/lit/ - Literature

>>16360067
>Prior to the true beings and to the universal principles there is the one god, prior cause even of the first god and king, remaining unmoved in the singularity of his own unity. For no object of intellection is linked to him, nor anything else. He is established as a paradigm for the self-fathering, self-generating and only-fathered God who is true Good; for it is something greater, and primary, and fount of all things, and basic root of all the first objects of intellection, which are the forms. From this One there has autonomously shone forth the self-sufficient god, for which reason he is termed “father of himself” and “principle of himself”; for he is first principle and god of gods, a monad springing from the One, pre-essential and first principle of essence. For from him springs essentiality and essence, for which reason he is termed “father of essence”; he himself is pre-essential being, the first principle of the intelligible realm, for which reason he is termed “principle of intellection.” These, then, are the most senior principles of all, which Hermes ranks as prior to the aetherial and empyrean gods, and to the celestial ones; he has handed down, at any rate, a hundred treatises giving an account of the empyrean gods and a number equal to this about the aetherial ones, and a thousand about the celestial ones.
If you applied christian theology to the above, The Father would be the 'first god and king'; the 'other', here mentioned, that is "above" the First God, is the Ineffable 'One'. >>16360251 >>16360431
This revelation is already hinted at in Egyptian lore (Nun, Atum, Ra, Ptah, Amun) as the Coffin Texts reveal. Maximus the Confessor and Pseudo-Dionysius and some other non-doctors-of-the-church theorizing Christians, make the Divine Nature/Godhead into this 'non-entity entity'; but again excuse themselves with leaving it at the paradox instead of admitting that this hints at something beyond words yet distinct nonetheless. Because you are stuck with the trinity as the limit of your ontology (even if you say that the Father causes the son and spirit yet this isn't an act of his divine nature yet nonetheless clearly an act that the Son and Spirit do not perform in-spite of supposedly sharing all energia with the father; I suppose that only happens to be external energia and not internal acts, but i gusss your doctors have glossed over that part).