ECT Our triune God

[Lon]

Lon and Arsenio believe bowing is a form of worship. But this was the only form of worship given him.

This has been discussed at length. This thread isn't a debate thread. Go through the whole thread or try an anti-Trinitarian thread if you want further discussion over the matter.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This has been discussed at length. This thread isn't a debate thread. Go through the whole thread or try an anti-Trinitarian thread if you want further discussion over the matter.

Then why are you debating Pnuema?

Goose, gander...........

 

[Lon]

Then why are you debating Pnuema?

Goose, gander...........

He isn't a Unitarian. He has claimed to be triune such that his disagreement was to clarify the triune position, not disrupt it.

I have no problem clarifying the triune position, and thank you for a few of your posts that support that tenor.

Lately, he seems to be on the attack so I may have to ask the same

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

He isn't a Unitarian. He has claimed to be triune such that his disagreement was to clarify the triune position, not disrupt it.

I have no problem clarifying the triune position, and thank you for a few of your posts that support that tenor.

Lately, he seems to be on the attack so I may have to ask the same

It may be that yer ideas of what constitute a triune God are untenable when contrasted with epignosis.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

You confuse everlasting with eternal. You have it backwards PP. Flesh comes from Spirit, not vise versa nor apart. It is a false dichotomy.

I used to give you benefit of the doubt because you've argued for God's simplicity, but then counteract that understanding so don't quite comprehend it. Do a LOT of research on the Simplicity of God, PP. It is terribly important, for you.

This will ever hang up your theology if you don't get this right. The world, comes from God. You are arbitrarily making the Son a product of creation. :nono: Not true.

And again, the Groom and Bride has nothing to do with sexuality. It has to do with oneness. The marriage relationship between male and female does not enter in. It is exclusive to a 'physical' union we cannot have with God.

Why? One more time: Physical comes from Spiritual. You are inadvertently describing duality and rejecting the simplicity of God. God is not a 'part' of this universe. This universe is a part of God. Colossians 1:17.

Therefore, your sexual misapplication is offensive, crude, as well as incredibly wrong-headed wrong.

I've never in my entire life seen a greater misunderstanding and inverse misrepresentation of everything one person has said which another person has misapprehended than you have done with literally every last word I've said.

And I don't need your arrogant, condescending "benefit of the doubt" for anything whatsoever. What a narcissistic, egomaniacal, moronic statement of nothingness.

There is not one thing you've been able to comprehend of anything I've said, and instead misconstrued it into some bizarre machination of your own ineptitude of sentient incompetence.

You've spent your entire religious life as a multiple-sentience, multi-hypostatic Tritheistic heretic of the highest order, only equalled by your vaunted GPA in heretic school. You know nothing of God's inherent Simplicity and have no idea what I've even said.

Contrary to your weird perceptions, I represent the utter and absolute pure Simplicity of God, including the types of phenomenon that have left Orthodoxy as heterodox in oblivious ignorance.

I just let a few advanced disciples read your post and, after a minute of shock, are laughing uncontrollably.

If you'd like to ASK what I've said and meant instead of telling me... that would be great. Nothing you've said is even remotely representative of anything I've said.

Not only is God is not a part of this universe, God is not a part of created heaven. Spirit from flesh? That's just stupid; as is all else you've somehow managed to contort my words into.

It's your pride. Give it a rest.

Feel free to report me, Captain report button.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It may be that yer ideas of what constitute a triune God are untenable when contrasted with epignosis.

Exactly. I don't get how it can be so misrepresented.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

He isn't a Unitarian. He has claimed to be triune such that his disagreement was to clarify the triune position, not disrupt it.

I have no problem clarifying the triune position, and thank you for a few of your posts that support that tenor.

Lately, he seems to be on the attack so I may have to ask the same

I'm not on the attack at all. I just can't stand being misrepresented.

Disagreement is one thing. Inverse misapprehension is quite another, especially with someone else's pride assigning my position in every possible erroneous way imaginable.

 

[Arsenios]

I've never in my entire life seen a greater misunderstanding and inverse misrepresentation of everything one person has said which another person has misapprehended than you have done with literally every last word I've said.

And I don't need your arrogant, condescending "benefit of the doubt" for anything whatsoever. What a narcissistic, egomaniacal, moronic statement of nothingness.

There is not one thing you've been able to comprehend of anything I've said, and instead misconstrued it into some bizarre machination of your own ineptitude of sentient incompetence.

You've spent your entire religious life as a multiple-sentience, multi-hypostatic Tritheistic heretic of the highest order, only equalled by your vaunted GPA in heretic school. You know nothing of God's inherent Simplicity and have no idea what I've even said.

Contrary to your weird perceptions, I represent the utter and absolute pure Simplicity of God, including the types of phenomenon that have left Orthodoxy as heterodox in oblivious ignorance.

I just let a few advanced disciples read your post and, after a minute of shock, are laughing uncontrollably.

If you'd like to ASK what I've said and meant instead of telling me... that would be great. Nothing you've said is even remotely representative of anything I've said.

Not only is God is not a part of this universe, God is not a part of created heaven. Spirit from flesh? That's just stupid; as is all else you've somehow managed to contort my words into.

It's your pride. Give it a rest.

Feel free to report me, Captain report button.

This is what happens when one gets sucker-punched by this particular demon... It works off pride of intellect and instills great vainglory, inciting a person to really get mad when another person starts to really tick him or her off... In the process, the arena moves from denial of self to blame of another, and the demons rejoice...

Paul rejoiced in his physical tribulations, but under this demon, we prideful moderns cannot even stand to have words said, or even typed on a computer screen...

Now you know why I worry about you reading the Philokalia...

You have much seething percolating in your soul...

So I pray for you, my friend...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

I'm not on the attack at all. I just can't stand being misrepresented.

Disagreement is one thing. Inverse misapprehension is quite another, especially with someone else's pride assigning my position in every possible erroneous way imaginable.

It is just the world...

The world has been thus since Cain and Abel...

Indeed since the Fall...

We are not OF the world, yes?

Is not our flesh in mortification?

Is not our self being denied?


Arsenios

 

[Nang]

Is not our flesh in mortification?

Is not our self being denied?


Arsenios

Being mortified in our flesh is not as painful as trying to convey divine enlightenment, only to receive darkness in return . . .

 

[Lon]

It may be that yer ideas of what constitute a triune God are untenable when contrasted with epignosis.

That is kind of a rich statement coming from .1% of the Christian populace. "IF" you had a 4.0 from Bible College with a PhD, people 'might' listen to you, but there is no way that can ever happen from a grassroots, low grade completion group. This debate crosses several thousand years and was settled in each time framework it has ever tried to contest. An affront necessarily would HAVE to come from a college, sincerely and interested and dedicated, to truth of God because of the 2000 years passed with a triune view. No college shows a lack of dedication. You may lament that fact, but it cannot be otherwise. It is just 3rd graders trying to correct college students otherwise. If you don't think enough of God to have pursued Him in depth, you really have little to contribute to a theology discussion. On top of this, we cannot embrace doctrines but in community.

The Unitarian affiliation, is associated beyond Christianity, with Hinduism, Buddism, and Judaism so isn't part of a Christian community, nor ever has been.

Like I said, one can cry about that, but it is just whining that will not/cannot amount to anything. Just a fact.

 

[Lon]

I've never in my entire life seen a greater misunderstanding and inverse misrepresentation of everything one person has said which another person has misapprehended than you have done with literally every last word I've said.

Incorrect. Your confusion over 'sexual' forces the issue. It is blatant.

And I don't need your arrogant, condescending "benefit of the doubt" for anything whatsoever. What a narcissistic, egomaniacal, moronic statement of nothingness.

Um. Yeah. You do. Whether you 'like' it is beside the point.
If this is how you take correction, I can't help you. It is self-inflicted.

There is not one thing you've been able to comprehend of anything I've said, and instead misconstrued it into some bizarre machination of your own ineptitude of sentient incompetence.

Not true. You just don't like what I said. Your 'sexual' comment brought up all kinds of warning flags. If you won't be corrected, okay.

You've spent your entire religious life as a multiple-sentience, multi-hypostatic Tritheistic heretic of the highest order, only equalled by your vaunted GPA in heretic school. You know nothing of God's inherent Simplicity and have no idea what I've even said.

