ECT Our triune God

[1Mind1Spirit]

I'm not sure what you are saying here. You're writing style is nothing if not unique. Are you suggesting that God underwent some change in an environment before time was? ... or maybe better said, outside of time, that resulted in Jesus?

Kinda but actually......

I was attempting to say what I've gleaned from pps' explanations so far.

So far I see no explanation for God to have had time to have had any noumenal thoughts.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Thanks for all of this and what followed. I'm off to work so I'll be back to discuss. In the meantime, if you have a chance, could you explain the relationship between "Nooumenon is that which is conceived in the mind, but does not have any objective existence" and God's hypostasis ("the foundational underlying substantial objective reality of existence") as relates "God is eternal transcendent uncreated Self-Noumenon (Self-Consciousness)"?

If I were to plug in the definitions, I think I get a foundational underlying substantial objective reality that is uncreated self-conceived in the mind, but does not have any objective existence-consciousness.

Not being pedantic (at all) but trying to understand how they relate/inter-relate.

You are one of exceedingly few that I would not presume is being pedantic. There's just something about your demeanor and expression that is well-seasoned with discerning sincerity. It's quite rare.

The Self-Existence of uncreated phenomenon is never exclusive of the Self-Consciousness of uncreated noumenon. And since the nous is fundamentally an intuiting faculty, the perceptive knowledge of Himself is not merely fiat of thought, but uncreated noumenon is intrinsically and foundationally co-inherent with uncreated phenomenon.

Evaluating and perceiving uncreated phenomenon and noumenon by created phenomenon and noumenon is fallacious. The objective existence for uncreated noumenon is the uncreated phenomenon with which it eternally co-inheres. Timeless noumenon cannot be inferred by and equated to time-based noumenon, nor can uncreated versus created phenomenon. And there's a dichotomy between created phenomenon and noumenon that isn't applicable to uncreated phenomenon and noumenon because the latter eternally co-inhere with no aspect of time or origin considerations.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Kinda but actually......

I was attempting to say what I've gleaned from pps' explanations so far.

So far I see no explanation for God to have had time to have had any noumenal thoughts.

The nous isn't thought, it's an intuiting faculty. Thoughts are dokei.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

The locus is the word monogenes as found in John 1:18, 3:16, 1 John 4:9.

Since (as I think you agree) the Son is eternal but yet as we see above also begotten, He's eternally begotten.

"Linguistic studies have shown that genes is not related to the verb gennao (to beget), but rather to the term genos (class or kind). So the word means something like "unique" or "only." If the Bible writer wanted to say "only begotten" he would have used the Greek word monogennetos (see Moulton and Milligan). The fact that monogenes does not mean "only begotten" can be easily seen by reference to Hebrews 11:17 where Isaac is referred to as Abraham's monogenes. Isaac was not the only son of Abraham who had also begotten Ishmael."​

"MONOGENES is used in the Septuagint Version (LXX – the translation of the Old Testament into Greek) to translate the Hebrew adjective YACHID. It is translated in the KJV as "darling" Psalm 22:20; "my darling" in Psalm 35:17; "desolate" in Psalm 25:16; and "solitary" in Psalm 68:6" (This information was obtained from Problems in Bible Translation, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C.1954, page 197).​

http://thetrinitydoctrine.com/articles/jesus-as-monogenes/​

 

[Soror1]

Paul says that "flesh and blood" cannot enter into the heavenly sphere but you say that "flesh" can:

"Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:50).​

Not just blood but also flesh cannot enter into the heavenly sphere.

It doesn't just say flesh there--it says "flesh and blood" so one can hardly conclude that "not just blood but also flesh cannot enter into the heavenly sphere". If it said "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." you may have a point. But it doesn't.

"When we will enter the heavenly sphere we will possess a body which is from heaven, a spiritual body which is not a flesh and blood body.

But we will remain human..."​

To this you said:

Yes, because once again it says "flesh and blood".

Despite that you continue to insist that the body we will have when we enter the heavenly sphere will be one of flesh. Do you really think that a spiritual body is made of of flesh?

Yes. Spiritual (likely meaning immaterial or not material as we know it) flesh--just like Jesus. What else could resurrection possibly mean to you?

3 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.​

So you are saying that even though the Lord Jesus became human when born of Mary that His very nature did not change then. According to your idea He originally had just one nature and then when He took on another nature He was not changed at all!

I guess metaphysics isn't your interest (or forte?)...

I have heard some ridiculous things on this forum and that idea of yours has to top the list. I can only see a desperate effort on your part to answer this verse:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Be sure you combine that verse with these:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,​

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.​

Now combine it with your proof-text:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

So what are you going to do? Because you can't accept how and why Jesus Christ can remain immutable in His deity, you're just going to assume He had flesh from eternity to gloss over it and there was no Incarnational event?

The high priest understood that the Lord Jesus was claiming to be God because the Lord Jesus answered the following question asked by the high priest:

"But Jesus held his peace, And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God" (Mt.26:63).

It makes no sense to think that the high priest thought that the Lord Jesus was claiming to be God because He used the term "Son of Man."​

Yes, it would since it was a reference to Daniel which was important in the "Two Powers" of heaven theology in first century Judaism which was later declared (by the Rabbinic victors) as heresy.​

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

The nous isn't thought, it's an intuiting faculty. Thoughts are dokei.

So God speaks without thinking?

I've always kinda figgered God can actually create without speech.


Luke 12:25 KJV


25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?

26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

It doesn't just say flesh there--it says "flesh and blood" so one can hardly conclude that "not just blood but also flesh cannot enter into the heavenly sphere". If it said "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." you may have a point. But it doesn't.



Yes, because once again it says "flesh and blood".


Yes. Spiritual (likely meaning immaterial or not material as we know it) flesh--just like Jesus. What else could resurrection possibly mean to you?

3 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies.​

I guess metaphysics isn't your interest (or forte?)...


Be sure you combine that verse with these:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,​

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.​

Now combine it with your proof-text:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

So what are you going to do? Because you can't accept how and why Jesus Christ can remain immutable in His deity, you're just going to assume He had flesh from eternity to gloss over it and there was no Incarnational event?



Yes, it would since it was a reference to Daniel which was important in the "Two Powers" of heaven theology in first century Judaism which was later declared (by the Rabbinic victors) as heresy.

I like it.

 

[patrick jane]

So God speaks without thinking?

I've always kinda figgered God can actually create without speech.


Luke 12:25 KJV


25 And which of you with taking thought can add to his stature one cubit?

26 If ye then be not able to do that thing which is least, why take ye thought for the rest?

absolutely. this thread has morphed into "what God IS - what God did, what God consists of - so far, we have an ouisa - prosopon, hypostasis, multi-phenomenal as opposed to to multi hypostasis - whatever - in a nutshell, folks are defining God and pre-supposing that GOD'S THOUGHT IS INSTANT AND TIMELESS, requiring no thought -

all of which cannot be proven and claimed by PPS to have never previously been broached in the history of mankind - PPS has original thoughts that go beyond all thoughts of any previous theological mind - taking greek, latin and english; creating new words to explain his never before conceived notion of GOD and EVERYTHING -

i can follow and agree on much of his commentary, but after teaching this for admittedly 17 + years - where is his published material ? - when will his ideas be considered by THEOLOGY PROPER EXPERTS ? - patience -

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

i can follow and agree on much of his commentary, but after teaching this for admittedly 17 + years - where is his published material ? - when will his ideas be considered by THEOLOGY PROPER EXPERTS ? - patience -

Personally I prefer this venue.

I abhor books, as I cannot converse with the authors.

Leastwise this away I can tug on his ear a bit.

 

[Soror1]

You are one of exceedingly few that I would not presume is being pedantic. There's just something about your demeanor and expression that is well-seasoned with discerning sincerity. It's quite rare.

Love thinking about our awesome God!

The Self-Existence of uncreated phenomenon is never exclusive of the Self-Consciousness of uncreated noumenon. And since the nous is fundamentally an intuiting faculty, the perceptive knowledge of Himself is not merely fiat of thought, but uncreated noumenon is intrinsically and foundationally co-inherent with uncreated phenomenon.

Evaluating and perceiving uncreated phenomenon and noumenon by created phenomenon and noumenon is fallacious. The objective existence for uncreated noumenon is the uncreated phenomenon with which it eternally co-inheres. Timeless noumenon cannot be inferred by and equated to time-based noumenon, nor can uncreated versus created phenomenon. And there's a dichotomy between created phenomenon and noumenon that isn't applicable to uncreated phenomenon and noumenon because the latter eternally co-inhere with no aspect of time or origin considerations.

Okay thanks.

I'm still having trouble with noumenon as it seems to be both equated with consciousness (as here: "God is eternal transcendent uncreated Self-Noumenon (Self-Consciousness))" and that which is conceived in consciousness or mind (as here: "Nooumenon is that which is conceived in the mind, but does not have any objective existence"

Also perhaps intruding in my analysis is that despicable fideist, that "Catastrophic Spider", that (attempted) destroyer of all decency in epistemology and metaphysics, Immanuel Kant, with his "thing-in-itself" (apologies to fans...)

So let me now chew on all of this going back to your earlier posts with an attempt to synthesize.

 

[Soror1]

I like it.

There's more (and better) where that came from.

lol

But seriously, thanks.

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Earlier I said:

So you are saying that even though the Lord Jesus became human when born of Mary that His very nature did not change then. According to your idea He originally had just one nature and then when He took on another nature He was not changed at all! ​

To this you said:

I guess metaphysics isn't your interest (or forte?)...

When speaking of God's revelation I prefer not to revert to philosophy, especially since I have the true word of God right in front in me in the Bible.

I prefer Paul's method of dealing with the Scriptures:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2).​

According to you the Lord Jesus put on an entirely different nature when He was born of Mary but yet He remained the same and no change came upon Him.

In order to believe that I would have to throw my reason to the wind. Evidently you are able to do that!

All you prove is that you really have no reasonable answer to what is said here:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Next, you try to prove that the Lord Jesus does change despite what is said at Hebrews 13:8:

Be sure you combine that verse with these:

By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God,

For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not confess the coming of Jesus Christ in the flesh.

Paul compares bodies to being clothed upon with a garment (2 Cor.5:1-2). A man's body is just His outer garment.You confuse a man's garment with the "inner man":

"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man" (Eph.3:16).​

Here Paul speaks of the outward man which refers only to the physical body, and that is contrasted to the inward man:

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day" (2 Cor.4:16).​

When the outward man perishes we remain a man and that man is the inner man, the true essence of humanity. This alone proves that "flesh" is not essential to humanity. Or perhaps you want to argue that those who have already died and have shed their flesh body and are now with the Lord in heaven are no longer men?

It doesn't just say flesh there--it says "flesh and blood" so one can hardly conclude that "not just blood but also flesh cannot enter into the heavenly sphere". If it said "Now this I say, brethren, that flesh cannot inherit the kingdom of God..." you may have a point. But it doesn't.

The Apostle John knew that when the Lord returns at the rapture that the Christian would be made like Him (Phil.3:20-21). And John didn't think that when the Lord Jesus descends from heaven that the Lord will be in the earthly resurrected body which he had seen:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

If John thought that the Lord was going to descend from heaven in His resurrected body which they saw while he was on the earth and they would be made like that body, then John would not have said, "it doth not yet appear what we shall be."

If John thought that the Lord was going to descend from heaven in His earthly, heavenly body, then he would have expected that His body will be made just like that resurrected body. But he knew that the Lord would descend in a different body.

This tells us that the Lord Jesus is not now in the flesh body of His resurrection.

Yes, it would since it was a reference to Daniel which was important in the "Two Powers" of heaven theology in first century Judaism which was later declared (by the Rabbinic victors) as heresy.

I used the Bible to explain your point. and instead of using the Bible to address what I said you refer to something which is not found in the Bible, proving that you cannot answer me by using the Scriptures.

According to you when the Lord Jesus used the term "Son of Man" the high priest understood Him to be referring to himself as God. You really need to learn to "reason out of the Scriptures" because at this point you are standing reason on its head.

 

[Soror1]

Earlier I said:

So you are saying that even though the Lord Jesus became human when born of Mary that His very nature did not change then. According to your idea He originally had just one nature and then when He took on another nature He was not changed at all! ​

To this you said:



When speaking of God's revelation I prefer not to revert to philosophy, especially since I have the true word of God right in front in me in the Bible.

