ECT Our triune God

I accept the trinity theory ... because scripture specifically mentions them separately as: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Scripture also discusses their work and time of work as if they are individuals within time.

Yet, I believe that there is only ONE God ... and that they are HE.

This is the way I have come to understand this ONE but three. For me it is how God created a literal IMAGE for himself and then used it as well.

The invisible God used this image to represent his presence within his creation as the super-natural Father in OT times. A good word for this manifestation of God's presence among men would be - Immanuel.

The same ONE invisible God used this image a second time to appear in natural flesh as the Son. Scripture tells us that this presence of God is the WORD of God being sent among men to proclaim truth to men, the way of salvation to men, and to tell us of the life he has to offer those who will acknowledge him as the savior. A good way to describe the Son of God is: The WORD of God, who was God, came among men appearing as the LORD in flesh (versus appearing as a super-natural presence). A good word for describing his manifestation in NT times would be - Emmanuel

Yet, the ONE God was not done with his works for mankind ... for God told us that he was sending his invisible spirit into the world to work within those 'saved.'

In our present time (since the ascension of Jesus Christ) it is God as the Holy Spirit that comes to those 'saved' and dwells in us doing his work to complete our transformation into the kingdom of our LORD.

In all three of these cases it is the ONE God who is working ... but the ONE God wants to be known for his magnificent works that he has done for man as three identifiable personages. They are HE.

I also believe that when the kingdom of our Lord is ushered in ... we will see, at least, two of the trinity - the Father and the Son, sitting on separate thrones.

I also believe due to what is said in scripture that they will look identical ... because God only created ONE image to represent him as the ONE God ... HE just used it twice as Emmanuel.


.

Arsenios said:

8:42 is ekonomic, εξηλθον

Click to expand...

Right, and appropriately so. Inherent ontology takes action, which is economy. The economy is procession, and is not creation.

and is not the word used in the Creed...

Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Creeds are not infallible, evidenced by the changes in terminology.

That word is: εκπορευεται which is understood ontologically, not ekonomically...

Click to expand...

Just because it's (mis-)"understood" ontologically rather than ekonomically, that means nothing except a misunderstanding. And it's grossly eiesegetic and conceptual.

Ek- is out of/from. It's movement. Movement is economy as action. It should be understood as such. It's not en-. Out of/from cannot be ontology, and if it's "internal" to the ousia "from" the Father, the ousia is a distinct fourth element apart from the (alleged) hypostases.

Ek- cannot be conflated as being non-economic. This is another part or the problem and self-paradox of the Orthodox formulaic.

It is taken from John 15:26 ...

Arsenios

Click to expand...

Right, and ekporeuomai and exerchomai for the Holy Spirit and Logos/Son are both out of/from as economy. EXternal. God EXpressed and EXhaled His Word and His Breath.

"By the word of the Lord were the heavens made, and all the host of them by the breath of his mouth." -Psalms 33:6

You should be glad I've rigorously maintained every Patristic tenet and sub-tenet, reconciling only that which they missed while arduously avoiding all anathemas.

PneumaPsucheSoma said:

Inherent ontology takes action, which is economy.
The economy is procession,
and is not creation.

Click to expand...

I agree, ekonomia is not creation, (indeed not, for it is itself created) and can be procession, which can be one of its manifestations.

Your argument is that ALL procession is ekonomia...

The Fathers argue that there is another procession, that of the Holy Spirit, that is the source of Being of the Holy Spirit from the Father...

Irrelevant. Creeds are not infallible, evidenced by the changes in terminology.

Click to expand...

That is a tad on the cavalier side of the discussion here... Were I to return the favor, there could be no discussion...

Just because it's (mis-)"understood" ontologically
rather than ekonomically,
that means nothing except a misunderstanding.
And it's grossly eiesegetic
and conceptual.

Click to expand...

Back at ya!

Ek- is out of/from. It's movement. Movement is economy as action. It should be understood as such. It's not en-. Out of/from cannot be ontology, and if it's "internal" to the ousia "from" the Father, the ousia is a distinct fourth element apart from the (alleged) hypostases.

Ek- cannot be conflated as being non-economic. This is another part or the problem and self-paradox of the Orthodox formulaic.

Click to expand...

Good - You addressed half the exegetical issue, for ek- and ex- are both the same, and are the prefixes for two different roots, which you ignore, and you only get half the meaning of ed-...

So we are 1/4 the way to the exegetoical destination!

BECAUSE...

You ONLY acknowledge ek- as MOVEMENT...
And you DENY it meaning anthing OTHER THAN movement.

