ECT Our triune God

[Soror1]

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.

I agree.

 

[Soror1]

Why in the world would you think that this particular subject would derail Lon's thread? The most fundamental thing we must know about the Second Person of the Godhead is that He never changes:

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

There are many on this thread who say that the Lord Jesus obtained a new nature in the first century but despite that fact He did not really change!

If someone can believe that, they will believe anything, no matter how ridiculous.

Jerry, did God intrinsically change when He created and/or when His creation came forth into existence?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

"No" would have sufficed.

You asked me a question and in return I asked you one. Why did you not answer mine?

 

[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).​

Note "reasoned with them out of the scriptures", not heaped upon them verses.

You have ignored a couple of pointed questions that were reasoned out of the Scriptures so let me ask one of them once again:

Did God intrinsically change when He created or creation came to be?

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!

He united with a different nature (humanity) and remained unchanged in His deity. If you can answer the question above, perhaps we can get at why that can be so.

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).​

Of course I do! It is you who is building a novel doctrine out of whole cloth (Jesus had flesh from eternity and not the Incarnation) since you are erroneously assuming that uniting with a human nature changes His divine nature.

You earlier said "Of course I give a lot of credit to what was taught in the Apostolic church" but you didn't answer my follow-up question which was "Okay, and who was that and when did it end (or where did it go)?"

The reason I asked is because I believe that the church who formulated the confession of Chalcedon (which explains this union) was the Apostolic church. I'm trying to find out a point of common connection and/or departure because the last thing I want to do is re-hash conclusions the church has come to already by consensus by reasoning from the Scriptures.

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

No, once again you're pre-supposing that union with human nature is a change. I gave you two verses you must harmonize with Hebrews 13:8. Here they are again:

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 with Hebrews 13:8

Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever​

and what conclusion must be drawn? That Jesus Christ can come in the flesh and not change.

And here's my follow-up question which you also didn't answer:

"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?"

What was the Incarnation all about, to you?

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

"not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

Note that Adam & Eve in paradise with God had bodies of flesh and bone.

"This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"​

which were further clothed after the fall.

God made the human body--flesh and bone--and called it "very good". Why would He want to scrap that?

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.

Our body is perishing. Jesus will transform it:

20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ, 21 who will transform our lowly body to be like his glorious body, by the power that enables him even to subject all things to himself.​

Paul also makes the point that no Christian perishes:

17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished.​

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?

They haven't shed them, their bodies have been/will be transformed. Whatever position one takes on the Book of Revelation it is clear that there are human bodies in heaven both before and after the final judgment and a body isn't a human body without flesh. Jesus redeemed human flesh.

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.

I know of no (respectable) exegete or commentator who takes this to say anything about physical appearances given the context (which includes 1 John 2:29). It is instead about character.

Anyway, in conclusion to this portion of your post, the clobber verse--from one of God's faves, Job:

For I know that my Redeemer lives,
and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,
yet in my flesh I shall see God,
27 whom I shall see for myself,
and my eyes shall behold, and not another.
​

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.

One cannot understand the Scriptures in full if one ignores the historical context in which events took place. It is the Historical-grammatical method of exegesis and is the primary method used by conservative, Sola Scriptura Protestants.

 

[Arsenios]

subtlety - (i had to) -

Have you considered the subdiaconate?

They don't do subtlety either...

Flooring base...

Under the tile...

Often missed...

Seldom appreciated...

Jes sayin'...

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

Is that the three persons of the Trinity rotfl'ing, Arsenios?

Naaaggghh!

We find in Scripture: "Jesus wept."

Nowhere do we find: "God laughed."

I laughed out loud, too.

Then you are just as dirty-dog a rotten child as I am!

But you have to agree that he is right!

Also to this,

"the Orthodox and their Latin and Protestant spawn"

LOL!

The Latins as a general rule do not like to OWN their Reformation Parentage... The Protestants are, clearly, the spawn of the Latins... Illegitimately birthed, no question, but then, Rome did not brook autocephalous Churches... She liked holding the one noose in Her fist as long as she could wield it... Constantinople, on the other hand, sent Kyrill and Methodios into the Balkans up to the Rus, and set the basis for a local self ruled and self headed Church there...

I do think you may have mis-quoted me, though technology has a way of demonization that defies intent... We Orthodox do not see the Latins as OUR spawn, but we do see the Protestants as THEIR spawn... Historically unprecedented, wouldn't you say?

I sent you a PM - Did you find it perchance?

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

In abbreviated summary, this indicates that God is eternal transcendent uncreated Self-Noumenon (Self-Consciousness)

I'd say intellect.

I'd say MIND...

But alas, the Mind creating the Cosmos concept (by speaking forth its Logos,) was rejected as New Age outrage... I thought it was a justifiable charge, personally, but gagged at the gag order...

I do have one big gripe against you, O Soror(ity) One, which is this: When you say to some convoluted conceptual agglomeration of PPS's that you agree with it, I am sorry, but that is simply NOT enough, OK?

I want you to RE-FRAME in YOUR words THAT TO WHICH you find yourself in agreement...

Woudja pretty pleeze put it in terms I might have a chance understandijng?

'Cause I am a failure with PPS... He is doubtless convinced that I have never met Donald Schnartz, and therefore that I don't know schnartz about anything he so exhaustively explains...

Jes sayin'...

Arsenios

 

[Jerry Shugart]

Did God intrinsically change when He created or creation came to be?

Of course not.

He united with a different nature (humanity) and remained unchanged in His deity.

In eternity the Lord Jesus was both God and Man and He was a part of a "compound unity" and that unity made up the Godhead. It has always been that way so He never "united" with a different nature.

If at some point He "united" with a different nature then He had a change which changed his very nature. But that is impossible"

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

It is you who is building a novel doctrine out of whole cloth (Jesus had flesh from eternity and not the Incarnation) since you are erroneously assuming that uniting with a human nature changes His divine nature.

I never said that. Instead, you think that at one point He only had one nature. And according to you when He took on another nature and then had two natures he never changed.

According to you He was exactly the same after He took on the second nature as He was when he just had one nature.

All I see from you is a failed attempt at legerdemain, vainly trying to persuade others that He remained the same after receiving a second nature. That was done so others might think that your ideas are in line with what is said here:

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

Nice try, but no cigar!

I believe that the church who formulated the confession of Chalcedon (which explains this union) was the Apostolic church.

That confession was formulated in 451 AD, hundreds of years after the Apostles had died.

No, once again you're pre-supposing that union with human nature is a change. I gave you two verses you must harmonize with Hebrews 13:8.

According to you originally the Lord Jesus only had one nature and then at some point He took on a second nature but He did not change and remained the same. Common sense dictates that He did in fact change.

You expect us to believe that Christ with one nature is the exact Christ with two natures?

I cannot trick myself into believing such nonsense but obviously you are able to.

Here they are again:

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

Nothing there even hints that the Lord Jesus did not change when, according to you, He took on a second nature.

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

Neither of those verses gives any credence to the idea that the Lord Jesus did not change when, according to you, He took on another nature and then had two natures instead of just one.

And here's my follow-up question which you also didn't answer:

"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?"

There was an incarnation event but a flesh and blood body is not essential to being human. Those believers who have already died and are in heaven with the Lord no longer possess a human body. But they never ceased being human. Or perhaps you want to argue that they are no longer men?

Do you think that the "inner man" changes into something other than man when he dies and no longer has a physical body?

"not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life."

"For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life" (2 Cor.5:1-4).​

What Paul is saying is that he wishes to remain alive until the Lord Jesus descends from heaven and gives him a heavenly body. If he dies before that happens he will be found naked because his earthly body will be destroyed. He will then be in heaven with the Lord Jesus without a body.

Note that Adam & Eve in paradise with God had bodies of flesh and bone.

"This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh"​

That proves nothing.

God made the human body--flesh and bone--and called it "very good". Why would He want to scrap that?

They were also flesh and blood bodies, and flesh and blood bodies cannot enter the heavenly kingdom (1 Cor.15:50).

 

[Soror1]

Naaaggghh!

We find in Scripture: "Jesus wept."

Nowhere do we find: "God laughed."

Well we do, but granted likely in derision.

But of course God laughs (or has a sense of humor)--He is joyful!

Then you are just as dirty-dog a rotten child as I am!

But you have to agree that he is right!

That the Orthodox shouldn't speak? No, I don't agree. I have greatly benefited from reading some of their work. I do get frustrated sometimes when the talk gets too mystical--beyond what seems to have any foundation in reality. But I think lots of times it's just a matter of the use of words that are understood differently. For example, I had to really exercise my brain a while back when trying to understand the Barlaam/Palamas essence/attributes "controversy". It seems I'd get what the controversy was all about, conclude it was just a matter of words, then turn right around and lose like a vapor what I thought I understood. Like right now! Not immersed in it, I couldn't tell you what the issue was.

The Latins as a general rule do not like to OWN their Reformation Parentage... The Protestants are, clearly, the spawn of the Latins... Illegitimately birthed, no question, but then, Rome did not brook autocephalous Churches... She liked holding the one noose in Her fist as long as she could wield it... Constantinople, on the other hand, sent Kyrill and Methodios into the Balkans up to the Rus, and set the basis for a local self ruled and self headed Church there...

And did Rome disown them then?

I do think you may have mis-quoted me, though technology has a way of demonization that defies intent... We Orthodox do not see the Latins as OUR spawn, but we do see the Protestants as THEIR spawn...

No, that was a direct quote from PPS. I must agree after laughing I found it surprising that he considered the Orthodox as parent with Latins/Protestants as (Satan's? ) spawn as I didn't think the Orthodox viewed it that way either (and I'm sure the Latins and Protestants don't).

Historically unprecedented, wouldn't you say?

The split in the church between what became Roman Catholic and Protestant? Not if 1054 is any indicator!

I sent you a PM - Did you find it perchance?

Arsenios

I did not good Sir! Nor, it seems, can I accept a friend request from PPS which I would be most honored to do. I read the FAQ over the weekend, but still can't seem to figure out how to work things. Can you try again?

 

[Soror1]

I'd say MIND...

But alas, the Mind creating the Cosmos concept (by speaking forth its Logos,) was rejected as New Age outrage... I thought it was a justifiable charge, personally, but gagged at the gag order...

Some forms of it, yes, rejected as New Age outrage--which I agree they were and are.

That's another reason why I prefer speaking of God as intellect over mind as it doesn't come with all the (even) New-er Age baggage many tend to associate with "mind".

But I think we can agree that God is/has intellect/mind who spoke and things were made, yes?

I do have one big gripe against you, O Soror(ity) One, which is this: When you say to some convoluted conceptual agglomeration of PPS's that you agree with it, I am sorry, but that is simply NOT enough, OK?

I want you to RE-FRAME in YOUR words THAT TO WHICH you find yourself in agreement...

Woudja pretty pleeze put it in terms I might have a chance understandijng?

'Cause I am a failure with PPS... He is doubtless convinced that I have never met Donald Schnartz, and therefore that I don't know schnartz about anything he so exhaustively explains...

Jes sayin'...

Arsenios

LOL, my pleasure!

My foundational assumption is the Cappadocian formulaic of one ousia, three hypostases.

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all hypostases (PPS' "the foundational underlying substantial objective reality of existence") with prosopa (PPS' "face, presence, appearance, person") that shine (PPS's phaino/phenomenon "to shine, to appear, be conspicuous, be seen, seem, be thought"). We see the concept in action here:

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.​

The Lord (hypostasis) make His face (prosopon) to shine (epiphaino) upon you and be gracious to you.

Why three hypostases/prosopa? Because that's what revelation gives us--the Father is said to have a prosopon, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

I think PPS disagrees with this but it's there in Scripture (and experience)--I can trot it out if necessary.

If (as I can agree along with PPS) "every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon" then we have three prosopa and, therefore, three hypostases.

Is this enough?

 

[Arsenios]

Well we do, but granted likely in derision.

But of course God laughs (or has a sense of humor)--He is joyful!

THAT Joy is a Radiance of Love that is without mirth, but is filled with compassion for those not in its possession... Seeking their elevation... Laughter is good medicine only insofar as it creates a break in the dark clouds of our darkened nous that Light might enter...

That the Orthodox shouldn't speak? No, I don't agree.

I think he meant more that THIS Orthodox should have his mouth taped shut and be stuck in a dark hole - A who could possibly disagree with THAT??

I have greatly benefited from reading some of their work.

There is a lot more benefit available - I read of a very famous RC Historian who wrote Church History all his life, and when he went in for his annual medical exam, he found he had cancer that would most likely end his life at some fairly foreseeable point... And he immediately went to the Orthodox Church and was baptized into Orthodoxy, explaining that for living, the RCC is hands down a better place to be an historian, but when it came to dying, there is no substitute for the Orthodox Faith...

I do get frustrated sometimes when the talk gets too mystical--beyond what seems to have any foundation in reality. But I think lots of times it's just a matter of the use of words that are understood differently. For example, I had to really exercise my brain a while back when trying to understand the Barlaam/Palamas essence/attributes "controversy".

It actually is simply the Essence vs Energies that proceed from that Essence issue. The Essence of God is absolutely unknowable to man, but God is known in His Uncreated Divine Energies/Operations, and there He is known only by Revelation FROM Him...

Barlaam was insisting that we can know God's Essence...
RCC theologians to this day think so...
It is simply not true...
Nor, regarding the Nature of God, can we go beyond what is revealed by God...

It seems I'd get what the controversy was all about, conclude it was just a matter of words, then turn right around and lose like a vapor what I thought I understood. Like right now! Not immersed in it, I couldn't tell you what the issue was.

Well, it is simple enough, IF I have it aright... And I hope my little explanation was helpful...

But you are the first person I have run into online who has actually READ St. Gregory Palamas... At least I assume you did... Your framing of the issue of essence vs ATTRIBUTES would seem to indicate secondary sources. Do you HAVE his "Homilies"?? Because IF you do, I have an assignment for you that will transform your prayer life...

No, that was a direct quote from PPS.

Oh... Then you did not mis-quote me, er... Because you did not quote me... OK - I think I can understand that...

I must agree after laughing I found it surprising that he considered the Orthodox as parent with Latins/Protestants as (Satan's? ) spawn as I didn't think the Orthodox viewed it that way either (and I'm sure the Latins and Protestants don't).

The "genetic" unifier of parentage is patently apparent in the Protestant 'worship' service, for it is homiletically centered on the Sermon from a Lecturn at the head of the Classroom, the Church meeting hall... They were birthed straight out of the Latin Scholia which the Latins had created to establish their rules for administration by Ecclesiastical Law the Church of Christ Whose Head on earth they saw as Peter, the Chief Apostle... So the Latins as Scholastic, and the Protestants attacked them using the Bible as their Scholastic weapon to bring them down after they would not reform.

And even to this day, right here on this forum, right now, and Jerry Shugart is a prime example, every Protestant Christian is proclaiming their PROOF FROM SCRIPTURE that they are right and all the others are wrong... Which makes Satan's pickings pretty easy through the vanity of intellect, though some do manage to stay clear...

The split in the church between what became Roman Catholic and Protestant? Not if 1054 is any indicator!

Well, the Oriental Orthodox Split from the EOC over the homo-ousios formulaic, and remain intact to this day... The Latins split from the EOC over the issue of Papal headship of the Body of Christ on earth, and remained fairly intact, though after a thousand years there have been some major consequences... But when the Protestants split from the Latins, the split immediately split again and again and again... It went viral, where today, it is every man, woman and sinner for hisself, not only having a lot of denominations [estimates vary], but worse than that, each person is their own doctrinal theologian self-taught... And now, in these post-modern days, most who have met God and regard themselves as believers, do not attend any particular church, and say their relationship with God is personal, and not a matter for much discussion... I don't blame them... I personally knew God for 14 years before Him telling me that He is the Christian God - Which instantly scandalized me, I should add...

So it is the "going viral" of the Reformational Split with the Latins that is historically unprecedented... In the new Protestant neo-Scholasticism, every opinion is subject only to its own lights, and many of those lights are dim and some are turning dark...

I did not good Sir! Nor, it seems, can I accept a friend request from PPS which I would be most honored to do. I read the FAQ over the weekend, but still can't seem to figure out how to work things. Can you try again?

Look in the upper right hand of the page where it says
Welcome, Soror1

There should be two more lines under that greeting...

The first should read:

You last visited: Yesterday at 00:00PM

The second should read

Private Messages

Click this last and you should access my PM to you...

I will send another "TEST" message.

Arsenios

 

[Arsenios]

That's another reason why I prefer speaking of God as intellect over mind as it doesn't come with all the (even) New-er Age baggage many tend to associate with "mind".

The Biblical term is Nous, and its Orthodox formulaic is "The Eye of the Heart" which directs the intelligence [intellect] and in fallen man is divided in its focus being concentrated on worldly things with an occasional well gnawed bone tossed to the floor for God in prayers asking for worldly things...

A central feature of the discipleship of the Church is the "gathering of the nous" from its far-flung scatteredness into a single concentrated focus on God at the expense of all things worldly... The result will then be found where we can follow Christ when He said: "The prince of this world is coming, and he has nothing in Me..."

The Saints are those who are wholly concentrated on God in varying degrees and Gifts...

Intellect is the processor of data received from the senses, normally percepts, and as such, is only suitable for learning how to deal with the world... We do not use our intellect to KNOW God... THAT knowing, which IS eternal Life, is only attained in a heart purified from the passions of this world in self-denial...

But I think we can agree that God is/has intellect/mind who spoke and things were made, yes?

That door cannot be opened even a crack, except by condescension to our falleness of understanding, because once opened, the floodgates of understanding God by reference to human intellect/mind, which is ALL that we CAN know, is opened wide, and is obviously false...

The West tends to psychologize God...

eg "The Holy Spirit is the QUALITY of LOVE between the Father and His BeLOVED Son..." etc etc...

The East only speaks of Him apophatically, and by revelation...

LOL, my pleasure!

Someone should tell you that you should NOT laugh at my jokes, OK?*

My foundational assumption is the Cappadocian formulaic of one ousia, three hypostases.

Why? Are you Orthodox?

Ever been to Cappadocia?

Ever seen pictures?

It is pretty abandoned these days...

The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all hypostases (PPS' "the foundational underlying substantial objective reality of existence") with prosopa (PPS' "face, presence, appearance, person") that shine (PPS's phaino/phenomenon "to shine, to appear, be conspicuous, be seen, seem, be thought").

You have a marvelously synthesizing mind... I tend to balk at the tmi's in that "high context" approach... If it isn't gleaned and cleaned, I start gleaning and cleaning...

We see the concept in action here:

The Lord bless you and keep you; the Lord make his face to shine upon you and be gracious to you; the Lord lift up his countenance upon you and give you peace.​

The Lord (hypostasis) make His face (prosopon) to shine (epiphaino) upon you and be gracious to you.

Thank-you...

Why three hypostases/prosopa? Because that's what revelation gives us--the Father is said to have a prosopon, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The prosopon of God in Moses has been interpreted by the Apostolic Church to mean the ESSENCE of God, and the "Backward Parts" as His Energies which proceed from that Essence in the (initial and ongoing) Creation of creation...

We do NOT understand it as a literal FACE of a PERSON, but only descriptively so, in that 'face to face' means, in human terms, a DIRECT encounter...

We know the Son has an INCARNATIONAL Prosopon/Face... But the Holy Spirit? THAT one doesn't track all that easily... Because He is everywhere present and fills all things... where have you seen the "Face of the Holy Spirit" ever mentioned in Scripture?

If (as I can agree along with PPS) "every hypostasis has its own proper prosopon" then we have three prosopa and, therefore, three hypostases.

The Orthodox reject this methodology regarding knowledge of God, because it is the IF - THEN Scholastic method... We only receive God's revelation about Himself FROM Himself, and the term prosopon as it was applied by Moses is not meant to convey 'Face', but 'Essence'...

I mean, He can most assuredly APPEAR to fallen man as a long bearded old white guy, or a short bearded middle aged brown guy, or even speak through a donkey, but these are things He can DO, and are not Who or What He IS...

Is this enough?

For now - Thank-you...

Where were you trained?

Do you know AMR?

Arsenios

*Because of my irremediable incouragability, I say!

 

[fzappa13]

THAT Joy is a Radiance of Love that is without mirth ...

We've had more than one thread concerning whether or not God has a sense of humor. Unfortunately, I think they all predated your arrival.


Hemorrhoids anyone?

 

[Arsenios]

We've had more than one thread concerning whether or not God has a sense of humor. Unfortunately, I think they all predated your arrival.


Hemorrhoids anyone?

Apophatic Theology 101

God has given fallen man a sense of humor...

There is no record of God laughing in Scripture...

We are enjoined to be ever sober and vigilant...

We do not know IF God has a sense of humor [or not]...

We DO know that God can DO humor...

We know that God condescended to become man for our sakes...

God does do some very funny things from my fallen human perspective...

I think He is seriously funny sometimes...

We know Jesus wept...

AFTER rebuking his deep inner feelings...

I understand that weeping empathetically...

Arsenios

 

[fzappa13]

Apophatic Theology 101

God has given fallen man a sense of humor...

There is no record of God laughing in Scripture...

We are enjoined to be ever sober and vigilant...

We do not know IF God has a sense of humor [or not]...

We DO know that God can DO humor...

We know that God condescended to become man for our sakes...

God does do some very funny things from my fallen human perspective...

I think He is seriously funny sometimes...

We know Jesus wept...

AFTER rebuking his deep inner feelings...

I understand that weeping empathetically...

Arsenios

mmmmm ... we're made in His image, right?

 

[Jerry Shugart]

mmmmm ... we're made in His image, right?

Yes, we are made in the image of the Man Jesus Christ.

And that is supported by what is said here:

"And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever" (Gen.3:22).​

Robert Jamieson writes:

"And God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us--not spoken in irony as is generally supposed, but in deep compassion. The words should be rendered, "Behold, what has become [by sin] of the man who was as one of us"! Formed, at first, in our image to know good and evil--how sad his condition now" (Jamieson, Fausset & Brown Commentary).​

We are created in the image of only One of the Trinity, and that One is the Man Jesus Christ.

 

[Arsenios]

mmmmm ... we're made in His image, right?

Right...

But HE is NOT made in OUR eikon [Ikon=Image]

I mean, seriously - Have you ever had a conversation with God?
I mean, what are you going to say that He does not already know that you are about to say it...??
THAT in itself is to me over the top funny...
And especially when I want to complain...

Yet we are commanded to ASK...
That we should RECEIVE...

So both are needed by us...

And neither by God...

God does not need us to ask that we receive...

It is WE who need to ask that we receive...

Hence the commandment...

I mean, one cannot infer from God's commandment that we ask, that GOD NEEDS us to ask, in order that He can give...

God cursed Adam to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow...
WE therefore need to earn our bread...
For the curse of God is the blessing of fallen man...

Arsenios

 

[chrysostom]

mmmmm ... we're made in His image, right?

Right...

wrong

we are made in Their Image

 

[Jerry Shugart]

This clearly shows that "flesh and blood" means "corruption", but that glorified flesh and blood, such as Jesus had after His Resurrection, has no corruption whatsoever... It is fallen flesh and blood that cannot inherit the Kingdom, and so we all die physically...

Why would flesh and blood mean corruption? Do you think that our flesh and blood bodies are corrupted?

Was not the Lord Jesus made just like us? (Heb.2:17). Was His flesh and blood corrupted while He walked the earth before His death and resurrection?

If your answer is "yes" then please give me your Scriptual support for such an idea.