CONTINUED. Eternity:- There are several meanings of Eternity. A] BEGENINGLESS. B] END LESS \ EVERLASTING. C] POTANTIALLY BEGENINGLESS.

D] BEGENINGLESS AND ENDLESS.[ THE COMBINATION OF A AND B]. NOTE:- Trinitarian think that a SUPPOSITUM IS A SUBSISTENT BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE CONDITION OF SUBSISTENCE\SUBSISTENS FROM THE WORK OF ANTE NICAEAN FATHERS. 8TH PRIMILINARY.
[1]

A number of ANTE NICAEAN \NICENE Fathers are claimed to believe in the Dogma Of Trinity Of Godhead. A number of portions of their works are quoted for this purpose . But as it has been mentioned above that they were mis understood both by Athanasian Trinitarians and Post Athanasian Trinitarians alike,it must not be taken as a correct claim. They only meant that the OUSIA OF SUPREME BEING IS ETERNAL. This OUSIA IS NOT OF THE SUPREME BEING ALONE BUT IT IS THE OUSIA OF ALL ACTS\DOINGS\etc. and their Terms as well. BUT COSUBSTANTIALITY/HOMOOUSIALITY DOES NOT IMPLY ETERNITY. SO OUR THIS PLRIMILINARY CONSISTS OF TWO PARTS. PART-A ANTE NICAEAN FATHERS. 1]IRENAEUS: It is claimed that Irenaeus [in Against Heresies] rejects AEONSTHEORY. AND thus affirmed HOMOOUSIALITY of Logos. BUT AS IT IS MENTIONED ABOVE THAT HOMOOUSIALITY DOES NOT IMPLY ETERNITY. AEONS WERE NOT [ BELIEVED] TO BE COSUBSTANTIAL\HOMOOUSIAL. AEONS DID NOT MADE THE COSMOS BUT HTHE SUPREME BEING MADE IT WITH OUT ANY EXTERIOR\EXTERNAL MEDIUM. HOW EVER ACTS\DOINGS\FUCTIONS\OPERATIONS OF SUPREME BEING MAY BE TERM AS A MEDIAM. BUT THEY ARE INTERNAL\INNER MEDIUMS. FOR EXAMPLE IF SUPREME BEING SEES \DOES SEE\WATHES\DOES WATCH A THING THEN THE ACT\DOINF\ETC. OF SEEING\WATCHING IS A MEDIUM B/T THE THING SEEN\WATCHED AND THE SUPREME BEING. BUT THE ACT OF WATCHING\SEEING IS NEITHER MADE NOR ETERNAL. HOW EVER IF SUPREME BEING LACKED THA ABALITY TO SEE \TO WATCH THE ACT\DOING\FUNCTION\OPERATION OF SEEING\WATCHING COULD NOT HAVE OCCURRED. BUT ABILITY OF SEEING\WATCHING IS A QUALITY \ATTRIBUTE OF SUPREME BEING AND NOT AN ACT \ A DOING\ ETC. OF SUPREME BEING. SIMILARLY THE ACT OF MAKING IS THE INNER MEDIUM AND ABILITY OF MAKIND IS A QUALITY. THIS ACT IS NEITHER ETERNAL NOR MADE BUT HOMOOUSIAL. But the thing made is not only not eternal but also made.

So Act\Doing of making is neither the ability to make nor the thing made. In this context IRENOUS can not be claimed to belieive in the Eternity of Logos AND Pneuma. At best not with certainty and at worst not at all. 2]DENIS is claimed to be the first person who used the term HOMOOUSIA. Acctually he was accused of some Heresy and in his defence he used /coined this term. It is generally argued that this proves that Denis believed in the ETERNITY OF LOGOS AND HENCE IN TRINITY OF GODHEAD AND GOD.First it must be noted that He is silent OVER THE THIRD HYPOSTASIS. So at best, it can only prove BINITY OR DINITY BUT NOT TRINITY. Second, it is clear that if Logos is HOMOOUSIA even then it does not imply that Logos /Pneuma are an ETERNAL HYPOSTATIC PERSON IN THE OUSIA OF SUPREME BEING. As it is clear that Loses [Lugsail nature] maybe considered as not ETERNAL and not MADE... One may differentiate between different meanings of Eternity. As each and every act\doing of Supreme Being is in Eternal OUSIA but Acts\Doings are not Eternal they are HOMOOUSIAL since none of the Acts\Doings is an Ousia and the OUSIA of Supreme Being is also their Ousia since they do not have their own existence, and they not only exist in Alio they also Subsist in Alio. SO IT CAN NOT BE CLAIMED WITH CERTAINITY AND CERTITUDE THAT DENIS BELIEVED IN TRINITY,ETERNITY OF LOGOS ETC. Tertulian:- [In against heresies] Tertulian is accused for teaching the GODHOOD\DIVINITY OF ALL THREE SUPPOSITUMS [SUPPOSITA] AND THEIR ETERNITY. But Tertulian is misjudged or misinterpreted by Trinitarians. LOGOS AND PNEUMA NONE OF THEM IS AN OUSIA AND EACH ONE OF THEM REQUIRES AN OUSIA FOR ITS EXISTENCE\ESSE\BEINGNESS. This OUSIA IS NONE OTHER THAN THE OUSIA OF G-D THE SUPREME BEING. This is the proper cntext of TERTULIAN. To be in the DIVINE OUSIA IS ONE THING AND TO BE A GOD IN THE PROPER SENSE\ MEANING IS AN OTHER SENSE \MEANING. SO ALL THESE SUPPOSITUMS [SUPPOSITA\SUPPOSITS] HAVE ONE AND SAME DIVINE OUSIA [DIVINITY] BUT NONE OF THEN IS A DEITY\GOD IN THE PROPER SENSE\MEANING. THUS GODHEAD OF THESE NON EVERNAL SUPPOSITUMS DOES NOT PROVE THEIR GODHOOD \DIVINITY. This interpretation more accurate in light of other portions of his works. Hyppolytus:- He is accused of teaching Trinty and Divinity of LOGOS \IESOUS in Contra NOETUM] It is often shewn that he said that, GOD THE LOGOS CAME DOWN FROM HEAVENS TO THE HOLY VERGIN MARY.. THIS WORDS HAVE TWO POSSIBLE INTERPRETATIONS. 1]The term GOD IS NOT in the meaning of SUPREME BEING but in the sense \ meaning of a subordinate administrator Of Supreme Being. IN THE VERY SAME SENSE\ MEANING MOSES WAS CALLED A GOD TO PHEROW. 2] The Union Of Non Eternal LOGOSIAL NATURE [ WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO LOGOS] IN THE DIVINE OUSIA WITH THE NON ETERNAL HUMAN NATURE is termed as the coming of the SUPREME BEING.

We see in trinity that in ATHANASIAN TRINITY ANS NICAEAN TRINITY THE SECOND HYPOSTATIC PERSON IN THE OUSIA OF GOD NAME LY GODHEAD IS IN GOD HEAD EVEN IF THE HPOSTASIS IS ON THE CROSS \TORCHER STAKE. To be on cross\torcher stake and to be in Ousia of GOD at same time , to be conceived by Mary on planet earth and to be GODHEAD at same time is the coming of the Hypostasis on earth. Some what analogously the coming of Supreme being has a different definition. This does not mean that the Logosial nature [which is Logos itself] is GOD T6HE SUPREME BEING. SO COMING OF SUPREME BEING IS THE UNION OF A TERM IN OUSIA WITH THE HUMAN NATURE [ OFTEN CALLED SACRET HUMANITY]. [2] DOXOLOGY Doxologies do not prove the eternity of Logos and Pneuma. They even do not prove co substantiality and Homoousiality of each of them. Oneness of Logos and The SUPREME BEING IS IN THE MEANING \ SENSE THAT LOGOS EXISTS IN ALIO , AND SUBSIBST IN ALIO. IT IS NOT PARSE SUBSISTENT. THE SAME CAN BE SAID FOR PNEUMA . It may be considers again that LOGOS IS A LOGOSIAL NATURE AND PNEUMA IS A PNEUMAL NATURE.