Homoousion????

[7thangel]

Of Same(One?) Substance.


I can't really figure out what does Homoousion mean. How can the Father and the Son be Homoousion, when the Father is "God," while the Son is "God-man."

If God and Man are of different substances, how much more are God and God-man?

Is God impure?

[Pythagoras]

Good observation.

[7thangel]

Good observation.

Thanks.

BTW, Pythagoras, do you know of a guy named Dale Tuggy? I believe he is also a Trinitarian. However, he made an article called "trinitarian dilemma." In that article, he probed the impossibility of the three as one being, at least even into an idea. I can't recall that much but applying his arguments, it will even nail the whole homoousion defense by trinitarians.

[alam]

Homoousios means "same ousia." According to Liddell and Scott, "ousia" means "that which is one's own, one's substance, property." 2. "being, existence." 3. "the being, essence, nature of a thing, Plat[onic], etc." Taking "ousia" in the sense of "property" (cf. Luke 15:13) the term would mean nothing more than what Christ said at John 16:15 - "all things that the Father hath are mine." It could be taken to mean that the Father and the Son are two members of one "genus." Or it could mean the Father and Christ are the same being.


Its adoption at Nicea was not ambiguous because it was aimed specifically against Arianism. The irony is that all modern Trinitarians would be anathema under the 325 creed as well because they distinguish the hypostases of the Father and the Son.


God bless

[7thangel]

Homoousios means "same ousia." According to Liddell and Scott, "ousia" means "that which is one's own, one's substance, property." 2. "being, existence." 3. "the being, essence, nature of a thing, Plat[onic], etc." Taking "ousia" in the sense of "property" (cf. Luke 15:13) the term would mean nothing more than what Christ said at John 16:15 - "all things that the Father hath are mine." It could be taken to mean that the Father and the Son are two members of one "genus." Or it could mean the Father and Christ are the same being.

Property seems more better way of explaining homoousios. But it easily leads to tritheism. And actually, whatever meaning on the above cannot resolve the confusion in the trinity. The article "Trinitarian Dilemma" by Dale Tuggy exposes the central issue of the confusion of monotheism in the trinity. A lot of trinitarians could not admit that the trinity is a mystery, that means it is futile to explain it. And yet, trinitarians are decieved as if they can convey a meaning when all that opposes the trinity are asking of the mystery of the trinity. I am better off hearing a simpleton saying unto me: "I do not understand it, but I believe it!" than a wise guy explaining as if he understand a mystery.


Its adoption at Nicea was not ambiguous because it was aimed specifically against Arianism. The irony is that all modern Trinitarians would be anathema under the 325 creed as well because they distinguish the hypostases of the Father and the Son.

God bless

Is the RCC included?

[infide]

Of Same(One?) Substance.


I can't really figure out what does Homoousion mean.

homos, Greek for same
ousia, Greek for essence, substance.

I dont understand what you cant figure out about it.

How can the Father and the Son be Homoousion, when the Father is "God," while the Son is "God-man."

no, you are mixing things up here. The Father and the Preincarnate Logos are homoousion, that is the Divine aspect of Christ (since He has two natures) is homoousion with the Father.

If God and Man are of different substances, how much more are God and God-man?

Again, mixing things up here. God and the divine essence of Christ are homoousin.

Is God impure?

nope.

peace,
jd

[Pythagoras]

Hi infide,



no, you are mixing things up here. The Father and the Preincarnate Logos are homoousion, that is the Divine aspect of Christ (since He has two natures) is homoousion with the Father.





You're still arguing in circles though.


If Christ had two "natures", then Christ was two beings in the body of the man Jesus. When Catholics say Christ was made "sin for us", they speak only of his "human nature" or his human being, as separate from his God nature, or God being. No matter how you slice it, you have two beings in one body here.

Furthermore if Christ is "Fully God" and "Fully Man" then the nature of God changed at the incarnation, since now we have a being who is "Fully God" plus something.


best wishes,

[alam]

I am better off hearing a simpleton saying unto me: "I do not understand it, but I believe it!" than a wise guy explaining as if he understand a mystery.


Same here!


Is the RCC included?



They are.


Those who...pretend the Son of God is of a different hypostasis or ousia [being]...these the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematises.
[http://www.geocities.com/trvalentine/orthodox/nicene-constantinople_compare.html]

[infide]

Homoousios means "same ousia." According to Liddell and Scott, "ousia" means "that which is one's own, one's substance, property." 2. "being, existence." 3. "the being, essence, nature of a thing, Plat[onic], etc." Taking "ousia" in the sense of "property" (cf. Luke 15:13) the term would mean nothing more than what Christ said at John 16:15 - "all things that the Father hath are mine." It could be taken to mean that the Father and the Son are two members of one "genus." Or it could mean the Father and Christ are the same being.

