Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Fine, I won't waste my Brilliant parrhesia in its nominal Latin form

    on this meaningless "free speech" discussion.

    Comment


    • #32
      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
      Jer 23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD[YHVH], that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth.
      Jer 23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he[the Branch] shall be called, THE LORD[YHVH] OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

      Comment


      • #33
        john w

        Would an UZI Machine gun DO ?

        Comment


        • #34
          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

          Comment


          • #35
            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!

            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.

            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.

            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!

            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?


            Comment


            • #36
              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.

              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.

              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, 09:00 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!

              Comment


              • #37
                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

                Comment


                • #38
                  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

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    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

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      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.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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.
                          Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                          “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            OK, guys,

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

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

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

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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.
                              Ecclesia reformata et semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei
                              “The Church reformed and always reforming, according to the Word of God.”

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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 ? -

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X