Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

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

  • What is really the purpose of this thread? It seems to me that it's an attempt to do the impossible: figuring out God.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
      One is the means for the other (the latter for the former).
      The hypostasis (that faith is) being the means for the uniting of the two hypostases into one New Creation?

      Faith is a hypostasis.
      Yes, it is a basis for actions by man...

      Faith cometh by hearing the Rhema.
      Yes, where rhema are uttered sayings that are heard, eg heeded...

      Rhema is the thing thought and spoken about.
      Rhema is words uttered...
      It is not that which they are uttered ABOUT...
      An adage is a rhema...

      I think this is where I lose track of your line here...

      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).
      How on earth in man's fallen condition can one possibly KNOW that?

      The Orthodox teaching here is the simple and unutterable unknowability of God's Uncreated Self-existence [Essence]...

      God's singular hypostasis (as the only thing for His Logos to think or speak about) IS His Rhema.
      That would seem to Orthodox ears sheer speculation incapable of demonstration...

      That's why I'm a Uni-Hypostatic Trinitarian.
      I wish I could say it makes sense to me...

      Calling the words of a saying the things to which they refer escapes my grip!

      And where in all this is the Person in whose image we are created?

      Arsenios
      Arsenios

      Comment


      • Originally posted by TFTn5280 View Post
        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"?
        No. It's not about dividing up God's singularity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's about God being a hypostasis/ousia and the hypostasis proceeding into creation as the Logos and Pneuma.

        One fundamental aspect is recognizing and understanding phenomenon versus noumenon. Creation is noumenological, given phenomenologicality of existence when instantiated by God's Rhema which carried it forth (by His Logos) and upholds it.

        Originally posted by TFTn5280 View Post
        A second question: Can ousia relate to hypostasis without itself becoming hypostasis?
        No. 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). That can't change or God is not God.

        Ousia is the being as essence. Hypostasis is individuality as substance. The former provides inherent ontology, while the latter provides economy. Ousia cannot "become". Ousia "IS". It's the immutability OF being.

        For instance... The nous (mind) and thelema (will) is relative to the physis of the ousia. But the Logos is relative to the Rhema, which IS the hypostasis. The Logos takes action in economy; but the nous never changes (though it has the entirety of multi-verse-ish potentialities for all of creation simultaneously in His foreknowledge).

        *This is not a real clear thought yet, but I am trying to work through something*
        I think I have an idea where you're going, but I'm representing something entirely different. Transcendence and immanence have never been accurately represented relative to Theology Proper.
        Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; March 6th, 2015, 12:43 PM.
        Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
        “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

        Comment


        • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
          No. It's not about dividing up God's singularity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's about God being a hypostasis/ousia and the hypostasis proceeding into creation as the Logos and Pneuma.

          One fundamental aspect is recognizing and understanding phenomenon versus noumenon. Creation is noumenological, given phenomenologicality of existence when instantiated by God's Rhema which carried it forth (by His Logos) and upholds it.



          No. 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). That can't change or God is not God.

          Ousia is the being as essence. Hypostasis is individuality as substance. The former provides inherent ontology, while the latter provides economy. Ousia cannot "become". Ousia "IS". It's the immutability OF being.

          For instance... The nous (mind) and thelema (will) is relative to the physis of the ousia. But the Logos is relative to the Rhema, which IS the hypostasis. The Logos takes action in economy; but the nous never changes (though it has the entirety of multi-verse-ish potentialities for all of creation simultaneously in His foreknowledge).



          I think I have an idea where you're going, but I'm representing something entirely different. Transcendence and immanence have never been accurately represented relative to Theology Proper.
          He dudn't realise yer pilin' coals upon his nest.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post
            The hypostasis (that faith is) being the means for the uniting of the two hypostases into one New Creation?



            Yes, it is a basis for actions by man...



            Yes, where rhema are uttered sayings that are heard, eg heeded...



            Rhema is words uttered...
            It is not that which they are uttered ABOUT...
            An adage is a rhema...

            I think this is where I lose track of your line here...



            How on earth in man's fallen condition can one possibly KNOW that?

            The Orthodox teaching here is the simple and unutterable unknowability of God's Uncreated Self-existence [Essence]...



            That would seem to Orthodox ears sheer speculation incapable of demonstration...



            I wish I could say it makes sense to me...

            Calling the words of a saying the things to which they refer escapes my grip!

            And where in all this is the Person in whose image we are created?

            Arsenios
            The problem with yer church is this.....

            Blinded by the light.

            She gets down but she never gets tight.

            orthodoxy

            Comment


            • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
              No. It's not about dividing up God's singularity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's about God being a hypostasis/ousia and the hypostasis proceeding into creation as the Logos and Pneuma.

              One fundamental aspect is recognizing and understanding phenomenon versus noumenon. Creation is noumenological, given phenomenologicality of existence when instantiated by God's Rhema which carried it forth (by His Logos) and upholds it.



              No. 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). That can't change or God is not God.

              Ousia is the being as essence. Hypostasis is individuality as substance. The former provides inherent ontology, while the latter provides economy. Ousia cannot "become". Ousia "IS". It's the immutability OF being.

              For instance... The nous (mind) and thelema (will) is relative to the physis of the ousia. But the Logos is relative to the Rhema, which IS the hypostasis. The Logos takes action in economy; but the nous never changes (though it has the entirety of multi-verse-ish potentialities for all of creation simultaneously in His foreknowledge).
              As someone who came to an understanding of the Bible through study outside of any tradition, I hold certain ideas about what it says that are likely "unique" as a result. What you suggest here is similar to what I eventually came to see in the first verses of John. Jesus was an unspoken thought of God that, once uttered, took on a life of it's own to accomplish God's purpose.
              Last edited by fzappa13; March 6th, 2015, 06:21 PM.
              Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by fzappa13 View Post
                As someone who came to an understanding of the Bible through study outside of any tradition, I hold certain ideas about what it says that are likely "unique" as a result. What you suggest here is similar to what I eventually came to see in the first verses of John. Jesus was an unspoken thought of God that, once uttered, took on a life of it's own to accomplish God's purpose.
                Join the unique club.

                Welcome aboard.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
                  Join the unique club.

                  Welcome aboard.
                  Do I get my pass word and decoder ring now?
                  Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by fzappa13 View Post
                    Do I get my pass word and decoder ring now?
                    White stone with a new name.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by 1Mind1Spirit View Post
                      White stone with a new name.
                      That is my aspiration.
                      Some drink at the fountain of knowledge, others just gargle.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by fzappa13 View Post
                        That is my aspiration.
                        Yes.

                        Comment


                        • TFTn5280 A second question: Can ousia relate to hypostasis without itself becoming hypostasis?

                          Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                          No. Ousia has no economy whatsoever.
                          I see how you qualitatively account for Logos and Pmeuma. How does the Father relate?
                          Thomas

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

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Arsenios View Post
                            The hypostasis (that faith is) being the means for the uniting of the two hypostases into one New Creation?
                            Yes, exactly.

                            Yes, it is a basis for actions by man...
                            It's the substance that translated us into His (Jesus') rest, whereby the life we now live in the flesh we live by the faith of the Son of God.

                            Man's actions apart from being in Christ are sin.

                            Yes, where rhema are uttered sayings that are heard, eg heeded...
                            That sense of meaning is included in Rhema being the subject matter.

                            Rhema is words uttered...

                            It is not that which they are uttered ABOUT...
                            Yes (according to lexicography), Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word; the thing (thought and) spoken ABOUT. The content or substance of all thought and speech.

                            How would one think or speak without content as subject matter? Rhema is the "thing" in a number of scripture passages, including in Luke 1 and 2.

                            An adage is a rhema...
                            Right. The adage is the thing spoken about. An adage would be the subject matter, not spontaneous thought and expression as one's own.

                            I think this is where I lose track of your line here...
                            I know. It's because of the definition for Rhema (and Logos) that you don't fully understand.

                            How on earth in man's fallen condition can one possibly KNOW that?
                            Easily. God created all and He alone is uncreated. So in His Self-existent and Self-conscious Pre-existence, there was nothing (no thing) else for His mind's Logos to think and speak about that had inherent phenomenological existence. And the hypostasis is the sustance underlying His essential being and its nature, so that would be the substance as the Rhema.

                            The Orthodox teaching here is the simple and unutterable unknowability of God's Uncreated Self-existence [Essence]...
                            Right. The Rhema is relative to the hypostasis and its energies/economy, not the ousia as the immutable, unknowable essence.

                            That would seem to Orthodox ears sheer speculation incapable of demonstration...
                            I actually just did.

                            I wish I could say it makes sense to me...
                            It would on video with an illustrated diagram.

                            Calling the words of a saying the things to which they refer escapes my grip!
                            Read Zodhiates' lexicography and that will help. Rhema is the content or subject matter (for all context and concept). A saying is a noun; a thing. It's the subject matter.

                            When one thinks of a saying (Old MacDonald had a farm, etc.), the Logos is thinking and expressing a thing; not engaging in original thought.

                            And where in all this is the Person in whose image we are created?

                            Arsenios
                            Though we're created in God's image (not the Son's, who is the charakter/express image OF His hypostasis)... That would be the Phenomenological and Nooumenological Logos, which proceeded forth (exerchomai) concurrent with the Pneuma proceeding (ekporeuomai); and this eternally begotten, uncreated, divine Son had a sempiternal prosopon and then was Incarnate with/as a Theanthropic prosopon, which is now glorified and ascended. (The processed Pneuma does NOT have an individuated prosopon, being hypostatically co-inherent with the Logos).

                            But the Son is not an individuated hypostasis, rather being God's processed hypostasis as a two-fold co-qualitative hypostatic distinction along with the Pneuma. This LOOKS like three hypostases (in combination with God's co-processed conjoined inherent hypostasis), but is not.

                            There is only one prosopon in creation; that of the Son, whether in sempiternity or Incarnate in temporality. God's inherent prosopon remains transcendent, though as radiant unapproachable light piercing and illuminating all creation and in which God's co-procesed hypostasis dwells (the prosopon "has" the hypostasis). And the Holy Spirit has no individuated prosopon, being hypostatically co-inherent with the co-processed Logos. The former's qualitative distinction being omnipresence in creation with the latter's qualitative distinction being the finite point of localized personal presence with the sempiternal prosopon. All hypostases have a proper prosopon, and relative to their state of inherent existence, whether phenomenological or nooumenological.)

                            God's inherent transcendent phenomenological prosopon (along with His ousia and its physis), aren't "in" immanent creation, remaining transcendent while He (His co-processed hypostasis) omnipresently and omnichronosically tents in sempiternity as His everlasting abode with us; the Rhema of his dunamis upholding all things (His uncreated intangible phenomenological hypostasis upholding all created intangible and tangible nooumenological hypostases by giving them phenomenological actuality as existence by His inherently phenomenological and nooumenological Logos).

                            [And this is the understanding for the ontological origin of all things IN Christ from Colossians 1:16-17 that is mistaken in the false Universal Atonement doctrine as post-resurrection continuing ontology for existence rather than as the source and origin of existence, with Edenic spiritual death and sin onset abrogating communion that had to be restored by hypostatic ontology.]

                            God (the Father) dwells in unapproachable light (in sempiternity), which is the radiance of His transcendent prosopon piercing and illuminating all creation as a result of the co-procession of His inherent hypostasis with the expression and exhalation of His Logos and Pneuma when/as all created sempiternity/temporality were instantiated into phenomenological actuality of tangible existence from noumenological potentiality of existence.

                            We are created in God's image, and we're a hypostasis underyling an ousia and its physis which are outwardly presented by a prosopon, and capable of logos (as is God, and as is His Logos made dyophysitic/miaphysitic flesh as Theanthropos). There are no eternal, sempiternal, or temporal multihypostatic beings. That's an unnecessary anomaly and paradox of quantification for an unquantifiable God.

                            This reconciles all anathemas (Arianism, Sabellianism, Unitarianism, Binitarianism, Adoptionism, Ebionism, etc. ad infinitum), along with the omission/s of the Patristic formulaic of the Orthodox Trinity which cannot account for the distinction between phenomenon and nooumenon or creating heaven and sempiternity, etc. The created sempiternal heaven has now been accounted for without compromising any tenet of orthodoxy, while eliminating having to erroneously quantify God into "parts" as multiple hypostases.

                            God is a Uni-Hypostatic Trinity.
                            Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; March 7th, 2015, 04:13 PM.
                            Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                            “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by TFTn5280 View Post
                              I see how you qualitatively account for Logos and Pmeuma. How does the Father relate?
                              If you'll read my immediately previous post to Arsenios, it should account for that and more.

                              The Father (God) is the co-processed inherently-transcendent hypostasis in sempiternity, underlying His ousia and its physis in transcendence, along with His prosopon as radiant unapproachable light that illuminates all creation from transcendence via that singular procession.

                              This "looks like" three hypostases in sempiternity, but there is only one prosopon in creation... the Son. And this accounts for your perception that the Holy Spirit is the perichoretic for Father and Son (but this is entirely another exponentially greater understanding).
                              Last edited by PneumaPsucheSoma; March 7th, 2015, 04:18 PM.
                              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
                                If you'll read my immediately previous post to Arsenios, it should account for that and more.

                                The Father (God) is the co-processed inherently-transcendent hypostasis in sempiternity, underlying His ousia and its physis in transcendence, along with His prosopon as radiant unapproachable light that illuminates all creation from transcendence via that singular procession.

                                This "looks like" three hypostases in sempiternity, but there is only one prosopon in creation... the Son. And this accounts for your perception that the Holy Spirit is the perichoretic for Father and Son (but this is entirely another exponentially greater understanding).
                                Excellent.

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

                                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?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X