ECT Our triune God

[1Mind1Spirit]

Nobody. Nobody is going to read between the lines. There are no lines in between in which to find. The equivocation is abusive and offensive, of a cloddish conveyance.

Truth kinda works that way.

You dont have to look between the lines for it.

The veil, which was Christ, has been lifted.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Where?

We suffer time, God does not...

I really have not seen much of this "time prior to time" business... We have creation in 6 days, and rest the 7th...

And in the Beginning, the Logos already WAS...

And in the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...

I do not try to get very far behind those words...

Arsenios

And yet... "already" and "WAS" (from your above bolded) are both time terms for timelessness, referring to "time before time".

Gotta be rigorously apophatic, though the only index we have is time (when) and space (where) and matter (what) constructs of language.

That doesn't mean we can't intuit the truth of God's eternal hypostasis and all economy as His action, even if we can never know His eternal immutable ousia.

I'll answer your other posts soon, but you've exasperated and exhausted me in this venue while trying to convey truth a bazillion times that you just juggle around in evasion, likely unintentionally.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thinking about it...

Evidently some of my comments were crude and offensive to others I'm confident are my Brothers in Christ.

I offer my humble apologies and will refrain from those references in the future, making my points with more appropriate language.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Arsenios...

The Hypostatic Union is purely Christological, also referring to our hypostatic translation into Christ. And that's us in His prosopon, which "has" our hypostasis in union with His.

Here is but one example of hundreds of references to the HU as Christology, NOT Theology Proper in regard to the alleged perichoresis for the alleged multiple hypostases.

From google...

Hypostatic union (from the Greek: ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, sediment, foundation, substance, or subsistence) is a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.

Whether Dyo- or Mia- Physitism, that's the scope of the Hypostatic Union.

 

[Nang]

Right.



Not even close. You simply don't understand. You're still in a 2D planar perspective of existence.

One ousia. One hypostasis. Two phenomena. You just can't get there. That was the problem with the Patristic formulaic, amd their error.



Fair enough.



Right. You perceived that I expressed the inverse. I didn't.



I do. It's virtually everyone else who doesn't. That's the problem.



Not interested in a Mutli-Hypostatic Trinity false perspective. You still don't undetstand God's Simplicity, nor does anyone who is reformed.



It was exacting. The Hypostatic Union is NOT relative to Theology Proper for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's about Christology and our hypostatic translation (the latter you still don't understand at all).



No. It was a valid assessment of misapplication of the Christological Hypostatic Union to Theology Proper as perverted blasphemy.

And I don't understand your constant attempts at controlling instruction. You are perpetually telling me what to do and how to post; as well as what I understand and believe snd represent when you don't understand anything of my position at all, and have repeatedly caricatured and mischaracterized all I've said. Please attend to yourself.

God is a singular uncreated transcendent hypostasis underlying an ousia/physis and having a prosopon. His Logos and Pneuma are not individuated in any quantitative manner. They are inherent ontological qualitative distinctions, economically processed into creation as the Son and Holy Spirit relatvie to created phenomena that was only noumena until being instantiated into existence.

God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is absolute Simplicity and Singularity and Immutability and Infinity and Eternity and Aseity, etc.

You just don't understand phenomena and noumena, and the difference between them as uncreated and created. That's okay. Nobody does, so we have an anathema Orthodox Trinity to go with all the other historical anathemas. All heterodox. None correct.

I think, as I stumble through all this, that two BIG truths are being convoluted and confused!

Yes, the Triune God produced the Christ, but the Son came into the world as both God and Man; a unique hypostatic union of human and Divine, that does not really describe the "single" hypostatic reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

???

The Triune ousia belongs to the Christ, but His hypostatic union of Divine and human, is uniquely His; and does not define the purely transcendent ousia of Triune God.

???

Forgive me, but that is what I am seeing, and I am entirely open to correction by my dear brethren, who labor through these truths . . .

Nang

 

[Arsenios]

The Son came into the world as both God and Man;

a unique hypostatic union of human and Divine,
that does not really describe the "single" hypostatic reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

???

The Triune ousia belongs to the Christ, but His hypostatic union of Divine and human, is uniquely His; and does not define the purely transcendent ousia of Triune God.

???

Forgive me, but that is what I am seeing, and I am entirely open to correction by my dear brethren, who labor through these truths . . .

Nang

Looks like a good question to me... IF we are united with the hypostasis of Christ, are we then also united with the Father and the Holy Spirit because they are the same Hypostasis as Christ is in His humanity? Or is the reconciliation one of our being united in the Hypostasis of Christ wherein there IS the Father well pleased...?

Nothing defines the triune Ousia of God... So I have to agree...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I think, as I stumble through all this, that two BIG truths are being convoluted and confused!

Yes, the Triune God produced the Christ, but the Son came into the world as both God and Man; a unique hypostatic union of human and Divine, that does not really describe the "single" hypostatic reality of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Right. Arsenios was applying the Hypostatic Union as the alleged perichoretic for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as alleged multiple hypostases.

As far as I know, that is not the Orthodox postition at all. But he seems quite convinced that it's the perichoretic. Nothing I have ever read of the Patristics has ever suggested this.

I just today received a large book order that includes the 4-volume Philokalia and some other Eastern writings, so I'll double check. But I'm certain he's mistaken from a doctrinal standpoint and it's his own perception and application.

The Triune ousia belongs to the Christ, but His hypostatic union of Divine and human, is uniquely His; and does not define the purely transcendent ousia of Triune God.

Absolutely true and accurate. Neither the Father nor Holy Spirit hypostasized and took on humanity, regardless of Christological differences.

Forgive me, but that is what I am seeing, and I am entirely open to correction by my dear brethren, who labor through these truths . . .

Nang

You are absolutely correct. Arsenios is misrepresenting the Hypostatic Union as a factor for Theology Proper rather than Christology. He's interchanged it for perichoresis.

Perhaps there is a reason I'm unaware of, but it would be a grievous fallacy as I've outlined in terms I have now desisted from.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Looks like a good question to me... IF we are united with the hypostasis of Christ, are we then also united with the Father and the Holy Spirit because they are the same Hypostasis as Christ is in His humanity? Or is the reconciliation one of our being united in the Hypostasis of Christ wherein there IS the Father well pleased...?

Nothing defines the triune Ousia of God... So I have to agree...

Arsenios

You've misunderstood her questions and observations, which are directed at your fallacy in applying the Hypostatic Union to Theology Proper as the perichoretic for the alleged three hypostasis.

As I've said many times, you are mistaken; and the HU is a reference to Christology regarding the Incarnation and Dyo-/Mia-Physiticism for Theanthropos.

That's why I made the observations I did, which were valid.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Right.

Jack Chick is old news.

A.

So is first and second Timothy.

What's yer point?

 

[Arsenios]

You've misunderstood her questions and observations, which are directed at your fallacy in applying the Hypostatic Union to Theology Proper as the perichoretic for the alleged three hypostasis.

It simply follows from unity of Essence... If the three Hypostases are one in essence, they must be co-inherent one with another...

You think that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One Person/Hypostasis, so that when we become one in Christ Who has elevated humanity in His human nature, by joining with His Divine Person [Hypostasis] in Baptism into Christ, then by your standards, how can you deny that we are thereby united hypostatically with the Father and with the Son?

My own understanding on this is shifting, btw... I am beginning to ask if our union in Christ is with His [OBEDIENT to the Father] Risen Human Nature, rather than with His Divine Person [Hypostasis]...

But the perichoretic nature of that union being parallel with the perichoresis of the Holy Trinity, where co-inherence of hypostases is a given, is solidly Orthodox... Indeed, Christ IN us is Perichoretic... And we IN Christ is as well, and Christ IN the Father, and the Father IN Christ, and Christ IN the Holy Spirit, and on and on... And indeed, in the Communion of the Holy Spirit on earth, we IN one another, and having one another IN us... This is the "coin of the realm" of the Love of God that the Brethren have for one another, and can be seen in the Biblical Commandment that we "...Love our neighbor AS OURSELF..." Zizoulas calls this the "Communion of Love", and it is presaged in the Psalms where David writes "how good it is for the Tribes to live together in harmony..." [my bad memory of what I read]...

