I well know the futility of any attempts to converse with beligerant Unitarians about such things (when they have to depend upon a nominal definition of Logos for their fallacious doctrine while decrying definitions for words), and I have no time or energy to argue with those who obliviously live predominantly by double standards.
Beyond that, it never ceases to amaze me how all the narcissistic egomaniacs without an ounce of basic decency and courtesy have to demand an audience on this thread when it's clearly a low-profile 1-on-1 conversation initiated by AMR for a specific purpose.
This thread is initially about defining Greek terms in English for communication. And dialektos (language) is from dia- and lego (logos), so language study is a focus on God's Logos that is revelatory rather than scholasticism.
The solution for you is simple, even for a deluded Unitarian. Just abstain from posting here out of simple consideration and spend time on the bazillion other threads, or start a bazillion of your own.
We already know your position on most everything. Why not just desist by self control? How hard is that?
It was suggested to you that you go private one on one, but then who would read it and be amazed with your brilliance of vocabulary.
You had ample time to state your disagreement in any terms you wanted but it appears that your arguments do not hold against plain old words spoken by the Lord.
You obviously do not know my position because I agree with the words of Jesus and you do not.
It was suggested to you that you go private one on one, but then who would read it and be amazed with your brilliance of vocabulary.
You had ample time to state your disagreement in any terms you wanted but it appears that your arguments do not hold against plain old words spoken by the Lord.
You obviously do not know my position because I agree with the words of Jesus and you do not.
no, if you saw earlier. AMR has schedule restrictions and time doesn't allow for one on one. it was the first consideration. i hold no pre-conceived notions and find that i know these terms in and through prayer and thought. instead of just assuming folks are "trying" to show off, i just allow folks to speak for themselves. i don't even want to post this, but it is amazing how many folks want to put their 2 cents in. wait til the end and complain then - it's not about the words, nobody should take it personal - atrol:
I am not a "Trinitarian" as it is commonly defined. I see the triune nature of God as one of many ways He has encouraged us to see Him that is no more and no less important than the other ways He has offered us to glean His nature. That said, I am interested in the potential of this proposed conversation and share an interest in it and hope that the protagonists ignore the white noise offered by others and get on with it to see where it goes ...
Thank you for your always-concise and cogent kind words of wisdom. The exchange of posts will continue after getting at least the major basic terms defined between us so we're not talking past each other or misrepresenting caricatures of respective views based on semantical discrepancies, etc.
You are insightful and have an utterly brilliant manner of evaluating subject matter with discernment; so it's a blessing to know you're part of the audience for this thread topic.
The snail's pace will increase at some point after the definitions are compiled.
Thank you for your always-concise and cogent kind words of wisdom. The exchange of posts will continue after getting at least the major basic terms defined between us so we're not talking past each other or misrepresenting caricatures of respective views based on semantical discrepancies, etc.
You are insightful and have an utterly brilliant manner of evaluating subject matter with discernment; so it's a blessing to know you're part of the audience for this thread topic.
The snail's pace will increase at some point after the definitions are compiled.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From reo, to speak. A word spoken or uttered; a speech or sentence consisting of several words; a word or command of God; a report, account. Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word, the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Rhema is not merely the spoken word, though inseparable from Logos in that regard.
Functionally and Summarily...
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 (Word) [G3056]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From lego (G3004), to speak. Intelligence, a word as the expression of that intelligence. (Contrast lalia (G2981), to speak without necessarily saying anything intelligent or understanding it as such. Logos is the articulate utterance of human language. It can be unspoken as formulation of thought in the mind which in that case stands in contrast to phone (G5456), voice.
When the differentiation is between intelligent speech by man and unintelligent sounds by animals, the two contrasted words are logos and lalia. Logos, when it refers to discourse, is regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected arrangement of words of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind.
The animals produce sounds, laloun, while God and human beings produce thoughtful expressions, legoun. Laleo can express the opening of the mouth to speak, as opposed to remaining silent.
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ in His preincarnate state is called ho Logos, the Word, meaning first immaterial intelligence and then the expression of that intelligence in speech that humans could understand.
Logos is the expression of thought, while Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word or the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Logos is not merely the written word, though writing is an expression of Rhema via Logos in the same manner as speaking.
Functionally and Summarily...
Logos is the entirety of the faculties and functionalities of intellect, and if there is written or spoken expression it's also Logos. 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.
HYPOSTASIS (Substance) [G5287]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From huphistemi, to place or set under. In general, that which underlies the apparent, hence reality, essence, substance; that which is the basis of something, hence assurance, guarantee, confidence (with objective sense). Substance, what really exists under any appearance, reality, essential nature; therefore used for the basis or foundation, subsistence, existence.
The ground of confidence, assurance, guarantee, or proof; not fides but fiducia; standing in parallel to elegchos (G1650); certainty, proof, demonstration. Metonymically of that quality which leads one to stand under, endure, or undertake something; firmness, boldness, confidence.
Apophatically...
Hypostasis is not merely a responsive and/or subjective disposition of the mind by assent, or by/as self-application of the mind or will; though it metonymically refers to the ground of confidence and assurance which is faith. Hypostasis is not "person" in any English sense, considering faith is the hypostasis of things hoped for; though the hypostasis includes traits and personal characteristics which represent the individuality of the hypostasis as distinct from the special (species) traits and general characteristics that are the physis of the ousia.
Functionally and Summarily...
The ousia (essence) as the being does not "have" the hypostasis; the hypostasis underlies the being as the unique and distinct individuality and particularity for the speciality (species-ality) of the essential being, and for the generality of speciality in the nature of the being; the hypostasis serving as the "who-ness" for the ousia as the "what-ness", with both outwardly presented by/as the prosopon. The hypostasis is not superimposed upon or from the ousia or its physis; but is substantial to the essential ousia and giving it stasis, and determines the quality of the physis.
The hypostasis is not superficially the "person", but is that which contributes traits and characteristics of individuated created phenomenology as personality for determining individuality for the generality that is the nature of the being; and for the intangible sustance and essence (and its nature) to be demonstrated tangibly by/as/through the prosopon. The prosopon (being the tangible outward reality and personal presence/appearance for the entirety of the intangible substance, essence, and nature) "has" the hypostasis and the ousia/nature it underlies.
Hypostasis is that which stands under for foundational and objective reality of existence as subsistence; that which gives the undergirding for the static existence and nature of that which it underlies. The substrate for existence. The substantial for the essential being. The absolute assured foundational underlying substantial objective reality as subsistence for existence.
OUSIA (Essence) [G3776]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From ousia, being, which is the present participle feminine of eimi (G1510), to be. Entity, essence, substance, nature. In the NT, it means that which belongs to someone, or what he has; his substance, property, goods.
Also from the feminine of ousa, which is on (G5607). Being, it refers to existence. It does not, however, refer to the beginning of existence.
Eimi, to be, is the usual verb of existence, and also the usual logical copula or link, connecting subject and predicate. To be, to have existence; where the predicate specifies who or what a person or thing is in respect to nature, origin, office, condition, circumstances, state, place, habits, and disposition of mind. But this all lies in the predicate and not in the copula, which merely connects the predicate with the subject.
Apophatically...
Though the ousia does "have" the physis, the ousia does not "have" the hypostasis a la Neo-Platonism and (allegedly) Valentinian Gnosticism. The ousia is underlied by the hypostasis.
Functionally and Summarily...
Ousia is the special (species) designation of a being. It is the divinity for God as the "God-ness", or the humanity for man as the "human-ness". The ousia is the kind of "what-ness" that gives no designation or distinction between individuals of said species or kind of beings. The hypostasis designates all "who-ness" as it underlies the "what-ness" that is the ousia.
The ousia "has" the physis as the nature, and the quality of the nature is determined by the quality of the underlying hypostasis. Ousia and hypostasis are both intangible, and both are outwardly presented as/by the prosopon. The physis is the general traits and characteristics of the ousia, while the hypostasis is the personal and individual traits and characteristics that gives "who-ness" to the ousiatic "what-ness" for both the substantial individuality and the essential being to appear visibly and with tangible presence as the prosopon.
PHYSIS (Nature) [G5449]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From phuo (G5453), to bring forth. Nature, natural birth or condition; natural disposition. Physis means nature, essence, essential constitution and order of God in the natural world. It also refers to species of living creatures. God's physis refers not to the divine essence, but to certain of God's attributes or divine qualities. The same is applicable to the human physis.
Apophatically...
The physis, unlike the ousia and hypostasis, is not considered to be able to be manifested directly in tangible visibility.
Functionally and Summarily...
Physis is the inherent qualities of the being. The nature, including that which reflects instinct.
PROSOPON (Person) [G4383]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From pros (G4314), toward, and ops, the eye or face. Literally, the part toward, at, or around the eye. Hence the face, countenance, presence, person. In general, that part of anything which is turned or presented to the eye of another; external or outward appearance.
Apophatically...
The prosopon is not merely the body (soma), including the inward reaching of connectedness to that which underlies as the intangible. As the body is conjoined to the soul, so is the prosopon conjoined to and "has" the hypostasis, which underlies the ousia which "has" the physis. Thus the prosopon is the complete outward representation and expression of substance, essence, and nature.
Functionally and Summarily...
Prosopon is face, presence, personal appearance, person. The outward personal presence and appearance of one in the sight of another.
TRANSCENDENT
Spoiler
From Latin of climbing or going beyond. Used primarily with reference to God's relation to creation. God is beyond (transcendent to) His creation. Transcendence is God's inherent "beyondness", reflecting His attributes of eternity in contrast to created sempiternity and temporality. That which is innately relative to sempiternity would also be transcendent to temporality, just as eternity is transcendent to both sempiternity and temporality.
To AMR and all readership for clarity regarding the glossary definitions...
As previously indicated, the first portion is strict excerpted verbatim lexicography from the late preeminent native-first-language Greek scholar Spiros Zodhiates; and is labeled "Lexically and Cataphatically...".
The following section labeled "Apophatically..." is general clarification for what the term is NOT in overall meaning.
The last section labeled "Functionally and Summarily" is the applied usage of the term in detail relative to my own extensive understanding to develop a cohesive foundation for exegesis and apologetics.
The first section is only arguable between didactic lexical material sources, not for dialectic opinions of individuals. The second section is based on the first, but is not verbatim lexicography, so it's up for discussion as clarification.
The last section, though based upon lexicography, includes my own application and usage of terms and a framework of how those terms are ultimately utilized when I post. This section is my personal clarification so we're not talking past each other over semantics rather than subject matter. And the majority of it is aligned with the Patristics, except the quantification of multiple hypostases.
None of the glossary is presented as "leverage" for a point of view, but to establish my contribution for the baseline of definitions, which IS the entire purpose of this thread.
My inclusion of extensive application of definitions is to further all discussion rather than to limit or control discourse. The discussion would begin with and discrepancies of definition and usage of terms, along with their assemblage in developed and formulated doctrine.
It's all about he framework of definitions and usage first.
I'll not be responding to, or interacting further with, interlopers who are seeking attention for themselves as the final arbitrage of truth while posting here.
Thank you. I am trying to keep up here with various revisions and any further implicit variations that emerge from cross talk with others. It causes me to have to go back and revisit previous thoughts I have and it becoming a chore.
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From reo, to speak. A word spoken or uttered; a speech or sentence consisting of several words; a word or command of God; a report, account. Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word, the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Rhema is not merely the spoken word, though inseparable from Logos in that regard.
Functionally and Summarily...
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 (Word) [G3056]
Spoiler
Lexically and Cataphatically...
From lego (G3004), to speak. Intelligence, a word as the expression of that intelligence. (Contrast lalia (G2981), to speak without necessarily saying anything intelligent or understanding it as such. Logos is the articulate utterance of human language. It can be unspoken as formulation of thought in the mind which in that case stands in contrast to phone (G5456), voice.
When the differentiation is between intelligent speech by man and unintelligent sounds by animals, the two contrasted words are logos and lalia. Logos, when it refers to discourse, is regarded as the orderly linking and knitting together in connected arrangement of words of the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind.
