1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
This is what I've said all along.
It is you who have strayed from it with yer ramblings of God having to create and that he only had himself to think about.:kookoo:
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
This is what I've said all along.
It is you who have strayed from it with yer ramblings of God having to create and that he only had himself to think about.:kookoo:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Agreed.
What's that got to do with the order of things?
It is through gnosis(knowledge) and epignosis(experiential knowledge) that we come to comprehend the oiuda.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
This just emphasizes that you've not understood anything I've said for a very long time.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Actually, it is oida included with gnosis for epignosis.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
That was my first thought.
Then I was reminded from my epignosis of an even more informative answer.:idea:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Do you think the light is a reference to His deity or not?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No! As I demonstrated, people can also be described as sons of light:
"While you have the light, believe in the light, that you may become sons of light."
The Father was speaking through the Lord Jesus as a prophet and as a man and His words served as a "light" to the world.
You still have not given any proof whatsoever that when the Lord Jesus spoke as being the "Son of Man" that anyone thought that He was referring to being God.
On the other hand, when the Jews heard Him refer to Himself as the "Son of God" they knew that He was referring to Himself as God.
I am amazed that you could possibly be confused about such a simple concept.
A stampede--holding some of your horses back... 
(for now)
Okay, to me this is obvious as it is essentially right there in Genesis (and I understand the distinction you are making).
And I can agree with this in some sense as applied to the Son. But what I think I see here is a challenge to Classical Theism--more specifically omnipresence, when coupled with this:
"But God's innate hypostasis is not intrinsically compatible with created phenomena, maintaining His unchanging transcendent attributes in creation."
Are you trying to synthesize the two--how God could be in creation and transcendent to it?
Can you start with applying rhema and logos to the human being without reference to God?
And can you explain what you mean by the "subjective" used twice above?
Thank you!
(for now)Okay, to me this is obvious as it is essentially right there in Genesis (and I understand the distinction you are making).
And I can agree with this in some sense as applied to the Son. But what I think I see here is a challenge to Classical Theism--more specifically omnipresence, when coupled with this:
"But God's innate hypostasis is not intrinsically compatible with created phenomena, maintaining His unchanging transcendent attributes in creation."
Are you trying to synthesize the two--how God could be in creation and transcendent to it?
Can you start with applying rhema and logos to the human being without reference to God?
And can you explain what you mean by the "subjective" used twice above?
Thank you!
So you don't think that light has anything to do with this light?
5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
:surf:
A lot.
No. Gnosis is present and fragmentary experiential knowledge. Epignosis is clear and exact experiential knowledge. Oida is intuitive knowledge of communion by the Spirit.
A lot.
No. Gnosis is present and fragmentary experiential knowledge. Epignosis is clear and exact experiential knowledge. Oida is intuitive knowledge of communion by the Spirit.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Why do you not pay attention? I said:
The Father was speaking through the Lord Jesus as a prophet and as a man and His words served as a "light" to the world.
Do you not believe that humans can be a light? If not, then please explain what the Lord Jesus said about Jerusalem:
"Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid. Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven" (Mt.5:14-16).
Once again your little theory goes down in flames. Nothing you said proves that the Lord Jesus as Man cannot possibly be the Light.
You still have not given any proof whatsoever that when the Lord Jesus spoke as being the "Son of Man" that anyone thought that He was referring to being God.
On the other hand, when the Jews heard Him refer to Himself as the "Son of God" they knew that He was referring to Himself as God.
I am amazed that you could possibly be confused about such a simple concept.
What I am trying (and apparently failing miserably...) to do is to help you see other facets of His deity--including other admissions of deity--so you do not have such a one-dimensional Jesus that needs to bark out "I am the Son of God" to be believed that He is.
What He is doing is tying together son of man as man, Son of Man as in Daniel, Lord, and Christ--as all coalescing in The Son of God.
He is leading everyone to understand that the Messiah must be Deity.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
A stampede--holding some of your horses back...
Well.. It's not really holding me back, but others who have never understood multi-phenomenality.
Most quickly acquiesce to this, though having never considered it previously.
And classical Theism is uni-phenomenal. Since God is innately both noumenal and phenomenal Spirit, He IS omnipresent once wheres are created.
No. I'm demonstrating it precisely. God is eternally transcendent AND omnipresent within creation (heaven and the cosmos) once He creates all where/s, when/s, and what/s.
Rhema > Logos > Rhema
When we think and express, it's logos. The objective rhema is the thing we're thinking and speaking about by the subjective resulting rhema as the words. This is by language (dialektos, from lego).
Language conveys the subjective estimate of thought as expression in words (rhema). The thing thought and spoken about is the objective reality that is subjectively realized in words.
Objective rhema would be, for instance, an object with a hard cover and pages. The thought and expression would be the logos. The subjective rhema would be the word "book" in English. In the Greek language, the object(ive) would be expressed by that language with the word "biblios" as the subject(ive).
And can you explain what you mean by the "subjective" used twice above?
Thank you!
This would be a good descriptor to start.
The terms “objectivity” and “subjectivity,” in their modern usage, generally relate to a perceiving subject (normally a person) and a perceived or unperceived object. The object is something that presumably exists independent of the subject’s perception of it. In other words, the object would be there, as it is, even if no subject perceived it. Hence, objectivity is typically associated with ideas such as reality, truth and reliability.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Are you not aware that is not the only way which He made it known that He is God? And no one would have ever imagined that when He referred to Himself as "Son of Man" that He was saying that He was God. But despite that you are trying to prove that when the Lord Jesus was referred to as "Son of Man" in these verses the term referred to Him being God:
"And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven" (Jn.3:13).
It was as Man that the Lord Jesus came down from heaven. That means that He was Man before He was born of Mary. And these words of the Lord Jesus teaches practically the same thing:
"What and if ye shall see the Son of man ascend up where he was before?" (Jn.6:62).
If the Lord Jesus wanted to express the idea that it was as God that He ascended where He was before He certainly would not have used the term "Son of Man."
But that is exactly what you want us to believe.
I have already shown that when the term "Son of Man" is used at Daniel 7 the term is in regard to His humanity. And you did not even attempt to respond to what I said.
What evidence can you give to support that idea. Here the LORD certainly expressed the idea that the Messiah who will sit upon the throne of David will be a man:
"The LORD hath sworn in truth unto David; he will not turn from it; Of the fruit of thy body will I set upon thy throne" (Ps.132:11).
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Nope.
Gnosis is to think one knows something.
Experiential knowledge is ACTUALLY communing with the Spirit.
Yer idea of ouida is that mere men can go beyond what God communes with each individual, which is why I and Paul affirm that God's foolishness is wiser than men.
Rather than knowing, you are still thinking you know more than has been given to you.
I know why it sucks and you said not cool, but deal with it, as all of us must.
Intuiting is for those who do not possess their souls in patience.
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
I'm gonna stick with the verbatim lexicography I posted, since it's correct. Epi- is an intensive prefix for gnosis.
Gnosis and epignosis are acquistion.
Oida is access. It's a grammatical form of eido, perceptive sight.
Don't drag Paul into your conflation above.
And sophia (wisdom) is something else altogether.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Sorry bro, but I will always believe on the word of the Apostles.
20"I do not ask on behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word;
21that they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.…
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I also edited a little sumpthin' 'bout intuition, sorry you didn't see it before you posted, my bad.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Yes Sis.
And once again glad to see you over here.
The LORD the most high God said to my lord the almighty God, sit on my right hand till I make thine enemies thy footstool.
Last edited: