ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

perhaps you have had too much wine (pride), and PPS has had twice as much. you two SHOULD skype, get in touch. with each other, because you both have gone too far. Let EVERYONE KNOW when you're both finished DEFINING GOD in ANY Language. ridiculous - :rapture:

Hey, Brudder-man... What's the boggle? This is good Christology convo. I thought you were down for that.

:devil:

:cheers:

 

[patrick jane]

Hey, Brudder-man... What's the boggle? This is good Christology convo. I thought you were down for that.

:devil:

:cheers:

i am. i just want this SUMMED up. in english preferably, but i can keep up either way. it seems that neither wants to make a complete statement. IT IS GOOD Christology

 

[patrick jane]

The reason
that we confess the Procession of the Holy Spirit out of the Father,
and the Begottenness of the Son from the Father,
is because
we also confess, in the same Nicene Creed,

"One God, The Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible..."


We confess One God,
And His Son Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior,
And His Holy Spirit as Lord and Giver of Life...

Procession is not a term of movement away from and toward,
but of manner of Origin,
and the Father is the One God out of Whom both His Son and His Spirit have their Source...
They are all Three equal in Power,
several in Person,
and One as God...

This understanding is obviously NOT a human enterprise
designed by men
to establish a logically non-contradictory and systematic
account of the God-Head...

It is instead as much as God has deemed fit to reveal to us...

We are THE Faith that worships One God in Three Persons...

The rest are perhaps far more 'humanly' "logical"...

Our confession is foolishness to the world...

And we are scorned by lovers of human logicality...


Arsenios

i will never SCORN you - but WE and US ?

 

[Arsenios]

I cannot contain the unspeakable joy in conversing with you, my Bruddah. :rapture:

Flattery ain't a gonna help ya when I git done with yer...

Think Greek anarthrous, not English indefinite article. The quality, character, and activity of the noun.:luigi:

Which places us back into issues of precision, because if you mean that He took on human nature [physis], then SAY He took on human nature, and do NOT say that he took on A FLIPPIN' human nature... The Greek for that would be h tou anthropomorphou physis...

Within. The rest was to designate at least the Latin and Western insistence that the Incarnate Christ was one hypostasis and one ousia with both a human and divine physis.

So this is where hierarchical etiological thinking is essential... We have two natures, with one Person directing both, and if each nature HAS its own ousia, which it does, then we have two ousia under one Hypostasis, and the entire physis of man is under the aegis of the Ony Divine Hypostasis of Christ-God... He has a human physis with its inherent being/wealth, and he retains His Divine nature, with its inherent Being/wealth... So that we can know God the Hypostasis, as a man who is fully in every respect human, so that NOW, in the incarnation, He has a human mask/face/prosopon...

But I'll acquiesce to the pedanticism since it really does have importance.

The rest is non- and anti- communicative...

(At some point in another thread, you agreed/insisted that the Logos/Son was phenomenological and noumenological.)

Well, He is phenomenal, no question... And He is apprehended noumenally by us, one would hope... But phenomenological and noumenological are categories of creation, so unless you are referring to His created human nature, I cannot imagine these categories being applied to the uncreated Logos-God...

Maybe I did in some particular way that you took more universally???

I dunno...

It's a component in later Christological considerations. I've been discussing it with a local Lutheran Pastor friend.

Siderial associational thinking???

The Holy Spirit is not a third of three quantified hypostases, though.

ONE is no more and no less a QUANTITY than THREE...

Lord have Mercy!

Arsenios



Okay, right.



To make sure I'm communicating with you on your terms, please define "accidents" so I can precisely answer.



"Within" probably works better for you. Relative was simple equating with source or placement, etc.

The mind and will are faculties within the physis of the ousia, while the hypostasis engages in and exhibits the inner qualities, characteristics, and activity as the functionalities of those faculties (all outwardly demonstrated by the prosopon).



Not really. You just require a narrow range of expression according to all your own parody and caricature. I'm always having to adjust because you can't and/or won't.



Noper dopers. It's very nature of every sentient volitional being to have mind and will faculties, whether rational or not.



Again, not really. Often the distinction is as that between Greek articular and anarthrous.



