ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

God as God has but one mind and one will and one ousia...

YES! (Though you've vacillated on this. I can find posts with you insisting the contrary.)

Christ God in His Hypostasis has an adopted human nature and human will, so now, by condescension and incarnation, Christ is man AND God... But He is the only one... The Father did not become man, nor did the Holy Spirit... Those two did not become man...

YES!

But the interesting kicker, from your pov, is that the one Hypostasis that Christ is HAS two wills, two minds, etc etc... Hence two ousia...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Caricature and parody. Assigned. Projected. I've never remotely even hinted of such a thing. Eeker sneakers.

That's Hyper-Nestorianism or sumptink. Run. And kill that thought with FIRE.

I do have a little question for you on the previous post, because I questioned the term "essential being" and you thought I was grand-standing for the crowd...

Not really.

Truth is, I am almost astonished when someone joins in - I only talk to you...

That's a new and interesting piece of info.:chuckle: We should Skype.

But the question is this, and it relates to your desire to make this understanding you have communicable in a general and koine way... And you said "essential being"... What are the Greek words for the two components of this term, and what would be a "non-essential being" that made it important for you to specify this particular kind of being?

Well.. It's fairly "essential" to exist for "beings". :chuckle::chuckle:

I seriously do, btw, get delerified in your vocabularics...

I know. But when you deny God is uncreated phenomenological and noumenological Self-conscious Self-existence, it denies God's inherent transcendent prosopon; and it makes it impossible for you to comprehend what I'm saying so you can reject it. Tee-hee.

My efforts are to show you how that works when I try to make sense of your terminology...

Arsenios

:chuckle::chew:

 

[Arsenios]

But the interesting kicker, from your pov, is this:
That the one Hypostasis that Christ IS...
HAS two wills, two minds, etc etc...
Hence Christ has two ousia...
One Divine...
AND...
One human...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

Caricature and parody.
Assigned.
Projected. I've never remotely even hinted of such a thing. Eeker sneakers.

That's Hyper-Nestorianism or sumptink.
Run.
And kill that thought
with FIRE.

IF we can penetrate the WHY NOT of my observation
and your ever so gentle de-nile,
we MIGHT get through
either my thick skull
or your error...

SO....

Does Christ NOT have a human ousia?

Is THAT your understanding?

Do you somehow think that His Ousia HAS Christ?

So that Christ is but ONE Ousia,

Rather than HAVING Divine AND human ousias?

And which gloss are you using for ousia?

Being or essence?

Because I am using 'being' and understand it as an aggregate of properties...
Which is its Greek meaning...
It means wealth...
And it means strength...

You think mind plus will = hypostasis, I believe...

And the Fathers understand Hypostasis as the foundation of both...

eg That will and mind are DERIVED properties...

That WHO a person IS...

DETERMINES mind and will...

Back at ya!

WHY do you deny two ousias to the Person/Hypostasis of Christ?

Was Christ not FULLY man?

Was He not FULLY God?

Granted, they don't mix...

But they DID co-inhere in one Person...

Once upon a single and only time, mind you...

Can you spell M-Y-S-T-E-R-Y ???


Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

So after a grandstanding comment,
I went and looked at the thread,
and it currently stands at 104,200 views...

Next closest is about half that...

That's a lot...

Jes' sayin'...

Arsenios

 

[God's Truth]

So after a grandstanding comment,
I went and looked at the thread,
and it currently stands at 104,200 views...

Next closest is about half that...

That's a lot...

Jes' sayin'...

Arsenios

Arsenios,

This thread was started just about four year ago. Of course, a thread started that long ago is going to have many views.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

This is you speaking as a Christian??
Arsenios

If a person must speak to rebuke somebody, I think I can safely answer yes.

Intimidation won't help you...

Name calling won't help you...

Insults won't help you...

Telling me what to do with my mouth won't help you...

These were truthful warnings meant to help you.

I am willing to die right here where I am...

I believe you are.

This tells me you haven't died to self nor have you been quickened.

Let go of yer carnal religion and call upon the Lord.

Killing me will not help you...

Really?...........

James 5:20 KJV

20 Let him know , that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.

Being my friend will help...

You do not seem to desire to do so...

God bless you 1n1...

Friends dont let friends drive drunk.

Want me to get you a gun, or a knife, or a blowtorch?

Why? I have a sword.


Exodus 32:27 KJV

27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.


Ephesians 6:17 KJV

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:



Hebrews 4:12 KJV

12 For the word of God is quick , and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

I just don't back off from Truth...

And you jumped me ugly when I refuted PPS's post...

I already answered this.

 

[Arsenios]

If a person must speak to rebuke somebody, I think I can safely answer yes.




These were truthful warnings meant to help you.




I believe you are.

This tells me you haven't died to self nor have you been quickened.

Let go of yer carnal religion and call upon the Lord.




Really?...........

James 5:20 KJV

20 Let him know , that he which converteth the sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul from death, and shall hide a multitude of sins.





Friends dont let friends drive drunk.





Why? I have a sword.


Exodus 32:27 KJV

27 And he said unto them, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, and go in and out from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.


Ephesians 6:17 KJV

17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:



Hebrews 4:12 KJV

12 For the word of God is quick , and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.





I already answered this.

1n1, welcome back, and thank you for your response...

fwiw, I am willing to die anywhere my feet are (or are not) touching the earth...
And this because I am already dead... A
nd death in earthly terms means nothing to me...
And God means everything...

Straight up...

Eye to eye...

I am your friend...

And I hope some day you will become mine...

Mean time, we get to disagree!

We are on TOL!

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Friends dont let friends drive drunk.

I ain't drinkin'...

Were YOU???

A.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

I ain't drinkin'...

Were YOU???

A.

Everyday........:chuckle:

1 Corinthians 12:13 KJV

13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Sorry Arsenios.

But you are still found here.

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither * yet now are ye able .

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith , I * am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but * ministers by whom ye believed , even as the Lord gave to every man?



What's more is yer church fathers were the false teachers and wolves Peter and Paul prophesied of.

So if it was wrong to call oneself a follower of truthful ministers gifted by God, where does that leave you?

Can you say, drunk with the world?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

IF we can penetrate the WHY NOT of my observation
and your ever so gentle de-nile,
we MIGHT get through
either my thick skull
or your error...

:jump:

SO....

Does Christ NOT have a human ousia?

Is THAT your understanding?

Do you somehow think that His Ousia HAS Christ?

So that Christ is but ONE Ousia,

Rather than HAVING Divine AND human ousias?

I've generally maintained the understanding that the eternal Son took on a human physis for His singular hypostasis and ousia (Dyophysitic Chalcedonian Christology).

But I've been revisiting all of that of late, for I'm confident there is a concise intuitive expression that supercedes all historical assertions. That's why I've wanted to discuss procession, along with hypostatic union and communicato idiomatum, etc.

And which gloss are you using for ousia?

Being or essence?

Because I am using 'being' and understand it as an aggregate of properties...
Which is its Greek meaning...
It means wealth...
And it means strength...

No need for a dichotomy. Ousia is clearly both, for one would have to BE for there to BE an aggregate of properties. They're co-inherent.

You think mind plus will = hypostasis, I believe...

Noper dopers.

The mind and will are faculties of the human spirit, relative to the physis of the ousia. The functionalities of the mind and will (and emotion and desire relative to the sarx/soma as the prosopon) are relative to the hypostasis.

The nous is the intuiting faculty of the physis, adjacent to and integrated with the boulema.

And the Fathers understand Hypostasis as the foundation of both...

Agreed.

eg That will and mind are DERIVED properties...

I'm very interested in what you precisely mean by "derived" and "properties". Please delineate.

That WHO a person IS...

DETERMINES mind and will...

Absolutely. The quality of the hypostasis determines the quality of the physis (wherein is the mind and will).

Back at ya!

WHY do you deny two ousias to the Person/Hypostasis of Christ?

I neither deny nor affirm at this point. I'm reconciling. Historically, the hypostatic union has been that the Son hypostasized and took on a human physis for His singular hypostasis and ousia.

But since God has only one mind and will relative to the physis of His ousia, the (alleged) multiple hypostases wouldn't each have a mind and will. So Jesus would not have had two inherent minds during the Incarnation.

Was Christ not FULLY man?

Was He not FULLY God?

Yes, absolutely.

Granted, they don't mix...

But they DID co-inhere in one Person...

Indeed.

Once upon a single and only time, mind you...

Can you spell M-Y-S-T-E-R-Y ???

Arsenios

Yeppers. Mystery. And I can also spell musterion. Same-same.

:jump:

 

[Arsenios]

Sorry Arsenios.

But you are still found here.

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither * yet now are ye able .

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith , I * am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but * ministers by whom ye believed , even as the Lord gave to every man?

Then if this is how you see me, God bless you, and then simply address me as if I were a child who does not know any better... Who needs it explained to him or her...

And not as an enemy to be stopped cold and intimidated into your point of view... I don't intimidate, and I don't blink, and I don't bully...

And more to the point, I do care, and I care a lot...

I know the sound of bullets wanting my name on them...

And more, I know the Lord...

You are not the only one on TOL to have had a Divine encounter...
Sorry Arsenios.

But you are still found here.

1 And I, brethren, could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal, even as unto babes in Christ.

2 I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither * yet now are ye able .

3 For ye are yet carnal: for whereas there is among you envying, and strife, and divisions, are ye not carnal, and walk as men?

4 For while one saith , I * am of Paul; and another, I am of Apollos; are ye not carnal?

5 Who then is Paul, and who is Apollos, but * ministers by whom ye believed , even as the Lord gave to every man?

What's more is yer church fathers were the false teachers and wolves Peter and Paul prophesied of.

You do not know our Church's Fathers, nor have you read them...

The only priests you have known are those of the apostate Latin Church, and of those, I think you have encountered some pretty evil ones - They have had more than their share in the last 50 years or so...

The prophesy of Paul was of SOME false teachers and wolves to come after he departed... He did not prophesy for the whole Church to turn away from God... So here is my question for you: WHERE is ALL the rest of the Church whom these FEW SOME did NOT bring to destruction?

You see, it is an easy matter to point a finger at evil, but if it ends up turning out that ALL except one's self and one's pals are evil, and you spend your time telling them how evil they are, instead of attending to the issues of your own salvation, then you will BECOME the wolf and the false teacher...

Christ did not fail... The Faith of Christ can still be found in His Body, the Church... And this regardless of HOW apostate Rome has or has not become...

So if it was wrong to call oneself a follower of truthful ministers gifted by God, where does that leave you?

It was not wrong, because God is with us even unto the end of the Age... And the more so beyond... He did not leave us bereft of Himself in His Body from generation to generation...

You are simply mistaken in your worldly view of the Body of our Lord...

Can you say, drunk with the world?

You are the only one drinkin' every day...

I dun' tol' ya...

I ain't drinkin'...

Not y'er whiskey...

An' not the world's...

An' y'er whiskey IS the world's...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

:jump:

Oh calm down!

I've generally maintained the understanding that the eternal Son took on a human physis for His singular hypostasis and ousia (Dyophysitic Chalcedonian Christology).

So you have maintained:
1 - Took on A human nature??

[As in He took on SOME particular human nature?? eg ANY ol' human nature would have done OK?? A sort of RANDOM SELECTION?? I am giving you this as a tutorial, because you are not speaking precisely, and the WAY you ARE speaking gives rise to these kinds of questions... And it gets worse:]

2 - FOR His singular hypostasis and ousia? ???FOR??? As in "for the sake of"??? And are you saying that He did this for His singular Hypostases only, but not for any of the other multiple ones He might or might not otherwise have in His possession??? Why else would you modify hypostasis with singular?? Or do you perhaps mean that He took on human nature WITHIN His Person/Hypostasis, AND that this Hypostasis is the ONLY Hypostasis that He IS???

3 - So He took on human nature AND ousia??? Or He took on human nature FOR His ousia? Or IN His Ousia???

See how quickly muddled it all becomes in your strings of linkages?

You need to speak simply and clearly, that's all... And by now, I think you are getting that 12 volume definitions won't help either...

But I've been revisiting all of that of late,

:jump: There IS a God! :jump:

for I'm confident there is a concise intuitive expression that supercedes all historical assertions. That's why I've wanted to discuss procession, along with hypostatic union and communicato idiomatum, etc.

Christian Holy Tradition is the movement of the Holy Spirit in HISTORY since Christ...
And why are you NOW introducing some LATIN incommunicadimundum into this conversation???
The Holy Spirit is not all that confused in History, you know...

He is quite clear, you know...

No need for a dichotomy. Ousia is clearly both, for one would have to BE for there to BE an aggregate of properties. They're co-inherent.

ESSENCE is the property that defines the BEING, and is differentiated from ACCIDENTS that are NOT of the ESSENCE of the BEING...

So HOW are YOU wanting to use the term OUSIA?

The mind and will are faculties of the human spirit, relative to the physis of the ousia.

No help... RELATIVE FACULTIES??? That means everything because it means nothing... You need to think and speak in terms of etiological hierarchies, and you are flat out horizontal here moving in myriad horizonalities without explicit verticalities... For a three dimension braggadocionatto, this is quite shocking!

The functionalities of the mind and will (and emotion and desire relative to the sarx/soma as the prosopon) are relative to the hypostasis.

Blasee horizontalities again...

The nous is the intuiting faculty of the physis, adjacent to and integrated with the boulema.

False...

I'm very interested in what you precisely mean by "derived" and "properties". Please delineate.

Etiologically vertical integration...

I neither deny nor affirm at this point. I'm reconciling. Historically, the hypostatic union has been that the Son hypostasized and took on a human physis for His singular hypostasis and ousia.

Nobody Hypostacizes...

But since God has only one mind and will relative to the physis of His ousia, the (alleged) multiple hypostases wouldn't each have a mind and will. So Jesus would not have had two inherent minds during the Incarnation.

Right - And that is crackers... A carnal inference... Based on human observation... Because that is true of fallen humanity...

Jesus clearly DID have TWO minds during the incarnation... One adopted by means of the condescension of His Hypostatic kenosis in His being birthed by the Blessed virgin, and the other by the very Nature [physis - a two-headed term] of His Hypostasis,

Arsenios

 

[Jedidiah]

The reason
that we confess the Procession of the Holy Spirit out of the Father,
and the Begottenness of the Son from the Father,
is because
we also confess, in the same Nicene Creed,

"One God, The Father Almighty,
Maker of Heaven and earth,
and of all things visible and invisible..."


We confess One God,
And His Son Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior,
And His Holy Spirit as Lord and Giver of Life...

Procession is not a term of movement away from and toward,
but of manner of Origin,
and the Father is the One God out of Whom both His Son and His Spirit have their Source......

And the Son is the One God.
And the Spirit is the One God.​

...They are all Three equal in Power,
several in Person,
and One as God......

They are Three, equal in every way, excepting that the Son is generated or begotten of the Father, and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and from the Son. Other than these and only these distinctions, They are equal.​

...This understanding is obviously NOT a human enterprise
designed by men
to establish a logically non-contradictory and systematic
account of the God-Head......

It is obviously not human, very true; and agreed. The Trinity is a metaphysical ("meta-" meaning "beyond," as you know, originated by the editors and compilers of Aristotle) fact/reality. The metaphysical by its nature cannot originate with humanity because we are strictly physical...witness our sciences, which implicitly deny the existence of the metaphysical, even though all science depends upon metaphysical things like logic and math.

The Trinity manifests Himself quite physically, which, along with other metaphysical things, shows that "metaphysical" does not mean "not physical," but "beyond physical;" that it is something we cannot ascertain or apprehend mentally, like physicality squared, or some other impossibly difficult to envision or imagine thing. The metaphysical manifests physically, but not like how a rock manifests physically, the whole rock being present for all kinds of physical analysis, the rock being a sort of "closed system," easy to investigate and study, with known and definite physical boundaries.

The metaphysical doesn't have known and definite physical boundaries, but it is logical, and that is, non-contradictory. I always cringe when I hear someone say that any given situation is illogical when what they mean is, they can't mentally apprehend it; they can't express it in the right words, or understand it. Because whatever is the case, cannot be, by definition, illogical; it cannot be self-contradictory or else it would not be.​

...It is instead as much as God has deemed fit to reveal to us......

I believe He has deemed fit to reveal everything. We are unfit to apprehend Him...physically, as we are physical. Our brains don't work that way, at that level of complication. Too many terms raised to too high a power. Scientists talk about theories with 11 dimensions rather than the common view of three spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension; and I think the Trinity, metaphysically, is something like this or equally or even more complex than these scientific theories trying to explain just the physical universe...apart from the metaphysical, which is assumed to not exist...even though science depends upon it....​

...We are THE Faith that worships One God in Three Persons...

The rest are perhaps far more 'humanly' "logical"...

Our confession is foolishness to the world...

And we are scorned by lovers of human logicality...


Arsenios

What I don't know is, will we be able to mentally apprehend Him in glory ? I actually doubt that our souls, even in our new bodies, will be any better able to grasp the metaphysical reality of our Creator than we are able to now...but that's strictly an opinion. The words we use to describe Him now, are very modest, and they leave a lot of room for interpolation and extrapolation, of which we are wise to avoid.

:e4e:​

 

[Arsenios]

And the Son is the One God.
And the Spirit is the One God.​

Yes...

They are Three, equal in every way, excepting that the Son is generated or begotten of the Father,​

This is where great precision is needed... To make the distinction you are about to make in the second half of your sentence, you must say that the Son is generated by being begotten of the Father...

and that the Spirit proceeds from the Father

Full stop... The Holy Spirit is generated by Procession from the Father...

Can you see this? The one by Generation, the other by Procession, both of the Father...

and from the Son.

We DENY that the Holy Spirit has His Origin, eg is generated, by any Procession from the Son...

Other than these and only these distinctions, They are equal.

Insofar as they are all God, they are equal in every respect... Insofar as they are Persons, we do not know, because it has not been further revealed by God...

It is obviously not human, very true; and agreed.​

It is a strange way to argue it, but true nonetheless... NO human would EVER argue Trinitarian Doctrine from human logic... It confounds such logic, and almost proves WHY God is apprehended by Faith in purity of heart instead of human logic... Human logic is its own discipline, and is needed for discipleship and for dealing with the world, but the ascent to God is only made when words and concepts and all of the rest of fallen human paraphernalia are set aside and we become turned toward God [pros ton Theon, from John 1] alone... The CALL of God TO us, otoh, comes when we are NOT so turned, and the turning is done FOR us BY God... And we then spend the rest of our lives learning, as fallen souls in a fallen creation, to renounce the world and RE-TURN toward God in an intimacy that is likened in Scripture to Marriage...

The Trinity is a metaphysical ("meta-" meaning "beyond," as you know, originated by the editors and compilers of Aristotle) fact/reality. The metaphysical by its nature cannot originate with humanity because we are strictly physical...witness our sciences, which implicitly deny the existence of the metaphysical, even though all science depends upon metaphysical things like logic and math.

Were you trained by a Jesuit? The metaphysical actually CAN be originated and addressed by fallen man, as Aristotle himself did do... But he did not meet God... We are not sure who Socrates talked with, and we love Heraclitus, who first used Logos as the fundamental metaphysical principle of existence and change, whose Logos became understood not as an impersonal principle, but an active Person, in the Gospel of John... In China, Christ is called the Eternal Tao, as in Tao Te Ching...

And the reason for our being able to do this is because we ARE NOT merely physical, but are ALSO THINKERS... And you simply cannot physicalize thinking, even though you CAN think physically... So that thinking itself is meta-physical... It is beyond physics, even though having a physical locus in the fallen person's body...

The Trinity manifests Himself quite physically, which, along with other metaphysical things, shows that "metaphysical" does not mean "not physical," but "beyond physical;" that it is something we cannot ascertain or apprehend mentally, like physicality squared, or some other impossibly difficult to envision or imagine thing. The metaphysical manifests physically, but not like how a rock manifests physically, the whole rock being present for all kinds of physical analysis, the rock being a sort of "closed system," easy to investigate and study, with known and definite physical boundaries.

