ECT Our triune God

newbirth

BANNED
Banned
I'm still wondering why if it's Jesus Only...or God Only and Alone...whatever...why Christ would refer to Himself (as the Spirit) as He. There would, in reality, BE no "I/He," only "I."

well here is a scripture that should explain some..
.Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

Jesus told Peter feed the sheep....and here it is saying the Holy Ghost...elsewhere scripture says the church of Christ....here it says church of God...elsewhere it says Jesus shed his blood for our sins...here it says God purchased us with his own blood...some argue it is the Holy Ghost...either way Spirits don't have blood so it is speaking of the same Jesus...
 

Lon

Well-known member
I am going to follow this post with a post I shared on a different Trinity thread several weeks ago. It sets forth my understanding as best I can articulate it of the Oneness of God as relates to the interactions of the Three. You may have seen it but I think it may still be relevant to our discussion.

No, I haven't seen it. You could also simply link it here.

PPS is correct that tritheism is the expression of such a belief. Unity is beyond a semantic expression.

Forgive a bit of lengthy discussion here (not too bad, just 3 paragraphs):

John 1:1 In the beginning was the word and the word was with God, and the word was God. He was in the beginning with God.
The 'with and was' portion of this verse is incredibly clear and important theology: It expresses both a tri- AND -une expression/understanding that must be fully embraced, even if not fully understood. When Isaiah says God is one, the emphasis is clearly numerical because He says none have existed before Him, nor will ever exist. Such emphasis reminds us that God is both, not either or, just as He is both relational to us, but above and beyond us (see Ephesians in my sig). He is both incredibly relational and yet incredibly beyond our human limitations as well.

Most of us logically understand and embrace a piece of the picture, often without grasping the other piece portrayed, because it logically is an impossibility as both tri- and -une, yet this is the dichotomy and precarious edge of truth, that I believe we have been given. For instance, I can take a pot of water, freeze a third of it, boil a third of it and capture it in a zipper bag, and leave a third of it in liquid form, but it is apprehensively awkward to say "This water is one water." Likewise, if I were to clone myself, and I then talked to myself, it would be really hard to express my new existence. I'd be both one and two. Such language is beyond the norm of how we understand and express what we see. How in the world could I be both one and the same and two???? We can somewhat conceptualize and conceive it, and then we are off and boggled in trying to talk to me. Which one of me are you talking about/to? :dizzy:
Which is more accurate: "There is only one of me." "There are actually two of just the one me." :dizzy:

I believe our limitation is simply because we cannot comprehend what we cannot do ourselves. I cannot give language to cloning with a reality that doesn't exist. Our mind logically wants to know what is the same and what is different about the second-me. The problem is that the 'other' me isn't an 'other' but is me. We have no language that can help us apprehend the truth of a perfect clone of me. I think "I am both with me and am me" is the clearest I could express such. I believe God gave us John 1:1 very much in the same manner for expression of an impossibility that we have little language for expressing.
 

musterion

Well-known member
well here is a scripture that should explain some..
.Acts 20:28
Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood.

here it says God purchased us with his own blood

Yes it does. And so He did. Christ is the I AM of the Old Testament (John 18:6 ...no 'he' in the Greek, just I AM). Yet He and the Father are plainly referred to as distinct, as are God and His Spirit, as are Christ and His Spirit (Rom 8:9), which is also the Spirit of God (1 Cor 3:16), the "He" whom Christ said He would send.
 

newbirth

BANNED
Banned
... If you don't mind I would like to set a construct whereby to begin to understand the oneness aspect of our Triune God. It seems to me that the difficulty we have in understanding how One God could be at the same time Triune is rooted more in our concepts of oneness than it is in our identification and acknowledgement of the persons which make up the three-ness of God ~ i.e., the Trinity: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. You may all already know this, but if not, I ask you to consider it with me.

