ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

And I say to those who cannot withstand sound doctrine that the Son was in hypostatic union with his Father while in a flesh body.

This is neither perichoresis nor hypostatic union. It's the same conflation Arsenios was insisting upon.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This is neither perichoresis nor hypostatic union. It's the same conflation Arsenios was insisting upon.

Which just goes to show yuh that Christ can teach who he wishes, no matter which harlot club they currently reside in.

Crazy, aint it? lol

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This is what hypostatic sounds like.......

homebound no words

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Which just goes to show yuh that Christ can teach who he wishes, no matter which harlot club they currently reside in.

Crazy, aint it? lol

Even a harlot club of one, on a ranch in Missouri.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Even a harlot club of one, on a ranch in Missouri.

I'm not the one tossed to and fro tryin' to decide which one to join.


There is hypo-stasis in my house 24/7, that is in my flesh temple.


2 Corinthians 4:7 KJV


7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
:thumb:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I'm not the one tossed to and fro tryin' to decide which one to join.

Nor am I.

There is hypostasis in my house 24/7, that is in my flesh temple.

Proving once again by its usage that you have no idea what hypostasis means.

2 Corinthians 4:7 KJV


7 But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us.
:thumb:

If only you knew exactly what that meant...

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Nor am I.

Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma
I regularly attend a Lutheran (Missouri Synod) fellowship, considering being catechized.

Last I checked to be catechized means to receive religious instruction.

Proving once again by its usage that you have no idea what hypostasis means.

You might wanna learn the medical definition.

The cause of standing is from above not below.

If only you knew exactly what that meant...

I understand it better than you could ever know.

Epignosis is personal my friend.

I stand under, that is why I understand.

I am in hypostatic union with the Father and Son through the Holy Spirit.

 

[Arsenios]

NO. THE RANCH WAS AN ACQUIESCED HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE OF YOUR INSISTENCE ON OUSIA BEING PROPERTY THAT IS CO-OWNED.

MAKE IT WHATEVER PROPERTY WITH HOWEVER MANY OWNERS. THREE CO-OWNERS OF WHATEVER.

AND PLEASE STOP BEING SO OBTUSE AND PEDANTIC.

YOU brought up property. I was just demonstrating a hypothetical example to expose the conflation and stupidity of ANY such example.



Right. As a hypothetical example of YOUR insistence on ousia being co-owned property. I deconstructed it. You just can't accept that because you're so falsely certain the Classic Trinity couldn't have anything wrong.



Yep. Because you were AND STILL ARE being obsequiously obtuse and obfuscatory.

The ranch was a hypothetical example with multiple owners. Any other "property" as "wealth" for any number of owners would be the same paradox for my applied deconstruction.

Sheeeeeeeeeesh.

OK - I insisted on ousia meaning wealth, and YOU insisted on that wealth being a ranch, as an example... So I own the wealth, and YOU own the ranch as YOUR example. From which you mocked me for calling God a ranch...

I really don't care, but it is a fact, and you freaking out like a demon sprinkled by holy water over it is just a tad on the wierd side of my sense of things, that's all...

So our issue boils down to the definition of ousia, as wealth or as essence, and YOUR definition is BOTH, but when I use one and not the other, you freak out... This is a division point in the understanding, because the two definitions which you purportedly embrace together are NOT compatible... If they were, you would not freak out when I use the one that you affirm when you say it means both...

So until you get clear on which of the two incompatible definitions of ousia you mean, or establish some third one, I think we are pretty much out of gas...

OUSIA: Essence or Wealth or Something Else???

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

OK - I insisted on ousia meaning wealth,

No, that's the point. You specifically designated property. I just gave a particular example for basic hypothetical discussion.

Now you're so stuck in pedanticism you refuse to see the valid deconstructive points I made.

and YOU insisted on that wealth being a ranch, as an example... So I own the wealth, and YOU own the ranch as YOUR example.

I don't own anything except an appropriate understanding that ousia is the wealth as essence and be-ing.

From which you mocked me for calling God a ranch...

I deconstructed your silly fallacy. It was mockery of your theological position, not the ranch directly itself. You might want to go back and read it. Human persons are all beings as ousios. An ousia is not merely wealth, though it is wealth as that which one "has" for their essence as be-ing.