I like how you think, but would move the bar you have set, because of the janus-faced nature of human mentation after the Fall, for it can turn toward the immaterial God, and it can turn toward fallen creation, and its fallen life depends on its being turned in some degree toward fallen creation, or it will experience death, and it is within this need that all have sinned, because all that is not OF GOD is sin...

The metaphysical doesn't have known and definite physical boundaries, but it is logical, and that is, non-contradictory. I always cringe when I hear someone say that any given situation is illogical when what they mean is, they can't mentally apprehend it; they can't express it in the right words, or understand it. Because whatever is the case, cannot be, by definition, illogical; it cannot be self-contradictory or else it would not be.

Yes...
And beyond this meta realm
which is both beyond and governs the physical,
is God
Who created it all...
Who is able to become incarnate of a virgin...
And to rise from the dead...

I believe He has deemed fit to reveal everything.[/quote]

Never... Now we see but in part, in an earnest, as Paul writes...

We are unfit to apprehend Him...physically, as we are physical. Our brains don't work that way, at that level of complication. Too many terms raised to too high a power. Scientists talk about theories with 11 dimensions rather than the common view of three spacial dimensions and 1 time dimension; and I think the Trinity, metaphysically, is something like this or equally or even more complex than these scientific theories trying to explain just the physical universe...apart from the metaphysical, which is assumed to not exist...even though science depends upon it....

Well, if you understand the Trinity as beyond the meta of metaphysical, you won't err much... Meta also, btw, means WITH...

What I don't know is, will we be able to mentally apprehend Him in glory ?[/quote]

Mentally??? Noetically, we can and do, insofar as we are able, which in part means according to the purity of our hearts, which is a function of our repenting and being united in Christ etc etc...

Intellectually, He is not apprehendable...

Which is:

The fundamental flaw of Scholasticism and Reformationis neo-Scholasticism...

I actually doubt that our souls, even in our new bodies, will be any better able to grasp the metaphysical reality of our Creator than we are able to now...but that's strictly an opinion. The words we use to describe Him now, are very modest, and they leave a lot of room for interpolation and extrapolation, of which we are wise to avoid.

The Mystery is ENTERED in purity of heart in renunciation of this fallen creation by Baptism into the DEATH of Christ on the cross...

The WORDS are but boundary markers showing the edges that will, if you go beyond them, will take you OUT of the Mystery into Which you have entered at Baptism into the Body of Christ...

Paul reported the third heaven, "...whether in the body or out of the body, I know not, God knows..." Christ appeared to the disciples on the Road to Emmaneus, and disappeared... So did Philip with the Ethopian eunuch... And so we do not know, for Paul reported that he "saw" things of which it is "unlawful to speak"... He did not say incomprehensible... Of these things, we remain silent if we have seen them, and the more so if we have not... I am a more-so...

:e4e:

Back at ya!

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Oh calm down!

I cannot contain the unspeakable joy in conversing with you, my Bruddah. :rapture:

So you have maintained:
1 - Took on A human nature??

[As in He took on SOME particular human nature?? eg ANY ol' human nature would have done OK?? A sort of RANDOM SELECTION?? I am giving you this as a tutorial, because you are not speaking precisely, and the WAY you ARE speaking gives rise to these kinds of questions... And it gets worse:]

Think Greek anarthrous, not English indefinite article. The quality, character, and activity of the noun.:luigi:

2 - FOR His singular hypostasis and ousia? ???FOR??? As in "for the sake of"??? And are you saying that He did this for His singular Hypostases only, but not for any of the other multiple ones He might or might not otherwise have in His possession??? Why else would you modify hypostasis with singular?? Or do you perhaps mean that He took on human nature WITHIN His Person/Hypostasis, AND that this Hypostasis is the ONLY Hypostasis that He IS???

Within. The rest was to designate at least the Latin and Western insistence that the Incarnate Christ was one hypostasis and one ousia with both a human and divine physis.

I've never stringently adhered to that, but have been content to confess it until recently in considering other things prompted by the Spirit.

3 - So He took on human nature AND ousia??? Or He took on human nature FOR His ousia? Or IN His Ousia???

