ECT Our triune God

[Arsenios]

Okay:

Introduction to my interpretation.
I take the chapter literally and like to organize it in the form of a play with scenes and dialogue.

Setting: A place (possibly a super-natural realm) where the super-natural God might hold a literal trial in regards to the final judgement of the angels - specifically Satan and his rebellious followers. There is no jury and there are no lawyers. Only the ONE true creator and judge of all creation is presiding.

Scene one: Satan stands before God Almighty defending himself. His line of defense is to accuse others for the situation. He begins with a line of questions to God and then ends with a couple of statements. (BTW, my KJV does not make some of these sound like questions, but I know that there were no punctuation marks in the original text and it is obvious to me from the context that most of these are questions to God.)

Dialogue begins in verse 2: Satan is speaking before God - his judge.

How long will you (God) judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? (being the descendants of rebellious Adam)

(How long will you God) defend the poor and fatherless? (being those who have been sent from the Garden to the earth separated from YOU):

(How long will you God) do justice to the afflicted and needy(being those subjected to mortality and to toiling the ground to feed and clothe themselves by their own sweat)

(How long will you God) deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked? (IOW, possibly meaning HIS taking up of those human persons when they are in difficulty even among themselves due to their sinful wicked nature)

They (the pitiful damaged persons descending from Adam) know not, neither will they understand: (because) they walk on in darkness (being clueless and ignorant).

All the foundations of the earth are out of course (because of humanity/Adam)


Scene 2: God is the center of this scene and HE abruptly interrupts Satan giving HIS response to what has been said and then HIS decision for Satan's judgement.

Dialogue begins verse 6: God reveals his equal and unbiased love for angels and humans and shows that HE is a fair judge.

I (God Almighty) have said, "Ye (Satan and angelic beings) are gods; and all of you (both angels and humanity) are children of (MINE) the most High.


Vs.7 God pronounces judgement upon the rebellious angels.

BUT ye (angelic beings now before ME on trial) shall die LIKE MEN, and fall like one of the princes (IOW, meet the same fate as even the highest ranking among earthly human beings. I believe the "same fate experience" is described in the Book of Revelation as the second death and the lake of fire).


Vs. 8 God identifies the ONE who will one day be the judge of angels and men at the time of the second death. Key words are highlighted for clarification.

Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou (are the ONE who) shalt inherit all nations.

Interpretation of the ONE who will come to deliver equal judgement upon the angels and men:
It will be come who comes as LORD to arise from the dead ... and ultimately return bring about the final judgement for sin and rebellion and inherit all the nations.

It would help if you identified the translation you are using, and gave the translation whole, or set it apart somehow from your commentary...

I use Christ's translation from John 10:34, which is taken from the LXX of Psalm 81, even if the Alexandrian Greek is a little hard to translate for us Koine/Demotic types...

Satan is not mentioned in the text by name... I had taken 2-8 as all being words uttered by God to the gods...

Where He accuses and then condemns...

And I think the chiastic structure of the Psalm comes into play...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

There is more going on in the old testament than first meets the eye.

:thumb:

:thumb:

I would only add, and in the New Testament as well...

And in the grocery store...

And the bar...

And in everywhere and during everywhen...

And unto the ages of ages...

Arsenios

 

[Ps82]

It would help if you identified the translation you are using, and gave the translation whole, or set it apart somehow from your commentary...

I use Christ's translation from John 10:34, which is taken from the LXX of Psalm 81, even if the Alexandrian Greek is a little hard to translate for us Koine/Demotic types...

Satan is not mentioned in the text by name... I had taken 2-8 as all being words uttered by God to the gods...

Where He accuses and then condemns...

And I think the chiastic structure of the Psalm comes into play...

Arsenios

Me thinks you think too much. I use the KJV... but mostly I rely on the content of many parts of scripture to determine my interpretations.

Now you wanted to hear my interpretation and now you quibble that I have added my interpretations within the exact text - which BTW are mostly set apart with italics and parentheses. I guess I could go back and color code every word of my interpretations if you wish.

BTW ... I quoted all of the exact words of Ps 82 except for the first verse. Would typing out the first verse be of help?

So, I'm assuming, you now want me to address the interpretation of John 10:34. Well, I will see what I can do in a separate post ... but right now I'll try to address a point or two from this post.

quote Arsenios:

Satan is not mentioned in the text by name...

I know Satan is not mentioned by name ... but who does scripture is clearly the accuser of mankind. In Ps. 82 the defense Satan gave was to accused mankind of being the one who messed up the whole world and of being the one that is clueless and of being a pitiful fatherless creation.

I hope you noticed that Satan also accused God of being an unjust judge because it seems that God continued to show kindness to mankind even though mankind had been subjected to affliction. I'm sure you know from Gen. 3 exactly the affliction to which mankind was afflicted because of the sin of one man (male/female) Adam.

quote Arsenios:

I had taken 2-8 as all being words uttered by God to the gods...
Where He accuses and then condemns...

God's words begin in verses 7-8 ... where HE responses to the one who is speaking to HIM.

Verse one says:
God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

God is the Judge (and as Abraham said - He is a just judge of all the world). I believe that the "mighty" and the "gods" are the angelic beings ... which match what is said in Genesis 3:4,5

And the serpent (Satan) said unto the woman, "Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat, thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods (angelic beings), knowing good and evil.

The ONE defending himself by accusing mankind of being at fault and of being more guilty than himself ... that same ONE accuses God of being a judge who judges unjustly in this matter ... This ONE is the one on trial. HE is an angelic being among the other "mighty gods" present at this trial.

HE is Satan, who originally tempted or tricked female mankind to disobey God.

God is a just and fair judge ... all rebellious angels and humanity will meet the same fate.

Mankind has already been judged to the first death of physical mortality ... but Satan was about to learn that he was also tied to the fate of mankind in some way.

Death is the way they will face the same death ... but Satan is not a mortal and cannot face physical death ... so there must be a second death. The book of Revelation describes that second death clearly as the time when angelic beings and lost humanity will all go into the Lake of Fire.

"Persons saved by Christ will only have to face the first death ... with some having the promise that in the future they will be simply transformed in the twinkling of an eye.

 

[Ps82]

Hello Arsenios

John 10:34-37 KJV
Love love love these verses! Remember Jesus is speaking.

quote:
34 Jesus answered them. "Is it not written in your law, I said, 'Ye are gods?' "

My ANS. Yes, the "gods" are mentioned in Gen. 3, Ps 82, and probably other places and the ONE God did mean "gods" for angelic beings. These "gods" were present on the day of the trial and the final pronouncement of judgement that is recorded in Ps 82.

BUT there was another ONE there ... God was there ... and God proclaimed that God himself would ARISE and judge and inherit the nations ... all things were made by HIM and for HIM ... and glory goes to him as the ONE who arose. I pretty sure that everyone here knows the identity of the God who arose.

quote:
35 If he called them gods: unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken:

My ANS: Yes, yes, yes... the gods were there at the trial and they heard the WORD of God concerning their fate ... and his word written in scripture will not be broken!

quote:
36 Say ye(IOW,those who are making accusations) of him (who was also there), whom (was the ONE) the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, ' Thou (oh sent ONE) blasphemest:' because I (being the ONE sent) said, I am the son of God?

My interpretation in my own words ... of what I believe Jesus was saying:
You accusers know scripture ... there was a time when God spoke of and to the "god's-angelic beings" and scripture is sound and unbreakable.

Do you dare question the ONE that God sanctified on the day he judged among the "gods / angels?"
Do you dare question the ONE that was revealed to the angels who was set aside on that day to be sent into the world ... ( on a mission to "Arise, OH God ... to judge and inherit the nations ... etc.Ps 82:8)

Do you dare say to my face that I blaspheme when I tell you I AM ... the promised Son of God?"

37 If i do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Well, Jesus performed works/miracles that only God could accomplish ... and he did arise from the death as he was commanded in Ps 82:8.

What is meant by The Father is in me and I in him? Jesus means that the Father and the Son are the ONE God ...

We can't deny what God said about himself in Isaiah 43:11
I (the ONE God), even I, am the LORD. Beside ME (as God and LORD) there is no Savior.

The ONE spoken of in Ps 82:8 is our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.
The second person included in the trinity concept ... is God appearing in flesh and identified as Jesus the Son.

At no time had any human being seen God, appearing in flesh as his own begotten Son, until John the Baptist proclaimed his arrival. My version of John 1:18

 

[patrick jane]

Hello Arsenios

John 10:34-37 KJV
Love love love these verses! Remember Jesus is speaking.

quote:
34 Jesus answered them. "Is it not written in your law, I said, 'Ye are gods?' "

My ANS. Yes, the "gods" are mentioned in Gen. 3, Ps 82, and probably other places and the ONE God did mean "gods" for angelic beings. These "gods" were present on the day of the trial and the final pronouncement of judgement that is recorded in Ps 82.

BUT there was another ONE there ... God was there ... and God proclaimed that God himself would ARISE and judge and inherit the nations ... all things were made by HIM and for HIM ... and glory goes to him as the ONE who arose. I pretty sure that everyone here knows the identity of the God who arose.

quote:
35 If he called them gods: unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken:

My ANS: Yes, yes, yes... the gods were there at the trial and they heard the WORD of God concerning their fate ... and his word written in scripture will not be broken!

quote:
36 Say ye(IOW,those who are making accusations) of him (who was also there), whom (was the ONE) the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, ' Thou (oh sent ONE) blasphemest:' because I (being the ONE sent) said, I am the son of God?

My interpretation in my own words ... of what I believe Jesus was saying:
You accusers know scripture ... there was a time when God spoke of and to the "god's-angelic beings" and scripture is sound and unbreakable.

Do you dare question the ONE that God sanctified on the day he judged among the "gods / angels?"
Do you dare question the ONE that was revealed to the angels who was set aside on that day to be sent into the world ... ( on a mission to "Arise, OH God ... to judge and inherit the nations ... etc.Ps 82:8)

Do you dare say to my face that I blaspheme when I tell you I AM ... the promised Son of God?"

37 If i do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works; that ye may know, and believe that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Well, Jesus performed works/miracles that only God could accomplish ... and he did arise from the death as he was commanded in Ps 82:8.

What is meant by The Father is in me and I in him? Jesus means that the Father and the Son are the ONE God ...

We can't deny what God said about himself in Isaiah 43:11
I (the ONE God), even I, am the LORD. Beside ME (as God and LORD) there is no Savior.

The ONE spoken of in Ps 82:8 is our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ.
The second person included in the trinity concept ... is God appearing in flesh and identified as Jesus the Son.

At no time had any human being seen God, appearing in flesh as his own begotten Son, until John the Baptist proclaimed his arrival. My version of John 1:18

good post - :rapture:

 

[Ps82]

good post - :rapture:

Thank you. It is so nice to find people interested in what I have to say. I am also currently writing on a thread about The image of God. I would love for you to check out my interpretations and give me your perspective. God bless.

 

[patrick jane]

Thank you. It is so nice to find people interested in what I have to say. I am also currently writing on a thread about The image of God. I would love for you to check out my interpretations and give me your perspective. God bless.

most interpretations state Jesus - John 10:34-36 NIV and Psalm 82 referred to earthly rulers and judges of Israel, representing God's judgement on earth - your interpretation is interesting -

 

[Ps82]

most interpretations state Jesus - John 10:34-36 NIV and Psalm 82 referred to earthly rulers and judges of Israel, representing God's judgement on earth - your interpretation is interesting -

I am aware of those opinions ... but if you read mine ... it fits a lot of other scripture. Therefore, I accept that it is scripture that interprets the clear meaning of other scripture.

I would not mind discussing any point about which you might have a question.

One problem .. I soon will be away from TOL for around two weeks ... life calls. It has been fun to be back after so long.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

It was that "instantiation" of creation through [as in 'by means of'] the proceeding forth of both the Son and the Holy Spirit, that makes this question viable... Such that if, by their ontological origination they both "proceed" from the Father, and this "proceeding" only occurs at the "instantiation" of creation, then they both, prior to that instant, were NOT... So it would fall to Arius' error...

NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!
NO!

THIS...

...is why I've virtuallly begged you to understand what I've said for months instead of constantly and continuously caricaturing and paralleling it to what you wrongly presume in every respect.

It is beyond your baseline of false understanding.

You insist God isn't Self-Conscious and Self-Existent. You insist God isn't uncreated Self-Phenomenon and Self-Noumenon. Instead you attempt to evaluate those truths by some other criteria; and in that process, make declarations that don't represent what I've said but what you've said.

God is BOTH uncreated and eternal Self-Phenomenon AND Self-Noumenon. So you can't apply your limited perspective from a menial Uni-Phenomenal perception in utter caricature.

Analogously, you've said that from a sheet of paper standpoint, there can be no box. It's absurd. You don't have any comprehension of God's Self-Phenomenality and Self-Noumenality because YOU DENY THEM in favor of nebulous presumed mystery.

This is like you saying no cars have steering wheels and seats; but when someone presents a car with a steering wheel and seats, you pronounce that it's not a car. It's your understanding that is exponentially lacking.

Because it is not only the Holy Spirit, in PPS's account, but the Son as well, who proceeds from the Father as His means of Divine origination...

There are times when the Scriptures are silent,
that we too should discover and love silence...

Amazing how you go on and on and on and on, but when we hit the wall of your understanding the double standard kicks in about silence.

We are flat out NOT going to define our way into understanding the Trinity...

Then the Orthodox and everyone since should have just idled their minds and shut their mouths. Seriously? How can you have defined and defined and defined and defined and defined and defined and defined and defined and defined and defined, and now say this about defining. Arrrrggggghhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Such that IF the ontological (not ekonomic) procession of the Holy Spirit IS indeed "coterminus" with creation

IT'S NOT!!!! I've never said the Holy Spirit was coterminous with creation.

The internal Logos and external Son are coterminous. That's the only use I've made of the term.... EVER!!

as the means of temporal interface, then it has a beginning and and end, and if so, He, the Holy Spirit, is not timeless...

For you to even say this after months of conversation just proves you're not listening to hear, but to speak. And now you employ the term temporal for heaven which you've insisted is created, then uncreated, then both created and uncreated.

THE HOLY SPIRIT IS TIMELESS, WITH NO BEGINNING AND NO END. I've said it incessantly and consistently. LISTEN!!!!

But instead originates, doubtless in some "unoriginate" fashon, with creation and time...

OH, GOOD GRIEF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

NO!!!!

So I expect some world-class center ring conceptual juggling to be coming forth from the darkened wings of stage left shortly...

No. You have no intention of even attempting to understand. Only to misrepresent and caricature and project and parallel.

I love Psalm 82...

1 God stood in the Assembly of gods...
In the midst of gods He is judging...

6 "I have said: 'Gods ye are, and all sons of the Most High...'

7 Yet you are perishing as (fallen) mankind...
As one of the(ir) princes are you falling..."

Humility is hard to fake...
And sons of the Most High are falling...

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth:
for thou shalt inherit all nations.

Arsenios

Yeah... If only you knew what that all meant.

That pretty much sums it all up, I should think...

You outline the Kingdom of Heaven in copious detail...

I struggle...

All of which proves that there ISADOG!!

BECAUSE...

The Kingdom of God is not conceptualized...

It is ENTERED...

In great struggle...

1Cor 4:9-16
For I think that God hath set forth us the apostles last, as it were appointed to death: for we are made a spectacle unto the world, and to angels, and to men.
We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day.
I write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved sons I warn you.
For though ye have ten thousand instructors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers: for in Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the gospel.
Wherefore I beseech you, be ye followers of me.

Arsenios

Yeah... I've struggled with it for 17 years and have entered it.

There you have the suscinctitude of the difference...

I am unable to give a better summary...

As you can see, the Devil is in the details...

Arsenios

Yeah... Nobody else could have a greater understanding.

In ekonomia, you are right, and indeed, are presupposed, in order that they even could proceed from the Father INTO creation at its instantiation...

But this is not ekonomia, but ontologia...

A good try, but what I am referring to is the not-time prior to creation... The instant of creation did not bring the Son and the Holy Spirit into existence/being,

DUH!!

as PPS has been arguing,

NO!!!!

Stop assigning my position based on your nominal perspective.

because if it did, then neither can be eternal, but only cotemporaneus with creation... That was the point, if I got it right, of AMR's question...

It likely was, and I haven't yet answered. So.... Without understanding what I've said for months and months, you proceed to answer him FOR me from your nominal perspective.

Time is a function, a measurement, of creation... Anterior to time, is only the timelessness, which you call eternity, of God... Such that PRIOR to time is ONLY timelessness, and NOT ETERNAL TIME...

DUH!!

Actually, that was PPS's difficulty... The ontological procession of the Holy Spirit is timeless, as is the ontological begottenness of the Son... But PPS insists that BOTH proceed ontologically from the Father...

SO THAT...

IF...

This ontological dual procession occurs AT THE INSTANT of the big BANG into existence of Creation, then THAT is their ontological instantiation as well... BECAUSE it is ontological, and not merely ekonomic...

Arsenios

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!

God AS Spirit AND His Logos are BOTH eternally uncreated Self-Phenomenon AND Self-Noumenon.

YOU DON't KNOW WHAT THIS MEANS BECAUSE YOU DENY IT in favor of alleged mystery.

You cannot caricature a Multi-Phenomenal understanding to a meager and menial Uni-Phenomenal pseudo-understanding.

SIGH!!!!

 

[patrick jane]

PPS, what's your take on Psalm 82 ?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

How does the Son have a prosopon, yet God is uni-hypostatic?

Multi-Phenomenality; and God is uncreated eternal Self-Phenomenon and Self-Noumenon.

Can I assume you hold that the Holy Spirit is a Person?

Though this may seem evasive or obfuscational, it's not. The term hypostasis is irreducible. Since in English ALL persons are beings, there can be no multi-person beings; and three persons would be three beings.

No, the Holy Spirit is not an individuated hypostasis, just as the Son is not. Multi-Hypostaticism has supplanted Multi-Phenomenality for God's singular hypostasis.

In relation to the creation of heaven and procession of the Spirit, how do you contrast ad intra from ad extra?

Ad intra and ad extra are Latin terms to compensate for the omission of Multi-Phenomenality. Ad intra is a "band-aid", like perichoresis applied to alleged multiple hypostases.

Is your position that the procession of the Spirit coterminous with creation

The procession (ekporeuomai/para/pempo) of the Holy Spirit is not coterminous with creation. It was concurrent.

It is the internal Logos that is coterminous with the external Son.

as some means of interfacing with temporality?

AMR

No. Temporality here in no way represents anything I've said.

I am NOT representing a created Son or Holy Spirit.

It's grievous enough to have no one recognize the distinctions between Cappadocian, Augustinian, Aquinasian, and many other subsequent "Trinities". Subordinate v. Economic, Filioque v. Non-Filioque, Social v. Anti-Social, etc.

All dependent upon fallacious Uni-Phenomenality.

The Holy Spirit is God's uncreated eternal Self-Noumenon as Spirit, processed from His Self-Phenomenon as Spirit; and is the perichoretic for the Father and Son.

I'm gonna ultimately have to post a video and illustrations. 2D minds can't readily convert to 3D understandings. The Patristics didn't understand, either; which is why we had so many competing historical formulaics.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

PPS, what's your take on Psalm 82 ?

In summary... Once creation had an inception, it doesn't; because everlasting is subsumed in eternality.

Once we're hypostatically translated into the ascended Christ, we are partakers of God's divine nature and commune with God in pre-creation.

Our inherent ousia is not divine, but is divinized in timelessness from time as we physically live and for all everlasting.

God interfaces with time from His timelessness, and we have access by faith into the grace wherein we stand.

 

[patrick jane]

Multi-Phenomenality; and God is uncreated eternal Self-Phenomenon and Self-Noumenon.



Though this may seem evasive or obfuscational, it's not. The term hypostasis is irreducible. Since in English ALL persons are beings, there can be no multi-person beings; and three persons would be three beings.

No, the Holy Spirit is not an individuated hypostasis, just as the Son is not. Multi-Hypostaticism has supplanted Multi-Phenomenality for God's singular hypostasis.



Ad intra and ad extra are Latin terms to compensate for the omission of Multi-Phenomenality. Ad intra is a "band-aid", like perichoresis applied to alleged multiple hypostases.



The procession (ekporeuomai/para/pempo) of the Holy Spirit is not coterminous with creation. It was concurrent.

It is the internal Logos that is coterminous with the external Son.



No. Temporality here in no way represents anything I've said.

I am NOT representing a created Son or Holy Spirit.

It's grievous enough to have no one recognize the distinctions between Cappadocian, Augustinian, Aquinasian, and many other subsequent "Trinities". Subordinate v. Economic, Filioque v. Non-Filioque, Social v. Anti-Social, etc.

All dependent upon fallacious Uni-Phenomenality.

The Holy Spirit is God's uncreated eternal Self-Noumenon as Spirit, processed from His Self-Phenomenon as Spirit; and is the perichoretic for the Father and Son.

I'm gonna ultimately have to post a video and illustrations. 2D minds can't readily convert to 3D understandings. The Patristics didn't understand, either; which is why we had so many competing historical formulaics.

i see much of what you say, i'm off subject here, and not to nitpick words, but even the word coterminous implies boundaries and scope, as well as the word coextensive. those are not words you used (maybe one dialogue), and i don't think those words work adequately -

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

i see much of what you say, i'm off subject here, and not to nitpick words, but even the word coterminous implies boundaries and scope, as well as the word coextensive. those are not words you used (maybe one dialogue), and i don't think those words work adequately -

I've only used coterminous for the internal Logos and external Son, to demonstrate the co-inherence of Self-Phenomenality and Self-Noumenality.

The question was based on a misperception that I was intimating the Holy Spirit was coterminous with creation rather than the uncreated God as Spirit.

 

[Arsenios]

In summary...

Once creation had an inception, it doesn't; because everlasting is subsumed in eternality.

Once we're hypostatically translated into the ascended Christ, we are partakers of God's divine nature and commune with God in pre-creation.

Our inherent ousia is not divine, but is divinized in timelessness from time as we physically live and for all everlasting.

God interfaces with time from His timelessness, and we have access by faith into the grace wherein we stand.

This is your take on Psalm 82???

Are you really saying that once upon a time, creation did actually have an inception, but now it no longer has such a history of having had that inception...

Psalm 82??

And this historical revision is true because now some of us have been translated in a non-personal hypostatic way into the ascended Christ???

Psalm 82??

And then that because of this [we don't dare call it personal] HYPOSTATIC TRANSLATION into Christ Who is ascended, but not that unascended Christ prior to His Resurrection, an important consideration that we must ever remember as one of the hundreds of possible permutations of our conceptual understanding here, so that once we are translated from the Greek of our Bible into the pristine English of our nativity... But I digress... It was another possible permutation of conceptual possibility, you see... So forgive my blithe blathering... At any rate, there is this ASCENSION, and the PERSON WHO was ascended... No wait... That is wrong... I think it is the Hypostasis that ascended, right? We don't say the word Person here, and if we do, we have to make sure which prosopon was in effect at the time of the ascension, yes? So OK... But whatever... We are talking about translations... Oh, THAT was it... The TRANSLATION of our OUSIA, into the faceless Hypostasis of Christ-Ascended... Now wait a minute... WE are doubtless the ones who put our FACE on this TRANSLATION into HYPOSTASIS... We have to be very careful here, because there are a whole lot of possible permutations to track down and find a proper cubby-hole to make sure they are accounted without contradiction...

So where are we again? There was a TRANSLATION... Nobody knows what this translation is - It doubtless has a special definition for each of its possible permutation with all the other possible conceptual combinations... I remember it once meant "moving from one place to another"... We all know what it means with languages... We sometimes translate relics, I know that one... But this one is different... It is some translation of ousia... Each of us IS an ousia... And besides that, each of us HAS an ousia... And we want a NEW ousia maybe... Could THAT be what is being said here...???

Psalm 82???

So anyway, no matter WHAT this TRANSLATION business might mean, we know fer sure that AFTER it happens, we git to PARTAKE of God's Divine Nature and ACTUALLY COMMUNE WITH GOD IN PRE-CREATION!!!

Psalm 82???

THEREFORE...

WE who are TRANSLATED now have our BEING before Creation...

WE ARE GOD!!!

Psalm 82???

This is crackers...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

It's grievous enough to have no one recognize the distinctions...

A terrible grievousness, no doubt...

Have you considered the possibility of speaking distinctly?

IF nobody understands you...

Maybe it is YOU who needs to speak clearly in a way that EVERYBODY CAN understand...

I mean, the last man standing stands alone...

Hitler's last words before he popped the pill and blew his brains out were:
"Germany was UNWORTHY of ME!"
He might have even shed a fraction of a teardrop with that departing thought...

He was alone...

So talk normally and COMMUNE-icate with us...

What you are doing is not working...

Arsenios

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

A terrible grievousness, no doubt...

That was in reference to others not knowing the many various "Trinities" by comparison. Cappadocian, Augustinian, Aquinasian, and many others. You apparently weren't listening again.

Have you considered the possibility of speaking distinctly?

Yes, consistently. I referred to phaino and gave the extensive lexical definition indicating it wasn't restricted to creation. But you ignored all that and insisted, in Neo-Platonist fashion, that God doesn't exist. So you've disregarded God's Self-existence and Self-consciousness.

So your lack of understanding is because you reject the truth, maintaining that God's Logos is a distinct hypostasis; leaving God with no intelligence or ability to think and speak.

This has evidently caused you to also vacate your logos to think and speak intelligently.

IF nobody understands you...

Maybe it is YOU who needs to speak clearly in a way that EVERYBODY CAN understand...

Odd how several PM and rep me to say I actually do that.

I mean, the last man standing stands alone...

Having committed the truth unto faithful men, I don't stand alone.

Hitler's last words before he popped the pill and blew his brains out were:

First of all, there's no reason to believe the silly propaganda of Hitler's alleged historical death.

"Germany was UNWORTHY of ME!"
He might have even shed a fraction of a teardrop with that departing thought...

He was alone...

Oh... So now I'm Hitler. Not a Believer who has noetically reconciled the paradoxes and omissions of the Trinity; but a genocidal egomaniacal narcissistic warlord and demented dictator. Got it. That makes total sense to Neo-Platonists, I suppose.

So talk normally and COMMUNE-icate with us...

What you are doing is not working...

Arsenios

When you deny God's uncreated eternal Self-Conscious Self-Existence, you resign yourself to a 2D view of the 3D God. And after denying God's uncreated eternal Self-Noumenon and Self-Phenomenon, you're left with caricaturing a parody of everything I say.

What YOU are doing (ignoring lexicography for phaino, etc.) is what isn't working. When you see something you disagree with, you just ignore it and attempt to filter through your own view.

You could be hypothetical in such things. You could indulge rather than ignore. Your ignorance is not on me. I've appropriately represented God's Self-Noumenal Self-Phenomenal uncreatedness.

You ignore that and think you can somehow still see the cube with your sheet of paper. I can't change that for you. Your clogged filter is your own.

THIS is exactly why the Patristics omitted the truth and then had to compensate with three hypostases. They never accounted for God's true Self-existence and the created heaven.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

This is your take on Psalm 82???

Are you really saying that once upon a time, creation did actually have an inception, but now it no longer has such a history of having had that inception...

Psalm 82??

And this historical revision is true because now some of us have been translated in a non-personal hypostatic way into the ascended Christ???

Psalm 82??

And then that because of this [we don't dare call it personal] HYPOSTATIC TRANSLATION into Christ Who is ascended, but not that unascended Christ prior to His Resurrection, an important consideration that we must ever remember as one of the hundreds of possible permutations of our conceptual understanding here, so that once we are translated from the Greek of our Bible into the pristine English of our nativity... But I digress... It was another possible permutation of conceptual possibility, you see... So forgive my blithe blathering... At any rate, there is this ASCENSION, and the PERSON WHO was ascended... No wait... That is wrong... I think it is the Hypostasis that ascended, right? We don't say the word Person here, and if we do, we have to make sure which prosopon was in effect at the time of the ascension, yes? So OK... But whatever... We are talking about translations... Oh, THAT was it... The TRANSLATION of our OUSIA, into the faceless Hypostasis of Christ-Ascended... Now wait a minute... WE are doubtless the ones who put our FACE on this TRANSLATION into HYPOSTASIS... We have to be very careful here, because there are a whole lot of possible permutations to track down and find a proper cubby-hole to make sure they are accounted without contradiction...

So where are we again? There was a TRANSLATION... Nobody knows what this translation is - It doubtless has a special definition for each of its possible permutation with all the other possible conceptual combinations... I remember it once meant "moving from one place to another"... We all know what it means with languages... We sometimes translate relics, I know that one... But this one is different... It is some translation of ousia... Each of us IS an ousia... And besides that, each of us HAS an ousia... And we want a NEW ousia maybe... Could THAT be what is being said here...???

