expressed the anti-Sabellian sense of Dionysius of Alexandria
by calling the Son "Heteroousion". The question was brought into
discussion by the Council of Antioch (264-272); and the Fathers seem to have
rejected Homoousion, even going so far as to propose the phrase heteras
ousias, that is, Heteroousion, "of other or different ousia".
Athanasius and Basil give as the reason for this rejection of Homoousion the
fact that the Sabellian Paul of Samosata took it to mean "of the same of
similar substance". But Hilary says that Paul himself admitted it in the
Sabellian sense "of the same substance or person", and thus compelled
the council to allow him the prescriptive right to the expression. Now, if we
may take Hilary's explanation, it is obvious that when, half a century
afterwards, Arius denied the Son to be of the Divine ousia or substance, the
situation was exactly reversed. Homoousion directly contradicted the heretic.
In the conflicts which ensued, the extreme Arians persisted in the Heteroousion
Symbol. But the Semi-Arians were more moderate, and consequently more
plausible, in their Homoiousion (of like substance). When one considers how the
four creeds formulated at Antioch (341) by the Semi-Arians approached the
Nicene Creed as nearly as possible without the actual word Homoousion, there
may be a temptation to think that the question was one of words only; and the
Councils of Rimini and Seleucia (359) may seem to have been well advised in
their conciliatory formula "that the Son was like the Father in all
things, according to the Holy Writ". But this very formula was forced from
the Fathers by the Emperor Constantius; and the force and fraud which the
Semi-Arians used throughout the greater part of the fourth century, are proof
sufficient that the dispute was not merely verbal. The dogma of the Trinity was
at stake, and Homoousion proved itself to be in the words of Epiphanius
"the bond of faith", or, according to the expression of Marius
Victorinus, "the rampart and wall of orthodoxy." (See ARIANISM;
TRINITY.)
JAMES BRIDGE
About Us : Support Us : Contact Us
CatholiCity.com ©
1996-2008 The Mary Foundation
CatholiCity - The Catholic Church
Simplified