The Trinity in a Nutshell

[JardinPrayer]

A few of you around here may have heard of JP Holding. :hehe: He was gracious enough to contribute this article to my ministry website, for which I am humbly grateful! I'm reprinting it here, as I have done with previous articles, and we both welcome your comments.

The original article appears here (http://www.perissosonline.org/resource-center/apologetics/trinity/).

BY THREE - THE TRINITY IN A NUTSHELL
By James Patrick Holding

The Trinity may be the hardest idea in Christianity for some people, but it is easier to understand once we have some facts in hand.
A good question to start is, What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity? There isn't one that is perfect. But the best is like this:

Father = a lamp, star, or other light source
Son (Jesus) = the light from the lamp
Holy Spirit = the heat from the lamp The plus side of this analogy is that:

It correctly captures the nature of the relationship between the members of the Trinity. All three persons -- Father, Son, Spirit -- together make one thing: a lighted lamp, which can be equated with "God". The Son and the Spirit come from the lamp.
It explains the relationship of Jesus and the Spirit to ourselves fairly well. Jesus is the "light" of the Father (compare John 1), and the way whereby we see the Father (John 16:9). The Spirit indwelling us is the "heat" of the Father, the way whereby we experience the Father's fellowship. The bad side of this analogy is that:

A lighted lamp, and its light and heat, are not persons. To make the analogy complete, the lamp itself, the light it makes, and the heat it makes, would each need to have their own personality.
A lighted lamp, and its light and heat, are not eternal. A lamp is a creation; God of course is not. And you can turn off the light and heat from a lamp, whereas that is not possible with Jesus and the Spirit. To put it another way, the Father has always existed, and He has always "shone" with the light of Jesus, and radiated the "heat" of the Spirit. Another good question is, How do other religions misunderstand the Trinity?
There are three possible errors that can be made, by denying one of these facts about the Trinity:

Co-eternality. All three of the members of the Trinity must be eternal, meaning, that they have always existed in the past and will always exist in the future. Some belief systems make the mistake of saying that Jesus or the Spirit were not eternal, but were created by the Father later in time. This belief was what caused the Arian controversy resulting in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Today the Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones who take this view. The analogy would be that the lamp was off at some point, but later turned itself on.
Co-substantiality. In other words, the analogy made would not be of lamp-light-heat, but of three different lamps side by side. Today this is a belief of Mormons. It is also what many (like some Muslims) falsely think is Christian belief.
Three persons. Here the analogy would be that lamp, light and heat do not each have their own personality, but that there is one personality that in turn acts as lamp, light, and heat. Today this is believed by Oneness Pentacostals. Another important question: Is the Trinity just an invention of the church?

No. In fact, evidence shows that the Jews had "pre-Trinitarian" ideas long before the church existed. The earliest example is found in Proverbs 8, where "Wisdom" is a figure much like Jesus as described in the lamp-light analogy. There were also more such ideas in Jewish writings between the Old and New Testament.


___________________________________


Here are some related in-depth articles from Mr. Holding's website: Tekton Apologetics Ministries (http://www.tektonics.org/):
To learn about the background of ideas used to express the Trinity, particularly where Jesus is involved, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html).
To learn about the background of ideas concerning the Holy Spirit, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html).

[ApologiaPhoenix]

A few of you around here may have heard of JP Holding.

Who?

[Manwë Súlimo]

Who?

Some dork with kidney stones or something. I think his real name is Turkey or Turnkey or something.

[JardinPrayer]

Er...any chance of starting an actual discussion about the trinity here? I'm just sayin'...

[jpholding]

Er...any chance of starting an actual discussion about the trinity here? I'm just sayin'...

Sorry, the JPH crowd can get a little rowdy. Feel free to call in Mossy to pin them as needed.

On that note, I plan to make YouTube vid out of this for my next project after the current (top-secret) one...

[ApologiaPhoenix]

Sorry, the JPH crowd can get a little rowdy.

A little rowdy....

