After all our previous clarifications, it remains for us to learn about the teaching of the Church Fathers as summarized by John of Damascus, which is considered an argument for Orthodox and Catholics. (51). In the eighth century, he created a very ingenious “pair” that imposed him on generations as a prominent teacher. Sometimes things will happen again. Al-Thal said: “There is benefit in repeating.” I apologize in advance.

Loski cited a text by Gregory the Theologian mentioned in De Rignon in Volume 1: 402. He says that there are two ways of talking about theology: either starting with God or starting with the Trinity. Both methods are correct in his opinion. Loski said that the Latins started from God and the Greeks from the Trinity, and both were correct (p. 51). De Reunion, on page 433 that Loski cites, sees a difference in this. Perhaps de Reunion meant not the time of the fathers, but rather the subsequent centuries of unity. That is, after 1054, when the West began to focus on the one essence, making the hypostases distinct within the essence, while the Orthodox focus on the hypostases because the essence exists in them as their property. They wore distinctions in it as a result of it. They own it. This is a Greek philosophical deviation towards essence.

1- Nature, essence, hypostasis, person

In a way we acknowledge one nature and three persons in the Godhead, saying by the truth of their existence, and simply all that relates to nature and essence. (52)We acknowledge the difference of the hypostases in their three properties alone: (i.e.) in non-cause and paternity, in cause and prophecy, and in cause and emanation. We prove that one of them does not separate from the others, but rather they remain united with one another, penetrating one another without mixing, and united without mixing.

They are three, even if they are united and distinct without separation, because even if each one of them exists in itself - that is, it has its own complete hypostasis and has its own distinction, that is, resulting from the different way of its existence - they are united in essence and in natural properties, and in that they are inseparable, and in not deviating from The parental hypostasis, in that they are one, and are known by their unity.

“And just as the Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are united without mixing, distinguished without separation, and numbered - the number has absolutely no business in making any division, separation, or change in them, because we know one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. In the same way are the two natures of Christ (53).

“It cannot be said that the three hypostases of the Godhead - even if they were united with each other - are one hypostasis, so as not to create confusion and confusion in the difference of the hypostases” (pp. 160-161).

“What is common and general is attributed to the particularities contained in it. Hence, essence is something common since it is a type, while hypostasis is specific.

It is special, not as if it has a part of nature and does not have the rest (of it), but rather it is special in a numerical sense, since it is individual.

The difference between the hypostases lies in number, not in nature.

Therefore, the essence is attributed to the hypostasis, because the essence is complete in every hypostasis of the same type.

Therefore, the hypostases do not differ from each other in essence, but rather in the symptoms, which are in fact the distinguishing properties, but what distinguishes the hypostasis, not nature. In fact, they (i.e. properties) define the hypostasis as an essence with symptoms (54). Even the hypostasis contains both the general and the particular, and has an independent existence, while the essence does not have an independent existence, but rather is contemplated in the hypostases.

Accordingly, in nature in its entirety, which is capable of suffering, whenever one of its hypostases suffers, it suffers in one of its hypostases as much as the hypostasis suffers, but this does not necessarily follow that all hypostases that are of the same type will inevitably suffer with the suffering hypostasis. (55).

Accordingly, we acknowledge that the nature of the Godhead exists entirely in each of His Persons: all of it in the Father, all of it in the Son, and all of it in the Holy Spirit.

Therefore, the Father is fully God, the Son is fully God, and the Holy Spirit is fully God.

Thus we also say that in the incarnation of one of the Holy Trinity, the Word of God, all the perfect nature of divinity unites in one of its hypostases all human nature.” (Al-Dimashqi, p. 162: We corrected his translation due to difficulty in the text) (56).

There is no nature without a hypostasis, or a united essence apart from a person - because in reality, in persons or hypostases, essence and nature are integrated” (p. 167: corrected).

The second hypostasis of the Holy Trinity alone was incarnated. Neither the Father nor the Holy Spirit was incarnated. The Father was satisfied, and the Holy Spirit came upon the Virgin, forming a humanity for Jesus from her womb and dwelling in him. As for his coming to Jesus on the day of the divine appearance in the Jordan, it is for the (golden) testimony, as the hymn says: “And the Spirit, in the form of a dove, confirms the truth of the word.” It indicates that Jesus is the Son of God. The indwelling of the Holy Spirit in the body of Jesus is the indwelling of grace, not the hypostasis, as Stanleyway says. We repeat: The Father and the Holy Spirit were not incarnated in any way (Al-Dimashq 3:6 and 11:3) as stated above.

2- God

“We believe in one God, the only principle that has no beginning, uncreated, unborn, impermanent, immortal, eternal, infinite, infinite, infinite, without end to His power, simple, uncombined, without body, without flow.” (57)And it doesn't change (58)The invisible does not change, the source of goodness, the rational light, does not come close to it, the power that cannot be compared to anything else, because everything He wills, He does.” (59).

(He) is the Maker of every visible and invisible creation, the Ruler and Preserver of all, He takes care of all, the Master and Originator of all, and the King of all possessions, He is infinite, He does not die without anything resisting Him, He is rich in everything, He is not confined by anything, and He confines the universe, He gathers all that exists. He is there and takes care of him. It penetrates through all essences without stain and beyond (them).

(He) is superior to all essence, above all, supreme in divinity, supreme in goodness and king. Setting the boundaries of principles and systems and the basis of all principles and systems.

(He) transcends essence, life, mind and thought. It is self-light, self-righteousness, self-life, and self-essence since it does not acquire its entity from another. Certainly, he does not (possess) it from existing beings, because he is the source of being for them, the source of life for living and speech for those who contribute to speech, and the cause of all good things for everyone.

He knows all before all is born.

We believe in one essence, one divinity, one power, one will, one action, one principle, one authority and one divinity, and one kingship known and worshiped with one specific worship, in which every speaking creation believes and worships in three complete hypostases united without mixing, and distinct without separation ( Although this is one of the contradictions: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit in whose name we were baptized (as the Lord commanded his disciples): “Baptize them in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit.” (60) (p. 55 corrected)

God is good and secures all good, as He is not subject to jealousy or any desire of any kind (jealousy is very far from the divine nature that is unchangeable and alone is good). Since He knows all and secures what agrees with each one, He revealed to us what is useful for us to know and concealed from us what we cannot bear” (p. 55, corrected)

“What is divine is perfect and there is no deficiency in it at all, neither in its goodness, nor in its wisdom, nor in its power... It is perfect in all its attributes. The unity of identity in all attributes refers rather to one than to many (61).

How do you recognize infinity in those who are many? “...God is above perfection and before perfection” (p. 61) means: each of the many cannot be infinite. The infinite is one for us because God is one. “Therefore, in God, who alone is immutable and immutable and unchangeable, birth and creation are immutable. Since it is by nature without change and not subject to flow, because it is simple and not compounded, it is not subject to change or flow neither in birth nor in creation. He didn't need anyone's help. Birth has no beginning and is eternal - because it is an act of nature and emanates from the essence of God - so that the parent is not subject to transformation, and so that there is not a first God and another God, which creates an addition” (p. 66: corrected). In clearer terms: nothing new happens in God: no change, no modification, no transfer, no change, no transubstantiation. He is the One who “permanently exists,” as Al-Dhahabi says in the Mass service. No accident happens to him. The son was born without any change occurring in him. He also created the universe by His will, not by its essence, as it will come.

“God is one, perfect, infinite, the Maker and Sustainer of all things. He is above perfection and before perfection” (p. 61).

It should be noted that Al-Dimashqi does not arrange the negative qualities into a series alone and the positive qualities into a series alone. One ranges between the two categories in amazement at the God who is all-good and transcendent in all description and all righteousness.

3- The Holy Trinity

“God is one, known in three persons: the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. (They are) one in everything, except non-birth, birth, and emergence.

The only-begotten Son of God, His Word, and God...

As for what is the divine essence, or how is it in the three...? We do not know all of this and are unable to speak about it.” (p. 56, corrected)

“The hypostases are united without mixing, and distinct without division” (p. 65). “And I know that actually looking (is) different from looking with speech and thought. Accordingly, the distinction between individuals becomes clear to us (62) In all creatures, because Peter seems already separated from Paul.

As for what is common, homogeneous and one in them, we do not see it except through speech and thought. We think in our mind that Peter and Paul are of the same nature, and that they have a common nature. Each of them is a speaker and a mortal. Each of them is animated by a rational and rational soul (63).

Or the common nature can be seen with the mind, because individuals are not related to each other, and each individual - in what is specific to him - has an aversion to others, that is, he distances himself from himself in many things that distinguish him from others. They are also separated in place, different in time, and divided in opinion, strength, and form, that is, shape, structure, nature, size, biography, and other special characteristics, and - most of all - in that they are not one with another, but rather their being is completely separate. Hence it is said: two men, three men, and many men.

