But you have the paradox of determining who spoke at the creative utterance. Most multi-hypostatic Trinitarians don't realize what a quandary this is.
Is the Logos spoken or does the Logos speak?
And it's always odd how Ho Logos is just a meaningless title to conventional Trinitarians for the Son.
The Apostle John clearly indicates Ho Logos (the Word) was with and was a God, not Ho Huios (the Son).
Speaking reflects thinking. Time/space/matter terms can't be randomly applied to transcendence.
[QUOTE]Mity asy observation was correct. You can't account for the means of God creating and inhabiting that creation, which includes the created everlasting realm of "heaven" and etern its durative endless time property.
And I'm confused why you would here bid me farewell and then make three more posts. Again, it may seem I'm being terse by my style, but I'm not.
A multi-hypostasis ousia is what you expressed. That's what I was referring to, and it indicates an ousia "having" multiple hypostases.
I'm not much of a fan of most more modern treatments of the Trinity, which end up being conceptual rhetoric from English-based thought and preference.
"Glory with" is hardly relationally interactive. I see no first-person reciprocal relationship, only directional prayer from Theanthropos mentioning a proximity.
Exactly my point. So why would you so elaborately extrapolate an eternal transcendent relationality that you insist is represented in scripture, and build an entire concept of love as God DOING to BE?
"Sent" and "seen" don't represent much intimate relational eternal interactivity you insist upon as scriptural and the foundation for God's Self-existence and ontology of love.
Looks more genuinely equivocal (and referencing third-party observation) than relational.
Your concept doesn't appear to be predicated upon scripture at all, which is why I always ask for such scripture. God is most often addressing us with any mention of the Son.
Can you provide examples of the Father speaking to the Son or Holy Spirit? Or of the Son and Holy Spirit speaking to each other? I'd be very interested in seeing those passages.
Right, and there is no "throughout" for God's innate eternality (which you refer to as eternity), as that's another durative time term applied to timelessness. There is no time component to eternality (an adjectival noun).
The problem is the English terms eternal and eternity. The former is aidios, but is most often used to depict aionios.
In math terms...
God, and God alone, is eternal. Line. No beginning/no end. Aidios.
Heaven is everlasting. Ray. Beginning/no end. Aionios.
The cosmos is temporal. Line segment. Beginning/end. Aion(s).
Eternity is most often applied to heaven, and then also applied to God. But God is timeless (aidios) and heaven had an inception and some form of durative endless time (aionios). Both are, unfortunately, referred to in English as eternity (noun), while eternal (adjective) can only be applied to God. (There is no "eternity past".)
God, as aidios, created aionios.
I think you acknowledge it, but you don't really understand what it really entails.
God created the intangible realm along with the tangible realm, and He inhabited them both when/as He instantiated them into existence.
The internal processions of the multi-hypostatic Trinity cannot account for creation, and ex-/ek- are external. Your a God has no means of creating and entering immanence from His transcendent Self-existence.
You've run headlong into the singular omission of the Patristics, and why there were other formulaics competing for orthodoxy. There is only one answer, and it requires understanding what God's Rhema and Logos actually are.
I was simply informing you of your caricature of what I've expressed. It's difficult for others with two-dimensional thought to convert to three-dimensional thought.
Okay.
[/QUOTE]
can anyone ?
