ECT Our triune God

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Great.
Moonbeam asks a good question, so I think a post or two to clarify, but then....
Take a moment and read the OP. It is not my intention that we do much but discuss scriputure and post references for why we trinitarians believe as we do. Your agenda, by self-proclamation, has been and is a bit different than this specific thread's intent, but I was trying to accomodate your claim to be triune and concern. Thanks for your input, I think it a good reference in the event we need traverse the topic but I wish it was a bit more direct and helpful as other reference work. This one kind of has a mishmash feel but it isn't the first time in this thread.

Thanks, and please allow us to get this thread back to scriptures and reference work.

-Lon

THAT's my whole point and purpose. You don't have any scripture reference work. It's all conceptual inference to suit a preconceieved formulation.

You haven't gone to the text divested of inherent bias of indoctrination and ideologization. Your "education" has only equipped you to more fully represent a bias rather than finding the truth.

You even insist others should go be more indoctrinated at the hands of the legions of indoctrinators in sectarian churches and various institutions of alleged "higher" learning; and you hold education in high regard over revelation.

Your assumptions and presumptions have left you among the multitude with a false god of your own making. By God's grace alone, it doesn't inherently constrain salvific faith for all proponents.

Scripture gives us ONE hypostasis for God. A hypostasis is NOT a "person". Not only does scripture NOT indicated God NOT three hypostases, scripture says something ELSE.

But like most others, you just want to shuffle off with all your assumptions and inferences. You don't have and never have had any intention of seeking the truth of scripture for God's constitution.

Personal pronouns refer to BOTH your alleged singular ousia AND your alleged individuated hypostases. There's no distinction.

Since personal pronouns are the primary source for inferring the non-existent multiple hypostases, there is no means of establishing the singular ousia by personal pronouns.

The inference that provides the multiple hypostases is exactly what disannuls the singular ousia side of the vital equation for the DyoHypoTrin doctrine to even exist.

Personal pronouns yields three "persons" in one "person". Personal pronouns can't and don't distinguish. There's no means of establishing both sides of the "three persons/one being" equation.

The core inference (from Calvin and others) is that the express image OF a hypostasis (in Hebrews 1:3) is another hypostasis (with a third manufactured for the HS).

But the express image OF a hypostasis is a prosopon. The outward face/presence/person/appearnace of the inward underlying reality. That which stands under (hypostasis) and that which is revealed by it (prosopon).

You have no idea how contrived the DyoHypoTrin doctrine is because of its status. It doesn't even sound silly to most.

In Greek, there aren't sufficient usages of the quantities of hypostases to establish three from the text. In English, though all beings aren't persons, all persons ARE beings.

It doesn't matter which language one uses, there isn't anything but bare assertion and derivative inference to attempt to manufacture three hypostases/one ousia to conform everything to an erroneous concept.

The DyoHypoTrin doctrine is just a band-aid to narrowly avoid Tritheism. But most modern conceptions of the original Trinity doctrine have insisted of Triadist multiple minds/wills for the alleged hypostases.

A multi-souled god is multiple beings or multiple gods. It's not even the O/orhtodox Trinity doctrine, and is heretical to the original.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Yes, I "inferred" from Jesus saying that those who had seen him had seen the Father. But I did not infer from Jesus' comment that those who "saw" him saw him as an amorphous blob or some kind of dynohippostatus trinity thing. But I guess you can't believe everything you read, especially if someone can spiritualize it away and say it was all just a metaphor.

You inferred Jesus was referring to an outward appearance.

And I guess God has feathers and wings.

The inevitable paradoxes of Anthropomorphitism are always humorous things to consider.

There's always the question of hair and other details. There's always the consideration of size. And there's always the difficulty of omnipresence.

I'm guessing you'll insist God has no genitals for whatever reason, even though you've also insisted on a man being a "mirror image".

So... Does God have hair and fingernails? How hairy is His body? Does the hair on His head and face grow? Follicle growth is death. Does God have dead growth of follicles? Do his fingernails and toenails grow? How does He clip them? Does God have teeth? Does He eat? If He does, does He need to floss? Can He get cavities or have gingivitis or halitosis?

How big is God? What size is this alleged bodily form? In Exodus, His hand being put over Moses' eyes would indicate He's very small. Why did He moon Moses? How would showing Moses His hinder parts mean anything? He's a very small God. Maybe He can shrink and expand.

And the most difficult... How is this small finite form omnipresent? And how would God not be in the literal shape and size of creation?

Anthropomorphitism is absurd. God speaks relationally to us in anthropomorphic terms. Then God emodies His own Logos in flesh.

God HAS a body. It's Jesus Christ, the Logos in the likeness of sinful flesh, now resurrected and glorifed.

 

[jamie]

You inferred Jesus was referring to an outward appearance.

And I guess God has feathers and wings.

Do you have feathers and wings?

This is actually very simple, all life forms have a body. In fact, we know there are two types of bodies, there are natural bodies and there are supernatural bodies.

And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. (1 Corinthians 15:49).​

God beings may not have feathers and wings, but they have a mind. They have feelings and emotions, they are able to love and to communicate. They are able to reproduce after their kind. God produced a Son, one of his kind. His Son was born of flesh, and then his Son was born of the Spirit, just like we will be.

Our supernatural bodies will correspond to our natural bodies just like Jesus' supernatural body was able to show his wounds. We will know our friends and family. But our supernatural body won't decay, it will be incorruptible. No more flu shots. We will have life inherent that no one can take from us.

At the last day we will share life with family and friends who never knew Jesus Christ. We will lead them to a relationship with him and he will be king over all the earth ... and then over all the universe.

 

[keypurr]

I'd be glad to, this was reported to the Woodshed where complaints are lodged. Maybe it was from a different keypurr.

keypurr has reported a post.

Reason:
Quote:
Amen, they Refuse to see the words most high God.

Post: Our triune God
Forum: Exclusively Christian Theology
Assigned Moderators: N/A

Posted by: jamie
Original Content:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by godrulz
...is sufficient to refute your view.

And two words refute your view, Most High.​

I don't understand the purpose of the complaint. The term "Most High" is a biblical term so why was I reported to the Woodshed?

I never complained friend.

The trins refuse to see that Jesus is the son of the most high. Jesus has a God over him. I know that you see that but they do not. Christ is not equal to his God. The term most high God is used in the NT and Jesus is plainly stated to be the son of. These words are harmful to the the error ridden trinity doctrine.

 

[keypurr]

Jamie, maybe my big finger hit the little red button as I use my tablet sometimes. It was not my intension if I did.

 

[jamie]

Jamie, maybe my big finger hit the little red button as I use my tablet sometimes. It was not my intension if I did.

No problem, all is well.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Do you have feathers and wings?

This is actually very simple, all life forms have a body. In fact, we know there are two types of bodies, there are natural bodies and there are supernatural bodies.

And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man. (1 Corinthians 15:49).​

God beings may not have feathers and wings, but they have a mind. They have feelings and emotions, they are able to love and to communicate. They are able to reproduce after their kind. God produced a Son, one of his kind. His Son was born of flesh, and then his Son was born of the Spirit, just like we will be.

Our supernatural bodies will correspond to our natural bodies just like Jesus' supernatural body was able to show his wounds. We will know our friends and family. But our supernatural body won't decay, it will be incorruptible. No more flu shots. We will have life inherent that no one can take from us.

At the last day we will share life with family and friends who never knew Jesus Christ. We will lead them to a relationship with him and he will be king over all the earth ... and then over all the universe.

Well... Some minority % of all that is true.

I'll leave you with your perceptions and preferences.

 

[moonbeam]

Are you aware of the differences between gnosis, epignosis, and oida; and the results of the first? That's also part of the problem.

Did a little bit of digging on the net...I found some comments of yours on another site which were helpful which are shown in italics below.

I think we all suffer from the innate ability to puffed-up-ness...anyway...hopefully some benefits will accrue from sharing a few thoughts concerning this subject.



PneumaPsucheSoma:


There's a central prevailing understanding that can predominantly answer this area of questioning, and it resolves the misnomer of "heart vs. head knowledge" and any number of false dichotomies.* Ironically, it isn't innate and comes by stewardship of scholarship, but coupled with true earnest relationship through the Word and prayer and beyond in daily life.



There is a difference between knowledge and knowledge and knowledge, and between those and wisdom and prudence.* I think this area of understanding is one of the most fundamental and essential to all other understanding, and it will become obvious why I say that.



Knowledge (gnosis G1108) and knowledge (epignosis G1922) are closely related, and are contrasted to knowledge (oida G1492).* Understanding these will help with comprehending what wisdom (sophia G4678) is and how it's integrated with AND distinguished from prudence (phronesis G5428).* And I'll be brief.