Our doctrines of God's oneness are rooted primarily in the verse Deuteronomy 6.4: "Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one!" The difficulty we have in correctly understanding this verse comes in*via the way westerners think of the word "one" in apposition to the Simidic idea of one-ness. If when we are thinking about the One God, we are thinking in terms of something like one mark on a blackboard, we have missed the idea of oneness which emanates from the Hebrew mindset. When Moses wrote, "... the LORD is one," the word he uses for one is not a word that first conveys an idea of singularity, such as in one mark ~ but is the word echad, which is the same word that he used when he wrote, "And there was evening and there was morning, one day," and elsewhere: "For this cause a man shall leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and they shall become one flesh."

The word "One" in Hebrew is relational language; it is the language of the union of a subject and an object. It means unity before it means singularity. The singularity of God comes out of the unity of the Trinity; in other words, the one-ness of God is the unity of the Father-Son-Holy-Spirit relationship. The three are one by way of relationship. That relationship is so tight, so bounded, so bonded, so substantive, that to try to distinguish the Father apart from the Son and Spirit in terms of God-stuff, is impossible. The Father can only be rightly interpreted as he exists in relationship to the Son. The Son the same in relationship to the Father, and on and on. There is singularity ~one God~ because there is unity first ~ Father-Son-Holy-Spirit, the three united.

Hence the one and the three are not ideas competing for supremacy in our thinking, as in esoteric Trinitarian formulas like, God is one being but three persons, which opens the door for guys like Thomas Jefferson to call it "Funny math." No! The one speaks to the unity of the three. God is but one being and not three separate beings, precisely because the three persons are inseparably united. Said another way, out of the complexity of the three is a union which produces oneness ~ very much in the same way as when Moses wrote, "Behold, they (a plurality) are one people (united)." They, the Trinity, are one God.

the moment you accept trinity you reject Father and Son which makes you antichrist....
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
 

Lon

Well-known member
....here it says church of God...elsewhere it says Jesus shed his blood for our sins...here it says God purchased us with his own blood...some argue it is the Holy Ghost...either way Spirits don't have blood so it is speaking of the same Jesus...
That's good then. Why would you have a hard time with a Tri--une view then?
You virtually embrace it, or at least tenants of it, yourself. That's a good thing.

the moment you accept trinity you reject Father and Son which Mmakes you antichrist....
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
:nono: Not when you just expressed some of the tenents of it yourself ▲ above ▲

Mayhap you don't know what Trinitarians believe? :think:
 
Last edited:

TFTn5280

New member
the moment you accept trinity you reject Father and Son which makes you antichrist....
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

I in no way reject Jesus as the Christ.

Let's see how much you are willing to ACCEPT him:::::

The Church started with a bang, 3000 members the first day, and that was probably just counting the men. There could have been hundreds, maybe even thousands, more – wives, children, maidens, widows – who were not counted. Quite literally one sermon into the Church age and the congregation in Jerusalem had become a mega-Church. What was it that caused such an explosion? When we read Peter's sermon in Acts 2, and ask ourselves what prompted his hearers to say, "What shall we do?" it becomes evident that something very profound and unsettling had taken place in their cognitive networks, a terrifying realization had invaded their psyche. It is not just that they had killed an innocent man; although that was bad enough (Remember, it was only fifty days prior that many of the same crowd had cried, “Crucify him. Crucify him”). There is more to it than that. Peter's immediate call to repentance was a call for them to change their minds about not only their charge against Jesus but the very person of Jesus himself. Specifically, it was a call to belief in Jesus as both their Lord and their Christ. Peter was actually quite emphatic: “Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ!” What, we must ask, is the significance of Peter's exclamation?

Please consider this with me: the Hebrew-speaking Jews present that day would have heard Peter saying that Elohim has made this Yeshua, whom they crucified, both Yahweh and Messiah. What exactly would this statement mean to a first century Jew? In considering this, let us first identify the characters. Elohim is the Hebrew way of saying God; it is a descriptive noun more so than it is a name. Yeshua is Jesus, which literally means Yah saves. Yahweh is the very personal name that God gives himself in his covenant-keeping relations with Israel; it is translated LORD in English. And Messiah, “the Deliverer,” is the same as saying Christ. What did Peter mean that “Elohim has made that same Yeshua ... both Yahweh and Messiah”? He means to communicate that God has announced from on high that Jesus is the one whom the Jews*had been worshiping*as LORD throughout their history as a chosen people. The eternal Son is the member of the Trinity who participated in that roll throughout the OT period (cf., just as in the NT he states, “Before Abraham was I AM,” it was he who in the OT declares, “I AM who I AM”).

