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

[ShieldsFamily]

(Not) I agree with JD’s wife. iz   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bill Taylor Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 6:34 PM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ   Okay, John. It's pretty funny. ----- Original Message ----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2005 5:49 PM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ   Someone tell me if this as funny as I have thought it to be for past 20 minutes  !!!!      -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 17:56:25 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ Coming off being totally stoned,  this is really kind of funny  !!   --  especially the part about floating the stones.   I concur  -- but with that blank and happy look of an avid stoner.     jd  JUST SITTING HERE IN RECOVERY -- MY OFFICE  -- WAITING FOR THE NEXT POST   -- FINGERS TWITCHING AT THE KEYBOARD OF LIFE  -- HANDS READY TO FLY THROUGH MY REFERENCE BOOKS.       What happens to me tonight guys?   Has anyone thought of that  ---- oh nooooooooooooooooo!!   Here I sit, all broken hearted  -- all to bed, my friends departed.      I's going to see if my wife wants to do something !!   JD     (back in a second !       HHHaaaa         -----Original Message----- From: Lance Muir <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2005 17:40:46 -0400 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ Lance the uninvited enters the fray. Earlier today Judy, I spoke of conversations that might be out of your league. Well, this is one of 'em. If David Miller thinks otherwise then, I'd suggest that he attempt to translate Bill into 'Judyese'. (He actually did that with something recently 'Imageless images' and he got part of it correct) Neither you two (Bill & yourself) nor we onlookers need tolerate your ill informed responses to Bill's well informed communiques.    I thoroughly respect your attempts at understanding and responding. This is a conversation that David Miller could handle. You simply cannot. I'd advise Bill to leave it be. He has said enough to make some stones float. Some stones simply aren't bouyant.      ----- Original Message ----- From: Bill Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: July 02, 2005 17:04 Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Apologetic for the eternal sonship of Christ   Bill in red below. ----- Original Message ----- From: Judy Taylor To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Cc: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org 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