Was the Trinity part of the early Christian church? Did Jesus teach this in scripture?

Was the trinity created in order to unite a Jewish monothiestic view of God with the gentiles polythiestic view? A way to maintain the diversity of God within a polytheistic society and still honour the old testament teachings?

Is the holy trinity merely an invention of man that we see legalized in the Nicene Creed(created from the Nicene council), the Apostles Creed (not written by the Apostles) and the Athanasion Creed (not written by Athanasius)? Or do you believe that the concept of the Holy trinity is true? Why?

I think it is debateable whether Jesus himself taught the doctrine of the Trinity as we know it, though there are things he said that are used to justify it. A quick scan of the Wiki on the subject shows that the formula of "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" was used by a number of early Christian writers in the 2nd century AD with the term "Trinity" first coming up late in that century (though the person using it, Theophilus of Antioch, apparently phrased it as "Father, Word, and Wisdom", which I rather like). Then came Tertullian in the early 3rd century who defined and defended the familiar "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit". Keep in mind that all of this predates Constantine so my reading would be that it is a reading of the Bible that developed over the early history of the church. The political part doesn't really seem to come in until it becomes codified in creeds and other documents as the only way to understand God.

That said, Unitarian understandings of God pop up from time to time throughout Christian history. For instance, the Unitarian church in Transylvania dates to the 16th century when it was recognized by Prince John II Sigismund in a decree (the Edict of Torda) on religious freedom and is still around in Hungary and Romania today (our church is partnered with a Unitarian church in Koscord, Hungary). Earlier that same century, theologian Michael Servetus was executed for his heretical writings, including advocating a Unitarian understanding of God and advocating against infant baptism. Ironically, he was executed by Protestants (with the support of John Calvin) while fleeing the Inquisition. And, of course, there is the American Unitarian movement (including the Transcendentalists like Ralph Emerson as well as more conventional preachers like William Ellery Channing) in 18th and 19th centuries that founded the American Unitarian Association, one of the threads of modern UU'ism.

I've always been a bit ambigious on Trinitarianism versus Unitarianism. I do see God (and Existence, since I'm pantheist) as a Unity, so I do not take the Trinity literally, but find the Trinity a powerful way of understanding how we see, and understand our relationship with, God.

Mendalla

Mandalla, do you think in coming up with the "Trinity" the church fathers incorporated a form of their"platonism" with Christianity? Did they unite part of their Greek philosophy to create a Christian doctrine?

Ancient Sumaria- Anu, Enlil and Enki.

Egypt- dual trinities of Amun-Re- Ptah, or Isis, Osiris and Horus

Rome- Jupiter, Juno and Minerva

Greek philosophy used--intelligence, mind and reason

The number three seemed to hold significance within other belief systems, but was it necessarily something that is part of Christianity also?

Does the Trinity "limit" who/what God is?

The trinitarian formula is used in Matthew 28 as part of the Great Commission: "... baptizing in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Indeed, that's still the ecumenically required baptismal formula, and even United Church baptisms are required to be administered "in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit." Much earlier than Matthew 28, you see Paul in Romans using the terms "spirit of God" and "spirit of Christ" interchangeably, suggesting an early understanding of the concept, anyway. The doctrine of the trinity is never spelled out in detail in the Bible, however, although it clearly has roots in passages such as the above. I believe that doctrine is intended to push us forward in our understanding of God and not to be an end in itself, and so I don't believe that the doctrine of the trinity fully or even adequately explains or describes the nature of God. It simply pushes us to go deeper.

I think the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is rooted in the awareness of the dualistic nature of reality, and the presence of a power that transcends dualities, that unites and separates them.

For instance, Creator and Created, separated and united by the transcendental power of Creating. The three-as-one are the Godhead, the three in separation are God the Creator, God the Created, and God the Creative Spirit.

[CREATOR<=>CREATING<=>CREATED]

VENI CREATOR SPIRITUS!

Does Mathew contradict Peter in Acts 2:38? How do you reconcile the two?

I don't try to reconcile the two. I see no need to. To feel the need to "reconcile" these through some sort of complicated theological or hermeneutical process is little different than trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in my view. Both are pointing to the same general principle. I accept that historically the church has required the use of the formula found in the Great Commission, which is now the ecumenical standard and is required for mutual recognition of baptism between churches.

