ECT PneumaPsucheSoma and AMR Discuss Trinitarianism

Arsenios

Well-known member
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.

Take your time. :)

This is a promising thread... One cautionary I would offer, in the light of your 'more than definitions' of terms, is to seek concision, rather than trying to say everything you think might be later needed... AMR is a kind and gentle man, and when He says the reworking of his argument is getting tedious, [as the 'more than definitions' keep expanding from their already WAY over-expanded beginnings] I would take that to mean that you are overfilling his cup by a LOT...

Try an exercise: If you can't define a word in 10 words or less, give yourself the "homework" of developing a working 10 or less word definition, rather than the 5 or 6 paragraphs you are now including... And yes, I know, that is already a condensation of 5-6 pages, which is a condensation of vast treatises!! :)

I mean, it is almost as if you are trying to seal the full meal deal with definitional dissertations that really are presuming your view as the right view and making a discussion in normal terms really not an option... I mean, make the case simply and straight-forewardly, and have a conversation about it, letting the conversation determine what is needed in definitional dissertations... You seeem to be front-loading it WAY over the top excessively... Were AMR to do the same regarding his understanding, there would be no way to talk to each other at all, except to nit-pick definitional theses and their implications...

I mean, just relax, and have a conversation, and let it lead where it goes...
Let go... Let God... As some like to say...

Nice to see you posting again...

Did you read "The Person..." yet? I never heard back how you liked or hated it...

Love ya, Bro'!

Arsenios
 
Last edited:

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
This is a promising thread... One cautionary I would offer, in the light of your 'more than definitions' of terms, is to seek concision, rather than trying to say everything you think might be later needed... AMR is a kind and gentle man, and when He says the reworking of his argument is getting tedious, [as the 'more than definitions' keep expanding from their already WAY over-expanded beginnings] I would take that to mean that you are overfilling his cup by a LOT...

Try an exercise: If you can't define a word in 10 words or less, give yourself the "homework" of developing a working 10 or less word definition, rather than the 5 or 6 paragraphs you are now including... And yes, I know, that is already a condensation of 5-6 pages, which is a condensation of vast treatises!! :)

I mean, it is almost as if you are trying to seal the full meal deal with definitional dissertations that really are presuming your view as the right view and making a discussion in normal terms really not an option... I mean, make the case simply and straight-forewardly, and have a conversation about it, letting the conversation determine what is needed in definitional dissertations... You seeem to be front-loading it WAY over the top excessively... Were AMR to do the same regarding his understanding, there would be no way to talk to each other at all, except to nit-pick definitional theses and their implications...

I mean, just relax, and have a conversation, and let it lead where it goes...
Let go... Let God... As some like to say...

Nice to see you posting again...

Did you read "The Person..." yet? I never heard back how you liked or hated it...

Love ya, Bro'!

Arsenios

We can backtrack anywhere and discuss any scalability of each definition. My intention was to make sure he knew my usage of all terms. Nothing is for "leverage" or insistence, which is why I've been careful to label the lexical from the functional.

I truly hope I haven't exasperated or overwhelmed AMR with the voluminous nature of my glossary contributions. Much of that was for any audience, more than to be contentious in convo with AMR.

I'm way chilled out from before, and yes I've read the book. I very much enjoyed it. Thank you again for the wonderful gift.
 

Arsenios

Well-known member
We can backtrack anywhere and discuss any scalability of each definition. My intention was to make sure he knew my usage of all terms. Nothing is for "leverage" or insistence, which is why I've been careful to label the lexical from the functional.

I truly hope I haven't exasperated or overwhelmed AMR with the voluminous nature of my glossary contributions. Much of that was for any audience, more than to be contentious in convo with AMR.

I'm way chilled out from before, and yes I've read the book. I very much enjoyed it. Thank you again for the wonderful gift.

:up: :up: :up:

You seem wonderfully calm now...

The "voluminous nature of your glossary contributions" is the fact that I was concerned with for AMR, given the preciousness of time from which he offered to have a conversation on this topic...

