ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

In English, you are saying there is no person without a face, so that IF God appears, He MUST have a face WITH WHICH to appear, for you say: "No face... No appearance..."

Yet face in Greek means mask, hiding the person behind it, and this is a fair description of most of humanity, for we all hide behind our faces to some degree or another, unless we are Saints, where our face IS the reality of the person...

But even taking you at face value (so to speak ), you simply cannot extrapolate this back to God and talk of Him as if He were a fallen flesh and blood sinner like us... Nor even a created Being, as Christ was, because God is UN-created, and there is not inference possible between creation and un-creation... We cannot analogize our way to the Nature/Physis of God from the nature/physis of man, and this is your argument so far here...

You are speaking only of creation, and even this in error, for the flesh itself LOCATES the person in tangible existence, and not MERELY the mask of the face, the prosopon...

It is His BODY of Which we are Members that has such a "location"... The Face is but one feature of that Body...

Yes... Almost... He became a living person HAVING a soul... The soul is the living interface of control by the person over his or her own body... It needs to be trained...

And now your words are all over the place...

The Person is created by God in the womb in the joining of Spirit with flesh and the body begins to be formed there together with the soul... But I do not think this is what you are speaking of...

You are calling the body the face...

The face cannot have the person...

We put on the FACE of Christ?

Christ HAS a human face... That face does not HAVE Christ...

Arsenios

The prosopon is the presence, appearance, face, (outer) person. It's not JUST the face, but the personal presence. The presence of one in sight of another.

The soma and in-reaching sarx are the prosopon, including the face. The face indicates an inner and underlying reality is being presented.

With your narrow application of face for prosopon, you can't recognize it's the outer man. The outer person (prosopon) presenting the inner person (hypostasis).

Face is the focus of appearance for identification, so that's why it's used. The mask includes all outward presentation, including all nuances of physical expression. The entire outer man is represented by the face.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

In English, you are saying there is no person without a face, so that IF God appears, He MUST have a face WITH WHICH to appear, for you say: "No face... No appearance..."

Yet face in Greek means mask, hiding the person behind it, and this is a fair description of most of humanity, for we all hide behind our faces to some degree or another, unless we are Saints, where our face IS the reality of the person...

But even taking you at face value (so to speak ), you simply cannot extrapolate this back to God and talk of Him as if He were a fallen flesh and blood sinner like us... Nor even a created Being, as Christ was, because God is UN-created, and there is not inference possible between creation and un-creation... We cannot analogize our way to the Nature/Physis of God from the nature/physis of man, and this is your argument so far here...

You are speaking only of creation, and even this in error, for the flesh itself LOCATES the person in tangible existence, and not MERELY the mask of the face, the prosopon...

It is His BODY of Which we are Members that has such a "location"... The Face is but one feature of that Body...

Yes... Almost... He became a living person HAVING a soul... The soul is the living interface of control by the person over his or her own body... It needs to be trained...

And now your words are all over the place...

The Person is created by God in the womb in the joining of Spirit with flesh and the body begins to be formed there together with the soul... But I do not think this is what you are speaking of...

You are calling the body the face...

The face cannot have the person...

We put on the FACE of Christ?

Christ HAS a human face... That face does not HAVE Christ...

Arsenios

This is also why you can't comprehend that God is uncreated Self-phenomenon. God is a hypostasis. God shines and appears. That's His transcendent prosopon, and it's not just a face but His presence as Self-conscious Self-existent uncreated phenomenon.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It's much more intricate than that. I do a regular series of 5 2-hour teachings that deal with every facet of this as Ponerology and Hamartiology.

Many can't receive it because they misunderstand why I vehemently reject Augustine's variant of Original Sin. It begins with the definitions of thanatos and hamartia singular/plural and articular/anarthrous, among other things.

It would be a stand-alone thread, and then some.

All due respect to you, I couldn't care less about Augustines theory.

I will address what I see yer understanding of Harmatia to be under yer next quote.

With hamartia coming from the base of ameros, this can't be. A- (no/not) and -meros (share/part) means hamartia (sin) is a missing share or part. It's a noun, and has both articular and anarthrous constructs for both singular and plural.

Hamartia does not come from Ameros.

Ameros is used only once by Paul.

It is referring to Satan's spirit.


Ehesians 2 2
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

I could condense and summarize, but it would only lead to misunderstanding.

I think I gotcha.

But Adam and Eve were created and declared "very good" (tov tov). There was not missing share or part in them at creation.

On the contrary, they were both missing the Spirit of Christ and the faith of Christ.


And God still said it was very good.

Now to get to where you are confused.

Yer rendition if I have you correct is that the spirit controls the soul.

But this is not so.

For our spirits are subject to us the soul.

1 Corinthians 14:32 KJV

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.



Our souls are subject to our flesh body.

Sin entered. Death passed upon all men. Sin didn't pass upon all men.

Sin entered the world through man not Satan.

Satan did not deceive Adam into sinning.

Neither did he make him do it.

In Adam all DIED (not sinned).

The same reason all men died as Adam is the same reason all men sin.

Romans 5:21 KJV

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

The sting of death is sin (not vice versa).

Yes vice versa. Death only has a sting where there is sin.



Romans 5:12 KJV

12 Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned :

Until Augustinian Original Sin is ejected, Hamartiology can't be understood.

No, I think you need to understand that Adams spirit didnt die, but was naturally in agreement with death because it was subject to a soul that God subjected to vanity by creating him flesh.

He was created faithless and quite spiritually dead.


Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

All due respect to you, I couldn't care less about Augustines theory.

That was my point, Bruddah. Uncle Augie was way wrong.

I will address what I see yer understanding of Harmatia to be under yer next quote.

Hamartia does not come from Ameros.

Etymologically, it's the base with hamartia as the derivitive. :guitar:

Ameros is used only once by Paul.

Because he uses hamartia. :cheers:

It is referring to Satan's spirit.

Right. Because Eve heard another rhema for another faith to come. And that brought the spiritual death of cessation of communion for her human spirit. It's a long and somewhat tedious exegesis that isn't easily recognized initially.

Ehesians 2 2
2Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience:

Right. Since Eve, being deceived, was in the transgression.

I think I gotcha.

It would take a dedicated thread or two to actually discuss all of this.

On the contrary, they were both missing the Spirit of Christ and the faith of Christ.

They had communion with God in spiritual life until Eve's sloppy hearing of God's Rhema and her dialectic with ol' snake-breath..

And God still said it was very good.

The most ancient and over-arching meaning for tov is "functional". Ra'a is negation or privation of tov, which is the inherent potentiality of dysfunction that is always in function. No dualism.

Now to get to where you are confused.

Yer rendition if I have you correct is that the spirit controls the soul.

No. Not in the least. But spiritual communion is through the human spirit. That's why spiritual death had to occur before sin could come forth and then be imputed by the law.

But this is not so.

For our spirits are subject to us the soul.

1 Corinthians 14:32 KJV

32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.

Right.

Our souls are subject to our flesh body.

They are now after spiritual death and sin.

Sin entered the world through man not Satan.

Satan did not deceive Adam into sinning.

Neither did he make him do it.

