ECT Our triune God

[Lon]

It's because we're in the prosopon of Christ, and we can remit sins.

We can set apart false rhema that has brought false belief resulting in sin.

We're IN Christ. It's not just us remitting being wronged.

I cannot forgive a sin, done to you. Only you can forgive a wrong against you. The only thing I can forgive, is a sin or offense, against me.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

Think for two seconds. What is the difference between Jesus forgiving the paralytic, and us forgiving someone who wronged us? It is exactly that clear.



Truth? :nono: The truth is, you 'think' you can think. You can't and should let those who can do it for you. You really are an inept rookie and will be the rest of your life. Me? 3.87 GPA (and that was Master's degree!). Go figure remedial sophmore. You aren't NEARLY as smart as you think you are. Not even close. Take your 2.0 GPA someplace else.

For a language stickler, 'sexual' is a horrible descriptor from you and grossly inaccurate. I reported LA for doing so. I can't condone such a disparagement. It is overtly defective, false, offensive acerbity.

Your pride is so obvious to everyone else, yet you are so blind to it, and claim to see.

LA

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

For a language stickler, 'sexual' is a horrible descriptor from you and grossly inaccurate. I reported LA for doing so. I can't condone such a disparagement. It is overtly defective, false, offensive acerbity.

But I'm not the one promoting the marital hypostatic union as inclusive of a Father and another party. It's not my perversion, I just called attention to it.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Orthodox Trinity doesn't represent the alleged hypostases as being in hypostatic union, but with perechoresis.

My comment was to demonstrate how egregious it would be to consider Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as in hypostatic union. That would be for the hypostasization at the Son's Incarnation as Theanthropos, and our subsequent hypostatic translation by faith as one with our betrothed Husband.

You should be offended, but not at me for pointing out such a blasphemy if someone holds that position.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I cannot forgive a sin, done to you. Only you can forgive a wrong against you. The only thing I can forgive, is a sin or offense, against me.

This is why it's vital to understand the minutiae of Hamartiology. Sins are not hamartema in this context. Sins are hamartiai, which are inner conduct of the heart from hearing a false rhema.

We can indeed set apart the very source of that sin as being in the prosopon of Christ. In His onoma. Representation.

It has nothing to do with someone's acting or actions, but to set apart the source of their unbelief or misbelief.

 

[Lon]

But I'm not the one promoting the marital hypostatic union as inclusive of a Father and another party. It's not my perversion, I just called attention to it.

Unless I'm mistaken, the Orthodox Trinity doesn't represent the alleged hypostases as being in hypostatic union, but with perechoresis.

My comment was to demonstrate how egregious it would be to consider Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as in hypostatic union. That would be for the hypostasization of the Son's Incarnation and our subsequent hypostatic translation as one with our betrothed Husband.

You should be offended, but not at me for pointing out such a blasphemy if someone holds that position.

:nono: God is not sexual.
Marriage between the Bride and Christ is not sexual.

Think of another word that is appropriate. This one is not.

 

[Lon]

This is why it's vital to understand the minutiae of Hamartiology. Sins are not hamartema in this context. Sins are hamartiai, which are inner conduct of the heart from hearing a false rhema.

We can indeed set apart the very source of that sin as being in the prosopon of Christ. In His onoma. Representation.

It has nothing to do with someone's acting or actions, but to set apart the source of their unbelief or misbelief.

You are skating around what is true and Oatmeal needs to hear as well. Christ forgave sin against God, because He was able to do so. By virtue of that ability, He and the Father, are indeed one. You and the Father, are not. I believe you can see that point and can embrace it. Oatmeal needs to.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

:nono: God is not sexual.
Marriage between the Bride and Christ is not sexual.

Think of another word that is appropriate. This one is not.

Is Christ speaking sexually?

Rev 2:22 Behold, I will cast her into a bed, and them that commit adultery with her into great tribulation, except they repent of their deeds.

LA

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

:nono: God is not sexual.
Marriage between the Bride and Christ is not sexual.

Think of another word that is appropriate. This one is not.

You misunderstand. I'm referring to the Hypostatic Union being appropriately about Christology, the Incarnation, and our hypostatic translation into our betrothed as the everlasting spiritual intercourse we have with our Husband after judgment. That can't be inclusive of our heavenly Father and Holy Spirit in the holiness of marriage.

It cannot be applied to Theology Proper to replace the alleged perichoresis for the alleged multiple hypostases, lest the Father and another party be part of the marriage betrothal and consummation.

It would be the spiritual equivalent of those sexual descriptors, and thus blasphemous. It's appropriately metaphorical, for that would be its equivalence in physical human marriage.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not a hypostatic union. The point was how appalling it would be as the anti-type depicted by human marriage.

Incongruous and perverted. It cannot be doctrine of the Christian faith, and it was promoted as such. Please be offended aright, not at my shared disdain for what it would represent.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You are skating around what is true and Oatmeal needs to hear as well. Christ forgave sin against God, because He was able to do so. By virtue of that ability, He and the Father, are indeed one. You and the Father, are not. I believe you can see that point and can embrace it. Oatmeal needs to.

