Nang

Rhema has been mistaught, even if it's somewhat inadvertant like many other compensations. Rhema stands for the subject matter; the thing thought and spoken about; the content or substance for Logos as faculties and functionalities of intelligent reasoning, wise ponderance, and rational contemplation. Rhema is NOT merely the spoken word with Logos being the written word. Logos comes from lego, to speak; so it's a misnomer to conceptually summarize Rhema and Logos in such manner.

Yes, but Eve heard "a" rhema from the serpent and "a" faith came that changed her human hypostasis (and thus her prosopon). The same was, of course, true for Adam, and that's why they saw they were naked. Their prosopon was changed and they beheld their naked flesh uncovered in whatever radiance was upon them. It was the communion with another rhema that brought forth spiritual death that resulted in sin (just as described in James 1).

So any "three versus one" formulaic would be only relative to creation, which includes the created everlasting heavenly realm as His abode to dwell with us. Quantification as multiple hypostases is not only unnecessary, but is our mind assigning God's qualitative plurality of immensity in a calculated manner for our own prudence. That's some vestige of sakhal from Genesis 3:6. There is no need to quantify Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; and scripture doesn't give us multiple hypostases without total inference. Qualitative distinctions would also be everlasting and reflective of God's eternality, so it can't be any form of Modalism. All "three" are simultaneous and concurrent without sequentiality, and not merely manifestations.

Quantification is emphatically relative to creation, especially after Edenic onset of spiritual death and sin. I insist God's simplicity and singularity demand that His ontologically divine (literal) Logos and Pneuma comprise a qualitative plurality of immensity, and their co-inherence obviates the band-aid of perichoresis. For this, it's necessary to realize that God created the heavenly realm and eternity as its qualitative everlasting time property. So when He speaks and breathes creation into existence, it's a two-fold qualitative procession of His Logos and Pneuma out of/from His transcendent Self.

One of the foundations as the impetus for my reformulation is based on maintaining the simplicity and singularity of God without quantification. In Genesis 3 when Eve is enticed of her own lust and drawn away by temptation, she expresses the lust of the flesh, lust of the eyes, and the pride of life in verse 6 (good for food, pleasant to the eyes, profitable to make one wise {sakhal}). Sakhal refers to prudence of knowing the reason for all things by calculating, and without discernment and ethical insight of comparative study for moral understanding as the gift from God {bin}.

Theosis is closet relation time, while theoria can comprise the majority of one's day while doing most other things. As I go about my day, I'm consistently in theoria about many Greek words at their depth of meaning. It's like marinating in the Word all the time, and is a discipline I'd bet you share already without the label. Theoria isn't just thinking, it's beholding and then applying that experience. It's having a vision of God in your heart based upon the constant focus of beholding, the effect of which is becoming pure in heart and achieving dispassion for the things of this age, etc. It's being renewed in the spirit of your mind. It's NOT just a mental process of conceptual thinking.

Theoria is Greek for contemplation, corresponding to the Latin contemplatio, "looking at, gazing at, being aware of". Its both a contrast and a supplement to theosis. Theoria can be described as rumination, which is the process of animals chewing cud. In this, it is an immersion into the subject matter (rhema) by the mind (nous), conforming one's logos to that which is being contemplated. This should be the constant focus upon God and His word that accompanies praying without ceasing.

It's not exhaustive by any means, but it's about as concise and brief and accessible as I've presented. It's not specifically exegetical with proof-texting, but deals with it from a summary overview perspective that is simplified and emphasizes the distinctions from the Orthodox formulaic and its omission. Quantification is emphatically relative to creation, included the created intangible heavenly realm. Qualitative distinctions retain the simplicity of God without any form of Modalism. God's own Logos and Pneuma are qualitative hypostatic distinctions processed (exerchomai - John 8:42 / ekporeuomai - John 15:26) into creation when/as both realms are instantiated into existence. Of course I'm open to any and all questions; and I have no expectation of your agreement. I just wanted you to be able to understand it, even if you dismiss it. No agenda from me other than to share.

I agree. Hope things are going well with you

The faith as well as the RCC.

This might be a decent lengthy post that gives insight into my Monohypostatic formulation for the Trinity.
http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4043609&postcount=157

Thanks. Yeah, left the faith some time ago.

Well, hey there Nang

Are you purposely not talking to me?

What happened with AMR?

OK, thanks. I guess it was semi-related, since I reported him because it was a pattern (I'm usually OK with getting insulted but I was really tired of it from Res because he ONLY insults and doesn't debate, plus he's absolutely repulsive and I don't say that of many people here...) I hope its a long ban but I won't hold my breath.

Nang, just wondering, but can you check the Woodshed for me and let me know if Res's ban is related to the post of his that I reported?

Thanks.

The posts I deleted at RTI of my own were related to my sermons and some posts related to experimenting with distance related church functions by RTI. The former were linked to the latter, of which I became convinced was a bad idea. All in all it amounted to around 45 posts. Not what I would call a mass deletion.

AMR

The first thread I started here introducing myself was the only one I deleted. It was just to cantankerous. I still have many of my more substantive posts therein on file as well as my others to date.

Assuming you do not lie and claim that you aren't the person in question (admittedly, I have done this, and I agree that it isn't right) but assuming you don't lie, I don't see what's wrong with it, necessarily.

Somewhat of a funny tidbit, the first time I ever joined a forum I was banned within a month for being a double login (it was a forum for a boardgame) but I actually wasn't guilty. There were a bunch of weird coincidences that made it look like I was, but I wasn't. I really wasn't the person I was claiming not to be.

The time I actually did it I was banned for a ridiculous and silly reason. Maybe that doesn't make it right, but the mods were liberal morons. I didn't deserve the ban. If you think that was wrong, that's fine. You may be right