Oneness of God signifies the Unity of Essence in the distinction of Persons.

[101G]

Lets unpack all your straw shall we. I don't know what definition you are using for cardinal but it clearly isn't the same as the one I supposed. You assert ," God is a plurality of Himself" That supposition is quite abstract and leaves a lot wanting, but in the concrete orthodox declares ,"In God what is Indeterminately signified by Plurality is signified by Trinity in a Determinate manner. Distinct Persons is not multiple gods so you refute yourself.

First thanks for the reply, second, I''m not using "cardinal" identification for his plurality, only Ordinal identification for his plurality. understand

second, you said,

You assert ," God is a plurality of Himself" That supposition is quite abstract and leaves a lot wanting,

well blame it on Mr. strong and his dictionary. because all dictionaries render "GOD" as
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433


and H433 is, the single person of H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') above.
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

so your statement is rejected and reproved.

no one said the Spirit is begotten , it is the Hypostasis of the Son Begotten Immaterially without regard to this flesh these bones and this blood.

another ERROR on your Part, there is no such thing as any Hypostasis. God's NATURE has alway been Spirit, he only TOOK on flesh.. scripture, Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
meaning he was NOT a partaker of Flesh and blood but took part in it... LISTEN and LEARN, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

did you see the difference? the children are partakers of flesh and blood but not him, he only took part of the same; understand the Difference between "Partake" vs "Took Part", they are not the same,

so that term "Hypostasis" so not apply to the Lord Jesus at all.

For unto us a child is born and unto us a son is given. The rest of the verse qualifies the first portion of the Son own Divine Self Sovereignty. SO your point is what exactly????

Not to that which was "BORN", for what was born was changed in the resurrection, so again you error.
]

Father Son Holy Spirit are not titles but relative personal names of the Three Divine Persons. You cannot half bake assert," God is a plurality of Himself, then turn around and attempt to reproach me with myopic and rudimentary suppositions. against a Trinity of Persons.

first off, titles are not personal Names. example, Machine Gun Kelly. is Machine Gun, Kelly first or Last Name? or how about Baber Joe? is Baber Joe's First or last name? of course not. it's only a TITLE, and not the person. titles identifies "WHAT" the person is and NOT "WHO" the person is... come on put the tinking cap on.

]PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

Isaiah 41:4 shows "last" is plural referring to the last generations.

ERROR, IO is not a GENERATION, my God how Ignorant can you be.

Now once more in trying to reach the Lost. listen, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." I is a single PERSON, not a generation.

now, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

I is the LAST "ALSO", not a generation, but one person. see your IGNORANT ERROR now? my God, it's like pulling a wisdom tooth.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Jewjitzu]

ERROR, IO is not a GENERATION, my God how Ignorant can you be.

Now once more in trying to reach the Lost. listen, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." I is a single PERSON, not a generation.

Last is plural. I gave you the textual analysis. God is saying He is eternal throughout all generations.

now, Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

I is the LAST "ALSO", not a generation, but one person. see your IGNORANT ERROR now? my God, it's like pulling a wisdom tooth.

PICJAG, 101G.

Rotfl... same idea above.

 

[101G]

Last is plural. I gave you the textual analysis. God is saying He is eternal throughout all generations.

ERROR AGAIN, is FIRST plural? NO last is not plural either, listen and LEARN,
H314 אַחֲרוֹן 'acharown (ach-ar-one') adj.
אַחֲרֹן 'acharon (ach-ar-one') [shortened]
1. hinder.
2. (generally) late or last.
3. (specifically) (as facing the east) western.
[from H309]
KJV: after (-ward), to come, following, hind(-er, -ermost, -most), last, latter, rereward, ut(ter)most.

did you not UNDERSTAND, "I the LORD, the first", yes LORD the same ONE PERSON in Deuteronomy 6:4.... LOL, oh how IGORANT can one be...

Look stay in darkness, don't say anything, don't touch anything, just sit still in silence, ok and you will do just fine.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Jewjitzu]

ERROR AGAIN, is FIRST plural? NO last is not plural either, listen and LEARN,

I'm sorry, but you're a real piece of work, putting it nicely.

Isaiah 41:4 Hebrew Text Analysis

Last in Hebrew is achronim, plural, adj-mp. Look at the morphology on the right hand side.

Rotfl...

H314 אַחֲרוֹן 'acharown (ach-ar-one') adj.
אַחֲרֹן 'acharon (ach-ar-one') [shortened]
1. hinder.
2. (generally) late or last.
3. (specifically) (as facing the east) western.
[from H309]
KJV: after (-ward), to come, following, hind(-er, -ermost, -most), last, latter, rereward, ut(ter)most.

did you not UNDERSTAND, "I the LORD, the first", yes LORD the same ONE PERSON in Deuteronomy 6:4.... LOL, oh how IGORANT can one be...

I'd say you're pretty ignorant.

Look stay in darkness, don't say anything, don't touch anything, just sit still in silence, ok and you will do just fine.

I'll get you a candle ? ?.

PICJAG, 101G.

Rotfl... Obi-wan Kenobi

 

[johnny guitar]

and what do "WITH" the Father means? we suggest you read Isaiah 41:4 and Isaiah 48:12.

which gets all your Fathers, Son, and Holy Spirit as ONE PERSON.

so read those verses carefully, for full edification.

PICJAG, 101G.

These passages reveal ONE God, ONE Lord, NOT one Person.

 

[johnny guitar]

LOL, LOL, and....... JG can you read? I said " advocate", (which is a intercessor), but I asked for the term, " advocate", and i gave you the scripture, 1 John 2:1. well lets see why you dodge the term
advocate: G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

yes JG, the advocate is the COMFORTER, the Holy Spirit who is the Lord JESUS, whom you call the Son.... (smile).

well JG, one of your three person is eliminated. for the one who you calls the Son is the one whom you calls the Holy Spirit/Ghost..... (smile).

so, you want to try again?

PICJAG, 101G.

Indeed, The Comforter is The Holy Spirit, NOT Jesus Christ The Son.
Eliminated????NO ONE eliminates The Holy Spirit.

 

[101G]

These passages reveal ONE God, ONE Lord, NOT one Person.

GINOLJC, to all,
JG, JG, JG, are you UNDERSTANDING at all? LISTEN and LEARN, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." did you hear that? I, I, I, I, a single person is the he Who is the FIRST and the LAST. and this is proved out in Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

JG, that's only ONE PERSON, now here the Lord Jesus whom you say you follow ... right... clearly tells you he's the First and the last who is ONE SINGLE PERSON. Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." Bingo, checkmate.

to make sure that this is the Lord jesus, Revelation 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

JG, tell us who was dead and is NOW "ALIVE?", who is the First and the Last? only ONE PERSON, the Lord Jesus, God almighty

you are reproved. and corrected.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[101G]

Indeed, The Comforter is The Holy Spirit, NOT Jesus Christ The Son.
Eliminated????NO ONE eliminates The Holy Spirit.

my, my, my, this is like pulling a rotten wisdom tooth. Listen Closley. John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;"
the term "COMFORTER" here is the Greek word, G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

now the Term "ADVOCATE" in 1 John 2:1 "My little children, these things write I unto you, that ye sin not. And if any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous:"
the term "ADVOCATE" is the Greek word, G3875 παράκλητος parakletos (pa-ra'-klee-tos) n.
1. (properly) one called near (to give help).
2. an intercessor (one who entreats of behalf of another).
3. a comforter.
[(not given)]
KJV: advocate, comforter
Root(s): G3844, G2822

the exact same word. JG, are you reasoning?

did you not hear the Lord Jesus back in John 14:16 "And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;" ANOTHER, ANOTHER, Com,forter? well who was the first Comforter that came? answer him, the Lord Jesus, just read Luke 2:25... oh my, my, my, this is too easy not to understand.

and on top of that he, the Lord Jesus said, in John 14: 18 just a couple verses after verse 14, this, John 14:18 "I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you." MY GOD, how plain can one be..... if you cannot get this, then see ya. meaning you don;t want to know the TRUTH.

PICJAG, 101G.

 

[Jewjitzu]

GINOLJC, to all,
JG, JG, JG, are you UNDERSTANDING at all? LISTEN and LEARN, Isaiah 41:4 "Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the LORD, the first, and with the last; I am he." did you hear that? I, I, I, I, a single person is the he Who is the FIRST and the LAST. and this is proved out in Isaiah 48:12 "Hearken unto me, O Jacob and Israel, my called; I am he; I am the first, I also am the last."

JG, that's only ONE PERSON, now here the Lord Jesus whom you say you follow ... right... clearly tells you he's the First and the last who is ONE SINGLE PERSON. Revelation 1:11 "Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last: and, What thou seest, write in a book, and send it unto the seven churches which are in Asia; unto Ephesus, and unto Smyrna, and unto Pergamos, and unto Thyatira, and unto Sardis, and unto Philadelphia, and unto Laodicea." Bingo, checkmate.

to make sure that this is the Lord jesus, Revelation 1:17 "And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:" Revelation 1:18 "I am he that liveth, and was dead; and, behold, I am alive for evermore, Amen; and have the keys of hell and of death."

JG, tell us who was dead and is NOW "ALIVE?", who is the First and the Last? only ONE PERSON, the Lord Jesus, God almighty

you are reproved. and corrected.

PICJAG, 101G.

The last is plural in Isaiah 41:4.

 

[aeg4971]

First thanks for the reply, second, I''m not using "cardinal" identification for his plurality, only Ordinal identification for his plurality. understand

second, you said,

well blame it on Mr. strong and his dictionary. because all dictionaries render "GOD" as
H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') n-m.
אֱלֹהֵי 'elohiy (el-o-hee') [alternate plural]
1. (literally) supreme ones.
2. (hence, in the ordinary sense) gods.
3. (specifically, in the plural, especially with the article) the Supreme God (i.e. the all supreme).
4. (sometimes) supreme, used as a superlative.
5. (occasionally, by way of deference) supreme magistrates, the highest magistrates of the land.
6. (also) the supreme angels (entities of unspecified type).
[plural of H433]
KJV: angels, X exceeding, God (gods)(-dess, -ly), X (very) great, judges, X mighty.
Root(s): H433


and H433 is, the single person of H430 אֱלֹהִים 'elohiym (el-o-heem') above.
H433 אֱלוֹהַּ 'elowahh (el-o'-ah) n-m.
אֱלֹהַּ 'eloahh (el-o'-ah) [shortened (rarely)]
1. one with supreme strength and ability.
2. the Supreme Being, God the Creator, Yahweh by name.
3. a supreme entity, a god-like creature (that is, one of God's supreme creations, or one of man's inventions).
[probably prolonged (emphat.) from H410]
KJV: God, god.
Root(s): H410

so your statement is rejected and reproved.

another ERROR on your Part, there is no such thing as any Hypostasis. God's NATURE has alway been Spirit, he only TOOK on flesh.. scripture, Hebrews 2:16 "For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham."
meaning he was NOT a partaker of Flesh and blood but took part in it... LISTEN and LEARN, Hebrews 2:14 "Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil;"

did you see the difference? the children are partakers of flesh and blood but not him, he only took part of the same; understand the Difference between "Partake" vs "Took Part", they are not the same,

so that term "Hypostasis" so not apply to the Lord Jesus at all.

Not to that which was "BORN", for what was born was changed in the resurrection, so again you error.
]

first off, titles are not personal Names. example, Machine Gun Kelly. is Machine Gun, Kelly first or Last Name? or how about Baber Joe? is Baber Joe's First or last name? of course not. it's only a TITLE, and not the person. titles identifies "WHAT" the person is and NOT "WHO" the person is... come on put the tinking cap on.

]PICJAG, 101G.

I signified the numeric Unity of Nature and Existence as Cardinal. Fundamental or absolute, whereas I signified the Plurality in the Supposita of which it is spoken as ordinal . As to the order of nature , in this case order of procession. I never heard of supreme ones. I have always understood "gods" plural to give occasion to the error of a polytheistic pagan. I understand Supreme Being. God the Creator. I also understand that "God is the Supreme Substance transcending the divisions of the Aristotelian categories , who is at ONE and at the same time, He is both Substance and Relation". I further understand the Latin doctor communis when he reminds us of (Ex 3:14)," Only God is Simultaneously all that He could be, infinitely real, and infinitely perfect , what we call attributes are really identical with His Essence". I don't know what statement you rejected and reproved , but I do that you are not intellectually qualified to reject or reprove.

Again you are not remotely intellectually qualified to assert," there is no such thing as any hypostasis" First of all God by nature is Spirit, so what point is it to tell me ," God nature always been spirit".. And the underling reality of Spiratio which supports All else is God infinite intelligible species , which is manifestly Expressed by way of Hypostasis. You ignorantly assert," there is no such thing as any hypostasis ", but then you negate your own erroneously unlearned supposition by effectively stating.," God Hypostasis is spirit. To even assert God is omnipotent omniscient omnipresent signifies essential properties in the Divine nature, which again is manifestly expressed by way of Hypostasis.