Have you encountered St. Spyridon's 'explanation' of the Trinity? He was a simple and wonder-working peasant, and had more knowledge of the Trinity than any of his peers, and walked around casually doing healings and all manner of wonders with great simplicity of soul and great joy... So the think-tank-theologians asked him about the Trinity, how he understood it, and had mountains of words forming competing accountings for each one's point of view, and they had been getting nowhere in their quest to persuade each other...

And poor ol' Spyridon didn't even know most of the words they were using, but he did know the Trinity... So when they asked him for his opinion, they were much like the Athenians Paul encountered, drooling for some new idea so they could keep discussing with each other... And his eyes dropped to the ground, and they were concerned, because they knew who he was and what he could do, for by then he was very famous... But he knelt down along the road and picked up an old, used, and discarded brick... And he stood up and held it in front of him, and said: "This Brick is made of Clay, Water, and Fire..." And, handing it to the one who asked the question, he said: "Trinity", and departed...

I am glad you found calm...

Still attending services?

Arsenios
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
:up: :up: :up:

You seem wonderfully calm now...

I still have my "moments"' but it's been a work of God's grace upon my very physis.

The "voluminous nature of your glossary contributions" is the fact that I was concerned with for AMR, given the preciousness of time from which he offered to have a conversation on this topic...

Yes, though it was my hope that the voluminous nature of my definitions would produce a clarity that prevents misunderstanding and invites examination rather than creating dissension.

Low-context English requires much delineation in verbiage compared to Greek terms. The inclusion of usage and function of those terms is to demonstrate I AM representing the Eastern application, and I'm NOT designating the ousia as "having" the hypostasis. This carries over to Christological simplicity, since there wouldn't be the complexity of expressing prepositions if the hypostasis underlies the ousia and its physis/es (Mia-/Dyo-).

Have you encountered St. Spyridon's 'explanation' of the Trinity? He was a simple and wonder-working peasant, and had more knowledge of the Trinity than any of his peers, and walked around casually doing healings and all manner of wonders with great simplicity of soul and great joy... So the think-tank-theologians asked him about the Trinity, how he understood it, and had mountains of words forming competing accountings for each one's point of view, and they had been getting nowhere in their quest to persuade each other...

And poor ol' Spyridon didn't even know most of the words they were using, but he did know the Trinity... So when they asked him for his opinion, they were much like the Athenians Paul encountered, drooling for some new idea so they could keep discussing with each other... And his eyes dropped to the ground, and they were concerned, because they knew who he was and what he could do, for by then he was very famous... But he knelt down along the road and picked up an old, used, and discarded brick... And he stood up and held it in front of him, and said: "This Brick is made of Clay, Water, and Fire..." And, handing it to the one who asked the question, he said: "Trinity", and departed...

Like so many such wonderful Orthodox Saint examples, no I hadn't heard of him so I googled. The first thing that comes to my mind is the modern Protestant cessation/continuation dichotomy over gifts from 1Cor. 13.

And the fact that the brick example lends much more support to Uni-Hypostaticism than Multi-Hypostaticism... LOL..., though I've always thought individual inanimate items in creation to be woeful examples of God's constitution.

EXCERPT FROM ARTICLE
According to the witness of Church historians, St Spyridon participated in the sessions of the First Ecumenical Council in the year 325. At the Council, the saint entered into a dispute with a Greek philosopher who was defending the Arian heresy. The power of St Spyridon’s plain, direct speech showed everyone the importance of human wisdom before God’s Wisdom: “Listen, philosopher, to what I tell you. There is one God Who created man from dust. He has ordered all things, both visible and invisible, by His Word and His Spirit. The Word is the Son of God, Who came down upon the earth on account of our sins. He was born of a Virgin, He lived among men, and suffered and died for our salvation, and then He arose from the dead, and He has resurrected the human race with Him. We believe that He is one in essence (consubstantial) with the Father, and equal to Him in authority and honor. We believe this without any sly rationalizations, for it is impossible to grasp this mystery by human reason.”

