The official forums of the Coptic Media Network, focusing on Coptic hymns, Orthodoxy, spirituality, friendship, and member experiences.
posted on Dec 18, 2007 - 07:58 PM
In the creed, when it says "begotten of the Father before all ages, light of light, true God of true God, begotten not created, of one essence (consubstantial, co-essential?) with the Father"
There's been some discussion in my church about which one of these translations or words we should use... are they interchangeable? Is there one more correct than the other. Is any of them complete wrong... any references?
Thanks
posted on Dec 18, 2007 - 08:44 PM
Aghape,
in our church agbeyas it says "one essence" which is apparently wrong with theologians. the more correct term is consubstantial. its a misprint you'll find in a lot of them. The priests in our church however know about it, but said it isn't necessary to change it at the moment.
_________________
HCOC member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
posted on Dec 19, 2007 - 03:07 AM
"of one/the-same essence" / "consubstantial with"...
...it's all the same thing. One (the former) is a closer translation of the Greek (essence being the standard translation of ousia), and the other (the latter) is a closer translation of the Latin (substance being the standard translation of the Latin substantia which itself, although a literal translation of hypostasis, has become the general translation of ousia).
Believe me, there are much more significant and worthier things to be concerned with.
posted on Dec 19, 2007 - 03:45 PM
Agape,
These are right:
1. Consubstantial with the Father
2. Co-essential with the Father
3. Of the same substance with the Father
4. Of the same essence with the Father
5. Of the same being as the Father
6. Of the same nature as the Father
These are wrong:
1. Of one essence with the Father
2. Of one substance with the Father
Reasons:
1. Substance and essence are two ways of translating the same Greek word "ousia." In #5 above, I mentioned the word "being." Ousia can sometimes be translated as "being." All of this is based on Aristotelian categories.
2. We cannot say that the Son is of "one" essence or substance with the Father, because that too was accepted with by the Arians (even we, as creatures, will be "one" with God, as Christ prayed in Gethsemene). So the issue wasn't whether the Son was one with the Father, but whether he's of the same substance or essence as the Father. What "homo-ousios" means is that whatever God is, the Son of God is, i.e. the same identical divinity. So we should emphasize this point also in English: the Creed doesn't merely say that the Son is of one essence with the Father, which is what the Arians accept, but it says that he's the same, identical, equal, which is what the Arians object to.
3. Even if you don't want to think about the theology, it's not as complicated as it seems. What does the word "homo" translate to? It means "same."
_________________
"Our hearts are restless until they find rest in You, Lord" (St. Augustine, Confessions, I, 1).
"Pray gently and calmly,
Chant hymns with understanding and rhythm;
Then you will soar like a young eagle
High in the heavens"
+ St. Evagrius the Solitary, On Prayer, 82.
In Christ,
Bishoy
HCOC Member
+ To Protect and Preserve +
HCOC: Sing it! Live it! Love it!
Questions or comments on the copticheritage.org website? E-mail me!
posted on Dec 19, 2007 - 04:32 PM
+ Iryny nem `hmot>
Biboboy,
Doesn't this just boil down to semantics and nit-picking? I mean, to say 'one essence/substance' is essentially the same as saying 'same essence/substance'. While we will become one with God, we will not do so in essence. So when we say 'one essence' in regards to Christ, we are virtually saying that He possessed the fullness of Godhood in Him just as the Father does. I realize that the literal Greek translation of homoousis is 'same essence', but in the context of the Creed, 'one essence' means the same thing. Wasn't the word the Arians used 'homoiousis' which means 'like' or 'similar essence'? I don't know, but to me, that's a far cry from saying 'one essence'.
_________________
Cevac ¨
<ere peniwt Abba Paule pimenrit `nte P=,=c
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
-- Philippians 4:13
"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"
-- Mark 9:24
"Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."