“This is what we see in all creation. As for the Holy Trinity, the Substantial One, whose lawfulness pervades all and is incomprehensible, it is the opposite. For what is actually narrated is communion and unity, (this is) because of the equality of eternity and the unity of essence, action, and will.

And agreement of opinion, authority, strength, and unity of identity of righteousness.

“I do not say with similarity, but rather with unity of identity, and unity of starting movement. The essence is one, the goodness is one, the power is one, the will is one, the action is one, and the authority is one. Indeed, it is one, and it is the same, not three times one another, but one movement, and it is the same in the three hypostases.

And each of them has no less in relation to others than he has in relation to himself: that is, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are one in everything except non-birth, birth, and emanation. This distinction is achieved by thinking, so we know God as one, and we know in the unity of His properties paternity, sonship, and emanation.

We understand the difference according to the cause and effect and the perfection of each hypostasis, that is, the way it exists (64). We cannot say spatial separation - as is the case with us - in the infinite Godhead, because the hypostases are one with another, not in the way of mixing, but of coexistence, in the manner of the Lord’s saying, “I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” (65).

We do not say that there is a difference in will, opinion, action, power, or anything else, which creates in us (us humans) the actual division in everything.

Therefore, we do not speak of three Gods, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, but rather of one God, the Holy Trinity.

The reference of the Son and the Spirit in Him is to one cause without composition or mixing... They are united, not for mixing, but for existing in each other and one of them flowing into the other without mixing or confusion, nor separation or division.

Theology cannot be divided into sections. It is in the same way that it occurs in three suns that are located together and are inseparable, so the mixture of light is one, and the illumination is one.

So: When we look at the Godhead as the first cause, the one headship, the one, the movement of the divinity, its one will - so to speak -, and the power, action, and sovereignty of the essence itself, then what is imagined in our mind is the one.

But when we look at those who have the Godhead as a father - more precisely - at those who are the Godhead (66)And especially to those who issue from the first cause without time, and are equal to it in glory and inseparability - I mean, the Son and the Spirit. We cannot say with Aristotle that there is a substance and an accident. There is no accident in the Trinity. It's all substance. There are three Christs to them: the Father, one Father. It has no beginning - that is, it has no cause - because it is not from anyone and the Son is one Son. He is not without principle - that is, without cause - and He is from the Father. If you consider the beginning as starting from time, then the Son has no beginning, because he is the maker of times and is not under times (67).

The Holy Spirit is one spirit emanating from the Father, and that is not by birth, but by emanation, because the Father has never ceased to be unbegotten - for He has begotten the Son -; And the son has always been begotten - because he was born from the unbegotten -, so what then? The Holy Spirit does not transform into the Father or the Son, because it emerges and because it is God. His property does not move, otherwise how could it remain a property if it moved and became impossible? (68).

If the Father becomes a Son, he is not truly a Father - because the Father is truly one. If the son becomes a father, he is not truly a son, because the son is truly one. And the Holy Spirit is one (69a).

“I know that we do not say that the Father is from anyone, but rather we say that He is the Father of His Son, and we do not say that the Son is a cause or the Father, but rather we say that He is from the Father and that He is the Son of the Father. We also say that the Holy Spirit is from the Father and we call Him the Spirit of the Father. We do not say that the Holy Spirit is from the Son (70a)We call him the Spirit of the Son. The divine Apostle says: “If anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he is not of him” (Romans 8:9). Theodoretus had previously said in the year 433-434 that the Holy Spirit does not emanate from the Son (Letter 171).

We acknowledge that the Son reveals it and gives it to us (71). He said: “He breathed on his disciples and said to them: ‘Receive the Holy Spirit’” (John 20:22). Just as rays and radiance come from the sun - which is the source of radiance and radiance - so it gives us radiance through the ray, illuminating us with it and being our enjoyment. We do not say that the Son is the Son of the Spirit, nor that he is of the Spirit” (pp. 72-73).

It is stated in the Secret of Management that explains this:

“(The Son), the Father, and the Holy Spirit possess one completely divine essence, indivisible and without any separation or emptiness between them. Everything in the Trinity is an essence, as Basil the Great said (Min. 31: 604).” There is no offer. As for us humans, we are individuals separate from each other. Human nature exists within us, but each one possesses it individually. Neither of us fully resides in the other, but rather we are separated (p. 25). We perceive one human nature through a process of logical thinking, so we conclude that it is one. As for the Trinity, it is one, not 3.

4- The hypostases

“The three divine persons are equal in the Most Holy Godhead. They are equal and not created. The Father alone is not begotten. His existence does not exist in any other hypostasis other than Him. The Son alone is begotten, because He was born from an essence that is beyond beginning and time.

The Holy Spirit alone emanates from the essence of the Father - not begotten, but rather emanating (John 26:15)... As for the manner of birth and emanation, it remains incomprehensible” (p. 68).

We say that each of the three has its own complete hypostasis, lest we give the illusion that they are one complete nature composed of three imperfect ones.

We also say that in the three perfect persons there is one simple essence that is supremely perfect and before perfection, because every group of imperfect people is inevitably composite. It is not possible to find a compound of three hypostases. Therefore, we do not speak of their type as being one of the hypostases, but rather that it is in hypostases (72). We have called incomplete those things that do not preserve the type of artifact from which they are made. Stone, wood, and iron, each of them is complete in itself in its own particular nature. As for looking at the house made from them, each of them is incomplete, because each of them is not a house in itself.

“Therefore, we say that the hypostases are complete so that we do not think of a synthesis in the divine nature. Composition is the beginning of division. We also say that each of the three hypostases is in the other, lest we become a multitude of gods. Therefore we acknowledge the non-composition of the three hypostases and their non-mixing.” It is not possible to compose the complete because the complete is a whole, not a part. The 3 hypostases are complete, not 3 parts that make up a whole. The concept of “all” is very important.

“For this reason we also recognize the equality of the hypostases in essence (73) And that each one of them is in the other, and that it is the same as their will, action, strength, authority, and movement - so to speak -, and that they are one indivisible God. For God is truly one, and He is God, His Word, and His Spirit” (p. 70).

“We acknowledge the difference of the hypostases in their three properties alone: in non-cause and paternity, in cause and sonship, and in cause and emanation.” (74). We prove that one of them does not separate from the others, but rather they remain united with one another, penetrating one another without mixing, and united without mixing. They are three, even if they are united and distinct without separation, because each one of them, even if it exists in itself - that is, (even if it were) has its complete hypostasis, and has its own excellence, that is, (even if it were) resulting from the different way of its existence - yet they are united in essence and in natural properties, and in Inseparability, in non-departure from the parental hypostasis, and in their being one and known by their unity.

“The Persons of the Most Holy Trinity are united without mixing, and they are distinguished by inseparability and are counted: it is not the matter of number to bring about division, separation, change, or severance in them, because we know one God, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit” (p. 16).

5- The Father

“We believe in one Father, the origin and cause of all. No one gave birth to him, and he alone is also uncaused and unbegotten. (He) is the Maker and Father by nature of the only begotten Son (i.e.), His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, our God and Savior.

It is the source of the Holy Spirit.” (69b).

“The Father is uncaused and unbegotten - because he is not from anyone, but rather has his own existence from himself. He did not receive anything of what he had from someone else, but rather he is for both of them.” (75)“By nature, the principle and the reason for how existence exists.” (70b)

“All that the Son and the Spirit had, they had from the Father, even existence itself. If the Father had not been, there would not have been the Son, nor would there have been the Spirit. If the Father had nothing, neither the Son nor the Spirit would have anything.

Because of the Father, the Son and the Spirit had everything they had. That is, because the Father (owns) all of these things - except for non-birth, birth, and emanation. By these characteristics, hypostasis alone distinguishes one of the three holy hypostases from the others. They are distinguished without division in essence, but rather by the characteristic of the special hypostasis” (p. 70). In clearer terms: Everything that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son and the Holy Spirit, except: 1- The father’s non-birth. 2- The birth of a son. 3-The emanation of the Holy Spirit.

6- The son

“As for the existence of the word,” it has no beginning and no end. There was no time, then, when God was not the Word. God has His Word that is always born of Him. He is not without a hypostasis, but rather He is a complete living hypostasis that does not depart from Him (76)Rather, it exists in it (77) always (78)...His Word is perfect, hypostatic, and always living. He has everything that his father had...since he exists in himself. He is distinguished from God (the Father), from whom he receives his hypostasis, and - while what he sees in God (his Father) appears in himself - he has the same nature as God (the Father). Just as perfection is seen in the Father in everything, so it is seen in the Word born of Him” (p. 62).

“And we believe in the one and only Son of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, born of the Father before all ages, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not created, consubstantial with the Father, by whom all things were made. By saying that He was before the ages, we show that His birth did not occur in time and did not begin, because the Son of God did not move from nothingness to existence. He is the radiance of glory, the distinction of the hypostasis of the Father, the living wisdom, the power, the hypostatic Word, and the essential, perfect, and living image of the invisible God. Rather, He was always with the Father and in the Father, born of Him in an eternal birth without beginning. For there was never a time in which the Son did not exist: Rather, wherever the Father is, there is the Son born of Him, because without a Son, He cannot be called Father. If he is not the son, then he is not the father. And if he has a son after that. Only after that does he become a father and goes from not being a father to becoming a father. This is more terrible than all disbelief!

Accordingly, it cannot be said that God is devoid of natural fertility. Fertility is when a likeness gives birth from itself - that is, from its own essence - a likeness to itself in nature” (p. 66). The father gives birth to a son like him.

The last idea means that the divine nature is neither sterile nor closed, but rather fertile (79). The secret of the Trinity is the secret of openness, the secret of transcending closed unity to tripartite communion, to the presence of hypostases in one another. The theologian and Damascus excelled in expressing Christian theology. Damascus is a distant student of the theologian.

“It is, therefore, blasphemous to say about the birth of the Son that time has passed through it, and that the Son’s existence occurred after the Father. The birth of the Son was from the Father, that is, from his nature. If we do not accept that the Son - from the beginning - “was with the Father and was begotten of Him,” then we introduce a transubstantiation into the hypostasis of the Father by (saying) that He was not a Father and then became a Father. Becoming belongs to the creature, not the Creator. The Father does not transform in time in order to become a father, otherwise something happens to him that occurs in time, and he transforms from what he was not into what he will become. This is an obscene amount.

“As for creation, even if it came to be later, it is not of the essence of God. It came from nothingness into existence by His will and power, and no impossibility occurred in the nature of God.

“Birth (is) the emergence of the newborn from the essence of the parent, equal to him in essence. As for creation and making, they come from outside, so the created and the made are not of the essence of the Creator and the Maker, nor equal to them at all... God is always the same...” (p. 66)

The text is strong and difficult. If the birth of the Son occurred in time, then a shift and change occurred in the nature of the Father. That is, there was a time when the Father did not have an essential son. A change occurred and he had a son. This is blasphemy. God is constant in existence. So: Birth is eternal from the essence of the Father, not from his will. The Son is a natural son, having the same essence as the Father. The Son has been born from eternity to eternity. Yesterday he was born, today he is born, and tomorrow he will be born. He was not born in separation from the Father. He is always the light shining from the Father. Light: the sunrise is everlasting and eternal.

As for creation, it does not emanate from God’s essence, but rather from His will. Therefore, there is no change in God. God creates from nothing in time something that never existed. The creature is not of the essence of the Creator at all.

“Since God is free from time, has no beginning, does not change, does not flow, has no body, is unique, and has no end, then His birth is without time, without beginning, without change, without flow, and without relationship. His incomprehensible birth has no beginning and no end.

“It has no beginning because it does not change, and it has no running because it does not change, (and it is) incorporeal. It has no relationship because it is also incorporeal, and because God is one and has no need of another. It is without end without interruption, because it is separate from beginning, time, and end, and it is always the same.

What is without beginning is without end. As for the one who is without end through grace, like the angels, he is certainly not without beginning (p. 67). That is, the angels began in time because God created them at some point in time. They are not eternal. But by the grace of God, they are immortal.

In the study of the hypostases, we cited a paragraph from page 68, so review it (p. 108).

“It is not possible to find an image that in itself fully explains the state of the Holy Trinity without difference” (p. 69). However, Al-Dimashqi gave it on the previous page (68b) An analogy that has its meaning. In Epistle 38 of Basil mentioned above, there is a representation of the hypostases of Peter, Paul, and Siloan. Al-Dimashqi represented Adam, Eve, and Seth: “Adam is unbegotten and Seth is begotten because he is the son of Adam, and Eve emerged from Adam’s rib and was unbegotten. One of them does not differ by nature from the other - because they are human beings - but rather they differ in the way they exist” (p. 68).

Man is the image of God. Representing God through man is better than representing God through material nature. It is Christian personalism that destroyed Greek philosophy, the philosophy of essences and ideals.

In Search of the Holy Spirit, he narrated something about the Son Jesus.

“The hypostasis of the Word of God the Father is prior to time and eternity. It is simple, uncomposed, and uncreated. It has no body, is not seen, cannot be held, and is not confined. He has everything that the Father has - since He is a pore in essence - omoousios - and He differs from the Fatherly Hypostasis in terms of existence and relationship. (80). He is fully present and is in no way separated from the parental hypostasis.

“He was in all and above all” (p. 164).

“The Word became flesh and did not abandon his own immateriality. He was completely incarnated and completely unlimited... He is an unlimited God, so his body does not have room for His unlimited divinity” (p. 165).

7- The Holy Spirit

“The existence of the Spirit of God must also be recognized purely in its simple, uncombined divine nature... He is not without a hypostasis... Rather, we understand Him as existing in His essence, free, active and powerful... The Spirit of God is immanent to the Word and the manifestation is His action (i.e., the action of Jesus)... It is an essential force, visible in Itself in its own hypostasis, emanating from the Father, resting in the Word. Since it reveals Him (that is, it reveals God), it does not depart from God who is in it, nor from the Word because it abides with Him. It is powerful and does not fail.

As for the spirit - similar to the word - it is a living being in its hypostasis, free, self-moving, self-active, always doing good, its power is subject to its will, it has no beginning and no end. For the Word is never alienated from the Father, nor is the Spirit from the Word” (pp. 63 and 69).

“But the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father, not by birth, but by emanation. This other way of existence is neither perceived nor known, like the birth of a son. Therefore, everything that the Father has is also the Spirit's, except for not being born (81) which refers not to a different essence or rank, but to a way of being” (p. 68). An important point remains the designations of Jesus: “The birth of (the Son) is eternal, without beginning and without end. It is a spiritual birth outside time and space (82). The Bible varies the names for Jesus. Each of these names explains to us an aspect of the great secret. The word “Son” means that He is of the essence of the Father, just as the Son is of His Father. But birth is spiritual and eternal before the existence of all creatures” (The Secret of Divine Management 20-21). It is not a birth from marriage as some might imagine. Not a birth after conception. In order for a limited person to understand, the Bible uses limited approximations. He called Jesus “the Word” (John 1:1-3). The word emerges from the mind without marriage. The issue is spiritual. The birth of Jesus was spiritual, not physical. and so on. The entire issue transcends all understanding, perception and reason. He is “the light” (John 9:1 and 8:12). The light of the sun always emanates from it from the moment of its existence. Jesus is an immaterial light that emanates from the Father constantly and always, without a difference of time between his existence and the existence of the Father. They are eternal. Fatherhood and childbirth are eternal. The sun cannot be imagined without its light and radiance. Likewise, it is not possible to imagine the Father without the ray of the Son and the light of the Holy Spirit, even if this analogy itself is approximate for humans to understand. God is above all concepts, definitions and boundaries. In the Constitution of Faith we say: “And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. Light from light. The true God from the true God. “Begotten, not created.”

“We also believe in the one Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and rests in the Son, who is worshiped and glorified with the Father and the Son, as being equal to them in essence and eternity, the Spirit who is from God, the upright one who has command and the source of wisdom, life and sanctification, - because he is God with the Father. The Son is a literal and a noun - the uncreated, the complete, the creator, the possessor of power, full of effectiveness and power, without limit to His power, the absolute ruler over all creation. He deifies and is not deified. It fills and not what fills it. It is derived from it and not derived from it. It is sanctified and not sanctified. He is resorted to because he accepts everyone’s requests for help, being equal to the Father and the Son in everything. Proceeding from the Father and gifted by the Son, all creation receives Him. Creator himself. He creates everything, sanctifies it, and takes care of it. Subsisting in His own hypostasis, indivisible and inseparable from the Father and the Son. He has everything that the Father and the Son have except not being born, and being born.

The birth of the Son and the emanation of the Holy Spirit from the Father were together” (pp. 69-70): that is, they are eternal, without beginning or end. The Son is always begotten and the Holy Spirit is always emanating.