And in the context here, ousia, clearly is being used in the sense of definition (2).

Its adoption at Nicea was not ambiguous because it was aimed specifically against Arianism. The irony is that all modern Trinitarians would be anathema under the 325 creed as well because they distinguish the hypostases of the Father and the Son.

I dont think you are up on your history there. The problem with the 325 anathemas was primarily semantical, not conceptual. For the Latin church, the greek "hupostasis" was etymologically parallel to their Latin word "substantia" and so they would deny a plurality of substantia's in God. But for Greeks, Hupostasis had a different meaning (an individual, a property-bearer) than their word ousia meaning "substance". In fact, the very wording of the Creed itself denotes that Christ and the Father were distinct hypostaseis (in the Greek sense, since the Father and the Son have different properties, like "begotten" and "unbegotten") but not distinct ousias (both terms in greek sense, of course), and so some in the Greek Church thought the Creed implied modalism. But, if you knew your history, you would know that this dispute was cleared up at the Council of Alexandria in 362, where it was stated that God is homoousios, but has three divine hupostasis.

peace,
jd

[infide]

Hi infide,



You're still arguing in circles though.


If Christ had two "natures", then Christ was two beings in the body of the man Jesus. When Catholics say Christ was made "sin for us", they speak only of his "human nature" or his human being, as separate from his God nature, or God being. No matter how you slice it, you have two beings in one body here.

Furthermore if Christ is "Fully God" and "Fully Man" then the nature of God changed at the incarnation, since now we have a being who is "Fully God" plus something.


best wishes,

I explained this in another thread, I was saying Jesus has two kind essences, not two individual essences. Thus Jesus has all the properties for Divinity and all the properties for humanity.

I deny that Jesus is two beings in one Body (nestorianism), and Affirm that Jesus is one Divine-human being.

peace,
jd

[infide]

I am better off hearing a simpleton saying unto me: "I do not understand it, but I believe it!" than a wise guy explaining as if he understand a mystery.

There is a difference between a mystery and a contradiction. I believe that the Trinity is a mystery, in the sense that we cannot visualize, and do not know of anything besides God and Christ who have such properties.

But the charges being brought against the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation, are not merely that they are mysteries, but they are logically inconsistant, or contradictions - and hence false.

If a Trinitarian cannot defend the concepts of the Trinity and the Incarnation merely because they are mysteries in some sense - then you are stacking the deck for the anti-Trinitarian. And I dont know what, then, you would expect from a Trinitarian.

Should we not defend it? or defend it against such accusations.

peace,
jd

[alam]

Thanks for your comments JD.


I dont think you are up on your history there. The problem with the 325 anathemas was primarily semantical, not conceptual. For the Latin church, the greek "hupostasis" was etymologically parallel to their Latin word "substantia" and so they would deny a plurality of substantia's in God. But for Greeks, Hupostasis had a different meaning (an individual, a property-bearer) than their word ousia meaning "substance". In fact, the very wording of the Creed itself denotes that Christ and the Father were distinct hypostaseis (in the Greek sense, since the Father and the Son have different properties, like "begotten" and "unbegotten") but not distinct ousias (both terms in greek sense, of course), and so some in the Greek Church thought the Creed implied modalism. But, if you knew your history, you would know that this dispute was cleared up at the Council of Alexandria in 362, where it was stated that God is homoousios, but has three divine hupostasis.


You may be surprised but I was aware of these things. You all are certainly free to explain your creeds as you wish. But it remains that the 325 text anathematized belief that the Son was of (or "from") either a different ousia or hypostasis than the Father. It seems reasonable to us that the terms Father and Son should imply different hypostases, but the modalists did not think so, and some of the most prominent early supporters of Nicea were modalistic, Marcellus of Ancyra and probably Eustathius of Antioch.


God bless

[infide]

Thanks for your comments JD.

sure, and likewise.

You may be surprised but I was aware of these things.

But you still feel this is a well established conceptual issue? i take issue with that - especially since no one who held a distinction in hypostasis (greek sense) between Father and Son were ever anathametized. Hence, your understanding of it cannot be right.

You all are certainly free to explain your creeds as you wish. But it remains that the 325 text anathematized belief that the Son was of (or "from") either a different ousia or hypostasis than the Father.

Whatever, that doesnt make sense. For the reasons I said in my post above. Especially the fact that if the Father was unbegotten, and the Son was begotten, then they must be distinct property-holders (i.e. hypostaseis).