-- Jeremiah 29:12-13
posted on Dec 19, 2007 - 06:49 PM
from the writings of St. John of damascus:
homoousion=consubstantial (nicea creed)
homoiousion= similarity of essence (semiarian)
BiboBoy
we (EO) say of one essence in the creed
From Cephas:+ Iryny nem `hmot>
Biboboy,
Doesn't this just boil down to semantics and nit-picking? I mean, to say 'one essence/substance' is essentially the same as saying 'same essence/substance'. While we will become one with God, we will not do so in essence. So when we say 'one essence' in regards to Christ, we are virtually saying that He possessed the fullness of Godhood in Him just as the Father does. I realize that the literal Greek translation of homoousis is 'same essence', but in the context of the Creed, 'one essence' means the same thing. Wasn't the word the Arians used 'homoiousis' which means 'like' or 'similar essence'? I don't know, but to me, that's a far cry from saying 'one essence'.
posted on Dec 19, 2007 - 07:20 PM
I would have to agree with Cephas; there is certainly some unnecessary nitpicking going on. It's anachronistic to say that Arians would agree with "one in essence", for they did not speak english--and we are after all attempting to discern good/bad *translations* of the SAME Greek expression. In english, to say that the Son is "one in essence" with the Father is to say that the Son identifies with the Father according to His Essence. His essence is not different to that of the Father's else they'd be "two in essence" rather than "one in essence." "One in essence" does not simply say that the Son is vaguely "one" with the Father in some sense in which we could likewise claim oneness with the Father, but that He is one in ESSENCE with the Father--a oneness of essence no creature could ever claim to possess with the Father. Whatever union we can claim with God, the fact remains that we will always be "two in essence."
A good proof-text for "one in essence" would be John 10:30. The Church has made it very clear that John 10:30 is direct evidence of Christ's divinity (understood on Nicene terms). The reason for this is that we understand Christ's claim to oneness with the Father to be in terms of His essence; not on the weaker terms proposed by the anti-Nicenes. In other words, we understand that when Christ says "I and the Father are one", that He is, given the context of this claim, in actual fact saying that He is one with the Father IN TERMS OF HIS ESSENCE. That the Arians accept the Scriptural authority of John 10:30 is irrelevant since they understand this oneness on other terms; their argument is not that Christ's claim to being "one with the Father" in terms of essence makes no difference, but rather that He is not claiming to be "one with the Father" in terms of essence in the first place (which they think they can get away with given that the text doesn't employ the term essence).
posted on Dec 19, 2007 - 07:37 PM
On a final note, I would like to bring people's attention to the popular english expression: "one and the same"--which demonstrates the way in which "one" is synonymous with "same." The Washington State University website in commenting on the old english expression notes that "[t]he use of “one” here...mean[s] “identical with each other..."
posted on Dec 20, 2007 - 12:01 AM
As I've hinted at on another thread, I don't think nitpicking is necessarily a bad thing. That is, as long as it doesn't divide Christians or hamper one's own strive to personal holiness. Just like how people like me, mikokiko, Biboboy, and others like to engage in theological discussions as a sort of hobby, if you will. I mean, that's why we're here on this forum rather than, say, playing tennis, right?
posted on Dec 20, 2007 - 03:07 AM
It depends what you mean by nitpicking. Nitpicking can refer to being overly critical--and that is not necessarily a bad thing, and may in fact be a necessary thing. But then nitpicking can also mean quibbling over details that don't possess any significance. And that should be avoided whenever possible.
It doesn't seem like anyone is *intentionally* nitpicking here. So no one is guilty of being divisive. We're all here to learn from eachother.
posted on Dec 20, 2007 - 12:43 PM
+ Iryny nem `hmot>
I'll see your two nitpickings and raise you another two. 
_________________
Cevac ¨
<ere peniwt Abba Paule pimenrit `nte P=,=c
"I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me."
-- Philippians 4:13
"Lord, I believe; help my unbelief!"
-- Mark 9:24
"Then you will call upon Me and go and pray to Me, and I will listen to you. And you will seek Me and find Me, when you search for Me with all your heart."
-- Jeremiah 29:12-13
Return to the Forum Index
Powered by the coptichymns.net Network of Coptic Hymns and Coptic Orthodox Sites.
| Total | Daily | ||
| Topics: | 7190 | 4.00 | |
| Users: | 6120 | 3.40 | |
| Posts: | 60516 | 33.66 | |
| mikokiko | |
| ziko45 |
976 unlogged users and 2 registered users online now.
Already a member? Log in above.
Not a member? Register your unique identity to participate more fully in our site!