I think I see your point. Acting, in and of itself, implies the passage of time. So, it is difficult to envision a pre-Christ reality that eventually produced Christ outside of time. Action implies time. Time is the linear accounting of activity. This is what makes it so difficult to envision the absence of time to those of us who perceive it.
ECT Our triune God
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
I think I see your point. Acting, in and of itself, implies the passage of time. So, it is difficult to envision a pre-Christ reality that eventually produced Christ outside of time. Action implies time. Time is the linear accounting of activity. This is what makes it so difficult to envision the absence of time to those of us who perceive it.
The meek shall inherit what?
Arsenios
Well-known member
As in eyes, ears, nose and mouth?
They shall see Christ the Son of Man, no question...
But how shall they see the Logos, the Son of God, begotten before all Ages?
Arsenios
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
If you're familiar with apophaticism, even such positive statements can be understood apophatically in the sense that the best we can do is express from creation in created terminology.
God isn't a hypostasis or ousia or physis or prosopon, other than that it's the only manner in which we can attempt to express Him from inspired scripture and personal revelation.
Uncreated phenomenon and noumenon cannot truly be expressed in any reference frame as created phenomenon and noumenon can. It's a matter of recognition (re-cognizing as we're renewed in the Spirit od our mind), not assignment.
We do not and cannot engage in Reductionism or Deconstructionism. Instead, from our own reduced deconstruction we are intuitively inquiring of His divine attributes and constitution.
Kant's approach to Phenomenology leaves much to be desired, and only applies to creation and the created anyway. I don't care for him at all.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
There was only "One" sitting on the throne:
"Then the One seated on the throne said, “Look! I am making everything new.” He also said, “Write, because these words are faithful and true.” (Rev.21:5).
And that "One" is God Himself (which includes the Lord Jesus) so we can understand that we will see the face of God:
"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).
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
So you'd propose that God had no intelligent comprehensive thought until He created time so He could think and act?
Have you given thought to the immutability of God? If thought and action were a change for God, then He's not immutable. And if He's mutable, then all bets are off for anything whatsoever regarding Theism.
I'd recommend you exhaustively consider God's inherent incommunicable attributes, including aseity and immutability.
I am trying to understand what 1M1S is saying. I think that the proper thing to do before evaluating his offering.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Ah. Fair enough. I should have directed the question to him instead.
I've found that very few have given exhaustive attention to understanding God's timeless incommunicable attributes, including the progenitors and purveyors of all variants of doctrinal formulaic for Theology Proper.
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Logismoi are from logizomai, to reckon. A reckoning, calculation, consideration, reflection preceding and determining conduct. Synonymous with boule, purpose or thought still in the mind, not executed.
Like Logos, logizomai is from lego; the verb meaning to put together with one's mind, to count, to occupy oneself with reckonings or calculations.
Lego, to speak by linking and knitting together in connected discourse the inward thoughts and feelings of the mind. Logos is thought, intelligence, and also that which expresses it, speech.
(Again, lexicography verbatim from Zodhiates.)
Dokei is from dokeo, to think, imagine, consider, appear. Expresses the subjective mental estimate or opinion which men form about a matter. Such recognition may be correct or incorrect, involving error.
You might want to consider that there are a few dozen interconnected Greek terms to completely comprehend structures and function of thought and will, etc.
At this point, I think you should consult Hierotheos, since my understanding came from him in this regard to applying lexicography itself.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
The Lord Jesus was not begotten before all ages. Please give me any evidence which you might have which might have lead you to the conclusion that He was begotten before all ages.
Besides that, why do you continually IGNORE what I have said in my previous posts addressed to you?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
What is your point and why do you think that it is relevant to what I said?
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
No, the term "Son of Man" was employed when referring to the Davidic King:
"I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of Man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him. And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed" (Dan.7:13-14).
When the Jews heard the Lord Jesus say that He is the Son of God and that God is His Father they understood that He was making Himself equal with God:
"Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his father, making himself equal with God" (Jn.5:18).
Last edited:
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Not soon enough to not have undermined the entire historical faith by omission and misplaced self-presumption of infallibility. In this, it is much the same as the Scholastic Latins, the pinnacle of whom was... gack, gasp... Aquinas.
Not once in history has anyone accounted for that which is prematurely declared mystery: the intricacies of the procession, and the creation and habitation of heaven by an uncreated and transcendent God.
Historically, we've gotten bare assertion shrouded in mystery instead of actual representation of truth.
Once again myopically presuming the Orthodox the only professing Christians to be victims of persecution. Latins and Protestants have had more than their equal fair share, and that continues. The Orthodox are not the only ones facing consequences for their faith, even at this moment around the globe.
And yet you can't forgive me my attempts to present in words that which needs visual illustration, and largely because of historical misrepresentation and omission that has kept a veil over eyes that the Patristics should have lifted instead of inflicting multi-hypostaticism in place of multi-phenomenality to compensate for their ignorance.
Don't even talk to me about theory when multi-hypostaticism has been installed as a mere postulate given credence by leveraged authority.