Alright everyone! Time to increase our rowdiness! Apparently, we're not doing enough!

[JardinPrayer]

:glare:

[JB]

Er...any chance of starting an actual discussion about the trinity here? I'm just sayin'...

:hehe: As you can see, the likelihood is pretty low.

[Manwë Súlimo]

Okay, okay Ms. Gripeypants :teeth:

What is the list of all the major interpretations of God/Trinity that have cropped up in church history along with a short description? Such as modalism, logos christology, and so on.

[jpholding]

Okay, okay Ms. Gripeypants :teeth:

What is the list of all the major interpretations of God/Trinity that have cropped up in church history along with a short description? Such as modalism, logos christology, and so on.

I can't think of any that don't fall into one of the three error categories above. Let's face it, there's not much room for creativity here. The JWs thought they were revealing something new; wrong -- it's just the old Arian heresy again.

[Requiem]

Only two of God's attributes are hypostases (that is, have self-consciousness); His Wisdom (Jesus), and His Power (the Holy Spirit). The others (Holiness, Love, Knowledge etc.) are not. Why?

[jpholding]

Only two of God's attributes are hypostases (that is, have self-consciousness); His Wisdom (Jesus), and His Power (the Holy Spirit). The others (Holiness, Love, Knowledge etc.) are not. Why?

Apart from that they are not revealed as such? I suspect because Wisdom and Power would tend to encompass all the others you list.

[JB]

Apart from that they are not revealed as such? I suspect because Wisdom and Power would tend to encompass all the others you list.

We should also remember that Second Temple Judaism only provided five sometimes-hypostatized attributes of God (Wisdom, Word, Torah, Spirit, Shekhinah). It seems to me that the reason why Jesus was described as Wisdom and Word is because it was a good way to convey the message that he should be included in the divine identity; it seems considerably less likely that Jesus or his earliest followers concluded that he was in the divine identity from the fact that he was God's Word or God's Wisdom.

In other words, the New Testament doesn't work out a conception of divine hypostases for its own sake, but rather draws on the thought-categories of Second Temple Judaism in order to express the early church's realization about how the Son and the Spirit are related to the God of Israel. (And really, since the Spirit was already recognized as a divine hypostasis under that very name, there wasn't any work to be done there - which may, now that I think about it, partially explain why so relatively few New Testament texts stress the deity of the Spirit.)

And at least in later thought, it becomes clear that the main hypostases for Christian reflection were Word and Spirit, because those allow for certain analogies. Also, this way of looking at things would explain why some post-apostolic writers identified Christ as the Word and the Spirit as Wisdom. The ideas of 'Word' and 'Wisdom' were used to understand Christ and the Spirit, rather than the other way around. That didn't require a strict, consistent identification of each as one particular STJ hypostasis, although the norm remained - based on biblical usage - that the Son was to be described as Word and Wisdom, and the Spirit simply as Spirit. And of course Craig Keener has suggested that the Gospel of Matthew also implicitly identifies Jesus as the hypostasized Shekhinah of God, even though this would perhaps more naturally be associated with the Spirit. Really, the only Second Temple Jewish hypostasis that gets left out is Torah. (Also, let's not forget that Sirach, as I recall, shows that Second Temple Jewish could identify these hypostases with one another at times, which dovetails nicely with JPH's suggestion that if there were other hypostatized attributes, these might be identified with either the Son or the Spirit by Christians.) And the Christians don't seem to have picked any other divine attributes to hypostasize, since that wasn't their goal; their goal was to use this way of thinking and speaking to both conceptualize how the Son and the Spirit relate to God, and then to use it to convey that understanding to Jewish audiences who would be able to grasp the Christian message more clearly than if, say, the New Testament authors had used the same sort of language as the Council of Nicaea, which was part of the process of recasting the same Trinitarian theology in a new idiom, that of Greek philosophy. The same sort of process was, in my opinion, furthered greatly in India when the theologian Brahmabandhav Upadhyay translated the same fundamental ideas into concepts borrowed from Advaita Vedanta, and thus described the Trinity by means of Shankara's notion of Brahman revealed as Saccidananda - the Father being Sat, or Being; the Son being Cid, or Mind; and the Spirit being Ananda, or the overflowing divine Bliss.

