Lonely, the huddled monk gathered his robes snugly around his creaking frame, the chill of the night seeping painfully into his ageing bones.

Bones thirsty for truth, bones weary of seeking.

The darkness about the mountain pass was compelling: through dimmed old eyes the seeker felt he could just reach out and squeeze it.

What is darkness, he thought.

He cast a glance down below, and shimmering in the distance he could still see the many majestic worlds and universes he had journeyed through.

Lifetime after lifetime, and he had slowly ascended to the mountain pass.

Now a thick darkness enveloped him, and he could go no further.

What brilliance, what light, what consciousness he wondered. . .

. . may stifle my being. . . shrivel my countenance. . . cast down my raised eyesight. . .

I PRAY FOR THE LIGHT, MY LORD.

Soothed, as his nerves always were, by that simple prayer, he floated into sleep again.

And the questions came back to haunt him –

1. Is the oneness of the Great One Spirit divisible

2. Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit being “severed . . . . ?”

3. Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit at all?

4. Is the Great One Spirit not One only, only one, and indivisible?

5. So why did the Great Book speak about a “severance” of a part of the Great One Spirit? And that severance becoming the Great One from Nazareth

6. So why did the Great Book also speak about a “severance” of another part of the Great One Spirit? And that severance becoming the Lord of Creation. . .the one called Parsifal. . .

7. Was it not Parsifal who walked the Earth and wrote the Great Book?

8. Does this not mean that the writer himself. .

. . . is a severed part of the Great One Spirit. . .

. . . that he is that spirit. . .

. . .that he is God.

In a frenzy of anguished screaming the monk arose from the nightmare. . .

. . . as derangement settled within his mind.

M_Nwankwo – you are the Oracle of Nairaland. Please decipher.

Apologies in advance.

Definitions –

<sub>“Great One Spirit” – refers to God.

“Great Book” – refers to The Grail Message

“Great one from Nazareth” refers to Jesus of Nazareth

“Writer of the Great Book” – refers to Abd Ru Shin, the writer of the Grail Message.

"The monk" - refers to . . . who do you think?"</sub>

@Deepsight
Thanks for the questions which genuinely disturb your spirit and keep it restless. I am not sure that my answers to your questions will satisfy your day counscious understanding but I am sure that your spirit will grasp what I will say. I have no doubt that someday, far, far above the highest mountains that you have so far experienced, you will find experiences that will give you conviction on the oneness, inseparability and trinity of the God. If God permits me the grace, I will be there to share your joy at the final recognition which so far have eluded you and rightly so. With this, I address the posers you raised, albeit briefly.

Lonely, the huddled monk gathered his robes snugly around his creaking frame, the chill of the night seeping painfully into his ageing bones.

Bones thirsty for truth, bones weary of seeking.

The darkness about the mountain pass was compelling: through dimmed old eyes the seeker felt he could just reach out and squeeze it.

What is darkness, he thought.

He cast a glance down below, and shimmering in the distance he could still see the many majestic worlds and universes he had journeyed through.

Lifetime after lifetime, and he had slowly ascended to the mountain pass.

Now a thick darkness enveloped him, and he could go no further.

What brilliance, what light, what consciousness he wondered. . .

. . may stifle my being. . . shrivel my countenance. . . cast down my raised eyesight. . .

I PRAY FOR THE LIGHT, MY LORD.

Soothed, as his nerves always were, by that simple prayer, he floated into sleep again.

And the questions came back to haunt him –

Yes, the monk should continue to pray until he gains purifying clarity and the monk will certainly have it but not on the mountain he is presently standing. The omnscience of God is with the monk as he seeks to grasp the the spiritual answer to the divine mystery of God head.

Is the oneness of the Great One Spirit divisible

2.   Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit being “severed . . . . ?”

3.   Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit at all?