Right. Right. And right.

The same reason all men died as Adam is the same reason all men sin.

Romans 5:21 KJV

Separating spiritual and physical death is crucial. Spiritual before sin could occur, then physical as the wages of sin.

21 That as sin hath reigned unto death, even so might grace reign through righteousness unto eternal life by Jesus Christ our Lord.

Sin reigned unto death, not vice versa.

Yes vice versa. Death only has a sting where there is sin.

Gotta know the definition and application of thanatos.

Romans 5:12 KJV

12 Wherefore , as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned :

Right. Death passed upon all men, not sin.

No, I think you need to understand that Adams spirit didnt die, but was naturally in agreement with death because it was subject to a soul that God subjected to vanity by creating him flesh.

That's definietly a subsequent issue, for sure; but not the onset.

He was created faithless and quite spiritually dead.

He communed with God. That's spiritual life. The spiritual death came by Eve hearing a false rhema; ultimately resulting in sin, which was imputed by the law.

Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

Exactly.


This could be a thread topic. Right now, I'm too busy contending for truth that God is not three hypostases.:cheers:

 

[Arsenios]

The prosopon is the presence, appearance, face, (outer) person. It's not JUST the face, but the personal presence. The presence of one in sight of another.

So we say that a PERSON HAS all these: a presence, an appearance, a face, an outerness which ANOTHER PERSON can behold...

The soma and in-reaching sarx are the prosopon, including the face. The face indicates an inner and underlying reality is being presented.

So the body and flesh ARE the prosopon??? Or is it just the IN-REACHING flesh, whatever that might now turn up to be??? But of course, as all academia already knows besides ME, most assurredly NOT the OUT-REACHING flesh...

The face is the MASK, my brother... It CONCEALS the heart... Only when it makes a mistake does it reveal the heart... Unless you are a Saint in Christ...

With your narrow application of face for prosopon, you can't recognize it's the outer man. The outer person (prosopon) presenting the inner person (hypostasis).

It does not present the inner person...
THAT is the point...
Discipleship begins the process of matching up the inner and the outer...
The prosopon CONCEALS the inner person...

Face is the focus of appearance for identification, so that's why it's used. The mask includes all outward presentation, including all nuances of physical expression. The entire outer man is represented by the face.

It is not the outer man we are concerned with here...

It is the INNER...

The outer, the mask/face/prosopon, is false...

And Pharisitical...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So we say that a PERSON HAS all these: a presence, an appearance, a face, an outerness which ANOTHER PERSON can behold...

This was true before spiritual death and sin onset. Now with sin in the members (and the physis), the prosopon has the hypostasis. That's why we must reckon the prosopon as crucified with Christ by faith, and be translated into hypostatic union with Him.

So the body and flesh ARE the prosopon???

Yep. The outer man.

Or is it just the IN-REACHING flesh, whatever that might now turn up to be???

It means the tangible body's connecting to the intangible inner man. The flesh includes the body and the internal that is determined by the physical senses. Lust of the flesh and lust of the eyes, for instance.

But of course, as all academia already knows

Le-sigh and Grrrr. Nobody else has intutitve spiritual knowledge, according to you. Everything else is academia.

besides ME, most assurredly NOT the OUT-REACHING flesh...

Reciprocal. The flesh exchanges between soma and psuche.

The face is the MASK, my brother... It CONCEALS the heart... Only when it makes a mistake does it reveal the heart... Unless you are a Saint in Christ...

Sorta. For translated Believers, not so much.

It does not present the inner person...

Sure it does.

THAT is the point...

Yes, in the inverse. The only way the hypostasis is free from the prosopon is by faith-based translation.

Discipleship begins the process of matching up the inner and the outer...

No. Of determining the outer by the translated inner.

The prosopon CONCEALS the inner person...

There's a sense of us saying the same thing, but you don't understand hypostatic translation into Christ.

It is not the outer man we are concerned with here...

Arsenios

Sure it is. We work out our salvation with fear and trembling, from the inner man to the outer man.

The inner man is translated. The prosopon is reckoned dead; crucified with Christ.

It is the INNER...

Translated. No sin imputed. Working out salvation, by the faith of the son of God.

The outer, the mask/face/prosopon, is false...

The outer is reckoned dead. Of course it's false. That's why it must be crucified with Christ.

And Pharisitical...

Nope. You don't understand the Gospel fully. The prosopon is dead by faith. NOW.

 

[Arsenios]

So we say that a PERSON HAS all these:
a presence,
an appearance,
a face,
an outer-ness
which ANOTHER PERSON can behold...

This was true before spiritual death and sin onset.

So your view then posits a before and after understanding of man regarding the Fall of Adam... [All do, of course, but the devil is in the details.]

So that BEFORE the Fall, when your "sin onset" and "spiritual death" did not exist, a person had a presence, without an absence... He had an appearance, a certain look, a physical appearance... Indeed, he had then a face that he presented to the world for all the world to see, an outerness that now he does not have...

Now a person has no presence... Because there was this "sin onset" and this thing called "spiritual death", so a person's presence is absent, his appearance has disappered, he is no longer physical, and he no longer has a face which the world sees... He is now purely an inner person, and his outer-ness is gone...

And all this because this is AFTER the Fall, and man suffers from "sin onset" and "spiritual death"...

That is what your words just said, and I do not believe for a New York minute that you believe ANY of this nonsense...

Yet you go on...

Now with sin in the members (and the physis), the prosopon has the hypostasis.

So now, due to spiritual death with sin-onset, there is sin in our toes and nose and elbows and ears, and indeed in our very nature as human beings, yes??? THAT is what you just said... We are riddled with sin... And because of this, our FACE OWNS our person - Our outer appearance is IN POSSESSION of our INNER PERSON... Because our face HAS our person... The PERSON has BECOME a POSSESSION of ITS ATTRIBUTE(s), and indeed the outwardness attributes...

In Orthodoxy, we call this phenomenon "living the image", and regard it as superficial and shallow, but rampant, where there is a public image which most sociopaths carefully tend, and then go on about their evil deeds, which are masked by the public face... What happens for some, however, is that they actually BELIEVE the nonsense of their public image, that this is WHO THEY ARE AS A PERSON... It is pretty rare, and extremely superficial, and is a stage in demonic takeover that is close to possession...

Most folks who behave in this manner are actually very aware of their inward reality as persons... And they continue to hide behind their public masks, their prosopons, their outward appearances...

I mean, if you have a public and outer self-image and it is in possession of your person, then by all means, it needs to be broken... Crucified is your term...

Just as you go on to say...

That's why we must reckon the prosopon as crucified with Christ by faith, and be translated into hypostatic union with Him.

We just call this running into the reality wall... A reality check... It happens all the time, and folks hang on to the fantasy...

Dealing with the reality of that sin takes discipleship in the Church...

OR...

Life Crisis - Cancer, for instance...

or 9/11 on a more social scale...

'Nuff...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

So your view then posits a before and after understanding of man regarding the Fall of Adam... [All do, of course, but the devil is in the details.]

Yep, except the devil part.

