OrthodoxChristianity.net
July 30, 2014, 07:57:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News: Reminder: No political discussions in the public fora.  If you do not have access to the private Politics Forum, please send a PM to Fr. George.
 
   Home   Help Calendar Contact Treasury Tags Login Register  
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Problems with the Incarnation / Trinity  (Read 2122 times) Average Rating: 0
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« on: March 02, 2012, 01:13:07 PM »

 Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit , that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?Did a Person became Incarnated?Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself?Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?

« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 01:15:34 PM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #1 on: March 02, 2012, 02:40:51 PM »

Let me help you with the first part of your post:

It's God.

Sorry but even the most Orthodox of Jews are out to lunch on their thinking on this one. 

Please don't add to the madness, since as Christians we don't live in fear of naming God or at least ought not, as people have died for that testimony.

We even claim to have encountered Him and continue to encounter Him in His Flesh and Blood.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #2 on: March 02, 2012, 02:40:58 PM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit , that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?

Yes. But you have to understand that "person" is a translation of a Greek word "hypostasis", and it doesn't mean "personality". It means something like "personal subsistent reality", if that itself actually means anything  Wink.

Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?
The Father has Word and Spirit. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not literally have mouths and hands. The Word literally has a mouth and hands because He is incarnate.

Did a Person became Incarnated?

Yes, a Hypostasis became Incarnated.

Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?
The phrase "intrinsic conscience" has no meaning in English. But, if this helps: the Word existed as a separate Hypostasis from the Father even before the Incarnation. The Father is the one true God, together with His Word and Spirit who are Divine with His exact same Divinity.

So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?
Because "God" is not an amorphous blob of divine goo. He is the Father, together with His Word and Spirit. The Father sent the Word into the world to become incarnate. So a "part" of some divine blob did not become incarnate, rather, the Word of the Father became incarnate.

Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself? Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?

Before the incarnation, all three Persons of the Trinity were beyond created consciousness, so it is difficult to answer this question. If you are asking whether or not They were distinct persons before the incarnation, the answer is yes.

The Son actually has a created consciousness (mind, body, soul, spirit, etc) but is not a created person, because He is the same Person He was before the Incarnation.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 02:41:52 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #3 on: March 02, 2012, 02:43:17 PM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit , that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?Did a Person became Incarnated?Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself?Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?



These questions are incredibly complex. You might want to reduce them to one at a time. As some might fall away as others are discussed.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #4 on: March 02, 2012, 03:06:25 PM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit , that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?

Yes. But you have to understand that "person" is a translation of a Greek word "hypostasis", and it doesn't mean "personality". It means something like "personal subsistent reality", if that itself actually means anything  Wink.

Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?
The Father has Word and Spirit. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not literally have mouths and hands. The Word literally has a mouth and hands because He is incarnate.

Did a Person became Incarnated?

Yes, a Hypostasis became Incarnated.

Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?
The phrase "intrinsic conscience" has no meaning in English. But, if this helps: the Word existed as a separate Hypostasis from the Father even before the Incarnation. The Father is the one true God, together with His Word and Spirit who are Divine with His exact same Divinity.

So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?
Because "God" is not an amorphous blob of divine goo. He is the Father, together with His Word and Spirit. The Father sent the Word into the world to become incarnate. So a "part" of some divine blob did not become incarnate, rather, the Word of the Father became incarnate.

Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself? Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?

Before the incarnation, all three Persons of the Trinity were beyond created consciousness, so it is difficult to answer this question. If you are asking whether or not They were distinct persons before the incarnation, the answer is yes.

The Son actually has a created consciousness (mind, body, soul, spirit, etc) but is not a created person, because He is the same Person He was before the Incarnation.

How can a "Word" have an hypostasis and how come a "Word" came without "a mouth"? Even the idea of a "Word" is anthropomorphical.Preciselly how did the "Father sent his Word who is a distinct Person than Himself" to become Incarnated?Was the hypostasis of the Word something self-conscienct, "an individual" or more like a power/energy of G-d?If it was a power/energy hypostasis, than how did this hypostasis became Incarnated and what does that mean?

And the idea of an accentuate "Holy" Spirit is kind of spooky.. It is like the "Spirit(whatever that means)" of the Lord is exclusivly only for holy people.. If he is "Holy" why do unholy people exist? Isn`t the Spirit like the life and source of life of all people?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #5 on: March 02, 2012, 03:15:46 PM »

Also the idea of three individual persons makes one more God , the one who is the source of the others, and the others less God..
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
dzheremi
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic
Posts: 4,028


« Reply #6 on: March 02, 2012, 03:38:22 PM »

The Holy Trinity is not a math problem. If you think of it in terms of "three persons make one God, therefore each is 1/3 God" or similar (along the lines of your most recent post), you are reducing God to fractions. The Trinity does not. We call the Trinity "undivided" for a reason: You cannot divide it.

Regarding the relation of the Father and the Only-Begotten Son, Hilary of Poitiers writes in the third book of "On the Trinity" (4th century):

He, therefore, being the perfect Father's perfect Son. the Only-begotten Offspring of the unbegotten God, who has received all from Him Who possesses all, being God from God, Spirit from Spirit, Light from Light, says boldly, The Father in Me, and I in the Father. For as the Father is Spirit, so is the Son Spirit; as the Father is God, so is the Son God; as the Father is Light, so is the Son Light. Thus those properties which are in the Father are the source of those wherewith the Son is endowed; that is, He is wholly Son of Him Who is wholly Father; not imported from without, for before the Son nothing was; not made from nothing, for the Son is from God; not a son partially, for the fulness of the Godhead is in the Son; not a Son in some respects, but in all; a Son according to the will of Him who had the power, after a manner which He only knows. What is in the Father is in the Son also; what is in the Unbegotten is in the Only-begotten also. The One is from the Other, and they Two are a Unity; not Two made One, yet One in the Other, for that which is in Both is the same. The Father is in the Son, for the Son is from Him; the Son is in the Father, because the

Father is His sole Origin; the Only-begotten is in the Unbegotten, because He is the Only-begotten from the Unbegotten. Thus mutually Each is in the Other, for as all is perfect in the Unbegotten Father, so all is perfect in the Only-begotten Son. This is the Unity which is in Son and Father, this the power, this the love; our hope, and faith, and truth, and way, and life is not to dispute the Father's powers or to depreciate the Son, but to reverence the mystery and majesty of His birth; to set the unbegotten Father above all rivalry, and count the Only-begotten Son as His equal in eternity and might, confessing concerning God the Son that He is from God.
Logged

NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #7 on: March 02, 2012, 04:25:57 PM »

How can a "Word" have an hypostasis
The Word does not have a hypostasis. The Word IS a hypostasis.

how come a "Word" came without "a mouth"?
We talk in some sense of the Father speaking the Word.


Even the idea of a "Word" is anthropomorphical.

No it isn't. God is not anthropomorphic; rather, we are theomorphic, being made in His image.


Preciselly how did the "Father sent his Word who is a distinct Person than Himself" to become Incarnated?
We don't know.

Was the hypostasis of the Word something self-conscienct, "an individual" or more like a power/energy of God? If it was a power/energy hypostasis, than how did this hypostasis became Incarnated and what does that mean?
"Individual" is a bad word to use. "self-concious" is a bad word to use. "Distinct" would be better. The Hypostasis of the Word was distinct from the Hypostasis of the Father. He was not merely an emanation/energy of the Father.

By definition in Christian cosmology, a Hypostasis is a subsistent person, not an impersonal energy or force.

And the idea of an accentuate "Holy" Spirit is kind of spooky..

"accentuate" in this context is utterly meaningless.

It is like the "Spirit(whatever that means)" of the Lord is exclusivly only for holy people.. If he is "Holy" why do unholy people exist? Isn`t the Spirit like the life and source of life of all people?

"Holy" means set aside for the purposes of God. It means "other". The Holy Spirit sustains all of creation, but indwells Christians in a unique way.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #8 on: March 02, 2012, 04:26:19 PM »

Also the idea of three individual persons makes one more God , the one who is the source of the others, and the others less God..
No it doesn't. The Father has a relational, but not ontological, monarchy. The Word and Spirit are equal in Divinity and honor with the Father.
« Last Edit: March 02, 2012, 04:27:25 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #9 on: March 02, 2012, 06:30:19 PM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit ,

For a word to be heard, one has to listen and if we listen someone is talking to us. An actual figure and a man can do that. That is why the word is Christ. Contrary to others experiences. I have never heard sounds and voices out of thin air.

 
Quote
that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?

When speaking of Christ in personality, his personality is that of the father and of the spirit. When speak in terms of substance he is one of three hypostases.


Quote
Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?

I am thinking you mean soul when you state spirit. In that case yes. The incarnated Christ is all of the above.


Quote
Did a Person became Incarnated?

Yes. The person took on human nature..


Quote
Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?

 The words you have decided to use are not what main stream theology tends to use and may farther deter you from proper knowledge of god. The word of god certainly had pryer existence to the incarnation. That existence shouldn't be seen as intrinsic conscience. Because conscience is realized by those who are a creation. Just as we realize conscience when we awake from a sleep. If we attribute this to the ousia of god we would be wrong in doing so.

Quote
So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?

That's a whole other discussion related to the god-man.


Quote
Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself?Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?

Self-conscience is an attribute of humanity. When looking at yourself you realize that you exist independently or have gain conscience from sleep. It's subjective because real existence is an attribute of god. self-conscience can't be stated of the ousia of god. Because god isn't a creation. He is and was ever existent.
  That doesn't take away from the conscience Christ felt as a human. By this time I am hoping you see a divide Smiley.


    There are certain cases that identifying or labeling creates a separate entity. In literature it's considered formulating and tends to give the impression of multitude. If we use St Basil's formula of the trinity and work our ideas off of those principals we can get a better understanding. We must also not circumvent theological concepts about the Trinity into incarnation theology. God existed before time and space and before there was a creation.

Quote
St. Basil describes the Godhead as one ousia in three hypostases
.


Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #10 on: March 02, 2012, 06:33:51 PM »

The Word of God is a Person, Our Lord Jesus Christ.


John 1:1-20

Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA)
John 1
 1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

    2The same was in the beginning with God.

    3All things were made by him: and without him was made nothing that was made.

    4In him was life, and the life was the light of men.

    5And the light shineth in darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

    6There was a man sent from God, whose name was John.

    7This man came for a witness, to give testimony of the light, that all men might believe through him.

    8He was not the light, but was to give testimony of the light.

    9That was the true light, which enlighteneth every man that cometh into this world.

    10He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

    11He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

    12But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name.

    13Who are born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

    14And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

    15John beareth witness of him, and crieth out, saying: This was he of whom I spoke: He that shall come after me, is preferred before me: because he was before me.

    16And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace.

Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
Shanghaiski
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Antiochian
Posts: 7,964


Holy Trinity Church of Gergeti, Georgia


« Reply #11 on: March 02, 2012, 06:48:59 PM »

Let me help you with the first part of your post:

It's God.

Sorry but even the most Orthodox of Jews are out to lunch on their thinking on this one. 

Please don't add to the madness, since as Christians we don't live in fear of naming God or at least ought not, as people have died for that testimony.

We even claim to have encountered Him and continue to encounter Him in His Flesh and Blood.

I was hoping this would be said. Thanks.
Logged

Quote from: GabrieltheCelt
If you spend long enough on this forum, you'll come away with all sorts of weird, untrue ideas of Orthodox Christianity.
Quote from: orthonorm
I would suggest most persons in general avoid any question beginning with why.
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #12 on: March 02, 2012, 10:27:38 PM »

Let me help you with the first part of your post:

It's God.

Sorry but even the most Orthodox of Jews are out to lunch on their thinking on this one. 

Please don't add to the madness, since as Christians we don't live in fear of naming God or at least ought not, as people have died for that testimony.

