ECT Our triune God

Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
PPS said:
Content is emphasized by defining each key word.
Click to expand...

Not if definition abstracts FROM instantiation...

Context is contents of usage in instances...

Or are you saying we use definitions as our content-less and therefore context-less starting point for speaking rhema?

And if rhema is spoken, how are objects spoken?
And if rhema is objects, how do objects speak?

That is why it can't really be both, except wherein the spoken is ostensively referring to the object being rhematized with a word about it...

Arsenios
 
S

StanJ

New member
Arsenios said:
That is no more than saying you are not dumber than I look...
I mean, I haven't been here that long...
DeeDee did manage to toss me out of T-Web...
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you look like, and I don't know who Dee-Dee is. I left TOL of my own accord.

Arsenios said:
He is a Russian Monk named Fr. Kristiensen, on the cover of "Everyday Saints"... I have more hair than he does... And less life experience... He functioned and prevailed in a monastery under the Atheists - No small matter... An accusation and you are in the Gulag for a tenner with another tenner automatically tacked on, and life expectancy was 3-4 years... Few lasted the full 20, and even then they were not released...
Click to expand...

I had a feeling it was something like that.

Arsenios said:
I am, however, posting under my real name...
Unlike most here...
Doubtless for good reason...
Click to expand...

I don't really get why people don't, unless they are afraid to be held personally accountable for their words? To me, anonymity on forums like this is tantamount to preaching with a mask on.

Arsenios said:
Are you one of the founders?
Are you a MADist?
Do you know the Concordant Bible?
Click to expand...

Uh... NO! and I'm not a MADer/ist.
No, never read it, and as it's not on Biblegateway.com, not likely to. Also I'm not a big fan of "formal equivalence", although I do read the NASB, but an "extreme formal equivalence" version would be like reading the YLT or KJV for me, so no thanks.

Arsenios said:
You said Jesus Christ IS the Hypostasis...
How about the Father?
And the Holy Spirit?
Click to expand...

No, only Jesus, who is the Word INCARNATE, the second person of our Triune God.

Arsenios said:
PPS believes firmly that they are all three ONE Hypostasis,
And that he can account them severally as one...
Arsenios
Click to expand...

I've never agreed with anything PPS had to say, so I am not surprised he is out of line with the common understanding of the hypostatic nature of Christ.
Blessings.
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
StanJ said:
I've never agreed with anything PPS had to say,
Click to expand...

I can't even begin to express the comfort it gives me knowing this. If you agreed with me, I'd have to reconsider my entire belief system.

I am not surprised he is out of line with the common understanding of the hypostatic nature of Christ.
Blessings.
Click to expand...

And this abject and utter arrogant ignorance is one hallmark indicator of why.

You think a hypostasis is the hypostatic union of the Incarnate Christ; oblivious to what a hypostasis actually is. You're not even a valid Trinitarian. Just another super-duper supercilious theological wannabe.

You're what's wrong with the Christian faith, and why actual Believers become incensed with moronic approaches to any conversation from narcissistic novices.
 
S

StanJ

New member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
I can't even begin to express the comfort it gives me knowing this. If you agreed with me, I'd have to reconsider my entire belief system.
Click to expand...

You've had ample time, only God can deliver the deceived.


PneumaPsucheSoma said:
And this abject and utter arrogant ignorance is one hallmark indicator of why.
You think a hypostasis is the hypostatic union of the Incarnate Christ; oblivious to what a hypostasis actually is. You're not even a valid Trinitarian. Just another super-duper supercilious theological wannabe.
You're what's wrong with the Christian faith, and why actual Believers become incensed with moronic approaches to any conversation from narcissistic novices.
Click to expand...

Why are you talking about yourself? That pretty self centered isn't it?
 
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Arsenios said:
Content of what? Of a concept?

So a concept is a thought?

So language is a Context that conveys a content as if it were a thought?

Well, it started out as the content of a concept that is spoken by words after being thought... And now it is all that and besides that it is the THINGS to which our thoughts and words refer...

You just said it IS the subject matter, and now you are saying that it is NOT the subject matter, but that it STANDS FOR the subject matter...

So which is it?

The content of speech is words...
The content of words is concepts...
The content of concepts is thoughts...
The content of thoughts is perceptions...

So you are saying that rhema [spoken words] is the content of words and thoughts...

And now you switch again and say it is no longer content, but substance, eg the substanding, of thought and speech...

And all this results in TRUE LOGOS SPEECH?? Which includes thought focused on a subject matter? So in ordinary experience, what are you talking about?

True Love???

It is still missing to THIS Orthodox Christian...

So whatever this IT is, the Orthodox point to it, and you are defining it?

So what happened to it being the WORD spoken? Is the WORD the THING spoken? Or is the THING spoken about something OTHER THAN this word that is previously thought?

You are switching back and forth on the meaning being within the person and it being outside the person...

Which would seem to obliterate the ongoingness of creation - eg Time...

And this is RE-COGNIZED from WHERE, exactly?

And we know this HOW?

I know that ousia means WEALTH... And Physis means physical nature... So I know already that you are not talking about God qua God, but that you MAY be talking about the incarnate Christ-God... But whatever you are talking about, you are talking about creation...

Presented??? To Whom? Not to Moses...

Hardly so, because He is NON-TEMPORAL, and rational reasoning and pondering take time... You are mixing the divine and the human natures here in a soup...

So now you are saying that God speaks to Himself and that His Logos thereby is His Hypostasis...

The Biblical witness differs from your account, because it nowhere tells us that God talks to Himself in endless meditative self-contemplation, but that he SPEAKS CREATION INTO EXISTENCE...

And God SAID: "Let there be Light, and there was Light..."

You just said that the Logos IS the Hypostasis of God and IS His Rhema... So you seem to be having a hard time keeping all this consistent... It keeps getting away from you, and you morph into another account that contradicts the previous one(s)...

Well, it IS His spoken word that created creation out of nothing...

Have you ever seen an invisible phenomenon, whether created or uncreated?

The subject matter of what?

The thought is expressed in words, so the Logos IS the WORDS?

Thoughts are not words... Most thoughts do not have words... And especially heavenly thoughts...

Even when I speak about words and thoughts?

So context determines the concept, and the concepts above are the things that I love, and not the love that I have for them...

WHY do you think that?

So the concept of love in your examples above is high context, because it is understood in so many different contexts?

You mean I can't understand my love for sports and pets by the content of the word love? Because the word love does not have a content that determines sports and pets?? Forgive me, but that sounds like psycho-babble...

So that the concept of love should be driven by what? Not by Webster and his dictionary, and not by kids, mom or wife, but by what?

Are these two not the low context [webster] and the high context
[multitudinous instances] language drivers?

So then what exactly IS this CONTENT of the CONCEPT of the spoken word LOVE that is DIVORCED FROM ALL instantiations of its occurrence in human experience? And WHY are its instantiations NOT context-formative???

You just divorced the concept from its content by defining it outside of its occurrences... This is total mush, PPS...

Then why are you separating concept from its empirical basis? Is not that empirical basis its content?

Arsenios
Click to expand...

I've got to tell you that I'm concerned about your long history pursuing Sophistry, even though I truly cherish and value you as a Brother with great natural and spiritual insight.

You continually process all I say through filters I've denounced as not being what I represent. You are superimposing your misperceptions of high- versus low- context upon all I say; and you have some odd notions that may or may not be Orthodox viewpoints, including definitions in their applications.

The thing that troubles me the most is that you seem to deny the attributes of God. Aseity (From-"Self"-ity) is long-established as a fundamental incommunicable attribute of God.

For us as His creation to exceed or supersede Him with our attribute of "Self-consciousness", including "Self-awareness", is patently absurd.

The same seems to apply in any effort to communicate whatever I say, including this foray into Rhema and Logos, and content and concept.

I have no idea how to get past the disparities in foundational filters for representing semantics and their applied definitions. Baffling.
 
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
StanJ said:
You've had ample time, only God can deliver the deceived.

Why are you talking about yourself? That pretty self centered isn't it?
Click to expand...

You are the spirit of anti-christ, Demas.

And you don't have the slightest clue what a hypostasis is, and don't ever want to be corrected.
 
Arsenios

Arsenios

Well-known member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
I've got to tell you that I'm concerned about your long history pursuing Sophistry, even though I truly cherish and value you as a Brother with great natural and spiritual insight.

You continually process all I say through filters I've denounced as not being what I represent. You are superimposing your misperceptions of high- versus low- context upon all I say; and you have some odd notions that may or may not be Orthodox viewpoints, including definitions in their applications.

The thing that troubles me the most is that you seem to deny the attributes of God. Aseity (From-"Self"-ity) is long-established as a fundamental incommunicable attribute of God.

For us as His creation to exceed or supersede Him with our attribute of "Self-consciousness", including "Self-awareness", is patently absurd.

The same seems to apply in any effort to communicate whatever I say, including this foray into Rhema and Logos, and content and concept.

I have no idea how to get past the disparities in foundational filters for representing semantics and their applied definitions. Baffling.
Click to expand...

Well, we tried, and we can leave off for awhile...

I am an empiricist, so that high context is natural to me...

And when I first met God as God, my whole world went inside out, upside down and backwards, and in 35 years, that has not changed... My whole failed philosophy everted, in an encounter that lasted almost no time at all... And was utterly preconceptual, without a thought or a word to it or in it, and in that stillness, I understood things I cannot put into words at all...

So that when you come along and tell me my words are all wrong and yours are all right in this theological enterprise, I KNOW that the enterprise of theology is not verbal...

So I fear our impasse is lethal, incapable of resolution...

On the issue of the hypostasis that is the person, we can say that every person IS an hypostasis, but not every hypostasis is a person... And it is the hypostasis that has being, ousia...

All I did was take your words at face value, and I simply could not add them together. So forgive me for being a fumble-bumble-buss...

Have you digested The Person in the Orthodox Tradition yet? Hierotheos does a nice critique of the term person in the west... And he cautions us to use the term person VERY carefully, because of its western distortions and falsehoods...


Arsenios
 
S

StanJ

New member
PneumaPsucheSoma said:
I have the Comforter for that. God's Holy Spirit.

I don't need pharmakeia. You can keep your sorcery.
Click to expand...

Good for you...you're self dependant....not surprising.

Until of course you do, then I can imagine all the cognitive dissonance that will go on, seeing as you think modern medicine is sorcery. :noway:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top