Another tally of anti-trinitarian threads

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No. It's a gift for those that would receive it.

No, a human ousia cannot become a divine ousia. Being "given" a divine ousia would mean man would then become eternal and uncreated with no beginning. Man already has a beginning as created. Man does not become beginningless and uncreated.

What you have insisted upon is the antithesis of the Christian faith, and is the emphasis of many anti-Christian belief systems.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No. It's a gift for those that would receive it.

John 14:19 Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also.

20 At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you.

This is hypostatic, not ousiac. Man is not given divinity. Man is hypostatically translated into Christ.

Man cannot be homoousios with God as divinity. Humanity is created and had a beginning. God is uncreated and had no beginning. Man cannot be given uncreatedness and beginninglessness.

 

[Ktoyou]

This is hypostatic, not ousiac. Man is not given divinity. Man is hypostatically translated into Christ.

Man cannot be homoousios with God as divinity. Humanity is created and had a beginning. God is uncreated and had no beginning. Man cannot be given uncreatedness and beginninglessness.

You are more correct than fzappa13. Yet man never shares in Christ's divine essence. We become in the Grace of God, which is to say, "in Christ", get it?

 

[fzappa13]

This is hypostatic, not ousiac. Man is not given divinity. Man is hypostatically translated into Christ.

Man cannot be homoousios with God as divinity. Humanity is created and had a beginning. God is uncreated and had no beginning. Man cannot be given uncreatedness and beginninglessness.

The perceptual problem that I see here is that you see the subject of divinity through the lens of post Christ creeds defined by the Greek. Unless and until you understand the term Elohiym you will forever be looking at the subject through the wrong end of the telescope. Your favored Greek has no equivalent for the term nor does the English. The term alternately is applied to Jehovah, Jesus, angels and men in the O.T. What is said on the subject in the N.T. should be seen with this as a reference point and not the dictates of some creed or a language which has no direct equivalent word.


Said another way, defining Hebrew concepts using Greek or English has the tail wagging the dog.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The perceptual problem that I see here is that you see the subject of divinity through the lens of post Christ creeds defined by the Greek. Unless and until you understand the term Elohiym you will forever be looking at the subject through the wrong end of the telescope. Your favored Greek has no equivalent for the term nor does the English. The term alternately is applied to Jehovah, Jesus, angels and men in the O.T. What is said on the subject in the N.T. should be seen with this as a reference point and not the dictates of some creed or a language which has no direct equivalent word.


Said another way, defining Hebrew concepts using Greek has the tail wagging the dog.

I well understand the scope of the Hebrew term Elohiym, including back to the pictographic paleo-Hebrew. Just because I prefer Greek references to Hebrew does not mean I'm illiterate in Hebrew. My wife is a Hebrew scholar.

You fail to see that there's a difference between essence and substance as "what-ness" and "who-ness", respectively. Man cannot become eternal and uncreated. Man does not transcend creation. God has condescended to man.

Man is given the qualitative functionality of God's hypostasis (substance) by being joined to Christ for everlasting. Man is not given a divine ousia (essence).

Hebrew has no means of addressing any of this in the manner necessary for the ontological Gospel, and the necessary accompanying epistemology for economony and methodology.

Elohiym is more titular, while YHWH is substantial/essential. You're actually Judaizing at this point.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are more correct than fzappa13. Yet man never shares in Christ's divine essence. We become in the Grace of God, which is to say, "in Christ", get it?

I didn't say anything about Christ's divine essence (ousia). I specifically referred to Christ's divine substance (hypostasis).

And there's no reason for me to converse with you. I only commented to correct your misrepresentation of what I said.

 

[fzappa13]

I well understand the scope of the Hebrew term Elohiym, including back to the pictographic paleo-Hebrew. Just because I prefer Greek references to Hebrew does not mean I'm illiterate in Hebrew. My wife is a Hebrew scholar.

You fail to see that there's a difference between essence and substance as "what-ness" and "who-ness", respectively. Man cannot become eternal and uncreated. Man does not transcend creation. God has condescended to man.