As a result of their discussion, the opponent of Christianity became the saint’s zealous defender and later received holy Baptism. After his conversation with St Spyridon, the philosopher turned to his companions and said, “Listen! Until now my rivals have presented their arguments, and I was able to refute their proofs with other proofs. But instead of proofs from reason, the words of this Elder are filled with some sort of special power, and no one can refute them, since it is impossible for man to oppose God. If any of you thinks as I do now, let him believe in Christ and join me in following this man, for God Himself speaks through his lips.”

At this Council, St Spyridon displayed the unity of the Holy Trinity in a remarkable way. He took a brick in his hand and squeezed it. At that instant fire shot up from it, water dripped on the ground, and only dust remained in the hands of the wonderworker. “There was only one brick,” St Spyridon said, “but it was composed of three elements. In the Holy Trinity there are three Persons, but only one God.”

Clay, Water, and Fire are "parts" and represent a process, not at all indicating God, His Word, and His Spirit. No simplicity, eternity, aseity, infinity, phenomenology, immutability, etc. And not addressing anything of personal or essential traits or any true ontology or economy, etc. There clearly aren't three hypostases represented here, and "elements" are "parts" (no simplicity), while three is quantification (no infinity).

Combating Arianism with such a miraculous manifestation is valid to eliminate a Monad with a homoiousios emergent or created Son; but the competing anathemas throughout history could never be excluded via the brick example, and it's a wholly cataphatic representation, at that. I think it does more harm than good at the true theological level for actual definition, even if it could suffice on some other level for mere illustration and description.

Words. Theology requires words rather than objects, because the Logos is uncreated and objects are all created. Other than man created in God's image (as a singular hypostasis, BTW), created things cannot represent God. God could not have manifested His Logos in flesh as a brick, but did so as [The-]-anthropos.

Protestantism is so rife with such shallow concepts, that exceedingly few are actual Trinitarians in any purity of understanding. The English term "person/s" is a main culprit, along with abysmal low-context language patterning of the mind.

I am glad you found calm...

You were a vital catalyst for that. Er... the Christ in you was, with you as the vessel of mercy for my judgment.

And I've come to the position of so valuing Chalcedonian Christology (which demonstrates the "how" mechanism of Christ's constitution that is essential for our salvation) and the ontological Gospel of Paul (which the Easterns disciple, but not with exegetical Western application), I'm more conversational and accommodating regarding Theology Proper.

Still attending services?

Arsenios

Yes, on many occasions. Were it not for the immutable fundamental truth that God's Rhema IS His singular hypostasis (and that's the core essential for the Gospel and faith), I could easily be Antiochian within the Holy Communion. Alas...
 
Last edited:

Arsenios

Well-known member
So here is another matter, which I have been addressing in my other thread - The New Creation that we ARE in Christ... I have been showing that it is not a matter of manifesting God's Power, for the OT Saints did as much and more, but it is the elevation of the person by it's being conjoined with the Person of Christ incarnate but now risen... eg An hypostatic union with Christ in the Waters of baptism INTO Christ... That THIS is what the OT Saints did NOT have, but Christians DO have...

Can we chat a little here while AMR gleans some time for your discussion? If you would rather not, I am good with that - We all have time issues, and mine is saying good-bye to you N.O.W!

A :)
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
So here is another matter, which I have been addressing in my other thread - The New Creation that we ARE in Christ... I have been showing that it is not a matter of manifesting God's Power, for the OT Saints did as much and more, but it is the elevation of the person by it's being conjoined with the Person of Christ incarnate but now risen... eg An hypostatic union with Christ

I absolutely concur.

in the Waters of baptism INTO Christ...

But here I would stake out the middle ground, neither specifying the actual baptismal waters nor their symbolism but the hypostasis of faith itself relative to the Living Water that IS Christ.

That THIS is what the OT Saints did NOT have, but Christians DO have...

Indeed.

