ECT Our triune God

[1Mind1Spirit]

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.

There is still a glaring hole in yer thoughts here.

For you cannot reconcile it when compared to scripture.

You tried and epically failed when you said Paul was talking about translated believers.

For Paul is implying that there is nothing outside of God.



Acts 17:28 KJV


28 For in him we live , and move , and have our being ; as certain also of your own poets have said , For we are also his offspring.


As the son is Himself, all creation is outside of Him.

:idea:

Now you should be able to begin to see where we are translated from.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

There is still a glaring hole in yer thoughts here.

For you cannot reconcile it when compared to scripture.

You tried and epically failed when you said Paul was talking about translated believers.

For Paul is implying that there is nothing outside of God.



Acts 17:28 KJV


28 For in him we live , and move , and have our being ; as certain also of your own poets have said , For we are also his offspring.


As the son is Himself, all creation is outside of Him.

:idea:

Now you should be able to begin to see where we are translated from.

Good grief. Sigh.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Good grief.

Thank you.:first:

Sigh.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

...So according to you the Lord Jesus remained exactly the same when He went from having one nature to two! You still cannot see that is illogical...etc etc

Yikes!

Do you think that when Our Lord was walking the earth the second Person of the Trinity was no longer omnipresent, instead being confined to the earthy realm for thirty-three years or so?

Do you take issue with the following:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

The mystical union of the divine and the human natures is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

AMR

 

[Soror1]

The intellect is the guard dog, not the discerner...

To KNOW God IS Life Eternal...

It means oneness in, and union with, God...


It is the core of the person, beneath his ousia, and the nous is its eye, discerning identities... But in fallen man, the nous is scattered into the head, and it is the descent of the nous into the heart that is the object of discipleship... And this is done by God, in a purified heart, made pure by obedience within the discipleship of the Body of our Lord.

Okay--I understand. So here in a human being "nous" is the discerner, "intellect" the guard dog, and heart an aspect of the soul.

Here's this from Orthodox Wiki - "The nous as the eye of the soul, which some Fathers also call the heart, is the center of man and is where true (spiritual) knowledge is validated. This is seen as true knowledge which is "implanted in the nous as always co-existing with it."[2]"

Maybe since it is so specific to human beings, that's why I prefer "intellect" when speaking of God, apart from "mind" with its attendant new-age baggage. So in this respect when I say intellect of God you can understand me to mean nous.

He is all these and the Creator of them, but DIS-embodied? Wopuld you settle for NON-embodied, except in the Incarnation?

Yes, I most certainly would! You are quite right--that was imprecise.

Seeing prosopon as Essence with Moses meet with God?

Yes, and never mind essence, God even told Moses that no one could see His face and live.

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”​

A couple of places--here's one:

That would seem to mean that BY MEANS OF the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon the House of Israel, the Lord God [the pre-Incarnate Christ] will be REVEALING His Face... eg It doesn't seem to mean the Holy Spirit or the Father has a face we can know...​

Well we can't see the Father's face this side of heaven, but we know He has one for the reason above and

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.​

It is Essence referring to God qua God on the Mount with Moses... That is from the Fathers...

I would think they meant "seeing" a part of His essence through what God was showing Moses in that passage and, in this case, goodness:

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” 21 And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”​

I don't think any Father would claim that Moses saw (or we could see) His entire essence.

We do seem to have some terminology issues...

ousia, prosopon, physis, hypostasis, for instance...

Wealth, Face, Nature, Person...

What Greek word are we going to translate by the English term ESSENCE ??

Aristotle defined, nay termed essence as "to ti estan einai".

Literally: "The what it was being to be..."

The terms are often used variously according to which Greek is using them and when...

Even with the same guy in the same paper...

So Schnartz can be elusive to know here...

Arsenios

Who doesn't know Schnartz...

LOL, I agree.

If we wanted to be purely Scriptural at the parable level we'd translate ousia/essence as "wealth"--the wealth/essence/ousia of the Father being is His be-ing (not being). And oh what marvelous things unfold when you consider that in the parable of the prodigal son!

11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property [ousia, your be-ing] that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property [ousia, be-ing] between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property [be-ing] in reckless living...​

 

[fzappa13]

If we wanted to be purely Scriptural at the parable level we'd translate ousia/essence as "wealth"--the wealth/essence/ousia of the Father being is His be-ing (not being). And oh what marvelous things unfold when you consider that in the parable of the prodigal son!

11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property [ousia, your be-ing] that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property [ousia, be-ing] between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property [be-ing] in reckless living...​

Finally.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

So according to this, the Lord Jesus originally existed with only one nature and then at some point in time He took on another entirely nature but He experienced no change!

I knew that you Calvinists believe some strange things but this tops them all.

 

[Arsenios]

Finally.

:thumb:

A.

 

[Arsenios]

So according to this, the Lord Jesus originally existed with only one nature and then at some point in time He took on another entirely nature but He experienced no change!

I knew that you Calvinists believe some strange things but this tops them all.

So Jer' -

Was Adam First Man?
Or was it Christ?

I always thought Christ was the SECOND Adam...
And Adam was First Man...

The first fell...
The Second did not...

Was Adam the Son of God?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So according to this, the Lord Jesus originally existed with only one nature and then at some point in time He took on another entirely nature but He experienced no change!

I knew that you Calvinists believe some strange things but this tops them all.

And please tell me:

What does God ADD to His "experience" by becoming man whom He created?

Fallen man can know NOTHING about God's "experience"...

BECAUSE...

God does not suffer EXPERIENCES...

He is their Creator...

"Vanity, Vanity...
There is nothing New
Under the sun..."

Are you really suggesting that Christ experienced something NEW by His taking on of human flesh, blood and soul???

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Okay--I understand. So here in a human being "nous" is the discerner, "intellect" the guard dog, and heart an aspect of the soul.

The Heart is the Center, the Core, of the psuche, and the intellect is the faculty of soul that deals with material existence, which means, in neptic terms, is the guardian of the heart, when the person enters the closet of the soul, and closes the door to the senses... The nous is the eye of the heart, discerning identities... A Janus kind of eye, that can be turned pros ton theon, or pros ton kosmon... The Fall of Adam, darkening the heart, darkened the nous of man, so that now, in order to discern good and evil, he must regain God's Grace that gives him the Gift of Discernment, which Grace is given to the Nous...

Here's this from Orthodox Wiki - "The nous as the eye of the soul, which some Fathers also call the heart, is the center of man and is where true (spiritual) knowledge is validated. This is seen as true knowledge which is "implanted in the nous as always co-existing with it."[2]"

That formulaic is about as sloppy as my own...

OK - Go clean up the coffee...

That was n-o-t that funny, OK?

Maybe since it is so specific to human beings, that's why I prefer "intellect" when speaking of God, apart from "mind" with its attendant new-age baggage. So in this respect when I say intellect of God you can understand me to mean nous.

The baggage of intellect is "intellectual" and entails powers of ratiocination plus memory... A word-processor with gigs... We have simply gone to the Greek term 'nous' anymore - Which I understand internally as the mind anterior to thoughts and images and sensations... For Hellen Keller, just the latter...

Yes, I most certainly would! You are quite right--that was imprecise.

Imprecision, the mother of...

Yes, and never mind essence, God even told Moses that no one could see His face and live.

That is why the Fathers all interpret the passage as meaning Essence by the term Prosopon...

20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.”​

I think there is some deep hiddeness here, because when one encounters saints, their faces reflect their essence - Ugly old mugs take on a radiance of beauty that is hard to look upon - Moses being the Proto-Typos...

Well we can't see the Father's face this side of heaven, but we know He has one for the reason above and

“See that you do not despise one of these little ones. For I tell you that in heaven their angels always see the face of my Father who is in heaven.​

Nor can we see the Prosopon of the Logos this side of the grave, but only of the Incarnate Christ... And after the Ascension, only in the faces of His Holy Ones, where even a passing shadow can bring healing...

I would think they meant "seeing" a part of His essence through what God was showing Moses in that passage and, in this case, goodness:

Well, the "Face" had to pass from sight, and the "Backward Parts" were what lit Moses up in his facial radiance...

18 Moses said, “Please show me your glory.” 19 And he said, “I will make all my goodness pass before you and will proclaim before you my name ‘The Lord.’ And I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show mercy on whom I will show mercy. 20 But,” he said, “you cannot see my face, for man shall not see me and live.” 21 And the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand on the rock, 22 and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by. 23 Then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back, but my face shall not be seen.”​

I don't think any Father would claim that Moses saw (or we could see) His entire essence.

They ALL say, to a man, woman and schnartzian child of them, that Moses did NOT see ANY of His ESSENCE... God's Hand of Mercy covered the eyes of Moses until AFTER His Face could no longer be seen...

If we wanted to be purely Scriptural at the parable level...

? ? ? IF ? ? ?

That is a VERY big Greek word, dontchaknow...

we'd translate ousia/essence as "wealth"--

Which is what it is...

Essence is to ti estan einai, where ti = wealth

the wealth/essence/ousia of the Father being is His be-ing (not being).

It is all one, I know... But God does not permit us, out of His Love for us, to 'see' His Prosopon... Yet He DOES permit us to see His "Backward Parts" which lit up Moses' face like a Time's Square Christmas Tree...

And oh what marvelous things unfold when you consider that in the parable of the prodigal son!

Big Time!

11 And he said, “There was a man who had two sons. 12 And the younger of them said to his father, ‘Father, give me the share of property [ousia, your be-ing] that is coming to me.’ And he divided his property [ousia, be-ing] between them. 13 Not many days later, the younger son gathered all he had and took a journey into a far country, and there he squandered his property [be-ing] in reckless living...​

Triple AMEN kudos!

But the Father did not give the prodigal His Essence, but only His Ousia/Wealth... Which was squandered...

Essence, you see, CANNOT be squandered...

Not the Divine Essence...

Hence the Cherubim guarding the Garden with its Tree of Life...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yikes!

Do you think that when Our Lord was walking the earth the second Person of the Trinity was no longer omnipresent, instead being confined to the earthy realm for thirty-three years or so?

Do you take issue with the following:

Our Lord was fully God and fully man in an indissoluble union whereby the second person of the Trinity assumed a human nature that cannot be separated, divided, mixed, or confused.

One can best understand this mystical union (together united in one subsistence and in one single person) by examining what it is not, thus from the process of elimination determine what it must be.

This underlined is true, but is then employed narrowly and incompletely. For instance, I can agree about 1-3 and 5-11, with my position not be remotely associated with Dynamic Monarchianism and instead eschewing it also.

The mystical union of the divine and the human natures is not:

1. a denial that our Lord was truly God (Ebionites, Elkasites, Arians);
2. a dissimilar or different substance (anomoios) with the Father (semi-Arianism);
3. a denial that our Lord had a genuine human soul (Apollinarians);
4. a denial of a distinct person in the Trinity (Dynamic Monarchianism);
5. God acting merely in the forms of the Son and Spirit (Modalistic Monarchianism/Sabellianism/United Pentecostal Church);
6. a mixture or change when the two natures were united (Eutychianism/Monophysitism);
7. two distinct persons (Nestorianism);
8. a denial of the true humanity of Christ (docetism);
9. a view that God the Son laid aside all or some of His divine attributes (kenoticism);
10. a view that there was a communication of the attributes between the divine and human natures (Lutheranism, with respect to the Lord's Supper); and
11. a view that our Lord existed independently as a human before God entered His body (Adoptionism).

AMR

There is much more to this than eliminating a few things, though the above is certainly valid.

The entirety of these considerations is uni-phenomenal, presuming not to have to account for the uncreated God creating and inhabiting creation while also remaining utterly and eternally transcendent to creation.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

And please tell me:

What does God ADD to His "experience" by becoming man whom He created?

According to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature. And then when He took on another He did not experience any change.

I used the word "experience" as a verb and not as a noun, as you imagine. One of the meanings of that word as a verb is "undergo" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

So what I said means:

According to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature. And then when He took on another He did not undergo any change.​

That idea defies common sense.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

:thumb:

A.

This is hillerical.:rotfl:

The dude Zappa affirmed, actually confirmed what I've been trying to get thru yer thick head for weeks.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Be-ing, not Being.

 

[Soror1]

Actually, it was a self-portrait...



Demonstrably true...



Miss... Orthodox etiology is God...



Jer' is a serious guy - He probably does not see himself as heavy handed...



Israel is safe, and Egypt is needed for the 3 hour trip to St. Katherine's monastery where they still water the burning bush... [It is huge, and invasive, and cuttings can grow...]

And there are other monasteries where old men abide in deep prayer... Further up the Nile to the south... More dangerous places these... Rural Islam can get ugly...

Arsenios

Okay, this doesn't necessarily require a reply other than to say that I want you to know that when I read your comments or posts that don't (necessarily require a reply), 50% of the time I am laughing and the other 50% of the time I am listening in rapt attention...

 

[Arsenios]

According to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature. And then when He took on another He did not experience any change.

He experienced His creation from the human perspective...

Do you think He was experiencing something NEW to Him?

In a human way, He BECAME His Creation...

Do you think he experienced anything NEW to Him?

Because CHANGE means FROM what is, TO what was not...

And the first thing I would say to you is that you do not know schnartz about God's Divine experience. And may I hasten to add, neither do I... So that by saying God BECAME man, we are indeed affirming in human terms that God changed from being God to becoming God AND man...

If THAT is your point, you have it, and perhaps we can move on...

But IF you are going to insist on your humanistic interpretation of this event into terms of "GOD'S EXPERIENCES" or "GOD EXPERIENCING", of which you do not and can not know anything, then we have to part company...

I used the word "experience" as a verb and not as a noun, as you imagine.

Ear-religious of anything I may or may not be imagining, YOU do not know schnartz about God's experiencing anything...

One of the meanings of that word as a verb is "undergo" (Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary).

You still cannot speak for God...

So what I said means:

According to you the Lord Jesus originally had only one nature. And then when He took on another He did not undergo any change.​

That idea defies common sense.

Aaaaaaahhhhhhh....

Common sense....

OK...

I get it now...

You NEED some common sense...

NOW I get it...

So here you are...

Common Sense 101

God, by His Divine Nature, created ALL natures...

He entered INTO one of them, the human...

So do YOU think He experienced any change?

And the answer is that the Person of God the Logos did not...

But the Nature of the Man Jesus Christ sure did...

And in this humanity, the Person of Christ did not change...

Instead, the Nature of Man changed in His Person...

Glad you asked...

It is a One Way Street, you see...

He entered creation to renew it, and not to "experience change", as you seem so wedded to insisting...

And another thing - "Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever" states YESTERDAY, and does not state: "From eternity..." It is not a discussion of the eternal Nature of God... It is a statement of the permanence of what Christ did...

The Eternal became temporal, without changing the eternal...

Can you spell M-Y-S-T-E-R-I-O-N ??

Stay with us - You can recover!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Okay, this doesn't necessarily require a reply other than to say that I want you to know that when I read your comments or posts that don't (necessarily require a reply), 50% of the time I am laughing and the other 50% of the time I am listening in rapt attention...

Well, at least then you are maybe half right...

The kids around here laugh themselves to tears...

So they are getting closer to reality...

Truth be told, I see you as a kind of tag-team partner, so akin are our understandings... I rough 'em up a little, do the tag, and step back while you rough 'em up some more, and back and forth...

No vanity at all, mind you!!

:nono:

HUSH!

A.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Well, at least then you are maybe half right...

The kids around here laugh themselves to tears...

So they are getting closer to reality...

Truth be told, I see you as a kind of tag-team partner, so akin are our understandings... I rough 'em up a little, do the tag, and step back while you rough 'em up some more, and back and forth...

No vanity at all, mind you!!

:nono:

HUSH!

A.

Truth is yer inverted reality has you in delusion.

Yer supposed partner has jumped off the top rail and plastered you to the mat.

:smack:

 

[fzappa13]

This is hillerical.:rotfl:

The dude Zappa affirmed, actually confirmed what I've been trying to get thru yer thick head for weeks.

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Be-ing, not Being.

If we've got 4 of us in the same zip code here it might be time for Knight to build a tabernacle or something.

 

[Soror1]

Good evening, PPS!

Right. But don't then forget the accompanying innate eternal phenomenality underlying that eternal noumenality.

I'll try not to but you defined noumenon as "that which is conceived in the mind, but does not have any objective existence" so how can nothing (?) have any phenomenon?

I think if you define "objective existence" that would help.

It was verbatim lexicography from Zodhiates. I was quoting, not making an argument.

Interesting. I would like to see the full treatment if you can direct me anywhere on-line since the way I'd view phenomenon, it would have an underlying existence and Zodhiates confirms with "Therefore, phainomai is often synonymous with eimi, to be, and ginomai, to become."

It doesn't have to BE a distinct hypostasis, but presupposes a hypostasis as its underlying reality of existence.

Okay--think I got it.

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.

Okay--getting closer (I think) to what you mean by noumenon and objective existence. The Logos as noumenon remains in the Father's mind, so-to-speak (until you get into processions as you describe them)?

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.

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.

I don't see how a self-conscious subject in any form isn't a hypostasis.

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.

The economic processions.

Ad intra, ad extra...

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.

No void. The Father is thinking thought of Himself (the Son/Logos) and the Spirit proceeds as love (or will) internally (is one model).

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.

I understand that's your position, but it's not mine. I have a subject/center of action (and like you, the subject is self-conscious) in the Logos--a hypostasis.

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.

Got it. So the Logos has no prosopon/presence until creation. Disagree, but I think I got the distinction between phenomenon and prosopon as you're using them.

Because that doesn't address multi-phenomenality.

I think the least we can say about prosopon/presence is that it is certainly a phenomenon which may (or may not be according to your definition) seen.

Directly in scripture, I can see how any of the historical formulaics were delineated. Prosopon isn't addressed much, nor is phaino.

They're there--and when they appear they are heavy and pregnant with meaning.

But I would still like to see "phenomenon" and "noumenon" as used in Scripture, if at all. I'll do some browsing around.

Nous is preeminently an intuitive faculty, and there would be the intuiting OF "whatever". Intellect is a secondary functionality of the nous.

Okay--I can accept the use of "mind" in discussions with those who don't drag along any New Age junk. (I'll probably continue to use intellect (btw, that's how Aquinas translated nous in Latin--intellectus) so you'll forgive me I'm sure. )

Aseity is a vague term. Vaguery is the problem overall. I delineate Aseity into Perseconsciosity, Persephainoity, and Persesatisity. (Self-Consciousness, Self-Existence, Self-Sufficiency.)

Potat-o, potaht-o, LOL! (Not at all but okay.) I'll think "aseity" since it's short and sweet and try to remember you add "perseconsciosity" (wow!), i.e., self-consciousness.

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.

We may have to agree to just disagree here. Logos is seriously elastic with a huge semantic range. And if we look at the historical environment John was writing in and how he may have understood it, we'd find the notion of Logos leans even further than either of us are going here toward a fairly concrete personal existence.

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.

Well thank you! But sure He did!

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..

Sure they do--google it.

And how is this immanent Logos the Son? Who spoke to create? How did God create and occupy heaven?

By being the Father's thought of Himself in hypostasis. The Father spoke through the Son. Economic processions.

No to both. There is no time for the timeless God.

You have a potentiality in God becoming an actuality concurrent with creation. If God didn't create, the Son wouldn't have proceeded. Trinitarianism straight-up doesn't have that problem.

They're all uni-phenomenal, which is why you presume the similarity. You think in uni-phenomenal parameters. Sheet of paper versus cube.

Not at all. But Chalcedon is uni-phenomenal, too.

Not thinking in uni-phenomenal(ity?) at all. Each hypostasis has its own proper prosopon with it's own proper phenomenon.

In your view, there is no hypostasis of the Son to unite with human nature and give it subsistence. The only hypostasis is the Father. So in your words tell me what, exactly, was incarnate and became man.

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.

Just like you have a thought in your mind, it's within you and not external. You have internal operations.

Only when you begin the formulaic post-creation and then say it isn't relevant because it was left out.

The formulation is manifestly not post-creation.

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.

LOL--there is no need whatsoever to imagine 3 people. I would (and do) share your distaste for "social Trinitarian" views and analogies. I would bet I am just as disturbed at Rublev's Trinity (http://www.belygorod.ru/img2/Ikona/Used/017rublev troitsa.jpg) as you are.

Think merely "center of action" for hypostasis.

My humble return of those sentiments.

Thanks.