ECT PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Excellent. :zman:

I love it when others know the truth of God's Rhema in their heart in such a way that when it's presented their spirits bear total witness with it. This has never been previously exegeted and presented in mankind's history; though Paul, the Apostles, and their earliest disciples knew it in inherently higher-context form without all the excursus of endless tedious Greek-laden English detail (and before the purity of ontology was lost to endless methodologies during the rising Apologetics period and the ultimate Romanization of the Church).

As you can see, it reconciles literally everything, and there's much more depth and detail beyond this summary.

I sometimes wonder if all we will actually see in the next world is Jesus and maybe some great light around him.

That is exactly what it is/will be.

While I might be disappointed with that from this side of eternity, I'm thinkin' that even in that scenario it would still be beyond ecstatic comprehension.

Know what I mean?

Yes. But you may be less disappointed by knowing that one of the reasons the Holy Spirit doesn't have an individuated sempiternal prosopon is because we all as Believers are the prosopon for the Holy Spirit as we're prosopically AND hypostatically in everlasting intercourse with our Bridegroom for all sempiternity (now being betrothed in all but flesh, but then clothed upon with incorruptibility of a cleansed and bodily-resurrected glorified prosopon).

One glorified flesh with our Husband; and there's some sense of perichoretic for us by the Holy Spirit joining us to the prosopon of Christ (which is co-inherent to both the Spirit and the Logos), because the Father is timeless Spirit in sempiternity and the Holy Spirit is multi-omni in that same seeming perichoretic by being co-inherent to the prosopon of the processed Logos which is the Son.

And wait until I correlate all this to the absolute reconciliation of Calvinism and Arminianism (including Open Theism and Process Theology), and Multi-verse Theory, etc.

 

[Truster]

I'll not be responding to, or interacting further with, interlopers who are seeking attention for themselves as the final arbitrage of truth while posting here.

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.

 

[Cross Reference]

I love it when others know the truth of God's Rhema in their heart in such a way that when it's presented their spirits bear total witness with it. This has never been previously exegeted and presented in mankind's history; though Paul, the Apostles, and their earliest disciples knew it in inherently higher-context form without all the excursus of endless tedious Greek-laden English detail (and before the purity of ontology was lost to endless methodologies during the rising Apologetics period and the ultimate Romanization of the Church).

As you can see, it reconciles literally everything, and there's much more depth and detail beyond this summary.



That is exactly what it is/will be.



Yes. But you may be less disappointed by knowing that one of the reasons the Holy Spirit doesn't have an individuated sempiternal prosopon is because we all as Believers are the prosopon for the Holy Spirit as we're prosopically AND hypostatically in everlasting intercourse with our Bridegroom for all sempiternity (now being betrothed in all but flesh, but then clothed upon with incorruptibility of a cleansed and bodily-resurrected glorified prosopon).

One glorified flesh with our Husband; and there's some sense of perichoretic for us by the Holy Spirit joining us to the prosopon of Christ (which is co-inherent to both the Spirit and the Logos), because the Father is timeless Spirit in sempiternity and the Holy Spirit is multi-omni in that same seeming perichoretic by being co-inherent to the prosopon of the processed Logos which is the Son.

And wait until I correlate all this to the absolute reconciliation of Calvinism and Arminianism (including Open Theism and Process Theology), and Multi-verse Theory, etc.

Whadda he say??

It can all be understood using a more simple vocabulary. Why it isn't is Satanic given that it withholds from the simpleminded who have no means of comprehending the simple now made complicated by the intellectual seeking credibility. Prove me wrong. Knowledge does indeed "puff up" but only to propagate it's "puffiness" __ to be seen of men..

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

For the general audience viewing the thread...

Philippians 1:9
And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge (epignosis) and in all judgment;

Love abounds in knowledge (epignosis), which is a synonym for faith as love works faith while underlying hope.

1Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge (gnosis). Knowledge (gnosis) puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Here, knowledge (gnosis) is less experiential than the knowledge (epignosis) which love abounds in; though this is the only negative usage in scripture for knowledge (gnosis).

Those who don't "know" this distinction between love-abounding knowledge (love is not puffed up) and puffed-up knowledge are inflated with the latter while I'm representing the former.

Love, which is not (and cannot be) puffed up, abounds in epignosis knowledge. That's what I'm presenting in this thread, and it's a direct synonym for faith. Love works faith, in company with the knowledge that love abounds in.

When others are loveless and have mistaken hope for faith, their puffed-up knowledge (gnosis) comes against faith-working love abounding in knowledge (epignosis), and they troll threads with such knowledge, unaware of their self-condemnation with every puffed-up word.

 

[Cross Reference]

For the general audience viewing the thread...

Philippians 1:9
And this I pray, that your love may abound yet more and more in knowledge (epignosis) and in all judgment;

Love abounds in knowledge (epognosis), which is a synonym for faith as love works faith while underlying hope.

1Corinthians 8:1
Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge (gnosis). Knowledge (gnosis) puffeth up, but charity edifieth.

Here, knowledge (gnosis) is less experiential than the knowledge (epignosis) which love abounds in; though this is the only negative usage in scripture for knowledge (gnosis).

Those who don't "know" this distinction between love-abounding knowledge (love is not puffed up) and puffed-up knowledge are inflated with latter while I'm representing the former.

Love, which is not puffed, abounds in epignosis knowledge. That's what I'm presenting in this thread, and it's a direct synonym for faith. Love works faith, in company with the knowledge that love abounds in.

When others are loveless and have mistaken hope for faith, their puffed-up knowledge (gnosis) comes against faith-working love abounding in knowledge (epignosis), and they troll threads with such knowledge, unaware of their self-condemnation with every puffed-up word.

Ditto my last.

"To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." 1 Corinthians 9:22 (ESV)

 

[TFTn5280]

Really I don't understand the attack against this thread. If you have no interest in learning from it, then you obviously have no interest in it. Just move on to another thread. No big deal.

NOTE: And if you want to learn from it, the terms are defined below. Plug them in and open the door to understanding.

 

[fzappa13]

Really I don't understand the attack against this thread. If you have no interest in learning from it, then you obviously have no interest in it. Just move on to another thread. No big deal.

NOTE: And if you want to learn from it, the terms are defined below. Plug them in and open the door to understanding.

It kinda reminds me of dogs ... you know how when one pees on something the next one to come along has to pee on that to cover it up ad infinitum, ad nauseam. I think certain posters see threads in this light.

 

[Cross Reference]

Really I don't understand the attack against this thread. If you have no interest in learning from it, then you obviously have no interest in it. Just move on to another thread. No big deal.

NOTE: And if you want to learn from it, the terms are defined below. Plug them in and open the door to understanding.

Learning is the problem, isn't it or is it the teaching end? Why else would I complain except you pinheads make UNNECESSARILY complicated by the use of your .50 words? All you have to do is read my complaint to understand that, but, apparently that is too much/beneath you to expect of you wannabe intellects to take it down a notch or two for us who didn't make the cut.

 

[Cross Reference]

It kinda reminds me of dogs ... you know how when one pees on something the next one to come along has to pee on that to cover it up ad infinitum, ad nauseam. I think certain posters see threads in this light.

Correction, certain posters see you all in that light. I guess it is the pinhead who has the most pee, wins. I think so.

 

[TFTn5280]

Learning is the problem, isn't it or is it the teaching end? Why else would I complain except you pinheads make UNNECESSARILY complicated by the use of your .50 words? All you have to do is read my complaint to understand that, but, apparently that is too much/beneath you to expect of you wannabe intellects to take it down a notch or two for us who didn't make the cut.

Cross Reference, you know that I have always been very congenial in attempting to make understandable, to the best of my ability, things related to theology proper and the original languages. You KNOW that I have. This thread however was opened specifically to discuss Trinity in terms of the primitive formulae and as such is not even geared towards that. I in fact am an interloper to the discussion. I asked a couple questions, got a satisfactory answer and stepped back. If it gets too involved for me, I will just back away from it. In the meantime, I am going to absorb as much as I can from the discussion, especially the definitions, because I believe we can never know too much, as long as it is properly discerned, when speaking of things pertaining to God.