Peter is saying to them that the one whom they had nailed to the cross was the very covenant-keeping YHWH of their fathers, his name so sacred they wouldn't even whisper it. Furthermore, this Yeshua was also the physical/human son of David, the promised Messiah, their Christ, the one who was to deliver them from oppression. And what had they done? They had not only crucified the Christ, they had nailed their very God to a cross – God on the cross with his people crying out, “Crucify him, crucify him!” That's when the unthinkable registered. For the first time the weight of their crime fell upon them. “What now?” they must have asked, in a state of utter hopelessness and despair, their voices filled with panic. “What shall we do?” Peter's answer was emphatic: They must repent – as in change their minds about this Jesus – and be baptized – in his name no less – into (Gr. eis) the forgiveness of sins, whereupon they would receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. In the haunting face of God-gallowing, Christ-killing crucifixion, there was hope – yes, the forgiveness of sins. It seems the only appropriate response is, “Wow, sign me up!” Now we may ask, is it any wonder that three thousand of them were added that day?

Let's look at Peter's sermon in Acts 2.14-26 and see if in the person of Jesus Christ there is evidence to support an understanding of him as having two natures, a human nature and a divine nature united in such a way as to make one person: the God-man, Jesus Christ.

"Men of Judea and all who dwell in Jerusalem, let this be known to you, and heed my words. For these are not drunk, as you suppose, since it is only the third hour of the day. But this is what was spoken by the prophet Joel: 'And it shall come to pass in the last days, says God, That I will pour out of My Spirit on all flesh; Your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, Your young men shall see visions, Your old men shall dream dreams. And on My menservants and on My maidservants I will pour out My Spirit in those days; And they shall prophesy. I will show wonders in heaven above And signs in the earth beneath: Blood and fire and vapor of smoke. The sun shall be turned into darkness, And the moon into blood, Before the coming of the great and awesome day of the LORD. And it shall come to pass That whoever calls on the name of the LORD Shall be saved.' Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know – Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death; whom God raised up, having loosed the pains of death, because it was not possible that He should be held by it. For David says concerning Him: 'I foresaw the LORD always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken. Therefore my heart rejoiced, and my tongue was glad; Moreover my flesh also will rest in hope. For You will not leave my soul in Hades, Nor will You allow Your Holy One to see corruption. You have made known to me the ways of life; You will make me full of joy in Your presence.' Men and brethren, let me speak freely to you of the patriarch David, that he is both dead and buried, and his tomb is with us to this day. Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body, according to the flesh, He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne, he, foreseeing this, spoke concerning the resurrection of the Christ, that His soul was not left in Hades, nor did His flesh see corruption. This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses. Therefore being exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He poured out this which you now see and hear. For David did not ascend into the heavens, but he says himself: 'The LORD said to my Lord, “Sit at My right hand, Till I make Your enemies Your footstool.”' Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

Let us look first for evidence in the person of Jesus Christ that he had a divine nature. Ah, there it is:

25 "For David says concerning Him: 'I foresaw the LORD [Yahweh: i.e., a divine nature] always before my face, For He is at my right hand, that I may not be shaken.

Well, that was fairly simple. Lets look now to see if this person of Jesus Christ had a human nature. Ah, there it is:

30 "Therefore, being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him that of the fruit of his body [literally “genitals”], according to the flesh [i.e., a human nature] He would raise up the Christ to sit on his throne,

Okay, so we've got a divine nature and a human nature. How about a union of the two? Ah, there it is:

36 "Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly that God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both [denoting union between...] LORD [divine nature...] and Christ [human nature]."