So that BEFORE the Fall, when your "sin onset" and "spiritual death" did not exist, a person had a presence, without an absence... He had an appearance, a certain look, a physical appearance... Indeed, he had then a face that he presented to the world for all the world to see, an outerness that now he does not have...

Ummm...Sorta.

Now a person has no presence...

Not even close. Now the prosopon "has" the hypostasis, which is what I clearly said before. (But Believers' hypostases are translated and their prosopa are reckoned dead by faith.)

Because there was this "sin onset" and this thing called "spiritual death", so a person's presence is absent, his appearance has disappered, he is no longer physical, and he no longer has a face which the world sees... He is now purely an inner person, and his outer-ness is gone...

And all this because this is AFTER the Fall, and man suffers from "sin onset" and "spiritual death"...

Uh... How 'bout nope. Buttloads of nope. (A buttload is a liquid volume measure approximately equivalent to 126 US gallons.)

That is what your words just said, and I do not believe for a New York minute that you believe ANY of this nonsense...

Cuz of your parody and caricature.

Yet you go on...

So now, due to spiritual death with sin-onset, there is sin in our toes and nose and elbows and ears, and indeed in our very nature as human beings, yes???

Sin is a missing share or part (hamartia from ameros). It's not a something, but a lack of something.

So... yes. Our members and nature lack the communed character and conduct of God's righteousness because of the spiritual death in which we're conceived.

You don't know what hamartia is, including singular/plural and articular/anarthrous. All nouns, and distinct from hamartema and the verb hamartano.

THAT is what you just said... We are riddled with sin... And because of this, our FACE OWNS our person - Our outer appearance is IN POSSESSION of our INNER PERSON... Because our face HAS our person... The PERSON has BECOME a POSSESSION of ITS ATTRIBUTE(s), and indeed the outwardness attributes...

Again (as always), you can't even begin to comprehend, and must caricature to left-field silliness. It's because you don't know the meanings of words nor overall Hamartiology. But no one else does, either; presuming all sin nouns to be either the verb of sinning or the resulting outward acts.

In Orthodoxy, we call this phenomenon "living the image", and regard it as superficial and shallow, but rampant, where there is a public image which most sociopaths carefully tend, and then go on about their evil deeds, which are masked by the public face... What happens for some, however, is that they actually BELIEVE the nonsense of their public image, that this is WHO THEY ARE AS A PERSON... It is pretty rare, and extremely superficial, and is a stage in demonic takeover that is close to possession...

Yeah, this is a shallow glimpse of how it actually is.

Most folks who behave in this manner are actually very aware of their inward reality as persons... And they continue to hide behind their public masks, their prosopons, their outward appearances...

I mean, if you have a public and outer self-image and it is in possession of your person, then by all means, it needs to be broken... Crucified is your term...

This is a universal need for all mankind. It's called salvation, and it's an ongoing "being".

Just as you go on to say...

We just call this running into the reality wall... A reality check... It happens all the time, and folks hang on to the fantasy...

Totally nebulous and conceptual. Not much there but vague descriptors.

Dealing with the reality of that sin takes discipleship in the Church...

OR...

Life Crisis - Cancer, for instance...

or 9/11 on a more social scale...

'Nuff...

Arsenios

'Nuff is right. This is all silliness and needs lexicography.

You don't understand Believers' translation into Christ and putting off the old man. It isn't some haphazard fumbling park-by-feel excursion. It's our ontological reality IN Christ.

My prosopon is reckoned dead by faith. Crucified with Christ. Nevertheless I live. Not I, but Christ who lives within me.

My old man is dead. I'm a new creature. Working out my salvation from my inner man to the outer man.

I'm in the prosopon of Christ, hypostatically translated. Seated in heavenly places. I'm partaking of God's divine nature.

And much more.:cheers:

 

[Arsenios]

I am going to just start asking questions in your own text that will show you how easily confused I get when I read you.

Now [PRIOR TO CONVERSION? OR DO YOU MEAN AFTER CONVERSIONJ? eg WHICH NOW?] the prosopon "has" the hypostasis, [DOES THIS MEAN THE OUTER PERSON "HAS" THE INNER PERSON? OR THE BODY "HAS" THE SOUL? or THE FACE HAS THE PERSON? or THE SURFACE 'HAS' THE DEPTH OF THE CHARACTER?] which is what I clearly said before.

The outer, you think, has possession of the inner...

(But Believers' [BELIEVERS??? YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED A BASIS FOR THIS TERM, AND YOU THROW IT OUT AS IF IT HAS SOME INTRINSIC MEANING, WHICH ALL YOUR OTHER TERMS DO NOT - eg PROSOPON IS NOT FACE, AND HYPOSTASIS IS NOT PERSON - SO THAT IT IS A SNEAKED-IN TERM] hypostases [OK - SO NOW THE BELIEVER IS NOT THE PERSON BUT "HAS" THE PERSON... AND WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE FUNDAMENTALITY OF HYPOSTASIS? SUDDENLY HYPOSTASIS IS A POSSESSION, RATHER THAN A POSSESSOR.] are translated [AND THIS ONCE UPON A TIME SUBSTANDING, THE HYPOSTASIS, THE PERSON, IS NOW A POSSESSION OF A BELIEVER THAT IS NOT A PERSON, BECAUSE HYPOSTASIS IS PERSON] and their prosopa are reckoned dead by faith. [SO FAITH RECKONS YOUR FACE DEAD - I TELL YA, PPS, THIS IS A CRACKERS UNDERSTANDING - BECAUSE BELIEVERS DO NOT HAVE PERSONS - UNLESS THEY ARE DEMONS AND THE SUBJECT IS A VICTIM OF DEMONIC POSSESSION.)

Buttloads of nope. (A buttload is a liquid volume measure approximately equivalent to 126 US gallons.)

WELL ALRIGHTEETHEN!

Seems about right for THIS conversation...

But I must say...

Ordinarily somewhat excessive I should imagine!

But then, I am not you...

And I must say -

You DO seem to be describing demonic possession OF an HYPOATASIS, eg of a PERSON...

When the essence of personhood is self-possession...

Which CAN be surrendered...

And which demons seek...

And the righteous can restore by casting out the demon(s)...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I am going to just start asking questions in your own text that will show you how easily confused I get when I read you.

Originally Posted by PneumaPsucheSoma
Now [PRIOR TO CONVERSION? OR DO YOU MEAN AFTER CONVERSIONJ? eg WHICH NOW?]

Now after sin entered the cosmos and death has passed upon all man. That's why mankind needs salvation. There's a missing share or part (hamartia) in the members and nature. That's why we AS a hypostasis are translated into Christ, having put on His prosopon as our robe of righteousness.

the prosopon "has" the hypostasis, [DOES THIS MEAN THE OUTER PERSON "HAS" THE INNER PERSON? OR THE BODY "HAS" THE SOUL? or THE FACE HAS THE PERSON? or THE SURFACE 'HAS' THE DEPTH OF THE CHARACTER?] which is what I clearly said before.

Probably closest to the first. The outer person has the inner person because of spiritual death and sin.

The outer, you think, has possession of the inner...

I wouldn't utilize those terms.

But in our patience we're to possess our souls. (Luke 21:19).

(But Believers' [BELIEVERS??? YOU HAVE NOT ESTABLISHED A BASIS FOR THIS TERM, AND YOU THROW IT OUT AS IF IT HAS SOME INTRINSIC MEANING, WHICH ALL YOUR OTHER TERMS DO NOT - eg PROSOPON IS NOT FACE, AND HYPOSTASIS IS NOT PERSON - SO THAT IT IS A SNEAKED-IN TERM]

I haven't "sneaked in" anything. I'm the only one who's posted a copious lexical definition of hypostasis and other terms. You just keep insisting hypostasis = person. It doesn't. It means what it means, not what a derived English term means that is ALWAYS a being. All persons are beings in English. ALL PERSONS ARE BEINGS IN ENGLISH.

And I can assure you the third through seventh century Patristics had NO idea what person meant in English, because English didn't yet exist. Three persons is three beings. In English, it's over. You don't get to have a multi-person being in English.

A Believer is only who has faith in Christ. A Christian. This is not some weird term. It's those who have salvific faith. Believers.

hypostases [OK - SO NOW THE BELIEVER IS NOT THE PERSON BUT "HAS" THE PERSON...

Le Sigh. It's not that difficult. The distinction is between those who have believed and those who haven't believed. When one believes, the hypostasis is translated into Christ; putting on His prosopon. It's literal, not metaphorical. The prosopon is the robe of righteousness, not just another "face". It's the entire outer man, and by faith we put it on and put OFF the old man, reckoning it dead as crucified with Christ.

AND WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE FUNDAMENTALITY OF HYPOSTASIS

Nothing. It still underlies the ousia and its physis while being outwardly represented by the prosopon. But by faith, the power of sin has been broken.

SUDDENLY HYPOSTASIS IS A POSSESSION, RATHER THAN A POSSESSOR.] are translated [AND THIS ONCE UPON A TIME SUBSTANDING, THE HYPOSTASIS, THE PERSON, IS NOW A POSSESSION OF A BELIEVER THAT IS NOT A PERSON, BECAUSE HYPOSTASIS IS PERSON]

You constantly caricature everything I say to your own assertions. That's why you don't understand and it drives you mad to hear me. It's not me, but your wrong understanding.

It wasn't a possessive statement.

The Believer AS a hypostasis (inner person) is translated by faith into hypostatic union with Christ; the prosopon (outer person) reckoned dead and having put on the prosopon (outer person) of Christ as the robe of righteousness.

The prosopon, ousia, and physis are left in the tomb by faith. We're a new creature in Christ. The old has passed away, behold all things have become new.

The hypostasis is translated. By faith, and while we yet physically live. So now we can work out the salvation from the inner man to the outer man, and God's grace is His divine influence upon man's nature.

By this, we can be sanctified wholly, spirit, soul, and body.

and their prosopa are reckoned dead by faith. [SO FAITH RECKONS YOUR FACE DEAD -

THE PROSOPON ISN'T MERELY THE FACE. IT'S THE OUTER PERSON. THE APPEARANCE AND PRESENCE OF EACH HYPOSTASIS IN THE SIGHT OF ANOTHER. IT INCLUDES EVERY PART OF THE BODY, AND THE OUTWARD DEMONSTRATION OF THE HYPOSTASIS AND THE PHYSIS IT UNDERLIES, WITH EVERY NUANCE OF EXPRESSION AND GESTURE AND MOVEMENT AND DEMONSTRATION OF THE INNER PERSON AND THE VERY NATURE OF THE BEING.

PROSOPON IS NOT JUST "Face" or "Mask". Every visible part of man is his outer person, and that includes every demonstrsted inward attribute and characteristic. Every twitch, and every movement is visible and appears for all to see. THAT's the prosopon.

I TELL YA, PPS, THIS IS A CRACKERS UNDERSTANDING - BECAUSE BELIEVERS DO NOT HAVE PERSONS - UNLESS THEY ARE DEMONS AND THE SUBJECT IS A VICTIM OF DEMONIC POSSESSION.)

You don't listen for comprehension because you've made up your mind that Orthodoxy is utterly infallible. So you have to hear everything I say through ears deaf to anything but predetermined notions.

Buttloads of nope. (A buttload is a liquid volume measure approximately equivalent to 126 US gallons.)
WELL ALRIGHTEETHEN!

Seems about right for THIS conversation...

But I must say...

Ordinarily somewhat excessive I should imagine!

But then, I am not you...

It was purely humor to lighten any tension, and was not crude. It's a real term.

A butt is a measure of volume for the wine industry; and it represents 2 hogheads, which are standardized in the US as 63 gallons each. So two would be 126 US gallons as a "butt"load.

A buttload is not to be confused with a boatlad; which, if based upon the largest tanker ship, would be somewhat over 83 million gallons if I recall correctly.

And I must say -

You DO seem to be describing demonic possession OF an HYPOATASIS, eg of a PERSON...

Nope. The sin in the members is the lack that also taints the nature because the ousia is spiritually dead to communion with God; so the only means of outward communion for the hypostasis is the body.

The thought and intent functionalities are the soul, whereas the mind and will are faculties of the human spirit. Thought and intent can only now be according to physical senses; so functionally, the outer person (prosopon) is determining the inner person (hypostasis) which is determining the quality of the nature (physis) of the being (ousia).

Functionally, the WORLD has all mankind from without, rather than us being conjoined to God from within by communion with Him by the human spirit. The human spirit ceased to commune with God when Eve communed with the serpent instead of God. This was spiritual death (cessation of communion with environment of origin), and it inevitably resulted in sin, the wages of which is physical death.

Now all men are conceived in spiritual death and will inevitably sin (hamartano, the verb), and the law will impute that action of commission/omission as sin (singular articular hamartia).

When the essence of personhood is self-possession...

Which CAN be surrendered...

And which demons seek...

And the righteous can restore by casting out the demon(s)...

Arsenios

Only Believers have the promise of possessing their souls, in patience. The world is in possession of Unbelievers. Their very souls by the kingdoms of this world by the physical senses of the outer person that also sculpts the heart and mind from without.

 

[Arsenios]

I had asked "Which now? Before or after conversion? (in your terms, eg before or after one is a believer, I should think.)

And you replied:

Now
after sin entered the cosmos
and death has passed upon all man.
That's why mankind needs salvation.

So you answer to my question is BOTH before AND after conversion, yes?

There's a missing share or part (hamartia) in the members and nature.

THE members? Members are always members OF something... And there are tons of those 'somethings'... In terms of faith, you might be speaking of the members of our bodies, for instance... Our fingers and toes and elbows and nose... So are we missing part of our bodies? AND, you might be speaking of the members of the Body of Christ... And that would mean whole persons [GASP!!! The DREADED WORD you seem to desire to avoid at all costs] Or it might mean members of a gang...

And what does a "missing part of nature" mean? Mother Nature? The nature of creation? The nature of our flesh? The nature of physical matter itself? The nature of dust? The nature of mind?

That's why we AS a hypostasis are translated into Christ, having put on His prosopon as our robe of righteousness.

I do not see the causal link of this sentence with the previous two...

There is no apparent connection between the missing part of nature and hypostatic translation... You have not defined in ostensive terms the word "translation"... I mean, is it a feeling I get to have when I believe? And on and on...

I will leave it here...

The 136 gallons was HUGELY funny, btw...

And I am sure the mods were diving into their dictionaries...

Salvation is a VERY personal matter...

So also is demonic possession...

For you to try to DE-PERSONALIZE either one,
And to objectify the person as some "sub-standing",
Banalizes the Dynamis of God's Grace...
Where is the Power of God active in the Person?
To THAT I can relate...
A worthwhile quest, you see,
To satisfy an overwhelming thirst for God...
But not to some "sub-standing" I supposedly am in your view...

I mean, PPS - Using HYPOSTASIS does have a certain, how can I say, "Je ne sais qua" of mystery, almost an allure, a seductiveness of a word that has no English cognates in its pronounciation...

AND...

You really are avoiding the Greek understanding of this term as "person" as a usable gloss, even though that is how the Greeks translate it... So to take from you the hidden power concealed in its obscurity, how about we both go to a neutral corner with hypostasis, and simply refer to it as a substanding...???

And if a substanding, then who controls it in this fallen life? And how? And why does it matter? And how do I relate to this substanding I have or am? And who is this "I" that I am, that is NOT this substanding, but instead possesses it?

You see, it is questions like these that make the gloss "person" very attractive, because YOU know who YOU ARE, as a person... And if NOT, then there would seem to be a larger problem of finding common ground...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

THE PROSOPON ISN'T MERELY THE FACE. IT'S THE OUTER PERSON. THE APPEARANCE AND PRESENCE OF EACH HYPOSTASIS IN THE SIGHT OF ANOTHER. IT INCLUDES EVERY PART OF THE BODY, AND THE OUTWARD DEMONSTRATION OF THE HYPOSTASIS AND THE PHYSIS IT UNDERLIES, WITH EVERY NUANCE OF EXPRESSION AND GESTURE AND MOVEMENT AND DEMONSTRATION OF THE INNER PERSON AND THE VERY NATURE OF THE BEING.

PROSOPON IS NOT JUST "Face" or "Mask". Every visible part of man is his outer person, and that includes every demonstrsted inward attribute and characteristic. Every twitch, and every movement is visible and appears for all to see. THAT's the prosopon.

Thank-you...

So the prosopon [face] is the visible, physical MOVEMENT of the entirety of the human BODY [soma]...

And your understanding is that this body, taken in its entirety of visible, physical movement, is the EXPRESSION of the hypostasis...

And not just voluntary movement, but involuntary as well, yes?

And not just things done in knowledge, but in ignorance as well, yes?

Even twitches of movement, yes?
An eyelid flutter?
Even a jump-back from a splatter of hot grease?

The PROSOPON, which the Greeks call the face, is the outwardness of the HYPOSTASIS, which the Greeks call the person...

And you are giving this prosopon great power over showing for all to see the nature of the who that is its cause, the HYPOSTASIS, the PHYSIS, the OUSIA, and the last which is your very own term, the INNER PERSON... [no less!]

So that the substanding nature of being is the inner person...

And you do NOT want to call hypostasis PERSON why???

And have you never heard of "masking one's (bodily) movements"??

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I had asked "Which now? Before or after conversion? (in your terms, eg before or after one is a believer, I should think.)

And you replied:

So you answer to my question is BOTH before AND after conversion, yes?

No. After Edenic spiritual death and sin onset for all mankind. After conversion, by faith the prosopon is reckoned dead and the hypostasis is translated into Christ.

THE members? Members are always members OF something... And there are tons of those 'somethings'... In terms of faith, you might be speaking of the members of our bodies, for instance... Our fingers and toes and elbows and nose... So are we missing part of our bodies? AND, you might be speaking of the members of the Body of Christ... And that would mean whole persons [GASP!!! The DREADED WORD you seem to desire to avoid at all costs] Or it might mean members of a gang...

The members as articulated parts of the physical body.

And what does a "missing part of nature" mean? Mother Nature? The nature of creation? The nature of our flesh? The nature of physical matter itself? The nature of dust? The nature of mind?

Hamartia is the missing share or part. What's missing is God's righteousness because of spiritual death. His righteousness can only be intuited by a human spirit in communion with God as Spirit. Thanatos is the cessation of communion with environment of origin.

Sin isn't a something, like a cancer or other addition. It's the missing share of God's righteous standard for character and conduct. That lack of character is in our nature, and that lack of conduct is in our physical members, whether by commission or omission in action.

I do not see the causal link of this sentence with the previous two...

I know.

There is no apparent connection between the missing part of nature and hypostatic translation... You have not defined in ostensive terms the word "translation"... I mean, is it a feeling I get to have when I believe? And on and on...

Do you ever look at scripture and lexicography for terms used?
Members is melos (G3196), from Romans 7, etc.
Translated is methistano (G3179), from Col. 1:13

We are hypostatically translated into Christ.

I will leave it here...

:think:

The 136 gallons was HUGELY funny, btw...

:sheep::rotfl::wazzup:

And I am sure the mods were diving into their dictionaries...

Salvation is a VERY personal matter...

Yep. For the WHOLE MAN... spirit, soul, and body. And we will have glorified bodies, so it isn't about just the hypostasis. Everlasting glorified prosopa.

So also is demonic possession...

Are you intimating I'm demon possessed? :rotfl:

For you to try to DE-PERSONALIZE either one,

I haven't. The person is the hypostasis and prosopon, not either one apart from the other.

And to objectify the person as some "sub-standing",

I haven't. The person is the hypostasis and prosopon, not either one apart from the other.

Banalizes the Dynamis of God's Grace...

I'm the only accounting for grace by definition.

Where is the Power of God active in the Person?

In partaking of the divine nature by being hypostatically translated into Christ by faith.

To THAT I can relate...
A worthwhile quest, you see,
To satisfy an overwhelming thirst for God...
But not to some "sub-standing" I supposedly am in your view...

You have both a hypostasis and prosopon, just as all persons do. I'm not the one who doesn't understand what a prospon is or what a person is; or uncreated phenomenality and noumenality and the created sempiternity of heaven and the cosmos.

I mean, PPS - Using HYPOSTASIS does have a certain, how can I say, "Je ne sais qua" of mystery, almost an allure, a seductiveness of a word that has no English cognates in its pronounciation...

It's the underlying foundational substantial objective reality as subsistence for existence. When outwardly presented by a prosopon, there is a PERSON. Without a prosopon, there's no hypostasis. Without a hypostasis, there's no prosopon. There must be an underlying reality for the prosopon, and a prosopon must have an underlying reality.

AND...

You really are avoiding the Greek understanding of this term as "person" as a usable gloss, even though that is how the Greeks translate it... So to take from you the hidden power concealed in its obscurity, how about we both go to a neutral corner with hypostasis, and simply refer to it as a substanding...???

As long as I know what you're referring to, I don't care. I'd call it the foundational inner person for the superficial outer person, or something like that.

And if a substanding, then who controls it in this fallen life?