I prefer Paul's method of dealing with the Scriptures:

"And Paul, as his manner was, went in unto them, and three sabbath days reasoned with them out of the scriptures" (Acts 17:2).

According to you the Lord Jesus put on an entirely different nature when He was born of Mary but yet He remained the same and no change came upon Him.

In order to believe that I would have to throw my reason to the wind. Evidently you are able to do that!

All you prove is that you really have no reasonable answer to what is said here:

"Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever" (Heb.13:8).​

Next, you try to prove that the Lord Jesus does change despite what is said at Hebrews 13:8:



Paul compares changing bodies to being clothed upon with a different garent (2 Cor.5:1-2). A man's body is just His outer garment.You confuse a man's dress with the "inner man":

"That he would grant you, according to the riches of his glory, to be strengthened with might by his Spirit in the inner man" (Eph.3:16).​

Here Paul speaks of the outward man which refers only to the physical body, and that is contrasted to the inward man:

"For which cause we faint not; but though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day" (2 Cor.4:16).​

When the outward man perishes we remain a man and that man is the inner man, the true essence of humanity.



The Apostle John knew that when the Lord returns at the rapture that the Christian would be made like Him (Phil.3:20-21). And John didn't think that when the Lord Jesus descends from heaven that He will not be in the earthly resurrected body which he saw:

"Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is" (1 Jn.3:2).​

If John thought that the Lord was going to descend from heaven in the resurrected body which they saw while he was on the earth and they would be made like Him, then John would not have said, "it doth not yet appear what we shall be."

This tells us that the Lord Jesus is not now in the flesh body of His resurrection.



I used the Bible to explain your point. and instead of using the Bible to address what I said you refer to something which is not found in the Bible, proving that you cannot answer me by using the Scriptures.

According to you when the lord Jesus used the term "Son of Man" the high priest understood Him to be referring to himself as God. You really need to learn to "reason out of the Scriptures" because at this point you are standing reason on its head.

Jerry, I fully intend to respond to your earlier post and this one after I catch up with PPS but I must ask--do you give any credit whatever to the church in their scrutiny of Scripture and articulation of doctrine? Or did the gates of hell prevail until 2015 and you were the first to receive the Holy Spirit and be led into all truth?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Jerry, I fully intend to respond to your earlier post and this one after I catch up with PSS but I must ask--do you give any credit whatever to the church in their scrutiny of Scripture and articulation of doctrine?

Of course I give a lot of credit to what was taught in the Apostolic church.

 

[Soror1]

Of course I give a lot of credit to what was taught in the Apostolic church.

Okay, and who was that and when did it end (or where did it go)?

btw, I jumped back to this thread because I had a message and then I noticed I had some "Reputation"(s?)

I can't see who gave me those but thank you for the kind words and I can't reply to the message either but Hi right back atcha!

I think maybe I don't have enough posts or something to reply but I'll head over to the FAQ and try to figure things out.

Blessings to you all!

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

The substance and objective reality behind man's phaino is His hypostasis, the foundational underlying substantial objective reality of his existence.



You left out the primary meaning in the Greek: MASK...

That's not the primary meaning. You don't get to declare concepts as lexicography.

That which is SEEN, which HIDES that which is NOT SEEN... It is a feature of FALLEN MAN...

Nope. God has a prosopon, according to scripture. I'm sticking with that.

And this Face of God is categorically OTHER than the human prosopon/mask...

Duh. It's transcendent, uncreated, and unbeholdable.

Indeed, the prosopon of Moses had to AVOID looking upon this Prosopon of God...

Duh. It's the unapproachable light in which He dwells.

God is the Creator of presence and appearance and hypostasis and prosopon... The Creator is not the created...

Sigh. All my statements are apophatic. Duh, the Creator is not created.

The IMPRESS indeed...

Right. Not another hypostasis, but the express image OF God's.

Hypostasis would seem here to mean ESSENCE, yes?

NO. ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's not ousia. You don't get to insert/conflate hypostasis to ousia in the text for eisegesis.

Seriously?

The foundational feature of the BEING [ousia] of Him, indeed His very BEGOTTENNESS... The Father being the Stamp which impresses [characterizes] the Son in Essence...