We even claim to have encountered Him and continue to encounter Him in His Flesh and Blood.

 laugh  I must say that although I have seen this abbreviation of God (G-d) on other sites, it is bizarre to see it on an Orthodox site from an Orthodox Christian. 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #13 on: March 02, 2012, 10:29:36 PM »

Let me help you with the first part of your post:

It's God.

Sorry but even the most Orthodox of Jews are out to lunch on their thinking on this one. 

Please don't add to the madness, since as Christians we don't live in fear of naming God or at least ought not, as people have died for that testimony.

We even claim to have encountered Him and continue to encounter Him in His Flesh and Blood.

I was hoping this would be said. Thanks.

Well, we were all being patient.  But enough is enough.  The Spirit moved and... +1, +2...   angel
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #14 on: March 02, 2012, 10:39:52 PM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit , that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?

Yes. But you have to understand that "person" is a translation of a Greek word "hypostasis", and it doesn't mean "personality". It means something like "personal subsistent reality", if that itself actually means anything  Wink.

Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?
The Father has Word and Spirit. The Father and the Holy Spirit do not literally have mouths and hands. The Word literally has a mouth and hands because He is incarnate.

Did a Person became Incarnated?

Yes, a Hypostasis became Incarnated.

Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?
The phrase "intrinsic conscience" has no meaning in English. But, if this helps: the Word existed as a separate Hypostasis from the Father even before the Incarnation. The Father is the one true God, together with His Word and Spirit who are Divine with His exact same Divinity.

So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?
Because "God" is not an amorphous blob of divine goo. He is the Father, together with His Word and Spirit. The Father sent the Word into the world to become incarnate. So a "part" of some divine blob did not become incarnate, rather, the Word of the Father became incarnate.

Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself? Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?

Before the incarnation, all three Persons of the Trinity were beyond created consciousness, so it is difficult to answer this question. If you are asking whether or not They were distinct persons before the incarnation, the answer is yes.

The Son actually has a created consciousness (mind, body, soul, spirit, etc) but is not a created person, because He is the same Person He was before the Incarnation.

How can a "Word" have an hypostasis and how come a "Word" came without "a mouth"? Even the idea of a "Word" is anthropomorphical.Preciselly how did the "Father sent his Word who is a distinct Person than Himself" to become Incarnated?Was the hypostasis of the Word something self-conscienct, "an individual" or more like a power/energy of G-d?If it was a power/energy hypostasis, than how did this hypostasis became Incarnated and what does that mean?

And the idea of an accentuate "Holy" Spirit is kind of spooky.. It is like the "Spirit(whatever that means)" of the Lord is exclusivly only for holy people.. If he is "Holy" why do unholy people exist? Isn`t the Spirit like the life and source of life of all people?

Have you been excommunicated yet? 
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #15 on: March 02, 2012, 10:42:33 PM »

Also the idea of three individual persons makes one more God , the one who is the source of the others, and the others less God..

Have you been excommunicated yet?   police police police police police police
Logged
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #16 on: March 02, 2012, 10:43:17 PM »

 police

^one more for good measure of the HOLY Spirit
Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #17 on: March 03, 2012, 06:50:30 AM »

How can a "Word" have an hypostasis
The Word does not have a hypostasis. The Word IS a hypostasis.

how come a "Word" came without "a mouth"?
We talk in some sense of the Father speaking the Word.


Even the idea of a "Word" is anthropomorphical.

No it isn't. God is not anthropomorphic; rather, we are theomorphic, being made in His image.


Preciselly how did the "Father sent his Word who is a distinct Person than Himself" to become Incarnated?
We don't know.

Was the hypostasis of the Word something self-conscienct, "an individual" or more like a power/energy of God? If it was a power/energy hypostasis, than how did this hypostasis became Incarnated and what does that mean?
"Individual" is a bad word to use. "self-concious" is a bad word to use. "Distinct" would be better. The Hypostasis of the Word was distinct from the Hypostasis of the Father. He was not merely an emanation/energy of the Father.

By definition in Christian cosmology, a Hypostasis is a subsistent person, not an impersonal energy or force.

And the idea of an accentuate "Holy" Spirit is kind of spooky..

"accentuate" in this context is utterly meaningless.

It is like the "Spirit(whatever that means)" of the Lord is exclusivly only for holy people.. If he is "Holy" why do unholy people exist? Isn`t the Spirit like the life and source of life of all people?

"Holy" means set aside for the purposes of God. It means "other". The Holy Spirit sustains all of creation, but indwells Christians in a unique way.

So what was the Word before the Incarnation?Was his hypostasis a self-conscious individual or an energy of G-d?G-d speaking is antropomorphical.G-d eating is antropomorphical.G-d sleeping is antropomorphical.I`m refering strictly to the Divine nature outside the hypostatic union and before the Incarnation.

I`m interested in precisely 'what' got Incarnated.. What was the 'Word(antropomorphical again)' that got Incarnated?

We are using terms as self-conscious and individual to clearify our terms.Hypostasis is a vague term.Distinct automatically means separated in something and it contradicts the hymn : The trinity one of being and unseparated.. Also if they are Persons, I repeat, Persons than they are Individuals.. And Individuals cannot exist one within the other but as separated ways of existence that can have a shared essence(ousia).. Is this what you mean by the trinity?Is the Word(antropomorphical) in his pre-Incarnational hypostasis an energy emanation of the Father(another antropomorphical term) or an distinct Individual from the Father?

The idea of an "Holy" Spirit to me sounds antropomorphical, exclusivist, limitatory, etc.Is the Spirit of G-d limited only to holyness?Or is all creation wholy wheather good or bad?

« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 06:51:22 AM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #18 on: March 03, 2012, 07:08:18 AM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit ,

For a word to be heard, one has to listen and if we listen someone is talking to us. An actual figure and a man can do that. That is why the word is Christ. Contrary to others experiences. I have never heard sounds and voices out of thin air.

Jesus is refered to as "the Word" prior the Incarnation.The Word became flesh.As I said the idea of an Word is anthropomorphical.What was this "Word" before it became flesh?

 
Quote
that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?

Quote
When speaking of Christ in personality, his personality is that of the father and of the spirit. When speak in terms of substance he is one of three hypostases.

Was the pre-Incarnational Christ a self-conscious Individual?

Quote
Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?

Quote
I am thinking you mean soul when you state spirit. In that case yes. The incarnated Christ is all of the above.

I was refering strictly to the Divine non-enhypostized in humanity, prior to Incarnation Nature.The term "word of God" is an antropomorgy unless it is a metaphor.


Quote
Did a Person became Incarnated?

Quote
Yes. The person took on human nature..

A self-conscious individual became Incarnated?

Quote
Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?

 
Quote
The words you have decided to use are not what main stream theology tends to use and may farther deter you from proper knowledge of god. The word of god certainly had pryer existence to the incarnation. That existence shouldn't be seen as intrinsic conscience. Because conscience is realized by those who are a creation. Just as we realize conscience when we awake from a sleep. If we attribute this to the ousia of god we would be wrong in doing so.

Hypostasis is an extremely vague term.Simple question was the Word prior to Incarnation an actual Self-Conscious Individual or an Energy?

Quote
So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?



That's a whole other discussion related to the god-man.


Quote
Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself?Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?

Quote
Self-conscience is an attribute of humanity. When looking at yourself you realize that you exist independently or have gain conscience from sleep. It's subjective because real existence is an attribute of god. self-conscience can't be stated of the ousia of god. Because god isn't a creation. He is and was ever existent.
  That doesn't take away from the conscience Christ felt as a human. By this time I am hoping you see a divide Smiley.

No.Self-conscience is an attribute of Personality, Individuals.You say the Father is a Person and the Son a distinct Person from the Father do you mean that they are two distinct self-conscious Individuals?

   
Quote
We must also not circumvent theological concepts about the Trinity into incarnation theology
.

On the contrary this is exactly what we need to do.The trinitarian idea doesn`t seem to have as much support in the OT as it does in the NT.I`ve heard a priest once say that the Trinity is only a term the fathers used to make their theology more aprehensive in front of Arianism and that in fact we don`t believe in a Trinity-Trinity , but in One God.


Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
LBK
Merarches
***********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Posts: 10,232


Holy Father Patrick, pray for us!


« Reply #19 on: March 03, 2012, 07:37:21 AM »

Quote
I`ve heard a priest once say that the Trinity is only a term the fathers used to make their theology more aprehensive in front of Arianism and that in fact we don`t believe in a Trinity-Trinity , but in One God.

Was this priest Orthodox? Because if what he said is as you have written it, this is completely against Orthodox teaching, which is One God, Three Persons/Hypostases. There are many, many Orthodox hymns which proclaim this mystery of one God in a Trinity of Persons, and three major feasts of the Church are explicitly Trinitarian: Theophany (Baptism of Christ), the Transfiguration of the Lord, and Pentecost.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 07:41:04 AM by LBK » Logged
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #20 on: March 03, 2012, 08:29:47 AM »

Quote
I`ve heard a priest once say that the Trinity is only a term the fathers used to make their theology more aprehensive in front of Arianism and that in fact we don`t believe in a Trinity-Trinity , but in One God.

Was this priest Orthodox? Because if what he said is as you have written it, this is completely against Orthodox teaching, which is One God, Three Persons/Hypostases. There are many, many Orthodox hymns which proclaim this mystery of one God in a Trinity of Persons, and three major feasts of the Church are explicitly Trinitarian: Theophany (Baptism of Christ), the Transfiguration of the Lord, and Pentecost.

Of course he was Orthodox.Trinity is just a term.Remove the term.We have ONE God.. Those who try to make from the term 'Trinity' a great deal are creating all sorts of ilogisms.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #21 on: March 03, 2012, 10:37:27 AM »

Quote
I`ve heard a priest once say that the Trinity is only a term the fathers used to make their theology more aprehensive in front of Arianism and that in fact we don`t believe in a Trinity-Trinity , but in One God.

Was this priest Orthodox? Because if what he said is as you have written it, this is completely against Orthodox teaching, which is One God, Three Persons/Hypostases. There are many, many Orthodox hymns which proclaim this mystery of one God in a Trinity of Persons, and three major feasts of the Church are explicitly Trinitarian: Theophany (Baptism of Christ), the Transfiguration of the Lord, and Pentecost.

Define Person/s
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #22 on: March 03, 2012, 10:53:26 AM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit , that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?Did a Person became Incarnated?Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself?Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?



Azul, I'd like to know- what happened? Did you start reading Muslim or Jewish websites? Are you having some crisis of faith? If so, I'm sorry to hear that.

Praying for you.
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #23 on: March 03, 2012, 01:38:12 PM »

So what was the Word before the Incarnation?Was his hypostasis a self-conscious individual or an energy of God?
He was a separate person from God the Father, not an energy of God.

G-d speaking is antropomorphical.G-d eating is antropomorphical.G-d sleeping is antropomorphical.I`m refering strictly to the Divine nature outside the hypostatic union and before the Incarnation.
It is impossible for God to do anything anthropomorphic. This is because God made US in HIS image, so, instead of HIM being anthropomorphic, WE are theomorphic, that is, qualities of God are reflected in us. When you or I speak, we are reflecting in a created fashion something that God does in eternity. That is the God of the Hebrews. You are referring to the gods of the greeks.

I`m interested in precisely 'what' got Incarnated.. What was the 'Word(antropomorphical again)' that got Incarnated?
A subsistent person begotten of the Father before all ages, by whom, through whom, toward whom, with whom, for whom, all things were created. The Son is the Word, Wisdom, Power, Right Arm, of the Father.

We are using terms as self-conscious and individual to clearify our terms.Hypostasis is a vague term. Distinct automatically means separated
You are wrong. Distinct does not mean separated. My arm is not separated from my body, but it is distinct from my head. Hypostasis is not a vague word; it cannot mean an impersonal "energy" or "emanation" in Christian cosmology.

Also if they are Persons, I repeat, Persons than they are Individuals..
Maybe "Individuals" means something different in Spanish than English, I don't know. What words do you say in the Spanish version of the hymn when you say "one in essence and undivided"?

And Individuals cannot exist one within the other
Yes they can.


Is the Word in his pre-Incarnational hypostasis an energy emanation of the Father(another antropomorphical term) or an distinct Individual from the Father?
Neither.

The idea of an "Holy" Spirit to me sounds antropomorphical, exclusivist, limitatory, etc.Is the Spirit of God limited only to holyness?Or is all creation wholy wheather good or bad?
You do not know what the Word "Holy" means. "Holy" does not mean pure/nice/friendly/moral. Holy means set apart for the purposes of God. It is God's purpose to sustain all of creation. It is God's purpose to call sinners to repentance. It is God's purpose to show mercy upon all of creation.

The Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Father, DOES sustain all of creation. All of creation is by nature good, by the way. The Holy Spirit is not just limited to "righteous" people.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 01:42:20 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #24 on: March 03, 2012, 01:49:01 PM »

Define Person/s
Define individual.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #25 on: March 03, 2012, 02:58:38 PM »

So what was the Word before the Incarnation?Was his hypostasis a self-conscious individual or an energy of God?
He was a separate person from God the Father, not an energy of God.

G-d speaking is antropomorphical.G-d eating is antropomorphical.G-d sleeping is antropomorphical.I`m refering strictly to the Divine nature outside the hypostatic union and before the Incarnation.
It is impossible for God to do anything anthropomorphic. This is because God made US in HIS image, so, instead of HIM being anthropomorphic, WE are theomorphic, that is, qualities of God are reflected in us. When you or I speak, we are reflecting in a created fashion something that God does in eternity. That is the God of the Hebrews. You are referring to the gods of the greeks.

I`m interested in precisely 'what' got Incarnated.. What was the 'Word(antropomorphical again)' that got Incarnated?
A subsistent person begotten of the Father before all ages, by whom, through whom, toward whom, with whom, for whom, all things were created. The Son is the Word, Wisdom, Power, Right Arm, of the Father.

We are using terms as self-conscious and individual to clearify our terms.Hypostasis is a vague term. Distinct automatically means separated
You are wrong. Distinct does not mean separated. My arm is not separated from my body, but it is distinct from my head. Hypostasis is not a vague word; it cannot mean an impersonal "energy" or "emanation" in Christian cosmology.

Also if they are Persons, I repeat, Persons than they are Individuals..
Maybe "Individuals" means something different in Spanish than English, I don't know. What words do you say in the Spanish version of the hymn when you say "one in essence and undivided"?

And Individuals cannot exist one within the other
Yes they can.


Is the Word in his pre-Incarnational hypostasis an energy emanation of the Father(another antropomorphical term) or an distinct Individual from the Father?
Neither.

The idea of an "Holy" Spirit to me sounds antropomorphical, exclusivist, limitatory, etc.Is the Spirit of God limited only to holyness?Or is all creation wholy wheather good or bad?
You do not know what the Word "Holy" means. "Holy" does not mean pure/nice/friendly/moral. Holy means set apart for the purposes of God. It is God's purpose to sustain all of creation. It is God's purpose to call sinners to repentance. It is God's purpose to show mercy upon all of creation.

The Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Father, DOES sustain all of creation. All of creation is by nature good, by the way. The Holy Spirit is not just limited to "righteous" people.

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #26 on: March 03, 2012, 03:05:59 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

If you mean "Was the Word a self-AWARE Person", that is a difficult question to answer. Some created beings are self-aware. God is beyond created beings. But because humans are self-aware, and God created man in His image, we can assume that there is some sense in which this reflects how God acts.

So to answer your question as best as possible, there is indeed some sense in which it could be said that the Word was "self-aware", whether in His uncreated interactions with creation, or in His eternal inner relationship with the Father and the Spirit, or both.

At least that's how I understand it.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:07:42 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #27 on: March 03, 2012, 03:24:03 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

It is vague, but I don't think this the sense in which is being meant. It means reflective thought.

This is often what is thought to separate "persons", humans, from other animals. The faculty, or the degree to which it is held, to have something like reflective thought would be the degree to which the entity is a person.

Paging Descartes.

EDIT: The Scripture certainly attests to such characteristics to being somehow a quality of God. God reflects upon creation and calls it good, not good, repents of it. etc.
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:26:58 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 03, 2012, 03:26:10 PM »

Paging Descartes.

NO! Leave him where he is.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #29 on: March 03, 2012, 03:31:52 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

It is vague, but I don't think this the sense in which is being meant. It means reflective thought.

This is often what is thought to separate "persons", humans, from other animals. The faculty, or the degree to which it is held, to have something like reflective thought would be the degree to which the entity is a person.

Paging Descartes.

EDIT: The Scripture certainly attests to such characteristics to being somehow a quality of God. God reflects upon creation and calls it good, not good, repents of it. etc.


Let me just add that I find it problematic to make this somehow a sine qua non* of personhood.

*In the spirit of ecumenism I offer to the my Latin brothers and sisters.

« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:32:05 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #30 on: March 03, 2012, 03:41:36 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

If you mean "Was the Word a self-AWARE Person", that is a difficult question to answer. Some created beings are self-aware. God is beyond created beings. But because humans are self-aware, and God created man in His image, we can assume that there is some sense in which this reflects how God acts.

So to answer your question as best as possible, there is indeed some sense in which it could be said that the Word was "self-aware", whether in His uncreated interactions with creation, or in His eternal inner relationship with the Father and the Spirit, or both.

At least that's how I understand it.



Hypostasis is an ambiguos word.Person is not a transliteration of the word 'Hypostasis.The manner in which some use the word 'Person' in the economy of the trinitarian dogma it is extremely ambiguos.That is why I asked you if you mean by Person Individual, that which the word in its normal sense means.


If the Word was self-conscious(self-aware) than he was an Individual.Self-Concience, Self-Awareness is something that belongs to Persons.An object,a (human) word do not have self-conscience.Self-conscience is something personal, that belongs to individual persons.

How do the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit comunicate if the Son is personal?Does G-d talk with Himself

« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:44:49 PM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #31 on: March 03, 2012, 03:49:16 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

It is vague, but I don't think this the sense in which is being meant. It means reflective thought.

This is often what is thought to separate "persons", humans, from other animals. The faculty, or the degree to which it is held, to have something like reflective thought would be the degree to which the entity is a person.

Paging Descartes.

EDIT: The Scripture certainly attests to such characteristics to being somehow a quality of God. God reflects upon creation and calls it good, not good, repents of it. etc.


Let me just add that I find it problematic to make this somehow a sine qua non* of personhood.

*In the spirit of ecumenism I offer to the my Latin brothers and sisters.



If it is not a personhood thing than what is the meaning of the Incarnation.What exactly did Incarnate , an energy of God?What does that mean?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:49:55 PM by Azul » Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #32 on: March 03, 2012, 03:52:30 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

If you mean "Was the Word a self-AWARE Person", that is a difficult question to answer. Some created beings are self-aware. God is beyond created beings. But because humans are self-aware, and God created man in His image, we can assume that there is some sense in which this reflects how God acts.

So to answer your question as best as possible, there is indeed some sense in which it could be said that the Word was "self-aware", whether in His uncreated interactions with creation, or in His eternal inner relationship with the Father and the Spirit, or both.

At least that's how I understand it.



Hypostasis is an ambiguos word.Person is not a transliteration of the word 'Hypostasis.The manner in which some use the word 'Person' in the economy of the trinitarian dogma it is extremely ambiguos.That is why I asked you if you mean by Person Individual, that which the word in its normal sense means.


If the Word was self-conscious(self-aware) than he was an Individual.Self-Concience, Self-Awareness is something that belongs to Persons.An object,a (human) word do not have self-conscience.Self-conscience is something personal, that belongs to individual persons.

How do the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit comunicate if the Son is personal?Does G-d talk with Himself

God is not a creature. Stop trying to find His Family-Genus-Species.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #33 on: March 03, 2012, 04:05:58 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

It is vague, but I don't think this the sense in which is being meant. It means reflective thought.

This is often what is thought to separate "persons", humans, from other animals. The faculty, or the degree to which it is held, to have something like reflective thought would be the degree to which the entity is a person.

Paging Descartes.

EDIT: The Scripture certainly attests to such characteristics to being somehow a quality of God. God reflects upon creation and calls it good, not good, repents of it. etc.


Let me just add that I find it problematic to make this somehow a sine qua non* of personhood.

*In the spirit of ecumenism I offer to the my Latin brothers and sisters.



If it is not a personhood thing than what is the meaning of the Incarnation.What exactly did Incarnate , an energy of God?What does that mean?

Azul,

Let me be frank. I think there could be a chasm here in terms of language. I am a native English speaker and ain't that good at much else, not even English

It sounds like you are not a native speaker of English.

This will pose problems. Which I am sure everyone would gladly work through. And I think I understand where you are coming and really, this is something I consider within my wheelhouse.

However, I find few serious discussions happen around here. Or even sincere. However there may be merit in those discussions for those sincerely reading.

Add a language barrier to a lack of desire to sincerely discuss a topic and you have a recipe for a discussion without much possibility for any help to anyone.

The questions you are asking are good ones and difficult ones.

But I have one question for you:

Is your purpose here to try to call into question the Person of the Logos?

Or are you genuinely struggling to understand how the Pre-Incarnate Logos, the Word, could be a person?

If the former, I don't think much will come of anything and I and other would appreciate your honesty.

If the latter, that is truly a difficult question, an interesting one, and one I am sure many would enjoy discussing and reading.

So please, let us know whether you more interested in persuading us that the Word could not be a person, or if you are struggling to understand how the Word is a person.

Thanks.
Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #34 on: March 03, 2012, 04:18:38 PM »

You keep avoiding this question : Was the Word of God a SELF-CONSCIOUS Person prior the Incarnation?Yes or No?
I am not avoiding the question. In English, self-concious commonly refers to one's pre-occupation with the self. It refers to a particular disposition.

It is vague, but I don't think this the sense in which is being meant. It means reflective thought.

This is often what is thought to separate "persons", humans, from other animals. The faculty, or the degree to which it is held, to have something like reflective thought would be the degree to which the entity is a person.

Paging Descartes.

EDIT: The Scripture certainly attests to such characteristics to being somehow a quality of God. God reflects upon creation and calls it good, not good, repents of it. etc.


Let me just add that I find it problematic to make this somehow a sine qua non* of personhood.

*In the spirit of ecumenism I offer to the my Latin brothers and sisters.



If it is not a personhood thing than what is the meaning of the Incarnation.What exactly did Incarnate , an energy of God?What does that mean?

Azul,

Let me be frank. I think there could be a chasm here in terms of language. I am a native English speaker and ain't that good at much else, not even English

It sounds like you are not a native speaker of English.

This will pose problems. Which I am sure everyone would gladly work through. And I think I understand where you are coming and really, this is something I consider within my wheelhouse.

However, I find few serious discussions happen around here. Or even sincere. However there may be merit in those discussions for those sincerely reading.

Add a language barrier to a lack of desire to sincerely discuss a topic and you have a recipe for a discussion without much possibility for any help to anyone.

The questions you are asking are good ones and difficult ones.

But I have one question for you:

Is your purpose here to try to call into question the Person of the Logos?

Or are you genuinely struggling to understand how the Pre-Incarnate Logos, the Word, could be a person?

If the former, I don't think much will come of anything and I and other would appreciate your honesty.

If the latter, that is truly a difficult question, an interesting one, and one I am sure many would enjoy discussing and reading.

So please, let us know whether you more interested in persuading us that the Word could not be a person, or if you are struggling to understand how the Word is a person.

Thanks.

orthonorm,

I`m interested in the truth, the Ultimate Truth in all things, in case you didn`t figure it out.

To answer another poster I will tell you from where did all this came... I was trying to explain the Trinity to a muslim and than I figured  that the things i said didn`t make sense to me either and that i didn`t really believed them, so here I am.




Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #35 on: March 03, 2012, 04:32:26 PM »

orthonorm,

I`m interested in the truth, the Ultimate Truth in all things, in case you didn`t figure it out.

To answer another poster I will tell you from where did all this came... I was trying to explain the Trinity to a muslim and than I figured  that the things i said didn`t make sense to me either and that i didn`t really believed them, so here I am.

I hope you were not offended. I did not mean to. I really don't care if people come here to challenge more than question, but if they are simply here to attempt to change Orthodox folks's minds in the guise of asking for "clarification" it is simply a waste of my time to get engaged such discussion. (Unless I get a chance to crack wise.)

BTW, good for you about being honest about not understanding what you don't and trying to find help to do so.

The thing is, I doubt anyone truly does understand the Trinity in a thoroughly satisfactory manner as to be able to "convince" someone else. But perhaps we will get to what "truth" is later.

To make this possibly productive, allow me to make sure, I (we) understand your questions.

Let's start with one.

Is it fair to say, you have trouble understanding the following:

That The Word of God (The Logos, etc.) was a person before He became Incarnate.

Is this a fair statement of one of your difficulties.

This might get tedious, but sprawling posts from 15 different people usually goes nowhere.




 
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 04:33:44 PM by orthonorm » Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #36 on: March 04, 2012, 12:54:31 AM »

How do the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit comunicate if the Son is personal?Does G-d talk with Himself
"God" is not a being which expresses itself in Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Rather, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are God. So there is no "God" apart from the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. There is not a God or subsistence that gives rise to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

The Father is the source of Divinity, Personhood, the Godhead, etc.

So yes, the Father can communicate with the Son and the Holy Spirit.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Salpy
Section Moderator
Toumarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Armenian Church
Posts: 12,430


Pray for the Christians of Iraq and Syria.


« Reply #37 on: March 04, 2012, 01:23:24 AM »

Does G-d have 'a Word' that is a Person and a Spirit , that is not just Spirit but Holy Spirit as a Person?Does G-d have a Word, Mouth , Hands, Spirit , etc?Did a Person became Incarnated?Did the Word of God had an intrinsic conscience before the Incarnation?So how is it exactly that a part of G-d(a person of the Holy Trinity) became Incarnated?Does the Father have self-conscience in Himself?Does the Son have self-conscience in Himself and does the Holy Spirit have self-conscience in Himself?



Listen to this lecture by Fr. Behr:

http://www.myocn.net/index.php/20080612873/Special-Moments-in-Orthodoxy/Special-Moments-in-Orthodoxy-Trinitarian-Theology.html

And read The Orthodox Way, by Metropolitan Ware:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0913836583/ref=kinw_rke_rti_1
Logged

Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #38 on: March 04, 2012, 06:46:01 AM »

orthonorm,

I`m interested in the truth, the Ultimate Truth in all things, in case you didn`t figure it out.

To answer another poster I will tell you from where did all this came... I was trying to explain the Trinity to a muslim and than I figured  that the things i said didn`t make sense to me either and that i didn`t really believed them, so here I am.

I hope you were not offended. I did not mean to. I really don't care if people come here to challenge more than question, but if they are simply here to attempt to change Orthodox folks's minds in the guise of asking for "clarification" it is simply a waste of my time to get engaged such discussion. (Unless I get a chance to crack wise.)

BTW, good for you about being honest about not understanding what you don't and trying to find help to do so.

The thing is, I doubt anyone truly does understand the Trinity in a thoroughly satisfactory manner as to be able to "convince" someone else. But perhaps we will get to what "truth" is later.

To make this possibly productive, allow me to make sure, I (we) understand your questions.

Let's start with one.

Is it fair to say, you have trouble understanding the following:

That The Word of God (The Logos, etc.) was a person before He became Incarnate.

Is this a fair statement of one of your difficulties.

This might get tedious, but sprawling posts from 15 different people usually goes nowhere.




 

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.There is onle one Person for me, One G-d whose quality is given and determined by the Holy Trinity.

But i`m not sure how to explain the Incarnation.Did this One G-d in his entire Being descended in the Virgin and got Incarnated?

Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #39 on: March 04, 2012, 03:26:37 PM »

I read this years ago, but this mode of thinking changed my central understanding of "person" vs. "individual", even changed my whole view of how to read the Church fathers.  Not to sound sensationalist, but this even changed my life in a way.  So, hats off to Fr. Thomas Hopko for this crucial point:

Quote
I prefer the word communion to relationship. The Orthodox approach is that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and that God is a Trinity of persons in absolute identity of being and of life in perfect communion. Therefore, communion is the given. Anything that breaks that communion destroys the very roots of our existence. That’s why forgiveness is essential if there is going to be human life in the image of God. We are all sinners, living with other sinners, and so 70 times 7 times a day we must re-establish communion — and want to do so. The desire is the main thing, and the feeling that it is of value.

The obsession with relationship — the individual in search of relationships — in the modern world shows there is an ontological crack in our being. There is no such thing as an individual. He was created, probably, in a Western European university. We don’t recognize our essential communion. I don’t look at you and say, “You are my life.”

Modern interpretations of the commandment in the Torah reflect this individualistic attitude. The first commandment is that you love God with all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and the second is that you love your neighbor as yourself. The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor in this world is by endless forgiveness. So, “love your neighbor as yourself.” However, in certain modern editions of the Bible, I have seen this translated as, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” But that’s not what it says.

I recall a televised discussion program in which we were asked what was most important in Christianity. Part of what I said was that the only way we can find ourselves is to deny ourselves. That’s Christ’s teaching. If you cling to yourself, you lose yourself. The unwillingness to forgive is the ultimate act of not wanting to let yourself go. You want to defend yourself, assert yourself, protect yourself. There is a consistent line through the Gospel — if you want to be the first you must will to be the last. The other fellow, who taught the psychology of religion at a Protestant seminary, said, “What you are saying is the source of the neuroses of Western society. What we need is healthy self-love and healthy self-esteem.” Then he quoted that line, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” He insisted that you must love yourself first and have a sense of dignity. If one has that, forgiveness is either out of the question or an act of condescension toward the poor sinner. It is no longer an identification with the other as a sinner, too. I said that of course if we are made in the image of God it’s quite self-affirming, and self-hatred is an evil. But my main point is that there is no self there to be defended except the one that comes into existence by the act of love and self-emptying. It’s only by loving the other that myself actually emerges. Forgiveness is at the heart of that.

As we were leaving a venerable old rabbi with a shining face called us over. “That line, you know, comes from the Torah, from Leviticus,” he said, “and it cannot possibly be translated ‘love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ It says, ‘You shall love your neighbor as being your own self’.” Your neighbor is your true self. You have no self in yourself.

After this I started reading the Church Fathers in this light, and that’s what they all say — “Your brother is your life.” I have no self in myself except the one that is fulfilled by loving the other. The Trinitarian character of God is a metaphysical absolute here, so to speak. God’s own self is another — His Son. The same thing happens on the human level. So the minute I don’t feel deeply that my real self is the other, then I’ll have no reason to forgive anyone. But if that is my reality, and my only real self is the other, and my own identity and fulfillment emerges only in the act of loving the other, that gives substance to the idea that we are potentially God-like beings. Now, if you add to that that we are all to some degree faulty and weak and so on, that act of love will always be an act of forgiveness. That’s how I find and fulfill myself as a human being made in God’s image. Otherwise, I cannot. So the act of forgiveness is the very act by which our humanity is constituted. Deny that, and we kill ourselves. It’s a metaphysical suicide.

You are making a distinction here between the individual and the person.

The individual is the person that refuses to love. When a person refuses to identify in being and value with “the least,” even with “the enemy,” then the person becomes an individual, a self enclosed being trying to have proper relationships — usually on his or her own terms. But again, we would say that the person only comes into existence by going out of oneself into communion with the other. So my task is not to decide whether or not I will be in relationship with you but to realize that I am in communion with you: my life is yours, and your life is mine. Without this, there is no way that we are going to be able to carry on.


from http://www.incommunion.org/2005/08/03/living-in-communion/


In other words, the Trinity is not three individuals, but three persons, in the sense that they are perfectly in communion with one another.  This perfect communion from the very beginning is this Oneness.  The One God is the perfection of communion of Love.  Therefore, the awareness of "self" is not there.  The Father is aware in the Son through the Spirit.  The Son is aware in the Father through the Spirit.  The Father is aware in the Spirit through the Son, and the Son is aware in the Spirit through the Father.  The Spirit is aware in the Father through the Son, and the Spirit is aware in the Son through the Father.  This perfection in Trinitarian relationship of awareness of the self in the other, not in oneself, and act of awareness is through the agency of yet another, the perfection of the circle of communion of three, for this is a way in which we can understand the simplest of Oneness in the Threeness.

We on the other hand are persons who can potentially be individuals, but we are to emulate God by acting as self-sacrificing persons as best as possible, as Christ commanded, "Be Perfect, as my Father in heaven is Perfect."  The word "Person" therefore describes a hypostasis that wants to enter into personal relationship.  The Trinity is in fact so personal, that God is also Pantocrator, for God creates so that God may also have a personal relationship with His creation, and this is done in a manner that the Logos, the Son of God may eventually take creation in the form of man as part of His own so that we may enter into this same relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Logos does, so that we be sons to the Father by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

This is only the best way one can explain our relationship with God.  It is how we can relate to God that we can also understand who and what God is.  If God is Perfect Love, then God is Perfectly Triune.  If God is incarnate, then we can be perfected and grafted into this Triune relationship.  It is because God is Love that He is also incarnate, because not only He is Love within Himself, but He loves us, and wants to establish us as love within Himself.  This is a very complex view of God, but the complexity of it all is also worthy of God, for we can only understand so much about God through our relationship with Him.  But what He really IS in His essence, only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit knows, and something no creation is able to know.  Therefore, beyond this, we call "mystery" and the Trinity truly is a mystery at some point.

Now, what is a Muslim God?  The God of the Muslims is a God that can never be in communion with us.  He sends us intermediaries, but He never directly interacts with us, because that would be blasphemy in the eyes of a Muslim.  For God to interact with creation is defiling.  It is in fact a pagan aspect of God, for pagans also believe that it would be defiling for the gods to interact directly with us.  But the Judeo-Christian God is the God that interacts directly with us, and if He does send messengers it's because to show how His messengers interacted with God, and how we can also interact directly with God as His messengers can, even if they be angels, for we are higher than the angels.  But a Muslim God may say he loves us, but only the type of love that is politically correct.  A King who sits on His throne, but never leaves His throne, and creates and sends higher forms of creation, i.e. messengers to do His work for Him.  But Christ is a King who takes His throne and places it in our hearts.  It is through this relationship with Christ that we can understand the Oneness of God in the Trinity, because such is true Love.  But in Islam, it is blasphemy for God to be among us in our midst, but to keep Him in His place away from us, and we only obey His words to us through other more higher beings of His creation.  Where's the love in that?  In Christianity, the fear results from the love to God.  In Islam, the love results from the fear of God.  In Christianity, God came to primarily serve us.  In Islam, God sends messengers to primarily be served.  In Christianity, God is Triune and bring us into unison with Him.  In Islam, God is separate from His creation, and therefore, no need for Triunity.

Therefore, before all else, the concept of love, not a simple love of your fellow peers of faith, but a boundless love of all, even to your archenemies, need to be understood first.  And if that is understood, then one can also understand the true Love, that is who God is.  If Muslims can truly understand this Agape Love, then the foundations of their theology and their practical lives will be shattered.  Then they can come back and talk about the Trinity.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #40 on: March 04, 2012, 03:29:19 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.There is onle one Person for me, One G-d whose quality is given and determined by the Holy Trinity.

But i`m not sure how to explain the Incarnation.Did this One G-d in his entire Being descended in the Virgin and got Incarnated?

Considering that's incorrect, your last question won't get an answer you're hoping.

