ECT Our triune God

[Arsenios]

Arsenios,

quote:


I have Ps 82 thought through thoroughly and can show you exactly what was going on in the chapter and who the different characters were who were taking part in th event.

Also, people are related to God in, at least, this one major way: Our bodies were formed after the likeness of God's own created image. God created a male image for his own personal use, but chose to share its likeness with Adam Later God used his same image again when He came as the Savior.

Thorough thought throughedly is no small beans... I do have 82 basically understood, but would be very interested in your take, line by line, beginning with vs 1...

eg Who specifically is this "congregation" of gods? And then each personal noun and pronoun thereafter...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Beans are nouns.

No such thing as beings as nouns.

Paul did not pluralize being.

In God we have our being.

He pluarlized the creature, not the being that each creature has.

Nouns are tangible not philisophical.

So we have multiple hypostases and prosopa (eg persons) in one being (ousia)...

So does God...

I don't get PPS's balk here...

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So we have multiple hypostases and prosopa (eg persons) in one being (ousia)...

So does God...
Arsenios

Nope.

Being is not a noun.

Christ has being, he is not A being.

He gives us eternal being when he quickens us.

This is not rocket science.

I don't get PPS's balk here...

That's between you and him.

Although if I were to venture a guess, I would say it is because you are wrongly thinking being members of the body of Christ is the same as multiple hypostasis and prosopa in the ouisa. ???

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Somebody had to say it...

Erm.... Not really.:rain:

Psalm 82...

I really do not have it thought through and understood...

Noetically and intuitively (not intellectually), I do. It's what I've been trying to convey in our conversations. There are several historical missing considerations to reconcile it all. That's what I've done.

God is uncreated... We are created in the ikon of God... "Ye are gods, the sons of the Most High..." So that the relationship between the uncreated God and the created gods consists in some kind of relationship between them and Him... That is Jesus Christ in the flesh, and in Spirit, the Holy Spirit...

Indeed. And understanding Multi-phenomenality is one of the crucial keys to revelation of this.

So to say that heaven is created for us who are one in the Body of Christ in the Holy Spirit would seem to be both created and uncreated, but with the Body of the Risen and Ascended Christ not being the Body of the pre-arisen and non-ascended Christ... THIS Body, you see, is now the Master of the materiality of the world, passing through walls, disappearing, healing by mere presence, even a shadow, and on and on...

Not the words I'd use, but yes.

And in all this, a solid "I DON"T KNOW" is a really good answer... What we do know for an earthly fact in this fallen creation is that when one gets to the upper end of Salvation in Christ, one's life becomes Life in Christ, and one's earthly life seems to be really terrible, as Paul wrote of those called to be Apostles... It is in this deterioration of one's earthly estate [being/ousia] that the elevation of one's heavenly estate flourishes... "My Strength is perfected in (human) weakness..."

So is heaven created or uncreated?

The only answer I have come up with so far is: "Yes."

Once heaven was created it had a beginning. Now it doesn't. Again, Multi-phenomenality is the vital understanding.

And this BECAUSE:

1 We have the uncreated God...

2 And we have creation that is not-God...

3 And we have man created in the Ikon of God...

4 And we have fallen man as we now are on earth...

And from the mental fallen-ness of this last,
YOU want to establish three categories of time...

NO. You still do not understand.

Eternal...

Eternal. Timelessness. With no beginning or end.

Eternally everlasting...

NO. Everlasting. Endless time. With a beginning, but without end.

And Temporary...

Temporality. Chronological time. With both a beginning and an end.

And you really want to resist calling them:

Timeless...

Eternal...

And Temporary...

Not really. You just align eternal with everlasting, whereas I'm aligning eternal with timelessness. At least you're finally admitting there are three demarcations rather than two. That means there is no "realm of God" that is uncreated.

You see, MAN can have Eternal Life...
By union with the Timeless God...
And therein rise from this temporary fallen life that is death...

Yes, and I'm the one who can delineate it to establish the truth of the Unihypostatic Trinity and Multi-phenomenality to explain all you don't understand.