4.   Is the Great One Spirit not One only, only one, and indivisible?

,
God is one and he is known as God the Father. God is not divisible but God can will that small unsubstantiate divine essence of his can emanate from from HIM and take on a conformation, that is take up a form. It is not the unsubstantiate essence that has the form  because this unsubstantiate essence has no form but it is the cloaks through which it radiates that gives it form. Thus imagine God the Father to be a human body, then imagine that his right and left arms to be Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit. If God essense is inexhaustible and infinite as you correctly sensed, then you see that God can will that his left and right arm to leave HIM and work outside of Himself and yet if you see this "body" of God after the left and right arm has left, the left and right arm are not missing but still intact. Thus a separation has not occured as you seem to imagine. This is a crude picture as their is no concept that can give a true reflection of the process but this crude analogy is for you to see that there is no separation or division. It is simply God the Father who works as Father, Jesus Christ and the Holyspirt. If you again imagine atlantic ocean to be infinite and inexhaustible, then, one cup from this ocean can be liked to Jesus Christ and another cup of this ocean can be liked to the HolySpirit. You can only see a separation between the two cups of water and the ocean because of the cup, the vessel that contains a small part of the ocean. If you pour the cups of water back to the ocean, then they are one again with the ocean and no separation. Thus, because Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit are small "parts" of God the Father, God the Father is greater in human conception than Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Thus even though the cup of water from the ocean has the same essense as the ocean, it will be incorrect to say that it is the whole ocean. The correct description will be to say that it is a small volume of water from Atlantic ocean.

So why did the Great Book speak about a “severance” of a part of the Great One Spirit? And that severance becoming the Great One from Nazareth

6.   So why did the Great Book also speak about a “severance” of another part of the Great One Spirit? And that severance becoming the Lord of Creation. . .the one called Parsifal. . .

7.   Was it not Parsifal who walked the Earth and wrote the Great Book?

8.   Does this not mean that the writer himself. .

. . . is a severed part of the Great One Spirit. . .

. . . that he is that spirit. . .

. . .that he is God.

See my expalnation above on how severance should be understood by creatures of God. When we talk about vessels or cloaks, do not liken them to the cloaks of the human spirit that have no animation without the spirit. If we talk about divine as well as primordial spiritual cloaks of the Holy Spirit and Jesus Christ, we are talking of divine and primordial spiritual beings. But let me limit myself to parsifal. Parsifal is the first in creation and it is the Primordial spiritual cloak of the Holy Spirit. Thus parsifal is not God but the cloak through and in which the Holy Spirit radiates into creation. The Holy Spirit did not personally cross into creation, rather the Holy Spirit is outside of creation and have contact with creation through his anchorage, Parsifal. It is sacrilegious to regard Parsifal as God. The mystery of all these lies in the laws of radiations and hopefully some them I will offer my perception on the detailed process of the decent of a son of God from outside of creation and into creation and the various step down transformers that are required for the incarnation of a son of God on earth. Then we may start to have a faint glimpse of the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

Apologies in advance.

There is no need to apologise for it is the spiritual duty of human beings to only accept that which is in harmony with the vibrations of their spirit. Thus I do admire your persistence in not accepting what at the moment you cannot percieve as the Truth. As always, stay blessed.

Thank you so much M_Nwankwo.

Am going for dinner right here in - wait for it - Dar es Salam! - and will revert once done.

Please may I add something I said a while back. M-nwankwo's post resonates in part with it, I think.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=403867.msg5640158#msg5640158

Do you consider God as unending, unquenchable, unlimited, eternal (in all respects, not just in time)? If you do, then I will present to you a simple analogy, and borrow a leaf from viaro while I'm at it: The ANALOGY is not the TRINITY, it's just a pointer for descriptive and evaluative purposes. Lest you tear me apart. E she gann ni.

Recall the widow of Zarephath's flask of oil that never ran out? I think that miracle was an expression of an attribute of God: He never runs out no matter how much he pours himself out. And he cannot be taken by surprise! So, tell me, if God poured himself out into a human form, is that one NOT still God, and has God diminished? Or like the never-ending oil, if I pour it out into a pot and the pot gets full BUT the flask of oil is still full, are they not both full AND the EXACT same oil?

The reasoning of those that say Christ is not God, simply amazes me

^^^ Well Inesqor I am afraid your analogy does not resonate with me because whereas Oil is Physical and finite, and can clearly be "poured", separated or even divided into bits, I do not believe that this can be said for an intangible entity.

Reflect on it careflly and perhaps that which i am saying may strike a nerve with you.

God is absolutely intangible and infinite. Do you recognise the implications of this?

Intangibility is not something that can be "divided" - and this is why i raised the question in the OP -

.  . .   Is it possible to speak of “parts” of the Great One Spirit at all?

Because the issue is the intangible nature of God.

Such a being (or I might say a such a "reality" is transcendental, infinite and immaterial and as such your analogy is not apt for it in the least.

I might also say that you can only speak of a "part" of a finite thing.

Not an infinite thing - because it is altogether borderless.

Moreso given that it is intangible.

Oh Deep Sight!!!! Did I ever liken God to Oil? Or God's intangibility to the tangibility of Oil?

The very expression "pouring out" is just as a matter of speaking. If you consider what I said without prejudice, you will see that I simply stated M_Nwankwo's post with another analogy!

Please re-read what I said with an open mind. Or on the other hand, just continue your discourse with M_Nwankwo.

@InesQor
conclusions i draw from your widow of Zarephath's flask of oil that never ran out-feel free to correct.

1.if God "poured" himself into a human body then there was no God the son before then.

2.there is a main and higher form of God who is not jesus.jesus is a lesser portion of God.

3.whatever happens to jesus does not happen to God so jesus is not God but a part of God which can exist independently but his absence does not change the composition of an infinite so God can do without him.

4.i take it God the father is the source of the oil so the father is greater than the son so the son has all qualities of the father but is not the father.

5.the son is ONLY priviledged to have part of the father and thus the son was made by the father.

karo93:

@InesQor
conclusions i draw from your widow of Zarephath's flask of oil that never ran out-feel free to correct.

Ok.

karo93:

1.if God "poured" himself into a human body then there was no God the son before then.

You misunderstand me. The pouring out was only done when Jesus was born on earth, when God the Son was to be made MANIFEST. He had always been right there but was poured out when he was incarnated. Just like the volumetric portion in the smaller vessel of oil had always been there in the larger one. Can you say the poured-out oil did not exist prior to filling the vessel? That's incredible logic.

karo93:

2.there is a main and higher form of God who is not jesus.jesus is a lesser portion of God.

Read the above. And in addition, Jesus the WORD made himself (as Jesus the MAN) lesser than God.

karo93:

3.whatever happens to jesus does not happen to God so jesus is not God but a part of God which can exist independently but his absence does not change the composition of an infinite so God can do without him.

Spin off of your misunderstanding from point #1. Jesus is God. Jesus as man existed independently on earth, physically, but in the spiritual, he was still right where he had always been. GOD.

karo93:

4.i take it God the father is the source of the oil so the father is greater than the son so the son has all qualities of the father but is not the father.

Wetin karo dey yarn now? God (of which not only the Father and the Spirit, but also Jesus was in participation) was the source of Jesus come in the flesh by account of Mary: the pouring out of divinity into humanity.

karo93:

5.the son is ONLY priviledged to have part of the father and thus the son was made by the father.

Do you think Jesus being referred to as "son" is like the reference to a biological son? Think again. The Son is not made by the Father in this case, sorry.

^^^^ GBAM GBAM GBAM

That was lofly like mavenbox would reply such

@InesQor
i dont have time for an argument so i wont start what i may not finish so i will be less attacking in my posts.

do you believe that there is no one God but 3 who make up God[like the atom] so that only together can we call them God seeing as they can exist independently[you cant say the oil was with the source and in the jar at the same time]

for jesus to be selectively poured out it means they are not one like oil but more like water,oil and mercury

i will answer your reply later but let me get this straight first.

Any separation between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit will lead to errors in conception. My perception is that it is a small essence of God the father that is Jesus Christ and another small essence of God the Father that is the Holy Spirit. In other words it is God the Father that works in three fold as the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Being "parts" of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are eternal, uncreated and have no beginning. Thus it is correct to call them God the son and God the Holy Spirit respectively. Jesus and the Holy Spirit have always existed as they are parts of God the Father, but there unveiling or revelation to the creations of God has a beginning. That happens only when the unsubstantiate divine essence that is Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit is clothed or veiled with cloaks of different worlds, giving them a form that is perceptible to inhabitants of worlds from which their cloaks was made. Thus when God the son envelops himself with divine substance, he can become visible to divine beings in the divine world, when he got clothed with spiritual substance, he became visible to inhabitants of heaven, the kingdom of God,  and finally when he become veiled with a male physical body, he became visible to men on earth as Jesus of Nazareth. It is erroneous in my view to consider the birth of Jesus into various planes of creation as the beginning of Jesus. Before creation Jesus is, Before being born into the divine  worlds, then the spiritual worlds, then the material worlds, Jesus is.  After accomplishing the mission of redemption, Jesus again laid aside all the cloaks, first the physical body and lastly the divine body. And having laid aside all the cloaks, Jesus was drawn back and become one with God the Father. Yet in-spite of being one with the Father, Jesus remained personal in the work of Love and redemption. Thus Jesus is one with God the Father and yet personal in his work of love and redemption. Best Wishes.

@noetic: thanks. I start posting like mavenbox when someone makes me start losing my temper. I try to be more cool-headed nowadays

@karo93: What does "God" mean to you? It's not a just a title. It's a NATURE of BEING. The Father, the Son and the Spirit exclusively have that nature of being, the same way YOU have the nature of being called human and Gabriel has that of "angel".

And what's all this gist about oil, mercury and water? D'uh!!!! I could call it any fluid I want to: liquid or gas!!! Look beyond the PHYSICAL terms in the analogy and understand what I'm saying here, will ya?

m_nwankwo:

Any separation between God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit will lead to errors in conception. My perception is that it is a small essence of God the father that is Jesus Christ and another small essence of God the Father that is the Holy Spirit.

1. Can the Holy Spirit be described as a “small essence” of God the Father? My impression is that the Holy Spirit is a reference to the all pervading power, effect, radiation and emanation of God. This is not a “small essence” but the outward expression of God’s will in its entirety.

In other words it is God the Father that works in three fold as the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. Being "parts" of the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are eternal, uncreated and have no beginning.

2. If this can be true of the Holy Spirit (as defined above) can this be true of Jesus?

3. Because if Jesus always existed separate from the Father and not as THE FATHER, then Wwe are irrevocably saddled with tri-theism – namely the fact that God was never ONE: but always separate.

4. Let us carefully note that your position is different from that advanced by Inesqor to wit; Jesus did not exist separately from the Father before incarnation on Earth – according to Inesqor – he was THE FATHER.

Jesus and the Holy Spirit has always existed as they are parts of God the Father, but there unveiling or revelation to the creations of God has a beginning.

5. Again, this presupposes that Jesus ALWAYS EXISTED as a separate being from the Father. That leads to TWO GODS that always existed – and certainly does not connote monotheism – which Christianity professes to be.

It is erroneous in my view to consider the birth of Jesus into various planes of creation as the beginning of Jesus. Before creation Jesus is, Before being born into the divine  worlds, then the spiritual worlds, then the material worlds, Jesus is.

6. Why then is he said to be “begotten” of the Father? – Jn 3: 16

7. Why then is he described as the “Servant” of God? – Acts 3: 26

8. Why then does he worship God?

Your description entails Jesus being “very God of very God – I AM THAT I AM” – and the envisaged entity CANNOT be said to worship ANY being.

Yet in-spite of being one with the Father, Jesus remained personal in the work of Love and redemption.

Clarify for me please; is this a hint that the Father himself is NOT “personal?”

karo93:

@InesQor
conclusions i draw from your widow of Zarephath's flask of oil that never ran out-feel free to correct.

1.if God "poured" himself into a human body then there was no God the son before then.

2.there is a main and higher form of God who is not jesus.jesus is a lesser portion of God.

3.whatever happens to jesus does not happen to God so jesus is not God but a part of God which can exist independently but his absence does not change the composition of an infinite so God can do without him.

4.i take it God the father is the source of the oil so the father is greater than the son so the son has all qualities of the father but is not the father.

5.the son is ONLY priviledged to have part of the father and thus the son was made by the father.

Although i do not accept any aspect of the doctrine of the trinity; your summations are lucid and make more sense than most others.

You are able to deduce the distinction between Father and Son as may be propounded by a more rational approach to Trinitarianism.

Not that I regard Jesus as "Son of God " anymore than You or Me, though.

@InesQor
to me God is the highest authority to all i existence but since you have a better explanation you could explain what nature of being the triad share.

InesQor:

Jesus is God. Jesus as man existed independently on earth, physically, but in the spiritual, he was still right where he had always been. GOD.

Does this really resonate with you?

I have to ask again how you imagine that intangibility may be divided.

@karo93: For the sake of a weary example and at the risk of liking too much sci-fi, consider a Jupitan (an alien from planet Jupiter) who manages to get to earth. Its nature of being is Jupitan. It is not human. It may wear a human carcass by absorbing itself into its life-form, but it remains a Jupitan in human flesh. THAT is its nature. It is as much Jupitan as the other Jupitans that are still on planet Jupiter.

Hope you understand the nature of beings now.

^^^ That speaks to nature of beings - Thus if Jesus came from Mars he would be a Martian.

That would NOT make him the planet Mars.

Deep Sight:

Does this really resonate with you?

I have to ask again how you imagine that intangibility may be divided.

I have to ask YOU how you imagine that intangibility indicates indivisibility?

And is it not physical intangibility BUT spiritual divisibility that I refer to? I wont even like to use the word "divided" because its not about divisibility, its more of a multi-location, for lack of another word.

Deep Sight:

^^^ That speaks to nature of beings - Thus if Jesus came from Mars he would be a Martian.

That would NOT make him the planet Mars.

Can you hear yourself? Who said Jesus was Heaven? (a la Martian being planet Mars?)

The unique NATURE of deity is what qualifies one as God. And they THREE OF THEM possess it. Exclusively.

InesQor:

I have to ask YOU how you imagine that intangibility indicates indivisibility?

The above directly contradicts this -

I wont even like to use the word "divided" because its not about divisibility, its more of a multi-location, for lack of another word.

So what then?

Tell me exactly how something intangible can be divided.

Intangibility directly connotes indivisiblity.

Can you hear yourself? Who said Jesus was Heaven? (a la Martian being planet Mars?)

Mars here refers to the origin of a martian.

You claimed that the origin of Jesus was “God” – that he came from “inside” God.

So that’s his original location, no?

Besides might I ask you where ALL living things come from?

- Inside God, or –

- Outside God.

Of course the former is the case; so what makes Jesus special in that regard?

@Deep Sight: You can keep spluttering at your keyboard if you want.

I have other things to do so I'm out of here.

[exits thread]

deductions from m_nwankwo 's last post [discuss]

If the portion of God[triad] that was selectively poured out has always been God the son then that part cannot have been cohesive but adhesive to the other parts meaning that that part has always had its own identity which is the only reason why ONLY that minute part was poured into the vessel.

If they were originally three indistinct then some parts of God the father,the son and some parts of the holyspirit would have been poured into the vessel as well.

According to your post jesus is an irrelevant portion of an infinite being and therefore his absence from that being make no difference to the size of the being thus Jesus has the nature of God but is not God and only the father is God.only the father is infinite and infinity is the greatest property of God

Deep Sight:

The above directly contradicts this -

So what then?

Tell me exactly how something intangible can be divided.

To believe that the "God" concept cannot be "divided" contradicts the ontology of God u subscribe to , . .this ontology affirms that God is omni-potent.

what u need to explain is why it is impossible for God to be manifest in two or more places at the same time?
If God is that limited in scope and personality. . . .than He simply aint God.

