ECT Our triune God

[God's Truth]

It wasn't insults. It was valid observation as fact. You're a usurping woman defying scripture with the manner in which you approach men.



I don't think ANYONE needs to necessarily learn the Biblical languages. But everyone should utilize a lexicon and spend time knowing what Greek terms mean in English instead of being ignorant and naive while spouting silliness they don't and CAN'T know is wrong.

You're not equipped to even address the minutiae of Theology Proper. And that's a fact of truth, not an insult.



I do. It's just from the original inspired text instead of shallow English concepts and words. And it's not intelligence, it's applied spiritual intuitive knowledge. You can't even know the difference with your puffed-up gnosis knowledge as you float by at high altitude.



LOL. And you're barely literate, and struggling with puffed-up knowledge aimed at others who aren't. It's partly your own sub-conscious inadequacy blostered by fear and pride. You truly think you're right in your false belief system. It's common, and maddening to those who aren't your peers as juveniles.

No, we do not need the Bible and a lexicon.

Again, you do not have truth so you result to defending your false beliefs by using insults. What else has Satan left you to use?

 

[God's Truth]

Could you explain what you're trying to say, in the English language?

Let PPS try to get away with insulting GM. lol

Do you think that PPS is man enough? I don't think so.

 

[Grosnick Marowbe]

PPS, you seem to enjoy showing off your vast array of impressive word
arrangements however, most average posters cannot 'decipher' what
you're attempting to point out? We realize you're something of a
"Wordsmith" but, try to tone it down a bit, please?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

If I can, I will endeavor then, to deconstruct and rebuild that which was obfuscated.

It is a mess, however, so I'd appreciate input and clarity, in grace to get us all there:

It actually started with this post. It was for extreme length, but the infraction was for anti-Trinitarian as well.

Now, any time you side with a Unitarian in discussion, there are problems certainly, because you can't agree with them without also recognizing their error as well. PPS goes on further to say he isn't Orthodox and so we further have ideas about him that may or may not be accurately discerned so I will hope to repair and leave in tact what is true while dismissing here what isn't. This has to be done in snippets and will take awhile.

PPS has clearly stated that they are every bit, or worse, against scripture truths, but, the infraction did indeed call PPS's orthodoxy into question which has sent a few repercussions that reached me an others.

Because of that, I have to go back to this post to start:


Because it received infraction, it is important that it be expressed PPS missed 'modern' or 'derivative' Trinitarian ideology. He supports the foundational creeds and formulas.

For me: I have to then look at what the patristics (ECFs and clergy) detailed and what they didn't in order to understand where PPS is coming from and to see if his accusation is warranted. I think to a degree, it is in fact warranted. The simplicity of God goes back to Augustine and prior and is about the divine nature of God being indivisible into parts. This doctrine is mainly about God's personality and characteristics, but it also is talking about Him as He exist otherwise too: as An indivisible being. Because of that He is correct to call us on the carpet for three 'persons' to whatever degree we carry tri-theism (3 gods)and lose monotheism (one-being).


Rhema, basically means 'utterance' and it is where we get the idea of Ex Nihlo exisitence "Out of Nothing" but better corrected, out of God's utterance (utterance not to be confused with a physical breath, though 'physicality' was the result. It becomes more than just semantics, but important theo-LOGICal conceptions to understand correctly, the who, what, and how of God.


This is likely where the infraction seated and even the ensuing infraction, by my report, occurred. I apologized for reporting this after his retraction as I had missed it. I would hope (and allow pause here) for PPS to explain this better. If I read him correctly, he isn't saying he isn't Orthodox past understanding, but not unorthodox as to old historical Orthodoxy. I think we are going to have to really separate the meaning of that term to get to the bottom of this misunderstanding/understanding. I 'think' we can see where a lot moved from this point on, toward our present on this thread. I pray I am heading in the right direction for repair, but must necessarily need corroboration and/or correction to this point.

Your suggestion of a phone conversation (or Skype would be even better) would probably be more efficient and effective, but wouldn't clarify for the other readership.

I'm a Trinitarian. I just espouse the correct scriptural Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinity instead of the historical (and now very diluted, diverted, polluted, and perverted) Multi-Hypostatic Uni-Phenomenal Trinity which has been conceptualized into little more than three ousios just being called "persons", because in English all "persons" are "beings".

God is UNcreated Self-Phenomenon and Self-Noumenon, whereas phenomena and noumena have always been considered created (and created heaven and cosmos ARE created "Ex Nihilo" phenomena from God's UNcreated noumenon).

God's UNcreated Self-Phenomenon (and Self-Noumenon) is superordinate to created phenomena and man's noumena.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

No, we do not need the Bible and a lexicon.

A lexicon is a dictionary. When you presume what English words mean instead of accessing a dictionary as a tool, you'll sound stupid to those who know the actual meanings of all the words you misuse while you insist it's "the Bible".

Again, you do not have truth so you result to defending your false beliefs by using insults. What else has Satan left you to use?

You and all the English bumblers who don't even know what words mean.

Yours is a foolish argument, but ironically you can't know that as you float by in puffiness.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Let PPS try to get away with insulting GM. lol

Do you think that PPS is man enough? I don't think so.

There's no need. Grossy can't and doesn't discuss Theology Proper much, and I made peace with him some time back.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS, you seem to enjoy showing off your vast array of impressive word
arrangements however, most average posters cannot 'decipher' what
you're attempting to point out? We realize you're something of a
"Wordsmith" but, try to tone it down a bit, please?

My verbosity is really only directed toward those like Lon and others who recognize the valid need for examining Greek lexicography to know true English meanings.

The general readership may be confused, but should either take it as a challenge to learn what they don't know, or just skip past the depths and glean what they can know in low-context English.

All posters don't need to have a homogenous approach. Some need the deeper depths of understanding without having to distill it for others.

How ya been? Everything going reasonably well in your corner of the world?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Could you explain what you're trying to say, in the English language?

Most of it is English, but with reference to Greek words. It's for others like Lon and Arsenios and TFT who are familiar with Greek terms.

Just skip on past them. No need to get bogged down if you're not interested in that schtuff.

 

[Jedidiah]

...The general readership may be confused, but should either take it as a challenge to learn what they don't know, or just skip past the depths and glean what they can know in low-context English....

Document X, written in language A:

If we translate Document X from language A, into language B, then Document X_B cannot communicate more content than does Document X_A; Document X_B is limited by how much content Document X_A communicates in language A, as to how much content Document X_B can communicate in language B. Document X_B cannot and can never communicate more content in language B than Document X_A communicates in language A.

This limit is reached especially when examining Document X_B in increasingly granular detail, which is where context/content is lost most easily during translation.

On the other side of things, at less and less granular detail, more and more content survives translation, such that, as an extreme example, if Document X_A is a treatise or a poem, Document X_B will not be interpreted as a shopping list or a baptismal certificate. The genre is a high level theme, and the more granular you examine Document X_B, the more errors that propagate; such as what particular meaning is meant by a particular language A word in Document X_A.

Errors in translation manifest as increasing levels of ambiguity and/or vagueness, especially as you get more and more granular in your examination of a translation.

 

[God's Truth]

​

Document X, written in language A:

If we translate Document X from language A, into language B, then Document X_B cannot communicate more content than does Document X_A; Document X_B is limited by how much content Document X_A communicates in language A, as to how much content Document X_B can communicate in language B. Document X_B cannot and can never communicate more content in language B than Document X_A communicates in language A.

This limit is reached especially when examining Document X_B in increasingly granular detail, which is where context/content is lost most easily during translation.

On the other side of things, at less and less granular detail, more and more content survives translation, such that, as an extreme example, if Document X_A is a treatise or a poem, Document X_B will not be interpreted as a shopping list or a baptismal certificate. The genre is a high level theme, and the more granular you examine Document X_B, the more errors that propagate; such as what particular meaning is meant by a particular language A word in Document X_A.