Therefore, it must have been that the issue at hand was semantical only - that hypostasis was being thought of from the Latin, and not Greek, perception.

It seems reasonable to us that the terms Father and Son should imply different hypostases, but the modalists did not think so, and some of the most prominent early supporters of Nicea were modalistic, Marcellus of Ancyra and probably Eustathius of Antioch.

So youre telling me that 1, possibly 2 guys swayed ALL the attendees (over 300)? that seems highly unreasonable.

peace,
jd

[Pythagoras]

Hi infide,

I explained this in another thread, I was saying Jesus has two kind essences, not two individual essences. Thus Jesus has all the properties for Divinity and all the properties for humanity.

I deny that Jesus is two beings in one Body (nestorianism), and Affirm that Jesus is one Divine-human being.

peace,
jd

No matter how you sice it, "two kind essences" essentially means two essences, because "two" by definition means "two" and not "one".

If you really believed Jesus only had one essence, you woudn't need to resort to mumbo-jumbo like "two kind essences". A being with "two essences" cannot be "one" being.

And if you persist in invoking such a grotesquely impossible being from the wildest recesses of your imagination in the person of Jesus , then this monster can never be "Fully God" only but must always be "Fully God" + something else(in this case "Fully Man"). Do you understand?.

As usual the trinitarian math doesn't add up.
Sometimes they tell us 3x1=1, at other times they say 2X1 =1.


good luck,

[infide]

Hi infide,



No matter how you sice it, "two kind essences" essentially means two essences, because "two" by definition means "two" and not "one".

two kind essences does not imply two individual essences - If you have issue with that, take it up with Aristotle, not me.

If you really believed Jesus only had one essence, you woudn't need to resort to mumbo-jumbo like "two kind essences". A being with "two essences" cannot be "one" being.

mumbo-jumbo!!?? :lol: you have got to be kidding me. You think I'm making it up? Like I said, take it up with Aristotle.

And if you persist in invoking such a grotesquely impossible being from the wildest recesses of your imagination in the person of Jesus , then this monster can never be "Fully God" only but must always be "Fully God" + something else(in this case "Fully Man"). Do you understand?.

no i dont! Jesus being fully God, means He has all the properties which designate Divinity. Thats what a kind-essence is. It doesnt mean that He can have no other properties.

As usual the trinitarian math doesn't add up.
Sometimes they tell us 3x1=1, at other times they say 2X1 =1.

Sounds like you dont understand it, or are talking to trinitarians who dont have a good theology.

good luck,

good luck with your heresy.

peace,
jd

[7thangel]

There is a difference between a mystery and a contradiction. I believe that the Trinity is a mystery, in the sense that we cannot visualize, and do not know of anything besides God and Christ who have such properties.

But the charges being brought against the Doctrine of the Trinity and the Incarnation, are not merely that they are mysteries, but they are logically inconsistant, or contradictions - and hence false.

If a Trinitarian cannot defend the concepts of the Trinity and the Incarnation merely because they are mysteries in some sense - then you are stacking the deck for the anti-Trinitarian. And I dont know what, then, you would expect from a Trinitarian.

Should we not defend it? or defend it against such accusations.

peace,
jd

The Bible clearly tells us that:

1. Wisdom giveth life to them that have it, and is the "principal" thing.
2. God is not the author of confusion.
3. If a man will do his will he will "know" of the doctrine, whether it be of God or not.
4. Unto the chosen, it is given to "know" the mystery.
5. the mystery was "revealed," made known through Christ, in these last days.
6. Test the Spirit.
7.Paul said, "That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love, May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height; And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God."
7.That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God. Howbeit we speak wisdom them that are perfect: yet not the wisdom of this world, nor of the princes of this world, that come to nought: But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world unto our glory: Which none of the princes of this world knew: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory. But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth ALL things, yea, the deep things of God. For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
8. Last but not the least, "But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

So, if your teachings be of God, we indeed would like you to defend your doctrines. But I am very much amazed that most trinitarians, speaking of trinity, think that they are speaking of something comprehensible. I guess, I would say, that I can comprehend your words, but not your wisdom(or whatever you call them, revelations perhaps?). Even until now, most trinitarians seem not to understand the issue being brought about against them. Rather, we are projected as if we are ignorant, and at best foolish.

Maybe, let us simplify the issue with this question: Can you really understand the oneness of God through the Trinity? Our answer to that is simply, no.

Now, as I said above, and it is required of God, that we "must believe that he is." So how will I be compelled to believe your charaterization of who the Father is, who the Son is, and who the Holy Ghost is, when it is against my notion of "one" God? Surely, I will not deceive myself. Yet, from time to time, I ask in humbleness to recheck if ever there is any light on the trinity. Unfortunately, I still find none.