That just argues for your personal authority...

No, it "argues" for noesis and intuitivea knowledge of the Spirit as the foundation for stewardship in research for etymologies and exegesis.

Then if you are sincere, call them timeless, eternal, and temporary, and take them out of the philosophical category of nouns that now assign "realm" to them by saying we have the realm of ETERNITY, and the realm of SEMPITERNITY, and the realm of TEMPITERNITY...

That IS what you are arguing, yes?

NO!!

I've insisted that eternity (timelessness as your preference) is not a realm, but is God Himself by inherent attribute. He doesn't need a "realm" for His Self-existence.

So your beef is with the INDIVIDUATION of being in the human person??? eg That the human being is INDIVIDUATED???

Are you SERIOUS???

NO. Sigh.

My beef is with individuated hypostases that allegedly aren't individuated ousios. One hypostasis per ousia. In English, all "persons" are "beings", so three persons is three beings.

WHAT, my dear fellow sophmorticizer, do you think the FALL is all about, if not the DIVISION of man from his COMMUNION with God???

That's exactly what it's about.

It is this very individuation that carries the image of God, and in Communion with God, there is BEING... And outside it there is only non-Being...

And yet OUR ousia is not God's ousia. We're hypostatically united with the risen Christ.

And until we are in, we are out, yet even as individuals, we CARRY the power as PERSONS to do good and to do evil... And in this you who are a person are going to avoid the term person in understanding the Ikon of God in Which He created each and every one of us, unique and unrepeatable?

In English for crucial terms, yes. In Greek, no. I avoid nothing except the abuses using a late-derived pan-European language virtually unparalleled for its low context structure and usage.

Hypostasis. One, not three. And Multi-phenomenality instead.

God is a Person...

RIGHT. "A", not three.

And so are YOU...

Same.

And in the Communion of God, persons interpenetrate and are not ISOLATED in their INDIVIDUATION, but are ONE with one another... Sharing toys is a step in this direction, you see...

Right. And the Holy Spirit is that perichoretic for all Multi-pheneomality; co-inhering with the Father and Son, and with all Believers in Christ.

See above...

YOU need to see above.

You are, in this assessment, permitting a fallen English definition to determine your non-usage of the term person, and in it, you are throwing out the Baby with the bath water, because what is needed is to bring the isolated individual person into the Communion of God, and in that Communion, he will find union with the individuations you so recklessly scorn...

De-multiply and de-quantify the term and use it Multi-phenomenally and I'm in.:cheers:

God isn't three of them in Uni-phenomenality.

That oneness CAN, if in Christ, become a oneness with one another...

Of course it is.

Definitions schmefinitions... It is a bunch of blah blah to me at this point... Jugglement of differentiata for schmooziness of ongoing verbalities has me reaching for the bottle...

That's because, by your own admission, you haven't figured it out yet. I have. You won't listen.:guitar:

Good - I burned mine... Drive a dirty car...

You THINK you have.

Apophatic vs cataphatic vs cataphatic-fallen...

Enjoy!

Insufficient.

I insist that "eternal" is epistemologically sleezy, having two lovers, timelessness and time...

Timelessness and time suffer irreconcilable differences in the same component concept...

You see...

No. But just omit eternal. You align it with everlasting, and I align it with timelessness.

Three demarcations. The first isn't a "realm", it's God. The other two are created.

See above...

Heaven for us who are created in the image of God does seem to be both created and uncreated, where we are to become lords of creation in the Kingdom of God, which is obedience to Christ the King...

Arsenios

Yes, and I can outline it in copious detail while you struggle with incomplete concepts.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So we have multiple hypostases and prosopa (eg persons) in one being (ousia)...

So does God...

I don't get PPS's balk here...

Arsenios

My "balk" is that every individuated hypostasis underlies and co-inheres with its own ousia, just as every individuated hypostasis has it's own proper prosopon.

We're conjoined to God's ousia because we're hypostatically united with the risen and glorified Christ. His ousia is not inherently our own.

 

[patrick jane]

PPS takes the lead again, it's been a long stretch run, but PPS looks like he can't be caught ! ! !

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

PPS takes the lead again, it's a long stretch run, but PPS looks like he can't be caught ! ! !

They are working their way ever closer to this........

We will all have the penny.

Same everlasting care and love for one another.

As and in Christ.

1 John 3:2 KJV

2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be : but we know that, when he shall appear , we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is .


Then Christ will be subject to God.

28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all.


What will that be like?

This is what the white stone with the new name represents.

1 Corinthians 13:12 KJV

12 For now we see through a glass, darkly ; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known .

Let me try to explain this better.

At that time, while we all have the same care and love for one another, God will reveal to each one of us privately what he thinks of us.

What Father does not have a unique relationship with each of his children?

Revelation 2:17 KJV

17 He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written , which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it.



:backflip::jessilu::the_wave:

Adam never had communion nor glory like that!

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

NO!!

I've insisted that eternity (timelessness as your preference) is not a realm, but is God Himself by inherent attribute. He doesn't need a "realm" for His Self-existence.

:cheers:

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

:cheers:

God doesn't need wheres, whens, and whats to Self-exist. Heaven isn't a God-jar.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

In His inherent eternal Self-Noumenon, the Logos IS the Son. In His intrinsic eternal Self-Phenomenon, the Logos is the singular hypostasis. This is the eternal begetting, for there was not "when" the Son was not.

How does the Son have a prosopon, yet God is uni-hypostatic?

No. Creation was only noumenon as potentiality of existence, given its phenomenal actuality of existence at the Divine Creative Utterance whereby the Logos and Pneuma were expressed and exhaled as the eternal Son and the Holy (hagios - set apart) Spirit.

Can I assume you hold that the Holy Spirit is a Person?

In relation to the creation of heaven and procession of the Spirit, how do you contrast ad intra from ad extra?

Is your position that the procession of the Spirit coterminous with creation as some means of interfacing with temporality?


AMR

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Is your position that the procession of the Spirit coterminous with creation as some means of interfacing with temorality?


AMR

I'm kinda seein' it like that and lookin' for deeper understanding in that line of thought.

Good question.:thumb:

 

[patrick jane]

I'm kinda seein' it like that and lookin' for deeper understanding in that line of thought.

Good question.:thumb:

i see nothing temporal in God/Christ/Spirit. God is un-created and eternal, no beginning or end. i've seen the term 'exhale' - breathed- i used expressed, etc. we all understand eternal - always was, always will be. anything else is arguably created. however, we know God/Christ IS before He 'expressed'. i don't think anyone can go down the road of the Mind of God before creation or the moment of expressing Himself.

that's why God IS timeless/eternal and the Father/Son-Begotten/Spirit are eternal as One. i'm not sure one can explain in words what it was like to be With God @ creation and Before, or know God's Plans and Thoughts completely. we cannot. i cannot, anyway. i am interested and pleased with the the thread, not complaining, just trying to keep up - atrol:

 

[Arsenios]

Is your position that the procession of the Spirit coterminous with creation as some means of interfacing with temporality?

AMR

It was that "instantiation" of creation through [as in 'by means of'] the proceeding forth of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, that makes this question viable... Such that if, by their ontological origination they both "proceed" from the Father, and this "proceeding" only occurs at the "instantiation" of creation, then they both, prior to that instant, were NOT... So it would fall to Arius' error...

Because it is not only the Holy Spirit, in PPS's account, but the Son as well, who proceeds from the Father as His means of Divine origination...

There are times when the Scriptures are silent,
that we too should discover and love silence...

We are flat out NOT going to define our way into understanding the Trinity...

Such that IF the ontological (not ekonomic) procession of the Holy Spirit IS indeed "coterminus" with creation as the means of temporal interface, then it has a beginning and and end, and if so, He, the Holy Spirit, is not timeless... But instead originates, doubtless in some "unoriginate" fashon, with creation and time...

So I expect some world-class center ring conceptual juggling to be coming forth from the darkened wings of stage left shortly...

I love Psalm 82...

1 God stood in the Assembly of gods...
In the midst of gods He is judging...

6 "I have said: 'Gods ye are, and all sons of the Most High...'

7 Yet you are perishing as (fallen) mankind...
As one of the(ir) princes are you falling..."

Humility is hard to fake...
And sons of the Most High are falling...

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth:
for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

(Regarding the Kingdom of Heaven)
I can outline it (the Kingdom of Heaven) in copious detail

while you struggle with incomplete concepts.

That pretty much sums it all up, I should think...

You outline the Kingdom of Heaven in copious detail...

I struggle...

All of which proves that there ISADOG!!

BECAUSE...

The Kingdom of God is not conceptualized...

It is ENTERED...

In great struggle...

1Cor 4:9-16
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

YOU haven't figured it out yet.

I HAVE. [:devil:]

YOU won't listen.

:guitar:

There you have the suscinctitude of the difference...

I am unable to give a better summary...

As you can see, the Devil is in the details...

Arsenios

 

[Ps82]

Thorough thought throughedly is no small beans... I do have 82 basically understood, but would be very interested in your take, line by line, beginning with vs 1...

eg Who specifically is this "congregation" of gods? And then each personal noun and pronoun thereafter...

Arsenios

Okay:

Introduction to my interpretation.
I take the chapter literally and like to organize it in the form of a play with scenes and dialogue.

Setting: A place (possibly a super-natural realm) where the super-natural God might hold a literal trial in regards to the final judgement of the angels - specifically Satan and his rebellious followers. There is no jury and there are no lawyers. Only the ONE true creator and judge of all creation is presiding.

Scene one: Satan stands before God Almighty defending himself. His line of defense is to accuse others for the situation. He begins with a line of questions to God and then ends with a couple of statements. (BTW, my KJV does not make some of these sound like questions, but I know that there were no punctuation marks in the original text and it is obvious to me from the context that most of these are questions to God.)

Dialogue begins in verse 2: Satan is speaking before God - his judge.

How long will you (God) judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? (being the descendants of rebellious Adam)

(How long will you God) defend the poor and fatherless? (being those who have been sent from the Garden to the earth separated from YOU):

(How long will you God) do justice to the afflicted and needy(being those subjected to mortality and to toiling the ground to feed and clothe themselves by their own sweat)

(How long will you God) deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked? (IOW, possibly meaning HIS taking up of those human persons when they are in difficulty even among themselves due to their sinful wicked nature)

They (the pitiful damaged persons descending from Adam) know not, neither will they understand: (because) they walk on in darkness (being clueless and ignorant).

All the foundations of the earth are out of course (because of humanity/Adam)


Scene 2: God is the center of this scene and HE abruptly interrupts Satan giving HIS response to what has been said and then HIS decision for Satan's judgement.

Dialogue begins verse 6: God reveals his equal and unbiased love for angels and humans and shows that HE is a fair judge.

I (God Almighty) have said, "Ye (Satan and angelic beings) are gods; and all of you (both angels and humanity) are children of (MINE) the most High.


Vs.7 God pronounces judgement upon the rebellious angels.

BUT ye (angelic beings now before ME on trial) shall die LIKE MEN, and fall like one of the princes (IOW, meet the same fate as even the highest ranking among earthly human beings. I believe the "same fate experience" is described in the Book of Revelation as the second death and the lake of fire).


Vs. 8 God identifies the ONE who will one day be the judge of angels and men at the time of the second death. Key words are highlighted for clarification.

Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou (are the ONE who) shalt inherit all nations.

Interpretation of the ONE who will come to deliver equal judgement upon the angels and men:
It will be come who comes as LORD to arise from the dead ... and ultimately return bring about the final judgement for sin and rebellion and inherit all the nations.

 

[therhema]

It was that "instantiation" of creation through [as in 'by means of'] the proceeding forth of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, that makes this question viable... Such that if, by their ontological origination they both "proceed" from the Father, and this "proceeding" only occurs at the "instantiation" of creation, then they both, prior to that instant, were NOT... So it would fall to Arius' error...

Just because the Pneuma and Logos had not proceeded from the Father doesn't mean that they "are not." The first problem is that you are trying to conceptualize a TIME before the cosmos came to be. Obviously, our only concept of time is that of the cosmos, so thinking of a time before the procession of the Holy Spirit and Son in these terms is not a good way to approach it.

Secondly, the word "procession' implies that there was already a reality of existence. So your assumption that there is no existence pre-procession is illogical.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It was that "instantiation" of creation through [as in 'by means of'] the proceeding forth of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, that makes this question viable... Such that if, by their ontological origination they both "proceed" from the Father, and this "proceeding" only occurs at the "instantiation" of creation, then they both, prior to that instant, were NOT... So it would fall to Arius' error...

Originally posted by therhema
Just because the Pneuma and Logos had not proceeded from the Father doesn't mean that they "are not." The first problem is that you are trying to conceptualize a TIME before the cosmos came to be. Obviously, our only concept of time is that of the cosmos, so thinking of a time before the procession of the Holy Spirit and Son in these terms is not a good way to approach it.

Secondly, the word "procession' implies that there was already a reality of existence. So your assumption that there is no existence pre-procession is illogical.

Well said.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

i see nothing temporal in God/Christ/Spirit. God is un-created and eternal, no beginning or end. i've seen the term 'exhale' - breathed- i used expressed, etc. we all understand eternal - always was, always will be. anything else is arguably created. however, we know God/Christ IS before He 'expressed'. i don't think anyone can go down the road of the Mind of God before creation or the moment of expressing Himself.

that's why God IS timeless/eternal and the Father/Son-Begotten/Spirit are eternal as One. i'm not sure one can explain in words what it was like to be With God @ creation and Before, or know God's Plans and Thoughts completely. we cannot. i cannot, anyway. i am interested and pleased with the the thread, not complaining, just trying to keep up - atrol:

I agree with all you said here.

My interest lies in the fact that all the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

God rested.

So then to me it seems that the Holy Spirit and the son of God have been carrying out God's purpose and commands from there.

There is more going on in the old testament than first meets the eye.

:thumb:

 

[Arsenios]

It was that "instantiation" of creation through [as in 'by means of'] the proceeding forth of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, that makes this question viable... Such that if, by their ontological origination they both "proceed" from the Father, and this "proceeding" only occurs at the "instantiation" of creation, then they both, prior to that instant, were NOT... So it would fall to Arius' error...

Just because the Pneuma and Logos had not proceeded from the Father doesn't mean that they "are not."

In ekonomia, you are right, and indeed, are presupposed, in order that they even could proceed from the Father INTO creation at its instantiation...

But this is not ekonomia, but ontologia...

The first problem is that you are trying to conceptualize a TIME before the cosmos came to be.

A good try, but what I am referring to is the not-time prior to creation... The instant of creation did not bring the Son and the Holy Spirit into existence/being, as PPS has been arguing, because if it did, then neither can be eternal, but only cotemporaneus with creation... That was the point, if I got it right, of AMR's question...

Obviously, our only concept of time is that of the cosmos, so thinking of a time before the procession of the Holy Spirit and Son in these terms is not a good way to approach it.

Time is a function, a measurement, of creation... Anterior to time, is only the timelessness, which you call eternity, of God... Such that PRIOR to time is ONLY timelessness, and NOT ETERNAL TIME...

Secondly, the word "procession' implies that there was already a reality of existence. So your assumption that there is no existence pre-procession is illogical.

Actually, that was PPS's difficulty... The ontological procession of the Holy Spirit is timeless, as is the ontological begottenness of the Son... But PPS insists that BOTH proceed ontologically from the Father...

SO THAT...

IF...

This ontological dual procession occurs AT THE INSTANT of the big BANG into existence of Creation, then THAT is their ontological instantiation as well... BECAUSE it is ontological, and not merely ekonomic...

Arsenios