1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
It was self evident.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
It was self evident.
Apparently you are my point. Interesting how providence works.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Which is why I asked your SELF.
I see, so verboseness to you equates to truth?
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Interesting contrast.
Was thinkin' you might like it.
Quality over Quantity or under or in, as the case may be discerned, contextually of course.
:cheers:
Last edited:
JESUS, the ONE and ONLY. Heb 1:3
Arsenios
Well-known member
A read of the last 30-40 pages of this thread is worthwhile...
We are discussing hypostasis and ousia and physis and prosopon out of the New Testament... I can give you Strong's numbers if that might help...
Arsenios
I know that and I also know who the hypostasis is....JESUS.
Please don't think not reading all the posts on this thread disqualifies me from knowing the facts.
I left this forum before you even joined.
BTW is that avatar an actual picture of you?
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Arsenios
Well-known member
PPS said:
I keep trying to get a handle on your content, because your words never just come forth and speak plainly by examples. At first I thought it might be empirical vs rationalism, and you spit it out. So then we have pre-conceived ideas which determine one's perceptions of given content and pre-digest it cognitively, so that the data is presorted by the pre-conception into categories of cognition that do not derive from the data...
Is THAT all you mean?
And if not, can you give a simple example of what it is that you do mean?
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
Well, it is not exactly a pop-quiz going on, but a discussion...
So we get to know what is in the bill after we pass it?
That is no more than saying you are not dumber than I look...
I mean, I haven't been here that long...
DeeDee did manage to toss me out of T-Web...
He is a Russian Monk named Fr. Kristiensen, on the cover of "Everyday Saints"... I have more hair than he does... And less life experience... He functioned and prevailed in a monastery under the Atheists - No small matter... An accusation and you are in the Gulag for a tenner with another tenner automatically tacked on, and life expectancy was 3-4 years... Few lasted the full 20, and even then they were not released...
I am, however, posting under my real name...
Unlike most here...
Doubtless for good reason...
Are you one of the founders?
Are you a MADist?
Do you know the Concordant Bible?
There are some interesting issues being discussed here...
You said Jesus Christ IS the Hypostasis...
How about the Father?
And the Holy Spirit?
PPS believes firmly that they are all three ONE Hypostasis,
And that he can account them severally as one...
Arsenios
Arsenios
Well-known member
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Content is Rhema. Concept is Logos. Language is Context that conveys Rhema as Logos.
Rhema is the thing (thought and) spoken about. Rhema stands for the subject matter. The content of (thought and) speech. The substance of (thought and) speech.
And I utilize the parentheses to isolate the fact that true logos speech includes intelligent thought. And all thought is focused on subject matter.
This is the pivotal understanding missing in the Christian faith to comprehend the Orthodox omission of the created heaven and multi-phenomenality.
All the Sophists and Gnostics, along with all historical linguists, have been searching for it for centuries.... even millennia. They've all pointed at it by/as ostension, and it's been dubbed "The Philosopher's Stone".
Rhema is the thing (thought and) spoken about. So if we rightly understand that God created ALL and is alone uncreated; then there is nothing (no thing) else with any form of phenomenality of existence to think or speak about by His Logos.
And recognizing that God's foundational underlying reality of existence is His hypostasis, and knowing it has His ousia which has His physis, and all are outwardly presented by His prosopon; then God would be exhaustively and unabridgedly pondering, comprehending, apprehending, wisely and rationally reasoning the entirety of His Self-Existence by His Self-Consciousness.
And since there was nothing (no thing) else to (think and) speak about by His Logos, then God's Rhema IS His hypostasis. His singular uncreated transcendent hypostasis.
In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with (pros in the accusative) God,...
Pros means toward. The Logos was utterly and intently focused toward the Rhema, which is God's hypostasis (and all it underlies and "has"), which includes the entirety of Himself in every manner.
The foundational underlying substantial objective reality of all created existence is God's Rhema, which carried it forth and upholds it, being of His power.
There is uncreated phenomenon (God) and created phenomena (ALL else, whether invisible (heaven) or visible (the cosmos).
For language, rhema is the subject matter. Logos is the thought and expression. Same-same. Rhema as sayings are things that are spoken about.
Example...
I love my mom.
I love my wife.
