The users in question are anonymous.

______________

**(user A)**

The whole video is based on the wrong assumption that "one divine essence" has the same meaning as "one God".  Do Peter, James and John have three human essences?  No, they are three persons but they share the same one human essence – just as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are three persons who share one divine essence.  Then why Peter, James and John are three men but the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit are one God?  This is exactly the question that St. Gregory of Nyssa answers in his work to Ablabius about the three Gods:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2905.htm

The tl;dr is this:

"''Men, even if several are engaged in the same form of action, work separately each by himself at the task he has undertaken, having no participation in his individual action with others who are engaged in the same occupation. For instance, supposing the case of several rhetoricians, their pursuit, being one, has the same name in the numerous cases: but each of those who follow it works by himself, this one pleading on his own account, and that on his own account. Thus, since among men the action of each in the same pursuits is discriminated, they are properly called many, since each of them is separated from the others within his own environment, according to the special character of his operation.

But in the case of the Divine nature we do not similarly learn that the Father does anything by Himself in which the Son does not work conjointly, or again that the Son has any special operation apart from the Holy Spirit; but every operation which extends from God to the Creation, and is named according to our variable conceptions of it, has its origin from the Father, and proceeds through the Son, and is perfected in the Holy Spirit. For this reason the name derived from the operation is not divided with regard to the number of those who fulfill it, because the action of each concerning anything is not separate and peculiar, but whatever comes to pass, in reference either to the acts of His providence for us, or to the government and constitution of the universe, comes to pass by the action of the Three, yet what does come to pass is not three things.''"

The videos makes some horrible statements:

At time 2:46: There is no real distinction between the divine essence and divine persons.

At time 2:59:  There is a real distinction between the divine persons between themselves based on the relation of opposition.  However, when we compare the Father to the divine essence, the Son to the divine essence and the Holy Spirit to the divine essence, there is no real distinction between the divine persons and the divine essence.  All three persons individually and all three together are in reality identical to the divine essence.

I wish to believe that these are made inadvertently, but then again maybe they are not.  They seem to think of the divine essence as something hypostasized (≈having reality) by itself, irrespectively of the three divine hypostases (≈realizations) of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

______________

**(user B)**

What do you guys think of their argument that since the profession of faith of Nicea states that "We believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only begotten from the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God". Since Christ is said to come to from the essence of the Father than that means that the Father is the essence.

I've done some researching of this myself and found two sources that say that:

"In the early fourth century the terms ousia and hypostasis were synonyms and virtually interchangeable in philosophical usage"

(https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2014/04/01/st-gregory-of-nyssa-differentiating-ousia-and-hypostasis/)

And

"The concept "essence" was expressed in the Greek language by the word ousia, and this word was in general understood by everyone in the same way. Using the word ousia, the Holy Fathers referred it to the concept of "Person."

(http://www.stspyridon.org.au/ourFaith.php?articleId=88&subMenu=Orthodoxy#c2)

If the two above quotes are to be believed then wouldn't that mean that "from the essence" means "from the person", and that this was said to say that the Son comes directly from the Father, and is not some creation?

I also found this quote by St Gregory Nazianzus who said it in front of the Bishops convened in the Second Ecumenical Council:

"St Gregory Nazianzus, Oratio 42 XV"

(http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310242.htm)

What do you make of the above quote?

___________

**(user A)**

>the only begotten, from the Father, that is, from the essence of the Father

What?  I've missed this during my first watch of the video but now I see it is there at time 10:40.  It seems that in order to prove their point the people of the meme monastery have falsified the Profession of the Council of Nicea (the Greek text they quote is correct).  The correct English translation is this:

>begotten from the Father, the only begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father

The expression "the only begotten" is in between, so "from the essence of the Father" can not be taken as an explanation of "from the Father".

>I've done some researching of this myself and found two sources that say

I am not sure 100% about this, but I think that the word 'ousia' has always had one meaning – nature (essence).  'Hypostasis' was the problematic word as it could be used to signify both the persons and the essence.  Only after the Cappadocians its meaning in the East was fixed and it no longer could be used to signify the essence.  In the West the opposite happened: the direct Latin translation of 'hypostasis' is 'substance' (hypo=sub, stasis=stance) and today the word 'substance' can not be used to signify the persons of the Trinity but only the essence.

>If the two above quotes are to be believed then wouldn't that mean that "from the essence" means "from the person" and that this was said to say that the Son comes directly from the Father, and is not some creation?

The Fathers affirm the validity of the expression "from the essence of the Father".  But yes, this expression says that the Son does not exist by the will of the Father (because this would make the Son a creation).  When a mother gives birth to a son, we can say that the birth doesn't happen by the will of the mother but from her nature (essence).

The following is from St. John of Damascus (Exact exposition, chapter 8) explains thus:

"In treating, then, of the generation of the Son, it is an act of impiety to say that time comes into play and that the existence of the Son is of later origin than the Father. For we hold that it is from Him, that is, from the Father's nature, that the Son is generated. And unless we grant that the Son co-existed from the beginning with the Father, by Whom He was begotten, we introduce change into the Father's hypostasis, because, not being the Father, He subsequently became the Father. For the creation, even though it originated later, is nevertheless not derived from the essence of God, but is brought into existence out of nothing by His will and power, and change does not touch God's nature. For generation means that the begetter produces out of his essence offspring similar in essence. But creation and making mean that the creator and maker produces from that which is external, and not out of his own essence, a creation of an absolutely dissimilar nature.

Wherefore in God, Who alone is passionless and unalterable, and immutable, and ever so continues, both begetting and creating are passionless. For being by nature passionless and not liable to flux, since He is simple and uncompound, He is not subject to passion or flux either in begetting or in creating, nor has He need of any co-operation. But generation in Him is without beginning and everlasting, being the work of nature and producing out of His own essence, that the Begetter may not undergo change, and that He may not be God first and God last, nor receive any accession: while creation in the case of God , being the work of will, is not co-eternal with God."

The following is from St. Basil the Great (Letter 125):

"Some, moreover, of the impious following of the Libyan Sabellius, who understand hypostasis and essence to be identical, derive ground for the establishment of their blasphemy from the same source, because of its having been written in the creed "if any one says that the Son is of a different essence or hypostasis, the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes him." But they did not there state hypostasis and essence to be identical. Had the words expressed one and the same meaning, what need of both? It is on the contrary clear that while by some it was denied that the Son was of the same essence with the Father, and some asserted that He was not of the essence and was of some other hypostasis, they thus condemned both opinions as outside that held by the Church. But when they set forth their own view, they declared the Son to be of the essence of the Father and they did not add the words "of the hypostasis". The former clause stands for the condemnation of the faulty view; the latter plainly states the dogma of salvation."

And from St. Gregory Palamas and St. Mark of Ephesus we have the following argument for the distinction between essence and energy (=act/operation):  Since the generation of the Son is from the essence of the Father, if essence=energy, then the generation of the Son would be from the energy of the Father.  Therefore, the Son would be an act of the Fathers will, i.e. a creation.

_____________

**(user B)**

Do you have a source for that translation or do you know Greek? I'm saying this because I copied the Greek they use into google translate (not the most accurate I know) and got a translation that matches what they put up; "We believe in Lord Jesus, the son of God, born of the Father alone, that is, the Father of God, God of God".

___________

**(user A)**

>source for that translation

For example at Wikipedia (only there the preposition 'of' is used instead of 'from'):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

Καὶ (And) εἰς (in) ἕνα (one) Κύριον (Lord) Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) Χριστόν (Christ), τὸν υἱὸν (the Son) τοῦ Θεοῦ (of God), γεννηθέντα (begotten) ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς (of the Father), μονογενῆ (only-begotten), τοὐτέστιν (that is) ἐκ τῆς οὐσίας (of the essence) τοῦ Πατρός (of Father)

The same for the Latin translation (https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/creeds2.iv.i.ii.iii.html):

Et (And) in (in) unum (one) Dominum (Lord) nostrum (of ours, missing in Greek) Jesum (Jesus) Christum (Christ), Filium (The Son) Dei (of God), natum (begotten) ex Patre (of the Father), unigenitum (only-begotten), hoc est (that is), de substantia (of the essence) Patris (of Father)

Notice, however, the comma before the Greek μονογενῆ or the Latin unigenitum. This comma is missing in the sources I see in Internet and apparently this can create a confusion, a conflation between the participle γεννηθέντα (natum/begotten) and the adjective μονογενῆ (unigenitum/only-begotten). It can be seen that these two words must not be conflated from the Niceno-Constantinopolitan revision of the Nicene creed where the expressions 'only-begotten' and 'begotten of the Father' are transposed and each of them has its own definite article:

Καὶ (And) εἰς (in) ἕνα (one) Κύριον (Lord) Ἰησοῦν (Jesus) Χριστόν (Christ), τὸν Υἱὸν (the Son) τοῦ Θεοῦ (of God), τὸν (the) μονογενῆ (only-begotten), τὸν (the One who is) ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς (from the Father) γεννηθέντα (begotten) πρὸ (before) πάντων (all) τῶν αἰώνων (ages)

__________________

**(user B)**

That was an amazing response, thank you brother.

What do you make of the Dimond's critique of Jay Dyer at 11:44?

Jay says that the "I Am" of Exodus 3:14 does not signify the essence of God by is rather a statement of Divine Personhood and does not indicate the essence of God.

