As in the ranch YOU invented has TWO owners...
Sigh. It was a hypothetical of YOUR claim of co-owned proeprty. Stop passing it off just because I obliterated it.
No they aren't... The Two are not proceeding... Except in YOUR accounting...
More pedanticism. You should know I was referring to paternity/filiation and spiration/procession. Please stop obfuscating.
One is begotten by the Father, and the other from the Father, and all WITHIN the Ousia of God the Father... Timelessly...
Wow. Now it's all within the ousia that the hypostases are supposed to "have". But then you also say the ousia "has" the hypostases.
And you STILL have filiation and procession FROM the Father hypostasis TO the ousia. The (alleged) two other hypostases are not the ousia, but move to the ousia from one hypostasis, but are just within the ousia while "having" the ousia.
What a bunch of gobble-de-gookery to attempt justifying multi-hypostaticism. It's spatiality. Non-Immensity.
Sorry, but you are jerking terms all over the place here,
No. I exposed your fallacy of co-owners of property.
and not contributing to a better understanding...
Because you already have compromised understanding.
If you have a differing view, then you must define ousia and hypostasis,
I did. With copious explicit lexicography.
and show how my account is wrong.
I did. The property is not the actual wealth of the co-owners' be-ings. They are human beings owning another entity that indicates they have essence; but it isn't their actual essence of be-ing.
I have defined ousia as wealth, and hypostasis as person. Do you agree or disagree with these definitions?
I only partially agree. You employ them inappropriately.
You seem to think that ousia should be defined as essence, and if so, we can talk about that...
It's not a false dichotomy. Ousia means both wealth and essence. More particularly, it's the specific kind of wealth of be-ing. It isn't apart from be-ing, and it isn't apart from wealth.
You make it into three divine beings sharing a species.
Now you're even further dividing God into "parts". So much for His Simplicity. God is NOT comprised of parts or partialness.
Parts combined can be separated. No Simplicity. Compounding or constituency of parts. Fail.
with a differentiating principle of existence,
"A differentiating principle of existence"?!?!?!? And you talk about me making up words, etc.?
It actually sounds like you're trying to account for multi-phenomenality on a very elementary and insufficient level.
and these I have Biblically shown to be the UNBEGOTTENNESS of the Father, the BEGOTTENNESS of the Son, and the PROCESSION of the Holy Spirit...
You've DECLARED it, not shown it. But I don't disagree. It's just multi-phenomenality, not multi-hypostatic.
No, it was yours. Listen carefully. This was where you inverted and conflated again. You have previously said the hypostases "have" the ousia; then you said the ousia "has" the hypostases.
I know, I know. Whatever works at the moment to retain your fallacious formulaic because of cognitive dissonance. But it's still irregular in the form of conflation or interposition.
One hypostasis per ousia, and one ousia per hypostasis.
Yep.
True enough if ousia=essence, and not true if ousia=wealth...
Your wealth thing was what I depicted with the ranch. Wealth has to equate ALSO to essence as be-ing. It can't just be one or the other.
Now you have three beings with the same kind of divinity. You're now a Tritheist to whatever degree.
Hypostatic union is a form, for created man, which is modeled on the union of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, wherein those Hypostases are united as well...
Let me be clear with the correction AGAIN.
WHAT YOU'VE JUST DESCRIBED IS PERICHORESIS. THE INTER-PENETRATING CO-INHERENCE OF THE ALLEGED THREE HYPOSTASES OF THE CLASSIC TRINITY. HYPOSTATIC UNION IS ONLY IN CHRISTOLOGY FOR THE DIVINITY OF THE SON TAKING ON A HUMAN NATURE.
Each individual Believer, as betrothed, is in hypostatic union with Christ. Believers are then perichoretically joined as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are joined.
I got banned for trying to make this clear to you previously. Hypostatic union is for Christological joining of divinity and humanity at the Incarnation. It is also applied to husbands and wives.
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have perichoresis, but are NOT in hypostatic union. Only the Son hypostasized to take on humanity. And Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are NOT in a marriage relationship.
All Believers share are perichoretically joined because each is in hypostatic union with Christ by faith.
You have conflated perichoresis and hypostatic union since I've first addressed it with you. You refuse to learn the difference, and it makes you promote this ridiculous co-owned property fallacy.
Please go learn the exact difference between perichoresis and hypostatic union.
Why do you freak out at looking at them together?
Because they're quite distinct.
Just slow down and systematically develop your terms, their definitions, and their usage in your understanding... No need to get all wierd in denunciations of what you see as wrong, but instead, seeing what is right, illumine what you see as wrong in its light...
Arsenios
I have. And I will continue to do so. First, go learn what perichoresis and hypostatic union are and how they contrast so you're not combining or conflating them as you constantly have.
opcorn: