User Tag List

Page 3 of 20 FirstFirst 12345613 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 300

Thread: PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

  1. #31
    Over 2000 post club OCTOBER23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,047
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    131850
    Fine, I won't waste my Brilliant parrhesia in its nominal Latin form

    on this meaningless "free speech" discussion.

  2. #32
    LIFETIME MEMBER steko's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    13,803
    Thanks
    29,680
    Thanked 22,305 Times in 12,168 Posts

    Mentioned
    70 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147731
    Quote Originally Posted by john w View Post

    Anyones got sum ousia's or physis I can munch on?
    http://graphic-design.tjs-labs.com/s...?id=1184894796

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to steko For Your Post:

    Tambora (March 22nd, 2018)

  4. #33
    Over 2000 post club OCTOBER23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,047
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    131850
    john w

    Would an UZI Machine gun DO ?

  5. #34
    TOL Legend john w's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    Heavenly Places
    Posts
    18,798
    Thanks
    149
    Thanked 13,292 Times in 9,164 Posts

    Mentioned
    107 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147874
    Quote Originally Posted by OCTOBER23 View Post
    john w

    Would an UZI Machine gun DO ?
    I'm still checkin' out my Roger's/Roget's Thesaurus for the below stumper:



    "Yes, and we'll need to clearly define transcendent/transcendence, along with hypostasis and ousia (and physis and prosopon, etc.)."


    I once offered to buy a chick, 2 1/3 drinks, that transcends transcendence. Does that qualify me to enter into the ring, to debate?

    Isn't "prosopon" an Alaskan fish?

    I think Barney Fife did a little "hypostasis." Wait...That was hypnosis...
    Saint John W

  6. #35
    ☞☞☞☞Presbyterian (PCA) ☜☜☜☜☞☞☞☞ A Calvinist! ☜☜☜☜☜ Ask Mr. Religion's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Chandler, Arizona USA
    Posts
    6,831
    Thanks
    4,542
    Thanked 4,026 Times in 2,299 Posts

    Blog Entries
    148
    Mentioned
    88 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)



    Rep Power
    2147703
    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Let's.
    And my intention is to severely limit any other cross-talk with others. The time limitations of a 1-on-1 make this thread the most feasible solution.
    Wonderful and agreed!

    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    That may be a bit of a big initial chunk, but we can distill it down in various manners. My intention is to both preempt and prompt questions in addition to those you already have.
    Fair enough and appreciated. I will need some time to parse it all into "bite size chunks" for discussion. In so doing I want to say I am not ignoring your "initial chunk" and appreciate your taking the time to lay out a good foundation, thus I will try to deal with things in a cascading sequence building upon antecedents.

    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    My primary and preferred lexical source is Spiros Zodhiates, the late preeminent native first-language Greek scholar; but no single lexical source could suffice, for obvious reasons.
    Good to know. I have several of his works and may not agree with him on some of his doctrinal points, but find him to be lexically trustworthy. I tend to rely much upon BDAG in my studies and where Zodhiates and BDAG are at odds (I hope not much!), I will be careful to note the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    And... Off we go. I pray immeasurable blessings on your heart and life as iron mutually sharpens iron. And I do so with great heaviness, not having known of your home hardships until your last rep to me.
    Very kind and charitable words. Thank you!

    Quote Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma View Post
    Feel free to set the pace and tone; and to ask whatever you will for clarity to begin and beyond.
    Again, I appreciate the willingness to bear with me and my personal situation.

    AMR
    Embedded links in my posts or in my sig below are included for a reason. Tolle Lege.



    Do you confess?
    Founder, Reformed Theology Institute
    AMR's Randomata Blog
    Learn Reformed Doctrine
    I fear explanations explanatory of things explained.
    Christian, catholic, Calvinist, confessional, Presbyterian (PCA).
    Lex orandi, lex credenda: everyone is a Calvinist on their knees.
    The best TOL Social Group: here.
    If your username appears in blue and you have over 500 posts:
    Why?



  7. #36
    Over 500 post club
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    583
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts

    Blog Entries
    3
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    2560
    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion View Post
    1. God is a singular transcendent hypostasis underlying an ousia.
    One distinction underneath an existence or being. But you are still an idolater.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    2. God's literal Logos and Pneuma are the two-fold, singular, external, economic procession of His hypostasis into creation when / as He spoke to create.
    No a logos is greek meaning statement. So he has his own logos, which would be his name, not being the name Jesus. The Early Church Fathers didn't know the word Yahweh. Yahweh is modern Hebrew but close enough.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ask Mr. Religion
    3. Each (Logos and Pneuma) are qualitatively, rather than quantitatively distinct.
    You propose 3 Yahweh's.
    Last edited by Omniskeptical; February 18th, 2015 at 10:00 PM.
    John 1:1-2 εν αρχη ην ο λογος At the beginning, it was a word; και ο λογος ην προς ο θεος and a word, it was unto a God; και θεος ην ο λογος and the God, it was.. A word 2 ουτος a-such... 2 ην εν αρχη προς ο θεος ... it was at the beginning unto a God.