The RCC itself, being surrounded by nobles, and wise men, condemned anyone who claim to have comprehension of the trinity. Realizing that the Trinity is incomprehensible, no one should be forced to accept it, much more be the reason of condemning others of non-acceptance of it.

Furthermore, the devil is personified as "deceiver," and is "deceived." So, give us a comprehension of your doctrine, or else we wont be deceived, nor will we deceive others of such kind doctrine.

peace,
7thangel

[infide]

Maybe, let us simplify the issue with this question: Can you really understand the oneness of God through the Trinity? Our answer to that is simply, no.

And my answer is simply yes. It says clearly in John 1:1 that the Logos was with God, and the Logos WAS God. How can something fulfill those requirements? Well... The Trinitarian formula. God has one nature (ousia) and three hypostaseis (hupostasis). There were hints of this in the OT, the Angel of God, "let US make man in our image", etc. But it was fully revealed in Christ, the God-Man, the Divine-Human fulfillment of Daniel 7.

So I may just ask you, is there any answer from someone who didnt profess your particular view (whatever it is...) that would convince you?

Now, as I said above, and it is required of God, that we "must believe that he is." So how will I be compelled to believe your charaterization of who the Father is, who the Son is, and who the Holy Ghost is, when it is against my notion of "one" God? Surely, I will not deceive myself. Yet, from time to time, I ask in humbleness to recheck if ever there is any light on the trinity. Unfortunately, I still find none.

Well, I would just ask why you think "your notion of 'one' God" is authoritative? If you do not affirm Trinitarianism you are going to run into some kind of problem, whether it be Arianism or Modalism or whatever.

The RCC itself, being surrounded by nobles, and wise men, condemned anyone who claim to have comprehension of the trinity. Realizing that the Trinity is incomprehensible, no one should be forced to accept it, much more be the reason of condemning others of non-acceptance of it.

dont get side-tracked. I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is comprehensible, in terms of a conceptual model.

Furthermore, the devil is personified as "deceiver," and is "deceived." So, give us a comprehension of your doctrine, or else we wont be deceived, nor will we deceive others of such kind doctrine.

I have given my comprehension of the Doctrine of the Trinity. What are your objections, other than "your notion" which, we can agree, may be wrong.

peace,
7thangel

peace,
jd

[Pythagoras]

Hi infide,


two kind essences does not imply two individual essences -


It certainly doesn't mean one essence.


no i dont! Jesus being fully God, means He has all the properties which designate Divinity. Thats what a kind-essence is. It doesnt mean that He can have no other properties.


And you keep on bluffing, and evading the issue.

If Jesus is "Fully God" and "Fully Man" then he's not " Fully God" nor is he " Fully Man". He's neither. Just as someone who is "fully man" and "fully woman" is neither man nor woman -- such a freak is both, or more correctly, neither.



You might lead astray the gullible with your nonsense, but not here.

good luck,

[7thangel]

And my answer is simply yes.

Let us then agree to disagree. I believe that you want to know that truth. I forgive you of your ignorance. And if you think I am ignorant, I hope that you forgive me too.

Well, I would just ask why you think "your notion of 'one' God" is authoritative? If you do not affirm Trinitarianism you are going to run into some kind of problem, whether it be Arianism or Modalism or whatever.

Well, if your notion of one God is not in trouble, then there is no more reason for knowing my notion of one God.

dont get side-tracked. I believe that the doctrine of the Trinity is comprehensible, in terms of a conceptual model.

Look for the guy's(Dale Tuggy) article "Trinitarian Dilemma." I believe he is a trinitarian. I guess it is more appropriate to note that a trinitarian himself is spelling the incomprehensibility of trinity.

I have given my comprehension of the Doctrine of the Trinity. What are your objections, other than "your notion" which, we can agree, may be wrong.

peace,
jd

I get the same problem that Pythagoras has of your notion, or concept. And also, read my reply to alam.

If you think that I really don't understand you, please pray for me.

peace,
7thangel

[7thangel]

If Jesus is "Fully God" and "Fully Man" then he's not " Fully God" nor is he " Fully Man". He's neither. Just as someone who is "fully man" and "fully woman" is neither man nor woman -- such a freak is both, or more correctly, neither.

You might lead astray the gullible with your nonsense, but not here.

good luck,

So if Christ is not "fully God".......he's not Fully God, right? Isn't the Father "fully God?" Isn't so is the Holy Spirit?

Saying Christ is "fully God" is nonsense indeed?