I think Christianity was influenced by other religions in the region, as was the Judaism it came from. I don't recall a "trinity" in Plato but Platonism did influence Christian thought. So was the choice of 3 a coincidence or influence? Likely the latter, though probably from religious influences as much as Platonism or other philosophical ones. Does that make a difference in how we understand the Trinity? It depends on how we approach Christianity. If you are of the "one true faith" understanding, it like does not since such influences are, at most, seen as a sign of how Christ fulfilled existing religious expectations by those who hold it. If you are of the "one faith among many" understanding (like me), then it can provide an additional way to reflect on how to understand it.

As for limiting God, no, it does not and cannot. It is, IMHO, a human understanding of God, not God's reality, so it can only limit our understanding of God, not the reality. And, indeed, it has done so at times.

Mendalla

It seems kind of obvious to me that Christianity was influenced by other religions. As mentioned above, the Egyptians had Osiris, Isis and Horus, but more closer to the Christian Trinity is the Hindu Trimurti of Bramha, Vishnu and Shiva.

By not reconciling the two, doesn't that keep the angels dancing on the head of a pin" by not searching deeper why they seem to contradict each other or not? What if Jesus's warnings of false doctrine included the teachings of the trinity?

And Christianity with one God would be unique....the trinity seems to suggest a compatibility with many other religions except Judaism, which is where I would think it should be more aligned.

You left out the other true monotheist tradition, though it comes well after Christianity so it was not an influence on things like The Trinity.

Even Judaism shows the influence of prior and parallel traditions. The Biblical flood narrative, for instance, parallels very strongly the related narratives from Mesopotamia which is, according to the Bible, where Abraham originated (suggesting the Jews may have come from there at some point). Religion is a human enterprise and therefore some mixing of idea and influences is going to happen. Even Islam clearly shows the influence of Judaism, Christianity, and pre-Islamic Arab paganism.

The thing is, nowhere does the Trinity suggest Christianity is polytheistic. Rather, it is more like one of those many faced gods of India or other Asian traditions where one being presents different faces at different times. Of course, some Indian sources suggest all of Existence as one Divine Reality of which both gods and men are just faces. In such a context, the notion of God as "Three in One" is rather more comprehensible than it is in a heavily personified notion of God, even if it is a simplification.

Mendalla

Then should I have said that would make only Judaism unique by the fact that God is not defined as three?

To portray Hinduism in that way is oversimplifying. Really, it's more of a panentheist or even pantheist view with the Godhead (Brahman) manifest in all of existence to some degree. Even the various manifestations can have multiple manifestations (e.g. Vishnu) leading to a kind of polytheism that nonetheless has a strong Unity behind it. Yes, there are some strong parallels to Christianity (e.g. Krishna as the Godhead made manifest in human form) but it comes from a very different attitude to the world than the one that spawned Jesus and, ultimately, Christianity. I have learned a lot from reading the Upanishads, Gita, and other texts that are foundational to Hinduism and that includes learning that any parallelling between it and Western traditions only goes so far.

Islam is actually a better comparator, as I suggested.

Mendalla

You missed Islam again.

However, what both Neo and I are suggesting, I think, is that it is a mistake to make this a question of God is One or God is Three. In both traditions being discussed, God is One but we perceive God as three (or even more in Hinduism) due to our human limitations.

The Jews and Muslims simply have stuck to a simple God is One without illustrating different aspects of The Divine with different "images" or "faces".

Mendalla

I realize that Islam is an offshoot of Christianity.

How does polytheism differ that much from Christianity separating the different inattributes of God and worshipping them separately? Why do the Jews need to believe in Jesus if the trinity is pointing to one God anyway?

Not to me it doesn't. Nor do I consider this a contradiction. I don't particularly think it matters whether we baptize in the name of Jesus Christ or in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. The issue is not the ritual which is used, it's what the ritual points to. The ritual (or sacrament) of baptism points us to the grace of God which gives new life. To get bent out of shape about the formula, when clearly both Matthew and Peter are speaking of the general importance of baptism seems to me to be focussing on the trees (or perhaps even the branches or leaves) and missing the forest.

All doctrine is imperfect. Doctrine pushes us to learn more and to understand more. In a way, the only false doctrine is that which sets itself up as final and unquestionable.

Jesus condensed the law into 2 great commandments - love God and love others (I've condensed them a little more here.) I don't see the doctrine of the trinity violating either of those, so I don't think it's false doctrine.

Good conversation

Not really. Islam is more like Judaism filtered through an Arab lens. Jesus is in the mix but he's a human prophet, not the Son of God (a concept that they find blaphemous).

In a true polytheist tradition, the gods/esses are very much separate personalities. Just look at the Greeks since that's the best known polytheist tradition in the West. There is no concept there that Zeus, Hera, Hades, et al. are facets of one divine reality. They are a family and rather dysfunctional and not especially pleasant one at that.

To my mind, if you take the Trinity seriously or literally, you cannot really separate the parts. It's all God. You may say "Father" in a prayer but that does not mean God stops being Son and and Spirit during that prayer. Father, Son, and Spirit do not sit around a dinner table chatting about how to screw around with mortals' lives the way the Greek deities sometimes do. And, of course, you often invoke all three as Steven points out. Whereas a Greek offering a sacrifice to Zeus does not think that he is also offering it to Poseidon, Hades, etc. If he wants to make a sacrifice to Poseidon, then he does not make it at a temple of Zeus (though there were temples, such as Roman ones to the Capitoline Triad, that had multiple gods/esses).

In the end, though, this is why I have come to see the Trinity as an image or set of images that we project on to God in order to understand God and our relationship to God. If you try to see God as literally having three different persons, you end up with either a God who suffers from multiple personality disorder or a limited form of polytheism.

Mendalla

I agree - a good respectful conversation - and no one shouting 'my way is the only way' of understanding the nature of God.

To be honest, until this thread and the one on legalism and grace erupted, I was starting to question why we were bothering with WC2. This place, esp. R&F, has been kind of dead and what little R&F conversation was happening wasn't going in an especially interesting direction.

Mendalla

enjoying the riffing :3

a sermon by robert m price on the trinity, with lots of meaning hyperlinks

another sermon (hey, its like wikipedia in here)

another sermon by jonathan tweet

wonderful, amazing thinking and nuance!

(we all should be thanking in our churches those who have already done the heavy thinking for us and whose thinkings we follow...man, glad they didn't copyright their thoughts...they'd be RICH!!!)

Mandella - I think that consciously or unconsciously people might be holding back posting questions or possible discussion items until WC2 is launched.   I know that I have several items that I think worthy of discussion, but haven't gotten around to posting here.  And I am going to a Seminar in June which will probably result in more questions or ideas to introduce.

Trinity .... a church that is one short of 4 strong winds ... the forthcoming being a kohl thought as Dan ... as defined by Romans who thought thinkers the demon ... and thus devilish thought or brain storms ...

I could go on and on aD-libris ... on LOGOS as a word of wisdom ... keep your heads down ... or the emotionalally inclined will take eM off ...

Straight out of the bo'que ...

Is it just me, or has anyone thought that the "trinity" unnecessarily complicates the simple message of Jesus? Love, forgiveness and the kingdom to come. And yet so many councils and disagreements as to what is the nature of the father, son and holy spirit. So much bickering between different bishops shortly after Jesus' death all vying to be able to come up with the correct doctrine for something that essentially still remains a mystery. Even now as many mainline churches proclaim the definition of the trinity, as decided at the council of Nicea, are we blindly accepting a compromise that may have had nothing to do with what Jesus intended? Surely he didn't wish for any controversial doctrines to divide His church after He was crucified. Why do we look at the definition of a trinity to unite us in faith rather than Christs message?

waterfall,

because people look at the finger rather than the moon...

we deify/essentialize our experiences; we name them and then forget that they are names and not internal essences...

our neurologies are made to find patterns, some of which we already come born with, others that we learn...because we live with them constantly, they form our own 'norms', what is 'normal', 'ok', 'alright', 'safe'...

all life is hierarchical, individuals part of a larger superorganism, and even bits of individuals are also competing with each other...

we have pecking orders

authority & status have real and not just psychological effects...in a group, even though there are really 4 lights we can be made to believe that there are 5 lights easily...

our societies & the various mechanisms that have been built have been built by us, so of course they are influenced by the above predilections...so we have things like blasphemy laws, human rights, law courts, etc

there are groups & organizations that know how this works and are able to utilize it...the worst of governments, religions, the best of religions, movements, science (the collective historical hard-won knowledge of humanity)

when the above various things are violated, we can get anxious, frustrated, angry, violent, murderous...we can get sick, even die, just because we aren't comfortable, our sense of normalcy gone or challenged...

we live on a planet, in a solar system, in a reality where we can be snuffed out, just like that.  yet we aren't unimportant.  ferinstance, in around a billion years, the sun will get just 10% brighter.  that will result in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to get below the threshold for plant life.  the result will be that all multicellular life will die off.  that's where we come in; we can try to figure something out :3

i think the many, many different interpretations, denominations, religions is a good and healthy thing.  you can't keep people from being curious, innovating, inventing, exploring...and even statists like the Pope have to change...

and so it goes...

Here are some of the different viewpoints of the "church fathers"

1.) Adoptionism: the belief that Jesus was an ordinary man, born of Joseph and Mary who later became the Christ and Son of God after His baptism.

2.) Sabellianism: taught that the Father, the son and the holy Spirit are essentially one and the same. The difference was verbal and described different roles of a single being.

3.) Arianism: taught that the Father existed prior to the son, who was not, by nature, God but rather a changeable creature, who was granted the dignity, of becoming Son of God.

In 325, the council at Nicea, adopted the Nicene Creed, which described God as, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotton not made, being of one substance with the Father. This was further developed into the formula, three persons one being.

By the end of the fourth century the Nicene Creed doctrine had basically reached it's present form.

(information from wikipedia)

I think it was Constantine, who had an interest to stop the bickering between the church leaders, that forced this conclusion.

I wonder, is this a form of "legalism" developed to appease man or do you think they actually found the truth?

And so it goes..................................  :)   So true.

Does this means the myth ends with a legal conclusion drawn by the church ... one that so often says:

• Shelve your soul, save it for what you don't know, or ...
• There's no longer anything to think, or talk about as we now have control of the ineffable (soul/mind/psyche) a trinity that was meant to keep its head down and buried/bury'd/underground or subtle fruit of the myth) in church, when God said teach my children and they didn't under the rule of heiro gamma, sacred trust in one context that's sorta like a guild ... people are very indeterminate about it or undecisive in how to ponder the damn alien thing, and what's more alien than a thought beir (carrier) that is rye and foreign. So people tend to hate it as a religion ... thus making intellect a rarer and rarer gift in the flood of humanity. But there remain pockets of intelligence, myth, metaphor and psyche (chi, or "X") that were burned by Romans 2000 year ago because emotional brutii do not like thoughts and thinking ... until caught up in the flow! In the Trinity as I said previously we missed a dimension that happened to include 3 negatives in an emotional dimension ... these would be myth, metaphor and unknown energy that opposes the flame of love where not appropriate ... and thus the negative aspect of the context of intelligence as expressed darkly as LOGOS or the WORD ... the extent of which is poorly understood by mortals and they are generally not cognizant of this. In short why they can't understand a lot of what is writ asscripted right in a foreign pathe, or the darker way that we haven't yet unravelled as a'kin (or thar ache to know the adjacent) as neigh burr, those people you're stuck to more than you can conceive as things beyond yah! Stuff that's out there ... vastly unknown or indeterminate to those limited mortal by believe.
• Thank God they 're shutting down this stupid system it is beginning to be penetrated by thoughts and is thus going abba'd or very much wrote in, or even rotten if you count the marks, sports and scions that contaminate the blanc sheets or hyperspace ... metaphor of the mind ... much of which is blank to us ... or virtually unknown!
• Such is the nature of a holiday or saba-tickle ... a break from the normal intelligence as it goes by ... why the Greeks called it a pit or Nus ... something you could get caught in and think or even worse caught in and not thinking ... a negative emotion if looked at other-wise (Y's) in that dark mire ... which is part of your self, if you notice all the dirt you leave behind you while your off pointing fingers and should be explaining what's that? ... instead of saying that's wrong as a foreign thingy ...
• Life is complex ... when dead it is simply out of 'ere as words passing from one Eire to another ... by mouth ... why aura-L, rabbid fu-pho nibbles on wiggly ears ... just another misunderstood myth that compromises part and parcel of the sects of psyche ... one has to gather! Then they propagate, opposing the Æropagite that Milton spoke about as the numbing down of the social order ... how nobility stiffles their support system. Joyce said this organization was three parts: tyranny, church and business as usual a demos thing that was religated to democracy and thus disposed of as quickly as possible so thoughts became flushed---GaZus, or ole gysers that squirted up in Ayres ... like Moses well that happened to be a common metaphor for something completely different ... and thus odd or alien ... and peopel backed off the icon of the media of mind ... thus loosing (or Luçe'n) IT an aberrition of the primal form IÐ. People don't understand that either as such is only seen as egos ... did you see it as it went?
• People would rather not know this ... why they'd rather stay blind ... those that love god's unknown side which is wise ... not just the stoop I'd side that is overcome in emotions .. the other harf ... or the rest of the story as it befalls yah! If chi just passes by you may feel BUSSed or roasted ... by haute thoughts ... of things you just are curios about ... or that all around yah as broad based mystery! Careful in what you question ... you could be had and not even know it ... so subtle is this force or 4 Çi's ... not 3 ... actually  4 and the Mediterranean ... medlin waters or wa-ðis ... that floes indescriminately ... leaving you flushed or sort of feeling err-Oz-lye, or what became Eros lie as it all went down in high's Tory! Few understood ... didn't wish to know everything needed a break, a shabbat holiday ... to regather. There are metaphors ... forite, thus w'Odin land folk ... with upturned Jared stance ... like omega de what's happened! How the world became cranked ... sometimes just an overbearing of cranks ... :-3 those missing a 4th of wind as ole pharts ...