I love my kids.
I love my pets.
I love my job.
I love my hobbies.
I love my activities.
I love my car.
I love sports.
I love... (endless possibilites).
Low-context English focuses on context to determine definitive content by producing concept. Few could define love from Oxford or Webster's, but conceptually know what each above context means. So the content of the word love isn't the determing factor in understsnding the context. The concept is what ultimately drives the content by defining love according to mom or wife or kids or pets, etc. Concepts are made superordinate to content.
High-context language focuses first on content of each symbol/word. Then context is considered to develop concept. Concepts are subordinate to content. Content is emphasized by defining each key word.
Low-context language is conceptual. High-context language is contentual.
Last edited:
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
Awww, dang it!
Just when I thought I was getin' smart, too.
LOL, I stand corrected.
Shall I edit my post to contentually?
:cheers:
Arsenios
Well-known member
Content of what? Of a concept?
So a concept is a thought?
So language is a Context that conveys a content as if it were a thought?
Well, it started out as the content of a concept that is spoken by words after being thought... And now it is all that and besides that it is the THINGS to which our thoughts and words refer...
You just said it IS the subject matter, and now you are saying that it is NOT the subject matter, but that it STANDS FOR the subject matter...
So which is it?
The content of speech is words...
The content of words is concepts...
The content of concepts is thoughts...
The content of thoughts is perceptions...
So you are saying that rhema [spoken words] is the content of words and thoughts...
And now you switch again and say it is no longer content, but substance, eg the substanding, of thought and speech...
And all this results in TRUE LOGOS SPEECH?? Which includes thought focused on a subject matter? So in ordinary experience, what are you talking about?
True Love???
It is still missing to THIS Orthodox Christian...
So whatever this IT is, the Orthodox point to it, and you are defining it?
So what happened to it being the WORD spoken? Is the WORD the THING spoken? Or is the THING spoken about something OTHER THAN this word that is previously thought?
You are switching back and forth on the meaning being within the person and it being outside the person...
Which would seem to obliterate the ongoingness of creation - eg Time...
And this is RE-COGNIZED from WHERE, exactly?
And we know this HOW?
I know that ousia means WEALTH... And Physis means physical nature... So I know already that you are not talking about God qua God, but that you MAY be talking about the incarnate Christ-God... But whatever you are talking about, you are talking about creation...
Presented??? To Whom? Not to Moses...
Hardly so, because He is NON-TEMPORAL, and rational reasoning and pondering take time... You are mixing the divine and the human natures here in a soup...
So now you are saying that God speaks to Himself and that His Logos thereby is His Hypostasis...
The Biblical witness differs from your account, because it nowhere tells us that God talks to Himself in endless meditative self-contemplation, but that he SPEAKS CREATION INTO EXISTENCE...
And God SAID: "Let there be Light, and there was Light..."
You just said that the Logos IS the Hypostasis of God and IS His Rhema... So you seem to be having a hard time keeping all this consistent... It keeps getting away from you, and you morph into another account that contradicts the previous one(s)...
Well, it IS His spoken word that created creation out of nothing...
Have you ever seen an invisible phenomenon, whether created or uncreated?
The subject matter of what?
The thought is expressed in words, so the Logos IS the WORDS?
Thoughts are not words... Most thoughts do not have words... And especially heavenly thoughts...
Even when I speak about words and thoughts?
So context determines the concept, and the concepts above are the things that I love, and not the love that I have for them...
WHY do you think that?
So the concept of love in your examples above is high context, because it is understood in so many different contexts?
You mean I can't understand my love for sports and pets by the content of the word love? Because the word love does not have a content that determines sports and pets?? Forgive me, but that sounds like psycho-babble...
So that the concept of love should be driven by what? Not by Webster and his dictionary, and not by kids, mom or wife, but by what?
Are these two not the low context [webster] and the high context
[multitudinous instances] language drivers?
So then what exactly IS this CONTENT of the CONCEPT of the spoken word LOVE that is DIVORCED FROM ALL instantiations of its occurrence in human experience? And WHY are its instantiations NOT context-formative???
You just divorced the concept from its content by defining it outside of its occurrences... This is total mush, PPS...
Then why are you separating concept from its empirical basis? Is not that empirical basis its content?
Arsenios