I understand your point relative to Christ's divinity.

But I'm sheathed in the scabbard from whence the Rhema sword was drawn from/as God's hypostasis, thrust into creation by the Logos as the Son, and returned to the place (topos) He has prepared for us.

I'm one with the Father, partaking of His divine nature be being IN Christ. I've put on His prosopon.

This is the ontology missing from dilutions of Paul's Gospel as doctrines of men. I'm in Christ, living and moving and having my being. Now. By faith.

 

[Omniskeptical]

Where?

Arsenios

Before the universe there is one frame at which it all begins. It is necessary, but why would God suffer time limits?

 

[Simon Baker]

Before the universe there is one frame at which it all begins. It is necessary, but why would God suffer time limits?

God Always Was And Always Will Be !

View attachment 19567

 

[Lon]

You misunderstand. I'm referring to the Hypostatic Union being appropriately about Christology, the Incarnation, and our hypostatic translation into our betrothed as the everlasting spiritual intercourse we have with our Husband after judgment. That can't be inclusive of our heavenly Father and Holy Spirit in the holiness of marriage.

It cannot be applied to Theology Proper to replace the alleged perichoresis for the alleged multiple hypostases, lest the Father and another party be part of the marriage betrothal and consummation.

It would be the spiritual equivalent of those sexual descriptors, and thus blasphemous. It's appropriately metaphorical, for that would be its equivalence in physical human marriage.

Um, no. God is one, including the Son. Your version, oddly, does indeed divide Him (God) into "persons."
The bride imagery is not metaphorical, but simile. Marriage on earth is an expression of Him, not vise versa. I used to think you understood the simplicity of God doctrines. Simplicity of God (Catholic) Simplicity of God (Reformed)
Simplicity of God video.

Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not a hypostatic union. The point was how appalling it would be as the anti-type depicted by human marriage.

:nono: And for a sesquipedalian, you are better than this. It is grossly insufficient.

Incongruous and perverted. It cannot be doctrine of the Christian faith, and it was promoted as such. Please be offended aright, not at my shared disdain for what it would represent.

Nobody. Nobody is going to read between the lines. There are no lines in between in which to find. The equivocation is abusive and offensive, of a cloddish conveyance.

 

[Arsenios]

That's why I've clearly and repeatedly referred to you combining eternal and everlasting, without distinction that the former is God alone and the latter had an inception and is created (heaven and the cosmos) and has sequentiality and linearity.

Then please correct me it I am wrong, but did you not say that eternal means without beginning or ending, and sempiternal/everlasting as being wit beginning but without ending...? And that temporal is with both beginning and ending?

I understand God as the NON-temporal Creator of time...

But when I speak of everlasting, it means temporality...

And you are speaking of eternity as everlasting, were you not? Do you not regard the Father as everlasting and eternal, just as not having a beginning, like creation does?

You see, in ordinary usage, eternal and everlasting are synonyms...

In Greek usage, they mean the same...

But God is timeless... And only as a manner of speaking can He be called eternal, or eternally existent, meaning never non-existent... Because in fact He is timeless [a very apophatic term] and creates existence and non-existence...

So when I try to plug in these two 9 year old's terms, timeless and person, into your blizzard of syllables, I find myself awash to the gunnels and no bucket to slop the hogs... Let alone bail the boat...

A 9-yo could understand that, and it's not a mountain of words.

OK - So can you just say that God is timeless?
And that we have no cognitive apparatus to comprehend God's timelessness?
Do you fully and unreservedly affirm that formulaic?

Or do you have reservations and qualifiers and nuances and special considerations and possible variants and differing potentials?

The EOC refers to everlasting heaven as eternal and the everlasting cosmos as temporal;

Eternal everlastingness is a temporal concept...

Timelessness is not...

neither distinguishing God's eternality from the heaven He created

FALSE! We ABSOLUTELY distinguish the eternality of God, which we name as timelessness, from the created eternity in which He created all creation... You seem to have this word eternity doing double duty, and in order to have precision, we use the term "timeless" to what you like to call God's eternity, and "temporal" to what you like to call the eternal cosmos of heaven and earth...

Do you see how you have used eternity for both God and creation?

THAT is what I am digging out of the mountain...

and inhabited by His literal Logos,

And here you rush in to interject extraneous habitational verbiage on top of the smooshing of eternity with both creation and Creator...

And then you go on:

nor distinguishing the everlasting cosmos from its earth age of temporality.

In terms of time, both are temporal, because they are both created... Temporality is ONLY a feature of creation... God is A-TEMPORAL... Timeless... Apophatically so... In His Essence...

Yet we DO distinguish ages... Especially our life in this age do we distinguish from the Life of the Age to Come...

Right. So stop joining the Father into the Son's marriage with His Bride in hypostatic union, and including also the hypostatic marriage bed of intercourse with yet a third party as a menage-a-trois.

You just have to turn it into parlor sex, don't you?

Christ says: "I and the Father are One..." And He prays to His Father that JUST AS He is One with the Father so also should those the Father has given Him should be One with Him and thereby One with the Father...

And you want to turn this into sexual imagery?

The Mystery is in the Union, of which Paul spoke only obliquely in his writing on marriage, which is but its figure or typos... So please remove your nose from your sexual fixation in this matter...

Such as this, as you accuse me of doing what you are doing:

Awkward you speaking of a Father and another party in a marriage with the Son. YOU shouldn't sexualize the topic.

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Pay attention Arsenios.

Right.

Jack Chick is old news.

A.

 

[Arsenios]

If that's the Orthodox position, then it's incestuous homosexual polygamy. Blasphemy!

You do seem sexually fixated in your view of us...

A.

 

[Arsenios]

It's because we're in the prosopon of Christ, and we can remit sins.

We can set apart false rhema that has brought false belief resulting in sin.

We're IN Christ. It's not just us remitting being wronged.

Prosopon means Mask/face...

We are united by His Body and Blood to the Person of Christ...

Hypostasis means Person...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

But I'm not the one promoting the marital hypostatic union as inclusive of a Father and another party. It's not my perversion, I just called attention to it.

There IS NO marital hypostatic union... Marriage is but the carnal type of the reality of the hypostatic union of the Lamb with His Bride...

Unless I'm mistaken, the Orthodox Trinity doesn't represent the alleged hypostases as being in hypostatic union, but with perechoresis.

"If you have known Me, you have known the Father..."

They retain their hypostatic (Personal) distinction without being in any way divided...

My comment was to demonstrate how egregious it would be to consider Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as in hypostatic union.

The disaster would be the reverse, were they to be in Hypostatic Division...

That would be for the hypostasization at the Son's Incarnation as Theanthropos, and our subsequent hypostatic translation by faith as one with our betrothed Husband.

That too...

You should be offended, but not at me for pointing out such a blasphemy if someone holds that position.

I think it might have been your eagerness to jump to that conclusion that draws some fire... Plus it being a cheep dig...

You do not understand hypostatic union perhaps?

Can you relate it to ordinary experience?

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Um, no. God is one, including the Son.

Right.

Your version, oddly, does indeed divide Him (God) into "persons."

Not even close. You simply don't understand. You're still in a 2D planar perspective of existence.

One ousia. One hypostasis. Two phenomena. You just can't get there. That was the problem with the Patristic formulaic, amd their error.

The bride imagery is not metaphorical, but simile.

Fair enough.

Marriage on earth is an expression of Him, not vise versa.

Right. You perceived that I expressed the inverse. I didn't.

I used to think you understood the simplicity of God doctrines.

I do. It's virtually everyone else who doesn't. That's the problem.

Simplicity of God (Catholic) Simplicity of God (Reformed)
Simplicity of God video.

Not interested in a Mutli-Hypostatic Trinity false perspective. You still don't undetstand God's Simplicity, nor does anyone who is reformed.

:nono: And for a sesquipedalian, you are better than this. It is grossly insufficient.

It was exacting. The Hypostatic Union is NOT relative to Theology Proper for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. It's about Christology and our hypostatic translation (the latter you still don't understand at all).

Nobody. Nobody is going to read between the lines. There are no lines in between in which to find. The equivocation is abusive and offensive, of a cloddish conveyance.

No. It was a valid assessment of misapplication of the Christological Hypostatic Union to Theology Proper as perverted blasphemy.

And I don't understand your constant attempts at controlling instruction. You are perpetually telling me what to do and how to post; as well as what I understand and believe snd represent when you don't understand anything of my position at all, and have repeatedly caricatured and mischaracterized all I've said. Please attend to yourself.

God is a singular uncreated transcendent hypostasis underlying an ousia/physis and having a prosopon. His Logos and Pneuma are not individuated in any quantitative manner. They are inherent ontological qualitative distinctions, economically processed into creation as the Son and Holy Spirit relatvie to created phenomena that was only noumena until being instantiated into existence.

God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is absolute Simplicity and Singularity and Immutability and Infinity and Eternity and Aseity, etc.

You just don't understand phenomena and noumena, and the difference between them as uncreated and created. That's okay. Nobody does, so we have an anathema Orthodox Trinity to go with all the other historical anathemas. All heterodox. None correct.

 

[Arsenios]

Before the universe there is one frame at which it all begins. It is necessary, but why would God suffer time limits?

Where?

We suffer time, God does not...

I really have not seen much of this "time prior to time" business... We have creation in 6 days, and rest the 7th...

And in the Beginning, the Logos already WAS...

And in the Beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth...

I do not try to get very far behind those words...

Arsenios

 

[Omniskeptical]

God Always Was And Always Will Be !

View attachment 19567

But there was there was when there wasn't, except God.