So that when the (irrelevant) Fathers (who only MIS-understand the matter) speak of ek-porisis as being capable of being understood ontologically, you head into cavalier postal and AK-47 their error... And in this you give a 1/4 defense, using half the meaning of ek-, and ignoring altogether the meaning of poreuomai in comparison with erchomai... Indeed, you ONLY CONFLATE these two words exegetically...

As you go on to say:

Right, and ekporeuomai and exerchomai for the Holy Spirit and Logos/Son are both out of/from as economy. EXternal. God EXpressed and EXhaled His Word and His Breath.

Click to expand...

So perhaps we need to take a look at the OTHER half of the meaning of ek-... Because you had written:

Ek- is out of/from. It's movement.

Click to expand...

It also means, more generically, SOURCE... You only took the derived meaning... MOVEMENT FROM a source... And with exerchomai, you are on good ground, because erchomai is a verb that can only mean movement... Yet you ignored this part of the word... And it tries to support your view... But you skirted it, and had you NOT skirted it, you would then have had to prove that it has the SAME meaning as poreuomai, and this from lexical sources, and it does not lend itself well to identity of meaning that conflates in MOVEMENT...

So what about this POREUOMAI? This word that the (irrelevant)(misunderstanding) [...rattattattata....!] Holy Church Fathers [GASP!] so reverently insist upon that they placed it in the Nicene Creed such that ALL Christianity should confess with ONE mouth and with ONE accord the Creed of the Christian Faith?

Here is Thayer's Strong's reference:

1 to lead over, carry over, transfer
.....1 to pursue the journey on which one has entered,
.....2 to continue on one's journey
........to depart from life
.....3 to follow one, that is: become his adherent
.........1 to lead or order one's life

So you can see that to lead, or carry over, or to transfer is the primary meaning, and so is to continue one's journey to departure from life, and to become a disciple following another's direction, which means to lead or order one's life...

When applied to the Holy Spirit of God, these ingredients coalesce into the ek-, for they all, when sanitized from earthly meanings, mean a Person doing the Will of Another, and the source of that Person and Will is indicated by the EK-, is the Father, for the Scripture notes:

ο παρα του πατρος εκπορευεται

"Who alongside of the Father is proceeding..."

The lexical issues are worth a look, for again, the root word from which poreuo derives is peira, and we find this word in the Lord's Prayer:

1 a trial, experience, attempt
2 to attempt a thing, to make trial of a thing or of a person
3 to have a trial of a thing
4 to experience, learn to know by experience

Welcome to the Mystery of the Faith of Jesus Christ...

You should be glad

Click to expand...

I am, I am...

(that) I've rigorously maintained every Patristic tenet and sub-tenet,

Click to expand...

The one above is doubtless the ONLY ONE which you might have missed, yes?

Well, maybe the two above - But it was ONLY ONE word!

reconciling only that which they missed while arduously avoiding all anathemas.

Click to expand...

WELL DONE, WELL DONE!! [= AHA, AHA!!] Psalm 40:15

It comes across as verbal obfuscation to my tired old soul...

So perhaps we can say we have tried, at least, to slow it down a tad, and put it on track for clear discussion...

Who knows, we might even make some progress in this Procession going on alongside of (as in Source) God the Father?

para tou Patrou...

Arsenios

Ps82 said:

I accept the trinity theory ... because scripture specifically mentions them separately as: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Scripture also discusses their work and time of work as if they are individuals within time.

Yet, I believe that there is only ONE God ... and that they are HE.

This is the way I have come to understand this ONE but three. For me it is how God created a literal IMAGE for himself and then used it as well.

The invisible God used this image to represent his presence within his creation as the super-natural Father in OT times. A good word for this manifestation of God's presence among men would be - Immanuel.

The same ONE invisible God used this image a second time to appear in natural flesh as the Son. Scripture tells us that this presence of God is the WORD of God being sent among men to proclaim truth to men, the way of salvation to men, and to tell us of the life he has to offer those who will acknowledge him as the savior. A good way to describe the Son of God is: The WORD of God, who was God, came among men appearing as the LORD in flesh (versus appearing as a super-natural presence). A good word for describing his manifestation in NT times would be - Emmanuel

Yet, the ONE God was not done with his works for mankind ... for God told us that he was sending his invisible spirit into the world to work within those 'saved.'

In our present time (since the ascension of Jesus Christ) it is God as the Holy Spirit that comes to those 'saved' and dwells in us doing his work to complete our transformation into the kingdom of our LORD.