Nope. That's not scripture.

Only if God is understood as COSMIC MIND....

OH, GOOD GRIEF. There isn't even a created cosmos OR created heaven "yet". This is precreation, and it wouldn't even reflect a cosmic mind to create heaven.

Only if this COSMIC MIND SELF-PHENOMENALIZED ITSELF...

THIS is why the Orthodox should not even be allowed to speak. The omission of the created heaven and the compensation of a three-hypostasis God has done enough damage without you calling me a New Age Esotericist.

The cosmos is created phenomena. It couldn't create itself. It's created and has no mind.

You shouldn't declare the uncreated an unknowable mystery and then still address the topic. At least be consistent.

His Logos being the Noumenal Thoughts of the Cosmic Mind that God IS...??

Nope. Thoughts are dokei. The subjective estimate, not the objective reality itself.

Yes, we must now work our way DOWN from Cosmic Min, eg God, way on down to our own temporary temporality...

No. You have no idea whatsoever what I'm saying. Just endless caricature to your own limited perceptions of a God who couldn't and didn't create ALL.

You do not understand timelessness and God's immutability and aseity.

I am beginning to see why you need so many words...

No. You're not.

To wit:

See what I mean?

No. Sigh.

The defense rests...

Arsenios

If only that was rest IN Christ. Sigh.

One simply cannot, using fallen human logic, INFER God's Nature from its fallen Ikon which we see in ourselves... Even if augmented by Scripture and revelation... The Faith of Christ is OBEDIENCE, not INFERENCE...

Then you and the Orthodox and their Latin and Protestant spawn should stop. Enough with the absurd English term "person" in triplicate. There is no greater possible inequity than you last paragraph and your vehement doctrinal error of using the term "person/s".

Let me loosely quote you...

One simply cannot, using fallen human logic, INFER God's nature from its fallen Ikon which we see in ourselves..... P E R S O N / S !!!!!!!!

The foundational double standard of this ridiculosity is unparalleled as you project the human image upon God; and in triplicate, no less.

Sigh and Arrrgggghhhh and sigh.

 

[Arsenios]

The nous isn't thought, it's an intuiting faculty.
Thoughts are dokei.

Here I thought thoughts were logismoi...

And dokei(s) are visions and fancies (imagined)

dokeo means to suppose, think, expect or imagine...

So what does the nous intuit?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

THIS is why the Orthodox should not even be allowed to speak.

Sigh and Arrrgggghhhh and sigh.

:rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

They doubtless will not be permitted to speak soon enough!

They can't even wear a cross in Saudi Arabia...

Nor have one on a Church there...

Nor build a Church...

Nor talk with Islamics about Christ...

Forgive me my attempts to make sense out of
what NO ONE has so far been able to make sense out of -

eg - Your theory...

I do not mean to vex you,
but it is so flippin' funny when I do
that I may just HAVE to do it from time to time
just for the entertainment of it all...

So God bless you, bro...

I guess I don't have to point out to you
that the Cosmic Mind option played out and died long ago...
Yet what is uncreated transcendent self-noumena if not Cosmic Mind?

It is one thing to throw a hissie-fit at the mere mention of the possibility,
and quite another to correct it by explanation...

So settle down and show why...

And another thing that I am NOT seeing from you
is the PRACTICAL OUTWORKINGS of your insights...
Are there praxeological implications?
Or are they all merely theories with no practical import?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Nope.
God has a prosopon, according to scripture.
I'm sticking with that.

So does He have a mirror so that He can admire Himself in it?

I mean, do you really think that God has:

A Face?
An outwardness?
A visage?
A countenance?
An outward appearance?
A mask?

The Fathers take Moses' encounter to mean that God's ESSENCE cannot be encountered without cinderizing a human person looking upon Him... eg That prosopon means Divine Essence, or Being [Ousia]...

And you think it is just his outwardness?

The Fathers take it as His inwardness...

Arsenios

 

[Jerry Shugart]

I mean, do you really think that God has:

A Face?

"And there shall be no more curse: but the throne of God and of the Lamb shall be in it; and his servants shall serve him: And they shall see his face; and his name shall be in their foreheads" (Rev.22:3-4).​