Summations Only

Oh, thanks Ringo. That post really clarified things. I guess I should have read the whole thread before replying.As to the topic, I've never really understood the Trinity, nor believed in it, so I can't really offer any explanations.

No, if it needed clarifying for you, it probably needed clarifying for somebody else too. (My stream of consciousness often changes channels in midpost.)By all means, jump into the middle and ask.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Phat, I don't know where you got that source, but it seems to have a completely different definition of henotheism than any I've encountered. This definition, specifically the very first sentence, is nothing like the 'believe in multiple gods, but worship only one' henotheism I'm familiar with. In fact, this definition almost seems to be a possible explanation of the Trinity. Any thoughts, anyone?

I think the sticking point is the idea of how many spirits there actually are. I maintain One Holy Spirit and a subset of imitators...wannabes...hence two basic spirits. The argument of how to spot the real McCoy from the army of fakes is valid. My answer is that the real Spirit finds you...you do not find God. IOW there may be many paths up the mountain but only one wise sage at the top.

So you are claiming that even though GOD creates all, She decides to not to even acknowledge some of Her creation.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say, but if I read you correctly, then your post has more to do with actual henotheism than with the definition I pasted in my previous post. I'd be interested in pursuing that topic, but I think it's off topic here.I do have a question, though: Do you think the (poor) definition of henotheism I posted in Message 63 is an accurate description of how you or others might view the trinity?

No...its that people don't acknowledge her.....(and I still don't know why you say "she" since Jesus is male)

You said Now you say: Jesus is not a male nor is the Holy Spirit.So which is it Phat, your former statement or the latter?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

So you are saying that what I started with was not an egg.
It sure turned into 3 different piles, or was that me dreaming?Ringo you have a body, a spirit and a mind, according to Jesus I assume you have all of these. According to Jesus God made us Physical (heart), Spiritual (soul) and Intellectual (mind).God is all knowledge, encompasing everything.Jesus was flesh as we are, so we could see him and he could die for our restoration back into fellowship with God.The Holy Spirit, Spritual, to suround us and lead us in all truth.Back to my egg: Shell, encompases all, white, surounds, yoke, physical that contains life.

I can cut a pie into three pieces too. Does that make it a "trinity"?I could separate an egg into carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen and "other". Does that make it a "pentity"? What's the difference between a "spirit" and a "mind"? Are you separating them arbitrarily just to come up with the magic number Three?And even if I am a trinity, how does it follow that God must be a Trinity too? If I was made in God's image, does He have blonde hair and blue eyes? For that matter, is "He" a He or a She?Comparisons between God and me have to stop at one point or another. The way the Bible usually uses the word "heart", it doesn't refer to the physical - it refers to the spirit/mind. So Jesus was actually saying, "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy mind, and with all thy mind, and with all thy mind." It's a cute little story, and it covers your conception of god in a trite little way.But we come back to the limits of human understanding: You can describe God as a "trinity", but that is not necessarily a true reflection of His nature.(Have you given any thought to including the Tempter and the Prosecutor in the Pentity?)Edited by Ringo, : Added a missing "that".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'll go with the former statement.

So you would go with: Is that correct?Have you thought that through?Do you understand the implications of that?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

From Merriam-Webster: This is how I have always seen it used.

---

Actually, if their god makes better pancakes, I'm totally switching sides. -- Charley the Australopithecine

I think it is an important theological issue, since its argued that the bible speaks of it, but people don't agree that it doesthe trinity is just the same as many of the trigods the celts worshipped, but i've debated people who said it wasn't, the only argument they had was changing what they defined things as, the whole "three person, one substince" thing is just like the celtic trigods, but they tried to deny its truebut thats the reason most of the irish are christian, because the concept already existed for them, and it was an easy transion for them the point is phat, only christians seem to think that somehow the trinity means one god, when it really doesn't, the belief has no basis in the bible or even logic, without conflicting with itself.i think what bothers me the most is, to be able to understand the concept i already have to believe it, at least thats what people say.
because i do not see evidence that the trinity exists in the bible, just that people misunderstood jesus and the authors of the text and translaters later hacked the text up

Belief in many gods and worship of one, whether it is a greater god or a regionally specific god, can also be a form of polytheistic monolatry. The difference is in whether the gods are viewed as connected or independent.Because this definition is so unclear, it is hard to say whether it does coincide with the Trinity, but here goes my opinion anway. In this sentence, there is reference to more than one Supreme Being. Many gods are acknowledged. That they are all the same in substance does not mean that their individual existance is denied. In monotheism, only one Supreme is acknowledged, and even if It is 'seperated' the other 'gods' are not other gods. It is the silliest distinction surely, but the distinction is only in the view of the beholder. Does he/she worship one God or many as One? This is confusing. I have no idea how 'before creation' can not mean co-eternal. Perhaps one God is eternal and the manifestations are post-creation. If so, this is also at deference with orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, wherein all 'gods' are co-eternal. And this is all a description of many gods, even if connected in substance. This compares henotheism to polytheism where the gods can be greater or lesser or not cooperative, but as I understand the definition, I do not beleive it is correct to say that all of the Christian 'gods' have a specific domain, irreducible or otherwise, nor is there cooperation in the sense of different Beings working together. The cooperation of the Christian Godhead is inevitable, as they are One, not many. Interchange is necessary. There are not three working seperately as One, but one working as three. There is no god-team?