Read the Nicene Creed very carefully.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #41 on: March 04, 2012, 03:54:48 PM »

G-d

While I appreciate the respect you have for the name of God, but the name of God is not literally a bunch of letters that we revere, but the authority and power that He possesses in His essence.  Therefore, only that "name" we cannot truly pronounce.  We as men however using our tongues fall short in whatever we do to "name" or "describe" God.

Since we worship God, and not a bunch of letters, then "G-d" is nothing but a vain attempt of respect and maybe worse in respect to the Christian gospel.  In fact, why not "G+d" or G_d"?  Why even include the "G" and "d"?  Or we can say "Goddisclaimer" so that we know these three letters do not actually "name" Him truly.

Don't waste your time writing "G-d".  Rather spend your time honoring His true nameless will.  Such practices are reserved for those who spend a lot of time with the physicality of the Law, but not the spirituality of the Law.  It's reserved for people who feel that calling God "Abba" a blasphemy, but as Christians, as sons of God, we can call Him "Abba", and surely we can call Him "God" to separate us from those who actually regress us back into the literality of the law.  So in fact, rather than respecting God, you are actually rejecting Christ's mission of our progression in spirituality.
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 04:00:47 PM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #42 on: March 04, 2012, 03:58:47 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.There is onle one Person for me, One G-d whose quality is given and determined by the Holy Trinity.

But i`m not sure how to explain the Incarnation.Did this One G-d in his entire Being descended in the Virgin and got Incarnated?

Considering that's incorrect, your last question won't get an answer you're hoping.

Read the Nicene Creed very carefully.

I don`t have to read it.I know it in my head.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #43 on: March 04, 2012, 04:05:34 PM »

I read this years ago, but this mode of thinking changed my central understanding of "person" vs. "individual", even changed my whole view of how to read the Church fathers.  Not to sound sensationalist, but this even changed my life in a way.  So, hats off to Fr. Thomas Hopko for this crucial point:

Quote
I prefer the word communion to relationship. The Orthodox approach is that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and that God is a Trinity of persons in absolute identity of being and of life in perfect communion. Therefore, communion is the given. Anything that breaks that communion destroys the very roots of our existence. That’s why forgiveness is essential if there is going to be human life in the image of God. We are all sinners, living with other sinners, and so 70 times 7 times a day we must re-establish communion — and want to do so. The desire is the main thing, and the feeling that it is of value.

The obsession with relationship — the individual in search of relationships — in the modern world shows there is an ontological crack in our being. There is no such thing as an individual. He was created, probably, in a Western European university. We don’t recognize our essential communion. I don’t look at you and say, “You are my life.”

Modern interpretations of the commandment in the Torah reflect this individualistic attitude. The first commandment is that you love God with all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and the second is that you love your neighbor as yourself. The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor in this world is by endless forgiveness. So, “love your neighbor as yourself.” However, in certain modern editions of the Bible, I have seen this translated as, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” But that’s not what it says.

I recall a televised discussion program in which we were asked what was most important in Christianity. Part of what I said was that the only way we can find ourselves is to deny ourselves. That’s Christ’s teaching. If you cling to yourself, you lose yourself. The unwillingness to forgive is the ultimate act of not wanting to let yourself go. You want to defend yourself, assert yourself, protect yourself. There is a consistent line through the Gospel — if you want to be the first you must will to be the last. The other fellow, who taught the psychology of religion at a Protestant seminary, said, “What you are saying is the source of the neuroses of Western society. What we need is healthy self-love and healthy self-esteem.” Then he quoted that line, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” He insisted that you must love yourself first and have a sense of dignity. If one has that, forgiveness is either out of the question or an act of condescension toward the poor sinner. It is no longer an identification with the other as a sinner, too. I said that of course if we are made in the image of God it’s quite self-affirming, and self-hatred is an evil. But my main point is that there is no self there to be defended except the one that comes into existence by the act of love and self-emptying. It’s only by loving the other that myself actually emerges. Forgiveness is at the heart of that.

As we were leaving a venerable old rabbi with a shining face called us over. “That line, you know, comes from the Torah, from Leviticus,” he said, “and it cannot possibly be translated ‘love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ It says, ‘You shall love your neighbor as being your own self’.” Your neighbor is your true self. You have no self in yourself.

After this I started reading the Church Fathers in this light, and that’s what they all say — “Your brother is your life.” I have no self in myself except the one that is fulfilled by loving the other. The Trinitarian character of God is a metaphysical absolute here, so to speak. God’s own self is another — His Son. The same thing happens on the human level. So the minute I don’t feel deeply that my real self is the other, then I’ll have no reason to forgive anyone. But if that is my reality, and my only real self is the other, and my own identity and fulfillment emerges only in the act of loving the other, that gives substance to the idea that we are potentially God-like beings. Now, if you add to that that we are all to some degree faulty and weak and so on, that act of love will always be an act of forgiveness. That’s how I find and fulfill myself as a human being made in God’s image. Otherwise, I cannot. So the act of forgiveness is the very act by which our humanity is constituted. Deny that, and we kill ourselves. It’s a metaphysical suicide.

You are making a distinction here between the individual and the person.

The individual is the person that refuses to love. When a person refuses to identify in being and value with “the least,” even with “the enemy,” then the person becomes an individual, a self enclosed being trying to have proper relationships — usually on his or her own terms. But again, we would say that the person only comes into existence by going out of oneself into communion with the other. So my task is not to decide whether or not I will be in relationship with you but to realize that I am in communion with you: my life is yours, and your life is mine. Without this, there is no way that we are going to be able to carry on.


from http://www.incommunion.org/2005/08/03/living-in-communion/


In other words, the Trinity is not three individuals, but three persons, in the sense that they are perfectly in communion with one another.  This perfect communion from the very beginning is this Oneness.  The One God is the perfection of communion of Love.  Therefore, the awareness of "self" is not there.  The Father is aware in the Son through the Spirit.  The Son is aware in the Father through the Spirit.  The Father is aware in the Spirit through the Son, and the Son is aware in the Spirit through the Father.  The Spirit is aware in the Father through the Son, and the Spirit is aware in the Son through the Father.  This perfection in Trinitarian relationship of awareness of the self in the other, not in oneself, and act of awareness is through the agency of yet another, the perfection of the circle of communion of three, for this is a way in which we can understand the simplest of Oneness in the Threeness.

We on the other hand are persons who can potentially be individuals, but we are to emulate God by acting as self-sacrificing persons as best as possible, as Christ commanded, "Be Perfect, as my Father in heaven is Perfect."  The word "Person" therefore describes a hypostasis that wants to enter into personal relationship.  The Trinity is in fact so personal, that God is also Pantocrator, for God creates so that God may also have a personal relationship with His creation, and this is done in a manner that the Logos, the Son of God may eventually take creation in the form of man as part of His own so that we may enter into this same relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Logos does, so that we be sons to the Father by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

This is only the best way one can explain our relationship with God.  It is how we can relate to God that we can also understand who and what God is.  If God is Perfect Love, then God is Perfectly Triune.  If God is incarnate, then we can be perfected and grafted into this Triune relationship.  It is because God is Love that He is also incarnate, because not only He is Love within Himself, but He loves us, and wants to establish us as love within Himself.  This is a very complex view of God, but the complexity of it all is also worthy of God, for we can only understand so much about God through our relationship with Him.  But what He really IS in His essence, only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit knows, and something no creation is able to know.  Therefore, beyond this, we call "mystery" and the Trinity truly is a mystery at some point.

Now, what is a Muslim God?  The God of the Muslims is a God that can never be in communion with us.  He sends us intermediaries, but He never directly interacts with us, because that would be blasphemy in the eyes of a Muslim.  For God to interact with creation is defiling.  It is in fact a pagan aspect of God, for pagans also believe that it would be defiling for the gods to interact directly with us.  But the Judeo-Christian God is the God that interacts directly with us, and if He does send messengers it's because to show how His messengers interacted with God, and how we can also interact directly with God as His messengers can, even if they be angels, for we are higher than the angels.  But a Muslim God may say he loves us, but only the type of love that is politically correct.  A King who sits on His throne, but never leaves His throne, and creates and sends higher forms of creation, i.e. messengers to do His work for Him.  But Christ is a King who takes His throne and places it in our hearts.  It is through this relationship with Christ that we can understand the Oneness of God in the Trinity, because such is true Love.  But in Islam, it is blasphemy for God to be among us in our midst, but to keep Him in His place away from us, and we only obey His words to us through other more higher beings of His creation.  Where's the love in that?  In Christianity, the fear results from the love to God.  In Islam, the love results from the fear of God.  In Christianity, God came to primarily serve us.  In Islam, God sends messengers to primarily be served.  In Christianity, God is Triune and bring us into unison with Him.  In Islam, God is separate from His creation, and therefore, no need for Triunity.

Therefore, before all else, the concept of love, not a simple love of your fellow peers of faith, but a boundless love of all, even to your archenemies, need to be understood first.  And if that is understood, then one can also understand the true Love, that is who God is.  If Muslims can truly understand this Agape Love, then the foundations of their theology and their practical lives will be shattered.  Then they can come back and talk about the Trinity.

Dear friend, thanx for your post, I hope these will not be your last posts on this thread and I`ll try to be as respectfull as possible.It is really interesting how much people can babble about nothing.You did nothing but 'dodge' 'dodge' 'dodge' and avoid answering direct questions directly and somehow managed to give an answer that really doesn`t say anything of what I really asked.But I appreciate your effort in putting up with a philosophy.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #44 on: March 04, 2012, 04:09:31 PM »

G-d

While I appreciate the respect you have for the name of God, but the name of God is not literally a bunch of letters that we revere, but the authority and power that He possesses in His essence.  Therefore, only that "name" we cannot truly pronounce.  We as men however using our tongues fall short in whatever we do to "name" or "describe" God.

Since we worship God, and not a bunch of letters, then "G-d" is nothing but a vain attempt of respect and maybe worse in respect to the Christian gospel.  In fact, why not "G+d" or G_d"?  Why even include the "G" and "d"?  Or we can say "Goddisclaimer" so that we know these three letters do not actually "name" Him truly.

Don't waste your time writing "G-d".  Rather spend your time honoring His true nameless will.  Such practices are reserved for those who spend a lot of time with the physicality of the Law, but not the spirituality of the Law.  It's reserved for people who feel that calling God "Abba" a blasphemy, but as Christians, as sons of God, we can call Him "Abba", and surely we can call Him "God" to separate us from those who actually regress us back into the literality of the law.  So in fact, rather than respecting God, you are actually rejecting Christ's mission of our progression in spirituality.

I`ve done and doing a lot of cyber writing in which i`m bringing  God vainly in religious topics and discussions.. In honour of God i`m using this way of writing to say i really don`t know anything about God and warn people I might be using God's name, discuss God vainly and falsely intentional or unintentional.I do this out of the little fear and respect i have for G-d which is not the one he owes from me.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #45 on: March 04, 2012, 04:10:27 PM »

And I do it for myself as a reminder to cautiosly use my words and why not abandon all this G-d talk.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
orthonorm
Hoplitarches
*************
Offline Offline

Faith: Sola Gratia
Jurisdiction: Outside
Posts: 16,350



« Reply #46 on: March 04, 2012, 04:16:46 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.There is onle one Person for me, One G-d whose quality is given and determined by the Holy Trinity.

But i`m not sure how to explain the Incarnation.Did this One G-d in his entire Being descended in the Virgin and got Incarnated?



OK. So the answer to the question about trying to convince us of the non-Personhood of the Word rather than asking for help understanding the Eternal Personhood of all Persons of the Trinity was:

yes.

A profitable Fast to you.