Ibtihal

Accept

Feast of Saint Panteleimon 7/27/1993

Here the text of the book ends, and what follows is present as an appendix without being called an appendix... It must be made clear that we have not quoted here what was mentioned above under the headings, i.e. “Ibtihal” and “Accept”... Al-Shabaka

(50) Footnote related to the title: Al-Dimashqi

(51) “Teacher of the Church,” as he calls him in the French Catholic Dictionary of Spirituality, Volume 8, Column 453, 1972, Paris.

(52) A very important text: The essence (nature) is simple and not compound. He exists in 3 persons who exist in reality and actually, but God is not composed of essence and hypostases. The same goes for divine powers. God is not composed of substance and powers (mas). The essence remains simple. God radiates through His powers.

(53) Jesus is one hypostasis in two natures. The presence of two natures in Him does not make His one hypostasis divided or separate, or distributed among the two natures, or moving between them. In the Trinity we say one essence in 3 persons. In the divine incarnation we say: one hypostasis in two natures.

(54) Although Al-Dimashqi used the word “symptoms of hypostases” here, his meaning is not Aristotelian. The symptoms here distinguish the hypostases, not the essence. The hypostasis contains essence and presentation, it contains the general and the particular: a wonderful “somersault” of Greek philosophy.

(55) Al-Dimashqi took the impostor's opinion of Dionysius (Divine Names 2:3, not as in the footnote to the English translation, which was mostly quoted by Verkhovskoy), which he betrayed to us in “The Secret of Divine Management.” However, we did not quote it verbatim because we did not like the text at the time. The Greek text of Min, translated into English, French, and now into Arabic, is inaccurate. In the revised Greek edition it is more correct. It was stated: “The Father and the Holy Spirit contributed to the divine incarnation by manifesting the divine will, pleasure, and purpose” (p. 330 of the Thessaloniki edition, 1976). I explained the matter in The Secret of Management (pp. 97-98 and 131-132).*

(56) The English translation translated the word “intent” in Chapter 11:3 (its end), but it made a mistake in Chapter 6:3, where the text is the same. This prompts me to strictly focus on the Greek language for those who want to become familiar with it. Even the modern Greek translation (p. 331) is confused between the corresponding revised text (p. 330 above) and the Min text. Not everyone who reads a theology book becomes a theologian. Al-Dimashqi Sahl Enma in his French book “The Jesus Prayer”. He used the phrase “the mystical body of Christ.” Parents did not use “secret.” He used the phrase “serious sin.” Our Eastern fathers did not use it (p. 115, 116, etc.), nor did I correct the Arabization of the entry in Skotiris, which was in the same error.

Proclus of Constantinople (434-446) preceded them and said: “We acknowledge the incarnation of the divine Word as one of the Trinity.” The phrase was later modified and became: “One of the Trinity suffered” (New Church History 1:393 and 7). The incarnation and suffering were confined to Jesus only, not the Father and the Spirit.

(57) Or it doesn't flow. Meaning: The birth of a son is without separation. The Son does not separate from the Father and emerges from him like a stream emerges from a spring and becomes outside of him. The phrase is directed against the Gnostics and Arius (footnote to Me and the Secret of Management, p. 217).

(58) The word is from Basil the Theologian (The Secret of Dispensation 217). See the theologian’s sermon in issue 250, p. 180, footnote 3. From Al-Yanabi’. The Arabic translator used: He does not flow or become excited

(59) Psalm 135:6

(60) Matthew 28:19.

(61) The many attributes that we attribute to God do not make Him multiplicity because He is One.

(62) In reality, through a process of rational abstraction, we say that human beings have one nature. In fact, each individual possesses it within himself, without interference with others. Individuals are worlds apart. In the Trinity, nature is one, wholly in the Father, wholly in the Son, and wholly in the Holy Spirit. Each of them is present in the others without mixing or mixing.

(63) This is an interpretation of the Lord’s words (John 6:63): “The Spirit gives life to the flesh, since the flesh is of no use.” The Apostle James said that the body without the spirit is dead. In vain, Western books are dim in the deification of the body and sex, which are dust that attracts the soul to corruption and annihilation by running after the desires of the flesh, which the Apostle Paul challenged.

(64) The Father is the cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit proceeding from Him. The first is through birth and the second is through emergence. The way the Son exists is through birth. The way the Holy Spirit exists is emanation.

(65) John 14:11.

(66) The phrase is important. The Godhead is not only the content of the hypostases, but they are also the Godhead. Aristotle says of essence and accident. Here it is not a show. It's all substance. The hypostases are not the presentation and divinity is the essence. no.