I really don't care, but it is a fact, and you freaking out like a demon sprinkled by holy water over it is just a tad on the wierd side of my sense of things, that's all...

No. Your jacked-up preferential partial definitions and conflation/combination of perichoresis and hypostatic union is what's WAY on the weird side with NO sense of things, that's all...

So our issue boils down to the definition of ousia,

No. It boils down to the COMPLETE and applicable definition of ousia. Such wealth cannot be in place OF essence or be-ing, but is the indicator that the hypostasis "has" the ousia, which is the wealth as the essence of be-ing.

as wealth or as essence, and YOUR definition is BOTH, but when I use one and not the other, you freak out...

Because it's stupid and wrong and Tritheistic.

This is a division point in the understanding, because the two definitions which you purportedly embrace together are NOT compatible... If they were, you would not freak out when I use the one that you affirm when you say it means both...

Right. It's not a dichotomy. You make multiple beings of the same kind. Or corporations. It's inane, and Father, Son, and Holy Spirit aren't multiple hypostases anyway.

So until you get clear on which of the two incompatible definitions of ousia you mean, or establish some third one, I think we are pretty much out of gas...

You're out of gas, for sure. You're a functional Tritheist. Three beings of the same kind.

OUSIA: Essence or Wealth or Something Else???

Arsenios

OUSIA: The wealth of the underlying hypostasis, as essence of be-ing.


You and your little nominal word games. There aren't even three individuated hypostases.

 

[Arsenios]

OUSIA: The wealth of the underlying hypostasis, as essence of be-ing.

Thank-you...

So I think we have it fairly clear now...

You have just said that OUSIA is the wealth AS essence of existence, of be-ing, and is at the same time the wealth of the hypostasis...

I hold a contrary view, that it is the hypostasis that is the essence of the wealth of be-ing/existence... That this wealth is OUSIA...

You want ousia to be essence...
I want it to be wealth...

AND...

You want essence to be wealth...
I want essence to be hypostasis...

We may be getting somewhere...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thank-you...

So I think we have it fairly clear now...

You have just said that OUSIA is the wealth AS essence of existence, of be-ing, and is at the same time the wealth of the hypostasis...

I hold a contrary view, that it is the hypostasis that is the essence of the wealth of be-ing/existence... That this wealth is OUSIA...

You want ousia to be essence...
I want it to be wealth...

AND...

You want essence to be wealth...
I want essence to be hypostasis...

We may be getting somewhere...

Arsenios

We're not getting anywhere. You still falsely contend for multiple hypostases, and you conflate essence and substance while interposing perichoresis and hypostatic union.

You're not even an actual historical Trinitarian, nor do you represent Orthodox Theology Proper. And you're ultimately a functional Tritheist.

:wave2::wave:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thank-you...

So I think we have it fairly clear now...

You have just said that OUSIA is the wealth AS essence of existence, of be-ing, and is at the same time the wealth of the hypostasis...

I hold a contrary view, that it is the hypostasis that is the essence of the wealth of be-ing/existence... That this wealth is OUSIA...

You want ousia to be essence...
I want it to be wealth...

AND...

You want essence to be wealth...
I want essence to be hypostasis...

We may be getting somewhere...

Arsenios

And... You forget that ousia is that which has its definition relative to being, and hypostasis is the sub-standing foundation underlying the existence.

Plus... This is an inversion of much you've previously said. Now you're Latin. Might as well embrace the fallacious Filioque while you're at it.

After so long in discussing with you, I can't even begin to convey how disappointing your inconsistencies and conflations are.

 

[Soror1]

Hallo thar. A few more thoughts on the below...

Howdy!

But Logos is not the object. Logos is the means of conveying the object as subject. Rhema is the sword and its scabbard; the sword as subject conveying the scabbard as object, with Logos as the wielding/thrusting of the sword.

Logos in Liddell, and as I understand it--"(A) the word or that by which the inward thought is expressed, Lat. oratio; and, (B) the inward thought itself, Lat. ratio."

It would be the express image (charakter) of God's hypostasis (substance), not His essence (ousia); which is why the image is NOT an individuated hypostasis but the exact impress of God's singular hypostasis upon the Logos.

Eternal uncreated phenomenon exactly and eternally impressed upon eternal uncreated noumenon; the phenomenon giving eternal reality of existence to the noumenon.

For classical Trinitarians, the image of the Father's hypostasis is another hypostasis just like in Gen 2 & 5--Adam (as hypostasis) is the image of God, Seth (as hypostasis) is the image of Adam and Col 1:15 "the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation". This is all about the communication of essence/ousia or how it is that they are consubstantial.

Spiration is the Holy (set apart) Spirit. It's the Holy Spirit that seals the impress in the wax upon the parchment/scroll with the decree of Him who bears the authority and wears the ring.

The parchment/scroll is creation, which was noumenon until given phenomenality at the divine utterance when instantiated into actuality of existence.

I (think) I could agree with this as relates the economy but it's heavy on metaphor standing in for ontology and I'd have to review again where you explained what the wax is.

God did not internally spirate. Ekporeuomai is out of/out from. And there's no externalization within a non-spatial God. The Holy Spirit was set apart into creation. God's innate Self-Noumenon as eternal uncreated Spirit partitioned (NOT separated) for distribution (by the Logos) from His innate Self-Phenomenon as eternal uncreated Spirit. Sword (subjective Rhema) drawn and thrust (Logos) from scabbard (objective Rhema).

In the classical Trinitarian view, God does internally spirate. In my specific (Western) view, the way the Son is begotten is by internal spiration (as Gregory of Nazianzus says "the Spirit is the middle term between the Unbegotten and the Begotten). As God is nous/intellect/mind, the Logos is the product of the act (spiration) of the Father understanding Himself. We could say the Spirit presents the Son to the Father. The intellect analogy here being what goes on in a person's own mind in the act of cognition turning toward his being and understanding it--wherein the person is both subject/object or patient/agent.

The filiation/spiration as procession is not internal as individuated hypostases. The Son and Holy Spirit are a qualitative two-fold singular procession of God's singular hypostasis, "sharing" a prosopon in the created heaven and cosmos. God, the Father, is co-inherent in the procession while also remaining eternally and innately transcendent to creation.

If it must need be that the Father cannot be immanent as the Uncreated in creation then I agree with that last.

G'Mornin'. New mercies... AGAIN.

A few more things to consider while you're vacationing in the Mediterranean or Caribbean...

LOL! No, just Maine

How would filiation and spiration be internal? The only applied Greek term from scripture for filiation would be exerchomai, and the only applied term from scripture for spiration would be ekporeuomai (either one accompanied by heko, pempo, apostello, and/or erchomai, respectively).

Ek-/ex- is out of/out from, indicating motion. Spoken of such objects which before were in another object but are now separated from it, either in respect to place, time, source, or origin. It's the direct opposite of eis, unto, which means to become part of, or to be identified with.

Metaphorically, after verbs of motion or direction, ek speaks of a state or condition, out of which comes, is brought, or tends toward.

Going, coming, sending, throwing, falling, gathering, separating, or removing. After verbs implying direction out of or from any place, it is used to mark the point from which the direction sets of or tends towards.

Of origin or source of anything, it is the primary, direct, immediate source, in distinction from apo.

When combined with erchomai (to go or come out of a place) or poreuomai (to go out, to go or come forth), ex-/ek- is motion to and from.

With no spatiality for God, there is no "place" as either to or from within Him for such filiation or spiration. Opera ad intra is appropriate for consideration of non-hypostatic movement, but economy cannot be misconstrued with ontology.

For the Father hypostasis to be the source of the Son and Holy Spirit as hypostases, there would be no "place" for them to internally process as filiation and spiration.

The "place" (which isn't a place in the spatio-temporal sense) is God as mind.

God's ousia cannot be in any way a distinct component of Himself apart from the hypostasis/es itself/themselves. And any compromise of Immensity also broaches Eternity and Infinity, with a nod toward also denying Simplicity.

God cannot be comprised of hypostatically moving eternal parts. He's not a celestial grandfather clock or other mechanism. To have moving parts requires time and space for linearity, sequentiality, and spatiality.

God as mind is immaterial (and, it is argued at least in the West, so is our mind as a constituent of immaterial soul).

Note that ek- indicates objects which before were in another object but are now separated from it. Now we have three objects, with two processing from one and being separated from it. This must be an exteriorization, but then perichoresis is invoked as a band-aid to gloss the issue. And it's all time and space based, with linearity, sequentiality, and spatiality required.

Exerchomai in the middle voice as in "internal processing" in Matthew 15:19 where it remains in the subject and is not transitive (and this I found which is a nice way to explain it although perhaps Arsenios can chime in),:

The fact that the grammatical subject is a patient is what the middle-marking indicates in this instance, and it should be noted that this construction is essentially reflexive; in many languages reflexive constructions are employed in a manner very much like middle-marking in Greek. Traditional Greek grammar terms this usage “direct reflexive.”

Middle-marking may also be employed when the grammatical subject is not only the agent but also the beneficiary of the action or process. (e.g. κτᾶται ὁ ἀνὴρ ἵππον “The man acquires a horse (for himself).”) Traditional Greek grammar terms this usage “indirect reflexive.” When the subject is an experiencer engaged in receiving and mentally processing experiential data (feeling, tasting, smelling, sensing generally, e.g. αἰσθάνεσθαι, γεύεσθαι, ὀσφραίνεσθαι) or responding emotionally to some stimulus (fear, anger, desire, pleasure, pain, etc., e.g., φοβεῖσθαι, ὀργίζεσθαι, ὀρέγεσθαι, ἥδεσθαι, λυπεῖσθαι), or engaged in the cognitive processing of information (pondering, planning, reaching a conclusion, etc., e.g. λογίζεσθαι, βουλεύεσθαι, ἡγεῖσθαι), or in speech in response to another or others in a critical confrontation of some sort (blame, accusation, , answering, commanding, etc., e.g. μέμφεσθαι, αἰτιᾶσθαι, ἀποκρίνεσθαι, ἐντέλλεσθαι), the verb’s middle-marking indicates the grammatical subject’s deeper involvement in the verbal process. Interaction with another or others (dialogue, interrogation, combat, etc., διαλέγεσθαι, ἐρίζεσθαι, μάχεσθαι) and reciprocal actions (gathering, dispersal and collective behavior generally, e.g., συναγείρεσθαι, διαμερίζεσθαι) also commonly are associated with middle-marking of the verbs. When the grammatical subject is an undergoer of a process, whether a voluntary action (e.g. body movement (καθίζεσθαι, ἱστασθαι) or locomotion (πορεύεσθαι) or of a spontaneous process (e.g. birth – γενέσθαι or spoiling (of something organic – σήπεσθαι), middle-marking is commonly found in the verb-form. http://ibiblio.org/bgreek/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=2459&start=30#p15092
​

This is quite problematic for maintaining God's innate incommunicable attributes. And it means there can't really be internal filiation and spiration because the Father is the source and there can be no elapsation or duration or succession of events.

Opera ad intra cannot be structural and substantial movement or action. Such economy must be truly internal. The economy of two hypostases proceeding forth/proceeding as filiation and spiration would be foundationally constitutional and structural for God.

Think about the linguistic difference between a copula or gerund and a verb. Being and becoming are not doing.

Multi-Phenomenality is not a sequence of phenomena with God's economy occuring inwardly and outwardly in linear fashion according to time and spatiality. It's a verticality, not a horizontality.

There's too much ascription of creation to God, assigning Him time- and space- based economy internally. Filiation and spiration are misrepresented by the Uni-Phenomenal Multi-Hypostatic Trinity, no matter how it's subtly configured.

Yes, God is not subject to space and time and those limitations (in addition to Be-ing in full actuality) which is why we say eternally begotton and eternally proceeding. All those "local motions" are collapsed and immediate. These operations ad intra are in the logical order not the spatio-temporal order. The thinker is simply logically prior to His thoughts.

 

[Soror1]

...In the Classic Trinity doctrine, perichoresis is the inter-penetration of the alleged three hypostases all being "in" each other.

Hypostatic union is the doctrine of the divine Son taking on humanity by hypostasizing.

The two cannot be interposed.

(First let me just say that I. Could. Not. Stop. Laughing. reading the rest of this thread since I posted last...between the ranch, the family, the whole bit...so thanks to all--PPS, Arsenios, chrysostom, Bright Raven, 1Mind1Spirit, fzappa--for your delightful senses of humor!)

But I just wanted to make mention that this is not the doctrine of the hypostatic union in orthodox/Chalcedonian Christology. The Logos-Son was already a divine hypostasis before assuming flesh--He did not hypostasize in so doing.

 

[Arsenios]

We're not getting anywhere.

Baaaah Hamburger whooombuggers!

You still falsely contend for multiple hypostases,

This snot-slinging while we are in the midst of a discussion of the definitions of the terms, even the meaning of the term hypostasis??

Are you a B-Movie producer or what?

and you conflate essence and substance

Yes, in terms of fundamentality... Without substance, there can be no essence... Substance stands under essence... So in terms of be-ing, which conflates with ess-ence and is co-extensive with a more normal word 'existence', substance is essential to the existence of be-ing... Without it, there IS no be-ing...

while interposing perichoresis and hypostatic union.

Put that thought back in your outrage toy-box... We are discussing neither now...

Here are your words:

OUSIA: The wealth of the underlying hypostasis, as essence of be-ing.

So that in your view, ousia is hypostatic wealth as essence of be-ing...

And in this, you are conflating wealth with essence, and making essence into a subcategory of wealth, as some feature of wealth that is essential, thus making essence into an epistemological category, rather than an ontological feature that determines wealth...

That is one of the issues that plagues this discussion - eg epistemological thinking vs ontological apperception... The former can be useful, and indeed needed, but is not the basis of the ontology...

So you are saying ousia is:

wealth of hypostasis
AS
essence of be-ing

vs

wealth of being/existence
FROM
hypostatic essence

In your view, wealth = essence

In mine, essence determines wealth

Yours is associational...
Mine is etiological...

You're not even an actual historical Trinitarian, nor do you represent Orthodox Theology Proper. And you're ultimately a functional Tritheist.

Piddlesquats all!

And equally helpful...

Are you even TRYING to be helpful???

:wave2::wave:

Back at ya!

A.

 

[Soror1]

We're not getting anywhere. You still falsely contend for multiple hypostases, and you conflate essence and substance while interposing perichoresis and hypostatic union.

You're not even an actual historical Trinitarian, nor do you represent Orthodox Theology Proper. And you're ultimately a functional Tritheist.

:wave2::wave:

PPS, would you explain what you consider the proper formulaic and/or understanding to be for what you've described as a "historical Trinitarian" and/or in "Orthodox Theology Proper"?

 

[Arsenios]

in the middle voice as in "internal processing" in Matthew 15:19 where (and this I found which is a nice way to explain it although perhaps Arsenios can chime in),:

The Greek middle is essential to this discussion, and is best described, from my Greek 101 days under Dr. Warren, in this ostensive example:

ACTIVE = I AM WASHING you...

PASSIVE = I AM BEING WASHED by another...

MIDDLE = I AM BATHING...

The middle is inward...
The active is outward...
The passive is FROM outward...

Welcome back from vacation!

Nice to see you here...

Again!

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

(First let me just say that I. Could. Not. Stop. Laughing. reading the rest of this thread since I posted last...between the ranch, the family, the whole bit...so thanks to all--PPS, Arsenios, chrysostom, Bright Raven, 1Mind1Spirit, fzappa--for your delightful senses of humor!)

Well... It would be interesting to see how you deal with the nuances of all those contentions. Do you equate the Trinity to a family? Do you consider the ousia as wealth apart from essence and be-ing?

And do you not the see the conflation/combination of perichoresis and hypostatic union by insisting Father, Son, and Holy as in hypostatic union rather than perichoresis.
?

But I just wanted to make mention that this is not the doctrine of the hypostatic union in orthodox/Chalcedonian Christology. The Logos-Son was already a divine hypostasis before assuming flesh--He did not hypostasize in so doing.

Yes, I should have clarified that I personally distinguish between the synonyms hypostaTize and hypostaSize, which would need a brief explanation.

The point was that hypostatic union has nothing directly to do with the perichoresis of the alleged multiple hypostases, and Arsenios has interposed them constantly.

Surely you know the difference and can explain it to him here.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The Greek middle is essential to this discussion, and is best described, from my Greek 101 days under Dr. Warren, in this ostensive example:

ACTIVE = I AM WASHING you...

PASSIVE = I AM BEING WASHED by another...

MIDDLE = I AM BATHING...

The middle is inward...
The active is outward...
The passive is FROM outward...

Welcome back from vacation!

Nice to see you here...

Again!

Arsenios

So... You bathe the inward of yourself? I'd like to see that. Or not.

 

[Arsenios]

So... You bathe the inward of yourself? I'd like to see that. Or not.

NOT a pretty sight these years...

A.