I can and have dismantled the egregious incompleteness that is Multi-Hypostaticism projected upon God by small minds and hearts presuming to ascribe Him to be a triplicate in man's own image.
No one who uses the English term "person/s" for God should dare speak of anyone else in any pejorative manner from their arrogant anthropomorphizations.
The bolded is annulled by the non-bolded. Grrrr.
Not even close.
I have. You just refuse to pursue any actual thought of what I've said, instead just applying Orthodox presumption that nothing outside Eastern tradition could possibly be true. That's a fortress of cognitive dissonance.
If you'd been paying attention, the praxeological implications and applications are Paul's ontological Gospel. The hypostatic translation of Believers into Christ in this physical life. One cannot know such until one understands a foundation of what I've presented about language context and a number of definitions from lexicography.
No, they're not like the Orthodox Multi-Hypostaticism assertions with no practical import other than to make God into conjoined triplets in man's own image.
I suppose if He created one... But it wouldn't be for vanity as self-admiration. There you go projecting man upon God again.
Maybe check out doxa, and how the heavenS declare it.
Scripture says He does, whatever that means in transcendence. And Orthodoxy insists Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all hypostases with a prosopon.
Wow, what a hyper-conflation of confounding of "persons". First interposing hypostasis (singular) for ousia. Now interposing prosopon for ousia.
How convenient.
Not "just". There is no outer without the inner.
The Fathers were taking something, alright. They couldn't even perceive beyond creation, yet declared everything without even accounting for the created heaven and its inhabitation.
And now you want to insist I'm an Esoteric Transcendentalist or worse, all while building an entire doctrinal formulaic upon anthropomorphizing God into "persons" in man's image.
Nothing demeans God more than the characterization of Him as multiple Gorilla-glued mega-men, especially when His Spirit is set apart from Himself into creation and is NOT an individuated hypostasis and prosopon.
An appropriate form of Binitarianism would at least be closer, but still miles away from the Multi-phenomenal truth.
:doh::dizzy::carryon:
Ah. Fair enough. I should have directed the question to him instead.
I've found that very few have given exhaustive attention to understanding God's timeless incommunicable attributes, including the progenitors and purveyors of all variants of doctrinal formulaic for Theology Proper.
This is a possibly tangenital subject that I am greatly interrested in and I'm not sure anyone else is at this point if the silence is any indicator. As adopted sons of God, what exactly is it that we share with God now (the earnest)? What is our eventual inheritance (the promised reward of faith)? We will share the body Jesus received and do greater things than He during His earthly incarnation. What exactly does this mean vis a vis the nature of God? Which attributes are communicated and which are not? Who shares what? We were made in the image of the Elohim and yet are different with more and better yet to come.
Last edited:
Answer my question and I'll answer yours ... unless, of course, you think it not hypocritical to grouse about PPS not answering your questions while doing the same to me.
At least he was up front about his intent.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Answer my question and I'll answer yours ... unless, of course, you think it not hypocritical to grouse about PPS not answering your questions while doing the same to me.
OK, the answer is "the earth."
Now tell me what that has to do with the subject I have been discussing.
You said, "While we are in our physical bodies on the earth we are not equipped to see the things which are eternal. That rules out the idea that the body which believers will put on in heaven will be flesh bodies."
For some reason that I have yet to fathom most of those who claim belief in the Word of God see themselves frolicking with Jesus in heaven as their long home. I would suggest that He has plainly said otherwise.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
Are you not aware that the believer's citizenship is in heaven?:
"But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ" (Phil.3:20).
The following demonstrates that Abraham actually looked for a city whose builder and maker is God and he also desired a "heavenly" country:
"By faith Abraham, when he was called to go out into a place which he should after receive for an inheritance, obeyed; and he went out, not knowing whither he went...for he looked for a city which hath foundations, whose builder and maker is God...These all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them afar off, and were persuaded of them, and embraced them, and confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For they that say such things declare plainly that they seek a country. And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned. But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city" (Heb.11:13-16).
Abraham's hope was an earthly one since he looked for a city whose builder and maker is God and he also desired a "heavenly" country. While on the earth the saints spoken of in this passage are said to be "strangers and pilgrims."
The Greek word translated "stranger" means "a foreigner" and the Greek word translated "pilgrim" means: "in the NT metaph. in reference to heaven as the native country, one who sojourns on earth" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon).
According to you we will spend eternity away from our place of citizenship.
No, Jerry. According to God's word it's coming here.
Jerry Shugart
Well-known member
It comes down in a vision close enough so that john can see it.
if you are right hen why are we going to be given heavenly bodies?:
"The first man is of the earth, earthy; the second man is the Lord from heaven. As is the earthy, such are they also that are earthy: and as is the heavenly, such are they also that are heavenly. And as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; neither doth corruption inherit incorruption" (1 Cor.15:47-50).
We cannot enter the heavenly kingdom in flesh and blood bodies so we will be given heavenly bodies so that we can enter there.