If you have a heart for under-standing (literally hypo-stasis in Greek), that should pretty much shut down this thread.

Blessings, T.
 

Lon

Well-known member
the context of the whole chapter is about obedience to God and the antichrist...God being referred to as Father and Son ...who has the Father has the Son...who has the Son has the Father....no mention of having trinity
Er, "Trinity" is merely an expression of seeing three individuals who call themselves God/are called God, and at the same time knowing there is only one God. It doesn't even logically try to qualify that, other than saying "We believe ALL of these scriptures, whether we can logically work it out or not." Look at all the council definitions, they simply list what it does and cannot mean.

and you boast of your english skills....
:doh: "[E]nglish. Ironic, no? See why I might wonder about your intellectual prowess?

I don't apply anything...scripture does the applying...
Er, you don't even understand English. Why would I think you could accurately apply English that it is clear you don't understand as well as I do? God communicated to us in language. A's and B's in English were important. The rest of you should sit down and be quiet and listen more. Participate in other TOL conversations where you actually know something? :think:
and it is applied to anyone who denies Father and Son....which would include trinitarians...
:nono: Nice try, but no.

no the liars are those who deny that Jesus Christ is the anointed of God....different topic...
Oh, I thought it was just Trinitarians. :plain:

You are the one doing personal attacks, and not from knowledge, just a whim. You have no scriptures to back it up.

Father and Son means just that...taking away from it is denial ....adding to it is denial......
FYI, no Trinitarian does.

personal attack ...no comment
more personal attacks
Er, rightly assessing your English grades isn't a 'personal' attack. It is your grade. Did you tell your teacher to stop giving you C- and D's because it was 'a personal attack?' :dizzy:
yet you have given none...scripture still calls you antichrist
:nono: YOU do.
because you still deny Father and Son and accept trinity as your god...
Think whatever YOU like. I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but you are given to false-accusation which is a kind of personal attack and YOU started it on TOL. Accusatory is insult and attack, not sure if you realzed that or not.

I don't think you know any better but maybe you do (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment).

Is this conversation going anywhere? Did you have anything else to say to Trinitarians other than "Anti-Christ!" ???

If you are here for name-calling, I can go ahead and put you on ignore now (again giving you a small bit of the benefit of the doubt).

Either hate us, or discuss like an adult why you think we are wrong on any given scripture (of which there are many given on TOL and in this thread). The ball is in your court. "You are anti-Christ" just isn't going to fly for very long. Your kite needs a tail and a line of substance else you are going to be a blow-hard wasting your time like a lot of other arians and Unitarians on TOL. I'll just place you on ignore if you think you are the judging hand of God to Trinitarians. I believe you arrogantly presume too much of yourself if that's the case and will happily ignore ignorant self-puffed up appointments and claims of one's self.

I am a Trinitarian who has and can support that view from scriptures. If you 'can' do otherwise, let go of the 'anti-Christ' cheap rhetoric any dupe can claim. I 'could' have said it about you, as I believe you are ignoring scriptures to do so, but as I said, it is cheap, arrogant, and judgmental.

Discuss why an arian or Unitarian view must be true and listen when others give you scripture reasons why they don't believe it is true. That kind of dialogue on TOL, could go a lot further than mere indignation and name-calling. I'm not really seeing anything else from you, but that.
 

newbirth

BANNED
Banned
Yes it does. And so He did. Christ is the I AM of the Old Testament (John 18:6 ...no 'he' in the Greek, just I AM). Yet He and the Father are plainly referred to as distinct, as are God and His Spirit, as are Christ and His Spirit (Rom 8:9), which is also the Spirit of God (1 Cor 3:16), the "He" whom Christ said He would send.
so you are denying Father and Son...and accepting trinity....it cannot be both....
 

Cross Reference

New member
How could Jesus say of Himself to be the "I AM" while still in His unglorified body except to be speaking of His intimacy with God to reveal oneness in Him this side of Glory. IOW, Jesus was declaring His human perfection in God. The last time He did that, He was transfigured in the process.
 

newbirth

BANNED
Banned
Er, "Trinity" is merely an expression of seeing three individuals who call themselves God/are called God, and at the same time knowing there is only one God. It doesn't even logically try to qualify that, other than saying "We believe ALL of these scriptures, whether we can logically work it out or not." Look at all the council definitions, they simply list what it does and cannot mean.


:doh: "[E]nglish. Ironic, no? See why I might wonder about your intellectual prowess?


Er, you don't even understand English. Why would I think you could accurately apply English that it is clear you don't understand as well as I do? God communicated to us in language. A's and B's in English were important. The rest of you should sit down and be quiet and listen more. Participate in other TOL conversations where you actually know something? :think:

:nono: Nice try, but no.


Oh, I thought it was just Trinitarians. :plain:

You are the one doing personal attacks, and not from knowledge, just a whim. You have no scriptures to back it up.


FYI, no Trinitarian does.


Er, rightly assessing your English grades isn't a 'personal' attack. It is your grade. Did you tell your teacher to stop giving you C- and D's because it was 'a personal attack?' :dizzy:

:nono: YOU do.

Think whatever YOU like. I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but you are given to false-accusation which is a kind of personal attack and YOU started it on TOL. Accusatory is insult and attack, not sure if you realzed that or not.

I don't think you know any better but maybe you do (I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment).

Is this conversation going anywhere? Did you have anything else to say to Trinitarians other than "Anti-Christ!" ???

If you are here for name-calling, I can go ahead and put you on ignore now (again giving you a small bit of the benefit of the doubt).

Either hate us, or discuss like an adult why you think we are wrong on any given scripture (of which there are many given on TOL and in this thread). The ball is in your court. "You are anti-Christ" just isn't going to fly for very long. Your kite needs a tail and a line of substance else you are going to be a blow-hard wasting your time like a lot of other arians and Unitarians on TOL. I'll just place you on ignore if you think you are the judging hand of God to Trinitarians. I believe you arrogantly presume too much of yourself if that's the case and will happily ignore ignorant self-puffed up appointments and claims of one's self.

I am a Trinitarian who has and can support that view from scriptures. If you 'can' do otherwise, let go of the 'anti-Christ' cheap rhetoric any dupe can claim. I 'could' have said it about you, as I believe you are ignoring scriptures to do so, but as I said, it is cheap, arrogant, and judgmental.

Discuss why an arian or Unitarian view must be true and listen when others give you scripture reasons why they don't believe it is true. That kind of dialogue on TOL, could go a lot further than mere indignation and name-calling. I'm not really seeing anything else from you, but that.

it is clear you are jumping through hoops and avoiding the issue...do you deny Father and Son doctrine....in favour of trinity doctrine ... you do ...you have confessed....and scripture...not me.... labels you as antichrist...what I find interesting is that you are calling it false accusation....but it is there in black and white for all to see....in other words you are saying the scripture is false.....what you need to do is explain to me how can you deny Father and Son and not be antichrist...without changing this scripture......
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.

we cannot move on without first resolving this matter....you have put yourself in place for the name calling by denying Father and Son and choosing trinity....
 

TFTn5280

New member
Hey, LAL, I am super happy to hear that you have found my posts helpful. Yeah, the effects on me have been pretty profound too. What an awe-some God we have!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lon

newbirth

BANNED
Banned
That's good then. Why would you have a hard time with a Tri--une view then?
You virtually embrace it, or at least tenants of it, yourself. That's a good thing.


:nono: Not when you just expressed some of the tenants of it yourself ▲ above ▲

Mayhap you don't know what Trinitarians believe? :think:

it is not so much what you believe but what you dont believe...which is Father and Son....you deny the Father and Son and believe in a trinity...scripture calls you antichrist...it is that simple...
 

newbirth

BANNED
Banned
I in no way reject Jesus as the Christ.

Let's see how much you are willing to ACCEPT him:::::

.

never said you did....the second part applies to you....you deny Father and Son and accept trinity...you cannot have both doctrine ...it is either you believe Father and Son or father son and HS which is trinity...you have by your words chosen trinity whereby denying Father and Son...sctipture calls you antichrist...
 

Lon

Well-known member
it is clear you are jumping through hoops and avoiding the issue...do you deny Father and Son doctrine....in favour of trinity doctrine ... you do ...you have confessed....and scripture...not me.... labels you as antichrist...
:blabla::blabla::blabla: :nono:

what I find interesting is that you are calling it false accusation....but it is there in black and white for all to see
:plain: :nono:
....in other words you are saying the scripture is false.....
Er, no, I'm saying you are going on ignore in 3....
what you need to do is explain to me how can you deny Father and Son and not be antichrist...without changing this scripture......
1 John 2:22
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
I don't/didn't...2....
we cannot move on without first resolving this matter....you have put yourself in place for the name calling by denying Father and Son and choosing trinity....
:nono: 1....
I've just placed you on ignore and will not be reading anything else from you. You are ignorant and arrogant. Stay there. I'm shaking dust from my sandals.

:wave2:
 

TFTn5280

New member
English is merely the latest and nearly lowest-context language produced from the confusion at Babel. To insist on an English foundation for terms and definitions is the greatest fallacy possible on the issue.

Eh, Psuche, you know I know the formulaic meaning of the terms and the relationships between them. I think knowing thus we ought to be able to find a way to move them on over into the dominant language of our day. If not, I'm pretty sure we're going to sound a lot like banging gongs.

And, a lot like you, having a comprehension of the historic formulation, I too have tweaked that formulation in a way such that it speaks to a true representation of our God. Yet unlike you, I really can account for the bible-bound relationships within the Trinity, they not being so packed together that they cannot breathe. Tell you what though, I won't expect a reply from you, seeing how you left me hanging in our private discussion. Or now in public, do you kinda want to strut your stuff a little? See ya next time around, brother.

T
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
Eh, Psuche, you know I know the formulaic meaning of the terms and the relationships between them.

So far, you seem to. I haven't yet seen you specify that the hypostasis determines the quality of the physis rather than vice versa. And I haven't seen you address procession relative to the Logos and Pneuma.

We've not dealt with the procession or phenomenon versus noumenon or ontology versus economy, etc.

I think knowing thus we ought to be able to find a way to move them on over into the dominant language of our day.

English is among the few lowest-context languages in the history of mankind. It's a horrible receptor language, and requires amplified-style phrases and sentences to translate individual words from higher-context languages.

I have no desire to have singular English words dumbing-down meaning when others have a nebulous understanding because they think such over-simplification is somehow super-spiritual when it's the inverse.

If not, I'm pretty sure we're going to sound a lot like banging gongs.

Nope. If someone can't expend the prayerful stewardship to understand the terms and their definitions, they shouldn't be addressing the topic.

And, a lot like you, having a comprehension of the historic formulation, I too have tweaked that formulation in a way such that it speaks to a true representation of our God. Yet unlike you, I really can account for the bible-bound relationships within the Trinity,

No, you cannot. You presume much about a transcendence you cannot account for, and that no one can understand. God is not three hypostases; and love is not relational, it's ontological. God IS love. And that love is not a narcissistic inward self-love (a Filioque fallacy of the West), it's the willful direction of His desire toward His inevitable creation as He who exists to covenant.

That creation includes the heavenly realm, and the Logos and Pneuma must be inherently ontological with a singular external economic procession from transcendence into immanent creation (of both realms of existence).

they not being so packed together that they cannot breathe.

No. God cannot be quantified, and multiple hypostases are "parts". Even with perichoresis, each alleged hypostasis would represent a divided fraction of the whole divinity.

If individuated minds/wills are assigned to the alleged hypostasis, that represents multiple souls, which would be multiple sentient/volition of/as individuated beings. If multiple minds aren't represented, then no relationality can be applied between them for your premise.

Tell you what though, I won't expect a reply from you, seeing how you left me hanging in our private discussion. Or now in public, do you kinda want to strut your stuff a little? See ya next time around, brother.

T

Sorry for the dangle hangle. My e-mail isn't forwarding to my iPad, and I didn't want to correspond on my phone.

(And this post may sound a bit terse, but it's just my style and isn't adversarial at all.)

You'll need to provide scriptural support for three hypostases (personal pronouns, arthrous substantives, pros accusatives, and the Comma Johanneum are invalid) and their alleged interactive relationship in the pre-existence of transcendence. Internal self-love within a being isn't the character of agape at all by definition. That's just a conceptual presumption of inference based on humanity.

You'll find there isn't much first-person interaction between the alleged multiple hypostases in scripture. I'd encourage you to post any you find.

Though the Holy Spirit isn't the perichoretic between the Father and Son, the two-fold singular procession of God's Logos and Pneuma into creation when/as it was instantiated into existence from noumenon into phenomenon demonstrates that they are co-inherent as qualitative hypostasis distinctions.

That's what you're trying to represent. God's Breath that accompanies His Word.
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
it is not so much what you believe but what you dont believe...which is Father and Son....you deny the Father and Son and believe in a trinity...scripture calls you antichrist...it is that simple...

I'm not even a conventional Trinitarian and your posts are absurd bare assertion of repetition with no scripture or apologetic.

None of the Trinitarians deny the Father and the Son.
 

Simon Baker

BANNED
Banned
So far, you seem to. I haven't yet seen you specify that the hypostasis determines the quality of the physis rather than vice versa. And I haven't seen you address procession relative to the Logos and Pneuma.

We've not dealt with the procession or phenomenon versus noumenon or ontology versus economy, etc.



English is among the few lowest-context languages in the history of mankind. It's a horrible receptor language, and requires amplified-style phrases and sentences to translate individual words from higher-context languages.

I have no desire to have singular English words dumbing-down meaning when others have a nebulous understanding because they think such over-simplification is somehow super-spiritual when it's the inverse.



Nope. If someone can't expend the prayerful stewardship to understand the terms and their definitions, they shouldn't be addressing the topic.



No, you cannot. You presume much about a transcendence you cannot account for, and that no one can understand. God is not three hypostases; and love is not relational, it's ontological. God IS love. And that love is not a narcissistic inward self-love (a Filioque fallacy of the West), it's the willful direction of His desire toward His inevitable creation as He who exists to covenant.

That creation includes the heavenly realm, and the Logos and Pneuma must be inherently ontological with a singular external economic procession from transcendence into immanent creation (of both realms of existence).



No. God cannot be quantified, and multiple hypostases are "parts". Even with perichoresis, each alleged hypostasis would represent a divided fraction of the whole divinity.

If individuated minds/wills are assigned to the alleged hypostasis, that represents multiple souls, which would be multiple sentient/volition of/as individuated beings. If multiple minds aren't represented, then no relationality can be applied between them for your premise.



Sorry for the dangle hangle. My e-mail isn't forwarding to my iPad, and I didn't want to correspond on my phone.

(And this post may sound a bit terse, but it's just my style and isn't adversarial at all.)

You'll need to provide scriptural support for three hypostases (personal pronouns, arthrous substantives, pros accusatives, and the Comma Johanneum are invalid) and their alleged interactive relationship in the pre-existence of transcendence. Internal self-love within a being isn't the character of agape at all by definition. That's just a conceptual presumption of inference based on humanity.

You'll find there isn't much first-person interaction between the alleged multiple hypostases in scripture. I'd encourage you to post any you find.

Though the Holy Spirit isn't the perichoretic between the Father and Son, the two-fold singular procession of God's Logos and Pneuma into creation when/as it was instantiated into existence from noumenon into phenomenon demonstrates that they are co-inherent as qualitative hypostasis distinctions.

That's what you're trying to represent. God's Breath that accompanies His Word.

Very Good Sir
 
Top