Errors in translation manifest as increasing levels of ambiguity and/or vagueness, especially as you get more and more granular in your examination of a translation.

Well said.

 

[TFTn5280]

At least you understand the Holy Spirit IS the perichoretic for the Father and Son, so no blazing gunfire at brave cranial-showing vermin are necessary from me.

But Jesus was made (poieo) singular ANARTHROUS sin for us who knew no sin (again singular anarthrous).

All mankind is not ontologically IN Christ with no sin natures, merely awaiting some nominal mind-change as "repentance". Yet we don't have dual natures, because we're hypostatically translated into Christ and partaking of God's divine nature through the human/divine nature of Him in whom we live and move and have our being.

Jesus wasn't made singular articular hamartia, which is what we must individually repent of unto salvation. Everyone has the sin condition in their members and natures, and must be translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son to be dead to that sin.

Nobody has ontology in Christ except those who have believed, and that faith immediately brings the changed condition of the heart and mind that is reprentance.

Access to AT-ONE-MENT for all because Christ was made anarthrous hamartia as the quality, character, and activity OF the sin nature (physis) that is in the hypostasis. Application of atonement is only for those who are individually, particularly, and peculiarly in Christ by putting Him on (His prosopon).

No forensics. No labels. No "identity". Pure hypostatic ontology for those who repent in faith, whereby they then have access into the grace wherein they stand.

No Universal Atonement. Unlimited availability and access. Still no ontology unless/until there is individual faith-based repentance that is neither self-initiated nor merely acknowledgement and assent.

All the convolutions of Universal Atonement are to avoid the dual nature fallacies and issues of the silliness of "sufficient for all, efficient for the Elect", which "wastes" the blood of Christ as much as Calvinists claim Arminianism does.

Not one unbeliever is IN Christ ontologically, and no sin natures were eradicated by the Passion event. Believers have been resurrected unto life in Christ, leaving their prosopon and physis in the tomb with sin in them. Sin isn't a "something", BTW. It's a missing share or part. Our lack is dead. Unbelievers' lack is not dead.

Well said. Don't fully agree, but well said. Christ is Emmanuel whether we know it or not. And he is Jesus whether we accept it or not.

 

[God's Truth]

Well said. Don't fully agree, but well said. Christ is Emmanuel whether we know it or not. And he is Jesus whether we accept it or not.

He called the way the majority of the trinitarians believe in the trinity as "perverted".

 

[God's Truth]

I'm a Trinitarian. I just espouse the correct scriptural Uni-Hypostatic Multi-Phenomenal Trinity instead of the historical (and now very diluted, diverted, polluted, and perverted) Multi-Hypostatic Uni-Phenomenal Trinity which has been conceptualized into little more than three ousios just being called "persons", because in English all "persons" are "beings".

He calls what most trinitarians believe "perverted".

 

[God's Truth]

Would someone like to explain to me how God and Jesus are different?

 

[Cross Reference]

Would someone like to explain to me how God and Jesus are different?

Jesus is human.

 

[TFTn5280]

Would someone like to explain to me how God and Jesus are different?

Perhaps semantics in your mind, but not in mine: Yes, Jesus is "God." But the Son is not the Father.

There is an eternal relational distinction between Father and Son. There is absolute economic accord in what they say and do.

 

[God's Truth]

Jesus is human.

God came as a human.

 

[God's Truth]

Perhaps semantics in your mind, but not in mine: Yes, Jesus is "God." But the Son is not the Father.

There is an eternal relational distinction between Father and Son. There is absolute economic accord in what they say and do.

What is the distinction!

 

[Cross Reference]

God came as a human.

You mean a human body was prepared for Him in which He would reside? That's true. However, that body was not from above but from below __ from the earth.

 

[TFTn5280]

I am shooting from the hip here, so I may be way off, but I can think of only one time when it is definite that the Father spoke where it was not through the Son: "This is my Son in whom I am well pleased"; hence complete economic accord.