[alam]

But you still feel this is a well established conceptual issue? i take issue with that - especially since no one who held a distinction in hypostasis (greek sense) between Father and Son were ever anathametized. Hence, your understanding of it cannot be right.



How many Nicenes were making any consistent distinction between the hypostases? c. 369 even Athanasius writes, "now subsistence (hypostasis) is essence (ousia), and means nothing else but very being" (ad afros 4).


Whatever, that doesnt make sense. For the reasons I said in my post above.


Doesn't make sense to me either, but this is what it says.


Especially the fact that if the Father was unbegotten, and the Son was begotten, then they must be distinct property-holders (i.e. hypostaseis).


I suspect you're applying the categories of developed trinitarianism a bit anachronistically -- iirc at the time of the 325 council ousia and hupostasis were used interchangeably.


Therefore, it must have been that the issue at hand was semantical only - that hypostasis was being thought of from the Latin, and not Greek, perception.



Most of the attendees were Eastern/Greek. Why would the use of hypostasis be according to its conventional Latin translation?!


So youre telling me that 1, possibly 2 guys swayed ALL the attendees (over 300)? that seems highly unreasonable.



Did not say that. They along with Athanasius and a couple others were the most prominent early supporters of Nicea, and this tells us something about the constituency of the Nicene party. Constantine himself was the most compelling personality in attendance at Nicea.


best!

[infide]

How many Nicenes were making any consistent distinction between the hypostases? c. 369 even Athanasius writes, "now subsistence (hypostasis) is essence (ousia), and means nothing else but very being" (ad afros 4).

Well doesnt that prove the point then? You started this whole conversation by saying that modern trinitarians are heterodox (or would be anathematized) because we affirm a distinction in hypostaseis. But if most believed that hypostasis and ousia were synonyms, then trinitarians are fully consistant with the creed - affirming one hypostasis in that sense.

I do know that there was some confusion about these terms, perhaps not at the Nicene council, but later - because it had to be readdressed at the Alexandrian Council in 362. Where they allowed that God would have three hypostaseis! I know the Cappadocian fathers drew a sharp distinction between hupostasis and ousia.

Most of the attendees were Eastern/Greek. Why would the use of hypostasis be according to its conventional Latin translation?!

perhaps it was not with attendees where the confusion arose, I'm not sure. But i do know, as I said above, that there was confusion on the terms at least by 362. (did the word change in meaning that quickly? im find that hard to believe).

peace,
jd

[alam]

perhaps it was not with attendees where the confusion arose, I'm not sure. But i do know, as I said above, that there was confusion on the terms at least by 362. (did the word change in meaning that quickly? im find that hard to believe).



Vocabulary, especially technical, can adapt rapidly to fill a need. Maybe the whole thing was just semantic--as you say--just as the difference between Athanasius' camp and the Homoiousians eventually boiled down to semantics. This does not mean you would not have been anathema for going back there and insistently preaching three hypostases, before a general understanding of what this means had been reached.


A literal reading of the Nicea 325 suggests you would have been, although the interpretation of a creed, as well as the enforcing of it, ultimately resides with its community. Maybe that clause about "other hypostasis" was something like a blue law, which the Homoousians didn't care about too much unless paired with other, more obvious Arian beliefs. Whatever the case, it's still in there.


blessings

[infide]

Vocabulary, especially technical, can adapt rapidly to fill a need. Maybe the whole thing was just semantic--as you say--just as the difference between Athanasius' camp and the Homoiousians eventually boiled down to semantics. This does not mean you would not have been anathema for going back there and insistently preaching three hypostases, before a general understanding of what this means had been reached.


A literal reading of the Nicea 325 suggests you would have been, although the interpretation of a creed, as well as the enforcing of it, ultimately resides with its community. Maybe that clause about "other hypostasis" was something like a blue law, which the Homoousians didn't care about too much unless paired with other, more obvious Arian beliefs. Whatever the case, it's still in there.


blessings

And that is a good demonstration why naively literal interpretations are so often so ridiculous. If in the Nicene Creed, hypostasis is meant as a synonym for ousia, then any modern Christian would be using the term in that way if they went there to debate it. Thus, they would be in FULL agreement with them.

peace,
jd

[alam]

And that is a good demonstration why naively literal interpretations are so often so ridiculous. If in the Nicene Creed, hypostasis is meant as a synonym for ousia, then any modern Christian would be using the term in that way if they went there to debate it. Thus, they would be in FULL agreement with them.


Then what would you use in place of hupostasis?

Would you settle for being unable to adequately express the distinction of persons with those pre-council of Alexandria, pre-Cappadocian folks?