Can we chat a little here while AMR gleans some time for your discussion?

I'd hope he could readily ignore such quality crosstalk that isn't individual grandstanding. I'd anticipate such chattage would be edifying and applicable to the topic.

If you would rather not, I am good with that - We all have time issues, and mine is saying good-bye to you N.O.W!

A :)

Feel free.
 

Lazy afternoon

LIFETIME MEMBER
LIFETIME MEMBER
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?


You also said in a rep--

I've always been amongst the most accommodating and supportive of Unitarians, siding with them often. You and oatmeal are quickly changing that position to one of disdain. Congrats.


We see the contradictions here, and no big words will help you.

LA
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
Yes, on many occasions. Were it not for the immutable fundamental truth that God's Rhema IS His singular hypostasis (and that's the core essential for the Gospel and faith), I could easily be Antiochian within the Holy Communion. Alas...

Yes, their emulation is tempting.

Alas......
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
The Glossary now has these definitions:

GLOSSARY OF TERMS
RHEMA (Word) [G4487]
Spoiler
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 any discrepancies of definition and usage of terms, along with their assemblage in developed and formulated doctrine.

It's all about the framework of definitions and usage first.

:)
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
I absolutely concur.



But here I would stake out the middle ground, neither specifying the actual baptismal waters nor their symbolism but the hypostasis of faith itself relative to the Living Water that IS Christ.

I have trouble accepting the saints saved prior to the Incarnation of Christ were bereft of faith, seeing that many are named in Hebrews Chapter 11.

(And there were water baptisms performed during the O.T. Prior to John the Baptist. )

Distinctions made between God's economies, I get, but differances claimed between the state of saved souls, can easily devolve into something similar to
Dispensationalism, which Theological views I deplore.

If either of you gentlemen could clarify this discussion, or correct my fears as to its suggested premise, I would be most appreciative.

Nang
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I have trouble accepting the saints saved prior to the Incarnation of Christ were bereft of faith, seeing that many are named in Hebrews Chapter 11.

(And there were water baptisms performed during the O.T. Prior to John the Baptist. )

Distinctions made between God's economies, I get, but differances claimed between the state of saved souls, can easily devolve into something similar to
Dispensationalism, which Theological views I deplore.

If either of you gentlemen could clarify this discussion, or correct my fears as to its suggested premise, I would be most appreciative.

Nang

The OT Saints had salvific faith (pistis) underlying their hope (elpis), just as do we.

Romans 8:24-25 makes it clear that hope (elpis) saves us. The difficulty is not understanding elpis (because of English) or pistis.

The distinction between OT and NT Saints is the manifested prosopon of Theanthropos, into which we all are translated. That had not occurred (cosmologically) in the OT.

Not even the remotest hint of Dispensationalism, though these are the before/after economies relative to the Logos manifest in the flesh.
 

Nang

TOL Subscriber
The distinction between OT and NT Saints is the manifested prosopon of Theanthropos, into which we all are translated. That had not occurred (cosmologically) in the OT.

I am not certain this translation has occurred in the N.T. saints, either . . . I John 3:2-3
 

PneumaPsucheSoma

TOL Subscriber
I am not certain this translation has occurred in the N.T. saints, either . . . I John 3:2-3

We are hypostatically translated by the hypostasis of faith; just not prosopically/somatically, which is the final resurrection.

Betrothed now, and married in all but flesh.
 

1Mind1Spirit

Literal lunatic
We are hypostatically translated by the hypostasis of faith; just not prosopically/somatically, which is the final resurrection.

Betrothed now, and married in all but flesh.

2 Cor 4:16-18
16 Therefore we do not lose heart. Even though our outward man is perishing, yet the inward man is being renewed day by day.

17 For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory,

18 while we do not look at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the things which are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.


John 10:10 KJV

10 The thief cometh not, but for to steal , and to kill , and to destroy : I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

Genesis 1:20 KJV

20 And God said , Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.


Little background music while we wait for AMR?

Time
 
Top