Satan, through all he has in humans in/of/by his kingdom/s of this world. The body, through its senses, has tainted the soul, thereby tainting the hypostasis which underlies and determines the quality of the physis, thus tainting the nature with sin. Thus, by nature and by physical action, mankind misses the mark of God's righteousness as our inner and outer standard for both character and conduct.

That's what salvation is for. To translate us into the kingdom of God's dear Son.

And how? And why does it matter? And how do I relate to this substanding I have or am? And who is this "I" that I am, that is NOT this substanding, but instead possesses it?

We are either possessed by God or Satan. No man can serve two masters.

You see, it is questions like these that make the gloss "person" very attractive, because YOU know who YOU ARE, as a person... And if NOT, then there would seem to be a larger problem of finding common ground...

Arsenios

If the Patristics hadn't multiplied the term to quantify qualitative distinctions, it would be fine. Now it's jacked up. St. Basil did as much damage as he did good in this regard.

And the person is comprised of both hypostasis and prosopon.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thank-you...

So the prosopon [face] is the visible, physical MOVEMENT of the entirety of the human BODY [soma]...

Every aspect of presence and appearance, whether moving or motionless.

And your understanding is that this body, taken in its entirety of visible, physical movement, is the EXPRESSION of the hypostasis...

And stillness. It's the outer man. The outer person. Not just the "face".

And not just voluntary movement, but involuntary as well, yes?

And not just things done in knowledge, but in ignorance as well, yes?

Even twitches of movement, yes?
An eyelid flutter?
Even a jump-back from a splatter of hot grease?

Yep.

The PROSOPON, which the Greeks call the face, is the outwardness of the HYPOSTASIS, which the Greeks call the person...

Yep. The outer person. The hypostasis is the inner person.

And you are giving this prosopon great power over showing for all to see the nature of the who that is its cause, the HYPOSTASIS, the PHYSIS, the OUSIA, and the last which is your very own term, the INNER PERSON... [no less!]

Nope. In the fallen state, the prosopon has sin in the members of the physical body, and has sewn that inward into the nature. All because of spiritual death.

So that the substanding nature of being is the inner person...

And you do NOT want to call hypostasis PERSON why???

Because God isn't three of them, and a hypostasis isn't a person without a prosopon.

And have you never heard of "masking one's (bodily) movements"??

Arsenios

That's still the false prosopon.

 

[Arsenios]

I think we are making progress...
The translation process is nearing completion...
So let me make sure I have it aright...

The person, in your view, is an hypostasis with a prosopon...
And in non-technical language, this means an inner person and an outer person...

The inner person is the basis for the outer person...

The inner person that the world calls soul, you call hypostasis...
The outer person that the world calls body, you call prosopon...

And the body in your view means the physical body...
So that without a physical body, there is no person...

Which would seem to mean that God BECAME a Person when Christ incarnated, and not a New York minute before... Because without carnal presence, personhood does not exist... It is the presence of the flesh body that gives the inner person it personhood... For you they are ALWAYS found together... If not, we have a corpse and a dis-carnate soul, neither of which are persons...

And God the Father is not a Person, nor is the Holy Spirit, and not the pre-incarnate Logos, but only Jesus when He became man... THAT was when God became a person... It takes flesh to be a person... Visibility to others... Where even a twitch and a sniffle are visible to all...

And mankind is each and every mother's son and daughter a PERSON, because they each have an invisible soul, and a visible body, and both are corrupted because of sin, and need translation into Christ to escape this corruption, which translation is done when one becomes a Believer in Christ...

Have I got it so far?

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

I think we are making progress...

No. Now you've digressed, having somehow forgotten the majority of everything I've said in your quest to retain and inflate your caricatures of what I say.

The translation process is nearing completion...

No, you've misconstrued all I've recently said.

So let me make sure I have it aright...

No, because you want to assign your immediate perceptions instead of listening.

The person, in your view, is an hypostasis with a prosopon...

Technically, since all persons are beings in English, there would be no designating anything less than the whole man as a person. I've just been attempting to get you to understand that neither hypostasis nor prosopon are a stand-alone term for person.

And in non-technical language, this means an inner person and an outer person...

Yes.

The inner person is the basis for the outer person...

Of course.

The inner person that the world calls soul, you call hypostasis...

More precisely... The soul is the hypostasis and the functionalities of mind and will faculties of the spirit (ousia/physis) and the emotion desire faculties of the prosopon (soma/sarx).

The outer person that the world calls body, you call prosopon...

And the sarx, which conjoins the body and soul.

And the body in your view means the physical body...

For men, yes. For the uncreated God and created angels, no. That would be ridiculous and Mormonistic.

So that without a physical body, there is no person...

For man, there has never been a hypostasis without a prosopon. Can you give any examples of one without the other?

Which would seem to mean that God BECAME a Person when Christ incarnated, and not a New York minute before...

And here is where you've conflated my recent comments about human persons with all I've said overall. I've made extensive posts to illustrate the contrary. The context of our recent convo was in regsrd to the human hypostasis and prosopon.

The eternal Logos processed from the Father as the eternal Son. The Father having a transcendent (and in-shining) prosopon, with the Son having His own distinct prosopon; then taking on a human nature to Incarnate in the schema of a servant.

The Son had a prosopon prior to the Incarnation. It wan't physical as a human body.

Because without carnal presence, personhood does not exist...

I've never mentioned the word carnal. I've consistently referred to non-physical prosopa. The Father. The Son. Angels. None are physical.

It is the presence of the flesh body that gives the inner person it personhood...

This is just a ludicrous deduction from my recent posts on the human prosopon.

For you they are ALWAYS found together...

Hypostasis and prosopon are always found together, including ousia and physis. Can you give me an example of any that are exceptions?

If not, we have a corpse and a dis-carnate soul, neither of which are persons...

For humans, yes. The body without the spirit is dead.

And God the Father is not a Person,

Ummm... The Father is a hypostasis and prosopon (and an ousia and physis), the latter in-shining from transcendence into immanent creation. It's the unapproachable light He dwells in.

nor is the Holy Spirit,

The Holy Spirit is co-inherent with the processed Son, sharing that prosopon in sempiternity. Same hypostasis, ousia, and physis as both the Father and Son.

and not the pre-incarnate Logos,

The pre-Incarnate Son has a prosopon. Same hypostasis, ousia, and physis as both the Father and Holy Spirit.

but only Jesus when He became man...

No. And these kinds of 2D parodies are exactly why the English term person is so insufficient and absurd.

THAT was when God became a person...

Nope, and there's that despicable term again. No other term in human history is so horrifically pathetic. Multiplying and anthropomorphizing God in man's image.

It takes flesh to be a person...

Nope.

Visibility to others...

Yes, but with phaino never requiring beholders or beholding. That's why God is uncreated phenomenon and noumenon, and it's why you make nominal 2D caricatures of a 3D God.

Where even a twitch and a sniffle are visible to all...

For humans and physical prosopoa, yes. For non-physical beings, no. And God doesn't likely twitch, and assuredly doesn't sniffle.

And mankind is each and every mother's son and daughter a PERSON, because they each have an invisible soul, and a visible body, and both are corrupted because of sin, and need translation into Christ to escape this corruption, which translation is done when one becomes a Believer in Christ...

This at least sounds close, but I'm leary of even responding after you utilizing the recent context of human prosopa as physical to ignore the volumes I've said overall.

Have I got it so far?

Arsenios

Not within a parsec of a light year.

 

[TFTn5280]

The eternal Logos processed from the Father as the eternal Son. The Father having a transcendent (and in-shining) prosopon, with the Son having His own distinct prosopon; then taking on a human nature to Incarnate in the schema of a servant.

This is in no way a gotcha. I have been reading your discussion with interest and have gained insight from both of you. It strikes me, PPS, when all is said and done, that you have removed yourself but a few steps from Cappadocian orthodoxy (not implying this in itself is a bad thing). You attribute distinct eternal prosopons to the Father and the Son, while holding to a common hypostasis (step one), and understand the Holy Spirit as the perichoretic between the two prosopons (step two). Correct me if I have misunderstood. My question: does the Holy Spirit have a distinct prosopon as well? I would say no, but am interested in your response.

EDIT: I see you answer that question below. I'll have to digest that.

A second question: you say the eternal Logos processed (step 3) from the Father as the Son eternally; orthodoxy says the Father eternally generates the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ~ and in later history, the Son as well: Will you further clarify this distinction between yourself and orthodoxy?

I'll shrink back again for now.

 

[Arsenios]

I've just been attempting to get you to understand that neither hypostasis nor prosopon are a stand-alone term for person.

And this because in fallen mankind we can ONLY see the prosopon, and the prosopon is ALWAYS false, because it is what our Calvinist friends would call our "sin nature", yes? We are all very visible to each other via our sins...

So what I am looking for here is your beef with the English term 'person' - You seem to see it as a term that means the 'being' part of a 'human being'... Which term includes ALL the attributes which the person has... Inward and outward... So that person can mean superficial and/or profound, inward and/or outward, etc... And hence is too broad for your technical analysis, for the very good reason that these are not fundamental but instead are consequential attributions, yes?

And yet is this not to be expected, as we work our way through the layers of our person-hood to get down to the core? Is it not to be expected that we become that which we do? Is this not the reason why it is that what we do is so important? Not that there are worldly consequences, even though there are, and they can be important, but instead because there are personal consequences in who we become?

And is this working down through the layers of the self the very essence, in discipleship in Christ, of repentance and bearing our own cross?

So that with regard to the human person, yes, in the west, the term is flawed, yet there is no other term. And it is not the term that causes the problems, because in Orthodox Christian cultures, the same issues arise, even though in those cultures, the term hypostasis, which we like to think of as the fundamental meaning of person, means the superficial person as well... But the term hypostasis signals that there is something DEEP to this superficial socio-cultural and personal woundedness we call a person in the west...

So that your running from the term, thinking that the Greek ACTUALLY means INNER person, the one deep under all the layers of 'outer personality' which the west calls person, is vain... It will not help you...

You would perhaps do better to use person and personality for hypostasis and prosopon... eg the inner person and his or her outer personality...

The core of the matter, that your technical use of the term hypostasis bypasses without the needed engagement, is that the person as you understand it with the Greek term needs to be discovered... That repentance and the cross are the tools of its discovery... That it is hidden under the layers of the personality that form the prosopon of the person to the world...

And you are right - I thought you were discussing the nature of hypostasis and prosopon, and not just the nature of their occurrence in human beings... And it was not making sense, as I showed you... Sorry for the irritation I caused you in that showing...

So what happens when a person dies and loses the body? Do we then have an hypostasis without a prosopon?

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is in no way a gotcha.

That's why the Patristics missed one thing, and then it all cascaded into subtle, but appropriate, compensations for that omission. They didn't understand and represent uncreated and created phenomenon and noumenon, or quantitative versus qualitative, or the clear distinction between eternal and everlasting with God creating heaven along with the cosmos.

I have been reading your discussion with interest and have gained insight from both of you. It strikes me, PPS, when all is said and done, that you have removed yourself but a few steps from Cappadocian orthodoxy (not implying this in itself is a bad thing).

Exactly true. And in that process, I've meticulously avoided every anathema while reconciling them all in the same manner.

You attribute distinct eternal prosopons to the Father and the Son, while holding to a common hypostasis (step one), and understand the Holy Spirit as the perichoretic between the two prosopons (step two).

There's another layer to this, but this is very close. I'm careful to insist it is NOT Binitarianism. The Father's inherent prosopon is transcendant; while the Logos processed as the Son has a post-utterance prosopon that is immanent; uncreated noumenality becoming phenomenality in accord with created phenomenality.

Correct me if I have misunderstood. My question: does the Holy Spirit have a distinct prosopon as well? I would say no, but am interested in your response.

No. The Holy Spirit is co-inherent with the processed Son and with the Father.

The Holy Spirit is the uncreated noumenologicality pierced and divided asunder (merismos is distribution via ekporeuomai/para/pempo, NOT separation) from His uncreated phenomenologicality AS Spirit. AS Self-phenomenal Spirit, by His own Logos He set apart the Self-noumenon of Himself into creation. This is the perichoretic between the Father and the Son, interpenetrating God and His processed Logos; also providing the perichoresis for the Body of Christ as individual prosopa (and us thus becoming the collective/aggregate sempiternal prosopon for the Holy Spirit, conjoining us all IN Christ with whom the Holy Spirit co-inheres.

EDIT: I see you answer that question below. I'll have to digest that.

It's a point of understanding uncreated and created phenomenon/a and noumenon/a. God alone is eternal, and He created everlasting (sempiternal) heaven and the cosmos. God wasn't IN an eternal heaven and then crested the cosmos. There is no eternity past. And everlasting doesn't extend in arrears. It had an inception at creation, and the timeless God interfaces with all forms of time while pervading all creation.

He's nowhere because He's everywhere. He's nowhen because He's everywhen. No historical 2D formulaic has been able to even come close to the 3D reality of God. The Gnostics tried and failed. The Sophists all tried and failed. Every Esoteric discipline has tried and failed. The closest is some Christian formulaic of non-Filioque Subordinationist Trinity or Binity variant, or some modified "de-modalized" form of Sabellianism; neither of which can represent the Multi-Phenomenality of God.

A second question: you say the eternal Logos processed (step 3) from the Father as the Son eternally; orthodoxy says the Father eternally generates the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father ~ and in later history, the Son as well: Will you further clarify this distinction between yourself and orthodoxy?

I'm fine with the overall terminology of non-Filioque Trinitarian expression, but clarifying that the Logos and Pneuma were not quantitatively individuated hypostases, but qualitative distinctions of/in the singular hypostasis.

The Holy Spirit is God's own Spirit. The Logos is God's own Logos. When and as God spoke and breathed forth His Word (exerchomai/heko/apostello) and His Breath (ekporeuomai/para/pempo), they co-inherently proceeded forth/proceedeth into creation when/as He expressed and exhaled them. At this divine utterance, all creation was instantiated into existence (Ex Nihilo).

God is uncreated, and both Self-phenomenological (Self-existent) and Self-noumenological (Self-conscious) AS Spirit. His Logos is thus also both Self-phenomenal and Self-noumenal, and by it He eternally has exhaustive and unabridged intuitive and experiential knowledge of Himself as His Logos (intelligent thought, etc.) is focused intently and entirely (pros accusative) upon/toward His Rhema (the content and substance as subject matter; the thing thought and spoken about).

Since there is no thing (nothing) else but God, and His hypostasis underlies all of Himself as His foundational objective reality of Self-conscious Self-existence; His Rhema IS His hypostasis. So the Logos is the speaking forth of His Self-phaino and Self-noema AS the Son. This speaking forth is accompanied by the breathing forth of His Pneuma. God as Self-phenomenal and Self-noumenal Spirit thrusts the Rhema sword as the Logos to pierce and divide asunder His noumenality of Spirit to set it apart from His phenomenality of Spirit.

Since the noumenality is alongside (para) the phenomenality, the procession is ekporeuomai, and from the Father alone. It's the Logos that pierces and distributes, but the procession is not Filioque (and the Son). And THE Holy Spirit is the perichoresis for the Self-phenomenal eternal Logos to proceed forth as the Self-noumenal Son in creation. The noumenality of the set apart (Hagios - Holy) Spirit inheres with God's inherent phenomenality, thereby providing the perichoresis between the Logos and the processed Logos as the Son with the Father. And the Father's phenomenality co-processes with the exhalation of His noumenality as the Holy Spirit, His transcendent prosopon in-shining as unapproachable light in which He dwells.

This intrinsic co-inherence is how the Father has real and distinct presence in immanent creation without being constrained to any properties of where, when, or what as creation. He is beyond and more than multi-omni, while the processed Logos Pneuma as Son and Holy Spirit are multi-omni according to any constraining creation properties. God is beyond omnipresence, since no "where" OR "when" can confine Him. Yet the Son and Holy Spirit are multi-omni within the expanse of sempiternal heaven and the cosmos (including the temporal earth ages).

God is both transcendent (beyond creation) and immanent (within creation). But He retains His transcendant properties of Self-existence and Self-consciousness while tenting in sempiternity as His everlasting abode.

Within His eternal Logos, all creation was noumenon as potentiality of existence. His Logos of His Rhema is what perpetually gives all creation its phenomena as actuality of existence after being instantiated into such reality at the divine utterance.

I'll shrink back again for now.

You're spot-on about the Holy Spirit as the perichoretic.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

And this because in fallen mankind we can ONLY see the prosopon, and the prosopon is ALWAYS false,

Yes; well said.:drum:

because it is what our Calvinist friends would call our "sin nature", yes? We are all very visible to each other via our sins...

Indeed.:sheep:

So what I am looking for here is your beef with the English term 'person' - You seem to see it as a term that means the 'being' part of a 'human being'...

That's why I prefer the irreducible Greek hypostasis. In English, there's no means of distinguishing person from being, so my "beef" is actually the opposite of what you infer. And the damage is that many English speakers have a tritheistic conceptual understanding of the Trinity as three beings rather than one. I was lost for 28 years for just this very reason, but thinking I was believing in the one true God. My heart had never believed. It was all assent, and I was deceived.

So my "beef" with the English term person is because virtually every professing Trinitarian I meet is either a functional Tritheist, Binitarian, Arian, Semi-Arian, Sabellian, Semi-Sabellian, Unitarian, or Adoptionist, etc. Few, some, many, most are devoid of salvific faith; but it's most often impossible to discern or distinguish.

Which term includes ALL the attributes which the person has... Inward and outward... So that person can mean superficial and/or profound, inward and/or outward, etc... And hence is too broad for your technical analysis, for the very good reason that these are not fundamental but instead are consequential attributions, yes?

No. I know the minutiae and interaction of hypostasis, ousia, physis, prosopon, and pneuma, psuche, soma. My "beef" is that so exceedingly few others know those distinctions and believe in their hearts that God is three beings without even being aware of it.

And yet is this not to be expected, as we work our way through the layers of our person-hood to get down to the core? Is it not to be expected that we become that which we do? Is this not the reason why it is that what we do is so important? Not that there are worldly consequences, even though there are, and they can be important, but instead because there are personal consequences in who we become?

YES, YES, YES. A thousand times YES! And believing God is functionally three beings is a device of Satan perpetrated through the low-context English language.

And is this working down through the layers of the self the very essence, in discipleship in Christ, of repentance and bearing our own cross?

Again, YES!

So that with regard to the human person, yes, in the west, the term is flawed, yet there is no other term.

Which is why I despise it and arduously teach the irreducible Greek term hypostasis. And it's life-changing for others.

And it is not the term that causes the problems, because in Orthodox Christian cultures, the same issues arise, even though in those cultures, the term hypostasis, which we like to think of as the fundamental meaning of person, means the superficial person as well... But the term hypostasis signals that there is something DEEP to this superficial socio-cultural and personal woundedness we call a person in the west...

YES! You're on an epic roll here. You of all people should understand my utter disdain for the English term person in the West.

So that your running from the term, thinking that the Greek ACTUALLY means INNER person, the one deep under all the layers of 'outer personality' which the west calls person, is vain... It will not help you...

I simply utilize and exhaustively teach hypostasis. I only have to use other descriptors with you and others. Those whom I disciple understand its meaning and usage; and they know God is one transcendent hypostasis, with the Son being the express image OF that hypostasis. They understand the uncreated Self-phenomenon and Self-noumenon of God, and the created sempiternity of heaven and the cosmos contrasted with God as eternity, and with temporality as the fallen earth ages (aions) of the sempiternal (aionios) cosmos.

You would perhaps do better to use person and personality for hypostasis and prosopon... eg the inner person and his or her outer personality...

I've considered that combo and several others. It works best to jist teach the Greek terms in exhaustive lexical detail with illustrations.

The core of the matter, that your technical use of the term hypostasis bypasses without the needed engagement, is that the person as you understand it with the Greek term needs to be discovered... That repentance and the cross are the tools of its discovery... That it is hidden under the layers of the personality that form the prosopon of the person to the world...

YES a thousand more times!

And you are right - I thought you were discussing the nature of hypostasis and prosopon, and not just the nature of their occurrence in human beings... And it was not making sense, as I showed you... Sorry for the irritation I caused you in that showing...

No issue since you've realized it. I truly value you as a Brother beyond most I've known.

So what happens when a person dies and loses the body? Do we then have an hypostasis without a prosopon?

Arsenios

For Believers, their hypostases have a prosopon. It's the prosopon of Christ they've put on when hypostatically translated; until redemption of the purchased possession, to whit the resurrection of the body to be glorified and then clothed upon with immortality and incorruptibility.

Since chronology is within the fallen cosmos, there's no duration of time that elapses for the departed unregenerate until judgment, whereupon they are in their own prosopa in the enopion presence of God for all everlasting. Experiencing the love and presence of God is torment for them as they're in outer darkness with no perceptive sight. Everlasting spiritual death as no communion with God. "Before" Him, but not IN Christ.

The afterlife is an intense exegetical teaching, and it reflects the ancient Orthodox understanding straight from lexicography.