Logged

Ignorance is not a lack, but a passion.
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #47 on: March 04, 2012, 04:25:14 PM »

Azul, are you suggesting that Christ was just an emanation or something from the Father before the Incarnation but at that point He became a Person?
Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #48 on: March 04, 2012, 05:41:40 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #49 on: March 04, 2012, 11:08:08 PM »

I read this years ago, but this mode of thinking changed my central understanding of "person" vs. "individual", even changed my whole view of how to read the Church fathers.  Not to sound sensationalist, but this even changed my life in a way.  So, hats off to Fr. Thomas Hopko for this crucial point:

Quote
I prefer the word communion to relationship. The Orthodox approach is that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and that God is a Trinity of persons in absolute identity of being and of life in perfect communion. Therefore, communion is the given. Anything that breaks that communion destroys the very roots of our existence. That’s why forgiveness is essential if there is going to be human life in the image of God. We are all sinners, living with other sinners, and so 70 times 7 times a day we must re-establish communion — and want to do so. The desire is the main thing, and the feeling that it is of value.

The obsession with relationship — the individual in search of relationships — in the modern world shows there is an ontological crack in our being. There is no such thing as an individual. He was created, probably, in a Western European university. We don’t recognize our essential communion. I don’t look at you and say, “You are my life.”

Modern interpretations of the commandment in the Torah reflect this individualistic attitude. The first commandment is that you love God with all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and the second is that you love your neighbor as yourself. The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor in this world is by endless forgiveness. So, “love your neighbor as yourself.” However, in certain modern editions of the Bible, I have seen this translated as, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” But that’s not what it says.

I recall a televised discussion program in which we were asked what was most important in Christianity. Part of what I said was that the only way we can find ourselves is to deny ourselves. That’s Christ’s teaching. If you cling to yourself, you lose yourself. The unwillingness to forgive is the ultimate act of not wanting to let yourself go. You want to defend yourself, assert yourself, protect yourself. There is a consistent line through the Gospel — if you want to be the first you must will to be the last. The other fellow, who taught the psychology of religion at a Protestant seminary, said, “What you are saying is the source of the neuroses of Western society. What we need is healthy self-love and healthy self-esteem.” Then he quoted that line, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” He insisted that you must love yourself first and have a sense of dignity. If one has that, forgiveness is either out of the question or an act of condescension toward the poor sinner. It is no longer an identification with the other as a sinner, too. I said that of course if we are made in the image of God it’s quite self-affirming, and self-hatred is an evil. But my main point is that there is no self there to be defended except the one that comes into existence by the act of love and self-emptying. It’s only by loving the other that myself actually emerges. Forgiveness is at the heart of that.

As we were leaving a venerable old rabbi with a shining face called us over. “That line, you know, comes from the Torah, from Leviticus,” he said, “and it cannot possibly be translated ‘love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ It says, ‘You shall love your neighbor as being your own self’.” Your neighbor is your true self. You have no self in yourself.

After this I started reading the Church Fathers in this light, and that’s what they all say — “Your brother is your life.” I have no self in myself except the one that is fulfilled by loving the other. The Trinitarian character of God is a metaphysical absolute here, so to speak. God’s own self is another — His Son. The same thing happens on the human level. So the minute I don’t feel deeply that my real self is the other, then I’ll have no reason to forgive anyone. But if that is my reality, and my only real self is the other, and my own identity and fulfillment emerges only in the act of loving the other, that gives substance to the idea that we are potentially God-like beings. Now, if you add to that that we are all to some degree faulty and weak and so on, that act of love will always be an act of forgiveness. That’s how I find and fulfill myself as a human being made in God’s image. Otherwise, I cannot. So the act of forgiveness is the very act by which our humanity is constituted. Deny that, and we kill ourselves. It’s a metaphysical suicide.

You are making a distinction here between the individual and the person.

The individual is the person that refuses to love. When a person refuses to identify in being and value with “the least,” even with “the enemy,” then the person becomes an individual, a self enclosed being trying to have proper relationships — usually on his or her own terms. But again, we would say that the person only comes into existence by going out of oneself into communion with the other. So my task is not to decide whether or not I will be in relationship with you but to realize that I am in communion with you: my life is yours, and your life is mine. Without this, there is no way that we are going to be able to carry on.


from http://www.incommunion.org/2005/08/03/living-in-communion/


In other words, the Trinity is not three individuals, but three persons, in the sense that they are perfectly in communion with one another.  This perfect communion from the very beginning is this Oneness.  The One God is the perfection of communion of Love.  Therefore, the awareness of "self" is not there.  The Father is aware in the Son through the Spirit.  The Son is aware in the Father through the Spirit.  The Father is aware in the Spirit through the Son, and the Son is aware in the Spirit through the Father.  The Spirit is aware in the Father through the Son, and the Spirit is aware in the Son through the Father.  This perfection in Trinitarian relationship of awareness of the self in the other, not in oneself, and act of awareness is through the agency of yet another, the perfection of the circle of communion of three, for this is a way in which we can understand the simplest of Oneness in the Threeness.

We on the other hand are persons who can potentially be individuals, but we are to emulate God by acting as self-sacrificing persons as best as possible, as Christ commanded, "Be Perfect, as my Father in heaven is Perfect."  The word "Person" therefore describes a hypostasis that wants to enter into personal relationship.  The Trinity is in fact so personal, that God is also Pantocrator, for God creates so that God may also have a personal relationship with His creation, and this is done in a manner that the Logos, the Son of God may eventually take creation in the form of man as part of His own so that we may enter into this same relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Logos does, so that we be sons to the Father by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

This is only the best way one can explain our relationship with God.  It is how we can relate to God that we can also understand who and what God is.  If God is Perfect Love, then God is Perfectly Triune.  If God is incarnate, then we can be perfected and grafted into this Triune relationship.  It is because God is Love that He is also incarnate, because not only He is Love within Himself, but He loves us, and wants to establish us as love within Himself.  This is a very complex view of God, but the complexity of it all is also worthy of God, for we can only understand so much about God through our relationship with Him.  But what He really IS in His essence, only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit knows, and something no creation is able to know.  Therefore, beyond this, we call "mystery" and the Trinity truly is a mystery at some point.

Now, what is a Muslim God?  The God of the Muslims is a God that can never be in communion with us.  He sends us intermediaries, but He never directly interacts with us, because that would be blasphemy in the eyes of a Muslim.  For God to interact with creation is defiling.  It is in fact a pagan aspect of God, for pagans also believe that it would be defiling for the gods to interact directly with us.  But the Judeo-Christian God is the God that interacts directly with us, and if He does send messengers it's because to show how His messengers interacted with God, and how we can also interact directly with God as His messengers can, even if they be angels, for we are higher than the angels.  But a Muslim God may say he loves us, but only the type of love that is politically correct.  A King who sits on His throne, but never leaves His throne, and creates and sends higher forms of creation, i.e. messengers to do His work for Him.  But Christ is a King who takes His throne and places it in our hearts.  It is through this relationship with Christ that we can understand the Oneness of God in the Trinity, because such is true Love.  But in Islam, it is blasphemy for God to be among us in our midst, but to keep Him in His place away from us, and we only obey His words to us through other more higher beings of His creation.  Where's the love in that?  In Christianity, the fear results from the love to God.  In Islam, the love results from the fear of God.  In Christianity, God came to primarily serve us.  In Islam, God sends messengers to primarily be served.  In Christianity, God is Triune and bring us into unison with Him.  In Islam, God is separate from His creation, and therefore, no need for Triunity.

Therefore, before all else, the concept of love, not a simple love of your fellow peers of faith, but a boundless love of all, even to your archenemies, need to be understood first.  And if that is understood, then one can also understand the true Love, that is who God is.  If Muslims can truly understand this Agape Love, then the foundations of their theology and their practical lives will be shattered.  Then they can come back and talk about the Trinity.

Dear friend, thanx for your post, I hope these will not be your last posts on this thread and I`ll try to be as respectfull as possible.It is really interesting how much people can babble about nothing.You did nothing but 'dodge' 'dodge' 'dodge' and avoid answering direct questions directly and somehow managed to give an answer that really doesn`t say anything of what I really asked.But I appreciate your effort in putting up with a philosophy.

Well, let's take this one by one.  Which is the first question you want answered?  Because I thought maybe I at least answered for you the Christian interpretation of the understanding of the difference between "person" and "individual," especially from the interview with Fr. Thomas Hopko.
Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #50 on: March 04, 2012, 11:56:32 PM »



Was the pre-Incarnational Christ a self-conscious Individual?

   I am going to stay away from using words like self-conscious for now because I feel it's use reduces god to a creation.  What we have to remember is that our sense of self comes from not us but others. One individual equals zero individuals. Simply because a second individual is needed to attest as a receptor and the first individual will get a sense of self because of acknowledgment from the second... That is why a single person can't exist on there own. The same can be said of god. God couldn't exist as one person. So the answer is yes.




Quote
I was refering strictly to the Divine non-enhypostized in humanity, prior to Incarnation Nature.The term "word of God" is an antropomorgy unless it is a metaphor.

         The hypostasis of Christ existed before he took on human nature. The Logo or Word are the same hypostasis of Christ.
It's easier to think of it this way. God the father can't communicate to creation directly so he sent his son to speak to man on his behalf. Also don't attribute just one meaning to the word. Logos also means reason in Greek. So there was a reason as well. That reason was to save mankind.


Quote
A self-conscious individual became Incarnated?


Read # one above.



Quote
Hypostasis is an extremely vague term.Simple question was the Word prior to Incarnation an actual Self-Conscious Individual or an Energy?



The logo consciousness is realized by the other persons in the trinity and they acknowledge the other members. It is said that they share in essence and not energy.



Quote

On the contrary this is exactly what we need to do.The trinitarian idea doesn`t seem to have as much support in the OT as it does in the NT.I`ve heard a priest once say that the Trinity is only a term the fathers used to make their theology more aprehensive in front of Arianism and that in fact we don`t believe in a Trinity-Trinity , but in One God.


No. Lets reiterate. 1 = 0
« Last Edit: March 04, 2012, 11:56:53 PM by Tzimis » Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Aindriú
Faster! Funnier!
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: Cynical
Jurisdiction: Vestibule of Hell
Posts: 3,918



WWW
« Reply #51 on: March 05, 2012, 09:16:30 AM »



Was the pre-Incarnational Christ a self-conscious Individual?

   I am going to stay away from using words like self-conscious for now because I feel it's use reduces god to a creation.  What we have to remember is that our sense of self comes from not us but others. One individual equals zero individuals. Simply because a second individual is needed to attest as a receptor and the first individual will get a sense of self because of acknowledgment from the second... That is why a single person can't exist on there own. The same can be said of god. God couldn't exist as one person. So the answer is yes.

Descartes has fried your egg.
Logged


I'm going to need this.
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #52 on: March 05, 2012, 09:48:51 AM »



Was the pre-Incarnational Christ a self-conscious Individual?

   I am going to stay away from using words like self-conscious for now because I feel it's use reduces god to a creation.  What we have to remember is that our sense of self comes from not us but others. One individual equals zero individuals. Simply because a second individual is needed to attest as a receptor and the first individual will get a sense of self because of acknowledgment from the second... That is why a single person can't exist on there own. The same can be said of god. God couldn't exist as one person. So the answer is yes.



Descartes has fried your egg.


I don't trust anyone that argues that the seat of the soul is the pineal gland.
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #53 on: March 05, 2012, 11:22:18 AM »

I read this years ago, but this mode of thinking changed my central understanding of "person" vs. "individual", even changed my whole view of how to read the Church fathers.  Not to sound sensationalist, but this even changed my life in a way.  So, hats off to Fr. Thomas Hopko for this crucial point:

Quote
I prefer the word communion to relationship. The Orthodox approach is that we are made in the image and likeness of God, and that God is a Trinity of persons in absolute identity of being and of life in perfect communion. Therefore, communion is the given. Anything that breaks that communion destroys the very roots of our existence. That’s why forgiveness is essential if there is going to be human life in the image of God. We are all sinners, living with other sinners, and so 70 times 7 times a day we must re-establish communion — and want to do so. The desire is the main thing, and the feeling that it is of value.

