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

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.

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.

Apollinarianism

Apollinarianism was discussed in the video lecture below:

Grenz, Guretzki and Nordling explain that this view was the teaching of fourth century bishop of Laodicia, Apollinarius, that reasoned in the incarnation of Christ, God the Son, took on a human body but not a human mind or human spirit. (13).

The divine logos took the place of the human mind or spirit (nous νοῦς) (13).

In other words, the incarnate God-man, had a divine mind and spirit alone. (13).

Erickson explains that  apollinarianism was an overreaction to Arianism. (714).

Nicene Creed: June 2012

Apollinarius taught the dualism of the incarnate Jesus Christ having two complete natures, absurd. (714). Instead Jesus Christ was part human, but mostly divine. (714).

Therefore, the incarnate God-man was different than every other human being. (715). Christ did  not have a human mind or spirit (nous νοῦς) (715). In this view, the centre of Christ's consciousnesses is the divine. (715). This serves as explanation of how Jesus Christ would remain sinless. (715). 

Erickson correctly points out that with this view, the divine nature of Jesus Christ would swallow up the human nature. (715). It also would have Christ lacking human will, human reason, and human mind and this doctrine was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 381. (716).

Being incarnate implies, fully divine, as in fully God, and fully human, I am in agreement with Erickson and Bruce Gore from the video that in one person, Jesus Christ possessed and still possesses one human nature, spirit/mind and one divine nature, spirit/mind.

The spirit/mind of God, although triune, is infinite and eternal. Jesus Christ's human spirit/mind is finite and everlasting, but not eternal as it was created in the incarnation. This explains, in part, why as God the Son, Jesus Christ in his humanity depended on God and God the Father for guidance. Jesus Christ was still fully God, but humbled himself as fully human.

Philippians 2: 8 New American Standard Bible

Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross.

There is a theological debate whether or not Jesus Christ had his sinful human nature purged from his humanity with the incarnation; or that Jesus Christ had the sinful human nature from the fall, and never accessed it.

Thiessen quotes Strong who states that the incarnation purged depravity from Christ. p.305. This view would be contrasted by scholars such as Mounce and Cranfield:

Cranfield in his Romans commentary p.176, comments on the likeness of sinful flesh. Cranfield states with what he thinks is the best explanation, that being that the Greek word for likeness is not to water down Christ's fallen human nature, as in being fully human, but is to draw attention that the fallen nature was assumed but Christ did not become a fallen human being.

So, unlike some views that reason Christ's sinful human nature was purged out at the incarnation, this view reasons it was there but because of his perfect obedience and I would reason deity, he did not become a fallen human being that sinned. So, in a sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he had fallen human nature. In another sense in the likeness of sinful flesh, he did not have an active fallen human nature that would have led to sinful thoughts and choices.

Mounce in his Romans commentary sees it the same way on p.175-176, Christ took upon a fallen nature but did not become completely like us, as in sinners.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1994). Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

GRENZ, STANLEY J. DAVID GURETZKI and CHERITH FEE NORDLING (1999) Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms, Downers Grove, Ill., InterVarsity Press.

MOUNCE, R.H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

THEISSEN, HENRY, CLARENCE (1956) Introductory Lectures in Systematic Theology, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans.