Observations from a quick read of the BoM

[AnthonyB]

utcowboy,

No that is not what I was saying.

The guys who wrote the creeds were fairly immersed in the greek philosophical world and therefore veiwed scripture through that framework. You have to have read about the Greek ideas on "universals" and "particulars" from a platonic veiw point. "Particulars" are the objects we percieve. "Universals" are the "form" or underlieing idea of things. Three people you know are particulars, whereas the idea of personhood is the universal.

Where it gets tricky is that to Plato, the universal are the reality. The particulars, the things we actually percieve are not real. (That seems odd to us but it is part of their worldveiw) So three objects he saw weren't real in the same sense that the generic form or universal objects. Three cats you might see aren't real cats, rather it is the concept of "cat" that we form that is actually real.

If you've followed that so far, you can then apply it to the words that were used in formulating the creeds. Ousia could be seen as the universal about God, the underlieing "godness" of God. Hypostasis is the particular or percieved nature of God of which there are three.

Just as you could see three particular cups but not the universal "cup" and in Platonic thinking it is the universal "cup" that is in fact real not the three observable objects. So we percieve three gods but it is not the percieved three Gods that is real but the underlieing "universal" nature of God that is real.

Hmm I think I did a really bad job in expressing that but it is kind of mind bending in the first place. If you can spare the time to look up platonic views on universals and particulars you might get what I'm trying to say.

[utcowboy]

Thanks for trying to clear that up, I guess I will have to try to increase my education in this area.