In all three of these cases it is the ONE God who is working ... but the ONE God wants to be known for his magnificent works that he has done for man as three identifiable personages. They are HE.

I also believe that when the kingdom of our Lord is ushered in ... we will see, at least, two of the trinity - the Father and the Son, sitting on separate thrones.

I also believe due to what is said in scripture that they will look identical ... because God only created ONE image to represent him as the ONE God ... HE just used it twice as Emmanuel.


.

Click to expand...

..... :up:..... :up:..... :up:

Arsenios

Arsenios said:

That is a tad on the cavalier side of the discussion here... Were I to return the favor, there could be no discussion...


Arsenios

Click to expand...

After my posts on yer church's origin, you have no favor to return.

Yer end of this discussion has been over for quite awhile now.

:deadhorse::chuckle:

Arsenios said:

WELL DONE, WELL DONE!! [= AHA, AHA!!] Psalm 40:15

It comes across as verbal obfuscation to my tired old soul...

So perhaps we can say we have tried, at least, to slow it down a tad, and put it on track for clear discussion...

Who knows, we might even make some progress in this Procession going on alongside of (as in Source) God the Father?

para tou Patrou...

Arsenios

Click to expand...

Lame attempt to drag the quickened back into the sludge.:comeout:

Hey, Arsenio.

I can be quite ostensive with no danger of a ban.

What's yer next trick?

Arsenios said:

I agree, ekonomia is not creation, (indeed not, for it is itself created) and can be procession, which can be one of its manifestations.

Your argument is that ALL procession is ekonomia...

The Fathers argue that there is another procession, that of the Holy Spirit, that is the source of Being of the Holy Spirit from the Father...

That is a tad on the cavalier side of the discussion here... Were I to return the favor, there could be no discussion...

Back at ya!

Good - You addressed half the exegetical issue, for ek- and ex- are both the same, and are the prefixes for two different roots, which you ignore, and you only get half the meaning of ed-...

So we are 1/4 the way to the exegetoical destination!

BECAUSE...

You ONLY acknowledge ek- as MOVEMENT...
And you DENY it meaning anthing OTHER THAN movement.

So that when the (irrelevant) Fathers (who only MIS-understand the matter) speak of ek-porisis as being capable of being understood ontologically, you head into cavalier postal and AK-47 their error... And in this you give a 1/4 defense, using half the meaning of ek-, and ignoring altogether the meaning of poreuomai in comparison with erchomai... Indeed, you ONLY CONFLATE these two words exegetically...

As you go on to say:

So perhaps we need to take a look at the OTHER half of the meaning of ek-... Because you had written:

It also means, more generically, SOURCE... You only took the derived meaning... MOVEMENT FROM a source... And with exerchomai, you are on good ground, because erchomai is a verb that can only mean movement... Yet you ignored this part of the word... And it tries to support your view... But you skirted it, and had you NOT skirted it, you would then have had to prove that it has the SAME meaning as poreuomai, and this from lexical sources, and it does not lend itself well to identity of meaning that conflates in MOVEMENT...

So what about this POREUOMAI? This word that the (irrelevant)(misunderstanding) [...rattattattata....!] Holy Church Fathers [GASP!] so reverently insist upon that they placed it in the Nicene Creed such that ALL Christianity should confess with ONE mouth and with ONE accord the Creed of the Christian Faith?

Here is Thayer's Strong's reference:

1 to lead over, carry over, transfer
.....1 to pursue the journey on which one has entered,
.....2 to continue on one's journey
........to depart from life
.....3 to follow one, that is: become his adherent
.........1 to lead or order one's life

So you can see that to lead, or carry over, or to transfer is the primary meaning, and so is to continue one's journey to departure from life, and to become a disciple following another's direction, which means to lead or order one's life...

When applied to the Holy Spirit of God, these ingredients coalesce into the ek-, for they all, when sanitized from earthly meanings, mean a Person doing the Will of Another, and the source of that Person and Will is indicated by the EK-, is the Father, for the Scripture notes:

ο παρα του πατρος εκπορευεται

"Who alongside of the Father is proceeding..."

The lexical issues are worth a look, for again, the root word from which poreuo derives is peira, and we find this word in the Lord's Prayer:

1 a trial, experience, attempt
2 to attempt a thing, to make trial of a thing or of a person
3 to have a trial of a thing
4 to experience, learn to know by experience

Welcome to the Mystery of the Faith of Jesus Christ...

I am, I am...

The one above is doubtless the ONLY ONE which you might have missed, yes?

Well, maybe the two above - But it was ONLY ONE word!

WELL DONE, WELL DONE!! [= AHA, AHA!!] Psalm 40:15

It comes across as verbal obfuscation to my tired old soul...

So perhaps we can say we have tried, at least, to slow it down a tad, and put it on track for clear discussion...

Who knows, we might even make some progress in this Procession going on alongside of (as in Source) God the Father?

para tou Patrou...

Arsenios

Click to expand...

Okay... We're talking past each other on this, and I can see why.

And you've taken a bit of an offense at me addressing the Patristics because it evidently seemed like I had a "tone" when referring to them.

I was only addressing ek- and ex- and economy because you had only referred to ontology and omitted economy. And I haven't yet even gone on to erchomai and poreuomai or the accompanying words for "sent", etc. from both John passages.

I'm accustomed to conversing about procession with Protestants who are clueless, so I've been glossing the topic so far just to have the inclusion of economy in both ex-/ek- terms.

THIS is the discussion I want to have. Procession. And I misunderstood you as referring to ekporeuomai as ONLY ontology while you inferred I was ONLY referring to economy.

I vehemently denounce the Filioque, so I'd hope you might think I have something to say on the matter.

Let's continue, for I think I can learn much from you here, and you might actually begin to understand my perspective of why I adhere to Unihypostaticism.

PneumaPsucheSoma said:

Okay... We're talking past each other on this, and I can see why.

And you've taken a bit of an offense at me addressing the Patristics because it evidently seemed like I had a "tone" when referring to them.

I was only addressing ek- and ex- and economy because you had only referred to ontology and omitted economy. And I haven't yet even gone on to erchomai and poreuomai or the accompanying words for "sent", etc. from both John passages.

I'm accustomed to conversing about procession with Protestants who are clueless, so I've been glossing the topic so far just to have the inclusion of economy in both ex-/ek- terms.

THIS is the discussion I want to have. Procession. And I misunderstood you as referring to ekporeuomai as ONLY ontology while you inferred I was ONLY referring to economy.

I vehemently denounce the Filioque, so I'd hope you might think I have something to say on the matter.

Let's continue, for I think I can learn much from you here, and you might actually begin to understand my perspective of why I adhere to Unihypostaticism.

Click to expand...

Longsuffering? Emphasis on question mark.

If it is so who am I to deny it?

To them that ask, this.......

Psalm 86:15 KJV

15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering , and plenteous in mercy and truth.



Let me not be found despising as depicted here, my brother.


Romans 2:4 KJV

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

I'm with yuh all the way but not gunna be back pedalin'.

PneumaPsucheSoma said:

Okay... We're talking past each other on this, and I can see why.

Click to expand...

Then you should be able to bring it back on line... And the easiest way would perhaps be to show the Son in ekporeusis alongside of the Father as I showed you the Holy Spirit was...

And you've taken a bit of an offense at me addressing the Patristics because it evidently seemed like I had a "tone" when referring to them.

Click to expand...

I lit it up for you so YOU could see it...

I took no offense at all...

I was only addressing ek- and ex- and economy because you had only referred to ontology and omitted economy.

Click to expand...

You know ek- AND ex- are identical... So that you were only addressing ek, and you were restricting its meaning to MOVEMENT FROM...

There is a REASON why I ONLY refer to ontology in ekporeuontai used with the Holy Spirit alongside of God [para tou Patros], and the reason is that this does not indicate "movement from" the father at all, because "para" means, with the genitive, alongside OF, and not alongside FROM the Father... So that the Fathers find in this the ontology of generation of the Holy Spirit FROM the Father as Source, and not FROM as in 'from the Location" [of the Father]... The latter is ekonomic and does entail movement, as you say, but your problem is the sentence construction denies that movement, and affirms ekporeusis alongside of the Father, and not away from the Father as you have been arguing...

And I haven't yet even gone on to erchomai and poreuomai or the accompanying words for "sent", etc. from both John passages.

Click to expand...

That is my point exactly, and it is why you are but 1/4 of the way into the grammatical exegesis...

I'm accustomed to conversing about procession with Protestants who are clueless, so I've been glossing the topic so far just to have the inclusion of economy in both ex-/ek- terms.

Click to expand...

They BOTH are the SAME term...
One followed by a vowel, the other by a consonant...

THIS is the discussion I want to have. Procession. And I misunderstood you as referring to ekporeuomai as ONLY ontology while you inferred I was ONLY referring to economy.

