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.
"Honestly?" Nope. The problem is you aren't coherent enough to make a cogent address. There is nothing to 'honestly' address. You have an over-inflated ego so 1) think you are cogent, and 2) that ignoring you has something to do with an anywise clarity of message. I'm fairly astute but you are lost in jurassic-lexicology-world. That's twice removed from current expectation and homogenous dialogue.
:nono:
You've openly admitted the DyoHypoTrin doctrine has problems to whatever degree of semantics, etc. Many others have those same issues.
Of course. The problem? You seem to think it a perjorative when it is, in fact, only so much given us in revelation.
In an algebra class, one time, a few of us answered a problem by simplifying and stopping. We said that there was not enough information to solve, but enough information to simplify. The other part of the class soved. The other part of the class got it wrong. The triune view is a simplified doctrine. It is too bad that the obviousness of such a statement seems to elude you that you think it a perjorative against us. Such is not the case, we are right, you and any other trying to solve are wrong, and beyond the bounds of revelation, end of story. Having been a fair hand at algebra, I'm not going to budge. You are wrong, end of story. The triune view is very much in keeping with algebraic simplification and an inability to solve, despite what others postulate. It doesn't work on paper. I've been over the algebraic expression of God enough times to know we are talking algebra and that the answer involves 1 and 3 variables. That's all you are going to get as far as this thread is concerned. We are, in this thread, decidedly triune with no apologies.
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.
Again, that you think this deprecatory, is your own lexicology miss, not mine.
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.
You'll have to take this up with God. I'm convinced your answer is wrong and over-reaching. Simplification is the best anser I believe and I believe it the
only correct one.
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.
Lon said:
"Honestly?" Nope. The problem is you aren't coherent enough to make a cogent address. There is nothing to 'honestly' address. You have an over-inflated ego so 1) think you are cogent, and 2) that ignoring you has something to do with an anywise clarity of message. I'm fairly astute but you are lost in jurassic-lexicology-world. That's twice removed from current expectation and homogenous dialogue.
:nono:
Maybe you'd like to answer a few simple questions that should jar you out of your dogmatized stupor.
Simple would be great, if you could accomplish it...
hypostasis:
Underlying 'substance' of an existence. As such, it isn't the best term but one that says God is who He is and nothing else. For a finite creature trying to grasp this 'existence' of God, is laughable. We will never be able to do it.
For us, as it relates to theology, it is that which is God that supports all else.
How many hypostases are there in scripture relative to God?
The answer is given as blurred. End of discussion until, or unless you posit that God has given us a means by which to qualify or quantify Him.
What's the express image OF a hypostasis?
Again, only insomuch as man can see and live. God qualifies and quantifies Himself and we simplify and express scripture. Going anywise beyond scripture is the dangerous ground of heresy and it is this which the tri- -une view seeks to embrace without going beyond.
I am neither a polytheist nor a modalist.
Is the express image OF a hypostases another hypostasis?
Scripture answers this by declaring Jesus and Father one and by declaring that these two communicate together, as separate. It is not for you or I to 'solve' but to simplify rightly, what scripture is telling us. If you demand I logic my way, humanly, I'm going to demand that you desist. My answer is "simplified, and
no further!" in a purposeful manner that seeks to not go beyond scriptural revelation.
Doesn't matter. You might as well ask what a 'wing' is or a 'hand' is, when talking about God.
What's a prosopon relative to a hypostasis?
It isn't. Parts aren't discussed when looking a the basic substance or 'gist' of something. A face or a hand are a small part or representation of the being considered.
ALL scripture gives is:
An ousia (which takes a bit of work extracting from eimi and exousia, etc.), applicable to God.
I think you confuse yourself quite a bit. You cannot solve for 3y x 1=1t Scripture never gives you the value so it is pointless to try.
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.)
I think you believe you found those values, here. I think you aren't given that right, by God.
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.
Irrelevant. History is important, but as I've found I'd come to the same algebraic conclusion, it is 'incidental' not deravative.
I claim you are trying to solve for 'y' and 't' when God hasn't given you the go-ahead to do so. It is bold, but boldly wrong, as far as I'm concerned.
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.
Incorrect, in
every passage, you must understand both the uniquess (individualizations) of expressions as well as the oneness (sameness) being expressed. God does not contradict Himself. Rather, I'm happy to say my answer has variables that I have no idea what they stand for and am, as a finite being who is not God, certain that I cannot know. I know that along with 'y' and 't' we are given 1 and 3 for figures. Perhaps I should more likely call myself "tri-y-t-une." "Trinitarian" already conveys the variables however, so it is probably redundant, but I think for people like you, it might help to understand where we are coming from in that sense.
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.
I was thinking about you similarly, but I bit my tongue....
You don't see what's missing.
Incorrect, I'm the one saying we cannot solve for 'y' and 't.'
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.
It is no real reflection on your spirituality to say you are wrong. It is, imo, bad math.
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.
Correct. I haven't divested. "Blind?" I'm going to say incorrect at this venture in time. 1) you aren't as entirely clear as you'd like to believe, probably a good thinker, but I believe with a wrong answer and 2) I don't think the rest of the class is as inept as you imagine. I just don't think you have the correct answer and believe 'simplification' the only correct answer. My squabble with other's answers is that some have no idea what to do with 'y' or 't' and some try to superimpose their 'own' values and try and solve.
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".
Let me state again, two important points that seem to elude you significantly, to date:
1) I've denied this already
2) you've in no way shown this is a logical 'must' derivative of anything I believe
so 3) you look like an assertion-loon simply restating these seemingly unconnected accusations (if there is a connection, you aren't good at any of these, particularly, such is communication failure on your part).
You have INternal processions for the Logos and the Pneuma, when scripture clearly indicates ex- and ek- rather than eis- or en- for them.
Nope. You are again, blowing smoke. John 1:1 says 'with' and 'was.' As such, Both the Father and Son are/is involved in incarnation. That's God telling you this, not me. Your problem? Honestly, I don't think you did well or took algebra, but thats a guess.
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.
Not really speaking my language. Since John is using 'logos' for Christ, I'm not really worried about other passages at this venture.
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.
Again, to me, bad math.
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.
Special pleading....
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.
Bad math? It depends upon how willful you are (or more importantly the cultist is) entrenched in teaching what is held as false. Whereas cultists infuriate me, I think you need to look at your math work. I think you've tried to solve when you aren't supposed to. The triune view, as far as I'm concerned and convinced, is an algebraic expression. I don't expect those without algebra understanding to see this point.
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.
I think I know you don't care, at this point. I think you are mistaken.
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.
Your disdain is noted and your opinion is understood. Its an assertion, so we cannot do much more than simply log the insubstantial complaint for you, at this time.
