SBT Page is for-Homoousion-C.E Jesus and Jehovah Or Yahweh 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,
Council of Nicaea (325) to express the Divinity of Christ.
which was not in the original manuscripts. Also See Where.
History Details From the Catholic Encyclopedia and
Some SBT Links Added For Accuracy.
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."
JAMES BRIDGE From the Catholic Encyclopedia Open Email this article
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
About true worship