How does Jesus stop being God by simply coming here on earth to save His creations?

Intangibility directly connotes indivisiblity.

No it does not. The concept we view as intangible is not defined as such in the spirit realm. would Jesus call God intangible?
If God is tangible to Jesus . . .what stops Jesus from dividing such?

The issue is largely the POTENCY of God to manifest Himself in several ramifications and not a case of divisibility. If your understanding and ontological definition of God does not include omni-potency . . , than u are referring to another entity and not Jehovah God.

Mars here refers to the origin of a martian.

You claimed that the origin of Jesus was “God” – that he came from “inside” God.

So that’s his original location, no?

An attempt to construct the location of JC is to assume that JC is a separate entity from God. Jesus is GOD.

Besides might I ask you where ALL living things come from?

- Inside God, or –

- Outside God.

Of course the former is the case; so what makes Jesus special in that regard?

Living and non-living things are CREATIONS of God. . . they neither come from or within God.

@InesQor
that has not explained the "nature of God" it only tells me that they have it.

what is the nature of God? and dont forget that a cup of water from the ocean has the nature of the ocean water but is not the ocean.

what is the nature of God?

Hi DeepSight. Thanks for your well reasoned response. I reply as follows:

Can the Holy Spirit be described as a “small essence” of God the Father? My impression is that the Holy Spirit is a reference to the all pervading power, effect, radiation and emanation of God. This is not a “small essence” but the outward expression of God’s will in its entirety

The Holy Spirit is the will of God the Father that became personal in the work of bringing creations into existence. But the will of God that became personal in the work of creation is not the totality of the will of God the Father. I choose the words "small essence" to present a conception that it closer to the Truth when compared with God the Father. If you consider it deeply, you will sense that the incomprehensible and highly intense power of God the father cannot allow creation to come into existence since it will perish in its enormous power. It thus requires a small essence of God the Father whose radiations is naturally less intense than the whole essence that is the Father. The Holy Spirit is personified in the holy words "Let there be Light".

 If this can be true of the Holy Spirit (as defined above) can this be true of Jesus?

3.   Because if Jesus always existed separate from the Father and not as THE FATHER, then Wwe are irrevocably saddled with tri-theism – namely the fact that God was never ONE: but always separate.

4.   Let us carefully note that your position is different from that advanced by Inesqor to wit; Jesus did not exist separately from the Father before incarnation on Earth – according to Inesqor – he was THE FATHER.

No, Jesus is not God the Father but a small part of God the Father. That is why he is called the son of God. It is not without reason that God the Father is not sensed to be a son of Jesus Christ, rather Jesus Christ as well as the Holy Spirit are sons of God the Father. Jesus is the love of God the Father and this Love of God the Father is an integral living attribute of God the Father. Prior to the work of redemption, the love of God the Father that is Jesus has no conformation. But because of the failure of humankind, God the Father gave form to his living eternal LOVE (Jesus) and incarnated it in flesh and blood as Jesus of Nazareth. No, triteism refers to three gods but trinity refer to one God that works in three fold. And the picture I am unfolding is about trinity of one God.

Again, this presupposes that Jesus ALWAYS EXISTED as a separate being from the Father. That leads to TWO GODS that always existed – and certainly does not connote monotheism – which Christianity professes to be.

Jesus has always existed as love of God the Father and the Holy Spirit has always existed as the will of God the Father. How can it lead to two Gods when the Love (Jesus) is the love of God the Father and the Will (Holy Spirit) is the will of God the Father. Both Jesus and the Holy Spirit are simply a conformation of unsubstantiate, uncreated divine attributes of Love and Will which are in God the Father.

 Why then is he said to be “begotten” of the Father? – Jn 3: 16

7.   Why then is he described as the “Servant” of God? – Acts 3: 26

8.   Why then does he worship God?

Your description entails Jesus being “very God of very God – I AM THAT I AM” – and the envisaged entity CANNOT be said to worship ANY being.

See my explanation above. In addition, Jesus prays to his Father because the Father is greater than the son. The reason is simple, a small essence of God the Father that is Jesus is naturally drawn to the stronger homogeneous attraction of God the Father. This homogeneous attraction between the son of God and his Father is what can be said to be worship. That is different with the worship of creatures to God, in this case, it is not an attraction to God since their is no homogeneity, rather it is an opening of one to the power of God, and remember the power of God comes from God but is not God.

Clarify for me please; is this a hint that the Father himself is NOT “personal?”

God the Father is unapproachable in his omnipotence and it is only his sons Jesus and the Holy Spirit that can be in his presence. All else will perish from the enormous radiations emanating from God the Father. There are no words to describe God the Father. What is closer to the Truth is to say that God the Father is outside and above the concepts of personal and impersonal. So was his Love and Will until they became personal in the works of Love/redemption and bringing creation into existence. Stay blessed.

karo93:

deductions from m_nwankwo 's last post [discuss]

If the portion of God[triad] that was selectively poured out has always been God the son then that part cannot have been cohesive but adhesive to the other parts meaning that that part has always had its own identity which is the only reason why ONLY that minute part was poured into the vessel.

If they were originally three indistinct then some parts of God the father,the son and some parts of the holyspirit would have been poured into the vessel as well.

According to your post jesus is an irrelevant portion of an infinite being and therefore his absence from that being make no difference to the size of the being thus Jesus has the nature of God but is not God and only the father is God.only the father is infinite and infinity is the greatest property of God

All your deductions were not drawn from my posts. Read my posts again and if there are things you do not understand, kindly ask and I will find time to explain more clearly what I meant. Stay blessed.

@m_nwankwo
you did not get my picture.
everything i deduced is centered around Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit Being "parts" of the Father

noetic16:

To believe that the "God" concept cannot be "divided" contradicts the ontology of God u subscribe to , . .this ontology affirms that God is omni-potent.

The issue is largely the POTENCY of God to manifest Himself in several ramifications and not a case of divisibility. If your understanding and ontological definition of God does not include omni-potency . . , than u are referring to another entity and not Jehovah God.

This is the difficulty a lot of people seem to have regarding understanding the omnipotence of God.

Gods is omnipotent regarding creation, his creations.

God’s omnipotence does not extend to irrationality and logical impossibilities. God himself remains bound by self existent realities beyond which nothing can be changed.

To prove this in absolute terms I will set forth to you a number of things that God cannot do.

1. God cannot kill himself – because God is self-existent.

Let us look at the above. A superficial understanding of omnipotence will insist that God can do anything – however God’s self existent nature means that he cannot cease to exist and thus this already represents ONE thing that God cannot do – he cannot destroy himself.

This is what I meant by saying that God’s omnipotence is circumscribed by self-existent realities because God himself is self-existent. God therefore cannot change self-existent and immutable things – such as himself.

2. God cannot make a stone that is impossible for himself to lift and then proceed to lift it.

This is a famous philosophical example. If God creates a stone that is impossible for him to lift, and then lifts it, then the stone was not impossible to lift. An inescapable logical conundrum.

What this example shows is that all reality is compelled along lines of self-existent logic, and that not even God can over-reach or supersede such, nor would he so seek to do, being self-existent himself.

The summary of the two instances above is that God does not and cannot contravene self-existent reality.

God himself is self-existent.

Thus when it is said that God being intangible and infinite cannot be divided, this is a self-existent principle of logic which not even the presumed omnipotence of God can alter.

what u need to explain is why it is impossible for God to be manifest in two or more places at the same time?

I have not said that this is impossible. I would only wonder why one manifestation would worship another manifestation or be called the servant of another manifestation. Or why one manifestation would state categorically that it does not possess some of the key attributes of God – such as perfect purity and omniscience.

Since this is the case in the instance of Jesus, I am compelled to conclude that he could not be God.

Deep Sight:


This is the difficulty a lot of people seem to have regarding understanding the omnipotence of God.

