>St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373)
>"God is invisible in His essence but made known through His works [energies]." (Contra Gentes, 35)

>St. Basil the Great (c. 330–379)
>"We say that we know our God from His energies, but we do not profess to approach His essence." (Epistle 234, Adversus Eunomium)

>St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395)
>"While we affirm the ineffable and incomprehensible nature of God, we know Him by His operations [energies]." (Contra Eunomium, 1.16)
>St. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)
>"His essence is incomprehensible, but His energies descend to us and are made manifest." (Homily on the Incomprehensibility of God)
>Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th–6th century)
>"God is known by His providences [energies], but no one ever knows His essence." (Divine Names, 1.5)

>St. Maximus the Confessor (580–662)
>"Through His energies, God makes Himself known to creation, while His essence remains beyond all being." (Ambigua, 10)

>Entire energy/essence distinction
Fancy way of saying "What God is, is different from what God does"
what does that have to do with yoga?

>Energy
>Used by Aristotle with a sense of "actuality, reality, existence" (opposed to "potential") but this was misunderstood in Late Latin and afterward as "force of expression," as the power which calls up realistic mental pictures. Broader meaning of "power" in English is first recorded 1660s. Scientific use is from 1807.
lol. brainlets

>>17282042
>Essence
>The concept originates rigorously with Aristotle (although it can also be found in Plato), who used the Greek expression to ti ên einai (τὸ τί ἦν εἶναι, literally meaning “the what it was to be” and corresponding to the scholastic term quiddity) or sometimes the shorter phrase to ti esti (τὸ τί ἐστι, literally meaning “the what it is” and corresponding to the scholastic term haecceity) for the same idea. This phrase presented such difficulties for its Latin translators that they coined the word essentia (English “essence”) to represent the whole expression. For Aristotle and his scholastic followers, the notion of essence is closely linked to that of DEFINITION (ὁρισμός horismos).

>>17281988
CORRECTED:
>>St. Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296–373)
>>"God is invisible in His DEFINITION but made known through His works [EXISTENCE]." (Contra Gentes, 35)

>>St. Basil the Great (c. 330–379)
>>"We say that we know our God from His EXISTENCE, but we do not profess to approach His DEFINITION." (Epistle 234, Adversus Eunomium)

>>St. Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335–395)
>>"While we affirm the ineffable and incomprehensible nature of God, we know Him by His operations [EXISTENCE]." (Contra Eunomium, 1.16)

>>St. John Chrysostom (c. 347–407)
>>"His DEFINITION is incomprehensible, but His EXISTENCE descend(S) to us and IS made manifest." (Homily on the Incomprehensibility of God)

>>Pseudo-Dionysius the Areopagite (5th–6th century)
>>"God is known by His providences [EXISTENCE], but no one ever knows His DEFINITION." (Divine Names, 1.5)

>>St. Maximus the Confessor (580–662)
>>"Through His EXISTENCE, God makes Himself known to creation, while His DEFINITION remains beyond all being." (Ambigua, 10)

In other words, They are arguing He exists (without proof btw. no proof, all belief.) but No one knows the Nature/Definition of this supposed existence.
Since no one cannot debate such definition, they insist you must accept the premise of his existence.
that's what it is being talked about

>>17282066
>>17282049
>>17282042
I'm too much of a brainlet to get into a theological argument, but listening to Orthodox lectures about the distinction just really makes sense to me.

Especially the manifestation of this distinction in the Old Testament

>Moses and the Burning Bush (Exodus 3:2-6):
>God appears to Moses in the burning bush, yet the bush is not consumed. This reflects God's energies—His active presence and revelation—without compromising His essence, which remains beyond comprehension.
>The Giving of the Law on Mount Sinai (Exodus 19:16-20):
>God descends upon the mountain in smoke, fire, and thunder, yet Moses does not see God's essence. Instead, Moses experiences God's energies, the tangible ways God interacts with humanity.
>The Glory of God (Shekinah) in the Tabernacle (Exodus 40:34-35):
>The glory of God fills the tabernacle, indicating His presence among His people. The "glory" (doxa) represents God's energies—His operations and manifestations—distinct from His essence, which remains inaccessible.
>The Vision of Isaiah (Isaiah 6:1-5):
>Isaiah beholds the Lord seated on a throne, surrounded by angels, and is overwhelmed by the holiness of God's presence. The vision represents an experience of God's uncreated energies, as no human can see God’s essence and live (Exodus 33:20).
>Theophanies in the Psalms and Prophets:
>In the Psalms, God's actions, such as creating, sustaining, and saving, are repeatedly described (e.g., Psalm 104). These are seen as manifestations of His energies, through which creation participates in His life while His essence remains unapproachable.

>>17282066
This is a just an incorrect translation. Ενέργειες or ενέργεια is never used by the NT or the fathers to describe existence. St. Paul literally uses it to describe the activities of God Philippians 2:12-13.

>>17282128
theophany is not the same as energies.
>>17281988
nice brackets
>>17282020
No. Orthodoxy states all we ever know of God is through his energies. So if we have any communion with God he must be present in the energies. Palamas states blatantly that God is *entirely* present in the energies. Yet God is also the essence which is distinct from the energies.
This was such a blunder that modern Orthodoxy (the unchanging unprevailable original church (tm)) has walked back from it, coping that it was never a for real for real distinction.