- Statement "Before that, Jesus had no supernatural ministry" Response: There is so much that is unknown that one would be hard-pressed to prove such a statement. Certainly the miracles were given as a proof of who He is. Statement: "When Jesus says the Father indwells me, is creates an apparent paradox, because the Hypostasis that came down and indwelled Him was the Holy Spirit." Response: Indwelled by the Father is not the understanding I understood from the Jesus saying if you have seen me you have seen the Father. "For there is no need, to persons of intelligence, to attempt to prove, from the deeds of Christ subsequent to His baptism, that His soul and His body, His human nature9 like ours, were real, and no phantom of the imagination. For the deeds done by Christ after His baptism, and especially His miracles, gave indication and assurance to the world of the Deity hidden in His flesh. For, being at once both God and perfect man likewise, He gave us sure indications of His two natures:10 of His Deity, by His miracles during the three years that elapsed after His baptism; of His humanity, during the thirty similar periods which preceded His baptism, in which, by reason of His low estate11 as regards the flesh, He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages." 9 Or, according to Migne’s punctuation, “His soul, and the body of His human nature.” The words are, τὸ ἀληθὲς καὶ ἀφάνταστον τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ τοῦ σώματος τῆς καθʼ ἡμᾶς ἀνθρωπινῆς φύσεως. 10 Οὐσίας. [Comp. note 13, infra.] 11 Τὸ ἀτέλες. Roberts, Alexander, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds. “Remains of the Second and Third Centuries: Melito, the Philosopher.” The Ante-Nicene Fathers: Fathers of the Third and Fourth Centuries: The Twelve Patriarchs, Excerpts and Epistles, the Clementina, Apocrypha, Decretals, Memoirs of Edessa and Syriac Documents, Remains of the First Ages. Trans. B. P. Pratten. Vol. 8. Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886. 760. Print. "Their request to be shown the Father is somewhat disheartening to Jesus. Has He been so long a time with them all (the first you of v. 9 is plural), showing them all the miracles from the Father, and still Philip (this second you is singular) has not known Him? The one who has seen Jesus has also thereby seen the Father—how can an apostle, of all people (this last you of v. 9 is emphatic), say, “Show us the Father”? Obviously Jesus is in the Father and the Father in Him. The two are one (10:30), in that Jesus is the perfect expression of the Father’s nature (John 1:18; Heb. 1:3" Farley, Lawrence R. The Gospel of John: Beholding the Glory. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2006. Print. The Orthodox Bible Study Companion. Statement: "When Jesus is glorified, then becoming the New Temple of God, the fullness of Deity dwells in Him bodily" Response: I know you have made this new temple of God argument here before but you will need to explain it a bit further. The fullness of deity does dwell in Jesus but for trinitarians that is our argument for the trinity. There is no exact phrase in the new testament that is stated like that. But perhaps I am wrong. According to the New Testament there are many temples of God because believers are temples of God Statement: "There were no 2 persons, but 2 combined Hypostasis, to have a Being that could relate to us personally without probably killing us if showed up in Spirit form" Response: We again speak about a combining or mixing but that is not my understanding from the text. The passage you quote from Revelation speaks of a glorified Messiah, Jesus. Is there something in the Greek of the passage that you are pointing to in order to make the combined / mixed argument? Statement "2 Divine Hypostasis could easily do the mixing. Persons am I not so sure." Response: I am not sure I am convinced of your definition of hypostasis. It seems contrary to what I have read thus far. Though I did find this article to be helpful to further my education on the matter today "Hypostasis A Greek word, the meaning of which depends largely on its context, although in the later Fathers it became almost equivalent to “being.” In Heb. 11:1 faith as the hupostasis of things hoped for (elpizomenōn) may mean “realization” (BDAG 1040), but it may also mean “foundation” or “basis” (Grimm-Th 643). For its use in patristic thought, Lampe devotes fifteen columns to its meaning (Lampe 1454–61). It may denote “origination” (Hippolytus; Gregory of Nyssa); in Heb. 11:1, Irenaeus and Chrysostom insist that it may denote “ground of confidence”; in the Cappadocian Fathers and others it may also denote “having substantive existence”; in Heb. 1:3 it is “variously interpreted” (1457). Many of the Church Fathers use hypostasis as the equivalent of ousia, “substance” or “being” (1458). Lampe cites references in Origen, Cyril of Jerusalem, and many others, to this effect. In Christology it was used prior to Chalcedon to denote “state of being” (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, and others; 1458–59). After Chalcedon it could even sometimes approximate to the modern notion of person (1461). In the fifth century and earlier, it comes to be contrasted with ousia, “being,” to mean individual reality, especially in a Trinitarian context. The formula “three hypostaseis in one ousia” came to be widely accepted. Thus it becomes crucial to identify not only the context of discussion, but also its date. Since the rise in modern times of linguistic philosophy, Gilbert Ryle and others have warned against “hypostatizing an abstraction,” that is, rendering a concept as a thing or a reality." Thiselton, Anthony C. “Hypostasis.” The Thiselton Companion to Christian Theology 2015 : 473. Print.
Hamilton Ramos — Edited
statement: There is so much that is unknown that one would be hard-pressed to prove such a statement. Certainly the miracles were given as a proof of who He is. response: Jesus ministry of signs and wonders started after His baptism, when the Holy Spirit came down on Him and remained. He then told Religious authorities that such wonders were done by the finger of God, not by Him. That is in accordance with Philippians: I have no original language abilities, but work with translations and try to understand the theological implications of what is written there. Leb: Php 2:5 Think this in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, Php 2:6 who, existing in the form of God, did not consider being equal with God something to be grasped, Php 2:7 but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, bybecoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man, Before incarnation, Jesus was equal to God and was none other than the Angel of Yahweh (not according to me, but more knowledgeable persons that study this and I agree). The reasons they give is that as soon as Jesus incarnated, the Angel of Yahweh disappeared from the scene. If Jesus emptied Himself (of the presence of God in the form of the Holy Spirit) then He had no power to do those signs and wonders, until God Himself send the Holy Spirit down (His presence) on Jesus, the Word incarnated for a specific mission. He became in the likeness (not equal, since He was not in the fallen nature), but most probably in a nature similar to Adam In pre fall condition so that He could have equality of testing conditions. I explain why I think that in other post, but I will repeat it: The Holy Spirit could not come down, indwell and "remain" on any person of fallen nature, because the atonement had not happened to have that person justified, and if that had not happened the death sentence was in effect. statement: Indwelled by the Father is not the understanding I understood from the Jesus saying if you have seen me you have seen the Father. Joh 14:10 Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak from myself, but the Father residing in me does his works. (ESV) Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Not need to be an original language expert to see that Jesus refers to the Father coexisting with Him In His body... residing, dwells in me... When did that happen? the only time someone came down so that we can see the presence of God was in Jesus (incarnated) was when the Holy Spirit came down, and unlike any other person ever up to that time, the Holy Spirit remained.. Leb: Joh 1:29 On the next day he saw Jesus coming to him and said, "Look! The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world! Joh 1:30 This one is the one about whom I said, 'After me is coming a man who is ahead of me, because he existed before me.' Joh 1:31 And I did not know him, but in order that he could be revealed to Israel, because of this I came baptizing with water." Joh 1:32 And John testified, saying, "I have seen the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven and remaining upon him. John the Baptists says Jesus existed before him, even though Jesus was born after him. (preexistence maybe?) Never had the Holy Spirit remained upon a fallen creation person, because there was death sentence, it could only happen after the atonement, or on Jesus: a Divine Hypostasis allowed to have life in Himself and similar to His fallen brothers but maybe in Adam's pre fall nature, to have equality of testing condition. Same reason why Mary's ovum was most probably not used for the placement of the Jesus' zygote in the womb, because fallen nature could not receive the Holy Spirit and remain until after the atonement. quote: "He concealed the signs of His Deity, although He was the true God existing before all ages." Philippians says that Jesus voluntarily let go of Deity to come down: Leb: Php 2:7 but emptied himself by taking the form of a slave, bybecoming in the likeness of people. And being found in appearance like a man, Php 2:8 he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, that is, death on a cross. So in order to do miraculous deeds, He needed the presence of God, that came down as the Holy Spirit, and remained on Him, basically it seems to just before Jesus' death. At that point the Holy Spirit that came down and remained, probably left (and had Jesus say: why have you forsaken me God [paraphrase]. The probable reason is that if the Holy Spirit (able to keep alive, resuscitate, etc) was to stay, then Jesus would not be able to die. And Jesus died, because He let go of Divinity so that He could die for us as a incarnated Hypostasis, not as God Himself that He had always been (as Angel of Yahweh), or was going to be (as the New Temple of God where the fullness of Deity dwells bodily). So the only time Jesus was less that the Father was in incarnation, having willfully accepted to come similar to His fallen brothers. quote: "The two are one (10:30), in that Jesus is the perfect expression of the Father’s nature (John 1:18; Heb. 1:3" I talked about this before but will repeat: When you look at yourself in a mirror, there is an image reflected. is real and acts on your visual perceptual channel, you can see it, but it does not have life. Your image is a hypostasis of you, but without life. is a substantive reality but lifeless. Jesus is the image of God (a Substantive Reality) but allowed to have life in Himself... Leb: Joh 5:26 For just as the Father has life in himself, thus also he has granted to the Son to have life in himself. So that image (Hypostasis) could incarnate without Divinity so He could die for us. Just for that very particular historical event, the attribute of being immortal was not there, like Philippians pericope explains. Once the atonement was done, then resuscitated Jesu become the New Temple of God where the fullness of Deity dwells bodily... A different version of the Angel of Yahweh, now fully prepared to be the High Priest forever because He can emphasize with us due to the experience of Incarnation. So of course Jesus will be the image of the Father's nature, because He is a Substantive reality allowed to have life in Himself, (an image of the invisible God). Statement: I know you have made this new temple of God argument here before but you will need to explain it a bit further. The fullness of deity does dwell in Jesus but for trinitarians that is our argument for the trinity. There is no exact phrase in the new testament that is stated like that. But perhaps I am wrong. According to the New Testament there are many temples of God because believers are temples of God I explained that in another post: https://faithlife.com/posts/2954243 And this is the beauty of it: an unfallen human, dying voluntarily for the fallen ones... Wisdom and Power of God at best, so that obedience was learned by making Himself similar to us, and letting go of being same as God, so that He could die for us. To then be glorified and have the fullness of Deity dwell bodily being the New Temple of God. By extension, as we are the body of Christ, we become living stones, part of that Temple, but that does not make us same as the Spirit that indwells the temple. Being a living stone part of the New Temple of God, does not give us self-existence. That is an incommunicable attribute of God. We will always be dependent on God's grace to continue living even in glorified form. statement: I am not sure I am convinced of your definition of hypostasis. It seems contrary to what I have read thus far. Though I did find this article to be helpful to further my education on the matter today To keep it simple: Jews were before the carriers of the oracles of God. Their theological center was: (ESV) Deut 6:4 “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one. God's prophets knew and prophesied accordingly: Leb: Isa 9:6 For a child has been born for us; a son has been given to us. And the dominion will be on his shoulder, and his name is called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Note at end characteristics of different Hypostasis in one Being. Zec 14:9 And Yahweh will be king over all the earth; on that day Yahweh will be one and his name one. Then the loved Apostle of Jesus, John saw the fulfillment of such in Patmos: Revelation 1:12-19, as he himself says, it was someone like the son of man, not exactly him. I have gone over this in other posts. Jesus did not have white hair, the Ancient of Days did, Jesus was not usually associated with the first and last title, that was usually of Yahweh, etc. So this one "person" John saw, was none other than the New Temple of God (Jesus) with the fullness of Deity dwelling there bodily (the Father). Two Divine Hypostasis together, like it was the Spirit of God in the Angel of Yahweh, like it was Jesus with the Spirit of God dwelling Him, and is at the end like categorically said by God Himself in Deut 6:4. Most likely all three Hypostasis there, but only one Being seen. I think I have tried to make myself crystal clear, and only with the intention of further research, reflection and comment for enrichment of the true sheep. All have the right to disagree, but so far what I have gleaned and learned mostly from giants on which their shoulders I have tried to stand, is the construct that seems to me comes closer to complying with the standard for validation of the model as shown in the attached media in this thread. I do want to thank you for your excellent research skills, from which we gained some insight as to how, where and why to look, and thanking very much the time you have taken to check it all. Feel free to continue in this amazing search for truth, that shows that rational and in civility dialogue is possible. I tried to search for different related terms in a collection containing Temple term, but the list is long and have not been able to check all. I am pleasantly surprised with the improved searching, in which factbook entries are suggested right out, but see some key terms missing (like person) in the Lexham Theological Wordbook, etc. I wish that FL made available the collection for the highest denominational packages, so that one could easily check all the collection for terms in that particular denomination. Long post, but done with g:agape for the true sheep that may benefit from it, giving good ideas for further research, reflection and exchange.- Statement: "Jesus ministry of signs and wonders started after His baptism, when the Holy Spirit came down on Him and remained." Response: Agreed the "ministry of signs and wonders". My point was we do not know much of His life before His ministry took place. We cannot say whether or not He performed miracles prior based on the scripture alone Statement: "Before incarnation, Jesus was equal to God and was none other than the Angel of Yahweh (not according to me, but more knowledgeable persons that study this and I agree)." Response: This is definitely a passage that needs to be carefully parsed. One Orthodox teachers notes "In describing Christ’s voluntary “descent,” St. Paul first describes Him as having existed [Gr. uparcho] in the form of God. The word translated existed is a stronger verb than the verb “to be.” It indicates a continued, nontentative, unchanging form of subsisting. Christ existed in the form of God—that is, stable and sovereign, having all the attributes and characteristics of Deity, being one with the Father. Nonetheless, He did not esteem that having His being in a manner equal with God was a thing to be seized. He did not clutch it like a precious treasure, refusing to let it go. On the contrary, He emptied Himself by taking the form of a slave. In His love for us, He willingly exchanged the position and privilege of the highest for the position and humiliation of the lowest. His form (or essential character and mode of existence, Gr. morphe) went from that of the Deity to that of the servant; from being adored by myriads of angels and archangels to being the Carpenter of Nazareth who had no place to lay His head. Without ceasing to be divine, He assumed humanity also for our sake. Through His Birth from the all-holy Theotokos, He became in the likeness [Gr. omoioma] of men, being found in appearance (Gr. schema) as a man. The terms translated likeness and appearance do not deny the reality of the Incarnation. They do not mean that He was simply “like” a man, that He only “appeared” to be human, but was not human in reality. Rather, they mean that Christ was like all men everywhere, no different from them at all, sharing their full human nature. His appearance (or outward manifestation, manner of being, deportment) was that of a human being. He lived in the world as a true Man among men, able now to look up as well as down." Farley, Lawrence R. The Prison Epistles: Philippians, Ephesians, Colossians, Philemon. Chesterton, IN: Ancient Faith Publishing, 2003. Print. The Orthodox Bible Study Companion. The Orthodox Study Bible notes this "2:6 The form (Gr. morphe) of God, a concept parallel with “the image [Gr. eikon] of God” (Col 1:15), refers to the Son’s sharing in full the divine nature. Robbery (Gr. harpagmon, lit. “prize” or “booty”) refers to an object stolen and tightly clutched. Christ has equality with God not by seizure but by nature, and with absolute security. There is, therefore, no threat, loss, or any change in the divine nature of the Son of God when He takes our humanity to Himself and offers us salvation. 2:7, 8 Made Himself of no reputation (v. 7; lit. “emptied Himself”) deals with the Son’s will, not His nature. He emptied Himself not by laying down His divine nature or setting it aside, but by voluntarily taking on our human nature. To human beings He looks just like another human being, for being truly incarnate, He is fully man by nature. He took the form of a bondservant, voluntarily sharing our human condition except for one thing: sin. In His humanity, He showed the fullness of humility by His obedience to the death that has enslaved humanity. To die on a cross, the death of a criminal, was repulsive to the Romans and considered a curse by the Jews. But His death brings life to all who are joined to Him." Sparks, Jack Norman. The Orthodox Study Bible: Notes. Thomas Nelson, 2008. Print. Ancient Faith Study Bible had an interesting quote from Augustine "AUGUSTINE: Wherein lies the Son’s equality? If you say in greatness, there is no equality of greatness in one who is less eternal. And so with other things. Is he perhaps equal in might but not equal in wisdom? Yet how can there be equality of might in one who is inferior in wisdom? Or is he equal in wisdom but not equal in might? But how can there be equality of virtue in one who is inferior in power? Instead Scripture declares more simply “he thought it not robbery to be equal.” Therefore every adversary of truth who is at all subject to apostolic authority must admit that the Son is in some one respect at least the equal of God. Let him choose whichever quality he might wish, but from that it will appear that he is equal in all that is attributed to divinity. ON THE TRINITY 6.5." Bell, James Stuart, ed. Ancient Faith Study Bible. Nashville, TN: Holman Bibles, 2019. Print. Based on my readings I guess I need further proof that Jesus was no longer equal to God. If He was not equal certainly He could not be called God in the flesh, or God with us as other scriptures note. Statement: " If Jesus emptied Himself (of the presence of God in the form of the Holy Spirit) then He had no power to do those signs and wonders, until God Himself send the Holy Spirit down (His presence) on Jesus, the Word incarnated for a specific mission. He became in the likeness (not equal, since He was not in the fallen nature), but most probably in a nature similar to Adam In pre fall condition so that He could have equality of testing conditions." Response: It is my understanding that the Holy Spirit is not a form but a person. Not the same person as Yeshua because Yeshua sends the Spirit. It is an assumption that Jesus had no power to do signs and wonders. That is not stated by a text of the bible but is read into "eisegesis" the passage in question. With regard to this passage I also read this from Golden Mouth which would seem to note the Orthodox Patristic understanding "Arius confesses indeed the Son, but only in word; he says that He is a creature, and much inferior to the Father. And others say that He has not a soul. Seest thou the chariots standing? See then their fall, how he overthrows them all together, and with a single stroke. How? “Have the same mind in you,” he says, “which was in Christ Jesus, who being in the form of God, counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God.” And Paul6 of Samosata has fallen, and Marcellus, and Sabellius. For he says, “Being in the form of God.” If “in the form” how sayest thou, O wicked one, that He took His origin from Mary, and was not before? and how dost thou say that He was an energy? For it is written, “The form of God took the form of a servant.” “The form of a servant,” is it the energy of a servant, or the nature of a servant? By all means, I fancy, the nature of a servant. Thus too the form of God, is the nature of God, and therefore not an energy. Behold also Marcellus of Galatia, Sophronius and Photinus have fallen. Behold Sabellius too. It is written, “He counted it not a prize to be on an equality with God.” Now equality is not predicated, where there is but one person, for that which is equal hath somewhat to which it is equal. Seest thou not the substance of two Persons, and not empty names without things? Hearest thou not the eternal pre-existence of the Only-begotten? Lastly, What shall we say against Arius,7 who asserts the Son is of a different substance? Tell me now, what means, “He took the form of a servant”? It means, He became man. Wherefore “being in the form of God,” He was God. For one “form” and another “form” is named; if the one be true, the other is also. “The form of a servant” means, Man by nature, wherefore “the form of God” means, God by nature. And he not only bears record of this, but of His equality too, as John also doth, that he is no way inferior to the Father, for he saith, “He thought it not a thing to seize,8 to be equal with God.” Now what is their wise reasoning? Nay, say they, he proves the very contrary; for he says, that, “being in the form of God, He seized not equality with God.” How if He were God, how was He able “to seize upon it”? and is not this without meaning? Who would say that one, being a man, seized not on being a man? for how would any one seize on that which he is? No, say they, but he means that being a little God, He seized not upon being equal to the great God, Who was greater than He. Is there a great and a little God? And do ye bring in the doctrines of the Greeks upon those of the Church? With them there is a great and a little God. If it be so with you, I know not. For you will find it nowhere in the Scriptures: there you will find a great God throughout, a little one nowhere. If He were little, how would he also be God? If man is not little and great, but one nature, and if that which is not of this one nature is not man, how can there be a little God and a great one? He who is not of that nature is not God. For He is everywhere called great in Scripture; “Great is the Lord, and highly to be praised.” (Ps. 48:1.) This is said of the Son also, for it always calls Him Lord. “Thou art great, and doest wondrous things. Thou art God alone.” (Ps. 86:10.) And again, “Great is our Lord, and great is His power, and of His greatness there is no end.” (Ps. 145:3.) But the Son, he says, is little. But it is thou that sayest this, for the Scripture says the contrary: as of the Father, so it speaks of the Son; for listen to Paul, saying, “Looking for the blessed hope, and appearing of the glory of our great God.” (Tit. 2:13.) But can he have said “appearing” of the Father? Nay, that he may the more convince you, he has added with reference to the appearing “of the great God.” Is it then not said of the Father? By no means. For the sequel suffers it not which says, “The appearing of our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ.”9 See, the Son is great also. How then speakest thou of small and great? Listen to the Prophet too, calling him “The Messenger10 of great counsel.” (Isa. 9:6.) “The Messenger of great counsel,” is He not great Himself? “The mighty God,” is He small and not great? What mean then these shameless and reckless men when they say, that being little He is a God? I repeat ofttimes what they say, that ye may the more avoid them. He being a lesser God seized not for Himself to be like the greater God! Tell me now (but think not that these words are mine), if he were little, as they say, and far inferior to the Father in power, how could He possibly have seized to Himself equality with God? For an inferior nature could not seize for himself admission into that which is great; for example, a man could not seize on becoming equal to an angel in nature; a horse could not, though he wished it, seize on being equal to a man in nature. But besides all that, I will say this too. What does Paul wish to establish by this example? Surely, to lead the Philippians to humility. To what purpose then did he bring forward this example? For no one who would exhort to humility speaks thus; “Be thou humble, and think less of thyself than of thine equals in honor, for such an one who is a slave has not risen against his master; do thou imitate him.” 6 Euseb. vii. 27–30. 7 See St. Ath. Disc. i. c. xi. § 4. [For the various heretics here mentioned, see in Smith’s Dict. Christian Biog., or in the Schaff-Herzog Encyc. of Religious Knowledge.—J. A. B.] 8 [Rev. Ver. “a prize,” a thing seized, or a thing to be seized.—J. A. B.] 9 [Chrys.’s whole argument shows that he understands this passage as here translated, after Rev. Ver. Comp. Ellicott on Titus.—J. A. B.] 10 See also Jer. 32:18. Some copies of LXX. omit the latter part of Isa. 9:6, probably because it was not understood." John Chrysostom. “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of Constantinople, on the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to the Philippians.” Saint Chrysostom: Homilies on Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, Thessalonians, Timothy, Titus, and Philemon. Ed. Philip Schaff. Trans. W. C. Cotton and John Albert Broadus. Vol. 13. New York: Christian Literature Company, 1889. 207–208. Print. A Select Library Statement: "Your image is a hypostasis of you, but without life." Response: I do not believe that reflects the Orthodox definition of hypostasis. The attached article in factbook on hypostasis notes the word "real" "In Greek, hupostasis signifies “essence” or “substance.” It comes from a word meaning “to subsist,” literally “to stand under,” and therefore denotes a real, personal subsistence. Philosophically, hypostasis emphasized essence as distinct from attributes. Theologically, it was used and continues to be used by orthodox trinitarians as a term to describe any one of the three real and distinct personal subsistences of the one undivided divine essence. That is its meaning in Heb. 1:3. The formula, “One essence (Greek, ousia) three subsistences (hupostasis)” is the accepted trinitarian statement of the biblical doctrine of God’s tri-unity" Cairns, Alan. Dictionary of Theological Terms 2002 : 218. Print. I rather like the New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic Definition. It's awesome when I find treasures in my library I did not know I had. "Hypostasis is a Greek noun (plural hypostaseis) which became the standard designation in Eastern theology of a ‘person’ of the divine Trinity. Its nearest Latin equivalent was persona. Hypostasis had a wide range of non-technical meanings (cf. its NT occurrences in 2 Cor. 9:4; 11:17; Heb. 1:3; 3:14; 11:1), but in philosophy and theology it denoted ‘being, substantial reality’, with reference either to the stuff or substance of which a thing consisted (cf. Heb. 1:3) or to its particularity. Against *Monarchianism, *Origen insisted that Father, Son and Spirit were eternally distinct hypostaseis. Until the later fourth century (e.g. in the Creed of Nicaea of 325), hypostasis was used almost interchangeably with ousia (see *Substance), but *Basil and his fellow-Cappadocians vindicated its appropriateness to designate the three objective presentations of God, while restricting ousia to the single Godhead. This differentiation broadly corresponded to Latin theology’s one substantia and three personae—which bred confusion, since substantia was the etymological equivalent of hypostasis, not of ousia. The difference between hypostasis and ousia is subtle, for both speak of single entities or beings. Ousia has more reference to internal essence or nature (God in respect of his God-ness), while hypostasis more to the objective, concrete individuality of the three ‘persons’ (to which a closer Lat. counterpart would be subsistentia). In *Christology, the Council of *Chalcedon (451) distinguished between the one hypostasis of Christ’s incarnate being and the two physeis, ‘natures’ (divine and human), which were united in what *Alexandrian theologians called ‘the hypostatic union’. (They had earlier used physis almost in the sense of hypostasis, for the single being of Christ.) After Chalcedon, debate continued on the integrity of Christ’s human nature—whether it lacked a personal centre or focus and was strictly ‘non-personal’ (anhypostatos), as theologians in the mould of *Cyril of Alexandria taught. (Some *Antiochene divines liked to ascribe a hypostasis to the human nature.) The one hypostasis affirmed by Chalcedon was normally interpreted as that of the divine Word. A resolution of the difficulty was provided by Leontius of Byzantium (d. c. 543), whose life remains obscure, although he was probably a Palestinian monk who spent several years at Constantinople. He wrote against both *Nestorians and *Monophysites, using *Aristotelian categories in a new way in the service of Christological definition. According to the traditional interpretation, his basically Cyrilline teaching declared that Christ’s humanity, although anhypostatos, was enhypostatos, ‘in-personal, intrahypostatic’, i.e. had its personal subsistence in the person of the Logos, while still preserving, as Chalcedon affirmed, its own characteristic properties. God incarnate thus encompassed within himself the perfection of human nature. This notion of enhypostasia (a form not found until much later; enhypostatos had earlier been used by Neoplatonists) was developed by *Maximus the Confessor and *John of Damascus. A recent reinterpretation by D. B. Evans (Leontius of Byzantium: An Origenist Christology, Washington, 1970) claims that for Leontius both divine and human natures were enhypostatized, in the hypostasis of Jesus Christ which was not that of the Logos. This view (which makes him an Origenist in Christology, indebted to Evagrius Ponticus [346–99], a pioneer writer on monastic spirituality) has found some acceptance (e.g. J. Meyendorff, Christ in Eastern Christian Thought, New York, 21975) but much resistance (e.g. J. J. Lynch in TS 36, 1975, pp. 455–471, and B. Daley in JTS n.s. 27, 1976, pp. 333–369)." Wright, D. F. “Hypostasis.” Ed. Martin Davie et al. New Dictionary of Theology: Historical and Systematic 2016 : 433–434. Print. Statement: "Jesus did not have white hair, the Ancient of Days did, Jesus was not usually associated with the first and last title, that was usually of Yahweh, etc. So this one "person" John saw, was none other than the New Temple of God (Jesus) with the fullness of Deity dwelling there bodily (the Father). " Response: I believe many times Jesus has the titles that are given to God. For example the Jews picked up stones to stone Jesus for Him claiming He was the great I AM. The titles that Jesus is called by were meant to point to His deity. Certainly the essence of the Father is the essence of Jesus. As long as you are holding to the fact that Jesus is not the Father nor the Spirit but has the same essence which is His Godhood, I believe you are holding to a trinitarian perspective. Where things start to change is when we start talking about mixing. There are no scriptures that refer to mixing. Dwelling itself is not mixing.
Stewart H. F. and Rand E. K. “Introduction.” Boethius: The Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy
"Wherefore if Person belongs to substances alone, and these rational, and if every nature is a substance, existing not in universals but in individuals, we have found the definition of Person, viz.: “The individual substance of a rational nature.”a Now by this definition we Latins have described what the Greeks call ὑπόστασις. For the word person seems to be borrowed from a different source, namely from the masks which in comedies and tragedies used to signify the different subjects of representation. Now persona “mask” is derived from personare, with a circumflex on the penultimate. But if the accent is put on the antepenultimatea the word will clearly be seen to come from sonus “sound,” and for this reason, that the hollow mask necessarily produces a larger sound. The Greeks, too, call these masks πρόσωπα from the fact that they are placed over the face and conceal the countenance from the spectator: παρὰ τοῦ πρὸς τοὺς ὦπας τίθεσθαι. But since, as we have said, it was by the masks they put on that actors played the different characters represented in a tragedy or comedy—Hecuba or Medea or Simon or Chremes,—so also all other men who could be recognized by their several characteristics were designated by the Latins with the term persona and by the Greeks with πρόσωπα. But the Greeks far more clearly gave to the individual subsistence of a rational nature the name ὑπόστασις, while we through want of appropriate words have kept a borrowed term, calling that persona which they call ὑπόστασις; but Greece with its richer vocabulary gives the name ὑπόστασις to the individual subsistence. And, if I may use Greek in dealing with matters which were first mooted by Greeks before they came to be interpreted in Latin: αἱ οὐσίαι ἐν μὲν τοῖς καθόλου εἶναι δύνανται· ἐν δὲ τοῖς ἀτόμοις καὶ κατὰ μέρος μόνοις ὑφίστανται, that is: essences indeed can have potential existence in universals, but they have particular substantial existence in particulars alone. For it is from particulars that all our comprehension of universals is taken. Wherefore since subsistences are present in universals but acquire substance in particulars they rightly gave the name ὑπόστασις to subsistences which acquired substance through the medium of particulars. For to no one using his eyes with any care or penetration will subsistence and substance appear identical.
For our equivalents of the Greek terms οὐσίωσις οὐσιῶσθαι are respectively subsistentia and subsistere, while their ὑπόστασις ὑφίστασθαι are represented by our substantia and substare. For a thing has subsistence when it does not require accidents in order to be, but that thing has substance which supplies to other things, accidents to wit, a substrate enabling them to be; for it “substands” those things so long as it is subjected to accidents. Thus genera and species have only subsistence, for accidents do not attach to genera and species. But particulars have not only subsistence but substance, for they, no more than generals, depend on accidents for their Being; for they are already provided with their proper and specific differences and they enable accidents to be by supplying them with a substrate. Wherefore esse and subsistere represent εἶναι and οὐσιῶσθαι, while substare represents ὑφίστασθαι. For Greece is not, as Marcus Tulliusa playfully says, short of words, but provides exact equivalents for essentia, subsistentia, substantia and persona—οὐσία for essentia, οὐσίωσις for subsistentia, ὑπόστασις for substantia, πρόσωπον for persona. But the Greeks called individual substances ὑποστάσεις because they underlie the rest and offer support and substrate to what are called accidents; and we in our term call them substances as being substrate—ὑποστάσεις, and since they also term the same substances πρόσωπα, we too may call them persons. So οὐσία is identical with essence, οὐσίωσις with subsistence, ὑπόστασις with substance, πρόσωπον with person. But the reason why the Greek does not use ὑπόστασις of irrational animals while we apply the term substance to them is this: This term was applied to things of higher value, in order that what is more excellent might be distinguished, if not by a definition of nature answering to the literal meaning of ὑφίστασθαι = substare, at any rate by the words ὑπόστασις = substantia.
To begin with, then, man is essence, i.e. οὐσία, subsistence, i.e. οὐσίωσις, ὑπόστασις, i.e. substance, πρόσωπον, i.e. person: οὐσία or essentia because he is, οὐσίωσις or subsistence because he is not accidental to any subject, ὑπόστασις or substance because he is subject to all the things which are not subsistences or οὐσιώσεις, while he is πρόσωπον or person because he is a rational individual. Next, God is οὐσία or essence, for He is and is especially that from which proceeds the Being of all things. To Him belong οὐσιωσις, i.e. subsistence, for He subsists in absolute independence, and ὑφίστασθαι, for He is substantial Being. Whence we go on to say that there is one οὐσία or οὐσίωσις, i.e. one essence or subsistence of the Godhead, but three ὑποστάσεις or substances. And indeed, following this use, men have spoken of One essence, three substances and three persons of the Godhead. For did not the language of the Church forbid us to say three substances in speaking of God,a substance might seem a right term to apply to Him, not because He underlies all other things like a substrate, but because, just as He excels above all things, so He is the foundation and support of things, supplying them all with οὐσιῶσθαι or subsistence."
Stewart H. F. and Rand E. K. “Introduction.” Boethius: The Theological Tractates and the Consolation of Philosophy. Trans. H. F. Stewart and E. K. Rand. Cambridge, MA; London: Harvard University Press; William Heinemann, 1918. 85–91. Print.