The obsession with relationship — the individual in search of relationships — in the modern world shows there is an ontological crack in our being. There is no such thing as an individual. He was created, probably, in a Western European university. We don’t recognize our essential communion. I don’t look at you and say, “You are my life.”

Modern interpretations of the commandment in the Torah reflect this individualistic attitude. The first commandment is that you love God with all your mind, all your soul, and all your strength, and the second is that you love your neighbor as yourself. The only way you can prove you love God is by loving your neighbor, and the only way you can love your neighbor in this world is by endless forgiveness. So, “love your neighbor as yourself.” However, in certain modern editions of the Bible, I have seen this translated as, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” But that’s not what it says.

I recall a televised discussion program in which we were asked what was most important in Christianity. Part of what I said was that the only way we can find ourselves is to deny ourselves. That’s Christ’s teaching. If you cling to yourself, you lose yourself. The unwillingness to forgive is the ultimate act of not wanting to let yourself go. You want to defend yourself, assert yourself, protect yourself. There is a consistent line through the Gospel — if you want to be the first you must will to be the last. The other fellow, who taught the psychology of religion at a Protestant seminary, said, “What you are saying is the source of the neuroses of Western society. What we need is healthy self-love and healthy self-esteem.” Then he quoted that line, “You shall love your neighbor as you love yourself.” He insisted that you must love yourself first and have a sense of dignity. If one has that, forgiveness is either out of the question or an act of condescension toward the poor sinner. It is no longer an identification with the other as a sinner, too. I said that of course if we are made in the image of God it’s quite self-affirming, and self-hatred is an evil. But my main point is that there is no self there to be defended except the one that comes into existence by the act of love and self-emptying. It’s only by loving the other that myself actually emerges. Forgiveness is at the heart of that.

As we were leaving a venerable old rabbi with a shining face called us over. “That line, you know, comes from the Torah, from Leviticus,” he said, “and it cannot possibly be translated ‘love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ It says, ‘You shall love your neighbor as being your own self’.” Your neighbor is your true self. You have no self in yourself.

After this I started reading the Church Fathers in this light, and that’s what they all say — “Your brother is your life.” I have no self in myself except the one that is fulfilled by loving the other. The Trinitarian character of God is a metaphysical absolute here, so to speak. God’s own self is another — His Son. The same thing happens on the human level. So the minute I don’t feel deeply that my real self is the other, then I’ll have no reason to forgive anyone. But if that is my reality, and my only real self is the other, and my own identity and fulfillment emerges only in the act of loving the other, that gives substance to the idea that we are potentially God-like beings. Now, if you add to that that we are all to some degree faulty and weak and so on, that act of love will always be an act of forgiveness. That’s how I find and fulfill myself as a human being made in God’s image. Otherwise, I cannot. So the act of forgiveness is the very act by which our humanity is constituted. Deny that, and we kill ourselves. It’s a metaphysical suicide.

You are making a distinction here between the individual and the person.

The individual is the person that refuses to love. When a person refuses to identify in being and value with “the least,” even with “the enemy,” then the person becomes an individual, a self enclosed being trying to have proper relationships — usually on his or her own terms. But again, we would say that the person only comes into existence by going out of oneself into communion with the other. So my task is not to decide whether or not I will be in relationship with you but to realize that I am in communion with you: my life is yours, and your life is mine. Without this, there is no way that we are going to be able to carry on.


from http://www.incommunion.org/2005/08/03/living-in-communion/


In other words, the Trinity is not three individuals, but three persons, in the sense that they are perfectly in communion with one another.  This perfect communion from the very beginning is this Oneness.  The One God is the perfection of communion of Love.  Therefore, the awareness of "self" is not there.  The Father is aware in the Son through the Spirit.  The Son is aware in the Father through the Spirit.  The Father is aware in the Spirit through the Son, and the Son is aware in the Spirit through the Father.  The Spirit is aware in the Father through the Son, and the Spirit is aware in the Son through the Father.  This perfection in Trinitarian relationship of awareness of the self in the other, not in oneself, and act of awareness is through the agency of yet another, the perfection of the circle of communion of three, for this is a way in which we can understand the simplest of Oneness in the Threeness.

We on the other hand are persons who can potentially be individuals, but we are to emulate God by acting as self-sacrificing persons as best as possible, as Christ commanded, "Be Perfect, as my Father in heaven is Perfect."  The word "Person" therefore describes a hypostasis that wants to enter into personal relationship.  The Trinity is in fact so personal, that God is also Pantocrator, for God creates so that God may also have a personal relationship with His creation, and this is done in a manner that the Logos, the Son of God may eventually take creation in the form of man as part of His own so that we may enter into this same relationship with the Father and the Holy Spirit as the Logos does, so that we be sons to the Father by the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

This is only the best way one can explain our relationship with God.  It is how we can relate to God that we can also understand who and what God is.  If God is Perfect Love, then God is Perfectly Triune.  If God is incarnate, then we can be perfected and grafted into this Triune relationship.  It is because God is Love that He is also incarnate, because not only He is Love within Himself, but He loves us, and wants to establish us as love within Himself.  This is a very complex view of God, but the complexity of it all is also worthy of God, for we can only understand so much about God through our relationship with Him.  But what He really IS in His essence, only the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit knows, and something no creation is able to know.  Therefore, beyond this, we call "mystery" and the Trinity truly is a mystery at some point.

Now, what is a Muslim God?  The God of the Muslims is a God that can never be in communion with us.  He sends us intermediaries, but He never directly interacts with us, because that would be blasphemy in the eyes of a Muslim.  For God to interact with creation is defiling.  It is in fact a pagan aspect of God, for pagans also believe that it would be defiling for the gods to interact directly with us.  But the Judeo-Christian God is the God that interacts directly with us, and if He does send messengers it's because to show how His messengers interacted with God, and how we can also interact directly with God as His messengers can, even if they be angels, for we are higher than the angels.  But a Muslim God may say he loves us, but only the type of love that is politically correct.  A King who sits on His throne, but never leaves His throne, and creates and sends higher forms of creation, i.e. messengers to do His work for Him.  But Christ is a King who takes His throne and places it in our hearts.  It is through this relationship with Christ that we can understand the Oneness of God in the Trinity, because such is true Love.  But in Islam, it is blasphemy for God to be among us in our midst, but to keep Him in His place away from us, and we only obey His words to us through other more higher beings of His creation.  Where's the love in that?  In Christianity, the fear results from the love to God.  In Islam, the love results from the fear of God.  In Christianity, God came to primarily serve us.  In Islam, God sends messengers to primarily be served.  In Christianity, God is Triune and bring us into unison with Him.  In Islam, God is separate from His creation, and therefore, no need for Triunity.

Therefore, before all else, the concept of love, not a simple love of your fellow peers of faith, but a boundless love of all, even to your archenemies, need to be understood first.  And if that is understood, then one can also understand the true Love, that is who God is.  If Muslims can truly understand this Agape Love, then the foundations of their theology and their practical lives will be shattered.  Then they can come back and talk about the Trinity.

Dear friend, thanx for your post, I hope these will not be your last posts on this thread and I`ll try to be as respectfull as possible.It is really interesting how much people can babble about nothing.You did nothing but 'dodge' 'dodge' 'dodge' and avoid answering direct questions directly and somehow managed to give an answer that really doesn`t say anything of what I really asked.But I appreciate your effort in putting up with a philosophy.

Well, let's take this one by one.  Which is the first question you want answered?  Because I thought maybe I at least answered for you the Christian interpretation of the understanding of the difference between "person" and "individual," especially from the interview with Fr. Thomas Hopko.

Was the Word prior the Incarnation a self-conscious Individual?Yes or No question.
What precisely got Incarnated of the Virgin and how?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #54 on: March 05, 2012, 11:28:06 AM »

Azul, are you suggesting that Christ was just an emanation or something from the Father before the Incarnation but at that point He became a Person?

Yes Christ was something of God's Being, an energy something before the Incarnation.I dunno exactly how to explain what happened at the Incarnation and precisely what got Incarnated.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #55 on: March 05, 2012, 11:32:57 AM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #56 on: March 05, 2012, 11:34:47 AM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.There is onle one Person for me, One G-d whose quality is given and determined by the Holy Trinity.

But i`m not sure how to explain the Incarnation.Did this One G-d in his entire Being descended in the Virgin and got Incarnated?



OK. So the answer to the question about trying to convince us of the non-Personhood of the Word rather than asking for help understanding the Eternal Personhood of all Persons of the Trinity was:

yes.

A profitable Fast to you.



It's none of those.I`m trying to convince myself , test and clarify my believes.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #57 on: March 06, 2012, 12:27:52 AM »

Was the Word prior the Incarnation a self-conscious Individual?Yes or No question.

First what is a self-conscious Individual?  When you ask about "individual" I say "No, He is not.  He is "a Prosopon of the Trinity," and even that terminology is weak to truly describe the Limitless.  When you ask about "self," I also say, "No!  Because a self is created.  He is uncreated.  He is beyond self."  When you ask about conscious, I say "No!  He is beyond consciousness.  Conscious is who you and I are."

In the end, the question you ask is actually invalid, because God cannot be compared to something that is known in an anthropomorphic sense.

Quote
What precisely got Incarnated of the Virgin and how?

"What" and "How" are mysteries.  The Incarnation is a mystery.  It cannot be explained adequately.  We can only answer "Who."  Because the "What" and the "How" depend on understanding the essence of the divinity of Christ and how it was united to the humanity, and since the understanding is beyond what any human mind is capable of understanding, then this question is also invalid to ask.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 12:28:53 AM by minasoliman » Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #58 on: March 06, 2012, 01:05:31 AM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
He is. The word used for "one" when the Tanakh says "God is one" is ahad. This word means unity, not singularity. E pluribus unum.

A singularity is something that cannot be reduced to parts because it is so simple. The Greeks often worshipped this god.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #59 on: March 06, 2012, 12:05:41 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
He is. The word used for "one" when the Tanakh says "God is one" is ahad. This word means unity, not singularity. E pluribus unum.

A singularity is something that cannot be reduced to parts because it is so simple. The Greeks often worshipped this god.

I always thought of Him as a "Singularity" .
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #60 on: March 06, 2012, 03:26:53 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
He is. The word used for "one" when the Tanakh says "God is one" is ahad. This word means unity, not singularity. E pluribus unum.

A singularity is something that cannot be reduced to parts because it is so simple. The Greeks often worshipped this god.

I always thought of Him as a "Singularity" .
Well I'm afraid that is not the ancient Jewish or Christian understanding of God, but the Monad of the Greeks.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #61 on: March 06, 2012, 03:51:36 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
He is. The word used for "one" when the Tanakh says "God is one" is ahad. This word means unity, not singularity. E pluribus unum.

A singularity is something that cannot be reduced to parts because it is so simple. The Greeks often worshipped this god.

I always thought of Him as a "Singularity" .
Well I'm afraid that is not the ancient Jewish or Christian understanding of God, but the Monad of the Greeks.

I always thought of Him like that from childhood without knowing much(nothing) of religious phylosophies, but I grew up with God and thanks to Him.
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: OCA
Posts: 6,539



« Reply #62 on: March 06, 2012, 04:15:08 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
He is. The word used for "one" when the Tanakh says "God is one" is ahad. This word means unity, not singularity. E pluribus unum.

A singularity is something that cannot be reduced to parts because it is so simple. The Greeks often worshipped this god.

I always thought of Him as a "Singularity" .
Well I'm afraid that is not the ancient Jewish or Christian understanding of God, but the Monad of the Greeks.

I always thought of Him like that from childhood without knowing much(nothing) of religious phylosophies, but I grew up with God and thanks to Him.

That is great Azul; I really mean it! Now that you are no longer a child, you are seeking a deeper understanding of Him and I also admire this. Most of all, I admire your courage in exploring your issues in public, knowing that you might get uncomplimentary remarks.