You mash the ideas of being eternal and uncreated together in a way I think your wife would confirm is not necessarily reflective of the meaning of the term Elohiym. Those who are Christ's most certainly will be eternal ... the difference between them and God being the point of demarcation on the road to eternity. That said, they most certainly are not and will never be uncreated. Though creeds may demand the connection you offered as it concerns "divinity" I don't think the Hebrew term does and that is important when trying to understand the term and the subject.

Man is given the qualitative functionality of God's hypostasis (substance) by being joined to Christ for everlasting. Man is not given a divine ousia (essence).

I'm not sure I understand the distinction your are trying to make here.

Hebrew has no means of addressing any of this in the manner necessary for the ontological Gospel, and the necessary accompanying epistemology for economony and methodology.

If the Hebrew wasn't sufficient unto salvation then God Himself was ineffective in His efforts for lack of using the Koine. I'm going to have to pass on that notion.

Elohiym is more titular, while YHWH is substantial/essential. You're actually Judaizing at this point.

I think that an unnecessary and unwarranted dismissal of a very important term when trying to understand the subject of what we maybe errantly refer to as divinity in our culture.





Let me end with an equation or three:


Jehovah = Elohiym

Sons of God = Elohiym

Sons of God does not equal Jehovah

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You mash the ideas of being eternal and uncreated together in a way I think your wife would confirm is not necessarily reflective of the meaning of the term Elohiym.

No, since she is also a Greek language scholar. She's a linguist, currently competent in 12 languages.

Those who are Christ's most certainly will be eternal ... the difference between them and God being the point of demarcation on the road to eternity.

No. Eternal and everlasting are not the same. Eternal is timeless, with no beginning or end. Everlasting is durative, with a beginning and no end. God is eternal. Man can never be eternal.

This is part of the core misunderstanding of virtually everyone within the Christian faith (and beyond). God is eternal. Man can only be everlasting. Aidios versus aionios.

That said, they most certainly are not and will never be uncreated.

That's my point.

Though creeds may demand the connection you offered as it concerns "divinity" I don't think the Hebrew term does and that is important when trying to understand the term and the subject.

Elohiym is applied in a broad sense. It's vocational and positional, not necessarily ontological.

I'm not sure I understand the distinction your are trying to make here.

And that is the problem. If one doesn't understand the distinction between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (substance), one cannot address this topic sufficiently or accurately. And the same is true relative to the contrast between eternal and everlasting.

If the Hebrew wasn't sufficient unto salvation then God Himself was ineffective in His efforts for lack of using the Koine. I'm going to have to pass on that notion.

That's not what I indicated at all.

I think that an unnecessary and unwarranted dismissal of a very important term when trying to understand the subject of what we maybe errantly refer to as divinity in our culture.

No. See above. Only divinity is eternal as uncreated and timeless.

Let me end with an equation or three:


Jehovah = Elohiym

Sons of God = Elohiym

Sons of God does not equal Jehovah

Exactly my point.

 

[fzappa13]

No, since she is also a Greek language scholar. She's a linguist, currently competent in 12 languages.

Good. So maybe we can return to the term Elohiym vis a vis divinity at a later point. BTW, it's likely helpful that your wife is a polyglot in that she can say what she wants to you without offending you if needs be.

No. Eternal and everlasting are not the same. Eternal is timeless, with no beginning or end. Everllasting is durative, with a beginning and no end. God is eternal. Man can never be eterna.



This is part of the core misunderstanding of virtually everyone within the Christian faith (and beyond). God is eternal. Man can only be everlasting. Aidios versus aionios.



That's my point.

I see your point.

Elohiym is applied in a broad sense. It's vocational and positional, not necessarily ontological.



And that is the problem. If one doesn't understand the distinction between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (substance), one cannot address this topic sufficiently or accurately. And the same is true relative to the contrast between eternal and everlasting.