[Requiem]

Interesting!

[saladfingers]

Armed with an arsenal of literary devices, one can get quite creative with Theology,which is, after all, an Art. I suspect alot of symbolic equivocation thorughout the biblical network of prohpecy, types/anti-types/ signs and symbolism, motifs and allusions, allegories and metaphors.

Here's something to ponder :What is the Hypostasis of a curved mirror?

[Zeta Metroid]

Interesting, so his Wisdom and Power are hypostatic...and the two main attributes of God are omniscience and omnipotence.
Hm, there's some big statement to be found in that somewhere!

[junglemandan]

The problem with this explanation of the Trinity is that each of the descriptions of the three Persons have a different essence (lamp, light, heat). That is an inaccurate explanation of the God of the Bible.

[jpholding]

The problem with this explanation of the Trinity is that each of the descriptions of the three Persons have a different essence (lamp, light, heat). That is an inaccurate explanation of the God of the Bible.

That was fairly incoherent and misguided as an objection. The purpose of the analogy here was to define the nature of the relationship, not to describe their properties. No analogy could do that correctly. (especially since "essence" is such a vague term).

[junglemandan]

The article begins by asking the question, “What is the best way to explain the Trinity.” My response was hardly incoherent given that fact, and the definition of “essence” is not vague if you own a dictionary.

If the purpose of the article was to explain the relationships between the members of the Trinity then your argument is all the more absurd. When we speak of the Trinity we are speaking of three persons. So, why is an analogy needed to discuss relationships? Although, the three persons are God, why would the relationships they have with one another be any different than any other relationship between other persons, aside from the fact that theirs are perfect, eternal, etc.?

The difficulty with the doctrine of the Trinity is not in explaining how each person relates to the other two but in how the three persons are one God. That is what causes so many to stumble, and that is what most people attempt to address when one says he is trying “to explain the Trinity.” When the only two “bad sides” of this analogy are given as being that a lamp, light, and heat are “not persons” and that they are “not eternal” then I think it is only fair to mention that the difference in essence is also another major problem with this explanation.

[jpholding]

The article begins by asking the question, “What is the best way to explain the Trinity.” My response was hardly incoherent given that fact, and the definition of “essence” is not vague if you own a dictionary.

Oh really? Dictionary.com lists eight definitions for "essence" -- so it IS vague, unless you say which one you're using. Furthermore, even the most relevant defintion ("the basic, real, and invariable nature of a thing or its significant individual feature or features") has virtually no discernible semantic content and can be read as referring to anything from personality to physical properties.

And yes -- your question was incoherent in context because it was irrelevant to the issue being discussed.


If the purpose of the article was to explain the relationships between the members of the Trinity then your argument is all the more absurd. When we speak of the Trinity we are speaking of three persons. So, why is an analogy needed to discuss relationships?

Um, because most people haven't a clue how it actually works, and end up using illustrations that actually represent some heretical view. Not been out much then?


Although, the three persons are God, why would the relationships they have with one another be any different than any other relationship between other persons, aside from the fact that theirs are perfect, eternal, etc.?

Because they are, as revealed to us. Unless you have a neighbor who is a hypostasis of someone else.


The difficulty with the doctrine of the Trinity is not in explaining how each person relates to the other two but in how the three persons are one God.

That's not difficult at all. The real problem is that "God" has been morphed into a personal name, when in fact theos was an abstract noun. Ancient deities frequently had hypostatic natures; even Plato's logos falls in that category. The difficulty is not that the doctrine is difficult, but that modern people are ignorant.


and that they are “not eternal” then I think it is only fair to mention that the difference in essence is also another major problem with this explanation.

How interesting that you think that. Unfortunately, while it is a curious insight into your personal preferences, it doesn't alter the nature of the specific issue being addressed.

[Sparko]

Light itself has "dual" properties: it is both a wave and a particle, yet each are fully "light." - one nature revealed in two distinct properties.

I always found that interesting.

[Chappy]

That's not difficult at all. The real problem is that "God" has been morphed into a personal name, when in fact theos was an abstract noun


Greetings jpholding,
I assume your refering to the use of theos in the Greek Scriptures, do you have any references supporting your statement.
Cheers
Chappy

[jpholding]

Greetings jpholding,
I assume your refering to the use of theos in the Greek Scriptures, do you have any references supporting your statement.
Cheers
Chappy

NT Wright. I forget which book but it is probably Jesus and the Victory of God. And anyway, just check uses of theos for yourself.

[Chappy]

Greetings JPH
I took your advice and checked out the uses of theos in the Greek Scriptures and apart from a few instances they are all singular personal pronouns.
I do have a small theological library which includes a book by Murray Harris call “Jesus as God” and his conclusions appear to be similar to mine.
I don’t have the book referenced by you unfortunately.
Cheers,
Chappy

[jpholding]

I took your advice and checked out the uses of theos in the Greek Scriptures and apart from a few instances they are all singular personal pronouns.

And you determined this how?

[Chappy]

What I’m trying to say is “Theos” in the Greek New Testament seems to almost always be used in reference to a single individual, namely the Father i.e. the Father is God and God is the Father. Theos is a “he” not some abstract quality or essence which I assume is your understanding in referring to Theos as an Abstract Noun.
Doesn’t Theos already have an Abstract Noun form, theotes? As used in Colossians 2:9?
Cheers
Chappy

[jpholding]

What I’m trying to say is “Theos” in the Greek New Testament seems to almost always be used in reference to a single individual, namely the Father i.e. the Father is God and God is the Father.

That may be so, but by what you report, it is context that tells us what that reference is and makes the abstract recognizable as a person.


Theos is a “he” not some abstract quality or essence which I assume is your understanding in referring to Theos as an Abstract Noun.

By itself, yes, that is what it is -- if it has no context. That is what Wright was saying.


Doesn’t Theos already have an Abstract Noun form, theotes? As used in Colossians 2:9?

I don't see that that would be a special "abstract" version of theos, but feel free to inform me better.

[Chappy]

Hi JPH
Thank you for sharing your understanding of “Theos” in the Christian Greek Scriptures with me.
I do not agree with you that it is an abstract noun, but I can understand, as a Trinitarian, why you believe as you do.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but essentially you believe “Theos” refers to the essence or substance of God and depending on the context can be applied to either the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit. Very similar to Dr James Whites, “Three Who’s and One What” concept in his book, The Forgotten Trinity.
I am not here to debate or try to convert anyone on this board, I am only here to listen, learn and hopefully understand beliefs that differ from my own ( At this point in time). If you have any evidence or references from main stream Scholars, Grammarians etc that support your view I would be very eager to consider them. In the meantime I wish you all the best and thankyou once again for your time and sharing your novel interpretation of Theos in the Koine Greek of the Bible.
Cheers
Chappy

[jpholding]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but essentially you believe “Theos” refers to the essence or substance of God and depending on the context can be applied to either the Father, Son or the Holy Spirit.

If by "essence" you mean definition, that would be correct.

[sylvius]

BY THREE - THE TRINITY IN A NUTSHELL
By James Patrick Holding

The Trinity may be the hardest idea in Christianity for some people, but it is easier to understand once we have some facts in hand.
A good question to start is, What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity? There isn't one that is perfect. But the best is like this:

Father = a lamp, star, or other light source
Son (Jesus) = the light from the lamp
Holy Spirit = the heat from the lamp The plus side of this analogy is that:
[LIST]




Obadiah - Chapter 1

v.18

And the house of Jacob shall be fire and the house of Joseph a flame, and the house of JPH shall become stubble, and they shall ignite them and consume them, and the house of Esau shall have no survivors, for the Lord has spoken.

:ahem:

[xcav8tor]

Greetings JPH
I took your advice and checked out the uses of theos in the Greek Scriptures and apart from a few instances they are all singular personal pronouns.
I do have a small theological library which includes a book by Murray Harris call “Jesus as God” and his conclusions appear to be similar to mine...
Cheers,
Chappy

Hi Chappy, :smile:

I also have Murray Harris' book, "Jesus as God." He concludes on pg 298-299 (details in [] brackets and use of underline are mine):

While the NT customarily reserves the term THEOS for the Father, occasionally it is applied to Jesus in his preincarnate, incarnate, or postresurrection state. As used of the Father, THEOS is virtually a proper name. As used of Jesus, THEOS is a generic title, being an appellation descriptive of his genus as one who inherently belongs to the category of Deity. In this usage THEOS points not to Christ's function or office but to his nature. When this title is anarthrous [without article] (John 1:1, 18; Rom. 9:5), the generic element is emphasized. When it is articular [has article] (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1) the titular aspect is prominent.

In the christological use of THEOS we find both the basis and the zenith of NT Christologoy: the basis, since THEOS is a christological title that is primarily ontological in character [speaks to his nature] and because the presuppositions of the predominantly functional Christology of the NT is ontological Christology; the zenith, because THEOS is a christological title that explicitly and unequivocally asserts the deity of Christ.

He follows this up with, "Appendix II - An Outline of the New Testament Testimony to the Deity of Christ."

It is clear that Murray Harris is a traditional Trinitarian scholar who is fully persuaded of Christ's complete Deity as One Who uniquely shares (with the Holy Spirit) in the essential nature of the One True God of the Bible (as opposed to a separate, inferior, independent or secondary deity). I am therefore confused when you state that his conclusions "appear to be similar to mine," as you do not present yourself as an orthodox Trinitarian. Could you please clarify?

Regards,
xcav8tor

[Gatsby]

Interesting, so his Wisdom and Power are hypostatic...and the two main attributes of God are omniscience and omnipotence.
Hm, there's some big statement to be found in that somewhere!

Dont forget His Omnipresence also. That means present everywhere.

Regards
Gatsby

[Gatsby]

Hi Chappy, :smile:

I also have Murray Harris' book, "Jesus as God." He concludes on pg 298-299 (details in [] brackets and use of underline are mine):

While the NT customarily reserves the term THEOS for the Father, occasionally it is applied to Jesus in his preincarnate, incarnate, or postresurrection state. As used of the Father, THEOS is virtually a proper name. As used of Jesus, THEOS is a generic title, being an appellation descriptive of his genus as one who inherently belongs to the category of Deity. In this usage THEOS points not to Christ's function or office but to his nature. When this title is anarthrous [without article] (John 1:1, 18; Rom. 9:5), the generic element is emphasized. When it is articular [has article] (John 20:28; Titus 2:13; Heb. 1:8; 2 Pet. 1:1) the titular aspect is prominent.

In the christological use of THEOS we find both the basis and the zenith of NT Christologoy: the basis, since THEOS is a christological title that is primarily ontological in character [speaks to his nature] and because the presuppositions of the predominantly functional Christology of the NT is ontological Christology; the zenith, because THEOS is a christological title that explicitly and unequivocally asserts the deity of Christ.

He follows this up with, "Appendix II - An Outline of the New Testament Testimony to the Deity of Christ."

It is clear that Murray Harris is a traditional Trinitarian scholar who is fully persuaded of Christ's complete Deity as One Who uniquely shares (with the Holy Spirit) in the essential nature of the One True God of the Bible (as opposed to a separate, inferior, independent or secondary deity). I am therefore confused when you state that his conclusions "appear to be similar to mine," as you do not present yourself as an orthodox Trinitarian. Could you please clarify?

Regards,
xcav8tor

I may not understand it all but you have written a quite exceptional post.

Regards
Gatsby

[Zeta Metroid]

Dont forget His Omnipresence also. That means present everywhere.

Regards
Gatsby

I'd say that's a result of his omnipotence.

[jpholding]

Branham was a wacko fruitcake.

[Sparko]

Branham was a wacko fruitcake.

Yeah he was almost as strange as Joseph Smith. He held and taught the serpent seed doctrine, which claims that Eve had sex with Satan and produced Cain.

[jpholding]

Yeah he was almost as strange as Joseph Smith. He held and taught the serpent seed doctrine, which claims that Eve had sex with Satan and produced Cain.

And then that the latter ran for President? :twitch: What was he, some kind of George Soros loon?

[Cow Poke]

A few of you around here may have heard of JP Holding. :hehe: He was gracious enough to contribute this article to my ministry website, for which I am humbly grateful! I'm reprinting it here, as I have done with previous articles, and we both welcome your comments.

The original article appears here (http://www.perissosonline.org/resource-center/apologetics/trinity/).

BY THREE - THE TRINITY IN A NUTSHELL
By James Patrick Holding

The Trinity may be the hardest idea in Christianity for some people, but it is easier to understand once we have some facts in hand.
A good question to start is, What is the best analogy to explain the Trinity? There isn't one that is perfect. But the best is like this:

Father = a lamp, star, or other light source
Son (Jesus) = the light from the lamp
Holy Spirit = the heat from the lamp The plus side of this analogy is that:

It correctly captures the nature of the relationship between the members of the Trinity. All three persons -- Father, Son, Spirit -- together make one thing: a lighted lamp, which can be equated with "God". The Son and the Spirit come from the lamp.
It explains the relationship of Jesus and the Spirit to ourselves fairly well. Jesus is the "light" of the Father (compare John 1), and the way whereby we see the Father (John 16:9). The Spirit indwelling us is the "heat" of the Father, the way whereby we experience the Father's fellowship. The bad side of this analogy is that:

A lighted lamp, and its light and heat, are not persons. To make the analogy complete, the lamp itself, the light it makes, and the heat it makes, would each need to have their own personality.
A lighted lamp, and its light and heat, are not eternal. A lamp is a creation; God of course is not. And you can turn off the light and heat from a lamp, whereas that is not possible with Jesus and the Spirit. To put it another way, the Father has always existed, and He has always "shone" with the light of Jesus, and radiated the "heat" of the Spirit. Another good question is, How do other religions misunderstand the Trinity?
There are three possible errors that can be made, by denying one of these facts about the Trinity:

Co-eternality. All three of the members of the Trinity must be eternal, meaning, that they have always existed in the past and will always exist in the future. Some belief systems make the mistake of saying that Jesus or the Spirit were not eternal, but were created by the Father later in time. This belief was what caused the Arian controversy resulting in the Council of Nicea in 325 AD. Today the Jehovah's Witnesses are the ones who take this view. The analogy would be that the lamp was off at some point, but later turned itself on.
Co-substantiality. In other words, the analogy made would not be of lamp-light-heat, but of three different lamps side by side. Today this is a belief of Mormons. It is also what many (like some Muslims) falsely think is Christian belief.
Three persons. Here the analogy would be that lamp, light and heat do not each have their own personality, but that there is one personality that in turn acts as lamp, light, and heat. Today this is believed by Oneness Pentacostals. Another important question: Is the Trinity just an invention of the church?

No. In fact, evidence shows that the Jews had "pre-Trinitarian" ideas long before the church existed. The earliest example is found in Proverbs 8, where "Wisdom" is a figure much like Jesus as described in the lamp-light analogy. There were also more such ideas in Jewish writings between the Old and New Testament.


___________________________________


Here are some related in-depth articles from Mr. Holding's website: Tekton Apologetics Ministries (http://www.tektonics.org/):
To learn about the background of ideas used to express the Trinity, particularly where Jesus is involved, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/jesusclaims/trinitydefense.html).
To learn about the background of ideas concerning the Holy Spirit, see here (http://www.tektonics.org/qt/quietthird.html).


I had thought I had heard all the "analogies" of the Trinity, but never heard the "lamp" one. Very interesting article!