That said, may I ask you a question? Do you "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind"? You do not have to answer me, of course. However, if you do, you will more than likely end up thinking why you had a problem with the Holy Trinity of all things? Now, I am not arguing anything here, just predicting.
Logged

Michal: "SC, love you in this thread."
Father H
Archon
********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox Christian--God's One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church
Jurisdiction: UOCofUSA-Ecumenical Patriarchate
Posts: 2,520



« Reply #63 on: March 06, 2012, 07:19:29 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.There is onle one Person for me, One G-d whose quality is given and determined by the Holy Trinity.

But i`m not sure how to explain the Incarnation.Did this One G-d in his entire Being descended in the Virgin and got Incarnated?



OK. So the answer to the question about trying to convince us of the non-Personhood of the Word rather than asking for help understanding the Eternal Personhood of all Persons of the Trinity was:

yes.

A profitable Fast to you.



It's none of those.I`m trying to convince myself , test and clarify my believes.

Do you take communion? 
Logged
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #64 on: March 06, 2012, 08:34:43 PM »

I always thought of Him like that from childhood without knowing much(nothing) of religious phylosophies, but I grew up with God and thanks to Him.
Well, I grew up with a vague monadic understanding of God, too. But I don't hold a vague monadic understanding of God.
Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
biro
Excelsior
Site Supporter
Toumarches
*****
Online Online

Faith: Orthodox Christian
Jurisdiction: Greek Orthodox Church
Posts: 12,728


Και κλήρονομον δείξον με, ζωής της αιωνίου

fleem
WWW
« Reply #65 on: March 06, 2012, 11:07:53 PM »

Azul, the Scripture identifies God as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Yes, this is a mystery and hard to understand. But it's true.

Continuing to pray for you.  Smiley angel
Logged

Charlie Rose: If you could change one thing about the world, what would it be?

Fran Lebowitz: Everything. There is not one thing with which I am satisfied.

http://spcasuncoast.org/
William
Warned
Protokentarchos
*********
Offline Offline

Faith: None
Posts: 4,306


« Reply #66 on: March 06, 2012, 11:15:30 PM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
He is. The word used for "one" when the Tanakh says "God is one" is ahad. This word means unity, not singularity. E pluribus unum.

A singularity is something that cannot be reduced to parts because it is so simple. The Greeks often worshipped this god.

I always thought of Him as a "Singularity" .
Well I'm afraid that is not the ancient Jewish or Christian understanding of God, but the Monad of the Greeks.

I always thought of Him like that from childhood without knowing much(nothing) of religious phylosophies, but I grew up with God and thanks to Him.

Well, will you continue holding your guesswork idea of God or will you accept the teachings of your Church based on His revelation to man?
« Last Edit: March 06, 2012, 11:15:47 PM by William » Logged

Apart from moral conduct, all that man thinks himself able to do in order to become acceptable to God is mere superstition and religious folly. - Immanuel Kant

Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift. - Matt. 5:24
Tzimis
Site Supporter
Archon
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Greek Orthodox
Jurisdiction: GOA
Posts: 2,374



« Reply #67 on: March 07, 2012, 11:41:04 AM »

For me the Pre-Incarnated Logos is not a Person but a quality of G-d.I always thought of Him like that.
Why?

Because I always thought of God as being One.
He is. The word used for "one" when the Tanakh says "God is one" is ahad. This word means unity, not singularity. E pluribus unum.

A singularity is something that cannot be reduced to parts because it is so simple. The Greeks often worshipped this god.

I always thought of Him as a "Singularity" .

I usually discern it like this. Have you ever spoken a word at the same time as someone else? At that very moment you both had exact kinetics of thought. That is how it is with the trinity. Except that every kinisis of thought is continually the same. One in thought and three in substance is just one facet that we can see that the one and three works in conjunction. It's basically a loop hole in mathematics.  Just to add to this complexity we can say they are one in thought, persona and essence while three in substance and hypostasis. Than you will have a hell of a time discerning that. Wink
Logged

Excellence of character, then, is a state concerned with choice, lying in a mean relative to us, this being determined by reason and in the way in which the man of practical wisdom would determine it. Now it is a mean between two vices, that which depends on excess and that which depends on defect.
Azul
Moderated
High Elder
******
Offline Offline

Faith: Român Ortodox
Jurisdiction: Eastern Orthodox
Posts: 988



« Reply #68 on: March 07, 2012, 12:59:37 PM »

What is the intra-trinitarian perichoretic interpenetration?
Logged

Every formula of every religion has in this age of reason, to submit to the acid test of reason and universal assent.
Mahatma Gandhi
NicholasMyra
Taxiarches
**********
Offline Offline

Faith: Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Antiochian/Greek
Posts: 5,769


Avowed denominationalist


« Reply #69 on: March 07, 2012, 07:26:13 PM »

First off, William, cool it with the tough guy stuff.

What is the intra-trinitarian perichoretic interpenetration?

Perichoresis is a fancy word that means that the Word and the Spirit live within and dwell within the Father and each other in an infinitely intimate way.

"It happened, in those days, that Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and  he was baptized by John in the Jordan. Immediately coming up from the water, he saw the heavens torn open and the Spirit descending on him like a dove. A voice came out of the heavens, 'You are my beloved Son, in you I am well pleased." -Mark 1
« Last Edit: March 07, 2012, 07:31:02 PM by NicholasMyra » Logged

Quote from: Orthonorm
if Christ does and says x. And someone else does and says not x and you are ever in doubt, follow Christ.

"You are philosophical innovators. As for me, I follow the Fathers." -Every heresiarch ever
minasoliman
Mr., Sir, Dude, Guy, Male, tr. Minas in Greek, Menes in white people Egyptologists :-P
Moderator
Merarches
*****
Offline Offline

Faith: Oriental Orthodox
Jurisdiction: Coptic Orthodox Archdiocese of North America
Posts: 10,373


Strengthen O Lord the work of Your hands(Is 19:25)


WWW
« Reply #70 on: March 08, 2012, 12:24:12 AM »

What is the intra-trinitarian perichoretic interpenetration?

Unity of Triune Love
by Abbot Sophronius (10th century Coptic Hermit)

(Translated from Coptic by George Bebawi, Ph.D., As appeared in Coptic Church Review; Vol.25, number 4, Winter 2004

God is love because He is triune; or is it because He is triune that He is love? Love and Trinity are the same. In the Godhead there is the spring of love, the Father; the revelation of love, the Son; the giving and the communion of love, the Holy Spirit.

The Father loves His Son and the Son is His beloved. The Son sends the Spirit, who is the Spirit of the Father, and that is why the Son said “All that the Father has is mine. For this reason I said that he will take what is mine and declare it to you." John 16:14

The Holy Spirit is the Sprit of communion; He proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son and opens the fountain of love for us.
The Father is the beloved of the Son and the beloved of the Holy Spirit. For each of the Three is lover and beloved.

W H E N
The Son takes His office as Mediator, the Son is the beloved of the Father.
The Son offers His life for the world, the Father is the beloved of the Son.
The Holy Spirit proceeds for the Incarnation of the Son, the Son is the beloved of the Holy Spirit.
The Son sends the Holy Spirit of the Father, the Holy Spirit becomes the beloved of the Son.

The movement of love of the Holy Thriad is the perichoresis, where Each exchanges His movement with the other. When we pray in the beloved Lord Jesus Christ, we receive from Him the Holy Spirit because the Son is the Head of the new creation. But we also receive the Son our Lord from the Holy Spirit in order to rest in the Father.

The movement of the humility of God, the Trinity, is like that; the Father comes to us in His Son, and the Son comes to us in the Holy Spirit. When we receive the Son from the Holy Spirit, we ascend to the Father to rest in Him.

Let us embark on this journey by taking our beginning with the Son who eternally took His beginning from the Father - the true Beginning (arche) of the Son and the Holy Spirit.

Let us surrender to the Love of God the Father who is revealed in His Son and is communicated to us in the Son through the Holy Spirit.
We surrender to the Son who emptied Himself and took our form. We accept to be crucified with Him in the mystery of baptism, that by His humility we may have the first taste of divine love - the love that does not take anything from us but gives everything first to receive us. The humble love of the Divine who empties Himself, even of His holiness, to become a slave in order to lift up the slave to the divine love; for God loves for no reason, no necessity, because love is His very nature.

Let us explore with holiness the divine love and take the holy word of God as our beginning, and His love as our goal. Let us have no reason for loving God as the Trinity has no reason for being the Communion of love of the Three, who love because love is their nature.
Let us look at the cross to learn sacrificial love, the love of the Trinity who offered the Son for sinners; who was declared to be Son of God with power according to the spirit of holiness by resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, (Romans 1:4)
When we die we can love even to the point of physical death for then, and only then, we can complete our baptism and receive divine love, and then love like the Trinity because our love comes from Him.

The Holy Spirit who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son takes us to the Bosom of the Father. The holy apostle told us that since we are the children of the Father, the Father sends the Spirit of His Son (the Spirit who rests in the Son from Eternity or from the beginning, and because of His Incarnation rests on Him) to be for us our Unction, to anoint us in Him and with Him because He is the second Adam and the head of the new creation which receives the Holy Spirit for eternal life.

Let us pray in Jesus our true Intercessor to be anointed by the Holy Spirit in Him and by Him who is our high-priest to rest in the Bosom of the Father.

True prayer in the Holy Spirit is when we cry Abba Father. This short cry includes the mystery of our salvation. We look at the Spring of Love, God the Father, the Revelation of Love, God the Son, and the Communion of Love, God the Holy Spirit. When we are adopted we know that they are not three gods but one God in Three. We discern the Three and we discern the moment of divine love because divine love is not static but dynamic.

In His mercy the Father moves always to the Beloved and the Beloved moves always to the Holy Spirit. Let us not imagine distance or time but just as our blood moves by the pulse of our heart and by our breathing so in like manner the Three move towards each other. This movement is one of distinction and differences. The three are not just names in the Godhead but Three Hypostases in one Ousia. Three Beloved in the one communion of Love; three lovers in the one undivided love. The Father is the Spring from whom comes the Son and the Holy Spirit. The Son is the Revelation who reveals the Father and gives the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is the Gift of communion who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son and brings the whole creation to this communion.


Let us recapitulate:

God is love; that is why God is Trinity.
Love is communion and communion is between more than one
Self love is the foundation of love
Self giving is the very communion between two, but shared love of two with a third transcends the closed relationship of the two. When two who love each other as equals share their love with a third equal, they move from the exclusive dyadic love to the communal triadic love. Triadic love is perfect for these reasons:
1. It is communal because more than two is a community.
2. It does not stop at exclusive dyadic love because a third who shares the love of the two, gives back the same love of the two.
3. It is the circle of infinite movement for two do not make a circle, but three close the circle as each stands in the one third of the circle and makes it complete.
If we apply this to the Holy Trinity we can see that the movement of love is a movement of perichoresis (AGreek word which is equivalent to the Latin circumcession); both mean penetration and dance.

Concluding in Grace:

Now generation reaches its climax, and procession its goal to perfect the plan of our salvation. The One who is always with the Father and in the Father has created in Himself the new humanity. It was new from the very moment of his conception but it had not met our death. It met death in the flesh by the power of the Anointing which Jesus received for us at His baptism. At His conception in the womb of Mary, Jesus received from the Holy Spirit the foundation of the new creation. This new creation has its beginning in the Holy Spirit and in communion with the Father because the Father is its Arche (source); the Son is its Mediator and the Holy Spirit is its life. This happened secretly while the world was asleep.


Logged

Vain existence can never exist, for \\\"unless the LORD builds the house, the builders labor in vain.\\\" (Psalm 127)

If the faith is unchanged and rock solid, then the gates of Hades never prevailed in the end.
Tags: The Word became flesh Father Son Holy Spirit modalism  teaching of islam Sabellianism unitarianism Trinity 
Pages: 1 2 All   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.18 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.338 seconds with 99 queries.