I would here have to disagree though, again, we circle back to the term "Elohiym". We shared in the Elohiym's substance from our beginning as that is the image in which we were made. We are being offered something else via Christ's sacrifice and I think that is the essence of what it is to be Elohiym.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Good. So maybe we can return to the term Elohiym vis a vis divinity at a later point.

Okay, but it will both confirm and dispell much.

BTW, it's likely helpful that your wife is a polyglot in that she can say what she wants to you without offending you if needs be.

Our relationship is much too pristine for such antics from either of us. She is free to say whatever she will, and only does so relative to our vocations and callings.

I see your point.

This means we partake qualitatively and functionally, but not innately AS divinity.

I would here have to disagree though, again, we circle back to the term "Elohiym". We shared in the Elohiym's substance from our beginning as that is the image in which we were made. We are being offered something else via Christ's sacrifice and I think that is the essence of what it is to be Elohiym.

This is the problem. Naught but God can be divine in essence. Essence is ontological, and cannot be economic. So no action (economy) can convey it.

And the substance is the underlying foundation (sub-standing) for the essence. The substance (hypostasis) is the "who-ness", whereas the essence (ousia) is the "what-ness". We have access via the "who" of Christ by the translation of our "who" into Him; not the "what" of our temporal humanity into His eternal uncreated divinity. This is what makes salvation individual rather than special (spee-cee-ahl, "species"-al).

We cannot be "essentially" God, but can be "substantially" partaking of God through Christ (as joint heir) so that there is no qualitative or functional difference for us. We don't need to be or become inherently divine to be functionally divine. The latter is what makes us utterly subordinate with God superordinate.

In this, our human essence (ousia) becomes virtually irrelevant; but our individuality (hypostasis) is conjoined in "who-ness" to the Son for all everlasting. One (glorified) flesh. We "put off" our humanity, rather than having it conjoined to God through Christ. The human ousia cannot be annihilated, so it is made qualitatively secondary to our new reality of existence as hypostatically joined to Christ.

 

[fzappa13]

Our relationship is much too pristine for such antics from either of us. She is free to say whatever she will, and only does so relative to our vocations and callings.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

This means we partake qualitatively and functionally, but not innately AS divinity.
Naught but God can be divine in essence. Essence is ontological, and cannot be economic. So no action (economy) can convey it.

And the substance is the underlying foundation (sub-standing) for the essence. The substance (hypostasis) is the "who-ness", whereas the essence (ousia) is the "what-ness". We have access via the "who" of Christ, not the "what" of eternal uncreated divinity.

We cannot be "essentially" God, but can be "substantially" partaking of God through Christ (as joint heir) so that there is no qualitative or functional difference for us. We don't need to be or become inherently divine to be functionally divine. The latter is what makes us utterly subordinate with God superordinate.

You say Jehovah can't impart His essence. I have seen no verse that would imply He is limited in this manner or any other for that matter. Why do you believe this?

... and before we lose sight of the subject; is there a difference between His essence and of the Elohiym?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE

LOL.

You say Jehovah can't impart His essence. I have seen no verse that would imply He is limited in this manner or any other for that matter. Why do you believe this?

... and before we lose sight of the subject; is there a difference between His essence and of the Elohiym?

Lexicography, lexicography, lexicography. Ousia is the wealth of existence as "being". A human "being" cannot become another kind of "being". This is what you're insisting - that man can become a divine being. That would mean humans would ultimately be a phantheon of gods, among other ridiculosities.

Elohiym is another consideration altogether. But man is certainly no potential pantheon in waiting.

 

[fzappa13]

PPS,

Your offerings to this site have spurred me to study the terms ousia and hypostatis in greater depth and for that I thank you. Seems the terms were virtually interchangeable even unto the formulation of the Nicene Creed until the dictates of the developing definition of The Trinity required a distinction between them some time later under the dictates of the Cappadocian Fathers . Indeed, to this day, primary reference materials such as the Strong's and others make no such distinction as is found in more modern creedal offerings.

I said all that to suggest this; I think trying to understand the promises of Christ and what it is to be “divine”, or maybe better said, “of the kingdom of heaven” from that vantage point is a mistake. A true student doesn't massage the definitions of words to fit a preconceived notion. Let the words lead you to understanding. I noticed you again ducked dealing with the term Elohiym and it's ramifications. Most Christians do. I suspect that is because most Christians came to believe what they do as a result of ingesting the offerings of others as to what the Bible means and, in so doing, have embraced beliefs that preclude considering what was actually said, verses what they were told.

You were told that you could inherit the same body Jesus has and do greater things than He. How do you propose you are going to do that without being empowered by God through His essence? How do you propose that you are going to accomplish this without being a new being?

Eph 2: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;


The household of God ... Elohiym.



Behold, I make ALL things new.



Consider this if you will.

 

[fzappa13]

Hey, do you want a real good post or two or three on the "Historical Development of the Trinity"? It's very informative, and can be found on the forum Debating Christianity & Religion.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=30187




This will take care of the argument.....if anyone is really interested in what has actually transpired throughout history.

Shut up Donnie ...



That's a joke too ...



Think "The Big Lebowski"

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS,

Your offerings to this site have spurred me to study the terms ousia and hypostatis in greater depth and for that I thank you.

Yay.

Seems the terms were virtually interchangeable even unto the formulation of the Nicene Creed until the dictates of the developing definition of The Trinity required a distinction between them some time later under the dictates of the Cappadocian Fathers.

Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.

Indeed, to this day, primary reference materials such as the Strong's and others make no such distinction as is found in more modern creedal offerings.

That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.

I said all that to suggest this; I think trying to understand the promises of Christ and what it is to be “divine”, or maybe better said, “of the kingdom of heaven” from that vantage point is a mistake. A true student doesn't massage the definitions of words to fit a preconceived notion. Let the words lead you to understanding. I noticed you again ducked dealing with the term Elohiym and it's ramifications. Most Christians do. I suspect that is because most Christians came to believe what they do as a result of ingesting the offerings of others as to what the Bible means and, in so doing, have embraced beliefs that preclude considering what was actually said, verses what they were told.

No, it's the inverse. I've long divested the bias most are plagued with; and I've never been one to avoid criticizing the status quo to which you refer.

Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.

You were told that you could inherit the same body Jesus has and do greater things than He.

His Body, according to His authentic humanity. The prosopon of His divinity had no body as corporeality. And "greater" means elder; not quantitatively "more", but qualitatively more according to God's goal for man as teleios ("perfect").

How do you propose you are going to do that without being empowered by God through His essence?

I'm not. That's exousia (power). God's exousia is the source, not our innate existence. If it were our inherent "being", it would not need the source of delegation to us. Ousia is the species designation as kind. We will never be divine as a kind.

How do you propose that you are going to accomplish this without being a new being?

By being a new "who" in Christ as a new creation, not a new "what". There's quite an extensive delineation of minutiae for Anthropology Proper to understand all this as decently and in order. We're not re-created, but resurrected unto life in Christ.

Eph 2: 13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
17 And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
18 For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
19 Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;

The household of God ... Elohiym.

...which is not a pantheon of divinized human beings. Huge problem. Not even subtle.

Behold, I make ALL things new.

Consider this if you will.

I have. I've done so to the point of physical death in fasting and prayer and the Word.

Man's human essence is not divinized. It's the hypostasis underlying the ousia that is translated into Christ. And that is NOW.

I'm seated in heavenly places in Christ Jesus NOW. I know what you're saying, but your expression is utilizing inverse terminology because your lexical understanding is deficient.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Trinity of gods is not the God of Jesus

It isn't a "trinity of gods", reprobate. Go learn about what you're attempting to criticize or tick a lock, Gomer.

 

[fzappa13]

Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.

That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.

Yeah, I kinda felt this might be at the root of your efforts and that maybe it was your way of trying to reconcile the estranged Eastern and Western Churches, doctrinally speaking, as it concerned the notion of The Trinity. But even such a noble effort must take into account the influence both the cultures and the languages had on later Christian thought. That's why I keep circling back to the Hebrew. That's where it all went down. Though, as it concerns fleshing out the particulars of the Doctrine of the Trinity you're likely in the right neighborhood.

No, it's the inverse. I've long divested the bias most are plagued with; and I've never been one to avoid criticizing the status quo to which you refer.

Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.

Here again you point to a miniscule minority of the usage of the term to point to it's meaning. Why not gather the totality of the instances it occurs in the Bible and let their collective wisdom speak of what the word means? I know the ramifications might well be unsettling to a few previously held notions but … who cares? We're after the truth, right?

His Body, according to His authentic humanity. The prosopon of His divinity had no body as corporeality. And "greater" means elder; not quantitatively "more", but qualitatively more according to God's goal for man as teleios ("perfect").

Now you're off into a REALLY big subject (one of my favorites) but, again, you've wandered into the Hebrew if you have any hope of understanding the subject. Many of the Elohiym had bodies that could manifest and interact in both the heavenly and earthly realm. This phenomenon was memorialized in the particulars concerning the priestly robes in the Pentateuch and Ezekiel. It is also alluded to in Gen 6, the Mt. Of Transfiguration, etc. Remember Christ didn't want Mary to touch Him after He was first arisen … the woman with an issue of blood who did? A study of the terms “white robes” and “white raiment” will not be without fruit. This kind of complicates the modern notions of corporeality and that's OK … they could likely use a little dusting off anyway.

How do you propose you are going to do that without being empowered by God through His essence?

I'm not. That's exousia (power). God's exousia is the source, not our innate existence. If it were our inherent "being", it would not need the source of delegation to us. Ousia is the species designation as kind. We will never be divine as a kind.

Okay, then to put it in terms you are comfortable with. I am suggesting the term “Elohiym” is “Ousia” in its nature. It's a species of sorts.

How do you propose that you are going to accomplish this without being a new being?

By being a new "who" in Christ as a new creation, not a new "what". There's quite an extensive delineation of minutiae for Anthropology Proper to understand all this as decently and in order. We're not re-created, but resurrected unto life in Christ.

Man's human essence is not divinized. It's the hypostasis underlying the ousia that is translated into Christ. And that is NOW.

… Through faith, NOW, right … I'm not referring to that. I referring to what comes after. The Resurrection(s). Remember, what we have NOW is the earnest ... a down payment. Then? Our full inheritance.

 

[RevTestament]

Yay.



Well... sorta. It was more an East versus West interposition and emphasis because they're overlapping synonyms. Similar, but not same.



That's why I spent so much time and effort accessing the Eastern usages, and formatting that for Western minds. That's one reason I am so difficult to understand when expressing. The Latins compounded problems that never plagued the East; and all Western Christendom is founded in the Latin Church.

St. Basil standardized the usage of the terms; to which, both Latin and English have done their degrees of damage.


Elohiym, if you'll recall, was applied positionally and titularly to godless kings and other men. I think you misperceive what it means.

Fzappa must have picked this up from me - he's the only other person I have seen call the house of God Elohim - very astute of him
BTW PPS how u doin? I wonder if you could expound on your comments about the scriptures of the eastern church vs. the Latin Church. Could u give specific examples?

 

[Ps82]

Hello RevTestament ... Long time away for both of us.
I'm trying to contact you. I've tried to message you, but the site says that the volume on your message board is full and you must delete some content in order to receive others. You have asked me some questions about my dream.

 

[fzappa13]

Fzappa must have picked this up from me - he's the only other person I have seen call the house of God Elohim - very astute of him
BTW PPS how u doin? I wonder if you could expound on your comments about the scriptures of the eastern church vs. the Latin Church. Could u give specific examples?

I go back to 2003 at this joint so you might want to reconsider who is emulating who as it concerns the term "Elohim". That said I am happy for the company. So few understand exactly what Jesus promised ... and Paul ... and Peter ...


To be a member of the family of God is no small thing and yet so few understand what it is they aspire to nor what they were promised.

Ah well, t'was ever thus ..."eye hath not seen nor ear heard", etc.