It might help for you to recognize that the ONENESS of God was not the primary concern at Nicea. Nicea was concerned with the divinity of Christ. Homoousian/Consubstantial in the generic or numeric sense preserved the divinity of Christ in the minds of the Father’s at Nicea. They did not all understand the word the same, but those who embraced the definition understood that Christ was divine.
Yes, the uncreated, eternal, oneness of God was a given from the beginning of Christianity. The one God with his own nature which was not of man. Note this is not the God of Mormonism as described in posts #849 and #851; a creature who is not one.
Yes, the Council described the divinity of Christ while rejecting Arianism. The words co-substantation or consubstantial were NEVER used at the Council, because Greek was the language of the Church in the 4th century; a fact you continue to ignore. But ignoring facts is something a Mormon apologist must do.
Yes, homoousios was defined and used at the Council to describe Christ’s divinity.
P.S. I have no idea why you want me to define generic and numeric in my own words. My words would be,
Homoousian/consubstantial in the numeric sense is ONE Being. It is modalism (or it is “incomprehensible to us” how it is not modalism).
Homoousian/consubstantial in the generic sense is one nature/species. Eusebius of Caesarea after Nicea wrote his church and explained that human fathers and sons were homoousian with one another. This is the generic sense. Catholic scholars (other than the minority who are Social Trinitarians like me) call this tritheism.
I asked you to define your terms, so I know what you mean when you use them. Now, I know and don’t have to guess.
First, Greek was the language of the 4th century church, so consubstantial was never used. And after pointing this out to you several times, you continue in this sophistry. I will no longer respond to any of your future posts on this thread which continue this dishonesty.
Second, the word homoousian means one supporting the term homoousios at the Council.
Third, you present a false dilemma. You claim there are only two senses to the word homoousios. There are more than two in practice. Your “two” are actually the two extremes of a spectrum. When two things are called “the same/homo” it can mean many things. Your bouncing between the two extremes is the source of the confusion you have, or have caused. Tritheism was never a possible meaning because Christians believe in one God, and modalism was already declared a heresy. So both extremes were never possible as a definition for homoousios at the Council or ever.
One could say, “all that is not Tritheism is numeric” or one could say, “all that is not modalism is generic.” I think most Catholics are in the second camp. I can imagine a polytheist would be comfortable in the first camp.
The Christian Church defined homoousios in the “generic” sense; not modalism. But with an understanding there is one being; not tritheism. And not in the “numeric” sense; modalism. Three persons and one being. A rational mystery, because there is no other being who is God. As Bryan Cross would say, it is an “incomprehensible unity.”
At the close of the 4th century, the Bible was translated to Latin, which started the shift to Latin in the western church.
By the sixth century, Latin was the language of the western Church and the understanding of homoousios was clear by then, and consubstantiálem was used as the Latin equivalent. Consubstantial is the English equivalent dated to the 14th century, so it was not in use in the 4th century. Of course the word that started it all was “co-substantation” which is an English word with no apparent meaning dating back to the beginning of the this month. It wasn’t used at the Council either.
.