OK - If the Son IS the exact impress of the Hypostasis of the Father,
then the Hypostasis of the Father IMPRESSES EXACTLY that of the Son...
Firstly, this is a uni-phenomenal bare assertion.
Secondly, it's presumptive deduction and inference only; and based on uni-phenomenality.
Thirdly, the charakter is the impress IN/UPON the wax. An individuated hypostasis would have to exist as a blank clone to be impressed and receive the stamp.
Fourthly, whatever is receiving the stamping must be ontologically compatible with noumenal creation; so either the Son can't be in creation or the Son is created, because heaven and the cosmos are a different phenomenon than God.
Fifthly, this would say zip, zilch, nada about the Holy Spirit as an individuated hypostasis.
Sixthly, if it's the EXACT impress of one hypostasis upon another, then the latter would also underlie its own ousia as well.
And seventhly, it all goes back to your perceptions of the multi-phenomenal God as uni-phenomenal.
But you're good at getting one side of the Rubik's Cube to be one color and just looking at that side (and then getting out the spray paint to change all the colors of the other sides).
Because the Hypostasis is the WHO of the Ousia...
Nope. The hypostasis "has" the ousia as the wealth of be-ing. Another individuated hypostasis as an exact impress would also "have" its own ousia.
So they have identical Hypostases...
Nope. There you go again with that horizontality of uni-phenomenality, and a God who can't even enter His own creation to dwell.
Which establishes a more-than-one hypostatic God...
This is the exact jacked-up hyper-inferential silliness that has plagued the faith for 1.7 millennia.
No. It establishes nothing but speculative and coercive conjecture by deduction and presupposition. And it leaves no apologetic whatsoever for the Holy Spirit as an individuated hypostasis.
So HOW are you reading this to say that
the Son and the Father have the SELF-SAME Hypostasis,
rather than two identical hypostases?
I told you in the last post.
The uncreated phenomenon impressed the uncreated noumenon to re-present God's singular hypostasis in created phenomenon.
Show me the back side of your cube...
Arsenios
I have. Repeatedly. You can't and won't see it. You think the impress IS the wax. You won't hear that charakter is the engraving, not the engravED object OF engraving. It stood for the tool, not the object being carved, stamped or engraved. And it meant the impression itself.
The impression with its particular features was considered as the exact RE-PRESENTATION of the object whose image it bore. And autos with the articular means same; not different objectively. It's the same objective reality.
And from charakter is charax, to engrave or impress a mark; a strong stake of wood used in ancient fortifications. Again, not the markED, but the mark. Ultimately, it was the stake driven into the dust of the ground of creation. The Word become flesh.
The Son as the charakter is the impression, not that which is being impressed. Not the wax, but the impression IN the wax. Not the markED, but the mark.
Example... The charakter would be the inscription on a piece of jewelry, NOT the necklace or ring itself.
This has nothing to do with an (alleged) individuated additional hypostasis for horizontality as uni-phenomenality; but everything to do with verticality as multi-phenomenality.
Qualitatively distinct, not quantitatively distinct.
And then there's the Holy Spirit that was just declared a third hypostasis by default. No exact or inexact impress at all, but still an alleged individuated hypostasis. Arrrgggghhhhh!!!!!!!
YOU. DON'T. UNDERSTAND. MULTI-PHENOMENALITY. And neither did the Patristics. If they had, it would have put all other anathemas and world non-religions on a trailer to the dung heap. But NOOOOOOOOOOO. We get three Gorilla-glued siamese triplets on a sheet of paper, in denial of God's attributes themselves.
A God too impotent to create ALL and inhabit that creation. But you don't see it. Sigh.