Indeed, this personal inter-communion of inherence in one another is the very basis for which peace and good will can subsist among men upon this earth... Its absence is the hallmark of sociopathology, which is all about ME-ME and those who affirm ME...

Arsenios

As I've said many times, you are mistaken; and the HU is a reference to Christology regarding the Incarnation and Dyo-/Mia-Physiticism for Theanthropos.

That's why I made the observations I did, which were valid.

I know...

A.

 

[Arsenios]

Right. Arsenios was applying the Hypostatic Union as the alleged perichoretic for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as alleged multiple hypostases.

Does the Father co-inhere in the Son?

You have to say no, because with your view that God is only One Person [Hypostasis], the Father IS the Son, and no co-inherence is needed, because they form an identity of person...

The Hypostatic Union of God and man in the Person of Christ having both a human and a Divine Nature, complete with two wills, in a relationship of obedience and subservience of the lower to the higher, shows how the Hypostatic God in His One Person can have two wills and two "centers of consciousness" as I think you called it... A possibility that you denied earlier, yes? It seemed odd when I read it, given the human phenomenon of multiple personalities... If it happens here with people, why is it ruled out for their Creator? Now that may not be a definitive response - Indeed it is not - But it did come to mind...

As far as I know, that is not the Orthodox postition at all. But he seems quite convinced that it's the perichoretic. Nothing I have ever read of the Patristics has ever suggested this.

Perichoresis, of co-inherence, is not a big Orthodox Theological Term... eg It is not bandied about... It is used on occassion, but only as a descriptive, where two persons can co-inhere within one another... Some of the living Saints of the Church do it routinely, and for others, it is an occasional Divine Gift of Grace, but it is a core feature of Holy Communion, where we are each a part of one another in virtue of being members of the Body of Christ...

What it gives is the knowing of another person by direct experience... Used wrongly, it can get ugly, which is why its attainment is rare, because the perfecting of the person having it must be complete, and only God can give it, and He does not do so very often... A related but distinct Gift is that of healing, given more often, but concerned with the body, and not so much with the condition of the soul...

But in both, the knowledge attained is not given in words at all, but in direct apperception, and it will often not translate very well into words...

I just today received a large book order that includes the 4-volume Philokalia and some other Eastern writings, so I'll double check. But I'm certain he's mistaken from a doctrinal standpoint and it's his own perception and application.

Oh, I don't think you will find much in the Philokalia of the doctrinal statements you are so enchanted with here... You will find instead much of a deep and praxeological nature in the course of transformation in the Holy Spirit... Reading it outside the Orthodox Body from which it is written is normally advised against, because it was not written for those not within the Holy Communion of the Orthodox Faith, and constitutes something of an "end run" around the narrow Gate and afflicted Way that the Church still disciples... Most in the Church do not read it... So be careful - You do not have the Grace of Baptism and Communion and the direction of an Elder that is presumed to be had by those reading its texts, and demons love unprotected easy pickings... And especially the easy pickings of those who exalt their own intellectual prowess... It is not a matter of such prowess at all, you see...

So be careful...

I will pray for you...

OK?

Arsenios is misrepresenting the Hypostatic Union as a factor for Theology Proper rather than Christology. He's interchanged it for perichoresis.

Perhaps there is a reason I'm unaware of, but it would be a grievous fallacy as I've outlined in terms I have now desisted from.

Be careful...

Slow and kind and prayerful for others...

Seeking their good, not your own...

And you will benefit...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So is first and second Timothy.

What's yer point?

Old news...

Can't help a drunk on a bender...

A.

 

[Lon]

Pay attention Arsenios.

Yer church leaders were never chosen by the Apostles and were the first to creep in.

The main reason folks started heapin' up teachers.

II TIMOTHY IV

3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

4 And they shall turn away * their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.







Yes Pnuema, here they were prophesied of.

I TIMOTHY IV

1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;

2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ;

3 Forbidding to marry , and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.



Keep on keepin' on.

1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom;

2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove , rebuke , exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

This isn't an anti-Trinitarian thread, nor are these verses talking about trinity doctrine. Please take this elsewhere.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It simply follows from unity of Essence...

No, it does not, though I understand your displaced thought process of deduction. But that's reasoning, not intuiting. And I'm referring to the actual doctrinal position of the Orthodox Church, which does NOT say what you are saying.

Perichoresis is the inter-penetrating conjoinedness for the alleged three hypostases in the Trinity doctrine, with the Hypostatic Union being the Christological hypostasization of the pre-Incarnate Son taking on humanity/flesh in the cosmos.

This is not opinion, this is fact relative to doctrine. Hence my observations that were valid, even if presumed crude and inappropriate. Neither the Father nor Holy Spirit hypostasized in an Incarnation to become flesh; so we cannot be directly one flesh with either of them, for they have never been flesh as was/is the Son.

THAT's why I was referring to the sexual similes, for marriage is a fleshly type for the anti-type of our ultimate everlasting joining as one spiritual flesh with the Son in Hypostatic Union. It requires flesh to flesh for prosopoa, which each "have" the others' hypostasis. That isn't applicable to the Father and Holy Spirit, as neither became flesh.

So we're not one flesh with (betrothed now, and later married to) the Father or Holy Spirit. Marriage is Hypostatic Union, just as you pointed out earlier and then vacated that for this mistaken deduction of reason that is incorrect Orthodox doctrine. We are not married to the Father or Holy Spirit.

You're interposing Hypostatic Union for perichoresis. The latter is for the alleged joining of homoouisos hypostases; the former is for hypostasization of a singular divine hypostasis to take on humanity, and thus be constitutionally compatible with humanity to become one flesh in marriage; the joined prosopa each "having" the other's hypostasis in union.

To apply Hypostatic Union makes the Father and Holy Spirit Incarnate as flesh, and part of the marriage intimacy of physically joined hypostases via fleshly prosopa. Now you should understand why it is repulsive blasphemy to say what you did.

In the Trinity, the alleged multiple hypostases are interpenetrating and allegedly indivisible. That's what you're referring to, and accurately so according to your doctrine.

If the three Hypostases are one in essence, they must be co-inherent one with another...

Right. That's perichoresis, not Hypostatic Union. The latter is Christological Incarnation by taking on humanity for marriage unity with Believers as the Bride.

You think that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are One Person/Hypostasis,

No, I utterly and absolutely intuitively KNOW they're a singular unquantified hypostasis. God's Rhema IS His (singular) hypostasis, and the Logos is the thrusting of that Rhema sword. If you (and the Patristics) understood phenomena and noumena, and timelessness versus time, you (and they) would understand the truth of God's transcendence and immanence instead of combining it all and misrepresenting God as quantified hypostases by intellect instead of intuition.

Having encounters with a prosopon (and the Fathers/Saints NEVER encountered a bare prosoponless hypostasis, for that's not possible) is sakhal, the pride of life by measuring and calculating to know the reason. They counted God one prosopon at a time and deduced multiple hypostases for those prosopa.

The Sabellians, Monarchians, Patripassians, and others who were modalistic (including modern Oneness proponents) were as close as the Trinity in many way, but from the perspective of retaining the singular hypostasis at the expenses of other vital truth in the Trinity. The same is true for the Arians, Unitarians, and others by degree. EVERYBODY was wrong, including the belabored and tedious Patristic formulaic that results inevitably in three ousios if there are multiple sentient centers of conscious volition for the alleged individuated hypostases.

As I understood the original formulaic, a hypostasis was NOT the personal center for conscious volition, but shared the one mind and will within the ousia. THAT is a Monotheistic Trinity with multiple hypostases, and I applaud any professing Trinitarian who holds that position (which in one modern parlance would be Anti-Social contrasted to Social).

I love you, my precious Brother, but this isn't an area of contention over number of hypostases. You are mistakenly applying the Hypostatic Union to perichoresis, which is a misapplication within your own doctrine, not a difference between yours and mine.

so that when we become one in Christ Who has elevated humanity in His human nature, by joining with His Divine Person [Hypostasis] in Baptism into Christ, then by your standards, how can you deny that we are thereby united hypostatically with the Father and with the Son?

We ARE. IN Christ, who is phenomenally distinct from the inherent phenomena that is the Father. But I'm not married to my Heavenly Father (and the Holy Spirit).

You don't understand phenomena and noumena. Nobody does. The Patristics didn't. And neither did the anathemas or the Sophists or the Gnostics or the various Mesapotamianists or the Far-Eastern Mysticists or the Hermeticists or the Theurgists or the Theosophists or the other Esotericists, etc. Nor do modern Phenomenologists, etc. But each of them has pursued various missing aspects that the Trinity can't account for in phenomenal existence and noumenal existence. I've reconciled it ALL. You just can't and won't listen.

It only comes by pure intuition, renewed in the Spirit of the mind with NO intellectualizing from personal "spiritual" encounters that are for edification, not doctrinal revelation. Wrong tree if it's from something seen with the physical eyes as manifestation, even in deep theosis. That's functional Modalism, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren't merely modes of manifestation.

My own understanding on this is shifting, btw... I am beginning to ask if our union in Christ is with His [OBEDIENT to the Father] Risen Human Nature, rather than with His Divine Person [Hypostasis]...

It's both. The physis because it's underlied by the hypostasis which determines its quality AS existence. THAT's grace, which everyone misrepresents. Grace is God's nature influencing and changing our own physis into His. That's accomplished by us being hypostatically united with Christ's ascended hypostasis and us partaking of God's inherent divine nature through hypostatic union with Jesus. THAT's what the Hypostatic Union at the Incarnation was FOR!!

No need for more false binaries as dichotomies.

But the perichoretic nature of that union being parallel with the perichoresis of the Holy Trinity, where co-inherence of hypostases is a given, is solidly Orthodox...

Okay. But you have grossly misspoken on Hypostatic Union and perichoresis, interposing them.

Indeed, Christ IN us is Perichoretic... And we IN Christ is as well, and Christ IN the Father, and the Father IN Christ, and Christ IN the Holy Spirit, and on and on...

Right. But it must be expressed correctly. God didn't stutter by His Logos.

And indeed, in the Communion of the Holy Spirit on earth, we IN one another, and having one another IN us...

YES. Perichoretically. In chorus. Choreographed together. NOT in Hypostatic Union. We aren't betrothed/married to each other, either. Only to the Bridegroom, who is NOT the Father or Holy Spirit. It's actually the noumenological Holy Spirit who os the perichoretic for the phenomenological and noumenological Logos/Son and phenomenological Father, joining us all. No need for an amiguous displaced perichoretic alone, just as there is no ousia for God except the hypostasis/es itself/themselves (forward slashes for you and the Trinity).

This is the "coin of the realm" of the Love of God that the Brethren have for one another, and can be seen in the Biblical Commandment that we "...Love our neighbor AS OURSELF..." Zizoulas calls this the "Communion of Love", and it is presaged in the Psalms where David writes "how good it is for the Tribes to live together in harmony..." [my bad memory of what I read]...

Right. But you displaced perichoresis for Hypostatic Union. Not good.

Indeed, this personal inter-communion of inherence in one another is the very basis for which peace and good will can subsist among men upon this earth... Its absence is the hallmark of sociopathology, which is all about ME-ME and those who affirm ME...

Arsenios

Agreed. But you egregiously misrepresented Hypostatic Union.

And God is Uni-Hypostatic and Multi-Phenomenal, not Multi-Hypostatic and Uni-Phenomenal.

EVERYONE has been subtly wrong for two millennia and declaring each other anathema from varying perspectives. The Orthodox Trinity and some form of Modalism are closest, but all are still incomplete and erroneous by degree.

Giving alleged multiple hypostases individuated eternal sentient volitional consciousness is Tritheism, though. BAD.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Does the Father co-inhere in the Son?

They're multi-phenomenal as the same hypostasis. It doesn't get any more co-inherent than that.