Gnosis and epignosis are experiential knowledge, ranging from initial awareness to complete participation.* For the latter, the epi- prefix is an intensifier.* Gnosis represents present and fragmentary experiential knowledge, while epignosis represents clear and exact experiential knowledge.* This difference is a progression and acquisition process, and the progression is by more thorough participation in that which is known.* Hence, why scripture indicates that knowledge (gnosis) puffs up, and brings to light several significant things about such clear and exact participatory knowledge (epignosis).



Look at each rendering for epignosis, since gnosis can be generally used in a broader sense.


Rom. 10:26... "...a zeal of God, but not according to epignosis."

Eph. 1:17... "...the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the epignosis of him;"

Eph. 4:13... "Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the epignosis of the Son of God,..."

Phil. 1:9... "...that your love may abound yet more and more in epignosis and in all judgement."

Col. 1:9... "...that ye might be filled with the epignosis of his will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding;"

Col.1:10... "...being fruitful in every good work, and increasing in the epignosis of God;"



Also, a look at the renderings for "knowing/to know" from the roots of ginosko (G1097) and epiginisko (G1921).* It's the same escalation and progression by participatory experience in that which is known.



Knowledge (oida G1492), on the other hand, is contrasted to the above by being inherent, intrinsic, innate.



1Cor. 2:11... "For what man oida the things of man, save the spirit of man which is in him?* Even so the things of God oida no man, but the Spirit of God."



The contrast is that gnosis/epignosis is an internal process of the soul's mind-faculty that includes external experience; while oida is purely by inherent internal communion-faculty functionality of man's spirit.* Oida isn't acquired by progression; it's intrinsically present.



Wisdom (sophia G4678) is the knowledge of how to regulate one's relationship with God; while prudence (phronesis G5428) is the knowledge of how to regulate one's relationships with others and in regards to situations and circumstances.



Wisdom is the inward function of oida inherent knowledge.* Prudence is the outward function of oida inherent knowledge.* Both are specifically relational.



Ultimately, wisdom and prudence govern how gnosis progresses and escalates experientially according to oida inherent knowledge.



If knowledge (gnosis) doesn't progress to knowledge (epignosis), it puffs up rather than love abounding in knowledge (epignosis).



A deep and practical understanding of the above is vital.

How very tragic that you have been duped and indoctrinated into ideology over theology, and you unwittingly believe God couldn't and didn't create ALL and that God has his inherent existence in a realm He created.

I actually believe the direct opposite of what you have stated.

I do believe God could and did create ALL ... I also believe God's inherent existence is in himself and of himself...He certainly does not need ALL that he created as a logically necessary place for his habitation.

No. And in the original Creedal Trinity doctrine, that's the case as well. Multiple minds (/wills) would be multi-psuchos. Multiple souls.

I don't expect you to agree at any point with some of my thoughts...but my thoughts are my thoughts...and so I will have them (a little like yourself I imagine)

I am fascinated with the concept of the oneness of God (Father, Son, Holy Spirit)...yet with the capacity of internal dialogue...this being the essence of the distinctness between one and the other...but this dialogue is not contradictory in its source (ontologically) or its objectives or conclusions...but completely harmonious and holistic, that is to say, absolutely self glorifying...that is, subjectively and objectively geared to glorify the NAME or sphere of the influence of God (in the act of creating something)...but something that is not necessary or required from their perspective (but that is pleasing in their sight)...in that self awareness (existence) is accomplished for a creature, man, who then has the capacity to see from whence he originated...and to glory in that (God)

The internal dialogue I have in view concerning the Godhead...is like our internal dialogue when making decisions, that is, the dialogue between ME, MYSELF, and I

Of course I am in conflict with myself (know the feeling) see below.......This conflict does not exist in the Godhead (illustrative purposes only)

Speaking for MYSELF it sounds like a good idea, though I do have some reservations, but for ME the proposal is acceptable.

You see...you are not the only one here with strange notions.

And your reference to the alleged "persons" (hypostases) being multiple deities puts you squarely in the Tritheist camp.

I understand that that is your view...you know how I would frame it...differently.

There is ONE Deity, and that one Deity is F/S/HS. F/S/HS are all distinct, uncreated, eternal, non-modal, concurrent, conessential, consusbstantial, ontological Deity. But they're not individuated hypostases; and the One Deity doesn't have multiple souls comprised of multiple minds/wills.

You agree that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct.

Could you describe, what is the essential essence, or the component, which best establishes or delineates that distinction one from the other ?

The ability or capacity for the generation of independent thought is Logos. God only has ONE Logos, and it was embodied in flesh as Jesus Christ the Righteous.

If we understand Logos as logic (Gordon H Clark) which is acceptable in my view, and as Clark would present it, than the Word of God is not only a person in, and of himself, but also exhibits the entire logic (thought/plan manifested) in the created cosmos.

That being the case...would your view restrict God (one) to this single creative expression we are experiencing ?

God is not multi-souled, nor does He have multiple Logoi.

In my own peculiar perspective encompassing the internal dialogue between three persons who are engaged in a sphere of holistic harmony of self glorification, yet are independent, but ontologically one as described earlier, there is provision for independent original thought within the Godhead and supported by the Godhead.

 

[keypurr]

No problem, all is well.

Thanks for your forgiveness, I really think that is what happened. I have a new Nexus 7 tablet and the screen is smaller than my iPad so it is very probable that I hit the wrong button. For that I am sorry for the misunderstanding I caused.

 

[Lon]

THAT's my whole point and purpose. You don't have any scripture reference work. It's all conceptual inference to suit a preconceieved formulation.

Er, so we should close this thread then? Just because you think so?
:nono:

 

[jamie]

Thanks for your forgiveness, I really think that is what happened. I have a new Nexus 7 tablet and the screen is smaller than my iPad so it is very probable that I hit the wrong button. For that I am sorry for the misunderstanding I caused.

No problem. I never report anything or anyone so I didn't even think about the red button. I can see how easy it would be to inadvertantly press it.

Thanks for clearing it up.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Er, so we should close this thread then? Just because you think so?
:nono:

LOL. Nothing in anything I posted referenced anything about closing this thread.

The problem is what it always is (when it's a problem)... DyoHypoTrins can't and won't honestly find a position divested of inherent bias apart from their conceptualization of indoctrination and ideology.

You've openly admitted the DyoHypoTrin doctrine has problems to whatever degree of semantics, etc. Many others have those same issues.

I can't even count the number of DyoHypoTrins I've conversed with who desperately want another triplicate term to replace "persons", and have engaged in an epic semantics shuffle of their own to come up with such a triplicate semantic.

The core problem is the quantity and translated definition of hypostases. First, a hypostasis is NOT a "person". Second, there aren't three of them in scripture. Thirdly, scripture says something ELSE.

The concept is so engrained as a default, that the primary "internal" criticism is substituting any triplicate term for "persons" that one can possibly contrive. That's not direct translation of the text, it's the eisegetic concept of fitting terms TO an already-configured ideology.

Maybe you'd like to answer a few simple questions that should jar you out of your dogmatized stupor.

What's a hypostasis?
How many hypostases are there in scripture relative to God?
What's the express image OF a hypostasis?
Is the express image OF a hypostases another hypostasis?
What's a prosopon?
What's a prosopon relative to a hypostasis?

ALL scripture gives is:
An ousia (which takes a bit of work extracting from eimi and exousia, etc.), applicable to God.
A hypostasis (Hebrews 1:3) for God.
The express image OF that hypostasis (Hebrews 1:3) as the Son.
A prosopon for the Incarnate Logos, Jesus Christ. (2Cor. 2:10, etc.)

That's all. The rest was contrived and formulated with Greek vocab that isn't represented in the text by usage or quantity. And there are a few different and distinct convolutions for superimposing various parts by various factions.

Some utilize Hebrews 1:3 for the Hypostatic Union, not realizing it disannuls the multiple hypostases. Others utilize Hebrews 1:3 to insist the express image OF a hyostasis is another hypostasis, and then add a third as the HS for equality.

As a proponent, you're blind to the real issues with your doctrine, and it's probably out of zealous defense for the uncreated non-modal Deity of Christ in conflict with Arians, Unitarians, and Sabellians.

You don't see what's missing. You caricature all other views through your DyoHypoTrin filter, along with filters for other heresies. I've carefully avoided ALL of them. That was the whole point of reformulation all these years.

I could have just acquiesced to any of the historical opposing doctrines. I didn't, because NONE are correct. You can only see the problems with non-DyoHypoTrin views FROM your perspective. You haven't divested any of your inherent blind bias to have any of the sense of neutrality you think and claim.

You have an UNcreated eternity and heavenly realm of existence that God didn't create, and it constrains Him to His inherent existence in that "eternal state of being".

You have INternal processions for the Logos and the Pneuma, when scripture clearly indicates ex- and ek- rather than eis- or en- for them.

You insist you know what the Rhema is, but you don't. Rhema is NOT the spoken Word with Logos the written Word. Rhema is the thing spoken ABOUT. The subject matter of the Logos. The content. The substance OF outward expression.

If you and others could comprehend these three things, you might understand the constitution of God for Theology Proper. Until then, you're just promoting a 90%+ portion of the truth that misrepresents God and eternity, and much else relative to salvation that you're unaware of.

You can't ever truly know what the piercing of the Logos to the dividing asunder means, and how it's so initimately relevant to salvation and our own constitution.

Is that a salvific distinction? For few/some/many/most, no. And for few/some/many/most, yes. No man can judge hearts in that fashion.

But truth is truth. There aren't three hypostases for God, I don't care who or how it's postulated and postured. The contrivance of three "persons" is the scourge of the Gospel from within. The ANFs and ECFs didn't finish their job, and now it's been etched in alleged O/orthodox granite with proponenets gesticulating and insisting any kind of threeness is Trinity.

It's a sham. Too bad, because it's only one three-fold step away from the truth from all the brilliantly inspired work of the ANFs and ECFs who contributed. And the truth puts EVERY World Religion on the trailer to the dung heap.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

Jesus tells his apostles to baptize "in the name [notice, singular, not plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19). This is a proof-text: three distinct Persons united in the one divine name. In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul writes, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." We see this same unity of divine Persons in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11, Ephesians 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2–3.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (cf. John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9). It also clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (cf. Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13). Everyone agrees the Father is God. Yet there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19). How can we hold all four truths except to say all three are One God?

And yes, Jesus DID say he was God. In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14). His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

 

[jamie]

I'll leave you with your perceptions and preferences.

And I will leave you with your Greek jargon and your dynohippo trins theory that God is an amorphous blob. You simply create a great divide between God and Adam that does not exist. Why? How does that benefit you or others?

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

And I will leave you with your Greek jargon

That's good, since it was the inspired language instead of the feeble English language. You miss much because of this.

and your dynohippo trins theory

I'm not a DyoHypoTrin. I've been refuting the DyoHypoTrin false doctrine. You're very confused about that and many other things.

that God is an amorphous blob.

Nope. God isn't an amorphous blob. God is essence. Spirit. He has no inherent form. No blobbage.

You simply create a great divide between God and Adam that does not exist.

LOL. No. That's your imagination based on weird concepts you've been told or taught, or erroneously drawn from an inaccurate understanding of scripture.

Why?

I don't. It's your cognitive oddities that presumes so.

How does that benefit you or others?

The truth benefits others. You don't have it.

I notice you didn't bother to answer any of the clear concerns about Anthropomorphitism.

How big is God? If He's in the exact shape of a man's body, how is He omnipresent? Do you deny His omnipresence?

And does God have all the body parts we do? If we're a mirror image of Him, then He must; and with no exceptions. This introduces the silly concept of describing God's bodily details, including genitalia.

You have a god with a hand that is small enough to cover a man's eyes. That same god on any relative scale of size couldn't fill any more space than a man of relatively normal dimensions. That god can't even occupy the dimensions of the earthly atmosphere, much less the entire created cosmos.

You have a tiny god that's just a slightly magnified man. A god that can't even begin to be multi-omni, including omnipresence.

What benefit is there in you making God an exalted man? None. It just makes you seem that much closer to being a god, just like your unbiblical Armstrongite/LDS "god-family" concept or whatever.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

......The truth benefits others........

Then maybe you should post some for a change.

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Then maybe you should post some for a change.

LOL. I've extensively done so. You just can't get past your Papal error of dogma and your false god.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

That's good, since it was the inspired language instead of the feeble English language. You miss much because of this.

And you elevate your feeble understanding of Greek to new heights. Sigh.

An essence is simply something with characteristics — that is, an entity about which something can be said.

A person (or the theological term, hypostasis) is a distinct bearer of an essence.

[FONT=&quot]Applied to the Trinity, it means that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are distinct persons, each with his own personal attributes, while each also shares equally the attributes of deity (i.e., the divine essence).[/FONT]

Your fixation on what you personally believe hypostasis means has caught you up in a web of error. The church understands the possible misunderstandings of the specialized words it uses when discussing the Godhead. The church has spoken on the matter. The church needed to speak because of persons just like you who sought to sow discord and error. Indeed, yours is not a new truth given only to you, but just the same error denounced by the church many, many, hundreds of years ago.

AMR

 

[PneumaPsucheSoma]

Jesus tells his apostles to baptize "in the name [notice, singular, not plural] of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

Yep. One name/authority, which is the Lord Jesus Christ. That's why all biblical examples of baptism were in that name/authority rather than merely the titles of F/S/HS.

This is a proof-text:

Ummm... Nope. F/S/HS aren't automatically three hypostases ("persons"). That's your entitled presumption of false dogma.

three distinct Persons

Nope. F/S/HS aren't automatically three hypostases ("persons"). Still your entitled presumption of false dogma.

united in the one divine name.

Yep. The name above every name. The name at which every knee shall bow and every tongue confess. The Lord Jesus Christ.

In 2 Corinthians 13:14, Paul writes, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and the love of God and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all."

Yep. F/S/HS are all distinct, eternal, uncreated, non-modal, concurrent, conessential, consubstantial, ontological Deity. But they're not multiple individuated hypostases.

We see this same unity of divine Persons

No, we don't. There aren't three hypostases just because you've presumed that's what F/S/HS are.

in 1 Corinthians 12:4–11, Ephesians 4:4–6, and 1 Peter 1:2–3.

No multiple hypostases in those passages or anywhere else in scripture. God is ONE hypostases, per Hebrews 1:3; and the Incarnate Logos as the Lord Jesus Christ is His Son, the express image OF that hypostasis. The prosopon of that singular hypostasis. NOT another hypostasis.

The express image OF a hypostasis is NOT an additional hypostasis with yet a third superimposed upon the HS.

The Bible clearly teaches that Jesus is God (cf. John 8:58, 10:38, 14:10; Col. 2:9).

Yep.

It also clearly teaches that the Holy Spirit is God (cf. Acts 5:3–4, 28:25–28; 1 Cor. 2:10–13).

Yep.

Everyone agrees the Father is God.

Yep.

Yet there is only one God (Mark 12:29, 1 Cor. 8:4–6, Jas. 2:19).

Yep.

How can we hold all four truths except to say all three are One God?

They are all God. I've said that repeatedly. They're just not three "persons" (hypostases). You haven't paid much attention. You've caricatured everything I've said to whatever your preconceived notions are about non-DyoHypoTrins.

I'm not an Arian, Unitarian, Sabellian, or any number of other "ians" or "isms". I'm a Monohypostatic Trinitarian. You have no idea what that means because all you can fathom is your conceptual indoctrination and a few claimed heresies.

And yes, Jesus DID say he was God.

Not directly as you think, but He is.

In John 8:58, when quizzed about how he has special knowledge of Abraham, Jesus replies, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I Am"—invoking and applying to himself the personal name of God—"I Am" (Ex. 3:14).

Though I agree, I don't think this is the slam-dunk that most purvey.

His audience understood exactly what he was claiming about himself. "So they took up stones to throw at him; but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple" (John 8:59).

Okay. I've always affirmed the Deity of Christ. You don't pay attention. You're just on a tyrade out of ignorant zeal.

Listen... Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are ALL God. All distinct, uncreated, eternal, non-modal, concurrent, conessential, consubstantial, ontological Deity. They're just not three hypostases ("persons".) And no alternate triplicate semantic will suffice, either.

Also significant are passages that apply the title "the First and the Last" to Jesus. This is one of the Old Testament titles of Yahweh: "Thus says Yahweh, the King of Israel and his Redeemer, Yahweh of armies: ‘I am the First and I am the Last; besides me there is no god’" (Is. 44:6; cf. 41:4, 48:12).

Yep. Once again you prove you don't pay attention to anything but your tyrade.

I affirm the Deity of Christ. In fact, my criticism is that the DyoHypoTrin doctrine diminishes the TRUE Deity of Christ. You can't and won't understand that.

I can't do anything about your cognitive dissonance and ignorant stubbornness. God isn't three hypostases. Period. All you've done is declare and demand from a foundation that has never been scripturally built.

There aren't three hypostases in scripture for God. Period. Period. Period.

 

[Catholic Crusader]

........Once again you prove you don't pay attention to anything but your tyrade........

........and you prove that your lengthy posts add up to squat.

God is Trinity. Period.