Many have referred to the Incarnation with that term. I didn't coin it, but repeated it.



Noper dopers, again. Lexicography points to it strongly, as does intuitive (oida) knowledge of the Spirit.



Read more carefully, please. I said He didn't have two INHERENT minds, relative to His hypostasis. The divine mind was that within the singular divine ousia that is God. Even in the false multi-hypostatic formulaic, the alleged second hypostasis (the Son) didn't have one of three physes; so the singular mind of God was not directly within the Son.

So the one inherent mind within the Son during the Incarnation was human; and in total obedience to, and in perfect communion with, God.



Nope. His hypostasis didn't have a second of three divine natures or minds.

This is functional Tritheism. Not cool. And this is why all the anathema-proponents balk, and rightly so.

Eek.[/QUOTE]

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

i am. i just want this SUMMED up. in english preferably, but i can keep up either way. it seems that neither wants to make a complete statement. IT IS GOOD Christology

Father + Son + Holy Spirit =

Rhythm, Rhyme and Harmony.

 

[patrick jane]

The reason
that we confess the Procession of the Holy Spirit out of the Father,
and the Begottenness of the Son from the Father,
is because
we also confess, in the same Nicene Creed,

"One God, The Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible..."


We confess One God,
And His Son Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior,
And His Holy Spirit as Lord and Giver of Life...

Procession is not a term of movement away from and toward,
but of manner of Origin,
and the Father is the One God out of Whom both His Son and His Spirit have their Source...
They are all Three equal in Power,
several in Person,
and One as God...

This understanding is obviously NOT a human enterprise
designed by men
to establish a logically non-contradictory and systematic
account of the God-Head...

It is instead as much as God has deemed fit to reveal to us...

We are THE Faith that worships One God in Three Persons...

The rest are perhaps far more 'humanly' "logical"...

Our confession is foolishness to the world...

And we are scorned by lovers of human logicality...


Arsenios

i will never SCORN you

 

[Arsenios]

I cannot contain the unspeakable joy in conversing with you, my Bruddah. :rapture:

Flattery ain't a gonna help ya when I git done with yer...

Think Greek anarthrous, not English indefinite article. The quality, character, and activity of the noun.:luigi:

Which places us back into issues of precision, because if you mean that He took on human nature [physis], then SAY He took on human nature, and do NOT say that he took on A FLIPPIN' human nature... The Greek for that would be h tou anthropomorphou physis...

Within. The rest was to designate at least the Latin and Western insistence that the Incarnate Christ was one hypostasis and one ousia with both a human and divine physis.

So this is where hierarchical etiological thinking is essential... We have two natures, with one Person directing both, and if each nature HAS its own ousia, which it does, then we have two ousia under one Hypostasis, and the entire physis of man is under the aegis of the Ony Divine Hypostasis of Christ-God... He has a human physis with its inherent being/wealth, and he retains His Divine nature, with its inherent Being/wealth... So that we can know God the Hypostasis, as a man who is fully in every respect human, so that NOW, in the incarnation, He has a human mask/face/prosopon...

But I'll acquiesce to the pedanticism since it really does have importance.

The rest is non- and anti- communicative...

(At some point in another thread, you agreed/insisted that the Logos/Son was phenomenological and noumenological.)

Well, He is phenomenal, no question... And He is apprehended noumenally by us, one would hope... But phenomenological and noumenological are categories of creation, so unless you are referring to His created human nature, I cannot imagine these categories being applied to the uncreated Logos-God...

Maybe I did in some particular way that you took more universally???

I dunno...

It's a component in later Christological considerations. I've been discussing it with a local Lutheran Pastor friend.

Siderial associational thinking???

The Holy Spirit is not a third of three quantified hypostases, though.

ONE is no more and no less a QUANTITY than THREE...

Lord have Mercy!

To make sure I'm communicating with you on your terms, please define "accidents" so I can precisely answer.

I am essentially human, and I happen to have trimmed fingernails...

Need more?

The mind and will are faculties within the physis of the ousia,

Does the nature have an essence, or does the essence have the nature? What on earth would physis of ousia mean when it is the ousia that is of the physis?

while the hypostasis engages in and exhibits the inner qualities, characteristics, and activity as the functionalities of those faculties (all outwardly demonstrated by the prosopon).