Within.

See how quickly muddled it all becomes in your strings of linkages?

No. But I'll acquiesce to the pedanticism since it really does have importance.

You need to speak simply and clearly, that's all... And by now, I think you are getting that 12 volume definitions won't help either...

Yes, and sure they do. No false binaries for me. Both are vital in their roles for usage and understanding.

:jump: There IS a God! :jump:

Double calm down for you, Bruddah. It won't be an Orthodox congruency in the end, because God isn't three hypostases and IS uncreated Self-Phenomenon and Self-Noumenon. (At some point in another thread, you agreed/insisted that the Logos/Son was phenomenological and noumenological.)

Christian Holy Tradition is the movement of the Holy Spirit in HISTORY since Christ...

Yep.

And why are you NOW introducing some LATIN incommunicadimundum into this conversation???

It's a component in later Christological considerations. I've been discussing it with a local Lutheran Pastor friend.

The Holy Spirit is not all that confused in History, you know...

He is quite clear, you know...

The Holy Spirit is not a third of three quantified hypostases, though.

ESSENCE is the property that defines the BEING, and is differentiated from ACCIDENTS that are NOT of the ESSENCE of the BEING...

Okay, right.

So HOW are YOU wanting to use the term OUSIA?

To make sure I'm communicating with you on your terms, please define "accidents" so I can precisely answer.

No help... RELATIVE FACULTIES??? That means everything because it means nothing... You need to think and speak in terms of etiological hierarchies, and you are flat out horizontal here moving in myriad horizonalities without explicit verticalities... For a three dimension braggadocionatto, this is quite shocking!

"Within" probably works better for you. Relative was simple equating with source or placement, etc.

The mind and will are faculties within the physis of the ousia, while the hypostasis engages in and exhibits the inner qualities, characteristics, and activity as the functionalities of those faculties (all outwardly demonstrated by the prosopon).

Blasee horizontalities again...

Not really. You just require a narrow range of expression according to all your own parody and caricature. I'm always having to adjust because you can't and/or won't.

False...

Noper dopers. It's very nature of every sentient volitional being to have mind and will faculties, whether rational or not.

Etiologically vertical integration...

Again, not really. Often the distinction is as that between Greek articular and anarthrous.

Nobody Hypostacizes...

Many have referred to the Incarnation with that term. I didn't coin it, but repeated it.

Right - And that is crackers... A carnal inference... Based on human observation... Because that is true of fallen humanity...

Noper dopers, again. Lexicography points to it strongly, as does intuitive (oida) knowledge of the Spirit.

Jesus clearly DID have TWO minds during the incarnation...

Read more carefully, please. I said He didn't have two INHERENT minds, relative to His hypostasis. The divine mind was that within the singular divine ousia that is God. Even in the false multi-hypostatic formulaic, the alleged second hypostasis (the Son) didn't have one of three physes; so the singular mind of God was not directly within the Son.

So the one inherent mind within the Son during the Incarnation was human; and in total obedience to, and in perfect communion with, God.

One adopted by means of the condescension of His Hypostatic kenosis in His being birthed by the Blessed virgin, and the other by the very Nature [physis - a two-headed term] of His Hypostasis,

Arsenios

Nope. His hypostasis didn't have a second of three divine natures or minds.

This is functional Tritheism. Not cool. And this is why all the anathema-proponents balk, and rightly so.

Eek.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

So the one inherent mind within the Son during the Incarnation was human; and in total obedience to, and in perfect communion with, God.

There's that cheat sheet I mentioned awhile back.

Excellent.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

Who's got the beat?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Rhythm, Rhyme and Harmony.

I believe

 

[patrick jane]

Who's got the beat?

Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

I believe

the Go Go's - they got the beat

 

[patrick jane]

Curtis Mayfield - Pusherman

 

[patrick jane]

I ain't drinkin'...

Were YOU???

A.

perhaps you have had too much wine (pride), and PPS has had twice as much. you two SHOULD skype, get in touch. with each other, because you both have gone too far. Let EVERYONE KNOW when you're both finished DEFINING GOD in ANY Language. ridiculous - :rapture: