ECT Our triune God

[fzappa13]

In the most over-arching sense, tov ("good") means functional. And ra'a is negation or privation as dys-/mal-/non-function.

Ra'a is the latent quality within functionality that can be brought forth by addition as subtraction. Functionality, by it's very condition must have potentiality for negation of degrees of functionality. It's a qualitative consideration (anarthrous) rather than quantitative.

In one were to picture a mechanism with intricate functionality, such as gears and other moving parts; if one were to add a wrench (or whatever object) to the mechanism, it would subtract functionality.

A car being totally functional would have a change in that condition if sugar were added to the fuel tank (and thus introduced to the internal combustion process of the engine). This addition subtracts from function.

The serpent added to God's words, negating them in a pattern that induced deception. Eve, rather than refusing to listen and adhering to God's words, communicated with the serpent and heard another word. This horizontal external communication abrogated vertical internal constant communion of spiritual life (zoe) with/from God, and thus was the spiritual death (thanatos - cessation of communion with environment of origin) that resulted in the condition of sin (as a noun), the wages of which would be physical death (again, thanatos as cessation of communion for the body and its environment of origin - this cosmos).

Ra'a indirectly comes from tov if tov is added to for subtraction. God creates ra'a in that He created the functionality that gets un-ed or non-ed by adding for negation.

There's much more, but that's a brief summary.

Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; Today at 01:51 PM.

Some folks might be inclined to quibble with your definition of "brief".

 

[fzappa13]

Adam and Eve did not change, the environment changed.

Satan also was created, so who threw the wrench into his cogs?

I thinkin' maybe it all changed at that point.

 

[Nihilo]

"What manner of man is this, that even the wind and the sea obey him?"

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Some folks might be inclined to quibble with your definition of "brief".

Yeah, everything and everyone has been so dumbed-down, the equivalent of a short newspaper article is now considered voluminous. 6 small paragraphs, 14 sentences. It was almost like War and Peace. LOL.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Hard to say.

I'm not into the accepted theological definitions of hypostasis or hypostatic union.

The way Christ has manifested himself to me defies putting a name on it.

Well... The Son is the Logos of God; so if one's own logos cannot express such an encounter in biblical terms from the inspired text, then I've gotta wonder about such methods.

 

[fzappa13]

Yeah, everything and everyone has been so dumbed-down, the equivalent of a short newspaper article is now considered voluminous. 6 small paragraphs, 14 sentences. It was almost like War and Peace. LOL.

When I first got here I used to post the occasional 40 page tome. :nono: Hard to believe I used to be so naive as to believe someone might actually read the thing.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

PS. Leave it alone. It is of no "consequence" whether or not that is true. It is a "so what?"

OMT: Jesus is not yet sitting on His Father's Throne. More things are yet to be accomplished by Him, a one thousand year reign on Earth being one of them which will sound the death knell to sin, death and the law of the flesh.

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

 

[Cross Reference]

Rev 3:21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

I understand and agree with all of that. Being apprehended by it is a matter that requires more than any argument to persuade can produce. It cannot do what only a personal hunger for righteousness can do. No one can take anyone else to that point where they can understand their own disposition, their own lack. . . . .But God.

 

[Cross Reference]

Revelation 5:5
I have no idea why you are thinking Jesus was naught but a glorified man. It is stuff like this that had you on ignore in the first place. In what sense are you triune?

What would you say to this, given your persuasion: Were Jesus in the power of his Godhead [preincarnate Word] to withdraw from suffering in the flesh, all flesh would be lost. The question I ask centers on what the criteria had to be in order for sin to be canceled out as scriptures point out, i.e., "By one man . . . . "


Do you agree that in the hour of his temptation the manifest presence of God [Word] withdrew from him leaving him with his flesh, his faith, his allegiance and the written word of God, which are as one within him, to be tested? (cf Ps. 38.10 KJV)

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Well... The Son is the Logos of God; so if one's own logos cannot express such an encounter in biblical terms from the inspired text, then I've gotta wonder about such methods.

Parables come to mind.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

What would you say to this, given your persuasion: Were Jesus in the power of his Godhead [preincarnate Word] to withdraw from suffering in the flesh, all flesh would be lost. The question I ask centers on what the criteria had to be in order for sin to be canceled out as scriptures point out, i.e., "By one man . . . . "




Do you agree that in the hour of his temptation the manifest presence of God [Word] withdrew from him leaving him with his flesh, his faith, his allegiance and the written word of God, which are as one within him, to be tested? (cf Ps. 38.10 KJV)

I see having the choice he made that much better knowing he could ask his Father for them war angels, he didn't have to bring us to the place where God becomes all in all, he coulda kept that part of God for himself.

