Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    The Glossary now has these definitions:

    GLOSSARY OF TERMS
    RHEMA (Word) [G4487]
    Spoiler
    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).


    LOGOS (Word) [G3056]
    Spoiler
    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 preincarnate 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.


    HYPOSTASIS (Substance) [G5287]
    Spoiler
    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 sustance 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.


    OUSIA (Essence) [G3776]
    Spoiler
    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 ousiatic "what-ness" for both the substantial individuality and the essential being to appear visibly and with tangible presence as the prosopon.


    PHYSIS (Nature) [G5449]
    Spoiler
    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.


    TRANSCENDENT
    Spoiler
    From Latin of climbing or going beyond. Used primarily with reference to God's relation to creation. God is beyond (transcendent to) His creation. Transcendence is God's inherent "beyondness", reflecting His attributes of eternity in contrast to created sempiternity and temporality. That which is innately relative to sempiternity would also be transcendent to temporality, just as eternity is transcendent to both sempiternity and temporality.

    To AMR and all readership for clarity regarding the glossary definitions...

    As previously indicated, the first portion is strict excerpted verbatim lexicography from the late preeminent native-first-language Greek scholar Spiros Zodhiates; and is labeled "Lexically and Cataphatically...".

    The following section labeled "Apophatically..." is general clarification for what the term is NOT in overall meaning.

    The last section labeled "Functionally and Summarily" is the applied usage of the term in detail relative to my own extensive understanding to develop a cohesive foundation for exegesis and apologetics.

    The first section is only arguable between didactic lexical material sources, not for dialectic opinions of individuals. The second section is based on the first, but is not verbatim lexicography, so it's up for discussion as clarification.

    The last section, though based upon lexicography, includes my own application and usage of terms and a framework of how those terms are ultimately utilized when I post. This section is my personal clarification so we're not talking past each other over semantics rather than subject matter. And the majority of it is aligned with the Patristics, except the quantification of multiple hypostases.

    None of the glossary is presented as "leverage" for a point of view, but to establish my contribution for the baseline of definitions, which IS the entire purpose of this thread.

    My inclusion of extensive application of definitions is to further all discussion rather than to limit or control discourse. The discussion would begin with any discrepancies of definition and usage of terms, along with their assemblage in developed and formulated doctrine.

    It's all about the framework of definitions and usage first.

    Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
    “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      I absolutely concur.



      But here I would stake out the middle ground, neither specifying the actual baptismal waters nor their symbolism but the hypostasis of faith itself relative to the Living Water that IS Christ.
      I have trouble accepting the saints saved prior to the Incarnation of Christ were bereft of faith, seeing that many are named in Hebrews Chapter 11.

      (And there were water baptisms performed during the O.T. Prior to John the Baptist. )

      Distinctions made between God's economies, I get, but differances claimed between the state of saved souls, can easily devolve into something similar to
      Dispensationalism, which Theological views I deplore.

      If either of you gentlemen could clarify this discussion, or correct my fears as to its suggested premise, I would be most appreciative.

      Nang
      "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

      " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
      Gordon H. Clark

      "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
      Charles Spurgeon

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by Nang View Post
        I have trouble accepting the saints saved prior to the Incarnation of Christ were bereft of faith, seeing that many are named in Hebrews Chapter 11.

        (And there were water baptisms performed during the O.T. Prior to John the Baptist. )

        Distinctions made between God's economies, I get, but differances claimed between the state of saved souls, can easily devolve into something similar to
        Dispensationalism, which Theological views I deplore.

        If either of you gentlemen could clarify this discussion, or correct my fears as to its suggested premise, I would be most appreciative.

        Nang
        The OT Saints had salvific faith (pistis) underlying their hope (elpis), just as do we.

        Romans 8:24-25 makes it clear that hope (elpis) saves us. The difficulty is not understanding elpis (because of English) or pistis.

        The distinction between OT and NT Saints is the manifested prosopon of Theanthropos, into which we all are translated. That had not occurred (cosmologically) in the OT.

        Not even the remotest hint of Dispensationalism, though these are the before/after economies relative to the Logos manifest in the flesh.
        Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
        “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

        Comment


        • #94
          If this was to be a one one, AMR and PPS, it is a disaster.
          He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

          Jim Elliot

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post

            The distinction between OT and NT Saints is the manifested prosopon of Theanthropos, into which we all are translated. That had not occurred (cosmologically) in the OT.
            I am not certain this translation has occurred in the N.T. saints, either . . . I John 3:2-3
            "The immutable God never learned anything and never changed his mind. He knew everything from eternity."

            " The difference between faith and saving faith are the propositions believed."
            Gordon H. Clark

            "If a man be lost, God must not have the blame for it; but if a man be saved, God must have the glory of it."
            Charles Spurgeon

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
              If this was to be a one one, AMR and PPS, it is a disaster.
              Yep. Some of it is acceptable, while most should have been deleted. That doesn't happen on TOL.
              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by Nang View Post
                I am not certain this translation has occurred in the N.T. saints, either . . . I John 3:2-3
                We are hypostatically translated by the hypostasis of faith; just not prosopically/somatically, which is the final resurrection.