You have to say no, because with your view that God is only One Person [Hypostasis], the Father IS the Son,

NO!!!! THE FATHER IS NOT THE SON!!!! They are phenomenally distinct, not hypostatically distinct. The eternal Son is the processed eternal Logos, not the Father.

This is what the Modalists were looking for and misrepresented, just like the Patristics.

and no co-inherence is needed, because they form an identity of person...

Nope. There's both an inherent transcendent prosopon for that singular hypostasis AND an immanent prosopon. The former is the Father, the latter is the Son; phenomenally distinct, yet needing no perichoretic apart from the co-inherent hypostasis itself.

Ultimately, the vastly simpler and superior apologetic and exegetical hermeneutic. BAM!!

The Hypostatic Union of God and man in the Person of Christ having both a human and a Divine Nature, complete with two wills, in a relationship of obedience and subservience of the lower to the higher, shows how the Hypostatic God in His One Person can have two wills and two "centers of consciousness" as I think you called it...

NO!!!! The human rational soul is one. The "other" is the divine mind; and is the singular mind of God, regardless of hypostasis qunatity. It would not be the nature (physis) of a divine being (ousia) to be mindless. God isn't a mindless being. I'm partaking of His divine nature by being IN Christ, and I'm letting that mind (phronema) be in me.

Multiple minds would be multiple physes and ousios, not multiple hypostases. THIS is my biggest bone with erroneously conceptualized perceptions of the Trinity doctrine, and it left me lost without Christ for 28 years. It came from the Latin persona/e, then through the Individualism movement, and then into English as the term "person", a language in which all persons are sentient volitional beings. FAIL.

A possibility that you denied earlier, yes?

No. Wrong context for understanding, as always on this topic.

It seemed odd when I read it, given the human phenomenon of multiple personalities... If it happens here with people, why is it ruled out for their Creator?

Because schizophrenia is a mental disorder relative to neurochemicals and a physical brain organ. No go for a God who is inherenlty Spirit, and whose Logos had to hypostasize to take on the schema of flesh with physical constitution. Not even close!

Now that may not be a definitive response - Indeed it is not - But it did come to mind...

Kill it. Kill it with fire.

Perichoresis, of co-inherence, is not a big Orthodox Theological Term... eg It is not bandied about... It is used on occassion, but only as a descriptive, where two persons can co-inhere within one another... Some of the living Saints of the Church do it routinely, and for others, it is an occasional Divine Gift of Grace, but it is a core feature of Holy Communion, where we are each a part of one another in virtue of being members of the Body of Christ...

What it gives is the knowing of another person by direct experience... Used wrongly, it can get ugly, which is why its attainment is rare, because the perfecting of the person having it must be complete, and only God can give it, and He does not do so very often... A related but distinct Gift is that of healing, given more often, but concerned with the body, and not so much with the condition of the soul...

But in both, the knowledge attained is not given in words at all, but in direct apperception, and it will often not translate very well into words...

Totally agreed. QFT. Amen!!!!

Oh, I don't think you will find much in the Philokalia of the doctrinal statements you are so enchanted with here... You will find instead much of a deep and praxeological nature in the course of transformation in the Holy Spirit... Reading it outside the Orthodox Body from which it is written is normally advised against, because it was not written for those not within the Holy Communion of the Orthodox Faith, and constitutes something of an "end run" around the narrow Gate and afflicted Way that the Church still disciples... Most in the Church do not read it... So be careful - You do not have the Grace of Baptism and Communion and the direction of an Elder that is presumed to be had by those reading its texts, and demons love unprotected easy pickings... And especially the easy pickings of those who exalt their own intellectual prowess... It is not a matter of such prowess at all, you see...

So be careful...

I will pray for you...

OK?

I humbly pray for strength to heed your admonitions. And it grieves me that you still equate my obvious epignosis with mere intellect. It's intuitive.

Be careful...

Slow and kind and prayerful for others...

Seeking their good, not your own...

And you will benefit...

Arsenios

Okay, thank you for the admonition.

 

[Arsenios]

They're multi-phenomenal as the same hypostasis. It doesn't get any more co-inherent than that.