And until he hands the kingdom back that is still not given to us in it's entirety.

Not only that, if God took away that option, (asking for war angels) there would be no decision to be made.

Nor would he be laying down his life himself.

Where do you come up with these ideas?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

OMT: Jesus is not yet sitting on His Father's Throne.

His father's throne is in Jesus.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

deleted

 

[Cross Reference]

I see having the choice he made that much better knowing he could ask his Father for them war angels, he didn't have to bring us to the place where God becomes all in all, he coulda kept that part of God for himself.

And until he hands the kingdom back that is still not given to us in it's entirety.

Not only that, if God took away that option, (asking for war angels) there would be no decision to be made.

Nor would he be laying down his life himself.

Where do you come up with these ideas?

Where do you get your unlearned replies?

 

[Cross Reference]

His father's throne is in Jesus.

. . . . another one.

 

[Cross Reference]

Well... The Son is the Logos of God; so if one's own logos cannot express such an encounter in biblical terms from the inspired text, then I've gotta wonder about such methods.

And I gotta wonder about your definition of what is an inspired text, given your understanding.

If the Logos of God was God, how is it He was God's son? Who was His mother? Did the Logos die? Could He even bleed? Do you think he ever had to use the bathroom? <good grief>

 

[Lon]

Well, I am not expecting you to follow his lead. How 'bout some answers, some replies re who was Jesus and why it was that God couldn't read the scroll? Do you and Lon want everyone here know that you don't know?

Er, it was probably snarky lines like this that had me ignoring you as well as wondering about your orthodoxy.

I will continue to believe you are orthodox by your own self-profession. As far as God not being able to open the seal? I already said He was. Jesus was God. οὐδεὶς means 'no man' yes?

And I gotta wonder about your definition of what is an inspired text, given your understanding.

If the Logos of God was God, how is it He was God's son? Who was His mother? Did the Logos die? Could He even bleed? Do you think he ever had to use the bathroom? <good grief>

You need to come out with it and either embrace or depart from the triune view. This thread is only meant for those who are triune. In-house debate? Absolutely. Can you explain your position in a few paragraphs here, please?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

And I gotta wonder about your definition of what is an inspired text, given your understanding.

If the Logos of God was God, how is it He was God's son? Who was His mother? Did the Logos die? Could He even bleed? Do you think he ever had to use the bathroom? <good grief>

For a beginning, if you understood Greek articular and anarthrous noun constructs, you'd recognize that John 1:1 utilizes both (as evidenced by the JWs and their ridiculous translation of Theos anarthrous).

In the beginning (an) was the Word (art), and the Word (art) was with God (art), and the Word (art) was God (an).

(art) = articular
(an) = anarthrous

It also helps to know the immeasurable qualitative depth/breadth/height of the definitions for Logos and Rhema, among many other Greek terms that are nominalized in English and skimmed.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

For a beginning, if you understood Greek articular and anarthrous noun constructs, you'd recognize that John 1:1 utilizes both (as evidenced by the JWs and their ridiculous translation of Theos anarthrous).

In the beginning (an) was the Word (art), and the Word (art) was with God (art), and the Word (art) was God (an).

(art) = articular
(an) = anarthrous

It also helps to know the immeasurable qualitative depth/breadth/height of the definitions for Logos and Rhema, among many other Greek terms that are nominalized in English and skimmed.

So you are saying simple people cannot know the truth..

LA

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So you are saying simple people cannot know the truth..

LA

Sigh. No. But simplicity in English is not what haplotes means in Greek.

The Christian faith is ontological, epistemological, and methodological; not just the last of those.

Are you saying that "simple" people readily know all the depth, breadth, and height of all that God teaches by His Word and Spirit?

Since when do English words determine the meaning of Greek words? That's not the direction of translation.

A "simple" person could see the "simple" truth and fact that the Greek and English languages are structurally and semantically different in ways and by degree.

English speakers have no direct understanding of what Greek anarthrous nouns mean. A "simple" person could recognize that "simple" information, even if they did not know the scope of what it means.

"Simple" people could not and did not translate scripture into English. It was linguists and philologists. Would you want a "simple" non-linguist to translate scripture and trust the result?

There's a difference between basic understanding and explicit understanding.

It takes about 20 minutes of live teaching for someone to get "that look" on their face and say to me "I am already realizing I don't know what anything in scripture really means." Happens EVERY time. Then they unlearn and learn at the same time.

It happened to me. It's still happening to me.