    Yahweh is a word of God, not just Christ!

  8. #37
    LIFETIME MEMBER Bright Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Calfornia
    Posts
    9,278
    Thanks
    392
    Thanked 4,931 Times in 2,865 Posts

    Mentioned
    47 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)


    Rep Power
    2147753
    It would be appropriate to limit the responses on this thread to PPS and AMR. I have found there is too much cross talk on what should be a one on one.
    He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose.

    Jim Elliot

  9. #38
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Republic of Mauritius
    Posts
    321
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    One distinction underneath an existence or being. But you are still and idolater.

    No a logos is greek meaning statement. So he word have his own logos, which would be his name, not being the name Jesus. The Early Church Fathers didn't know the word Yahweh. Yahweh is modern Hebrew but close enough.

    You propose 3 Yahweh's.

    Start Your Own Thread. Omni Ain't A Great Way To Start. Listen, For a Change. A Bold New Concept

  10. #39
    BANNED
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    Republic of Mauritius
    Posts
    321
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2 Times in 2 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by OCTOBER23 View Post
    john w

    Would an UZI Machine gun DO ?

    Can You Say Fool ? You Don't Need to. We Already KNOW - Repeat, After YOURSELF. YES You CAN SAY IT


  11. #40
    Over 2500 post club Zeke's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    2,630
    Thanks
    175
    Thanked 411 Times in 378 Posts

    Blog Entries
    2
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    152962
    Quote Originally Posted by Omniskeptical View Post
    One distinction underneath an existence or being. But you are still and idolater.

    No a logos is greek meaning statement. So he word have his own logos, which would be his name, not being the name Jesus. The Early Church Fathers didn't know the word Yahweh. Yahweh is modern Hebrew but close enough.

    You propose 3 Yahweh's.
    .
    Trying to awaken the divine principle in the belly of the fish.

  12. #41
    LIFETIME MEMBER
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    8,198
    Thanks
    569
    Thanked 927 Times in 774 Posts

    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    122582
    When does the discussion start?

    LA
    My theology is that the elect of Israel became the scattered church among the nations, and when filled up with the full number of gentiles who believe to become one with them, then Christ will return and gather them, and God will then pour out His wrath on the unbelievers of both Jew and Gentile.

  13. #42
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    585
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123653
    Quote Originally Posted by Lazy afternoon View Post
    When does the discussion start?

    LA
    The pace for this thread will be slow for most onlookers.. AMR has a substantial home situation that requires much time and energy, and I'm intermittently available.

    For you and other Unitarians, it may not be very interesting or vital, since we'll be addressing exactly the manner in which Jesus Christ is ontologically divine.

  14. #43
    Over 2000 post club OCTOBER23's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Posts
    2,047
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 30 Times in 28 Posts

    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    131850
    OK, guys,

    We all know that these two want to be alone together.

    So , let us give them some room to be alone .

    --------------------------------------------------------------

  15. #44
    TOL Subscriber PneumaPsucheSoma's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    In Christ
    Posts
    4,058
    Thanks
    585
    Thanked 980 Times in 716 Posts

    Mentioned
    12 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Rep Power
    123653
    Not in impatience at all, but to keep the thread semi-fresh; I'm copy/pasting two successive posts from another thread wherein I indicated I could delineate exegetical lexicography to determine the "how" for the alleged mystery of the "what" of the Virgin Birth.

    It also includes a glimpse at Theology Proper, the Logos and Pneuma procession, and a bit more attention to Christological cataphatics and apophatics.


    Okay. It'll take at least minimal framework for the two fundamental understandings the Patristics missed: the applied definition of Rhema contrasted to the same for Logos; and to recognize that God alone is eternal, uncreated, and Self-existent as a singular hypostasis. In that pre-existence, there is nothing but God, and from that utter transcendence He created both sempiternity (the heavenly realm) and temporality (the cosmos with chronology).

    God alone has inherent phenomenologicality. His Logos and Pneuma have both phenomenologicality and noumenologicality. All creation is noumenological and is given non-inherent phenomenologicality at its instantiation into existence at the divine utterance. The Logos and Pneuma are the qualitative two-fold singular procession of God's singular hypostasis from transcendence into both realms of immanence, when/as creation is spoken into existence and all animating life breathed into those realms.


    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 is the entirety of the faculties and functionalities of intellect, and if there is expression it's also Logos (written/spoken). 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.

    Rhema is the sword of the Spirit. Logos is the wielding or thrusting of that sword. Logos is the map for the territory that is the Rhema. Rhema is from reo (to speak), homonymic with reo (to flow); and -ma is the Greek suffix indicating "result of". Rhema is the resulting flow of speaking by the thrusting of the Logos.

    Since God alone is eternal, uncreated, Self-existent, and transcendent; there was nothing (no thing) else to think and speak about. Since Rhema is the thing spoken about, and God is a singular transcendent hypostasis; and since faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema; and since faith is a hypostasis...

    Mary, as evidenced in Luke 1, heard the Rhema (God's hypostasis) for faith (a hypostasis) to come; and by her own profession of "be (ginomai) it unto me according to thy Rhema", the hypostasis of her faith hearing the very hypostasis of God conceived the hypostasis of Theanthropos in her womb. The Logos as the seed, by the breath of the Spirit, brought forth both the physical and spiritual life of Messiah as a supernatural procreative act.

    Neither procession (at creation) nor conception are inception, and the eternality of the Son is the eternality of the Logos. They're coterminous. THIS is the eternal Son, Fathered through procession and conception.

    The hypostasis of faith hearing the hypostasis as God's Rhema conceived the Theanthropic hypostasis of Messiah.

    There's more exegetical detail from Luke 1 and other passages, but the truth is in the lexicography as well.

    And this all precedes the Orthodox beginning point for formulation, the Patristics having omitted the creation of heaven and sempiternity (everlastingness) along with the cosmos and temporality with chronology.

    Starting post-procession, what they've perceived as three hypostases is actually the singularly-processed two-fold qualitative hypostatic distinctions of the phenomeno-/noumeno-logical Logos and Pneuma, which are co-inherent and are conjoined to God's inherently phenomenological hypostasis.

    God cannot be quantified or divided into parts. Multiple hypostases are parts. And the two "kinds" of eternity postulated by Aquinas in the 13th century are actually God's innate uncreated eternity and the created sempiternity of heaven.

    In mathematics terms for contrast...
    God alone is a line. Aidios. Eternal. Eternity.
    The heavenly realm is a ray. Aionios. Everlasting. Sempiternity.
    The cosmos is a line segment. Aion/s. Temporal. Temporality.

    The Orthodox and anathema formulaics ALL combined the first two, while presuming not to. The Logos/Pneuma procession is the key. Exerchomai and ekporeuomai are both external. Since the hypostasis underlies the ousia (rather than the ousia "having" the hypostasis), the processions cannot be internal to the ousia. So the Logos and Pneuma must be inherently ontological and the procession must be economic and singular. God spoke and breathed forth His hypostasis external to Himself, and the intrinsic phenomenology and noumenology mean the internal Logos became the external Son (just as Tertullian and others insisted).

    The noumenology of the Logos means the processed qualitative hypostatic distinction is the Son and not the Father. They are not discreet as multiple individuated hypostases.

    The inherent hypostasis and the two-fold qualitative hypostatic distinctions are what the ACFs inferred to be three hypostases. They're not, and their co-inherence is innate, obviating the need for a nebulous inter-penetrating of perichoresis.

    [Can that be substantiated biblically as cause, rather than effect?]

    It is wholly effect. The Rhema as God's hypostasis is the cause, just as it is for all else. Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Rhema. The hypostasis of faith IS the resulting flow of God's pre-existent hypostasis AS the Rhema, underlying His ousia and its physis, with the Incarnate Logos being the prosopon.

    Christology is according to the Chalcedonian Dyophysitic Hypostatic Union. No Monophysitism; and thus no Eutychianism. No Dyohypostaticism; and thus no Nestorianism. No Apollinarianism, for Theanthropos had a human rational soul. But with some potential semantical concession to Cyrillianism as Miaphysitism being acceptable.

    Arians perceive the procession of the Logos to be a (celestial) creative act.
    Unitarians perceive the conception of the Logos to be a (terrestrial) creative act.
    Sabellians perceive the hypostasis and two-fold processed Logos and Pneuma distinctions to be non-simultaneous and non-concurrent sequential or dynamic modalities.
    Other anathema formulaics have misperceived in other manners and details.

  16. #45
    TOL Legend patrick jane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2014
    Location
    homeless
    Posts
    33,467
    Thanks
    18,155
    Thanked 16,591 Times in 13,030 Posts

    Blog Entries
    32
    Mentioned
    92 Post(s)
    Tagged
    5 Thread(s)

    Rep Power
    2147780
    Saint John W - And stuff this..


    I also affirm Chalcedonian Dyophysitic Christology of the Hypostatic Union, though allowing for some inclusion of Cyrillian Miaphysitism. I DISaffirm Nestorian, Eutychian, and Apollinarian variants of Christology and any hint of pure Monophysitism. Theanthropos is the singular qualitatively-processed divine hypostasis, having taken on (and underlying) a human physis to accompany the inherent divine physis for God's singular ousia.


    Anyones got sum ousia's or physis I can munch on?



    me,
    this is hungry work, it seems - OUISA Daddy ? -

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
About us
Since 1997 TheologyOnline (TOL) has been one of the most popular theology forums on the internet. On TOL we encourage spirited conversation about religion, politics, and just about everything else.

follow us