Gods is omnipotent regarding creation, his creations.

God’s omnipotence does not extend to irrationality and logical impossibilities. God himself remains bound by self existent realities beyond which nothing can be changed.

If the "God" u discuss is bound and limited vy the scope of ur imagination . . . .then we are not talking about the same person. if the omni-potency of God is limited to ur scope of possibility . . , then u can as well equate urself as God.

To prove this in absolute terms I will set forth to you a number of things that God cannot do.

1. God cannot kill himself – because God is self-existent.

Let us look at the above. A superficial understanding of omnipotence will insist that God can do anything – however God’s self existent nature means that he cannot cease to exist and thus this already represents ONE thing that God cannot do – he cannot destroy himself.

This is what I meant by saying that God’s omnipotence is circumscribed by self-existent realities because God himself is self-existent. God therefore cannot change self-existent and immutable things – such as himself.

Your assertions are FALSE.

God CAN kill Himself. . , He did so 2000+ years ago, by allowing Himself to be crucified. But God cannot cease to EXIST simply because He is beyond the scope and definition of existence . . . . thats an ontological FACT that naturally defines God.

2. God cannot make a stone that is impossible for himself to lift and then proceed to lift it.

This is a famous philosophical example. If God creates a stone that is impossible for him to lift, and then lifts it, then the stone was not impossible to lift. An inescapable logical conundrum.

What this example shows is that all reality is compelled along lines of self-existent logic, and that not even God can over-reach or supersede such, nor would he so seek to do, being self-existent himself.

This is rather LAME.

There is a purpose behind every creation of God. what would be the purpose of creating the stone in the first place?

The summary of the two instances above is that God does not and cannot contravene self-existent reality.

The summary of ur post is that u have NO understanding of who God is.

God himself is self-existent.

Thus when it is said that God being intangible and infinite cannot be divided, this is a self-existent principle of logic which not even the presumed omnipotence of God can alter.

I have not said that this is impossible. I would only wonder why one manifestation would worship another manifestation or be called the servant of another manifestation. Or why one manifestation would state categorically that it does not possess some of the key attributes of God – such as perfect purity and omniscience.

Since this is the case in the instance of Jesus, I am compelled to conclude that he could not be God.

God cannot be "divide" by whom? If God cannot "divide" Himself then God is NOT omni-present . . . . .in that case we are talking about two different persons.

noetic16:


God CAN kill Himself. . , He did so 2000+ years ago, by allowing Himself to be crucified.

1. That is assuming that your Prophet is God himself, which is not a given

 2. Even if it is a given, that death was a death of a physical body and as such had no reference to "destrying God." Even mere human beings are not destroyed by physical death. . . how much more "God? ? ?"

Now here you wildly contradict the foregoing by AFFIRMATIVELY agreeing with me -

But God cannot cease to EXIST simply because He is beyond the scope and definition of existence . . . . thats an ontological FACT that naturally defines God.

There you have it.

You have EXPLICITLY accepted that God cannot cease to exist - thereby agreeing with me that ceasing to exist is ONE thing that God CANNOT do on account of his self - existent nature.

So what do you make of your "omnipotence" now? ? ?

Ehn? Ehn? ? ?

Deep Sight:

1. That is assuming that your Prophet is God himself, which is not a given

 2. Even if it is a given, that death was a death of a physical body and as such had no reference to "destrying God." Even mere human beings are not destroyed by physical death. . . how much more "God? ? ?"

and why is it impossible for God to be the same person as Jesus?

Now here you wildly contradict the foregoing by AFFIRMATIVELY agreeing with me -

There you have it.

You have EXPLICITLY accepted that God cannot cease to exist - thereby agreeing with me that ceasing to exist is ONE thing that God CANNOT do on account of his self - existent nature.

So what do you make of your "omnipotence" now? ? ?

Ehn? Ehn? ? ?

haba, DS are u educated at all? . . . The nature of God includes His ontology. , . . this ontology reflects His existence outside the scope of space and time.

God's inability to cease existing does not discredit the omni-potency of God.