I never mentioned homoousias, the same essence, nature, being. It's a logical deduction trinitarians make when faced with 3, Father, Son, and Spirit, who are referred to in the scriptures as God. GryllusMajor wrote that he deduced that before learning of the doctrine of the trinity. Homoousias is simply a name for something found in the bible...3 who are called God are of the same nature, a logical deduction.
As I said before, the word "ousia" is not in the bible contextual to God.
Such was a formulation introduced by Constantine. "homoousious" in the context of Christianity was condemned as a heretical doctrine by the synods of Antioch 264, 269 AD, long before Nicea,.
You wrote this in post # 38 "Whatever: he slanders me continuously. I am certainly not oneness, as I am a subordinationist, which is irreconcilable with oneness." Would you please explain what YOU mean by it? Is this an eternal form of subordinationism? If it is, what would the name of the subordinate one be?
In your opinion, would we all be completely correct in doctrine if we believed just like you?
1 Cor 11:3 is what I mean. "God is the head of Christ." Since trinitarians and oneness have junked this verse as heretical, may be it's time for them to come clean.
You will only confuse others who know the meanings that trinitarians pour into those terms and likely be corrected by knowledgeable trinitarians and derided for using trinitarian terms that have been around for quite a while incorrectly. They will think that you don't know what you are talking about if you slander their doctrine and are not understanding it correctly.
Trinitarians think they have the right to control the whole religious world. They have acted as persecutors throughout most of the last 2000 years. But as I have argued, there are different trinities, and the Catholic trinity that rules over most of the USA is not the only one. There are others, notably the hierarchical trinity or triad per 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 4:6. So Please back off. Trinitarians do not own the concept of trinity (or triadism).
Trinitarians believe in both economic and immanent trinity definitions as Sanders spoke of in his video. The subordination of the Father to Son in the sending and because of the Son's humanity is expressed in the Bible and trinitarians don't seem to have a problem with it.
You mean I think "The subordination of the Son to the Father."
Yes, it's curious that "God" can send "God" down to earth. It's why immanent trinitarians have a lot of explaining to do.
Do you realize that the word, subordination, is not in the Bible?
That Jesus obeyed his Father is in no doubt. That Jesus said his Father was greater is not in doubt.
The doctrine is easy enough to find in the Bible. So what substantiates your objection to homoousias?
The decisions of the synods of Antioch 264, 269 AD and the matter that Sabellius uses the term to promulgate his doctrine.
Would you please give the reference to Against Praexas in which Tertullian describes this?
You'll really need to study this book in some detail. But
here is some of what he says to the Sabellians (p. 166):
"Yet in the economy itself it was the Father's will that the Son should
be regarded as on earth, but himself in heaven. And thither also
the Son looked up and prayed and made request of the Father 8 -
where also he taught us to lift ourselves up and pray,
Our Father
which art in heaven 9 - though he is also everywhere. This the
Father would have for his abode:
The heaven, he says, is my
throne.10 From this also he made the Son a little less than the
angels by sending him down to earth, yet with the intention of
crowning him with glory and honour by taking him back into
heaven.11 This he was already granting him when he said,
I have
both glorified it and will glorify it.1 The Son makes request from
earth, the Father makes a promise from heaven. Why do you {Sabellians]
make both Father and Son a liar?"