(67) He is eternal, like the Father, without beginning or end.

(68a) (68b) Constancy is absolute. Events do not occur to God, otherwise He would be a created being and subject to change and transformation.

(69a) (69b) The Father is alone, there is no father but Him. The son is one and only, and there is no other son. The soul is alone, and there is no soul other than Him.

(70a) (70b) Catholics say that it proceeds from the Son, unlike the Orthodox. Catholics say that the Father is the cause. The Catholics added this to the core of the Constitution of Faith, and that was the cause of the dispute. If they had not increased it, the matter would have remained between give and take without a split. The Council of Constantinople (879-880), approved by the Pope, prohibited any addition to the constitution (Daniello and Marot: New Church History, vol. 2, pp. 125-128, French edition, 1963, Parsi).

(71) The Son reveals the Holy Spirit and gives it to us, sending it to her in time on the day of Pentecost and forever. This is not eternal emergence.

(72) Since the hypostases are complete, nothing can be composed of two complete entities. The assembly assembles parts. Each hypostasis is complete in itself and does not enter into a combination with anything else. It cannot be composed of people, every person is a whole. Natures can be combined, such as the presence of the soul and the body in the human person. But we cannot put two people together.

Their type (nature and essence) is not composed of hypostases, but rather it is one and the same existing in the hypostases, not composed of hypostases.

(73) Equality is in Greek - as we mentioned -: they have one and the same essence.

(74) The Father is the cause of the Son and the Spirit. The Son and the Spirit are disabled.

(75) That is, of the Son and the Spirit. It is a principle for them by nature. Jesus had no father by nature, not by adoption. Birth is essential, emanation is essential, from the hypostasis of the Father.

(76) That is, to the son Jesus.

(77) About the Father.

(78) The Father is in the Son and the Son is eternal in the Father. Childbirth is eternal and uninterrupted. It has no beginning and no end. Jesus is always “the one born.” He was not born a billion years ago, for example.

(79) Cyril of Alexandria and others

(80) How to exist is birth. The relationship is the issuance of the Son from the Father. The Father is the cause. The son is the effect: the relationship between the son and his father. The idea came from Basil.

(81) Not being born is neither an essence nor a rank. It indicates how the Father exists, just as birth indicates how the Son exists, and emanation also indicates how the Holy Spirit exists.

(82) This is a big difference between the birth of Jesus from the Father and the creation of humans. The birth of Jesus is eternal. Humans created creation over time. Each of them has a beginning and an end. The son is separated from his mother’s womb and independent of her. Jesus is inseparable from the Father. Human birth involves adjustments and modifications, and the fetus loses something from its mother. Childbirth is painful. The birth of Jesus did not diminish or increase the Father. No change, change or transformation occurred in the Father. It is a divine, spiritual birth without pain and labor. Those who measure the birth of Jesus by the birth of mothers are committing an error. God is beyond human imagination. God is a spirit, not a body. Its essence is eternally stable and events do not occur to it. If the universe was created from its essence, an accident in time would have occurred to its essence. He created the universe from His will, and nothing happened to its essence. The essence of God does not accept increase, decrease, events, or changes. All of this means a deficiency in His infinite and indescribable perfections. To Him be glory forever.

It must be noted here that Dimitri Staniloway said on page 98 of his aforementioned book that “the Holy Spirit is the bond of love between the Father and the Son.” He mentioned this previously in his book “The Theology of the Church” (pp. 29-33 - English, from Palamas). And Bulgakov on it. There is no basis for this statement according to Al-Dimashqi and his predecessors, the Cappadocians, Al-Dhahabi, Cyril of Alexandria, Dionysius, and Maximus the Confessor. The distinction between essence and powers made love a divine power (Dionysius, pp. 107-108 and 94-176 of the French) like the rest of the positive descriptions of goodness, righteousness, justice, holiness, truth, wisdom, life, reason, and... (Al-Dimashqi 1: 12). Lossky criticized Bulgakov for making divine wisdom essential. This criticism applies to Stanblaoway and others like him because they make love a hypostasis.

I hope that readers will understand my concern for theological accuracy and not the desire to criticize and criticize. The complete truth does not accept division and division. The orthodoxy of faith is a condition for the integrity of everything. The faith must be Orthodox, that is, right, so that everything it is based on is right. Praise be to God for His lights descending on human weakness to enlighten them and make them know something about the incomprehensible God.