one minute you're saying it's from the Father primarly, other minute you're saying it's from the Son

<:wtf:591182282648190986>

You misunderstand

I'm saying the Father is the source of everything

That's never denied

you want to use the same terms in one language to describe two concepts

while quoting inaccurate translations

<:wtf:591182282648190986>

"And son" is innacurate?

And I specifically clarified earlier that they aren't the same terms

That doesn't help you

yes?

depends on the context, of course, but yeah, generally it is

accurate terms can be used to describe it using the "and the son" construction

they are not though

```For the Only-begotten Himself calls [the Holy Spirit] “the Spirit of the Father,” and says of Him that “He proceeds from the Father,” and “will receive of mine,” so that He is reckoned as not being foreign to the Father nor to the Son, but is of their same substance, of the same Godhead; He is Spirit divine . . . of God, and He is God. For He is Spirit of God, Spirit of the Father, and Spirit of the Son, not by some kind of synthesis, like soul and body in us, but in the midst of Father and Son, of the Father and of the Son, a third by appellation.```
Here is Didymus on it

They are all clear on it

yes this is accurate

You have made zero criticism that I can take, you are just telling me I might be wrong, when earlier I told you the translation differences.

```"When the Greeks spoke of the “procession” of the Holy Spirit, they had in mind the Greek word ekporeusis, the term, in fact, used in John 15:26 cited above, when Jesus said the Holy Spirit “proceeds from the Father.” This term refers to the essential and “first” origin of the Holy Spirit, which, the Greeks had right, is from the Father alone. It is the teaching of all Christians, East and West, that the Father is the soul monarch, or source (arche) of the entire Godhead."```

I am not telling you you're wrong, I did that some time ago, I am addressing your argument or whatever this is

You have not once even brought up a different translation, you just admitted you weren't a theologian so you couldn't.

also iirc catholic position at the times of schism was much more strict

didn't they say that greeks are heretics from denying "and the son"

correct, so?

I believe yes, because that is heresy

You can not say it and not be a heretic, but denying it is

Every father I quoted is as strict as the Catholic position, do you think the filioque came from nowhere?

even better

Obviously you did, you called it unwarranted lol

It's like calling the entire section the filioque comes from unwarranted because it was added

no, it did not came from nowhere, it came from wrong interpretations, lol

Tell me how it's wrong?

it is unwarranted because it was added

So the whole creed is unwarranted?

You've only called the word "proceeds" wrong, which doesn't effect the "and son", nor do we deny the primacy of the father

yet you do.

Not at all

We go with the fathers on this

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. And the Son is generated from the Father

As each father said.