Wednesday, May 01, 2019
The Orthodox Study Bible: ὑποστάσεως (Hebrews 1: 3) Continued
I wrote yesterday...
April 30 2019
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
New American Standard Bible
Hebrews 1: 3
3 [a]And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature...
ὑποστάσεως
Hypostasis
'A technical theological term for "person" or something which has an individual existence. The word is used to describe the three Persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' (800).
Hypostasis is also used to describe the one Person of Christ, who is both truly divine and truly human. (800).
---
Today, back to the Orthodox Study Bible at the notes from Hebrews 1: 2-3:
Cited
Hypostasis
'The express image of His person.' (513). This is in regard to God the Son's Person as being distinct from God the Father. (513).
The text from its Orthodox tradition opines that 'The Son is the perfect and eternal "icon" of the Father.' (513). This is certainly not Protestant theological language, and not one I would use, staying closer to Reformed theology. I would reason some within Protestantism would protest this metaphor, based on how one theologically views an icon.
But we can agree within the universal Christian Church that even as God the Son is distinct from God the Father and God the Holy Spirit, within the Godhead, within the Trinity, the three are all the same God is essence and nature. There is in ontological (existence) one God. The three distinctions are within one nature and essence; they are not three natures and three essences.
Tuesday, April 30, 2019
The Orthodox Study Bible: ὑποστάσεως (Hebrews 1: 3)
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
New American Standard Bible
Hebrews 1: 3
3 [a]And He is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature...
ὑποστάσεως
Hypostasis
'A technical theological term for "person" or something which has an individual existence. The word is used to describe the three Persons of the Godhead: the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.' (800).
Hypostasis is also used to describe the one Person of Christ, who is both truly divine and truly human. (800).
ὑπόστασις
Nominative Feminine Singular
Blue Letter Bible
Cited
ὑπόστασις hypóstasis, hoop-os'-tas-is; from a compound of G5259 and G2476; a setting under (support), i.e. (figuratively) concretely, essence, or abstractly, assurance (objectively or subjectively):—confidence, confident, person, substance.
G5287 Hebrews 1:3.
ὑποστάσεως
Speech: Noun Parsing: Genitive Feminine Singular
Genitive (of, belonging to, my add)
From Bauer...
ὑπόστασις
'substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality'. (847). In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 (ὑποστάσεως my add), the Son of God is the exact representation of God's real being. (847). In other words, God the Son, even as in a finite human body, incarnated, still represents the nature of the infinite God in bodily form.
Colossians 2:9 New American Standard Bible (NASB)
9 For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form...
Incarnation added finite human nature to God the Son (two natures, two minds, one person), but it in no way cancels out, changes or mixes with God the Son's infinite, eternal nature.
BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.
MARSHALL, ALFRED (1975)(1996) The Interlinear KJV-NIV, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.
STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Burlington, Welch Publishing Company.
The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee.
![]() |
| Ha ha ha let's laugh: Facebook |
Saturday, April 27, 2019
Salvation: Human versus fallen angelic
2010 Theodicy and Practical Theology: PhD thesis, the University of Wales, Trinity Saint David, Lampeter
2003 The Problem of Evil: Anglican and Baptist Perspectives: MPhil thesis, Bangor University
MPhil edit, April 27, 2019
Human choice embraces salvation, but no fallen human beings can autonomously choose to be saved, a human being must first be moved by the Holy Spirit to choose (embrace) God. Why God saves some sinners and not others is not totally understood. It is not by human good works, it is not by unaided human will, but by God’s grace alone.
It can, however, be deduced that unlike fallen angels, humanity, at least some humanity, is restorable. I conclude from the Gospel, at least something is present outside of good works in saved humanity, that allows God to restore them, and it appears that since the Gospel was for humankind alone, fallen, angels are not restorable (not stating it is logically impossible for God to save any fallen finite entity). What is the difference between fallen human beings and fallen angels? This is of course unknown, but Thiessen suggests that angels were never a race, since they were and are asexual. They were, instead, a company.
He stated: “Because they are a company and not a race, they sinned individually, and in not in some head of the race”. Thiessen (1956:192).
With this idea, Thiessen is noting that with humanity when Adam and Eve sinned, all their human offspring became sinful by nature.
With angels, there was no offspring, so each angel had sinned individually making a corporate restoration work by Christ for fallen angels impossible. Under the Thiessen corporate model, Jesus could not die for fallen angels like he did for humanity, because fallen angels were not interconnected in nature as were humans. They could not be changed in nature as a group as restored human beings could be. So, Christ would have to restore each individual fallen angel by changing every angel’s individual corrupted nature.
However, I think that Thiessen’s idea does answer the question why God could not save angels as individuals. Even though each human being was a descendent of Adam and Eve, he/she still had an individual spirit that needed a change in nature, so why could God not do this with fallen angels individually? I would rather conclude that fallen angels have existed in the supernatural realm in great measure and have experienced God in that realm.
To reject God after that knowledge and experience is to put oneself beyond the possibility of restoration (although not logically impossible). Human beings on the other hand live primarily in the natural physical realm and remain somewhat unaware of the supernatural realm, although guilty of sin. A fallen human being may have, at best, little supernatural experience with God, and certainly not have the heavenly experience of angels.
Therefore, in ignorance, at least some human beings are restorable.
ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.
FEINBERG, JOHN S. (1994) The Many Faces of Evil, Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House.
THIESSEN, H.C. (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.
Thursday, April 25, 2019
The principles of logical proof
LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy).
The review continues... Me learning symbolic logic continues:
Key symbols
≡df = Equivalence by definition : = Equal (s) ε = Epsilon and means is ⊃ = Is the same as ⊨ is Entails ˜ = Not ∃ = There exists ∃! = There exists ∴ = Therefore . = Therefore < = Is included v = a logical inclusive disjunction (disjunction is the relationship between two distinct alternatives). x = variable . = Conjunction meaning And 0 = Null class cls = Class int = Interpretation
---
Previous entry
March 14, 2019
Langer explains that the propositions using tautology will use no exponents. (215). In other words, in multiplication, there will not be a smaller exponent number present, to the right of the base number. (215). This is in the context of multiplication.
Therefore, z x z = z, and z2, z3 and related, etcetera in not used. (My example, based on Langer (1953)(1967: 215). In a similar way with addition 2z cannot be arrived at with z + z = z. With addition, 23, 34 etcetera is not arrived at. (My example, based on Langer (1953)(1967: 215).
Summary
Cited
'A calculus is any system wherein we may calculate from some given properties of our elements to others not explicitly stated.' (235).
Calculus is expressed in symbols in general terms and their relations in general it is in algebra. (236). The classes provided through general propositions is genuine algebra. (236).
The principles of logical proof...
Importantly, philosopher Langer explains that there is no guarantee that there is truth in a logical system. (189). Logic does not necessarily promote a fact, rather 'it stands for the conceptual possibility of a system'. (189). Logic documents with the deduction of premises. It stands for 'the consistency of all propositions'. (189). It is standing for logical validity. (189), not factual certainty or truth. (189). This is standard from philosophy, logic, texts. Certainly not something Langer or I manufactured as original.
In many cases when a person states that a premise or argument is logical, the person means that it is true. But a premise or argument can be logical and false. Therefore, it would be more accurate in many cases to claim that a premise or argument is true and or reasonable.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Cited
On standard views, logic has as one of its goals to characterize (and give us practical means to tell apart) a peculiar set of truths, the logical truths...
Langer demonstrates the following as logical:
Napoleon discovered America
Napoleon died before 1500 A.D. (189).
Conclusion
America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).
These two premises imply that America was discovered before 1500 and Langer opines that a third proposition that would be derived (a conclusion, my add) would also be logical and valid. (189).
Indeed the first two premises are historically false. (189). They are still logically consistent, while the consequent is true that America was discovered before 1500 A.D. (189).
Also logical, but a true premise:
n= Napoleon
d= Discover
a= America
n ˜ (d+a)
Napoleon did not discover America.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)