I 'assumed' you were arguing the simplicity of God. That was incorrect. What you are arguing with your binitary, is a universe separated by flesh and spirit, as if this physical world is a dual existence with God. Your 'sexual' comment proves this point. I reiterate: Physical comes from Spirit, not the other way around. God is a Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in Spirit and Truth. Do you understand, at least the point of that scripture, on this level? I'm trying to show you something. If you despise me for it, so be it.

Contrary to your weird perceptions, I represent the utter and absolute pure Simplicity of God, including the types of phenomenon that have left Orthodoxy as heterodox in oblivious ignorance.

No, you've made Jesus incarnation a product of the universe rather than God. Jesus becoming incarnate isn't anything new to God. It isn't a change. He is God. God cannot be divided. He is expressed in three, but is one. We aren't tri-theists. We are triune theists.

I just let a few advanced disciples read your post and, after a minute of shock, are laughing uncontrollably.

So? That simply means you made them laugh. That doesn't mean anything to me. If they didn't criticize you for your sexual comment, I'm not really interested in their or your uneducated opinion.

Great, you got a posse to make you feel good about yourself :idunno:

If you'd like to ASK what I've said and meant instead of telling me... that would be great. Nothing you've said is even remotely representative of anything I've said.

Little late for that now. You have expressed, plainly, a confusion about the nature of God, His simplicity, and His incarnation.

Not only is God is not a part of this universe, God is not a part of created heaven. Spirit from flesh? That's just stupid; as is all else you've somehow managed to contort my words into.

See, I've understood you perfectly. You inadvertently have 'physical' coming from 'physical.' John 4:24

It's your pride. Give it a rest.

Absolutely. You just exploded with it. I was just trying to serve you by correction, where you make mistake. If you are beyond that, that's all on you.

Feel free to report me, Captain report button.

Calling 99.9% of the Christian populace homosexuals is blatantly wrong. And offensive.

I'm not on the attack at all. I just can't stand being misrepresented.

What?!

 

[Lon]

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

This is part of the problem.

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.

This confuses and exacerbates the problem of 'sexual' imagery that is completely inappropriate AND, you yourself confuse your union with Father, then with Son, as if they were 3 different beings.

Perhaps you need to clarify, if this isn't where you meant to go, but sexual will never be appropriate part of that explanation.

In addition, you do, in fact, confuse the fact that this physical universe is not God's house. The universe comes from God, who is Spirit. Physical is an extension/out of, His being. He spoke, and it became.

I will be away from TOL for a time. These posts, especially, the 'sexual' have interrupted my season of thankfulness for the love of Christ this time of year.

-Lon

 

[Lazy afternoon]

I've never in my entire life seen a greater misunderstanding and inverse misrepresentation of everything one person has said which another person has misapprehended than you have done with literally every last word I've said.

And I don't need your arrogant, condescending "benefit of the doubt" for anything whatsoever. What a narcissistic, egomaniacal, moronic statement of nothingness.

There is not one thing you've been able to comprehend of anything I've said, and instead misconstrued it into some bizarre machination of your own ineptitude of sentient incompetence.

You've spent your entire religious life as a multiple-sentience, multi-hypostatic Tritheistic heretic of the highest order, only equalled by your vaunted GPA in heretic school. You know nothing of God's inherent Simplicity and have no idea what I've even said.

Contrary to your weird perceptions, I represent the utter and absolute pure Simplicity of God, including the types of phenomenon that have left Orthodoxy as heterodox in oblivious ignorance.

I just let a few advanced disciples read your post and, after a minute of shock, are laughing uncontrollably.

If you'd like to ASK what I've said and meant instead of telling me... that would be great. Nothing you've said is even remotely representative of anything I've said.

Not only is God is not a part of this universe, God is not a part of created heaven. Spirit from flesh? That's just stupid; as is all else you've somehow managed to contort my words into.

It's your pride. Give it a rest.

Feel free to report me, Captain report button.

Lol.

 

[Lazy afternoon]

This is part of the problem.


This confuses and exacerbates the problem of 'sexual' imagery that is completely inappropriate AND, you yourself confuse your union with Father, then with Son, as if they were 3 different beings.

Perhaps you need to clarify, if this isn't where you meant to go, but sexual will never be appropriate part of that explanation.

In addition, you do, in fact, confuse the fact that this physical universe is not God's house. The universe comes from God, who is Spirit. Physical is an extension/out of, His being. He spoke, and it became.

I will be away from TOL for a time. These posts, especially, the 'sexual' have interrupted my season of thankfulness for the love of Christ this time of year.

-Lon

More LOL

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Being mortified in our flesh is not as painful as trying to convey divine enlightenment, only to receive darkness in return . . .

And this is why I KNOW you are a precious Sister in Christ. You are able to discern truth beyond your understanding.

 

[patrick jane]

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.

not yet ! ! ! - atrol:

 

[patrick jane]

And this is why I KNOW you are a precious Sister in Christ. You are able to discern truth beyond your understanding.

nang fits the model of "advanced" disciples you're looking for ?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So is the term PERSON off your table here?

In the nominal simplistic sense of predominant English perception, yes. If it's carefully qualified with semantics secondary to their true underlying meanings (get it? underlying? hypostasis?), no.

A hypostasis is not exclusively a person, for faith is a hypostasis and confidence or assurance are referred to as a hypostasis.

Hypostasis is... Absolute assured foundational underlying substantial objective reality as subsistence for existence, and is outwardly presented by/as a prosopon.

Hypostasis is irreducible to a great extent, at least as a single word-for-single word English reduction after a compromised pitstop in Latin for its first layer of translational misrepresentation as persona/ae.

When applied to God or humans rather than other animate life (or inanimate objects), a hypostasis is thus "personal", as determined by the prosopon. Neither the hypostasis nor the prosopon is wholly the "person"; and in English (which everyone erroneously thinks all terms should be reduced to, though a plethora of English words are exactly their donor term IN English) ALL persons are beings by etymology and definition (though all beings aren't persons).

Especially after the hypostases being turned into little more than gorilla-glued anthropomorphic beings CALLED "persons", NO the term "person" should not be used without MUCH scrutiny.

Can you not substitute person for hypostasis in your explanation?

Why would I do that? And why would others accept bazillions of Greek terms like "diagnosis" (from the Greek "dia-" and "gnosis") for daily use, but demand the term used for the very underlying transcendent reality of existence for God and us to be dumbed down for the sake of a pan-European, late-emergent, derivative and low-context language being the greatest expression of that?

Seriously? Reduce a few Greek terms like diagnosis to a singular English word without using dia- or -gnosis in the SINGLE English word. And then do that for every unreduced Greek and Latin word in English.

But nooooooooooooooo... We have to have a reduced misrepresentational English word for hypostasis to please the dullard heretics who've conceptualized three Durabonded God-Guys as discreet individuated sentient beings playing heavenly Canasta around a celestial card table that are called "persons" and declared (wink, wink) as a singular being.

Nope. And I was lost for 28 years because of this nonsense. It is the nature of a personal being to have a mind/will for sentience and volition. Since all created persons are beings, that isn't a problem of understanding regarding humanity.

Without going further into the fallacy, the mind is relative to the physis of the ousia, both underlied by the hypostasis. (Oh, no; do I have to reduce those Greek terms to English, even though zillions of "English" words are directly Greek or Latin, etc. IN English?)

We partake of God's divine nature by being hypostatically IN Christ. That's how we're renewed in the spirit of our mind, for our breathed existence as an ousia is the human spirit. Our body is the outer portion of our prosopon, the inner being the sarx as it conjoins to the soul. And the soul is the functionalities of the spirit's mind and will faculties, along with the functionalities of the body's emotion and desire faculties.

Combined with the functionalities of both the spirit's faculties and body's faculties, the hypostasis is the soul. The "I"ness underlying the ousia as the "am"ness.

The hypostasis wouldn't have the mind/will itself, but it's resulting functionalities. Noema, not nous. Phronema, not phronimos. Boulema, not boulomai (thelema for God, with boulema as subset). The -ma suffixes should give this away.

The mind is not relative to the hypostasis, though the functionality OF the mind faculty would be the hypostasis in economy of action regarding the mind. So to have a multi-hypostatic God that is one ousia, there would be only one mind relative to the ousia, and the functionality of that mind faculty could then be relative to each hypostasis.

This is why I don't cringe so much at those professing Trinitarians who maintain an appropriate ousiac singular mind that has perichoretic "chorus" functionalities by the alleged multiple hypostases. If each has a mind, they are multiple ousios, regardless of declaration.

And since God is Uni-Hypostatic and Omni-Phenomenal rather than Multi-Hypostatic and Dyo-Phenomenal (Orthodoxy), it's wrong anyway.

Can you not use plain language?

Sure I can. Hypostasis is "plain Greek language", just like many other Greek terms that are "plain language". This simplistic approach is naive and peevish. Unless you're going to rid the English language of all Greek and Latin imports, this tact is patently absurd.

Why such a demand for reduction of an irreducible term? Why cater to the devices (noema) of Satan with low-contextualizing?

I mean, I have never seen you use person and personal in your rants on this topic...

Sure I have. Here...God is a PERSONAL hypostasis. Personal can be adjectival as a descriptor, but it can't wholly define a "person". There are no non-embodied hypostases running around, invisible in their intangibility. All hypostases have their own proper prospon, and are thus visible and recognizable to be distinguished from other animate beings and other impersonal things. That's what phenomena is all about, and God is omni-phenomenal as a PERSONAL hypostasis.

There. Personal. Right there for you to see I don't fallaciously consider God an object or force or power, or some other nebulous whatever.

Yet the primary feature of ANY direct encounter with God is that one has encountered a PERSON Who IS God...

Really? They directly encountered prosoponless hypostases? There's no such thing. Every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon. Not to mention, these encounters are via physical senses. God is not empirically reducible, either. Why would you trust someone's physical senses to build doctrine, especially without considering all possibilities? And how would they/you know these encounters weren't modal manifestations?

God's inherent transcendent prosopon is in-shining within created heaven, as He dwells in that unapproachable light. The processed Logos as the Son has a sempiternal prosopon that is "shared" with the qualitatively-distinct, hypostatically co-inherent Holy Spirit.

Then the Son hypostasized to take on flesh, and at His baptism we see that co-inherent Holy Spirit descending upon His human schema in a bodily shape to "Christ" Him for His earthly mission as an heir who has fulfilled the righteousness of the Law and personified it in the flesh.

The Father and His inherent literal Logos are the same hypostasis, and that Logos proceeded forth as the Son when/as created phenomena was instantiated into existence from God's noumena. In creation, God's eternal Logos is the eternal Son. They're coterminous.

And the primary feature of demonic theologies is their relegating God to attributes, powers, features, actions, love, and all manner of things that avoid speaking of God as a Person...

That should obviously not apply to me. I despise such de-personalizations. But a hypostasis isn't wholly the "person" apart from the inclusion of the prosopon. No binaries as false dichotomies. The mask is as much the "person" as the underlying reality of existence.

And a three-hypostasis ousia would be the height of naive non-intuitive silliness if you ever understood the omni-phenomenal truth of God's constitution. It's in inspired scripture if anyone would have ever dug it out. Paul knew, and this is what he discipled as his Gospel, entrusted to him by God.

So the Greek term hypostasis, meaning the PERSON behind the prosopon, the MASK of personality which CONCEALS the person, should be your vocabulary, and it is not...

Arsenios

No, it should not. And IF it were, God's singular mind should be relative to the ousia rather than multiplied.

You don't realize it, but that's functional Tritheism. And it's why Trinitarians drive others deeper toward anathema when they see that semi-Pagan silliness, however well-meaning Trinitarians might think they are.

A Multi-Sentience Multi-Hypostatic Trinity is anathema, and a Single-Sentience Multi-Hypostatic Trinity is barely acceptable. The problem is, few are the latter because of the absurd English word "person" (which is unarguably a being by etymology and definition) and the silly naive demand to reduce hypostasis to that term.

It's beyond sad, and many are likely lost as I was. Unacceptable. Anathema.

 

[Omniskeptical]

This has been discussed at length. This thread isn't a debate thread. Go through the whole thread or try an anti-Trinitarian thread if you want further discussion over the matter.

You are dodging the issue. Christ was not worshipped in any special way. Only God was. I assume you agree then.