Okay, got it and can agree with it.
How could it if it doesn't have any objective existence?
Right. But don't then forget the accompanying innate eternal phenomenality underlying that eternal noumenality.
Got it and can agree with it but before I could say wholly agree, I'd have to see the argument for phainomai as synonymous with eimi and ginomai.
It was verbatim lexicography from Zodhiates. I was quoting, not making an argument.
Not sure what this means. Do you mean generally speaking people presuppose phenomenon has a substance but it may not have one? If so, what would be an example? Or is that what the following is?
It doesn't have to BE a distinct hypostasis, but presupposes a hypostasis as its underlying reality of existence.
This demonstrates the eternal noumenon as the express image OF God's hypostasis needn't also BE a distinct hypostasis; the uncreated noumenality being distinguished from the uncreated phenomenality.
"Dokeo, to think, has in contrast the subjective estimate which may be formed of a thing, not the objective showing and seeming which it may actually possess. One may dokei (think) something which may not have an objective reality. However, something that shines, phainei, must exist objectively."
Yes, this (when understood properly) is the example.
Since God's Logos eternally appears and seems to Himself in Self-Consciousness as the Son, the eternal existence of the Son is the eternal Logos.
Got it and can agree with the distinction between phaino and hypostasis as well as the definition of hypostasis (disagree, of course that there is one hypostasis but understand what you're saying).
That's because you're processing and applying it all uni-phenomenally. It's the equivalent of 2D to 3D by contrast.
There's a vertical multi-phenomenality rather than a horizontal uni-phenomenality. The noumenal Logos needn't be a distinct hypostasis when proceeding forth from uncreated phenomenon into created phenomenon while instantiating the latter into existence.
Got it and can agree. I'd modify the thought that the son is only (and exclusively) an image but is His own hypostasis as the context here is speaking of God as Father rather than God as God.
And this is the reflection of multi-hypostaticism erroneously supplanting multi-phenomenality.
How did ANY of the alleged multiple hypostases inhabit created phenomena (heaven AND the cosmos) that didn't exist until they were uttered forth and breathed life. How would uncreated phenomena get into and occupy created phenomena that was merely noumenon until it was instantiated into existence?
"Mystery" won't suffice when it affects extensively formulated Theology Proper. God had to someone occupy and inhabit His creation, which was phenomenally distinct from Himself as uncreated phenomenon.
In other words, the express image of the Father's hypostasis (which isn't seen) is the hypostasis of the Son, which is.
And "where" did this second hypostasis proceed forth "from" and "to" relative to the alleged opera ad intra explanation? God created all "where", and isn't "where". He transcends heaven and the cosmos, both created. Was there a void inside the Father, into which two distinct individuated hypostases eternally proceeded? Ex-/ek- is not en- or eis-. Exerchomai/ekporeuomai aren't internally procession, and there was nothing external to God until He created and filled it.
Jesus is "the spitting image" of the Father (as a hypostasis since the Father is a hypostasis) we might say similar to the creaturely father/son relationship.
No. The Son is God's singular hypostasis processed from uncreated phenomenon into created phenomena when/as it's created.
Again, this is where multi-hypostaticism has erroneously supplanted multi-phenomenality.
Can you contrast phenomenon and prosopon as you are using them?
Yes. The Father is the singular hypostasis with a prosopon. This is transcendent to creation as uncreated phenomenon. God's Logos, like Himself as Spirit, is innately and eternally uncreated phenomenon and noumenon. The Son is the noumenal Logos proceeded forth into created phenomenon. The express image OF God's hypostasis is that singular hypostasis distinct within created phenomenon (which was instantiated into phenomenality from noumenality; NOT another hypostasis.
The processed Logos as the Son has a prosopon in the created heaven, just as the Father has a transcendent prosopon, in-shining into creation as the unapproachable light in which He dwells. Same hypostasis; disinct phenomena.
Why can't we just use prosopon and why the need to bring in "phenomenon"?
Because that doesn't address multi-phenomenality.
Do you see a distinction being made in Scripture?
Directly in scripture, I can see how any of the historical formulaics were delineated. Prosopon isn't addressed much, nor is phaino.
We know there is one prosopon of God that can't be seen (at least this side of heaven) so this is consistent with your explanation of phaino above "This suggests that something may shine without anybody necessarily seeing it".
Right.
Nous is preeminently an intuitive faculty, and there would be the intuiting OF "whatever". Intellect is a secondary functionality of the nous.
Aseity is a vague term. Vaguery is the problem overall. I delineate Aseity into Perseconsciosity, Persephainoity, and Persesatisity. (Self-Consciousness, Self-Existence, Self-Sufficiency.)
I'd say He's conscious of more than that about Himself--especially since the Son expresses the Father--but I think I get your point.
I don't know about this. In verses where both rhema and logos are used in close proximity, the distinction being made seems to be the opposite--logos is the content or concept, rhema is the utterance.
Rhema bookends Logos. Rhema > Logos > Rhema. Only the latter is considered and addressed. It 's not a dichotomy. Rhema is the subject matter, content, and substance as the thing (thought and) spoken about; and is also the word/s (signified and sign).
Logos is the thought and expression of the subject matter (Rhema) into words (Rhema). That is objective for God, because it's His hypostasis. For man, it can be subjective or objective, the latter being our agreement with God in thought, word, and deed.
The difference will have a significant bearing on your theory for, as many Trinitarians maintain, God's Logos is a hypostasis as the concept of the Father's thought of Himself within His intellect (and so within the divine substance)...
You are the only one I've ever encountered whom has ever known and said this. Kudos.
But no, it actually supports my formulaic. "Your" Trinity couldn't and didn't create and occupy heaven. It's all uni-phenomenal to represent a multi-phenomenal God.
...and the difference may be here: "God and His inherent Logos" whereas Trinitarians would say "God and His immanent Logos".
They actually say no such thing. But I'm glad you did; and I agree I should examine these comparative terms more scrutinously.
Immanent. Though I'd maybe prefer innate or intrinsic. I'll check to see. And no Trinitarian I've known would ever say the Son was God's immanent Logos.
As adjectives the difference between immanent and inherent is that immanent is naturally part of something; existing throughout and within something; inherent; integral; intrinsic; indwelling while inherent is naturally as part or consequence of something.
http://the-difference-between.com/inherent/immanent
And how is this immanent Logos the Son? Who spoke to create? How did God create and occupy heaven?
Here it seems we have a time when the Son was not and, thus, God was not Father. This is why I argued mutability before.
No to both. There is no time for the timeless God.
What is the essential difference between this and various forms of modalism?
They're all uni-phenomenal, which is why you presume the similarity. You think in uni-phenomenal parameters. Sheet of paper versus cube.
I'm familiar with them all so don't need a rundown but they all share the distinctive of non-hypostatic distinctions in God. Thus it would suffer from the same issues--when we get to the Incarnation, it seems we have a phenomenon becoming Incarnate who then must receive subsistence from His humanity. Which does a number on Chalcedon, assuming one holds to it.
Not at all. But Chalcedon is uni-phenomenal, too.
Not sure what you mean here. Procession is understood within the being of God prior to creation.
Yes, which is a nice handy way to disannul the ex-/ek- prefix as external instead of internal as posited. Ekporeuomai is not internal, nor is exerchomai.
Creation isn't even relevant (in this regard, but it does provide the solid foundation for and in the economy), nor does it need to be.
Only when you begin the formulaic post-creation and then say it isn't relevant because it was left out.
Well maybe because there is
. So why not just go for it?
Nope. No uni-phenomenal Gorilla-glued conjoined triplets for me. I gotta go with the multi-phenomenal truth that has been omitted for nearly two millennia; and its replacement has fostered every manner of splintered division and dilution, including rampant Tritheism conceptualization.
Thanks for the exchange--enjoying it.
My humble return of those sentiments.
