There seems to be a great deal of confusion about how three distinct personalities can be evident in one being. Over the years, I've observed that the issues say as much about how little we understand ourselves, as we also do not understand who our Creator is. I have had a description that lays to rest misunderstanding, for years. Let's make this description personal. It's just you and me, from the beginning of interaction to understanding.
Let's say that all I know about you is your name, contact information and a reason to contact you. I send you a letter, asking questions and explaining my reason for contacting you. In your response, you answer my questions and discuss your views on the issues I asked about. Now I know more about you than your name. I know something about how you think and respond, something about your personality. That is one aspect of you. At the end of the letter, you include your phone number, inviting me to call.
I call you, the next day. We have a very pleasant conversation. You conclude the conversation with, "I'll be in town next week. Let's get together for lunch". Now, I have a voice to go with the personality. That is the second aspect of you. So far, we know each other, much better.
We get together for lunch at the appointed time. We have a good meal and enjoy conversation over coffee. Now, we see all of the mannerisms and facial expressions that don't work in print or over the phone. That is the third aspect. Through the whole process, you were the same person and I was who I am. Neither of us changed or separated from ourselves. We were both unique in our individual unity. In meeting each other, we illustrated the nature of God, our Creator. We now understand three expressions of one individual, in unity.
The Unity of Three
categories
recent posts
archives
Posted in GeorgesBlog's blog 2009-11-06
vestigesofhermind Interesting analogy. You are quite the thinker.
I enjoy thinkers.
stevehayes13 Clever, but it does not work. There are an infinite number of aspects to anyone or anything. But a person, regardless of the infinity of aspects, remains a person, not three persons.
bloodintheeyes agreed. suppose for example, a sniper is given a photo, name, location and time their target will be present and to be taken out. they know what the person looks like, where they will be, and their location.
the day of the assassination, the sniper sets up shop a mile away, and through a scope fires upon, and bullseyes the target.
the next day, the sniper poses as a morgue associate and verifies his kill, hence seeing the dead body. now he has been witness to another aspect. now suppose later in the day, the sniper sees the target on televsion; a famous politician, etc. Now they have been exposed to the persons mannerisms, and voice.
All distinct aspects. Yet,
the target is still dead.
Your confusing perceptions for reality.
For instance if i think your an arrogant arse, does that necessarily mean you are? Or is that simply my perception?
GeorgesBlog You missed the point, Steve. I was describing the three aspects that people dispute. You're grabbing at straws. Regardless of the number of aspects, they are expressed in those three aspects. Being a nitpicker is not due diligence. Your approach is weak. Our limited perception of any aspect of Eternity has caught you in the same closed loop as most of mainstream religion. You seem to be insisting on a defense of polytheism. My point is diametrically opposed to that thinking and Biblically correct.
GeorgesBlog Thank you, vestiges. I'm just trying to avoid leaning on my own understanding. We should study Scripture.
pastormike thanks George..it does help. there are several others that have been used: the white,yolk and shell of an egg.. perhaps the most popular is three manifistations of the same mind.. perception,intelligence,and memory.. but none are too adequate. the root of person is "persona" a mask worn during a play so one person can be several characters..but that is a human understanding. Believe I'll blog on this so Steve can get worked up..
GeorgesBlog Actually, I posted this in the hope of promoting understanding. People do get worked up, but in the long view, understanding isn't reached until emotion settles down. I would rather explain something over and over again, that go around in an endless dispute.
missingchristopher Your post made me think of some of the comments I've made or gotten. Without hearing the voice or seeing the mannerisms, sometimes knowing what the intention of the comment actually was, can be misunderstood. Was it meant to be funny, or sarcastic or just outright mean? It's not always evident by reading the written word, if you don't know the person who's writing it. It can lead to hurt feelings or anger, when the intent was never meant to elicit either.
Or, I'm completely wrong and that's not what you meant at all.
Liked reading it anyway!
GeorgesBlog Thank you for bringing the limits of perception to the front, missingchristopher. That is a major issue in all personal interaction. I would hope that I don't anger and offend people. When I begin writing, I am seriously seeking a conversation that adds to understanding. I certainly don't want to defeat that purpose. There are many times when I am abrasive or confrontational. That happens when I am writing in historical context, about current events. I hope that this post made your day better.
missingchristopher I always love reading your blogs. Thank you!
GeorgesBlog You're most welcome. We need all the help we can get. This morning, I turned on the news, hoping to see some progress in clearing up the confusion about Ft. Hood. Instead, I see coverage of the shooting in Orlando, Fl. In clinical terms, the world is nuts. God help us!
missingchristopher It is frightening. I'm watching it right now, so sad for those families.
Tony51203 Excellent post. Very descriptive and to the point. For that matter, I get your point.
missingchristopher George, I'm interested in whether or not you're intending to write about the awful Ft. Hood slaughter? From what I've been hearing, it seems as though there may have been information available that could have prevented this, but it was ignored. Hmm, I wonder why? Maybe being a little too PC?
georgemetalmanx Excellent post dad
GeorgesBlog I'm thinking about all of the information flying around about the Ft. Hood incident. It's at the stage where it would be easy to be presumptuous and get off on a tangent with disinformation and misinformation. I'm also in touch with friends around the world that are much more experienced and knowledgeable about these things. I really want to know what Walid Shoebat, Dr. Jerome Corsi, Dr. Stan Montieth, among others, have to say about it.
snugglebum57 wot can i say everyone there has said it all
huggs from nuggs
PRAVUIL If we are of a spiritual nature[not to be confused with worldly] the Spirit works with us, in us, around us, between us and the omnipresent GOD, stands Yahshua [Jesus] the vice-regent of GOD, we cannot approach GOD without going through Yahshua in the spirit, the three being of the same accord.
GeorgesBlog Yes. The analogy was about the expression and perception of three perceptual aspects of an individual. Man is created in the image of God. I was describing the nature of the triune unity. I was speaking in more general terms than specific positional relationships.
PRAVUIL I did think that, but it is hard for me to see three expressions, rather a progression, unless I am missing something transliterational, but it is good for all to get these things out in the open.
GeorgesBlog It is three perceptions of the same person.
waynespiker George can not the same thing be said of each person in the Godhead? Just a question which may help me to use your illustration. I prefer the math analogy, not 1 plus 1 plus 1=3 BUT 1X1X1=1. Waiting for your answer, thanks for the thoughts.
GeorgesBlog Yes, Wayne. That is exactly the application. Another good analogy is the basketball analogy. It's not as active, but describes structure instead of perception. The problem with the math analogy is that each person is not less than the unity, and the unity is not diminished by any means.
butterflylight Have you ever heard about the analogy of water? In one form it is liquid, in another it is ice, and in another vapor. I believe I heard this from a meeting held by Dr. Myles Munroe more than 20 years ago.
GeorgesBlog That is one I've heard. I like this one, because it is more personal and interactive.