You are horizontal again, because hypostasis determines physis, and you reversed the verticality of physis and ousia, and so you are running out on horizontal associational strings without vertical etiological integration...

You just require a narrow range of expression according to all your own parody and caricature. I'm always having to adjust because you can't and/or won't.

I simply am holding your nose to a precise grindstone, using your own terms, and showing how they are associationally loose and tangentially connected, rather than rigorously integrated according to vertical fundamentality of cause...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

i will never SCORN you

Well, we also love human logicality...

And especially yours...

But we do not endeavor by it to delimit God...

BECAUSE...

God is not delimited by the rules of His creation...

Arsenios

 

[patrick jane]

Well, we also love human logicality...

And especially yours...

But we do not endeavor by it to delimit God...

BECAUSE...

God is not delimited by the rules of His creation...

Arsenios

Delimit. i like that. don't do it to GOD -

 

[patrick jane]

arsenios ? are you here ? tell me where you think this discussion will end up

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

And more, I know the Lord...



Arsenios

I Jn 2:4-5
4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.


Some commandments?

24 But if all prophesy , and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together , every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.


27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret .

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge .

30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by , let the first hold his peace .

31 For ye may all prophesy one by one *, that all may learn , and all may be comforted .

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak ; but they are commanded to be under obedience , as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man be ignorant , let him be ignorant .

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy , and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.


I reckon outta the last 2,000 years y'all orthodox never got a copy of these commands hunh?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Flattery ain't a gonna help ya when I git done with yer...

So you say now.... Yar har.:devil:

Which places us back into issues of precision, because if you mean that He took on human nature [physis], then SAY He took on human nature, and do NOT say that he took on A FLIPPIN' human nature... The Greek for that would be h tou anthropomorphou physis...

I just did. Though I have no idea if Jesus ever did any "flippin'". Maybe so, maybe no.

So this is where hierarchical etiological thinking is essential... We have two natures, with one Person directing both, and if each nature HAS its own ousia, which it does,

I don't think so, muh friend. He isn't two beings. One might ascertain that the singular ousia was both human and divine, but not two ousios.

The one hypostasis is most definitely directing both physes, for the hypostasis underlies the physes and determines their quality. But the physis/es don't have the ousia, but vice versa.

then we have two ousia under one Hypostasis,

Nope. One hypostasis underlying the singular ousia which has human and divine natures. The quality of the hypostasis determines the quality of the nature it underlies, not vice versa.

and the entire physis of man is under the aegis of the Ony Divine Hypostasis of Christ-God...

Nope. The hypostasis is the foundational underlying substantial objective reality as existence. The inner "person" is foundational to the nature and being. The "who" is superordinate to the "what".

He has a human physis with its inherent being/wealth,

Again, vice versa. The hypostasis has all the being/wealth by underlying it, and both the human and divine natures within that singular being.

and he retains His Divine nature, with its inherent Being/wealth...

Each of the three alleged hypostases do NOT have individuated natures, but participate in the singular divine nature within God's ousia (including one divine mind and will).

Your verticality of etiology is inverted and discombobulated. Hypostasis underlies the ousia, which "has" the physis; and the prosopon "has" the hypostasis.

Physes don't have the ousia, nor do they underlie the hypostasis. Mirror that all and you've got correct etiology for Christology.

So that we can know God the Hypostasis, as a man who is fully in every respect human, so that NOW, in the incarnation, He has a human mask/face/prosopon...

At least this is more correct.

The rest is non- and anti- communicative...

Yeah, I didn't know where you were going with all this, but now I'm tracking. And you've got it all jacked up and backwardly.

Well, He is phenomenal, no question... And He is apprehended noumenally by us, one would hope... But phenomenological and noumenological are categories of creation,

Nope. You just denied the transcendent prosopon of God, which shines and appears. No beholding or beholder is required. He is eternal uncreated phaino. Self-conscious. Self-existent. Etiology begins here, and Orthodoxy has jacked and hijacked it.

so unless you are referring to His created human nature, I cannot imagine these categories being applied to the uncreated Logos-God...

I guess God isn't eternally Self-conscious then. You'd think Logos would be clearly noumenonological, but I guess you can't see that.

Now God is non-existent. You made Him not appear.

Maybe I did in some particular way that you took more universally???

I dunno...

It's because you don't understand phaino.

Siderial associational thinking???

Just a convo with a Lutheran. No biggie. They're okay, though I'm unsure what the distinction is between Missouri Synod and others.

ONE is no more and no less a QUANTITY than THREE...

Lord have Mercy!

One is prime. It needn't be a quantity at all. Three is nothing but quantification. And God says He's one in both Covenants. The spurious Comma Johanneum is the only reference to three in any cardinal sense.

God is a qualitative threeness.

I am essentially human, and I happen to have trimmed fingernails...

Need more?

Gotcha.

Does the nature have an essence, or does the essence have the nature?

Essence "has" the nature.

What on earth would physis of ousia mean when it is the ousia that is of the physis?

Nope, mirror man. Every being has a nature, both underlied by the hypostasis.

You are horizontal again, because hypostasis determines physis,

Right. By underlying it as reality for existence. The existence is the ousia, which has the physis. Every being has a nature.

and you reversed the verticality of physis and ousia,

Not I. You, Sir.

and so you are running out on horizontal associational strings without vertical etiological integration...

Back atcha, script flipper.

I simply am holding your nose to a precise grindstone, using your own terms, and showing how they are associationally loose and tangentially connected, rather than rigorously integrated according to vertical fundamentality of cause...

Arsenios

No. You're clearly demonstrating you've inverted everything. Your etiological verticality for fundsmentality of cause is jacked.

Hypostasis underlies the ousia, determining quality of the physis, which is of the ousia.
Ousia has the physis.
Prosopon has the hypostasis, outwardly presenting it and all it underlies.

There's your fundamentality of etiologogical verticality.

For Christology, He isn't two beings. The natures don't have the beings and the person.

Bad Arsenios. Go sit in the corner.:rapture:

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

No. You're clearly demonstrating you've inverted everything. Your etiological verticality for fundsmentality of cause is jacked.

Hypostasis underlies the ousia, determining quality of the physis, which is of the ousia.
Ousia has the physis.
Prosopon has the hypostasis, outwardly presenting it and all it underlies.

There's your fundamentality of etiologogical verticality.

For Christology, He isn't two beings. The natures don't have the beings and the person.

Bad Arsenios. Go sit in the corner.:rapture:

:shut: Where's my salt shaker?

 

[Arsenios]

I Jn 2:4-5
4 He who says, "I know Him," and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.


Some commandments?

24 But if all prophesy , and there come in one that believeth not, or one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all:

25 And thus are the secrets of his heart made manifest; and so falling down on his face he will worship God, and report that God is in you of a truth.

26 How is it then, brethren? when ye come together , every one of you hath a psalm, hath a doctrine, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.


27 If any man speak in an unknown tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that by course; and let one interpret .

28 But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.

29 Let the prophets speak two or three, and let the other judge .

30 If any thing be revealed to another that sitteth by , let the first hold his peace .

31 For ye may all prophesy one by one *, that all may learn , and all may be comforted .

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

33 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak ; but they are commanded to be under obedience , as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

36 What? came the word of God out from you? or came it unto you only?

37 If any man think himself to be a prophet, or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.

38 But if any man be ignorant , let him be ignorant .

39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy , and forbid not to speak with tongues.

40 Let all things be done decently and in order.


I reckon outta the last 2,000 years y'all orthodox never got a copy of these commands hunh?

We have been living them for 2000 years...

And wrote them down so you could read them on your very own printing-press Bible...

What did the "Me and My Bible" folks DO prior to the printing presses???

Hymmmnnnn???

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

arsenios ? are you here ? tell me where you think this discussion will end up

The Eastern Orthodox Faith...

That is where it began, you see...

The Greek New Testament, you see...

Was NOT written by the Latins...

But was written by us...

Augustine did not know Greek...

But he knew himself...

No small matter!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Delimit. i like that. don't do it to GOD -

It is one of the bases for apophatic theology...

Which rests on the fundamental OTHERNESS of God relative to creation...

More so than the otherness of Henry Ford relative to the Model T...

WAY more so...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

:shut: Where's my salt shaker?

Next to y'er hootch!

A.

 

[Jedidiah]

Yes...



This is where great precision is needed... To make the distinction you are about to make in the second half of your sentence, you must say that the Son is generated by being begotten of the Father...



Full stop... The Holy Spirit is generated by Procession from the Father...

Can you see this? The one by Generation, the other by Procession, both of the Father...



We DENY that the Holy Spirit has His Origin, eg is generated, by any Procession from the Son...



Insofar as they are all God, they are equal in every respect... Insofar as they are Persons, we do not know, because it has not been further revealed by God...



It is a strange way to argue it, but true nonetheless... NO human would EVER argue Trinitarian Doctrine from human logic... It confounds such logic, and almost proves WHY God is apprehended by Faith in purity of heart instead of human logic... Human logic is its own discipline, and is needed for discipleship and for dealing with the world, but the ascent to God is only made when words and concepts and all of the rest of fallen human paraphernalia are set aside and we become turned toward God [pros ton Theon, from John 1] alone... The CALL of God TO us, otoh, comes when we are NOT so turned, and the turning is done FOR us BY God... And we then spend the rest of our lives learning, as fallen souls in a fallen creation, to renounce the world and RE-TURN toward God in an intimacy that is likened in Scripture to Marriage...



Were you trained by a Jesuit?...

I have been trained by creation to believe the glorious Gospel of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Is creation a Jesuit, in your opinion ? :think:
​

...The metaphysical actually CAN be originated and addressed by fallen man, as Aristotle himself did do......

Not originated. Discovered, yes.​

...But he did not meet God... We are not sure who Socrates talked with, and we love Heraclitus, who first used Logos as the fundamental metaphysical principle of existence and change, whose Logos became understood not as an impersonal principle, but an active Person, in the Gospel of John... In China, Christ is called the Eternal Tao, as in Tao Te Ching......

This is a good example of how Pagan traditions creep into the Church. Whatever already exists in the Pagans’ religion that is actually good and true is transported into the Church in that region. The Church is a unifier; receiving the good and true and rejecting the bad and false.​

...And the reason for our being able to do this is because we ARE NOT merely physical, but are ALSO THINKERS... And you simply cannot physicalize thinking, even though you CAN think physically... So that thinking itself is meta-physical... It is beyond physics, even though having a physical locus in the fallen person's body...



I like how you think…

I like your faith.​

...but would move the bar you have set, because of the janus-faced nature of human mentation after the Fall, for it can turn toward the immaterial God, and it can turn toward fallen creation, and its fallen life depends on its being turned in some degree toward fallen creation, or it will experience death, and it is within this need that all have sinned, because all that is not OF GOD is sin...



Yes...
And beyond this meta realm
which is both beyond and governs the physical,
is God
Who created it all...
Who is able to become incarnate of a virgin...
And to rise from the dead...

I believe He has deemed fit to reveal everything.

Never... Now we see but in part…

For sure. I believe that we have been shown it all however, in as much as it is possible to reveal the metaphysical reality we call the Trinity physically, we have been shown it all. We see in part because of our fallen bodies, as Paul indicates, writing “we” in his fallen body. What I'm suggesting is that even as our new bodies in glory, while we will see face-to-face, it will still not be apprehending the Creator as He is, metaphysically, because while our new bodies will be Spiritual, they will not be "spirit," but flesh and bone.​

...in an earnest, as Paul writes...



Well, if you understand the Trinity as beyond the meta of metaphysical, you won't err much... Meta also, btw, means WITH......

See below.​

What I don't know is, will we be able to mentally apprehend Him in glory ?

...Mentally??? Noetically, we can and do, insofar as we are able, which in part means according to the purity of our hearts, which is a function of our repenting and being united in Christ etc etc...

Intellectually, He is not apprehendable......

Yes, that's what I'm saying, I'm just also further suggesting that this may be an eternal condition, and not bound to this world which is passing away.​

...Which is:

The fundamental flaw of Scholasticism and Reformationis neo-Scholasticism...