                Betrothed now, and married in all but flesh.
                Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Bright Raven View Post
                  If this was to be a one one, AMR and PPS, it is a disaster.
                  Great things have been known to rise out of ruins.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                    We are hypostatically translated by the hypostasis of faith; just not prosopically/somatically, which is the final resurrection.

                    Betrothed now, and married in all but flesh.
                    2 Cor 4:16-18
                    16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.

                    17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,

                    18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.


                    John 10:10 KJV

                    10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal , and to kill , and to destroy : I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

                    Genesis 1:20 KJV

                    20 And God said , Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


                    Little background music while we wait for AMR?

                    Time

                    Comment


                    • Abundance....... Praise Jesus to the glory of the Father.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                        But here I would stake out the middle ground,
                        neither specifying the actual baptismal waters
                        nor their symbolism
                        but the hypostasis of faith itself
                        relative to the Living Water
                        that IS Christ.
                        Well, the hypostatic union of fallen man with the Son of man risen in Glory would seem very different in kind from the hypostasis of the Faith which Christ gave to His Apostles...

                        I had always taken that hypostasis as meaning BASIS, which is fairly transferable to PERSON, because of the person being irreducibly basic...

                        And then, how do you fit Christ being Baptized in Jordan's waters, where that river is the boundary that must be crossed through water in order for the Israelites to ENTER the PROMISED LAND? I mean, if we are going to follow Christ into the Kingdom of Heaven, is He not showing us His Way here?

                        Arsenios
                        Arsenios

                        Comment


                        • [QUOTE=PneumaPsucheSoma;4247166]The OT Saints had salvific faith (pistis) underlying their hope (elpis), just as do we.

                          Romans 8:24-25 makes it clear that hope (elpis) saves us. The difficulty is not understanding elpis (because of English) or pistis.

                          The distinction between OT and NT Saints is the manifested prosopon of Theanthropos, into which we all are translated. That had not occurred (cosmologically) in the OT.

                          Not even the remotest hint of Dispensationalism, though these are the before/after economies relative to the Logos manifest in the flesh.[/QUOTE]

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post
                            Well, the hypostatic union of fallen man with the Son of man risen in Glory would seem very different in kind from the hypostasis of the Faith which Christ gave to His Apostles...
                            One is the means for the other (the latter for the former).

                            I had always taken that hypostasis as meaning BASIS, which is fairly transferable to PERSON, because of the person being irreducibly basic...
                            Faith is a hypostasis.
                            Faith cometh by hearing the Rhema.
                            Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about.
                            In God's Uncreated Self-existence, there is no thing else to think and speak about except His (singular) hypostasis (underlying His ousia and its physis).
                            God's singular hypostasis (as the only thing for His Logos to think or speak about) IS His Rhema.

                            That's why I'm a Uni-Hypostatic Trinitarian. God's Rhema IS his (singular) hypostasis. The Patristics didn't account for the created sempiternity of heaven, merely presuming and declaring they did. The procession of the inherently ontological Logos and Pneuma was ex-/ek-, and thus was appropriately economic at the Divine Utterance.

                            And then, how do you fit Christ being Baptized in Jordan's waters, where that river is the boundary that must be crossed through water in order for the Israelites to ENTER the PROMISED LAND?
                            The Jordan was the river of death. It wasn't the waters that saved and translated. It was the faith of stepping into the waters, which immediately turned to dry land. And it would have been the Spirit who dispelled every last drop of death moisture by drying the land (the prosopon of Christ).

                            Perhaps we're talking past each other. I'm not advocating against immersion, just not attributing the waters of death to be the salvific element. It's not the act or the agent, but the faith.

                            I mean, if we are going to follow Christ into the Kingdom of Heaven, is He not showing us His Way here?

                            Arsenios
                            Yes. By faith, we cross over death into Him (His hypostasis). That faith is a hypostasis, and it is the flow of God's pre-creational substance (hypostasis) via the Rhema, which brought the faith.

                            Voila... We inhabit the Promised Land of His glorified dust of the ground (prosopon), which then "has" our hypostasis; and by which engraftation we are made partakers of the divine nature, awaiting redemption of our bodies as the end of our faith.
                            Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                            “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                            Comment


                            • From PPS: [T]he hypostasis [serves] as the "who-ness" for the ousia as the "what-ness"

                              A question for you, PPS: If Elohim speaks to the ousia of God, is YHWH his hypostasis: "I AM who I AM"?
                              Thomas

                              "For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." ~ Colossians 3.3

                              Comment


                              • A second question: Can ousia relate to hypostasis without itself becoming hypostasis?

                                *This is not a real clear thought yet, but I am trying to work through something*
                                Last edited by TFTn5280; March 6th, 2015, 06:44 AM.
                                Thomas

                                "For you died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God." ~ Colossians 3.3

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X