Psalm 82???

So anyway, no matter WHAT this TRANSLATION business might mean, we know fer sure that AFTER it happens, we git to PARTAKE of God's Divine Nature and ACTUALLY COMMUNE WITH GOD IN PRE-CREATION!!!

Psalm 82???

THEREFORE...

WE who are TRANSLATED now have our BEING before Creation...

WE ARE GOD!!!

Psalm 82???

This is crackers...

Arsenios

Meh.... You simply have no idea how God's timelessness interfaces with all forms of time.

You're supposed to be partaking of His divine nature, but you say He doesn't have a physis. Yikes.

 

[Arsenios]

Meh.... You simply have no idea how God's timelessness interfaces with all forms of time.

You're supposed to be partaking of His divine nature, but you say He doesn't have a physis. Yikes.

The question was, as I recall, Psalm 82...

And your accusation that I simply no idea HOW God's timelessness interfaces with all forms of time is doubtless true... I mean, I ASKED God how that works - Because it is in this interface that miracles occur, and a lot of them flat out dumbfoundable... And all He would say was: "It's easy..." He NEVER said HOW He did it...

The general idea here, that you think you can understand by ideas HOW it is that TIMELESSNESS [the NON-existence of time, yes??] interacts with TIME [the existence of time, yes?], which we Orthodox call a Mystery, using 3D epistemology glasses, is itself a great mystery to me...

And the REASON it is such a mystery is because I can ONLY understand time, because I only live in time, because I am a creature created in time, and so are you, and time is created...

Now I DO understand that God's timelessness interfaces with all time, because out of that timelessness, God CREATED all time, so that foundationally speaking, the HOW of God's interface with all time is God's Creation of all creation... Not particularly helpful, I know, but true enough even so...

And if I am the only one not "getting it", and you are getting all your kudos of pos reps and have great social backing here, then leave me behind and go on to your teaching of the class... I am only holding you up...

As for me, I simply will not affirm an understanding I do not have... And you have not explained your 3D understanding which you want to show us on Skype... And the more you explain, the less I understand... And I have tried to show you why, and you belittle me for my inability to do the 3D thing... Maybe it is like one of those 3D flat screen pictures that you have to just stare at long enough to see the holographic images hidden beneath the flat repetitional patterns on the surface... I don't know...

So God bless you, Bro...

Sorry I am too lame to get the picture...

Please pray for me...

Arsenios

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The question was, as I recall, Psalm 82...

And your accusation that I simply no idea HOW God's timelessness interfaces with all forms of time is doubtless true... I mean, I ASKED God how that works - Because it is in this interface that miracles occur, and a lot of them flat out dumbfoundable... And all He would say was: "It's easy..." He NEVER said HOW He did it...

The general idea here, that you think you can understand by ideas HOW it is that TIMELESSNESS [the NON-existence of time, yes??] interacts with TIME [the existence of time, yes?], which we Orthodox call a Mystery, using 3D epistemology glasses, is itself a great mystery to me...

And the REASON it is such a mystery is because I can ONLY understand time, because I only live in time, because I am a creature created in time, and so are you, and time is created...

Now I DO understand that God's timelessness interfaces with all time, because out of that timelessness, God CREATED all time, so that foundationally speaking, the HOW of God's interface with all time is God's Creation of all creation... Not particularly helpful, I know, but true enough even so...

And if I am the only one not "getting it", and you are getting all your kudos of pos reps and have great social backing here, then leave me behind and go on to your teaching of the class... I am only holding you up...

As for me, I simply will not affirm an understanding I do not have... And you have not explained your 3D understanding which you want to show us on Skype... And the more you explain, the less I understand... And I have tried to show you why, and you belittle me for my inability to do the 3D thing... Maybe it is like one of those 3D flat screen pictures that you have to just stare at long enough to see the holographic images hidden beneath the flat repetitional patterns on the surface... I don't know...

So God bless you, Bro...

Sorry I am too lame to get the picture...

Please pray for me...

Arsenios

I already told you.

You have it backwards.

You think you can bring Christ down from heaven by chanting over some bread and wine.

Dude you are chewed and I will pray for you.

For the life of me, if you had a God experience, I'll never understand why you went to religion.