The Mystery is ENTERED in purity of heart in renunciation of this fallen creation by Baptism into the DEATH of Christ on the cross...

The WORDS are but boundary markers showing the edges that will, if you go beyond them, will take you OUT of the Mystery into Which you have entered at Baptism into the Body of Christ...

Paul reported the third heaven, "...whether in the body or out of the body, I know not, God knows..." Christ appeared to the disciples on the Road to Emmaneus, and disappeared... So did Philip with the Ethopian eunuch... And so we do not know, for Paul reported that he "saw" things of which it is "unlawful to speak"... He did not say incomprehensible... Of these things, we remain silent if we have seen them, and the more so if we have not... I am a more-so...



Back at ya!

Arsenios

Bear with me. “Meta-“ can mean “with,” and I’ve been very careful to use the word “metaphysics” in the strict Aristotelian sense (which does not mean "how Aristotle used it" because he didn't use it; it means the sense in which his editors and compilers meant it, which is where they physically placed Aristotle’s metaphysical work, which was literally “beyond” what he wrote about physics, in the physical volumes that they edited and compiled; it is therefore very plainly ostensively defined by them), so “meta-“ in this sense means exclusively “beyond” with no possibility for another meaning.

And you’ll notice that we have now established exactly the point PPS makes about translating from high-context Greek to low-context English (or is it vice versa?), because when the Greek neologism was invented it meant precisely what I mean by the word, but as the Greek is translated into English we lose content, and we need to clarify exactly what we mean by the cognate “metaphysics,” while in Greek such qualification is unneeded. Low- versus high-context language.​

The Trinity is not beyond metaphysics; metaphysics is already “beyond,” and the metaphysical concept "beyond" is a metaphysical limit to language, and to say "beyond beyond" is arguably a powerful rhetorical expression, and, it is linguistically self-contradicting, thus nullifying any meaning in a strict linguistic sense (which does not mean its rhetorical meaning is nullified, understand).

I sometimes take a handful of vitamins at a time. I dump out a certain amount into my cupped palm, and stop pouring when I cannot consciously determine exactly what number of pills are there in my hand, but I can consciously determine -- without consciously counting -- that there are at least 10. I have confirmed that the odds of there being nine instead of 10, when I reach this level of vitamins in my hand and stop pouring, are on the order of 10-to-1 against.​

The point is that I lose the ability to glance at the small pile of pills and consciously know precisely how many are there, without counting, because my mind, which apprehends the shape and the form and the pattern, of the number of pills sitting in my hand, disconnects with my consciousness after about 10 pills. At 10 pills and beyond I cannot do it. But when the pile is three or four or five or six pills, I know just by looking precisely how many are there; I know what number is being manifested there.

“Number” is metaphysical. There are people who can glance at a haphazard pile of over 1 hundred matchsticks or toothpicks and know immediately what number of items is there. They can consciously see what number is manifested, at a much higher level than I can.

The Trinity is a number also, and it is a perfectly unique number, because He manifests physically both in the way that the number 1 manifests physically, and in the way that the number three manifests physically. Both/and.

The Trinity is a metaphysical number, but He is no more metaphysical than other numbers are, nor more metaphysical than any other metaphysical facts/notions/ideas/concepts/etc. He is the Creator.

:e4e:​

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

We have been living them for 2000 years...



Arsenios

Nope.


Try.......


1 Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;*


2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron ;


3 Forbidding to marry , and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe and know the truth.


*4 For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving:*




5 For it is sanctified by the word of God and prayer.*


6 If thou put the brethren in remembrance of these things, thou shalt be a good minister of Jesus Christ, nourished up in the words of faith and of good doctrine, whereunto thou hast attained .

And wrote them down so you could read them on your very own printing-press Bible...

You izz trippin'.

What did the "Me and My Bible" folks DO prior to the printing presses???

Read their own copies of the original writing.

OT scripture, the gospels, Revelation, as well as the epistles.

You all might have got yer hands on Acts first, but that is doubtful.

You see God knows how to deliver the godly out of the temptation of yer Seditious, detestable immitation of our faith.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Next to y'er hootch!

A.

I know that has to be really bothering the likes of you who think the word of God is in meat and drink.

Let yer moderation be known to all men.