On what ground do you erroneously assert," there is no such thing as any hypostasis". God is a breathing rational speaking ,thinking Intelligible living thing, as is you and I. of soul and spirit, all of which essentially and properly belongs to Hypostasis- Beneath standing the underlining reality which supports All else. To further show just how unlearned you are thereby refuting yourself, You referred to God as Himself, and only a Himself has Hypostasis perfected by Personality or Personhood.

I just handwritten a new thread on legal pad in my horrible left hand penmanship on your improper mode of signification," God is a plurality of Himself". You do not really believe this abstract concept, simply because in its proper mode of signification its concrete determination could only by way of Hypostasis.

God took on flesh by way of the sending of the Son made passable ( ie. after a fashion), by way of the virgin birth. Or as the Latin doctor communis says,' God the Father took humanity to the Word Himself". for My Lord says," From God I proceeded, neither came I of myself but He sent me" . Not sure why you think I needed a lesson on the distinction between partake and took part. It has no relevance.


The term Hypostasis must need to apply to the Lord Jesus Christ by reason of His very existence as a living intelligible rational being . And that holy thing born of Thee shall be called the Son of God. Therefore Jesus would be Jesus without Hypostasis in Himself.

Ok so that which was born under the law was changed after the resurrection. You said that to say what? Titles generally speaking are not personal names, nevertheless The Father the Son the Holy Spirit are each supported by way of Hypostasis. , and on account of Relative predication in the Divine which imports a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken, they are Personal names of the Three Divine Persons. One is the Father ,another is the Son, and another is the Holy Spirit. Furthermore The Father the Son , the Holy Spirit are not merely titles nor essential names, and this is ,by reason of, in God, Divine Paternity is a personal property and individuating principle scripturally Determined in the Person of the Father. Likewise Divine Filiation which is signified by Word is a personal property and individuating principle scripturally determined in the Person of the Son. This too is true, Divine passive spiration ,is a personal property and individuating principle , scripturally determined in the Person of the Holy Spirit.

Once again you remain refuted.

........ Alan

 

[aeg4971]

The last is plural in Isaiah 41:4.

Why do people have such rigorous discourse over if a word signifies the singular or the plural in God. To me it really just comes across as a race to see who gives occasion to the error of a polytheistic pagan the most. I mean trivial long debates over as it is written," Let us make man in our Image after our likeness". At the very least this verse signifies in the Divine -a plurality in the supposita of which it is spoken . Trying to debate singular or plural in the Divine Nature beyond that , most likely leads to humanistic assertions of polytheism.

Furthermore it is completely unnecessary for many to overexpress the distinction of Persons or plurality of the supposita in God to the borders of tritheism . God own Self Revelation is Three-fold , and thus plurality in God of itself and by itself speaks for itself. God is His very own Godhead whether signified singly, plurally or severally". It then follows "singly" God is at one, and at the same time "severally " and thus in this numerical Unity of Essence, we adore the distinction of Persons and the Equality of their Majesty.

4. Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he.

So, this verse is predicated in the plural. Does not mean or suppose two yahweh's or plural gods, for it is written " I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the First shall be last and the last shall be first". signified in one Person and another. Hence it follows in God, Singular in Essence ,Nature Substance which is the same as the Suppositum, and at once plural in supposita or hypostasis.


You or others must need to confute and dispatch orthodoxy starting principle. " In God what is Indeterminately signified by Plurality is signified by Trinity in a Determinate manner" . God is the same as Godhead.




.......... Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

Why do people have such rigorous discourse over if a word signifies the singular or the plural in God. To me it really just comes across as a race to see who gives occasion to the error of a polytheistic pagan the most. I mean trivial long debates over as it is written," Let us make man in our Image after our likeness". At the very least this verse signifies in the Divine -a plurality in the supposita of which it is spoken . Trying to debate singular or plural in the Divine Nature beyond that , most likely leads to humanistic assertions of polytheism.

Actually, the verse shows God singularly speaking to creation as He did in Genesis 1:1-25. The Latin devils got it wrong again.

Furthermore it is completely unnecessary for many to overexpress the distinction of Persons or plurality of the supposita in God to the borders of tritheism . God own Self Revelation is Three-fold , and thus plurality in God of itself and by itself speaks for itself. God is His very own Godhead whether signified singly, plurally or severally". It then follows "singly" God is at one, and at the same time "severally " and thus in this numerical Unity of Essence, we adore the distinction of Persons and the Equality of their Majesty.

4. Who hath wrought and done it, calling the generations from the beginning? I the Lord, the first, and with the last; I am he.

So, this verse is predicated in the plural. Does not mean or suppose two yahweh's or plural gods, for it is written " I AM the Alpha and the Omega, the First shall be last and the last shall be first". signified in one Person and another. Hence it follows in God, Singular in Essence ,Nature Substance which is the same as the Suppositum, and at once plural in supposita or hypostasis.

Once again, the plural is in respect to the last generations with Isaiah 41:4.

You or others must need to confute and dispatch orthodoxy starting principle. " In God what is Indeterminately signified by Plurality is signified by Trinity in a Determinate manner" . God is the same as Godhead.

And yet your godhead has inherent imperfections since they proceed or generate from each other.

 

[aeg4971]

Actually, the verse shows God singularly speaking to creation as He did in Genesis 1:1-25. The Latin devils got it wrong again.


Once again, the plural is in respect to the last generations with Isaiah 41:4.


And yet your godhead has inherent imperfections since they proceed or generate from each other.

I answer that in God it is no more perfect to generate then to be generated for in God Equality signifies no greater or less. Clearly you, the simple indeed who I will not call unwise and unlearned. God is absolutely Indeterminate, therefore it is intellectually and scripturally foolish to fallaciously assert," And yet your godhead has inherent imperfections since they proceed or generate from each other". God is His very own Godhead. Hence Relation in God is not as if it is something to inhere, but rather a predicament, in the comprehension," As one regard Himself to Another, but not however as if Other from the Divine Nature " Divine generation and procession then is in no way an act to its passion or reception, and thus change motion or movement in God , but purely the eternal subsisting relation of the Originator to the Originated to the Originating.

Therefore in the Divine, a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken is the same as the relation between God- Begetting, God- Begotten, God- Proceeding. God is the same as Godhead. It is quite clear that We are hampered by the limitations of the human experience to adequately express verities of Divine so that so called Latin devil says," In God We cannot express plurality of the supposita without attributing to Him Sonship and Spiration.

Those so called Latin devils confute and dispatch you when the Latin doctor communis says," When we say," Several Persons having Godhead, we do not imply diversity in Him , nor that imperfections should exist in God, but rather we mean that," The Divine Essence comprehends within itself the perfection of every being".

The so called Latin devils starting Biblical premise is, Supremely being itself subsistent absolutely Indeterminate ,we call very true God of His own nature prepossesses the perfection of all being.

You too remain refuting yourself.

....... Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

I answer that in God it is no more perfect to generate then to be generated for in God Equality signifies no greater or less. Clearly you, the simple indeed who I will not call unwise and unlearned. God is absolutely Indeterminate, therefore it is intellectually and scripturally foolish to fallaciously assert," And yet your godhead has inherent imperfections since they proceed or generate from each other". God is His very own Godhead. Hence Relation in God is not as if it is something to inhere, but rather a predicament, in the comprehension," As one regard Himself to Another, but not however as if Other from the Divine Nature " Divine generation and procession then is in no way an act to its passion or reception, and thus change motion or movement in God , but purely the eternal subsisting relation of the Originator to the Originated to the Originating.

Therefore in the Divine, a distinction in the supposita of which it is spoken is the same as the relation between God- Begetting, God- Begotten, God- Proceeding. God is the same as Godhead. It is quite clear that We are hampered by the limitations of the human experience to adequately express verities of Divine so that so called Latin devil says," In God We cannot express plurality of the supposita without attributing to Him Sonship and Spiration.

Those so called Latin devils confute and dispatch you when the Latin doctor communis says," When we say," Several Persons having Godhead, we do not imply diversity in Him , nor that imperfection should exist in God, but rather we mean that," the Divine Essence comprehends within itself the perfection of every being".

You too refute yourself.

....... Alan

Sorry, but being generated is an inherent imperfection. There's no way around this regardless of what the Latin devils say.

The devils with their gibberish don't impress me. Anything else?

 

[aeg4971]

Sorry, but being generated is an inherent imperfection. There's no way around this regardless of what the Latin devils say.

The devils with their gibberish don't impress me. Anything else?

Yeah in creatures, composite subjects ,accidents , corporal and created things, nevertheless God is nowise a composition of quantitative parts neither is of genius or species, subject or accident, but He is altogether simple form of Spirit . It follow divine conception then is not an act that brings potentiality to actuality or existence. That so called Latin devil venerated as the angelic doctor confute and dispatch you when he says," Procession of the Logos in God/ Divine generation is an Eternal Divine Intelligible act of understanding whereby God KNOWS His own nature, and the Word Himself proceeding is properly called begotten and Son , ever Born in the Bosom of the Father He has declared Him".

Let me ask you, Has anybody ever told you ," CONTEXT IS ALWAYS KEY". You seem to be responding to me under human conditions that could not actually exist in God.

Those so called Latin devils confute and dispatch you when the Latin doctor communis says," When we say," Several Persons having Godhead, we do not imply diversity in Him , nor that imperfections should exist in God, but rather we mean that," The Divine Essence comprehends within itself the perfection of every being".

The so called Latin devils starting Biblical premise is, Supremely being itself subsistent absolutely Indeterminate ,we call very true God of His own nature prepossesses the perfection of all being.

I do not need nor require you to be impressed but you must need to refute or negate the suppositions. So far you are speaking out of turn with straw erroneous and fallacious arguments. Thereby completely intellectually unqualified to remotely reproach orthodoxy.


Now you refute and negate the suppositions as understood by an ancient non English speaker s. Otherwise you are simply modernly humanistic , effectively refuting yourself, most certainly not refute me or any of the ancient and medieval Post Apostolic theologians.

....... Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

Yeah in creatures, composite subjects ,accidents , corporal and created things, nevertheless God is nowise a composition of quantitative parts neither is of genius or species, subject or accident, but He is altogether simple form of Spirit . It follow divine conception then is not an act that brings potentiality to actuality or existence. That so called Latin devil venerated as the angelic doctor confute and dispatch you when he says," Procession of the Logos in God/ Divine generation is an Eternal Divine Intelligible act of understanding whereby God KNOWS His own nature, and the Word Himself proceeding is properly called begotten and Son , ever Born in the Bosom of the Father He has declared Him".

He can say what he wants. Procession is an inherent imperfection. He should express himself better.

Let me ask you, Has anybody ever told you ," CONTEXT IS ALWAYS KEY". You seem to be responding to me under human conditions that could not actually exist in God.

Kinda like you expressing division in God and imperfections?

Those so called Latin devils confute and dispatch you when the Latin doctor communis says," When we say," Several Persons having Godhead, we do not imply diversity in Him , nor that imperfections should exist in God, but rather we mean that," The Divine Essence comprehends within itself the perfection of every being".

They can say what they want. It's all contradictions. When it comes down to it, it's divisions, persons, with inherent imperfections that require another.

The so called Latin devils starting Biblical premise is, Supremely being itself subsistent absolutely Indeterminate ,we call very true God of His own nature prepossesses the perfection of all being.

I do not need nor require you to be impressed but you must need to refute or negate the suppositions. So far you are speaking out of turn with straw erroneous and fallacious arguments. Thereby completely intellectually unqualified to remotely reproach orthodoxy.

Great. I'm not impressed, still.

Now you refute and negate the suppositions as understood by an ancient non English speaker s. Otherwise you are simply modernly humanistic , effectively refuting yourself, most certainly not refute me or any of the ancient and medieval Post Apostolic theologians.

....... Alan

When you continue to speak of procession, you have inherent contradictions regardless of what you or the angelic devils say.

I'm not humanistic. Just grounded in the idea of a exclusively one, alone, God.

 

[aeg4971]

Sorry, but being generated is an inherent imperfection. There's no way around this regardless of what the Latin devils say.

The devils with their gibberish don't impress me. Anything else?

I am still waiting on you to refute and negate the suppositions. You erroneously assert ," being generated is an inherent imperfection, there is no way around this regardless of what the Latin devils say. You can't just assert this baseless opposition , yo must need to disprove by demonstration. Which means you need to confute and dispatch the starting premise . Arguing against composition and subjection and various corporal and created conditions. in this word generated , in no way disproves or refute the distinction of Persons and the Equality of their Majesty. .

You need to confute and dispatch the first and second principles of the Judeo Christian Logos doctrine of Christ,, saying," By Word we understand the Son alone". And the Word was with God and the Word was God Himself, and the Word was made passable( after a fashion) in the similitude of sinful flesh to become obedient unto death to the glory of God the Father.

Now it is manifest that God atemporally conceives His own Substantial Form and Image signified by Word Himself proceeding, to announce the Impassability of His Birth.

Sorry but the Son is atemporally Begotten Immaterially, proceeding therefrom its principle by way of Similitude, ever Born subsisting in the numerically Supreme Identity of Nature ,and thus no less infinite and uncreated as is God the Father. Furthermore Oh wise one, Word said of God in its proper sense is used Personally and is properly and rightly appropriated to the Son. Also it is even more foolish to assert divine generation of the Word in God is an inherent imperfection because unlike us ," In God To Be and To Understand are one and the same ". God own Word Form and Image could not be a causality of imperfection. Likewise the atemporal Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Spirit is not an inherent imperfection. God does not inhere. The Equality and Perfection of the Holy Spirit is communicated as The Father and the Son singly breathes forth the distinct Person of the Holy Spirit.


. Now try to refute me in ancient and Biblical context , because when people throw around the word gibberish ,I usually find it to mean, intellectually challenged intelligible species . I understand rightly so really who are yo to besmirch those who precede us .


........ Alan

 

[aeg4971]

He can say what he wants. Procession is an inherent imperfection. He should express himself better.


Kinda like you expressing division in God and imperfections?


They can say what they want. It's all contradictions. When it comes down to it, it's divisions, persons, with inherent imperfections that require another.


Great. I'm not impressed, still.


When you continue to speak of procession, you have inherent contradictions regardless of what you or the angelic devils say.

I'm not humanistic. Just grounded in the idea of a exclusively one, alone, God.

Basically your only argument is ,created conditions in words and terms that could not actually exist in God. You don't just find it much easier to adjust your intellect to accommodate words and terms predicated to God so as not to be repugnant to the SHEMA. We strip the imperfection of corporal and created conditions in the language of the rational creature, as applied to God, if for no other reason than the Holy Writ requires it.

You really refute yourself only.




............ Alan

 

[Jewjitzu]

I am still waiting on you to refute and negate the suppositions. You erroneously assert ," being generated is an inherent imperfection, there is no way around this regardless of what the Latin devils say. You can't just assert this baseless opposition , yo must need to disprove by demonstration. Which means you need to confute and dispatch the starting premise . Arguing against composition and subjection and various corporal and created conditions. in this word generated , in no way disproves or refute the distinction of Persons and the Equality of their Majesty. .

I already refuted you. At any moment of eternal generation, there's also a moment of eternal destruction. That which is eternal, doesn't need to be generated constantly nor dependent on another's existence. Such is the son and holy spirit.

You need to confute and dispatch the first and second principles of the Judeo Christian Logos doctrine of Christ,, saying," By Word we understand the Son alone".

Christian, not Judeo. We don't believe in the son.

And the Word was with God and the Word was God Himself, and the Word was made passable( after a fashion) in the similitude of sinful flesh to become obedient unto death to the glory of God the Father.

The Father spoke his words. There was no one else.

Now it is manifest that God atemporally conceives His own Substantial Form and Image signified by Word Himself proceeding, to announce the Impassability of His Birth.

Today you are begotten is temporal.

Sorry but the Son is atemporally Begotten Immaterially, proceeding therefrom its principle by way of Similitude, ever Born subsisting in the numerically Supreme Identity of Nature ,and thus no less infinite and uncreated as is God the Father. Furthermore Oh wise one, Word said of God in its proper sense is used Personally and is properly and rightly appropriated to the Son. Also it is even more foolish to assert divine generation of the Word in God is an inherent imperfection because unlike us ," In God To Be and To Understand are one and the same ". God own Word Form and Image could not be a causality of imperfection. Likewise the atemporal Procession of the Third Person of the Holy Spirit is not an inherent imperfection. God does not inhere. The Equality and Perfection of the Holy Spirit is communicated as The Father and the Son singly breathes forth the distinct Person of the Holy Spirit.

Sorry, begotten is temporal.

. Now try to refute me in ancient and Biblical context , because when people throw around the word gibberish ,I usually find it to mean, intellectually challenged intelligible species . I understand rightly so really who are yo to besmirch those who precede us .

The only gibberish are the quotes of the Latin devils.