NO!!!! THE FATHER IS NOT THE SON!!!! They are phenomenally distinct, not hypostatically distinct. The eternal Son is the processed eternal Logos, not the Father.

This is what the Modalists were looking for and misrepresented, just like the Patristics.



Nope. There's both an inherent transcendent prosopon for that singular hypostasis AND an immanent prosopon. The former is the Father, the latter is the Son; phenomenally distinct, yet needing no perichoretic apart from the co-inherent hypostasis itself.

Ultimately, the vastly simpler and superior apologetic and exegetical hermeneutic. BAM!!



NO!!!! The human rational soul is one. The "other" is the divine mind; and is the singular mind of God, regardless of hypostasis qunatity. It would not be the nature (physis) of a divine being (ousia) to be mindless. God isn't a mindless being. I'm partaking of His divine nature by being IN Christ, and I'm letting that mind (phronema) be in me.

Multiple minds would be multiple physes and ousios, not multiple hypostases. THIS is my biggest bone with erroneously conceptualized perceptions of the Trinity doctrine, and it left me lost without Christ for 28 years. It came from the English term "person", a language in which all persons are sentient volitional beings. FAIL.



No. Wrong context for understanding, as always on this topic.



Because schizophrenia is a mental disorder relative to neurochemicals and a physical brain organ. No go for a God who is inherenlty Spirit, and whose Logos had to hypostasize to take on the schema of flesh with physical constitution. Not even close!

So is the term PERSON off your table here? Can you not substitute person for hypostasis in your explanation? Can you not use plain language?

I mean, I have never seen you use person and personal in your rants on this topic... Yet the primary feature of ANY direct encounter with God is that one has encountered a PERSON Who IS God...

And the primary feature of demonic theologies is their relegating God to attributes, powers, features, actions, love, and all manner of things that avoid speaking of God as a Person...
So the Greek term hypostasis, meaning the PERSON behind the prosopon, the MASK of personality which CONCEALS the person, should be your vocabulary, and it is not...

Arsenios

 

[Lon]

This is not opinion, this is fact relative to doctrine. Hence my observations that were valid, even if presumed crude and inappropriate. Neither the Father nor Holy Spirit hypostasized in an Incarnation to become flesh; so we cannot be directly one flesh with either of them, for they have never been flesh as was/is the Son.

You confuse everlasting with eternal. You have it backwards PP. Flesh comes from Spirit, not vise versa nor apart. It is a false dichotomy.

I used to give you benefit of the doubt because you've argued for God's simplicity, but then counteract that understanding so don't quite comprehend it. Do a LOT of research on the Simplicity of God, PP. It is terribly important, for you.

This will ever hang up your theology if you don't get this right. The world, comes from God. You are arbitrarily making the Son a product of creation. :nono: Not true.

And again, the Groom and Bride has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with oneness. The marriage relationship between male and female does not enter in. It is exclusive to a 'physical' union we cannot have with God.

Why? One more time: Physical comes from Spiritual. You are inadvertently describing duality and rejecting the simplicity of God. God is not a 'part' of this universe. This universe is a part of God. Colossians 1:17.

Therefore, your sexual misapplication is offensive, crude, as well as incredibly wrong-headed wrong.

 

[Arsenios]

They're multi-phenomenal as the same hypostasis.
It doesn't get any more co-inherent than that.

Phenomena are separated...

A phenom is an appearance...

Do you have a differing definition of a phenom?

NO!!!! THE FATHER IS NOT THE SON!!!!
They are phenomenally distinct,
not hypostatically distinct.

IF they are NOT hypostatically distinct, and
IF the hypostasis is the person,
THEN the Father and the Son,
in YOUR view,
are the SAME PERSON...

I do not see how this can be avoided...

Sorry if it seems pedantic...

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This isn't an anti-Trinitarian thread,

As anti means instead of, you are in complete error there, friend.

nor are these verses talking about trinity doctrine. Please take this elsewhere.

They directly addressed Arsenios' earlier posts.

Stop whining, yer antics are becoming silly and easily predictable.:baby:

 

[Omniskeptical]

Lon and Arsenio believe bowing is a form of worship. But this was the only form of worship given him.