And so the wind blows ...

For me the concept, theory, doctrine of Trinity is not important.  I believe in God.  One God.  God over all, under all, in all.  God in my heart.  God surrounding me.  God supporting me.  God giving me life.  I love God, worship God, pray to God.   I think of God as Spirit.  I learn of God through the life and teachings of Jesus.   

I experience God's grace.  I respond by loving God, by following the Way of Jesus, by being filled with the Spirit of God within me, and I am moved to share that love with all of God's world.  

But generally, I do not try to separate God into three persons.  God is God, the great I AM.

Which is bigger than IY am ...

HI waterfall,

I'm sure you aren't alone in thinking this.

I don't know how an attempt to understand who God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are complicates what God. Jesus and the Holy Spirit say.  Making the concept of the Trinity or belief in this concept the be all and end all of the Christian faith complicates matters.

And yet Jesus asks the question, "Who do you say I am?" and commends only one answer given so we probably aren't meant to think that our answers to the question are without any significance.

And yet if forgiveness is dependent upon the death of the Son doesn't it matter at all who the Son actually is?  And what about love?  Is it different if Jesus is God in human flesh or somebody fundamentally the same as you or I?

Mystery does not mean anything goes.  Mystery means that which is hidden.  The debates at Council do not fight about anything which does not have a basis in what has been revealed.

Once revealed the Mystery disappears and all that remains is trying to understand what has been revealed.

There is still mystery in that we cannot completely know God.  Treating revelation as mystery is nonsense.

Doubtful.  The Councils did little by way of compromising.  They often resulted in all or nothing positions.  Jesus is either God in human flesh or not.  No compromise there.

If anything the Councils rejected compromise.  They stubbornly refused to say that Church X can say Y and Church A can say B and both be fundamentally true.  In the debate with gnosticism the Church decided that flesh and blood is as much a gift of God as is the spirit and not a prison the spirit must escape.

Compromise would have allowed both positions to stand as equivalent truths.

Trinitarians look to the definitions of the Trinity to unite us in an understanding of who God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit are.  Apart from that there is still difference of opinion. 

Grace and peace to you.

John

Opinions like mental sects ... or psyche's ex ... the god that run off not knowing?

Thus psyche's purpose in life ... knowing chi has to do all the mental stuff alone cause god as emotional drives Ur tuit! Heh ain't much assistance otherwise than fillin' gap ... just as passing Ayres ...  to affect Eire's hair ... cillia as in the simplest case ... that primal sense of sensitivity to things about yah!

Is is simply redacted in large cour po'real agglomerations of mega mole sass que'd thus signalled by sympathe ... not observed until Para-sympathetic or seen going as causing an echo/ego in the autonomous form ... such is beyond the limited options ... like really out there ad alternate cognizance of what's going on in Eire ...

Causes some need for duplication, iteration, or twinning in unseen abstractions, or Dark Mires! some call this imagination ... what we fall into when the senses are numbed, like as when asleep, or calm so the mind can drfit off and gather up! What's it doing out there?

Hoo gnoes ...

Ever consioder how many people do not believe in mind/soul/psyche ... religiously ... creating devoid conditions and thus free wiles? This occurs even if the free thing is not welcome for convergance ...

Of course, there are serious and sometimes bitter disagreements between councils and churches and individual Christians about how to understand and apply the so-called "simple message of Jesus [about] love, forgiveness and the kingdom to come." The disagreements come about not because of the doctrine of the trinity but because we're human and have an inevitably limited understanding of both God and gospel.

I'm reading that the word, "trinity" was first used by Tertulliun, 100 years after Jesus' death. And the words "homousis" and "ousis" ( meaning substance) are not biblical but from stoic thoughts. So why did these words/meanings form the basis for debating the divinity of Jesus at Nicea? It seems the debate was an evolvement from new testament times into the 4th century. Is this because the further one gets distanced from the truth we need to justify what we believe as time moves on? And as time moves on, are we tempted to make what seems impossible, "fit", into our own seemingly more advanced understanding?

Revjohn, you said that revelation removes some mystery. How does one know what is being revealed is correct? Did the council of Nicea have a revelation, IYO?

Hi Waterfall,

What is being revealed is always correct.  Our understanding of what is revealed isn't always correct.

So, we get together and we try to work it out.  The Ecumenical councils are examples of that.

Is everything that comes out of the Ecumenical councils absolutely correct?  Not likely.  All human understanding will be limited.  That said, we do not operate on the premise that because we cannot know what is correct we afford the status of correct to everything and pretend that there can be no misunderstandings.

Grace and peace to you.

John

"All human understanding will be limited."

Good one John! Then according to creation's stipulation the parts of understanding are beyond spiritual beings ... like "uv" (Greek for light unseen, or abstract kohl thought) or man as a dark body on which finesse could reflect upon ... this opposes IRE! Thus we get the rhyme of IRe-in goöd knight and you remains are rode over by a broader-based euphemism (related to ephemeral) ... and thus the wordy ribbing from LOGOS! This is seen to tickle one's Bottom if you've ever watched Midsummer Nights Dream for some mental heat ... ot is a mental dot or point that can enter a place of stone ... the determinate mind as created ... it must drift toward indeterminacy to be cognizant of what it doesn't know about what's "out there"! This allows the conflict and opposition in the occipidal and oriented lobes ... unless you've been lobotomized! Coo que humis! You did know that humis is derived from humour and old English expression for satirical spirits ... as truth was denied to common people ... could lead to the death 've eM! Some deis happy you know ... with great conception to what's beyond mortal limitations ... huge pool of words become available as LOGOS? I don't know but I have this cillia'st sensation ... sort of hairy?

With overblown free wiles as confined in "the light" this situation we are somewhat abstract unless using a stretch of mind that gets the emotional type (mostly fear and anger on the Myers-Briggs Construct) into the marginal condition that's shunned and out there. Possibly this is a dark conception to you as when dreams and visions best befall a mind freed of pure avarice ... the desire to control the ess-cape pattern. This is well delineated in Pat Cornwell's tome on The Book of the Dead ... a story about pathe LOGOS ... or pathology as it is now called ... especially in reference to restive bodies with wandering soles .. abstract SHUES? The integral of hues when the "s" is fully realized in metaphor. One has to learn to think many ways ... thus the divined pathe! Mortals tend to conceive mono-lithicly! Some splatter will enlighten them as when the egg crossed over sometimes too late as chicken about sects on the other'side!

You just don't know how a thinking demons stirrs in the overly emotional mind that people try and cover up ... thus all the shrew dead thoughts and the taming or tamiyr state after the emotions wind down ... mostly after weird intergorse .. the bo-chi line along the way in old England ... where woods men hide as wO'Din! In modern song this turns up as Ka Li Jah ... love born in a word tree, or logic schematic! Authorities prefer chaos and confusion then nobody will notice whose ripping of whom!

But I'm not supposed to say such things overtly in church (my mother said as I am possessed with what Casar called the devil) a thinking being that easterners believed a good buddy or Buddha in their terms of linguistic representation. Something most westerners try and oppose as King James authorized a book of his thoughts that believed poeple should think like him ... and if you do some research on KJ you might be upset by the role model ... he was very much on the avarice side ... and the population (you know eM) love it, so now avarice is now wide spread ... if you can conceive of such things in a world where any conception is opposed ... except in areas of control where they should have been limited. This is a self-limiting operation as a few people sense ... we should know better (ß'eta; "H" or "n" in Greek, that leads to slippery Greek ethics). Then one would know this if we followed the bible in understanding the tongues of all men ... but we don't even try ... too much of a JOB in a dark scie/Zae! Thus here we are more or less inde abstract side ... dark ... obtuse again ...

Alas this would be bad for expanding the market place beyond what it could behr ... as another form of rye avarice ... irrespective of mortals, or limitations in a fixed situation! All stuff we choose notto know ... and thus subtle gnoe-stics ... bones to pick?