We owe much to our early church fathers in terms of their early centuries understanding of Scripture. Many centuries have passed from them to us, opening doors to much misunderstanding of things they got right because of proximity to the Gospel and the closing of the canon. Sometimes it stretches our abilities to understand them correctly because of language and cultural divides. Here is an opportunity to close that gap a bit if we will but try to appreciate it.

 

[Cross Reference]

Cross Reference, you know that I have always been very congenial in attempting to make understandable, to the best of my ability, things related to theology proper and the original languages. You KNOW that I have. This thread however was opened specifically to discuss Trinity in terms of the primitive formulae and as such is not even geared towards that. I in fact am an interloper to the discussion. I asked a couple questions, got a satisfactory answer and stepped back. If it gets too involved for me, I will just back away from it. In the meantime, I am going to absorb as much as I can from the discussion, especially the definitions, because I believe we can never know too much, as long as it is properly discerned, when speaking of things pertaining to God.

We owe much to our early church fathers in terms of their early centuries understanding of Scripture. Many centuries have passed from them to us, opening doors to much misunderstanding of things they got right because of proximity to the Gospel and the closing of the canon. Sometimes it stretches our abilities to understand them correctly because of language and cultural divides. Here is an opportunity to close that gap a bit if we will but try to appreciate it.

Not if no one knows what you are talking about because of your choice of words that are over the top for the average person to grasp without a dictionary in hand and a professor to explain the definitions.. So get real. Who are you trying to impress?

 

[TFTn5280]

Ditto my last.

"To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some." 1 Corinthians 9:22 (ESV)

BTW, I have many times thought of this verse in my own teaching-to-learning endeavors. I am NOT impressed with "teachers" who pride themselves in speaking over the heads of their students. I see that as indication of serious insecurities relative to them. There is nothing greater to me as a teacher than to see my students eyes light up as the lights turn on to truth. I know in order for that to happen, I must meet them where they are before I can take them where they need to go. So many times this verse popped into my mind when I had failed to do that, while knowing the failure was as much mine as it was theirs.

Aside: I taught math (among other things) to inmates in a maximum security prison for several years. These were the toughest, meanest, vilest offenders in our culture. They HAD to portray machismo or they would die in weakness. Many of them came into my class not knowing how to add 3+3. They did not know the simplest subtraction or multiplication or division. They had checked out long before they checked into any of that stuff. My job was to get them from that starting point to a high school diploma. When I took the job I was supplied with the teaching materials that I was supposed to need to get them there. In the supplies were simple-math flash cards, designed for young children. What do you think their reaction was when I handed them those cards and told them to learn their multiplication tables? They not only shut down but they shut me out as a teacher.

Round two: It occurred to me that algebra is nothing more than chasing an x around a page with simple addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. Immediately upon receiving new students I would start them not with flash cards but with algebra (math that smart people do) and I put the flash cards on the table in the corner of the room. Guess what? They went to the cards themselves as they chased that x to a very basic equivalent. Great pride they took in solving those problems. Everyday the lights came on as they solved more and more difficult problems. I taught them all kinds of neat tricks with numbers to help them remember their tables so they wouldn't have to go to the cards, BUT the important thing was that I had taken away the stigma that came along with learning. During the three years that I taught adult basic education at that prison I graduated more students than they had in the previous 15 years. Why? because a certain verse kept running through my head.

 

[Jedidiah]

Are "low-context" languages more ambiguous, generally, than "high-context" languages ?

Yes, and "then some". Lowering context reduces content (rhema), resulting in concepts of the mind (noema -Satan's devices) that produce alternate content....

So, in order to communicate unambiguously in a "low-context" language, you need to use more words, to add more pertinent content, than trying to communicate the same thing, in a "high-context" language.

 

[fzappa13]

​

​

So, in order to communicate unambiguously in a "low-context" language, you need to use more words, to add more pertinent content, than trying to communicate the same thing, in a "high-context" language.

I'm enjoying the positive contributions to this thread. That said, you bring up a point that might warrant further scrutiny ... namely, language. I have found that when I had trouble understanding a given passage, if I took it back to the original language things tended to clear up for me. With this in mind I think it worth noting that we are talking about the words of Jews and though an understanding of Koine Greek is valuable it leaves one half way home.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

​

​

So, in order to communicate unambiguously in a "low-context" language, you need to use more words, to add more pertinent content, than trying to communicate the same thing, in a "high-context" language.

Yes, though that might be a bit of a generalized over-simplification.

Rhema is content, which needs a context for Logos, which is concept. Language is the context for Rhema to be presented as Logos. So when the context is lowered, it means there's less content for concept; and thus patterning minds to compensate by producing content (Rhema) from their own concept (Logos).

This is a script-flip to sculpt hearts and minds (sub-cognitive and cognitive) by introducing minimized, nominalized, and diluted content to stimulate concept as the foundation for alternate content and concept instead, which isn't God's Rhema and Logos but our own.

We're not to be ignorant of Satan's devices (noema - concepts of the mind). Language is in our sub-conscious. (Dreams are sub-cognitive, and we dream in/with language.) The effects begin gestationally with development of the limbic and auditory systems in the womb.

It becomes virtually impossible to even consider anything that isn't according to this pattern, which reduces the tendency and ability to even hear God's Rhema by which faith comes.

Language is the primary tool of Satan to set himself up in the temple of God to see himself worshipped as God. Man, as the temple not made with hands.

And language feeds culture, which feeds language; resulting in an endless historical downward spiraling of context for man's mind and environment to reduce and remove contentual rhema and emphasize conceptual logos.

Man becoming god / as god. Subtle. Pervasive. Almost undetectable, because rhema is the foundation of existence and consciousness. It's difficult to even examine one's own linguistic foundation for/of thought.

Greek is high-context, and Hebrew even more so. English is near the bottom of the historical scale of context for all languages, and it's no accident. Meanwhile, all languages (and thus, cultures) have been spiraling downward in a veritable vortex of rhema-destroying, logos-emphasizing dialectic to replace God's didactic truth with gradual gradients of untruth.

God's Rhema is being replaced by man's logos at a now-crucially-precipitous rate. And virtually everyone is oblivious to it because it's their own "natural" pattern of thought and expression and lifestyle, etc.

The re-creation of creation, by false rhema and logos that originated from the father of lies. But man believes it's his own opinions and preferences and inclinations.

It's slavery to another master than the one who made us in His image and embodied His own Logos in flesh for our salvation.

Satan setting his throne above the Most High. In man.

 

[Simon Baker]

One Could Say, Satan Has Been Doing That Since The Garden.

 

[fzappa13]

... and thus is the loaf leavened.

 

[fzappa13]

Using big words to belittle me is akin to Hitler talking about the Jews.

LA

You know, I tried to ignore this post but the more I thought about it the more it haunted me. There are an unfortunate number who post here whose gift for hyperbole finds them uttering things ill advised but that was beyond the pale. Equating the discomfiture you experienced in not understanding what PPS was saying to what the Nazis did to the Jews belittles what said Jews went through and I would suggest that in so doing you yourself join hands with their persecutors when making light of what they went through in such a manner.

You apparently don't believe it but I can assure you that you will account for every idle word. Beware.

 

[Jedidiah]

I'm enjoying the positive contributions to this thread. That said, you bring up a point that might warrant further scrutiny ... namely, language. I have found that when I had trouble understanding a given passage, if I took it back to the original language things tended to clear up for me. With this in mind I think it worth noting that we are talking about the words of Jews and though an understanding of Koine Greek is valuable it leaves one half way home.

Can you define "language" without employing recursion ?
And what I mean is, can you define language, without using language to define it ?

And if you can't -- and I don't think that it can be done -- what does that mean ? About language? in particular. Or, what does it mean about definitions ?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

You apparently don't believe it but I can assure you that you will account for every idle word. Beware.

Whew!

Only one way I know of a man can say that with certainty.

Still makes me tremble, brother.:jawdrop:

Epignosis..... experiential knowledge