ECT Our triune God

[TFTn5280]

It QUOTE=TFTn5280;4234981]Hi Patrick, blessings to you. Yeah, I have a feeling that there are others that feel the same way you do ~ it got really quiet around here while PPS and I were going at it! There's always a trade off, it seems to me, when speaking of things in Church history that have taken place by speakers of languages other than our own, as to how best to converse about those events. I know that PPS and I are at odds on this one, but I believe that it is incumbent upon those who know those languages to find a way to "move them over" into understandable, as best equivalent terminology for those who don't. In our discussion, PPS and I did not do that, as we both (perhaps roughly on my part) understood the terms in their historic context. I can attempt to translate them now but I'm not sure how relevant they will be in retrospect. But I will anyway give a short definition of the terms we used to this point and if you want something beyond that, you may ask me or perhaps PPS (I don't want to speak for him) or aMR to expand on them. Our discussion pivoted on three terms: ousia, hypostasis, and perichoresis. And the spin-off of them, into a second discussion of ontology or ontological status.

Ousia speaks to the absolute being of an object. What that being is in reality and existence. In Latin it was very unsatisfactorily translated sometimes into substantia (which better speaks to hypostasis) and at other times essentia: Substance or Essence. Although these Latin terms fall short of capturing the meaning of ousia, they are used often enough to convey a rough definition of the term. An object's ousia is its "is-ness": its status as it is in reality.

Hypostasis: While ousia speaks to an object's "is-ness," hypostasis speaks to its "what-ness." It is the derivative of two Greek words meaning to "stand under"; thus hypostasis stands under an object's ousia and speaks to that of which an ousia consists. Thus it always "underlies" ousia or an object's absolute being, its is-ness. In Latin the word substantia means to stand below: sub-stand>La. substania>En. substance. And so you can see how "substance" in English better speaks to hypostasis than it does to ousia, although it is not often used this way.

In the Nicene Creed there is a phrase that was much contested, which spoke to the Son's ousia relative to the Father's ousia. The Council concluded that the Son was of the exact same ousia as the Father, i.e., they were of one and the same being; hence the word homoousia: homo-ousia, "one-being." Yet when the Creed was translated into Latin, it became one "substantia" and then into English as "one substance,"; literally "...[The Son]being of one substance with the Father," so you can see where the confusion crept in.

And so ousia speaks to an object's existence and hypostasis speaks to its subsistence; i.e., its underlying existence. Over time it came to speak of personal (specific) subsistence and eventually the personal subsistence of the being of God; hence the phrase, God is "three persons and one being" ~ the Church's longstanding definition of our Triune God.

The best English definition of person for that period is defined as "a being in relations with another or others." That definition held until the six century when a humanist Theologian named Boethius convincingly redefined the word as "an individual with the ability to reason"; hence a thinking individual; literally an island with a mind. In one fell swoop the relational aspect of person-hood gave way to individualism. And that definition has held even to this day. A person became mind, body, and soul in isolation from others. Here we gain some understanding as to why PPS has such a fit about using the word "person" to speak to the hypostaseis of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit relative to God. Although, being aware of the transition which to place in its definition, we may ~ or perhaps must ~ continue to speak of the Trinity as three persons and one Being.

Wow, that got wordy.

Perichoresis speaks to the inner-relations of the persons of the Trinity (I believe it also speaks of Christians as we are drawn into those relations by the Holy Spirit, although this belief is contested). It speaks then to the "mutual indwelling" of the three, the communion between them. The derivative of the word is "according to-the chorus." Hence from this word we get words such as chorus, choreography, choir, even cooperation, all words which speak to harmony between participants. Hence the word is sometime referred to as "the dance" of the Father and the Son in and through the Holy Spirit.

Ontology or ontological status refers to the nature (physis) of things in their being or inner reality. Hence questions are sometimes asked regarding the ontological status of things. In Col. 1.17 we find the answer that all things exist in Christ. In Christ we and all things find our and their ontology or ontological status, our real being and existence (see also Acts 17.28 and Eph 1.10).

(I remember sitting in a Theology II class and realizing the profound impact of Prof Gary Deddo's comment that evil has no ontological status whatsoever; it always has to draw upon the ontology of others; hence it is a surd, an irrationality that never makes sense in isolation, in and of itself.)

Well, there you have it. I hope this is all helpful. I'm sure others will frown upon my verbiage here but I believe it should give you a descent starting place for understanding these technical terms.

Have a peaceful day, T

Thank you TFT for taking the time to break down those foundational terms crucial to understanding the ongoing discussions between you and PSP. It gets a little crazy for those of us without a bunch of letters behind our names to wade through all the lingo. I truly appreciate your ability and willingness to post in understandable language. I believe there are many of us out there wanting to gain new insights regarding these issues who are grateful for the help. Again thanks!

That's wonderful, LAL. I am glad it was helpful. I'm sure that there are others better equipped than myself to define these terms. A couple have mentioned working up a glossary, but I have yet to see one. So I took a small first step. Again I am overjoyed that you found it helpful and pray that others will as well. T

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I would like the professor to tell us all why this question is even important. Does the prof believe that he must be able to explain all religious phenomena as revealed in scripture before he will accept it as viable revelation. Does he not know that we believe, first, then come to a degree of understanding. We do not think our way into Christ, nor should we reject his indwelling because we do not understand how this promise (the indwelling) can be true.

No, we do not have to have understanding and explain all phenomena; but that will be a part of maturing in the faith. And the epidemic is wide-spread infancy (and apostasy) when we'really admonished to get understanding, and when the love that works faith is also to abound in knowledge (epignosis; clear and exact experiential knowledge).

And the indwelling is not putting new wine (the Holy Spirit) in old wineskins (our old prosopon). Our hypostasis (by the hypostasis of faith) must be translated into the glorified, resurrected, ascended prosopon of Christ; seated in heavenly places. For that, our prosopon must be reckoned crucified with Christ.

THIS is the introduction to understanding the ontology of the Gospel that you're mistaking as the general created ontology of all mankind (and all else) coming into existence by the Word which was made flesh.

The onset of spiritual death and sin didn't annihilate all basic ontology of created existence, but only Believers obtain hypostatic ontology as spiritual life for all everlasting through faith by grace.

Good questions, though.

 

[TFTn5280]

When we minister "to the lost," we need to understand that they are not "lost" because God is not their life source. We minister to the "lost" because we share a common bond with them, to wit, that we are all in God by rite of the creation. There is a clear sense that they are family, because he is the Father of us all. If my sister was lost, I would feel the need to confront her, to live at her doorstep until she came to her senses. Whether we are prodigal or not, we are sons and daughters of the Father. We need to be this committed to the lost.

Exactly!! 2 Cor 5.16 "Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

If there are any interested, I would be very willing to unpack this entire passage in light of verses 14 and 19.

14 "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;"

19 "that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

 

[jsjohnnt]

No, we do not have to have understanding and explain all phenomena; but that will be a part of maturing in the faith. And the epidemic is wide-spread infancy (and apostasy) when we'really admonished to get understanding, and when the love that works faith is also to abound in knowledge (epignosis; clear and exact experiential knowledge).

And the indwelling is not putting new wine (the Holy Spirit) in old wineskins (our old prosopon). Our hypostasis (by the hypostasis of faith) must be translated into the glorified, resurrected, ascended prosopon of Christ; seated in heavenly places. For that, our prosopon must be reckoned crucified with Christ.

THIS is the introduction to understanding the ontology of the Gospel that you're mistaking as the general created ontology of all mankind (and all else) coming into existence by the Word which was made flesh.

The onset of spiritual death and sin didn't annihilate all basic ontology of created existence, but only Believers obtain hypostatic ontology as spiritual life for all everlasting through faith by grace.

Good questions, though.

You do know parts of your post do not speak to the folks on this site. May I suggest that if you know the meanng of the words you use, that you use those definitions, just for the sake of clarity.

I do not agree with your separation of terms, and the notion that "ontology" applies to the creation of all, but not as a continuing life source for all humans. That sounds like an "escape" for you, allowing you to continue to believe that ontology is a believers benefit, not that which is necessary for the life of all beings as Acts 17:23 and Col 1:23 which declares that we are ALL servants of Christ. How sad it is that we are saved, apart from anything we do, and, still, some will choose to walk away.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsjohnnt View Post
I guess my next question(s) is this: do you believe it is an ontological fact,

Pneuma: For those who have authentically believed, yes. And it's ontological reality for Believers' hypostatic existence now. There's intricate exegetical foundation for it all as our consitution.

Quote:
and, is it an ontological fact for all of humanity.

Pneuma: No. Only for authentic Believers.

jsjohnnt responds:

"Authentic" is used as a pejorative, meaning there are believers who are real believers and there are those who are illegitimate in their belief systems.

But, that bit of judgmental nonsense aside, you (pneuma) are now in a box, of sorts. Your claim that only believers are ontically attached to God, is to deny that 1), he is the creator of all, and 2) that he is the source of our very lives all of mankind, and our very life, as individual. He is our being (Acts 17:28) is talking "ontology" and, more precisely, the ontology of all of mankind.

Acts 17:24 - 28's very context is one of God and all of his human creastion;

24 "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25 And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26 From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27 God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from'For in him we live and move and have our being each one of us.
28 .' As some of your own poets have said, 'We are his offspring.'

Paul, here in Acts 17, is talking about all of mankind, even before we become "authentic believers."

Look at the following summary: v 24: God made everything; v25: God gives ALL men life; v26: from one man he made us all; v 27 God is creator of all so that all will seek him; v28: In Him we ALL have our being.

Clearly Paul believed that our ontology (translation: our very lives) are in and because of God. In fact, v 29 - we are all the offspring of God.

Re: "to say it can't be known . . . ." You asked "how." Of course we can know what has been revealed. As to many many issues, revelation does not tell us "how." Certainly, it does not tell us "how" as to our ontology. It only asserts that such is the case.

Re: "the virgin birth" and the other matters you detailed, again, we do not know the "how," only the facts of the revealed reality. In matters of the Faith and community, there is no special class of Christians. Where some are not as "astute" as you, others have enough faith to more than balance the scales. It is not knowledge that activates the heart of the Christian, but the indwelling God (Philips 2:13 "For it is God at work within you both to will and accomplish his good pleasure"). We respond to His very command, more than we respond to any knowledge we might claim we have.

We're speaking of two different things, as I referred to in my previous post.

All ontology of existence is from/by/through/in Christ. The ontological Gospel is relative to Believers' hypostatic existence by putting on Christ by faith as a translation into His prosopon.

Your point is valid, and I'm both surprised and delighted that you brought it up. Few have broached the general ontology of all creation on any forum venue I've visited, so I was unaware that it was your frame of reference when I mentioned the ontological Gospel.

I'll be more concise in the future.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You do know almost no one understands what you are talking about, right ?

Yes (except those I'm mentoring to reestablish the depth, breadth, and height of the ontological Gospel of Paul that has largely been lost to methodologies).

And you seem to be one who does and/or could, though you can't get past your erroneous perception that I'm an arrogant so-and-so.

I can teach it to virtually anyone in a few sessions, but the forum venue is very restrictive in several ways to teach it effectively and expeditiously.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Re: "to say it can't be known . . . ." You asked "how." Of course we can know what has been revealed. As to many many issues, revelation does not tell us "how." Certainly, it does not tell us "how" as to our ontology. It only asserts that such is the case.

Re: "the virgin birth" and the other matters you detailed, again, we do not know the "how," only the facts of the revealed reality. In matters of the Faith and community, there is no special class of Christians. Where some are not as "astute" as you, others have enough faith to more than balance the scales. It is not knowledge that activates the heart of the Christian, but the indwelling God (Philips 2:13 "For it is God at work within you both to will and accomplish his good pleasure"). We respond to His very command, more than we respond to any knowledge we might claim we have.

The "how" is more accessible than you realize. For instance... I can exegetically delineate exactly how the virgin birth occurred. (And the reason it hasn't been exegeted previously is because Theology Proper needs to be reconciled slightly to the truth regarding its one omission and its subtle correction.)

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You do know parts of your post do not speak to the folks on this site. May I suggest that if you know the meanng of the words you use, that you use those definitions, just for the sake of clarity.

I do not agree with your separation of terms, and the notion that "ontology" applies to the creation of all, but not as a continuing life source for all humans. That sounds like an "escape" for you, allowing you to continue to believe that ontology is a believers benefit, not that which is necessary for the life of all beings as Acts 17:23 and Col 1:23 which declares that we are ALL servants of Christ. How sad it is that we are saved, apart from anything we do, and, still, some will choose to walk away.

I'm contrasting the difference between our inherent ontology as creation and the necessary hypostatic translated ontology that comprises the ontological Gospel to be born from above into salvation through faith by grace.

The latter is the ontology of the crucified, resurrected, ascended, seated Christ in heavenly places; through which we become partakers of the divine nature as joint heirs with Him.

Base existence as creation is not the latter ontology of Believers. It's by faith, which comets by hearing God's Rhema.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Exactly!! 2 Cor 5.16 "Therefore, from now on, we regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know Him thus no longer."

If there are any interested, I would be very willing to unpack this entire passage in light of verses 14 and 19.

14 "For the love of Christ compels us, because we judge thus: that if One died for all, then all died;"

19 "that is, that God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself, not imputing their trespasses to them, and has committed to us the word of reconciliation."

The only caution would be against Universalism. Unpack it. It'll edify many.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

JS, I would say it's more specific even than that. In Colossians 1.17 Paul writes that Christ "is before all things, and in Him all things consist." The Gr word for consist means "to hold together," or "to bond together." It is my argument that humanity is always included in the neuter "all," because we are part of the whole of creation, hence "all created things." That being so, if Christ were to let go of us, so to speak, we would cease to exist. And so there is no legitimate argument here: humanity's ontology is in Christ. See also Ephesians 1.10 where we read that the Father has gathered together, literally "re-headed-up," the all in Christ; hence again, therein lying our ontological status. So you are on very solid ground on this one, my friend.

My point, exactly. I suspect there are a rather larger number of scripture that establish mankind's ontology in and of its creator. So, has pneuma accepted this, or is he still in denial? THAT is the question of the hour.

Going deeper into Colossians, we have this 19th versus in chapter 2: "2:19 They have lost connection with the head, from whom the whole body, supported and held together by its ligaments and sinews, grows as God causes it to grow."

While there is a "spiritual" or non-physical component to this versus, he goes out of his way to make it clear that he (Paul) speaks of the physical man (ligaments and sinews) as he makes the point that "God causes it [the whole body] to grow"]. Our body growth and spiritual maturity are caused by God in Christ. Can't have this reality apart from the fact that our existence (our ontology) is in and caused by God in Christ.

BTW, is there anything in the greek about this word "caused" that goes to this discussion that takes us beyond the typical definition of that English word?

Perhaps I should be more specific: It's not just that humanity's ontology is in "our Creator." All of Humanity's ontology is in its Savior, Jesus Christ. Every one of us is in Christ, humanity's Savior.

These are excellent posts on the overall ontology of all creation, including mankind.

Just be mindful of sunistemi in the intransitive, meaning to be constituted, created, to exist; and contrasted to the transitive, meaning to join together parts into a whole, to constitute, create, bring into existence.

Having been brought into ontology of existence BY Him, "in" (en) takes on the sense of "BY" rather than "in", not indicating a remaining that is durative.

It isn't some Panentheistic reference to all creation remaining in Christ like He's a fishbowl to contain the cosmos. It means all creation was brought into existence BY the Logos, which was made flesh.

It's (grammatically) about origin of existence, not spatial continuation and/or a state of being as IN Christ.

By. Origin.

 

[TFTn5280]

BTW, is there anything in the greek about this word "caused" that goes to this discussion that takes us beyond the typical definition of that English word?

No, not that I can see. The causal aspect of this word cluster is supplied by the participle itself. Christ is the antecedent. He is thus "growing the growth of God," or "increasing the increase of God." I take it to mean as new people are born under his headship God's increase increases.

 

[TFTn5280]

The only caution would be against Universalism. Unpack it. It'll edify many.

I will not be arguing for universalism, but I will definitely be arguing for a universal atonement, active and in effect and inclusive of all humanity. There will in spite of this be some who reject Christ and thereby trample under foot the Son of God.

I'll get to work on it.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I will not be arguing for universalism, but I will definitely be arguing for a universal atonement, active and in effect and inclusive of all humanity. There will in spite of this be some who reject Christ and thereby trample under foot the Son of God.

I'll get to work on it.

This is definitely a Fuller aspect you've embraced. I'd counter with the hypostatic ontology of Paul's Gospel, but your delineation should be edifying and informative.

Please bear in mind my last post on (Col. 1:17) sunistemi in the intransitive as "by", indicating the source of origin.

Looking forward to it.

 

[patrick jane]

No, not that I can see. The causal aspect of this word cluster is supplied by the participle itself. Christ is the antecedent. He is thus "growing the growth of God," or "increasing the increase of God." I take it to mean as new people are born under his headship God's increase increases.

All Glory and Praise to God ! ! ! not to be flippant, but this is one of those posts that make me think - Yyyeeeaaahhh, GOD Knows What He's Doin' ! ! ! Amen

 

[patrick jane]

These are excellent posts on the overall ontology of all creation, including mankind.

Just be mindful of sunistemi in the intransitive, meaning to be constituted, created, to exist; and contrasted to the transitive, meaning to join together parts into a whole, to constitute, create, bring into existence.

Having been brought into ontology of existence BY Him, "in" (en) takes on the sense of "BY" rather than "in", not indicating a remaining that is durative.

It isn't some Panentheistic reference to all creation remaining in Christ like He's a fishbowl to contain the cosmos. It means all creation was brought into existence BY the Logos, which was made flesh.

It's (grammatically) about origin of existence, not spatial continuation and/or a state of being as IN Christ.

By. Origin.

again, in my simplification (perhaps over-), i understand where that goes. NOTHING EXPLAINS HOW GOD IS, Did, Does or Will Do, specifically All Creation and/or ANY potential origin or existence of God. even brand new words or concepts, brand new thoughts never thought before. NOTHING. Only in a "better" way than ever before ? i realize the depth of thought you've personally done, and teaching others. i sensed a Spirit led seeking and searching from the first couple posts i saw from you. The Holy Ghost Will lead you. sometimes more, when we stop "wanting" more - atrol:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Originally Posted by TFTn5280
I will not be arguing for universalism, but I will definitely be arguing for a universal atonement, active and in effect and inclusive of all humanity. There will in spite of this be some who reject Christ and thereby trample under foot the Son of God.

I'll get to work on it.

This is definitely a Fuller aspect you've embraced. I'd counter with the hypostatic ontology of Paul's Gospel, but your delineation should be edifying and informative.

Please bear in mind my last post on (Col. 1:17) sunistemi in the intransitive as "by", indicating the source of origin.

Looking forward to it.

Tramplers?

Revelation 3:16 KJV

16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Yeah its a big help to the poor uneducated people of Bangladesh digging up potatoes.

LA

 

[jsjohnnt]

The notion that we must attain to a certain and advanced linguistic knowledge before we can read the biblical message and draw conclusions that are in line with sound exegesis and a dependable understanding is something that I personally reject. I am a student of Barth and the Bible. Been in the Word for nearly 50 years. Studied Barth for 10. One of the things I like about the man is his refusal to justify his understanding, his theology, via anything similar to "textual criticism." He is difficult to read, but that is due to the fact of his [dialectic] style of writing and the difficulties inherent in translating his words into English.

As relates to the Bible, I trust the several translations we have, and while this will sound "anti-intellectual," I really don't care. We have a president who governs without the consent of the governed or its congress. According to Obama, governance belongs to the gifted few. And, now, in the course of the ongoing debate, we are getting so technical as to eliminate the viable research of the "common man." In fact, we discount the common man and reject his conclusions. We do so in the political realm, and, now, as to matters of faith. Not for me. So I am signing off. I leave knowing that Christ is the source of our being (our very existence) as stated in Acts 17:28. To argue that he is the source of existence for only the believer is to argue for a biblical statement that is mere hyperbole, a statement that sounds good but is not, literally, true. Sorry, Don't get me wrong. I am not a "literalist" or whatever word you all will throw my way, but there is something to be said for God and God in Christ's continuing revelation in our lives, as we center our study in what we have for the written word of God. The notion that we must get so technical as to negate the possibility of a farmer, or a carpenter, or a housewife, from picking up the Book and coming to a viable and well grounded understanding, is counter to God's participation in our reading of His written word. Without scholarship and the "technical," we would not have our translations. Agreed. I assume, however, that the intent of scholarship was to give us a biblical translation(s) that would facilitate our studies as Christians, in and of themselves. If not, what use are our translations? Karl Barth used more than 80,000 scriptures in writing his Dogmatics and never once, based any of his conclusions on a technical understanding of the greek text, and yet, he was as knowledgeable in these things as anyone. Anyway. I won't argue the point. Good day.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The notion that we must attain to a certain and advanced linguistic knowledge before we can read the biblical message and draw conclusions that are in line with sound exegesis and a dependable understanding is something that I personally reject. I am a student of Barth and the Bible. Been in the Word for nearly 50 years. Studied Barth for 10. One of the things I like about the man is his refusal to justify his understanding, his theology, via anything similar to "textual criticism." He is difficult to read, but that is due to the fact of his [dialectic] style of writing and the difficulties inherent in translating his words into English.

As relates to the Bible, I trust the several translations we have, and while this will sound "anti-intellectual," I really don't care. We have a president who governs without the consent of the governed or its congress. According to Obama, governance belongs to the gifted few. And, now, in the course of the ongoing debate, we are getting so technical as to eliminate the viable research of the "common man." In fact, we discount the common man and reject his conclusions. We do so in the political realm, and, now, as to matters of faith. Not for me. So I am signing off. I leave knowing that Christ is the source of our being (our very existence) as stated in Acts 17:28. To argue that he is the source of existence for only the believer is to argue for a biblical statement that is mere hyperbole, a statement that sounds good but is not, literally, true. Sorry, Don't get me wrong. I am not a "literalist" or whatever word you all will throw my way, but there is something to be said for God and God in Christ's continuing revelation in our lives, as we center our study in what we have for the written word of God. The notion that we must get so technical as to negate the possibility of a farmer, or a carpenter, or a housewife, from picking up the Book and coming to a viable and well grounded understanding, is counter to God's participation in our reading of His written word. Without scholarship and the "technical," we would not have our translations. Agreed. I assume, however, that the intent of scholarship was to give us a biblical translation(s) that would facilitate our studies as Christians, in and of themselves. If not, what use are our translations? Karl Barth used more than 80,000 scriptures in writing his Dogmatics and never once, based any of his conclusions on a technical understanding of the greek text, and yet, he was as knowledgeable in these things as anyone. Anyway.

I won't argue the point.

Good day.

But you HAVE argued the point. Some claim to be of Apollos or others; you are of Barth. That 10 years of reading non-scripture in concepts could have been devoted to scripture and its lexicography. Then you wouldn't have to balk in puffed-up gnosis at a handful of foundational inspired Greek terms and their valid definitions and applications in our native English language, while condescending to others who have true epignosis knowledge (abounding from love, which works faith).

As you stated and then negated, you wouldn't have English translations without linguistic scholarship. You're a paradox unto yourself.

Good day in return.

 

[john w]

Yes (except those I'm mentoring to reestablish the depth, breadth, and height of the ontological Gospel of Paul that has largely been lost to methodologies).

And you seem to be one who does and/or could, though you can't get past your erroneous perception that I'm an arrogant so-and-so.

I can teach it to virtually anyone in a few sessions, but the forum venue is very restrictive in several ways to teach it effectively and expeditiously.

Can you say, "supercalifragilisticexpialidocious" backwards?