The Dimonds quote St Athanasius:

"When then He says, 'I am that I am,' and 'I am the Lord God’ [Exodus 3:14-15, 20:22], or when Scripture says, 'God,' we understand nothing else by it but the intimation of His incomprehensible essence Itself, and that He Is, who is spoken of." (De Decritis #22, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/2809.htm)

And also St Gregory of Nazianzus

"As far then as we can reach, He Who Is, and God, are the special names of His Essence."

(St Gregory Nazianzus, Oration 30 XVIII, http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/310230.htm)

_____________

**(user C)** (me)

God says "I am that I am", not "I am the essence".

For example, if "essence" is "love", and "energy" is "loving", then the essence and energy still need to be "hypostatized", so that there is an actual subject that -is- and that -does-. We can say that YHWH is the name of the Essence, because it is the name common to Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; but this name still needs to be "hypostatized" to be realized in a subject. "I Am" indicates the essence, but this necessarily implies the hypostases (after all, "who" is?), and it even implies the energies (how else would this "I am" come to a mere creature like Moses?). Therefore it is nonsensical to say that God could speak of His essence without implying Father, Son, or Holy Spirit at all; but it is also nonsensical to say that because the essence and persons are referred to at once, it means they are the same thing. (after all, we say the exact same thing with the hypostases - that we cannot refer to one without implying the two others, because of their unity of essence - yet it would be heretical to say that Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same person as a result).

The folks over at Most Meme Monastery interpret the fathers starting with the presupposition that, ontologically, essence "precedes" hypostasis, and therefore when it is said the Son comes from the essence of the Father, it is understood to mean the Son is begotten of the essence (and not the person) of the Father, rather than it meaning that the Son is begotten from the Father's person according to the Father's essence (rather than according to the Father's will, which would make the Son a creature). And likewise, they therefore misinterpret the saints to mean that we can know God directly in His esseence, when the saints speak of God's essence, but they do not realize that, again, for them, hypostasis precedes essence, and they speak of essence so much because their concerns are to defend the Son and the Spirit's consubstantiality with the Father.

___________

**(user A)**

I admire the Dimonds for their striving to keep the traditional Roman-Catholic faith.  The only times I am angered by them is when they slander us by criticising something which is not really our faith.  But when they criticise what is actually our faith, I can understand them.  Why? Because they are only men and our faith is wiser than human knowledge.  Oh the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God!  How unsearchable are his judgments, and how unfathomable are his ways! (Romans 11:33)

God exists but his existence is above any existence, therefore he doesn't exist in any humanly meaningful way.  Now, suppose an Orthodox guy reads somewhere about this and then in an attempt to teach the Catholics says "Listen, guys, you are very misguided because God doesn't really exist!".  What do you think the Dimons will do?  Well, surely they will create another video to refute the Orthodox heretics who say that God doesn't exist.

So, is our imaginary Orthodox guy wrong when he says that God doesn't exist?  No, because  he doesn't really mean this.  Our mind naturally tries to attain knowledge about God but in its fallen state all that it can achieve are idols, false images of God.  Absurd statements like "God doesn't exist" are meant to be like brakes for the mind.  Only through such incomprehensible absurds our mind becomes aware that what it tries to build is just an intellectual tower of Babel, incapable of reaching the heavens.  Then, in this state of self-awarenes and awe we became able to turn to God and to receive true knowledge about God from God in the Holy Spirit.

The heresies are deadly not because God is stubborn or obstinate about doctrines.  They are deadly because in one way or another they always make the heretic incapable to receive the Holy Spirit, which is a pledge of our inheritance, until the redemption of those who are God’s possession, to the praise of his glory (Ephes. 1:14)  The Holy Spirit is not intrusive like the fallen spirits.  If someone wants to humble his prideful mind in order to receive divine wisdom and be a trusted friend of God, the Holy Spirit is ready to help and comfort him.  However, when someone is misguided by a heresy to think that human logic can give some knowledge about God, then he is unable to humble his mind, rather he won't even try to humble properly his mind.

Now about the divine names.  I think the most comprehensible Orthodox treatise about the divine names is "On Divine Names" by St. Dionysius the Areopagite. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Dionysius_the_Areopagite,_Works/On_Divine_Names

The Dimonds have provided some quotes to prove that "I am that I am" in Exodus 3:14 refers to the essence of God.  Many more quotes by more saints can be found to say that the name "That-I-am" refers to the essence of God.  Then is Jay wrong?  Maybe not.  He is refuting some Roman-Catholic mistakes but since my knowledge of the Roman-Catholicism is limited, I'd rather not try to explain him.  I think that if I were Jay, my response to the Dimonds would be "Instead of criticizing me, try to understand what I am trying to say".

By the way, in Hebrew and Greek "that I am" is one word and in the above English translation of "On Divine Names" this one word is translated as "Being" (see chapter 5).