Click to expand...

You WERE referring to both as interchangeable, exerchomai and ekporeuomai,
and you have been retaining that view very consistently,
to the point of denying the possibility of an ontological understanding of either,
and in your post you repeated it,
and assaulted the Fathers...

And then 1n1 started beating his tom-toms immediately...

I vehemently denounce the Filioque, so I'd hope you might think I have something to say on the matter.

Click to expand...

The filioque is ekonomic, and affirms your ekonomic procession of the Holy Spirit...

So vehemence and denouncement are not helpful...

Let's continue, for I think I can learn much from you here,
and you might actually begin to understand my perspective
of why I adhere to Unihypostaticism.

Click to expand...

It is becoming clearer the slower we go...

So may our efforts be blessed!

Back at ya!

Arsenios

Krsto said:

"triune believer" - you mean like one which has a body, soul, and spirit?

Click to expand...

what's the difference between a soul and a spirit?

Arsenios said:

Then you should be able to bring it back on line... And the easiest way would perhaps be to show the Son in ekporeusis alongside of the Father as I showed you the Holy Spirit was...



I lit it up for you so YOU could see it...

I took no offense at all...



You know ek- AND ex- are identical... So that you were only addressing ek, and you were restricting its meaning to MOVEMENT FROM...

There is a REASON why I ONLY refer to ontology in ekporeuontai used with the Holy Spirit alongside of God [para tou Patros], and the reason is that this does not indicate "movement from" the father at all, because "para" means, with the genitive, alongside OF, and not alongside FROM the Father... So that the Fathers find in this the ontology of generation of the Holy Spirit FROM the Father as Source, and not FROM as in 'from the Location" [of the Father]... The latter is ekonomic and does entail movement, as you say, but your problem is the sentence construction denies that movement, and affirms ekporeusis alongside of the Father, and not away from the Father as you have been arguing...



That is my point exactly, and it is why you are but 1/4 of the way into the grammatical exegesis...



They BOTH are the SAME term...
One followed by a vowel, the other by a consonant...



You WERE referring to both as interchangeable, exerchomai and ekporeuomai,
and you have been retaining that view very consistently,
to the point of denying the possibility of an ontological understanding of either,
and in your post you repeated it,
and assaulted the Fathers...

And then 1n1 started beating his tom-toms immediately...




Arsenios

Click to expand...

Once again.

Lay down Satan.

For yer own good punk.

Not the readers.

You done hit the end of my limit for yuh, Homer.

Address my posts, or keep my name outta yer mouth.

Sick little freak.

I drank what? said:

what's the difference between a soul and a spirit?

Click to expand...

Soul is consciousness, spirit is life.

See my granddaughter in that picture?

She's a conscious soul.

Spirit put her little head on my shoulder.

1Mind1Spirit said:

Once again.

Lay down Satan.

For yer own good punk.

Not the readers.

You done hit the end of my limit for yuh, Homer.

Address my posts, or keep my name outta yer mouth.

Sick little freak.

Click to expand...

This is you speaking as a Christian??

Intimidation won't help you...

Name calling won't help you...

Insults won't help you...

Telling me what to do with my mouth won't help you...

I am willing to die right here where I am...

Killing me will not help you...

Being my friend will help...

You do not seem to desire to do so...

God bless you 1n1...

Want me to get you a gun, or a knife, or a blowtorch?

I just don't back off from Truth...

And you jumped me ugly when I refuted PPS's post...


Arsenios

Arsenios said:

This is you speaking as a Christian??

Intimidation won't help you...

Name calling won't help you...

Insults won't help you...

Telling me what to do with my mouth won't help you...

I am willing to die right here where I am...

Killing me will not help you...

Being my friend will help...

You do not seem to desire to do so...

God bless you 1n1...

Want me to get you a gun, or a knife, or a blowtorch?

I just don't back off from Truth...

And you jumped me ugly when I refuted PPS's post...


Arsenios

Click to expand...

Now yer straight up lying.

The truth cut you, deep and ugly.

Refute it head on.

The fact is you cant and tried another angle.

Like I said before, yer false Rhema is easy to see.

1Mind1Spirit said:

Again...

Lay down Satan.

For yer own good punk.

You done hit the end of my limit for yuh, Homer.

Sick little freak.

Click to expand...

Matt 7:16 & 20
Ye shall know them by their fruits.

By their fruits ye shall know them.

You have made know the fruits of your doctrines...

Doctrines have consequences...

Thank you 1n1...

PPS... ???

You gonna weigh in on this?

Or are you gonna to leave your supporter to Proverbs 26:11 ?


Arsenios

1Mind1Spirit said:

Longsuffering? Emphasis on question mark.

If it is so who am I to deny it?

To them that ask, this.......

Psalm 86:15 KJV

15 But thou, O Lord, art a God full of compassion, and gracious, longsuffering , and plenteous in mercy and truth.



Let me not be found despising as depicted here, my brother.


Romans 2:4 KJV

4 Or despisest thou the riches of his goodness and forbearance and longsuffering; not knowing that the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance?

I'm with yuh all the way but not gunna be back pedalin'.

Click to expand...

Yes.

I'm not back-pedaling. Just trying to promote ammicable discussion with one of the few Trinitarians on TOL who can even broach the topic of procession with any understanding.

And my posts can seem more harsh than I intend, so I want to remain purposefully humble. Arsenios represents the procession from a perspective that can give me greater intuitive insight.

PneumaPsucheSoma said:

Yes.

I'm not back-pedaling. Just trying to promote ammicable discussion with one of the few Trinitarians on TOL who can even broach the topic of procession with any understanding.

And my posts can seem more harsh than I intend, so I want to remain purposefully humble.
Arsenios represents the procession from a perspective that
can give me greater intuitive
insight.

Click to expand...

At this point, PPS, it looks like a Good-Cop/Bad-Cop Punch-n-Judy show...
And that you embrace 1n1's actions but want something from me
that toning down your lack of humility is but a tactic for getting what you want...

Lord have Mercy!

Do you really embrace the Proverbs 26:11 fruit of 1n1 without rebuke because he is your doctrinal supporter???

Are you really that cynical?

To feign humility to get my insight?

Arsenios

Arsenios said:

PPS... ???

You gonna weigh in on this?

Or are you gonna to leave your supporter to Proverbs 26:11 ?


Arsenios

Click to expand...

He was banned for his comments.

At whatever point, I have to consider that he is not my servant, and to his own Master he stands or falls. He's much less volatile than in the past, and much of his disdain comes in response to the evils of the Latin Church, and grouping the Easterns in that same lump. Most Protestants do that.

It grieves me when he resorts to such an extreme of personal ad hominem, but I'm not all that far removed from my own previous excursions into such; and still teetering on the edge at times myself.

Arsenios said:

At this point, PPS, it looks like a Good-Cop/Bad-Cop Punch-n-Judy show...

Click to expand...

I can see why it might give that appearance; but I hadn't even read his posts when making mine.

And that you embrace 1n1's actions

Click to expand...

No, but I know where he comes from, both theologically and by personal background. His directness seems more crude than it is.

but want something from me

Click to expand...

I only want discussion of procession, and insight as to how to discuss it with YOU. It is me preferring you, not "using" you.

that toning down your lack of humility is but a tactic for getting what you want...

Click to expand...

Hmmm... No. What I WANT is to be able to get past the impasse of you not being able to recognize and understand what I'm saying regarding Unihypostaticism. And the only way I see I can have insight into broaching that inequity is to converse with you from your perspective.

It's not some "tactic" for extraction or gleaning. It's looking for some homogenous point that can effect communication since my hyper-verbose multi-syllabic canine propensities aren't providing that foundation for any viable exchange between us. That wearies you, so I've determined to be more responsive and syngergistic instead of initiating

Lord have Mercy!

Do you really embrace the Proverbs 26:11 fruit of 1n1 without rebuke because he is your doctrinal supporter???

Click to expand...

No.

Are you really that cynical?

To feign humility to get my insight?

Arsenios

Click to expand...

Ummm... No again. The insight to which I was referring was insight into how to better communicate with you because I was talking past you and vice versa. And my $50 words is a style that exasperates you, so I'm attempting a different style. And I'm evidently not very good at doing that.

Very different than you've perceived. And why are you concerned with what 1M1S has said? He's banned for it. And I'd think it would have little personal affect on you anyway.

If you'd prefer, I won't ask you for insight for better communication. My entire goal was for you to understand why I adhere to Unihypostaticism, and much of it centers around the NON-FILIOQUE procession. I have to get insight from you to even communicate with you. That's very simple, and in no way unscrupulous as you've imagined. Sigh.

We were talking past each other. I'm trying to change that.

I'll address your other post in a bit. If you don't want to respond, that's your prerogative. But you simply have no idea why I embrace Unihypostaticism and still retain the remainder of the Patristic efforts. It's not wholesale ad hominem and pejorative at all.