The animals produce sounds, laloun, while God and human beings produce thoughtful expressions, legoun. Laleo can express the opening of the mouth to speak, as opposed to remaining silent.
In the first chapter of the Gospel of John, Jesus Christ in His preincarnate state is called ho Logos, the Word, meaning first immaterial intelligence and then the expression of that intelligence in speech that humans could understand.
Logos is the expression of thought, while Rhema stands for the subject matter of the word or the thing which is spoken about.
Apophatically...
Logos is not merely the written word, though writing is an expression of Rhema via Logos in the same manner as speaking.
Functionally and Summarily...
Logos is the entirety of the faculties and functionalities of intellect, and if there is written or spoken expression it's also Logos. 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.
This is too deep for me, but I wonder if you can help me and others out:
What is the relationship between rhema and logos in "ostensive definition," which is, briefly, defining by pointing at things. For instance the word "tree" can be ostensively defined by pointing at a tree. Similarly with "mountain" and "house," etc.
Is rhema the tree, and "tree" the logos ? The "the subject matter of the word"....
This is too deep for me, but I wonder if you can help me and others out:
What is the relationship between rhema and logos in "ostensive definition," which is, briefly, defining by pointing at things. For instance the word "tree" can be ostensively defined by pointing at a tree. Similarly with "mountain" and "house," etc.
Is rhema the tree, and "tree" the logos ? The "the subject matter of the word"....
I have no idea what you mean. Is pointing not physical ? Is the tree not physical ? Or, do you mean, that we can "point" in other ways than physically ?
I have no idea what you mean. Is pointing not physical ? Is the tree not physical ? Or, do you mean, that we can "point" in other ways than physically ?
This is too deep for me, but I wonder if you can help me and others out:
What is the relationship between rhema and logos in "ostensive definition," which is, briefly, defining by pointing at things. For instance the word "tree" can be ostensively defined by pointing at a tree. Similarly with "mountain" and "house," etc.
Is rhema the tree, and "tree" the logos ? The "the subject matter of the word"....
Yes, exactly. Rhema is that which is pointed to/at as/by ostension. And God's Rhema IS His hypostasis. The flow of the subject matter by intelligent expression as the Logos.
This is what all the Sophists were looking for as "The Philosopher's Stone", but could only produce endless ostension without attaining or obtaining it.
Logos is the map. Rhema is the territory. Logos maps the territory, which is the Rhema.
Thank you. I am trying to keep up here with various revisions and any further implicit variations that emerge from cross talk with others. It causes me to have to go back and revisit previous thoughts I have and it becoming a chore.
I understand, and my apologies for any frustration. I wanted to at least get the major glossary terms defined. The others I added can come gradually, but are Greek and English terms I use regularly.
Some are just references to doctrine and sub-doctrine that aren't vital except for apophatic contrast and exclusion.
Yes, exactly. Rhema is that which is pointed to/at as/by ostension. And God's Rhema IS His hypostasis. The flow of the subject matter by intelligent expression as the Logos.
This is what all the Sophists were looking for as "The Philosopher's Stone", but could only produce endless ostension without attaining or obtaining it.
Logos is the map. Rhema is the territory. Logos maps the territory, which is the Rhema.
Yes, and "then some". Lowering context reduces content (rhema), resulting in concepts of the mind (noema -Satan's devices) that produce alternate content.
Language is the tool that Satan utilizes to set himself up in the temple of God to see himself worshipped as god. The spiraling downward of language context feeds cultural context in endless reciprocity, and it has been a historical mind-patterning to promote every lie and oppose the truth (God's Logos from His Rhema.)
Yes, exactly. Rhema is that which is pointed to/at as/by ostension. And God's Rhema IS His hypostasis. The flow of the subject matter by intelligent expression as the Logos.
This is what all the Sophists were looking for as "The Philosopher's Stone", but could only produce endless ostension without attaining or obtaining it.
Logos is the map. Rhema is the territory. Logos maps the territory, which is the Rhema.
atrol:
