Theodore the Studite resolved the logical problem posed by the second Iconoclasm in an explicitly paraconsistent way, when he applied to Jesus the definition of the human hypostasis while stating that there is no human hypostasis in Jesus. Methodologically he was following, albeit without knowing, Eulogius of Alexandria. He, in turn, was apparently followed by Photius, but in a confused manner.
The paper deals with the most controversial - in the modern scholarly discussion - episode within the Byzantine polemics on the Filioque, Nicephorus Blemmydes‘ acknowledgement of proceeding of the Spirit through the Son providing that the Son be considered as generated through the Spirit. The logical intuition behind this theological idea is explicated in the terms of paraconsistent logic and especially of a kind of paraconsistent numbers called by the author “pseudo-natural numbers”. Such numbers could not be interpreted via the notion of ordered pair. Instead, they imply a known (first described by Emil Post in 1941) but still little studied logical connective ternary exclusive OR.