he didn't believe that there were two Gods that made up a God

feel free to

These are almost entirely quoted

"But the divine essence that surpasses all names, also surpasses energy, to the extent that the subject of an action also surpasses it's object"
Keep in mind ```If anyone does not confess *one nature and one essence* of Father and son and Holy Spirit, and *one power and authority*, a consubstantial Trinity to be worshipped as one Godhead... let such a one be anathema```
"The superessential essence of God is not to be identified with the energies *even those without a beginning*"
"His essence which exceeds his untreated energies"
The orthodox do believe the energies change as well.

i don't see how this is a polytheistic interpretation

could you answer my question though

when you're praying, do you know God?

You will not know God entirely within your mind no

But you cannot introduce composition into the Godhead

this is definitely something to think about

but i don't see it as necessarily polytheistic in any ways

It's not intentionally, but it's the reason we cannot believe the trinity is truly distinct

It leads to polytheism

Well they are truly distinct

That's bad phrasing

We cannot believe they are seperate in essence

yeah i get your point

guess i'll have to study it more

https://youtu.be/d07mgLoOW8g this talks about it in the middle for the majority of the video

@Eoppa Palamas literally argues the opposite of what you claim in the quote you cited. Composition implies combination, to which you are true to say implies a secondary decomposition (into such particulars of which to be combined), and therefore implicates many forms of God divided, or what you may call polytheism. Notice, however, that St. Palamas uses the term "consubstantial", that is, authority with the substance, essence, of the Trinity. Therefore, he argues against a composite identity by formalizing this distinction. There are other, better passages where he makes the essence-energy distinction more "real", but I remind you that in these he holds the essence-energy distinction as epistemological, not ontological, and as such does not impose a hierarchical procession of identities of these (so as to not reduce God into a composite/pluralvocity of being). St Palamas, therefore, doesn't explicitly make a real/actual distinction in His essence and energies, but rather makes a formal distinction, which is precisely what Duns Scotus did, who yet purported God's univocity. I will also remind you that Aquinas made a virtual distinction of God's essence and energies to expound what he said. But, it would be unwise to rebuke either the subtle doctor or St Aquinas: Why Palamas?

Also, be aware that, logically, a real distinction of essence-energy is not a real distinction of hypostasis or the hypostatic union.

Evening, all.
Can someone please ping me with any vital details I've missed?
I'm trying to scroll up to find my last remark aaaaaand, whoa, there's a lot to be said.

@Valkindir Aquinas taught Gods essence and existence were completely one, synonymous, the same. He was the biggest advocate of divine simplicity, period.

Palamas argued he didn't make a distinction, but to argue Gods essence and energy aren't comepletely equal is composing God

And it's especially heretical if you try to equate it with the trinity

Because he argued they weren't equal

If Aquinas taught the essence energy distinction his proof wouldn't work

Yeah, I don't subscribe to the Trinity.

<:really:591181753625083905>

<:pardon:599708367245541387>

spit it out @Valkindir

@Eoppa First, my exact point is that Aquinas espoused absolute divine simplicity, and at the same time virtuated attributes of God, while maintaining that they are his essence. In other words, they are "consubstantial" to God himself. Why can't Palamas? Second, let me restate you to better evaluate what you said: "To argue God's essence and energy are not completely equal is composing God". (A) Did I say anything to the contrary? Also, understand that the claim on it's own terms introduces inequality by not supposing it too. There can be no explanation of energy nor essence without describing how either operates, but that can't be done if you don't give it a logical syntax and systemize it. Of course, that doesn't mean the divine syntax is this explantion. (B) Composition: to position with, typically by ennumerating inbuilt characters/elements. We compose God epistemology, that is, to learn of Him. Any description of Him, positive or negative, is just that. Our practice of Theology is well worn in this, East or West. Where, ontologically, He is not such a sum of descriptions, which is what I already said. Third, my last point was in reference to the video you posted. It consistently confused the argument against the essence energy distinction with hypostasis as explained by the Eastern Orthodox, when those are not the same arguments, for they are not the same descriptions of God.

Palamas argued that Gods energies were not equal to his essence did he not?

Have you read Palamas?

Have you read Aquinas?

Not personally I haven't read Palamas

I have read Aquinas of course

Palamas time and again describes energies as different than essence. Distinction is loaded word, since it tends to associate with identity, but you could say that he referenced them distinctly. However, notice that he subscribes to them the oneness of the substance in God.

He's just being humble, he's read Palamas I can confirm @Valkindir

Okay