Then why don't you have this conversation in private? Because you need an audience before which you can parade you ever so superior knowledge. You have set yourself on a pedestal from which there is only one way down. You are a pitiful sight to behold.
Since you injected yourself herein, against your better judgment, :AMR:, it would seem to me the discussion has merit for the reader, especially myself, to learn perhaps a wee bit more about the stated sacred topic of the OP. I think the discussion between PPS and myself, that is, the actual intended participants, will be fruitful to the saints, bringing glory to God.
It was my hope and prayer that the thread would be left standing for he and I, but it was not to be. Whatever the motivations of others for ignoring my request, I do think that PPS took my request for a discussion as a venue for grandstanding. When PPS first appeared on the scene he may well have been impurely motivated, but, even if so, I think his presence here has tempered him and brought him to a different personal place, wherein his initial impatience with all manner of the usual tomfoolerly here and about has been replaced with a willingness to explain more and be more reticent.
Your own appearance at this site has been one of personal drum beating judgment without interruption. You have never extended any hint of being willing to enjoy discussion other than your own, nor have you shown any willingness to engage another in the spirit of being open to correction. Rather your presence has been "Thus sayeth Truster" followed by strident condemnation, positioning yourself as our regula fidei. Rather, I am confident the discerning see you for what you have set out to make of yourself--beam, eye, remove it.
I am well, but my wife is not, hence my absence in a thread where the prep work is significant. Working behind the scenes for these more laborious threads is all I can muster given the need to be nearby to minister to my wife's needs.
I am well, but my wife is not, hence my absence in a thread where the prep work is significant. Working behind the scenes for these more laborious threads is all I can muster given the need to be nearby to minister to my wife's needs.
1. God is a singular transcendent hypostasis underlying an ousia.
2. God's literal Logos and Pneuma, are the two-fold, singular, external, economic procession of His hypostasis into creation when and as He spoke to create.
3. God’s Logos and Pneuma, are intrinsically and ontologically divine and are qualitatively, rather than quantitatively distinct.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From huphistemi, to place or set under. In general, that which underlies the apparent, hence reality, essence, substance; that which is the basis of something, hence assurance, guarantee, confidence (with objective sense). Substance, what really exists under any appearance, reality, essential nature; therefore used for the basis or foundation, subsistence, existence.
The ground of confidence, assurance, guarantee, or proof; not fides but fiducia; standing in parallel to elegchos (G1650); certainty, proof, demonstration. Metonymically of that quality which leads one to stand under, endure, or undertake something; firmness, boldness, confidence.
Apophatically...
Hypostasis is not merely a responsive and/or subjective disposition of the mind by assent, or by/as self-application of the mind or will; though it metonymically refers to the ground of confidence and assurance which is faith. Hypostasis is not "person" in any English sense, considering faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; though the hypostasis includes traits and personal characteristics which represent the individuality of the hypostasis as distinct from the special (species) traits and general characteristics that are the physis of the ousia.
Functionally and Summarily...
The ousia (essence) as the being does not "have" the hypostasis; the hypostasis underlies the being as the unique and distinct individuality and particularity for the speciality (species-ality) of the essential being, and for the generality of speciality in the nature of the being; the hypostasis serving as the "who-ness" for the ousia as the "what-ness", with both outwardly presented by/as the prosopon. The hypostasis is not superimposed upon or from the ousia or its physis; but is substantial to the essential ousia and giving it stasis, and determines the quality of the physis.
The hypostasis is not superficially the "person", but is that which contributes traits and characteristics of individuated created phenomenology as personality for determining individuality for the generality that is the nature of the being; and for the intangible substance and essence (and its nature) to be demonstrated tangibly by/as/through the prosopon. The prosopon (being the tangible outward reality and personal presence/appearance for the entirety of the intangible substance, essence, and nature) "has" the hypostasis and the ousia/nature it underlies.
Hypostasis is that which stands under for foundational and objective reality of existence as subsistence; that which gives the undergirding for the static existence and nature of that which it underlies. The substrate for existence. The substantial for the essential being. The absolute assured foundational underlying substantial objective reality as subsistence for existence.
Elsewhere stated:
- Faith is a hypostasis.
- God's singular hypostasis (as the only thing for His Logos to think or speak about) IS His Rhema.
- That faith is a hypostasis, and it is the flow of God's pre-creational substance (hypostasis) via the Rhema, which brought the faith.
- Ousia is the being as essence. Hypostasis is individuality as substance. The former provides inherent ontology, while the latter provides economy.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From lego (G3004), to speak. Intelligence, a word as the expression of that intelligence. (Contrast lalia (G2981), to speak without necessarily saying anything intelligent or understanding it as such. Logos is the articulate utterance of human language. It can be unspoken as formulation of thought in the mind which in that case stands in contrast to phone (G5456), voice.
When the differentiation is between intelligent speech by man and unintelligent sounds by animals, the two contrasted words are logos and lalia. Logos, when it refers to discourse, is regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected arrangement of words of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind.
The animals produce sounds, laloun, while God and human beings produce thoughtful expressions, legoun. Laleo can express the opening of the mouth to speak, as opposed to remaining silent.
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ in His pre-incarnate state is called ho Logos, the Word, meaning first immaterial intelligence and then the expression of that intelligence in speech that humans could understand.
Logos is the expression of thought, while Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word or the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Logos is not merely the written word, though writing is an expression of Rhema via Logos in the same manner as speaking.
Functionally and Summarily...
Logos is the entirety of the faculties and functionalities of intellect, and if there is written or spoken expression it's also Logos. It's the wisely reasoned intelligent and rational ponderance, contemplation, and conceptual apprehension of subject matter for all expression. There are both Rhema and Logos in silence.
Elsewhere stated:
- Rhema is from reo-, to speak (relative also to reo-, to flow); and the suffix -ma, indicating "result of". God's Rhema is the resulting flow of His speaking the very substance of Himself by/through/as the Logos. Rhema is the sword, while Logos is the wielding or thrusting of that sword.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From ousia, being, which is the present participle feminine of eimi (G1510), to be. Entity, essence, substance, nature. In the NT, it means that which belongs to someone, or what he has; his substance, property, goods.
Also from the feminine of ousa, which is on (G5607). Being, it refers to existence. It does not, however, refer to the beginning of existence.
Eimi, to be, is the usual verb of existence, and also the usual logical copula or link, connecting subject and predicate. To be, to have existence; where the predicate specifies who or what a person or thing is in respect to nature, origin, office, condition, circumstances, state, place, habits, and disposition of mind. But this all lies in the predicate and not in the copula, which merely connects the predicate with the subject.
Apophatically...
Though the ousia does "have" the physis, the ousia does not "have" the hypostasis a la Neo-Platonism and (allegedly) Valentinian Gnosticism. The ousia is underlied by the hypostasis.
Functionally and Summarily...
Ousia is the special (species) designation of a being. It is the divinity for God as the "God-ness", or the humanity for man as the "human-ness". The ousia is the kind of "what-ness" that gives no designation or distinction between individuals of said species or kind of beings. The hypostasis designates all "who-ness" as it underlies the "what-ness" that is the ousia.
The ousia "has" the physis as the nature, and the quality of the nature is determined by the quality of the underlying hypostasis. Ousia and hypostasis are both intangible, and both are outwardly presented as/by the prosopon. The physis is the general traits and characteristics of the ousia, while the hypostasis is the personal and individual traits and characteristics that gives "who-ness" to the ousia "what-ness" for both to appear visibly and tangibly as the prosopon.
Elsewhere stated:
- Ousia has no economy whatsoever. It's immutable and cannot "become". It IS. All inherent attributes are relative to the nature (physis) of the being (ousia).
- Ousia is the being as essence. Hypostasis is individuality as substance. The former provides inherent ontology, while the latter provides economy.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From phuo (G5453), to bring forth. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition. Physis means nature, essence, essential constitution and order of God in the natural world. It also refers to species of living creatures. God's physis refers not to the divine essence, but to certain of God's attributes or divine qualities. The same is applicable to the human physis.
Apophatically...
The physis, unlike the ousia and hypostasis, is not considered to be able to be manifested directly in tangible visibility.
Functionally and Summarily...
Physis is the inherent qualities of the being. The nature, including that which reflects instinct.
PROSOPON (Person) [G4383]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From pros (G4314), toward, and ops, the eye or face. Literally, the part toward, at, or around the eye. Hence the face, countenance, presence, person. In general, that part of anything which is turned or presented to the eye of another; external or outward appearance.
Apophatically...
The prosopon is not merely the body (soma), including the inward reaching of connectedness to that which underlies as the intangible. As the body is conjoined to the soul, so is the prosopon conjoined to and "has" the hypostasis, which underlies the ousia which "has" the physis. Thus the prosopon is the complete outward representation and expression of substance, essence, and nature.
Functionally and Summarily...
Prosopon is face, presence, personal appearance, person. The outward personal presence and appearance of one in the sight of another.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From reo, to speak. A word spoken or uttered; a speech or sentence consisting of several words; a word or command of God; a report, account. Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word, the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Rhema is not merely the spoken word, though inseparable from Logos in that regard.
Functionally and Summarily...
Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about; the subject matter of thought and speech; the content for all context and concept; the substance that underlies the faculties and functionalities of all intellect and expression.
There is no Logos without Rhema, for without the substantial content of subject matter there can be no thought or expression (whether spoken or written).
Elsewhere stated:
- Rhema is that which is pointed to/at as/by ostension. And God's Rhema IS His hypostasis. The flow of the subject matter by intelligent expression as the Logos.
- Logos is the map. Rhema is the territory. Logos maps the territory, which is the Rhema.
- Faith cometh by hearing the Rhema.
- Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about.
- God's Rhema IS his (singular) hypostasis.
- God's singular hypostasis (as the only thing for His Logos to think or speak about) IS His Rhema.
- Rhema is from reo-, to speak (relative also to reo-, to flow); and the suffix -ma, indicating "result of". God's Rhema is the resulting flow of His speaking the very substance of Himself by/through/as the Logos. Rhema is the sword, while Logos is the wielding or thrusting of that sword.
I am well, but my wife is not, hence my absence in a thread where the prep work is significant. Working behind the scenes for these more laborious threads is all I can muster given the need to be nearby to minister to my wife's needs.
Let me further clarify this simple initial point. This was to contrast to God allegedly being three hypostases underlying the singular ousia. God has an inherent transcendent prosopon, for every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon. And the ousia has a physis, since every being has a nature.
This is just to make sure I'm not being misunderstood as advocating and promoting a natureless essential being and/or a personal individual substance with no presence and appearance.
2. God's literal Logos and Pneuma, are the two-fold, singular, external, economic procession of His hypostasis into creation when and as He spoke to create.
3. God’s Logos and Pneuma, are intrinsically and ontologically divine and are qualitatively, rather than quantitatively distinct.
The singular (non-Filioque) two-fold procession was not prior to creation, but concurrent with the instantiation of creation at/as the Divine Utterance. It was economic and simultaneous with the creative act. The Logos and Pneuma are inherently ontological as homoousios Divinity, thus the procession is neither inception nor creation (nor is procession to be considered emanation or exudation, etc.).
The Logos and Pneuma are both inherently phenomenological and noumenological, just as God's inherent hypostasis is both phenomenological and noumenological. Creation is purely noumenological, being only potentiality of existence until given its non-inherent (nouo-)phenomenological existence by the Rhema of God's dunamis (by which all things are carried forth and upheld)
This requires the introduction of compounded terms I've employed to make distinctions in God's uncreated Self-Existence and Self-Consciousness as uncreated inherent phenomenological existence contrasted with created non-inherent phenomenological/phenomenal existence.
God is Reo-Phenomenological, referring to His own intrinisic Self-Conscious Self-Existent inter-circuity of knowing and being Himself. Creation is Nouo-Phenomenological/-Phenomenal referring to having been instantiated into existence Ex Nihilo by God's Logos from the noumenon in God's immutable mind (the nous faculty of His "Soul", and within the physis of His immutable ousia).
In God's mind is the multiversity of all contingent potentialities of plausibility for all sempiternal creation, including temporality possibilities. So every facet of the Monergism of Calvinism, Synergism of Arminianism, Options of Open Theism, and variants of Multiverse Theory are all in the eternal simultaneity of God's omni-encompassing infinity and eternality of capacity for all capability within His nous/mind and thelema/will. Logos is required for any economy relative to this ontology, so only that which is thought and expressed is noumenon instantiated into created nouo-phenomenon. More on that as we address God's incommunicable and communicable attributes.
It is in some way necessary to distinguish nouo-phenomenological (for living creatures with at least instinctive base intelligence) from nouo-phenomenal general inanimate creation. The disparity would be any degree of self-awareness versus not; but that can be dealt with much later as a subset of addressing phenomenology/phenomenon for every form of existence (uncreated sentient/created sentient/created non-sentient).
God's own Logos and Pneuma hypostasized in this qualitative two-fold procession; the processed (exerchomai) internal Logos being the external Son in nouo-phenomenal intangible creation with finite localized personal presence (a prosopon). (The omnipresence of the processed Logos is the Pneuma, just as the localized presence of the Pneuma is the Logos. They're co-inherent and qualitatively distinct.)
For the Holy Spirit, that procession is God's piercing (by the Logos thrusting the Rhema sword) and dividing asunder (merismos - partitioning for distribution) the noumenologicality of His Pneuma out from (ekporeuomai) His inherent "Self" (Soul) AS phenomenological Spirit. This setting apart (hagios - holiness) of His own Spirit is purely nouo-phenomenal in creation for communion with man; and being omnipresent in creation while co-inherent with the co-processed Logos and sharing that singular prosopon (while conjoined to the co-processed phenomenological inherent hypostasis AS Spirit).
At the Divine Utterance, God's inherent hypostasis is co-inherent in the economy of the procession while remaining and retaining only phenomenological existence (and underlying His ousia/physis and prosopon in transcendence, leaving God uncontained and unconstrained while still pervading both intangible and tangible creation without being subject in any way to creation's nouo-phenomal existence). (We'll further address God's inherent transcendent prosopon as Him (the Father) dwelling in unapproachable light in sempiternal creation.)
As a result, there's an intrinsic perichoretic sense to God and His Logos as the Father and the Son; and it's the Holy Spirit being wholly the processed noumenologicality as the co-inherent foundational hypostasis is wholly the co-processed phenomenologicality; for which the internality of the phenomenological Logos is also the external noumenologicality as the Son. The eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos. They're coterminous.
ALL of this is illustrating an introductory understanding to God creating heaven and sempiternity; and relative to post-creation post-procession this LOOKS and FUNCTIONS like three hypostases (which is the historical starting point FOR procession and creation, including all the anathemas); though the Holy Spirit lacks an individuated prosopon, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are eternal, uncreated, non-modal, non-sequential, concurrent, con-essential, con-substantial, ontological, divine phenomeno-/noumenological qualitative hypostatic distinctions rather than individuated hypostases. But the Patristics never accounted for sempiternal creation, though presuming and declaring so. Historically, no one began with God in transcendent Self-Existence, though not realizing it.
And the cosmos WAS originally sempiternal tangibility until Edenic spiritual death, sin, and resulting physical death. Temporality was a change in the entire cosmos (previously sempiternal tangibility) over which man was given dominion. So chronology (as we currently experience it) onset with the corruption of man in the Garden, having been some other form of sempiternal sequentiality and linearity that was NOT chronological time as we know it in this earth aion.
So much for Positivistic Empirical Scientific Naturalism postulates/hypotheses/theories. All posits of Cosmological "Science" are wrong. They can all be reconciled to the truth, so all the various forms of Old-/New-Earth Creationism need the same reconciliation as Theistic/Teleological Evolution and standard secular Evolutionary Theory.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From huphistemi, to place or set under. In general, that which underlies the apparent, hence reality, essence, substance; that which is the basis of something, hence assurance, guarantee, confidence (with objective sense). Substance, what really exists under any appearance, reality, essential nature; therefore used for the basis or foundation, subsistence, existence.
The ground of confidence, assurance, guarantee, or proof; not fides but fiducia; standing in parallel to elegchos (G1650); certainty, proof, demonstration. Metonymically of that quality which leads one to stand under, endure, or undertake something; firmness, boldness, confidence.
Apophatically...
Hypostasis is not merely a responsive and/or subjective disposition of the mind by assent, or by/as self-application of the mind or will; though it metonymically refers to the ground of confidence and assurance which is faith. Hypostasis is not "person" in any English sense, considering faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; though the hypostasis includes traits and personal characteristics which represent the individuality of the hypostasis as distinct from the special (species) traits and general characteristics that are the physis of the ousia.
Functionally and Summarily...
The ousia (essence) as the being does not "have" the hypostasis; the hypostasis underlies the being as the unique and distinct individuality and particularity for the speciality (species-ality) of the essential being, and for the generality of speciality in the nature of the being; the hypostasis serving as the "who-ness" for the ousia as the "what-ness", with both outwardly presented by/as the prosopon. The hypostasis is not superimposed upon or from the ousia or its physis; but is substantial to the essential ousia and giving it stasis, and determines the quality of the physis.
The hypostasis is not superficially the "person", but is that which contributes traits and characteristics of individuated created phenomenology as personality for determining individuality for the generality that is the nature of the being; and for the intangible substance and essence (and its nature) to be demonstrated tangibly by/as/through the prosopon. The prosopon (being the tangible outward reality and personal presence/appearance for the entirety of the intangible substance, essence, and nature) "has" the hypostasis and the ousia/nature it underlies.
Hypostasis is that which stands under for foundational and objective reality of existence as subsistence; that which gives the undergirding for the static existence and nature of that which it underlies. The substrate for existence. The substantial for the essential being. The absolute assured foundational underlying substantial objective reality as subsistence for existence.
Elsewhere stated:
- Faith is a hypostasis.
- God's singular hypostasis (as the only thing for His Logos to think or speak about) IS His Rhema.
- That faith is a hypostasis, and it is the flow of God's pre-creational substance (hypostasis) via the Rhema, which brought the faith.
- Ousia is the being as essence. Hypostasis is individuality as substance. The former provides inherent ontology, while the latter provides economy.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From lego (G3004), to speak. Intelligence, a word as the expression of that intelligence. (Contrast lalia (G2981), to speak without necessarily saying anything intelligent or understanding it as such. Logos is the articulate utterance of human language. It can be unspoken as formulation of thought in the mind which in that case stands in contrast to phone (G5456), voice.
When the differentiation is between intelligent speech by man and unintelligent sounds by animals, the two contrasted words are logos and lalia. Logos, when it refers to discourse, is regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected arrangement of words of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind.
The animals produce sounds, laloun, while God and human beings produce thoughtful expressions, legoun. Laleo can express the opening of the mouth to speak, as opposed to remaining silent.
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ in His pre-incarnate state is called ho Logos, the Word, meaning first immaterial intelligence and then the expression of that intelligence in speech that humans could understand.
Logos is the expression of thought, while Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word or the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Logos is not merely the written word, though writing is an expression of Rhema via Logos in the same manner as speaking.
Functionally and Summarily...
Logos is the entirety of the faculties and functionalities of intellect, and if there is written or spoken expression it's also Logos. It's the wisely reasoned intelligent and rational ponderance, contemplation, and conceptual apprehension of subject matter for all expression. There are both Rhema and Logos in silence.
Elsewhere stated:
- Rhema is from reo-, to speak (relative also to reo-, to flow); and the suffix -ma, indicating "result of". God's Rhema is the resulting flow of His speaking the very substance of Himself by/through/as the Logos. Rhema is the sword, while Logos is the wielding or thrusting of that sword.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From ousia, being, which is the present participle feminine of eimi (G1510), to be. Entity, essence, substance, nature. In the NT, it means that which belongs to someone, or what he has; his substance, property, goods.
Also from the feminine of ousa, which is on (G5607). Being, it refers to existence. It does not, however, refer to the beginning of existence.
Eimi, to be, is the usual verb of existence, and also the usual logical copula or link, connecting subject and predicate. To be, to have existence; where the predicate specifies who or what a person or thing is in respect to nature, origin, office, condition, circumstances, state, place, habits, and disposition of mind. But this all lies in the predicate and not in the copula, which merely connects the predicate with the subject.
Apophatically...
Though the ousia does "have" the physis, the ousia does not "have" the hypostasis a la Neo-Platonism and (allegedly) Valentinian Gnosticism. The ousia is underlied by the hypostasis.
Functionally and Summarily...
Ousia is the special (species) designation of a being. It is the divinity for God as the "God-ness", or the humanity for man as the "human-ness". The ousia is the kind of "what-ness" that gives no designation or distinction between individuals of said species or kind of beings. The hypostasis designates all "who-ness" as it underlies the "what-ness" that is the ousia.
The ousia "has" the physis as the nature, and the quality of the nature is determined by the quality of the underlying hypostasis. Ousia and hypostasis are both intangible, and both are outwardly presented as/by the prosopon. The physis is the general traits and characteristics of the ousia, while the hypostasis is the personal and individual traits and characteristics that gives "who-ness" to the ousia "what-ness" for both to appear visibly and tangibly as the prosopon.
Elsewhere stated:
- Ousia has no economy whatsoever. It's immutable and cannot "become". It IS. All inherent attributes are relative to the nature (physis) of the being (ousia).
- Ousia is the being as essence. Hypostasis is individuality as substance. The former provides inherent ontology, while the latter provides economy.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From phuo (G5453), to bring forth. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition. Physis means nature, essence, essential constitution and order of God in the natural world. It also refers to species of living creatures. God's physis refers not to the divine essence, but to certain of God's attributes or divine qualities. The same is applicable to the human physis.
Apophatically...
The physis, unlike the ousia and hypostasis, is not considered to be able to be manifested directly in tangible visibility.
Functionally and Summarily...
Physis is the inherent qualities of the being. The nature, including that which reflects instinct.
PROSOPON (Person) [G4383]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From pros (G4314), toward, and ops, the eye or face. Literally, the part toward, at, or around the eye. Hence the face, countenance, presence, person. In general, that part of anything which is turned or presented to the eye of another; external or outward appearance.
Apophatically...
The prosopon is not merely the body (soma), including the inward reaching of connectedness to that which underlies as the intangible. As the body is conjoined to the soul, so is the prosopon conjoined to and "has" the hypostasis, which underlies the ousia which "has" the physis. Thus the prosopon is the complete outward representation and expression of substance, essence, and nature.
Functionally and Summarily...
Prosopon is face, presence, personal appearance, person. The outward personal presence and appearance of one in the sight of another.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From reo, to speak. A word spoken or uttered; a speech or sentence consisting of several words; a word or command of God; a report, account. Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word, the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Rhema is not merely the spoken word, though inseparable from Logos in that regard.
Functionally and Summarily...
Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about; the subject matter of thought and speech; the content for all context and concept; the substance that underlies the faculties and functionalities of all intellect and expression.
There is no Logos without Rhema, for without the substantial content of subject matter there can be no thought or expression (whether spoken or written).
Elsewhere stated:
- Rhema is that which is pointed to/at as/by ostension. And God's Rhema IS His hypostasis. The flow of the subject matter by intelligent expression as the Logos.
- Logos is the map. Rhema is the territory. Logos maps the territory, which is the Rhema.
- Faith cometh by hearing the Rhema.
- Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about.
- God's Rhema IS his (singular) hypostasis.
- God's singular hypostasis (as the only thing for His Logos to think or speak about) IS His Rhema.
- Rhema is from reo-, to speak (relative also to reo-, to flow); and the suffix -ma, indicating "result of". God's Rhema is the resulting flow of His speaking the very substance of Himself by/through/as the Logos. Rhema is the sword, while Logos is the wielding or thrusting of that sword.
Then why don't you have this conversation in private? Because you need an audience before which you can parade you ever so superior knowledge. You have set yourself on a pedestal from which there is only one way down. You are a pitiful sight to behold.
AMR...
One of my long-time accomplished goals, besides reconciling the various "internal" historically-competing Christian formulaics for Theology Proper (orthodox and anathemas), was to also eschew every form of Gnostic, Esoteric, and Sophistric formulaic as well, and reconcile them in the process.
For instance, the above begins to denounce Platonism/Neo-Platonism by determining a personal God to be existent and creating a different phenomonon of existence, rather than an impersonal God as "the One" that is non-existent and creates existence. The same is true of Aristotelian error, as the above begins demonstrating "the unmoved Mover" needn't be according to his fallacies of form, etc. Others, including all forms of Pantheism and PanEntheism/PanenTheism, follow the same path of being reconciled as they are dispelled by the truth.
Again, to reiterate briefly...
Unitarians mistake the conception hypostasization as a creative act. Arians/Semi-Arians mistake the procession hypostasization as a creative act. Sabellians/Semi-Sabellians mistake the eternally-simultaneous qualitative hypostatic distinctions as quantified sempiternal and temporal modal or dynamic manifestations. Others mistake various and subtle other things.
Variants like Binitarianism, Pneumatomachianism, and others that postulate the Holy Spirit as a created or uncreated entity, creature, force, power, or emanation, etc. are mistsken because of the Holy Spirit not having an individuated prosopon or being an individuated hypostasis of multiples. This is also why Orthodox Pneumatology took such a nebulous longer path for formulaic inclusion, and resulted in declared co-equality. And it partially took the subtly fallacious Filioque to do so.
(My use of the term hypostasization for the Logos/Pneuma procession in these posts may not be appropriate.)
Though I would suggest a trading in fewer terms of art or a dilution of the density of it if the aim is, at least in part, to communicate to many here. I've been studying for a while and I had to stop a few times. I understand the impulse. It happens in my discipline too and the language is more precise and I understand the advantage (a sort of zip drive effect) but almost no one is going to follow it after a point.
Though I would suggest a trading in fewer terms of art or a dilution of the density of it if the aim is, at least in part, to communicate to many here. I've been studying for a while and I had to stop a few times. I understand the impulse. It happens in my discipline too and the language is more precise and I understand the advantage (a sort of zip drive effect) but almost no one is going to follow it after a point.
It is one thing for Moses to ascend the Mountain...
It is another for him to speak with people...
And the far more so for Christ, of Whom Moses was a Type...
Yet Christ spoke plainly, even when He spoke in parables...
This is much like, say, requiring a person to learn Ipsic and the subtleties of Ipsic cosmology in order to grasp the basics of a new system of cosmogonic social understanding... I would like to see normal words used that can be held by our souls, rather than created words that are constantly being filled with new content as context shifts and the concept seems to transform itself while retaining what it did not previously even have... Turns into a cognitive cluster-fletch that seems more phantasmagoric than rigorously conceptual...
And what I have found IN THE PAST (decades ago) with this kind of presentation is that it carries something that cannot be simply presented... And the consequence for me is, as you said, I will listen along for 20 to 50 words or so, and then just tune it out... And at that point, I am just seeing a mountain of words, without any referents to which I can relate...
Nor is the list of definitions any help...
There is just something good about speaking simply and plainly...
And especially so in matters of the Uncreated Creator of creation Who defies definition, being the Creator of definition AND diffusion...
And in my simple mind, the definitions here are diffusions... They do not address what is essential... Essential is 5 paragraphs, and when a question is asked, then 5 different paragraphs...
And more than that, I tend to look toward the practical, and mountains of words, however explicatory, are usually never nearly so helpful as simple commands, like: Go... Sell all you possess... Give to the poor... You will have provision in heaven... Then come... And follow Me...
Though I would suggest a trading in fewer terms of art or a dilution of the density of it if the aim is, at least in part, to communicate to many here. I've been studying for a while and I had to stop a few times. I understand the impulse. It happens in my discipline too and the language is more precise and I understand the advantage (a sort of zip drive effect) but almost no one is going to follow it after a point.
I understand what you're saying, though bear in mind that the purpose of this thread is to provide AMR with a framework of extensive minutiae for my formulaic of the Uni-Hypostatic Trinity, with emphasis upon all the tedium of explicit etymological and lexical detail for him to comprehend the distinctions in writing without helpful illustrations or a video presentation.
The primary focus is this initial portion regarding the never-accounted-for creation of sempiternity relative to God's inherent transcendent Self-Existence. It's the ONE thing the Patristics missed while presuming to have included it; thus beginning post-procession / post-creation to address Theology Proper and the Logos/Pneuma procession and the issues of creation.
This afffects every other doctrine in some manner, as well as everything about Cosmogony and the pervasive lies of Scientific Naturalism (including Theistic Evolution). This is the ministry of reconciliation. In my experience, few want "their" view reconciled to the truth, thinking they alone have it. Stepping aside from all views enables one to reconcile them all without any degree of Relativism, Positivism, Subjectivism, or Syncretism.
There is one absolute truth and we can know it. God hath revealed it unto to us by His Spirit. The only thing we can't know is God's inherent and immutable transcendent essence (ousia). And we can't become divine as uncreated with no beginning, though we can partake of His divine nature... IN Christ.
The verbosity will level out at some point; but vocab is vital to this convo, even if many are left in the wake for now.
It is one thing for Moses to ascend the Mountain...
It is another for him to speak with people...
And the far more so for Christ, of Whom Moses was a Type...
Yet Christ spoke plainly, even when He spoke in parables...
This is much like, say, requiring a person to learn Ipsic and the subtleties of Ipsic cosmology in order to grasp the basics of a new system of cosmogonic social understanding... I would like to see normal words used that can be held by our souls, rather than created words that are constantly being filled with new content as context shifts and the concept seems to transform itself while retaining what it did not previously even have... Turns into a cognitive cluster-fletch that seems more phantasmagoric than rigorously conceptual...
And what I have found IN THE PAST (decades ago) with this kind of presentation is that it carries something that cannot be simply presented... And the consequence for me is, as you said, I will listen along for 20 to 50 words or so, and then just tune it out... And at that point, I am just seeing a mountain of words, without any referents to which I can relate...
Nor is the list of definitions any help...
There is just something good about speaking simply and plainly...
And especially so in matters of the Uncreated Creator of creation Who defies definition, being the Creator of definition AND diffusion...
And in my simple mind, the definitions here are diffusions... They do not address what is essential... Essential is 5 paragraphs, and when a question is asked, then 5 different paragraphs...
And more than that, I tend to look toward the practical, and mountains of words, however explicatory, are usually never nearly so helpful as simple commands, like: Go... Sell all you possess... Give to the poor... You will have provision in heaven... Then come... And follow Me...
For now, I'm being painstakingly verbose with minutiae to allow AMR to access usage of terms.
I can summarize it much more simply, but only after providing vocab that helps transform the mind from engrained concepts with artificial boundaries. In all, it's only a few dozen words and definitions, and I teach this to many on a regular basis who have no background for it all.
In addition to the many sitting in discipleship, I teach jail and prison inmates, and they "get it" within three or four 2-hour teachings. And they're changed from within in mere months rather than decades; able to pursue the truth in ascetic piety, with a revelation of their hypostatic union IN Christ.
At first, they all balk at the vocab. Three or four weeks later, they're all laughing at themselves about their initial response and growing exponentially.
As I've indicated many times, the Patristics missed ONE thing... the creation of sempiternity. They presumed to have accounted for it, just as Orthodox Liturgy declares. But they didn't, and ALL attempts at Theology Proper formulaic began post-procession/post-creation and then attempted to account for procession and creation via the inevitable, but fallacious, three hypostases.
God is phenomenon as existence. He is eternity (a line). He created another phenomenon as existence... intangible and tangible sempiternity (a ray). The cosmos was the tangible sempiternity. It changed at the onset of spiritual death and sin, becoming temporality with chronology as we now experience it (a line segment). Temporality will fold up as a garment, the elements will melt with a fervent heat; and there will be a post-judgment new heaven and new earth for all sempiternity.
The general view is to combine eternity and sempiternity as uncreated and view the cosmos as created temporality with chronology. Then to retroactively declare some nebulous distinction between eternity and sempiternity as though creation somehow included the latter. And all without accounting for the Son being the actual literal Logos, and clearly delineating who spoke at the Divine Utterance to create; thus leaving paradox as declared mystery that isn't to be mystery at all.
Historically, all explanations of Theology Proper and Cosmogony have been a 2D attempt at accounting for a 3D truth.
I can illustrate this on a white board in two 2-hour teachings that any teenager or college-age student can recognize snd understand, leaving behind any other fallacy of Christian, religious, or secular incompleteness. I do it literally every day.
The tedium is the written word in this venue, and the fact that everyone's mind is predisposed to low-context language and thought with extensive concepts already in place to predetermine content in which they have placed their hope and/or faith.
And more to the point... I've never seen a 5-paragraph book, including the one you graciously sent me. So I'm not sure why that would be a criteria on this forum. At some point, vocab is important. Low-context language and culture has attempted to rid us of vocab and meaning as foundational.
You're actually unintentionally impugning modern culture (and rightly so). Modern language and culture is the equivalent of Ipsic cosmology. It needs to be adapted to the truth instead of demanding the truth be adapted to it. That's what I'm doing, and it goes against all the devices of Satan.
Ultimately, I represent the depth of Eastern Orthodoxy in Western exegesis and apologetic, while correcting the ONE omission of the Patristics and reconciling all other necessary points to the truth.
Understanding phenomenon and noumenon relative to God's existence and creation's existence is one of the vital clarifications of fallacy. This includes recognizing the created tangible and intangible sempiternity, and that God's Rhema IS His (singular) transcendent hypostasis.
Everything else is a 2D near-miss that isn't the 100-fold 3D truth for all phenomenon of existence, beginning with's God's own Self-Existence and His Logos.
For now, I'm being painstakingly verbose with minutiae to allow AMR to access usage of terms.
I can summarize it much more simply, but only after providing vocab that helps transform the mind from engrained concepts with artificial boundaries. In all, it's only a few dozen words and definitions, and I teach this to many on a regular basis who have no background for it all.
In addition to the many sitting in discipleship, I teach jail and prison inmates, and they "get it" within three or four 2-hour teachings. And they're changed from within in mere months rather than decades; able to pursue the truth in ascetic piety, with a revelation of their hypostatic union IN Christ.
At first, they all balk at the vocab. Three or four weeks later, they're all laughing at themselves about their initial response and growing exponentially.
As I've indicated many times, the Patristics missed ONE thing... the creation of sempiternity. They presumed to have accounted for it, just as Orthodox Liturgy declares. But they didn't, and ALL attempts at Theology Proper formulaic began post-procession/post-creation and then attempted to account for procession and creation via the inevitable, but fallacious, three hypostases.
God is phenomenon as existence. He is eternity (a line). He created another phenomenon as existence... intangible and tangible sempiternity (a ray). The cosmos was the tangible sempiternity. It changed at the onset of spiritual death and sin, becoming temporality with chronology as we now experience it (a line segment). Temporality will fold up as a garment, the elements will melt with a fervent heat; and there will be a post-judgment new heaven and new earth for all sempiternity.
The general view is to combine eternity and sempiternity as uncreated and view the cosmos as created temporality with chronology. Then to retroactively declare some nebulous distinction between eternity and sempiternity as though creation somehow included the latter. And all without accounting for the Son being the actual literal Logos, and clearly delineating who spoke at the Divine Utterance to create; thus leaving paradox as declared mystery that isn't to be mystery at all.
Historically, all explanations of Theology Proper and Cosmogony have been a 2D attempt at accounting for a 3D truth.
I can illustrate this on a white board in two 2-hour teachings that any teenager or college-age student can recognize snd understand, leaving behind any other fallacy of Christian, religious, or secular incompleteness. I do it literally every day.
The tedium is the written word in this venue, and the fact that everyone's mind is predisposed to low-context language and thought with extensive concepts already in place to predetermine content in which they have placed their hope and/or faith.
And more to the point... I've never seen a 5-paragraph book, including the one you graciously sent me. So I'm not sure why that would be a criteria on this forum. At some point, vocab is important. Low-context language and culture has attempted to rid us of vocab and meaning as foundational.
You're actually unintentionally impugning modern culture (and rightly so). Modern language and culture is the equivalent of Ipsic cosmology. It needs to be adapted to the truth instead of demanding the truth be adapted to it. That's what I'm doing, and it goes against all the devices of Satan.
Ultimately, I represent the depth of Eastern Orthodoxy in Western exegesis and apologetic, while correcting the ONE omission of the Patristics and reconciling all other necessary points to the truth.
Understanding phenomenon and noumenon relative to God's existence and creation's existence is one of the vital clarifications of fallacy. This includes recognizing the created tangible and intangible sempiternity, and that God's Rhema IS His (singular) transcendent hypostasis.
Everything else is a 2D near-miss that isn't the 100-fold 3D truth for all phenomenon of existence, beginning with's God's own Self-Existence and His Logos.
Sempiternity is everlastingness. That's heaven and the cosmos.
And then the cosmos was affected by spiritual death and sin, becoming tangible temporality with chronology instead of its previous state as sempiternal tangibility with a linearity and sequentiality that isn't comparable to chronology.
Eternity is God alone. Everything else is sempiternal or temporal, the latter being the post-spiritual death/sin state of the cosmos.
Sempiternity is what you and most mistakenly call eternity. Only God is eternal. The invisible (intangible) creation (heaven) is sempiternal, as was the visible (tangible) creation (cosmos). Now the cosmos is temporal. It will fold up like a garment and the post-judgment cosmos will be sempiternal.
No need. I hope the answers make this simple thing clear.
God alone is eternal. Heaven is not. There was nothing but God until He created, and He created heaven when/as He inhabited it by His own Logos and Pneuma.
(And since there was nothing (no thing) else but God, and Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about; God's Rhema IS His (singular) hypostasis.)
The last time tangible sempiternity was here was in the bodily form of the resurrected Christ.
19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.
20 And when he had so said , he shewed unto them his hands and his side. Then were the disciples glad , when they saw the Lord.
So no matter how much you orthodoxicals would like to think otherwise, yer wafers, idols and grape juice aint bringin' it back into creation.
Intangible sempiternity is the Spirit contained in our earthen vessels.
2 Corinthians 4:7 KJV
7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