[TolkienFan]

amigoxp's posts have been split into their own thread located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150882-amigoxp-s-Arguments-Against-Trinitarianism).

[amigoxp]

IS bible God's word?

can anyone reply me..

[Cow Poke]

This is a reply.

[amigoxp]

Father = a lamp, star, or other light source
Son (Jesus) = the light from the lamp
Holy Spirit = the heat from the lamp

as per your argument all three components are same .

likewise i would like to ask you is/are God, jesus and holy spirit are same in power, might, knowledge , authority and etc....

[Sparko]

IS bible God's word?

can anyone reply me..

You were asked not to post here any longer. They made a thread just for you to ask your questions in located here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?150882-amigoxp-s-Arguments-Against-Trinitarianism

If you post here again you will be moderated.

[preachthetruth]

The trinity is false and made up by man, there is no scriptural proof of the trinity and verses referring to such were added. I am not Jehovah witness. If you go back to the original copies of the scripture you will find the truth and you can start with John 1:1.

Thank You

[ApologiaPhoenix]

The trinity is false and made up by man, there is no scriptural proof of the trinity and verses referring to such were added. I am not Jehovah witness. If you go back to the original copies of the scripture you will find the truth and you can start with John 1:1.

Thank You

How about we transfer this over to my section of Deeper Waters and we can discuss this and see if you can give any textual evidence that all those verses were added.

[Leonhard]

77677

Image taken from the cover of the book Gödel, Escher, Bach and Eternal Golden Braid by Douglas R. Hofstadter. I thought it was apropros.

[Andius]

Trippy.

I likes it

[goldie08]

Adding to the discussion about the Trinity, this is symbolic -

In esoteric teachings there is the ancient sign of the Cross, which is the symbol of Father, Mother, Child. The perpendicular line is the Father, the horizontal the Mother, and where they meet is the Child, the product of the Father-Mother, the manifestation at point. There are many ways to describe these truths:

"Father"/Consciousness - "Mother"/Divine Substance - "Child"/Form manifested
- or -
Divine Ideas - Energy - Matter = the Divine Law of Action

--------

[Sparko]

Gatsby? Eeset? is that you?

[jpholding]

Adding to the discussion about the Trinity, this is symbolic -

In esoteric teachings there is the ancient sign of the Cross, which is the symbol of Father, Mother, Child. The perpendicular line is the Father, the horizontal the Mother, and where they meet is the Child, the product of the Father-Mother, the manifestation at point. There are many ways to describe these truths:

"Father"/Consciousness - "Mother"/Divine Substance - "Child"/Form manifested
- or -
Divine Ideas - Energy - Matter = the Divine Law of Action

--------

Don't forget to use your Crayolas to connect the dots.

[Cerebrum123]

Gatsby? Eeset? is that you?

I don't know about Eeset, but the similarities to Gatsby are astounding, but since I have been dealing with Gatsby in another thread, I doubt she made a new profile.

[Sparko]

I don't know about Eeset, but the similarities to Gatsby are astounding, but since I have been dealing with Gatsby in another thread, I doubt she made a new profile.

maybe she invited one of her guru's to tweb.

How do people come up with this stuff? drugs?

[Gatsby]

No, it is not me.

Gatsby

[Gatsby]

Goldie is not my guru. And no, I haven't made a new profile ok.

Gatsby

[Cerebrum123]

Goldie is not my guru. And no, I haven't made a new profile ok.

Gatsby

I kind of figured that Gatsby, but goldie does say a lot of things very similar to you, so I'm guessing they thought that at minimum, that you invited goldie. Also, I think that Sparko was mostly joking when he asked if you and goldie were the same person. I don't think he was attacking you or anything.

[ObamaAntichrist]

Didn't God have sex with Mary, who then gave birth to Jesus?

[jpholding]

No, stupid. Lose the Mormon crap and get some scholarship.

[Super Cow]

Didn't God have sex with Mary, who then gave birth to Jesus?

No, it was by in-vitro fertilization.