Merismos Monotheism

i reckon it hasta be looked into.
not much out there so far, so pps if you care to share any resources, feel free.

~

Modern and Secondary Works
From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, Doubleday, 1957 ... LEWIS, Naphtali "MERISMOS ANAKECWRHKOTWN: An Aspect of the Roman Oppression in Egypt", ...
www.international-relations.com/History/Secondary.htm

The Church in Ancient Society (2001 eBook)
The aspiration to be universal is rooted in monotheism. There is always a tendency for religions to become tribal; that is, each tribe looks to its own protecting god with whom ...
www.scribd.com/doc/87754180/The-Church-in-Ancient-Society-2001-eBook

History of Dogma, Volume 2 (of 7) / Harnack, Adolph, 1851-1930
History of Dogma, Volume 2 (of 7) / Harnack, Adolph, 1851-1930
infomotions.com/etexts/id/etext19613 · Cached page

Agamben - The Kingdom and the Glory - For a Theological Genealogy ...
In this way, not only is monotheism as a political prob­ iem abolished theologically and ... The terminology being used here is that of Stoic rhetoric: merismos "is an ordered ...
www.scribd.com/doc/74185036/Agamben-The-Kingdom-and-the-Glory-For-a-Theological...

Full text of "maosoua"
See other formats
www.archive.org/stream/maosoua/Brill_-_Encyclopaedia_of_the_Qur_an_vol_5_djvu.txt · Cached page

GAAL
GAAL. ga’-al (ga‘al, "rejection," or "loathing"; according to Wellhausen, "beetle," HPN, 110): A man of whose antecedents nothing is known, except that his father’s name ...
www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/dictionaries/0GISBE.htm
www.ccel.org

Theology influenced by Origen departs from strict monotheism 135 Conservative Theology in the East 137 Critical state of the Logos doctrine, and the epochmaking importance of
www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma3.txt

Приложение № 1
(2005) ‘Soul and Merismos’ in R. Chiaradonna (ed.), Plotino sull’anima (Naples ... Kenney, J. P. (1991), Mystical Monotheism: A Study in Ancient Platonic Theology ...
www.plato.spbu.ru/SUMMERSCHOOL/summerschool6/account.doc · DOC file
km.aifb.kit.edu

monotheism 3 monoteističke 3 monos 3 monorrimo 3 monopterus 3 monopoly 3 monomerni 3 monomane 3 monologu 3 monologa 3 monolitski 3 monoksida 3 monokristalnog 3
km.aifb.kit.edu/sites/corpex/data/sr/m.txt

cont...

Merismos

By Randy Shankle

http://www.theapostoliccampaign.com/inde....d=132&Itemid=83

How do you distinguish between that which is soulish (and offensive to God) versus that which is spiritual? More importantly, how do you live outside of the soulish realm so that you do not the works of the flesh but rather produce the fruit of the Spirit?

This book is an important part of any Christian's arsenol as it explains what Christian living under the leadership of God's Spirit is really about.

Info below taken from the site:

Hebrews 4:12, "For the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of the soul and spirit..."

In the Greek, the word for "dividing asunder" is merismos. Bearing this name, this teaching by Randy Shankle is unique revelation of how God's Word separates our soul and spirit a true understanding of what is and what isn't of God, a believer may spend an entire Christian life in the soulish realm rather than the realm of the spirt, where he really desires to be.

http://thelatterdays.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=books&action=display&thread=89
...

zone wrote:Merismos

By Randy Shankle...

Who is Randy Shankle?

He origanly I believe was in an Assembly of God school to become a pastor, but may not have finished his degree. Not sure on these details. He then became discipled and trained by a man of God in California, picked up some nice teachings, expanded on them and became popular. He began his ministry visiting other churches and stuff and ministering around other churches. He eventually wrote the book "The Merismos" and was featured on TBN.

He started a church in Marshall Texas, and a Discipleship/Bible school there as well.....
http://forum.rickross.com/read.php?14,74914

...

The Merismos [Paperback]
Randy Shankle (Author)

http://www.amazon.com/The-Merismos-Randy-Shankle/dp/0883682419

...

nephos . com

serious warnings about linking to it so i reckon y'all haveta go there yourself if you want to.

search hint - cache: Merismos Monotheism

[if anyone knows anything about this doctrine please contribute]

Merismos

Techniques > Use of language > Figures of speech > Merismos
Method | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Merismos is where something is described or referenced in its entirety.
Example
Past, present and future.

I am everyone I have ever been. I am a little boy, lost on the beach. I am a confused teenager, raging at the world. I am an adult, trudging my path.

I want to thank everyone who helped with this production, including the door staff, the make-up artists, the costumiers, the lighting engineer, ...

Discussion
By taking time to describe something in more detail than might normally be expected, merismos acts as a form of emphasis, indicating importance and asking the audience to reflect on the subject.

Polar merismos occurs where a full description is shortened by describing only boundary or start and end states. Sometimes this is written by describing the end state before the start. For example, 'man and boy', 'omega and alpha', 'now and again'.
Merismos comes from the Greek word meaning 'division'.

Merismos is also called 'Distributio', 'Digestio' or 'Discriminatio'.
Classification: Meaning
See also
Diallage

http://changingminds.org/techniques/language/figures_speech/merismos.htm

Diallage

Techniques > Use of language > Figures of speech > Diallage
Method | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Diallage is the consideration of arguments from different viewpoints to and then turned to make a single point.

Example
John says we need to go South. Jane wants to go West. What is important is that we can't stay here.

If we put up our prices, then revenue may increase but sales will drop. If we put effort into marketing, then we may well more but margins will be thinner. Maybe we can combine these, funding marketing through an increase in prices.

Discussion
In negotiation and other forms of argument and debate, it is common for people to take sides and polarize their positions. With a collaborative facilitation, the parties are brought together and the best of both arguments are combined for a solution that helps everyone.

Diallage uses this principle, combining diverse viewpoints. In persuasion this can make the speaker seem fair and even-handed. It can also defuse opponents if you are seen to consider their position.

Diallage comes from Greek and means 'through making other than it is'.
Classification: Rearrangement
See also
Merismos, Pros-vs-cons reasoning, Collaborative negotiation

Uh-oh....zonus is on the scent.

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3311 merismo/v
Original Word Word Origin
merismo/v from (3307)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Merismos mer-is-mos'
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Masculine None
Definition

a division, partition
distribution (of various kinds)
a separation
so far as to cleave asunder or separate

Translated Words
KJV (2) - dividing asunder, 1; gift, 1;

NAS (2) - division, 1; gifts, 1;

Verse Count
KJV NAS

Hebrews 2

Hebrews 2

......

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Verse Display - Strong's Number: 3311
Original Word Transliterated Word
merismo/v Merismos
Translated Words
dividing asunder, gift

The KJV Strong's Version - 2 Verses
Heb 2:4 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Heb 4:12 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3311
Original Word Word Origin
merismoß from (3307)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Merismos None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mer-is-mos' Noun Masculine
Definition

a division, partition
distribution (of various kinds)
a separation
so far as to cleave asunder or separate

-----------------

Hold on...he's sayin' God is SEPERATED into widdle peices!

Hang the heathen for IDOLATRY!!!! He thinks theres some kinda divine triplets up there!

pffft

eh.....its all too gnosticy for me.

i'm out for now.

zone wrote:i reckon it hasta be looked into.
not much out there so far, so pps if you care to share any resources, feel free.

~

Modern and Secondary Works
From the Stone Age to Christianity: Monotheism and the Historical Process, Doubleday, 1957 ... LEWIS, Naphtali "MERISMOS ANAKECWRHKOTWN: An Aspect of the Roman Oppression in Egypt", ...
www.international-relations.com/History/Secondary.htm

The Church in Ancient Society (2001 eBook)
The aspiration to be universal is rooted in monotheism. There is always a tendency for religions to become tribal; that is, each tribe looks to its own protecting god with whom ...
www.scribd.com/doc/87754180/The-Church-in-Ancient-Society-2001-eBook

History of Dogma, Volume 2 (of 7) / Harnack, Adolph, 1851-1930
History of Dogma, Volume 2 (of 7) / Harnack, Adolph, 1851-1930
infomotions.com/etexts/id/etext19613 · Cached page

Agamben - The Kingdom and the Glory - For a Theological Genealogy ...
In this way, not only is monotheism as a political prob­ iem abolished theologically and ... The terminology being used here is that of Stoic rhetoric: merismos "is an ordered ...
www.scribd.com/doc/74185036/Agamben-The-Kingdom-and-the-Glory-For-a-Theological...

Full text of "maosoua"
See other formats
www.archive.org/stream/maosoua/Brill_-_Encyclopaedia_of_the_Qur_an_vol_5_djvu.txt · Cached page

GAAL
GAAL. ga’-al (ga‘al, "rejection," or "loathing"; according to Wellhausen, "beetle," HPN, 110): A man of whose antecedents nothing is known, except that his father’s name ...
www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/dictionaries/0GISBE.htm
www.ccel.org

Theology influenced by Origen departs from strict monotheism 135 Conservative Theology in the East 137 Critical state of the Logos doctrine, and the epochmaking importance of
www.ccel.org/ccel/harnack/dogma3.txt

Приложение № 1
(2005) ‘Soul and Merismos’ in R. Chiaradonna (ed.), Plotino sull’anima (Naples ... Kenney, J. P. (1991), Mystical Monotheism: A Study in Ancient Platonic Theology ...
www.plato.spbu.ru/SUMMERSCHOOL/summerschool6/account.doc · DOC file
km.aifb.kit.edu

monotheism 3 monoteističke 3 monos 3 monorrimo 3 monopterus 3 monopoly 3 monomerni 3 monomane 3 monologu 3 monologa 3 monolitski 3 monoksida 3 monokristalnog 3
km.aifb.kit.edu/sites/corpex/data/sr/m.txt

cont...

Yeah, there won't be anything out there except what came from me. It's my descriptor from the Greek and nothing more. Try G3311, and try to utilize a decent language tool at least.

It means partitioning/distribution. It's in my post.

Shankle (below) is a Trinitarian with a Texas-based ministry about man's spirit-soul-body. I have no affiliation whatsoever.

zone wrote:Merismos

Techniques > Use of language > Figures of speech > Merismos
Method | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Merismos is where something is described or referenced in its entirety.
Example
Past, present and future.

I am everyone I have ever been. I am a little boy, lost on the beach. I am a confused teenager, raging at the world. I am an adult, trudging my path.

I want to thank everyone who helped with this production, including the door staff, the make-up artists, the costumiers, the lighting engineer, ...

Discussion
By taking time to describe something in more detail than might normally be expected, merismos acts as a form of emphasis, indicating importance and asking the audience to reflect on the subject.

Polar merismos occurs where a full description is shortened by describing only boundary or start and end states. Sometimes this is written by describing the end state before the start. For example, 'man and boy', 'omega and alpha', 'now and again'.
Merismos comes from the Greek word meaning 'division'.

Merismos is also called 'Distributio', 'Digestio' or 'Discriminatio'.
Classification: Meaning
See also
Diallage

http://changingminds.org/techniques/language/figures_speech/merismos.htm

Diallage

Techniques > Use of language > Figures of speech > Diallage
Method | Example | Discussion | See also

Description
Diallage is the consideration of arguments from different viewpoints to and then turned to make a single point.

Example
John says we need to go South. Jane wants to go West. What is important is that we can't stay here.

If we put up our prices, then revenue may increase but sales will drop. If we put effort into marketing, then we may well more but margins will be thinner. Maybe we can combine these, funding marketing through an increase in prices.

Discussion
In negotiation and other forms of argument and debate, it is common for people to take sides and polarize their positions. With a collaborative facilitation, the parties are brought together and the best of both arguments are combined for a solution that helps everyone.

Diallage uses this principle, combining diverse viewpoints. In persuasion this can make the speaker seem fair and even-handed. It can also defuse opponents if you are seen to consider their position.

Diallage comes from Greek and means 'through making other than it is'.
Classification: Rearrangement
See also
Merismos, Pros-vs-cons reasoning, Collaborative negotiation

Why not try scripture instead of the internet? None of this has anything to do with merismos (G3311).

Strangelove wrote:Uh-oh....zonus is on the scent.

Well, technically a stench IS a scent. Nothing there, though.

Amazing you hold me in such low regard.

zone wrote:The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3311 merismo/v
Original Word Word Origin
merismo/v from (3307)
Transliterated Word Phonetic Spelling
Merismos mer-is-mos'
Parts of Speech TDNT
Noun Masculine None
Definition

a division, partition
distribution (of various kinds)
a separation
so far as to cleave asunder or separate

Translated Words
KJV (2) - dividing asunder, 1; gift, 1;

NAS (2) - division, 1; gifts, 1;

Verse Count
KJV NAS

Hebrews 2

Hebrews 2

......

The New Testament Greek Lexicon

Verse Display - Strong's Number: 3311
Original Word Transliterated Word
merismo/v Merismos
Translated Words
dividing asunder, gift

The KJV Strong's Version - 2 Verses
Heb 2:4 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

Heb 4:12 - [In Context|Read Chapter|Original Greek]
For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Well lookah thar. Scripture. And with merismos being what the logos pierces to do relative to soul and spirit, body and soul. Like in my lengthy posts. :-)

zone wrote:eh.....its all too gnosticy for me.

i'm out for now.

Really?! As a purveyor of PhilosoGnostic Trinity?

I especially had no idea YOU held me in such low esteem.

Why no exposition of Trinity from you?

Tell me about the spirit of his mouth (2Thess. 2:8).

Tell me about the breath (ruach) of his mouth (Psalm 33:6).

And those Revelation passages where two-edged sword proceeds (ekporeuomai) out of a mouth.

no, you know what pps?

i think its you who is holding myself ("and others" as you are fond of saying) in low esteem.

you're a very bright guy who has heard all these objections to your model, but more importantly, and i think you know, objections to your presentation of the idea that people who even say Trinity or Persons are believing in a false god.

i've maintained all along that not one of us has the complete picture, including YOU. you have to resort to mysticism and fill-in-the-blanks with your model, as much as anyone else...and we're talking about GOD!

i've found you to resort to shifting your footing when it suits you, however nicely.

if you're antitrinitarian even to the point of antitrinitarian LANGUAGE used by christians daily around the world just say so. always and up front all the time: what took so long with the Merismos "definer"???

after much thought i believe you've actually come here EVANGELIZING us (me) believing us to be LOST without your Godhead doctrine. i can come to no other conclusion on the matter after reading your dogmatism and claim that trinitarian language itself is heresy.

TBH i feel kinda used [?], pps.

the cloven tongues of fire is exactly the dividing asunder etc.

so? you as an (apparently embarassed?)pentecostal who tolerates the gross mockery of REAL Pentecostal LANGUAGES...gibbering...doesn't understand what that even means.

so what more is there to say?


.......................

Early Trinitarian Quotes





by Matt Slick

There are cult groups (Jehovah's Witnesses, The Way International, Christadelphians, etc.) who deny the Trinity and state that the doctrine was not mentioned until the 4th Century until after the time of the Council of Nicea (325). This council "was called by Emperor Constantine to deal with the error of Arianism [see page 45] which was threatening the unity of the Christian Church."

The following quotes show that the doctrine of the Trinity was indeed alive-and-well before the Council of Nicea:

Polycarp (70-155/160). Bishop of Smyrna. Disciple of John the Apostle.

"O Lord God almighty... I bless you and glorify you through the eternal and heavenly high priest Jesus Christ, your beloved Son, through whom be glory to you, with Him and the Holy Spirit, both now and forever" (n. 14, ed. Funk; PG 5.1040).

Justin Martyr (100?-165?). He was a Christian apologist and martyr.

"For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Savior Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water" (First Apol., LXI).

Ignatius of Antioch (died 98/117). Bishop of Antioch. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"In Christ Jesus our Lord, by whom and with whom be glory and power to the Father with the Holy Spirit for ever" (n. 7; PG 5.988).
"We have also as a Physician the Lord our God Jesus the Christ the only-begotten Son and Word, before time began, but who afterwards became also man, of Mary the virgin. For ‘the Word was made flesh.' Being incorporeal, He was in the body; being impassible, He was in a passable body; being immortal, He was in a mortal body; being life, He became subject to corruption, that He might free our souls from death and corruption, and heal them, and might restore them to health, when they were diseased with ungodliness and wicked lusts." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 1, p. 52, Ephesians 7.)

Irenaeus (115-190). As a boy he listened to Polycarp, the disciple of John. He became Bishop of Lyons.

"The Church, though dispersed throughout the whole world, even to the ends of the earth, has received from the apostles and their disciples this faith: ...one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven, and earth, and the sea, and all things that are in them; and in one Christ Jesus, the Son of God, who became incarnate for our salvation; and in the Holy Spirit, who proclaimed through the prophets the dispensations of God, and the advents, and the birth from a virgin, and the passion, and the resurrection from the dead, and the ascension into heaven in the flesh of the beloved Christ Jesus, our Lord, and His manifestation from heaven in the glory of the Father ‘to gather all things in one,' and to raise up anew all flesh of the whole human race, in order that to Christ Jesus, our Lord, and God, and Savior, and King, according to the will of the invisible Father, ‘every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth, and that every tongue should confess; to him, and that He should execute just judgment towards all...'" (Against Heresies X.l)

Tertullian (160-215). African apologist and theologian. He wrote much in defense of Christianity.

"We define that there are two, the Father and the Son, and three with the Holy Spirit, and this number is made by the pattern of salvation... [which] brings about unity in trinity, interrelating the three, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. They are three, not in dignity, but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in kind. They are of one substance and power, because there is one God from whom these degrees, forms and kinds devolve in the name of Father, Son and Holy Spirit." (Adv. Prax. 23; PL 2.156-7).

Origen (185-254). Alexandrian theologian. Defended Christianity and wrote much about Christianity.

"If anyone would say that the Word of God or the Wisdom of God had a beginning, let him beware lest he direct his impiety rather against the unbegotten Father, since he denies that he was always Father, and that he has always begotten the Word, and that he always had wisdom in all previous times or ages or whatever can be imagined in priority... There can be no more ancient title of almighty God than that of Father, and it is through the Son that he is Father" (De Princ. 1.2.; PG 11.132).

"For if [the Holy Spirit were not eternally as He is, and had received knowledge at some time and then became the Holy Spirit] this were the case, the Holy Spirit would never be reckoned in the unity of the Trinity, i.e., along with the unchangeable Father and His Son, unless He had always been the Holy Spirit." (Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, eds., The Ante-Nicene Fathers, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975 rpt., Vol. 4, p. 253, de Principiis, 1.111.4)

"Moreover, nothing in the Trinity can be called greater or less, since the fountain of divinity alone contains all things by His word and reason, and by the Spirit of His mouth sanctifies all things which are worthy of sanctification..." (Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4, p. 255, de Principii., I. iii. 7).

zone wrote:no, you know what pps?

i think its you who is holding myself ("and others" as you are fond of saying) in low esteem.

Odd, since next from the very dearest men of God in my life, I have held you in the very highest regard since shortly after we met.

you're a very bright guy who has heard all these objections to your model, but more importantly, and i think you know, objections to your presentation of the idea that people who even say Trinity or Persons are believing in a false god.

Again, my emphasis is on scriptural doctrine, not judging hearts. Few/some/many/most Trinitarians have salvific faith.

i've maintained all along that not one of us has the complete picture, including YOU.

Never said I did. Not even close. Yet you think Trinity is the complete picture and I have no right challenging its paradoxes and its faulty foundation.

you have to resort to mysticism and fill-in-the-blanks with your model, as much as anyone else...and we're talking about GOD!

You sure don't have that criticism of the highly-developed Trinity doctrine that has virtually no "hows" for its "whats", and is literally textually impossible in its orthodox form.

Cite an example. I guarantee you it's a misperception on your part. I'm boringly, yet arduously, consistent apart from pursuing deeper understanding and better articulation.

I object to the unscriptural foundation of three hupostases of one ousia. All internal band-aid language is also rubbish. Kenosis, perichoresis, enhypostatic/anhypostatic union. The English plural of "persons" for the singular hupostasis is the culprit for it all. "Persons" is the issue. You've know that virtually since our greeting.

I've used it for some time. I had no idea I hadn't mentioned it here or to you, or that you hadn't read it in my posts at some point. Why would I need to NOT mention it? It's my own monicker from scripture alone. You know, Sola Scriptura. And it qualifies as a definer. It's in the text, vitally related to the logos, pneuma, psuche, and soma.


Seriously?! I've never even entertained the thought that you weren't gloriously saved. Doc can be a bit prickish, but I've never given thought to him being unsaved, either. You guys are WAY to personal, so you presume the same in reciprocation. My heart is rending over this conflict with you now. I truly love you in Christ. Obviously much more than you know.



Wow. I just don't know what to say to this allegation. Just... I don't know.



I don't know what this means. I've made my disdain clear for the modern practice of pseudo-tongues. That doens't mean you or Doc or anyone has actually provided an exposition of the text for cessation. I go with the text, no matter how I think others abuse whatever. Pentecost was languages/dialects of human speech. Period. Corinthians shows the unknown tongue. I haven't EVER heard it taught according to the text nor seen/heard of it practiced according to the text. But I don't spend a lot of time in places where that happens... for just that reason. Same for most of the other abuses.

The text stands. Address the text, not me; not you; not the NAR loons and all the AoGers and word of faithers, etc. Text. I'll gladly put aside continuation for the truth if I'm wrong. You don't seem so correctable.



Dunno. You've judged me pretty thoroughly from your false perceptions.
.......................



Really?! Matt Slick quoting the fathers rather than just quoting the fathers?

I've read everything each one of them has written, and all the other fathers. Distinction between F/S/HS is NOT inherently Trinity. In fact, I've adapted a large majority of my expression from the early fathers themselves relative to the final authority of scripture.

Tertullian said "the internal Logos became the external Son". And he didn't mean "persons" like it has grossly morphed to mean to most today.

All my criticism is of the Doctrine and general behavior of those who espouse it. Even now, I won't criticize you personally or judge your heart to ANY degree. I have no doubt of your vital salvific faith.

Strangelove wrote:The NAS New Testament Greek Lexicon

Strong's Number: 3311
Original Word Word Origin
merismoß from (3307)
Transliterated Word TDNT Entry
Merismos None
Phonetic Spelling Parts of Speech
mer-is-mos' Noun Masculine
Definition

a division, partition
distribution (of various kinds)
a separation
so far as to cleave asunder or separate

-----------------

Hold on...he's sayin' God is SEPERATED into widdle peices!

Hang the heathen for IDOLATRY!!!! He thinks theres some kinda divine triplets up there!

pffft

Guess what. Beavis? That's exactly what the logos does for your soul/spirit, joints/marrow (body/soul). The logos pierces to the merisomos of those. And is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of your heart. It's partitioning, distribution.

I guess you'd say that you're being separated into widdle pieces.

Do you ever read scripture? Or just websites.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:Guess what. Beavis? That's exactly what the logos does for your soul/spirit, joints/marrow (body/soul). The logos pierces to the merisomos of those. And is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of your heart. It's partitioning, distribution.

I guess you'd say that you're being separated into widdle pieces.

Do you ever read scripture? Or just websites.

Beavis?

Ok God is divided, seperated,,,etc,,,,etc.....

Some other folks like to say distinct "persons" to describe the mystery. Its all the same thing.

We're all idoloters according to the pharisees for giving God a "tri" summink. Get the heck off your high horse or just go away.

Strangelove wrote:

Beavis?

Ok God is divided, seperated,,,etc,,,,etc.....

Some other folks like to say distinct "persons" to describe the mystery. Its all the same thing.

We're all idoloters according to the pharisees for giving God a "tri" summink. Get the heck off your high horse or just go away.

One question...

Why do you care so much about the Pharisees and their tribunals? Am I more reformed than you? I say part of God's sovereignty is the inevitable onset of all that. It can't and won't be deterred.

The round-up is sure to commence, and neither I nor anyone will alter its overall course. The lost are everywhere, even in church pews.

I'll do a Polycarp to evade capture for awhile, maybe. But in the end, if they're draggin' me off, so be it. I knew what I was signing on for in the kingdom. That's all secondary and incidental.

This cup won't pass from us.

(And they'll have database access to ALL the church membership rolls of 501C non-profits in the US.)

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:One question...

Why do you care so much about the Pharisees and their tribunals?

Cuz we're supposed to be aware.

i've given this discussion (over various threads and over forums, over time) much thought.

i'll post the things i've taken issue with. but since its not my model, and since the parts i've taken issue with are not my constructions/fill-in-the-gaps, its not up to me to disprove them. i think the inferences and presuppositions are self-evident.

Trinitarianism as a defense for the injection of some of these ideas into Theology.... particularly attempting to explain (HOW) God... is not a valid defense. this model stands or falls on its own merits, not due to the faults of another.

.....

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

- there's been all along an attempt to take every portion of this passage absolutely literally, esp: 'joints and marrow'....resulting in a 'scientific/biological/anthro' explanation for what's been termed the "HOW" of the Godhead, as well as the "HOW" of the first resurrection, or quickening of a man who is dead in trespasses and sins.

a buttress for this argument has been "the life is in the blood" (this has to be looked at much more closely, which i hope to do, when i get time).

one by-product of this biological/physiological/metaphysical (oxymoronic?) explanation is the absolute necessity of DENYING original sin/our corruption/sin nature - it has required a reworking of language to infer man's nature was NOT cursed and corrupted by sin resulting in sin as a literal resultant condition of the entire man; to a kind of deflation of the 'good' part of man's (Adam's nature - "divine??); a "burying" of it.

and that as the Logos/Rhema, whatever aspect of the Anti-Trinitarian GodHead model is 'divided and sent out' (paraphrasing as closely as i can) it enters the man, penetrating and LITERALLY and PHYSIOLOCIALLY "dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow." (keeping in mind this model asserts in effect that 'the life is in the blood' and therefore sin/death is in the MARROW/BLOOD, and the divided Spirit pierces and precisely penetrates INTO it, restoring or issuing new "life" via the pneuma/ruach/breath, etc...into the BLOOD of the man.

this means the man's SPIRIT is actually and literally in his BLOOD (if not IN IT, inextricably connected TO IT). which means the p/p/s model is self-contradictory.

i'm taking issue with this.

it's not up to me to disprove this model, only to call it as THE hidden/lost-now-discovered TRUTH, since i so far am unable to find any substantial evidence FROM scripture that not only is this the holy grail of "HOW" (which apparently is/can be critical to SALVATION!) - it's a HUGE part of WHY we must deny original sin and deny Trinitarian distinctions as they are written - attributing some as-yet-undisclosed MOTIVE to God for using those distinctions in His Word.

He could EASILY have dispensed with ANY personal pronoun/divine/definite articles attached to F/S/HS, and other distinctions in His Revelation of Himself if He chose to.

the Trinitarian model doesn't answer all the questions one might raise (i never claimed it did), but again, and finally, its my assertion this MM model does not provide enough satifactory [let alone definitive] answers, and furthermore imo this kind of conflict concerning the definition of the Eternal God (particularly Himself PRECREATION) is dangerous and demoralizing, and hurts the Body.

.....

another, but more subtle issue i have with this model as it is expounded in depth over time is the suggestion that as a result of this dividing up and distributing of the Soul of God via the Spirit of God by/through the Logos [?] (or some other variation) .....the church is becoming GOD.

now naturally this will be vehemently denied, and perhaps not actually be believed by the proponents of such a view. but the idea that the church is becoming GOD is, like NAR being very literal actual fruit of the seeds of neo-montanism - a lack of understanding concerning the spiritual gifts (men) The Lord gave the church Post-Ascension).

the church becoming God through the distribution of God's Essence INTO Christians in this way is the progression of such an anthro-logically driven model is not unique, Kingdom Now Theology is built on this idea (another american corruption).

being "partakers of the divine nature" as Peter spoke of does NOT mean in the same way AT ALL the Kingdom Now theology or MM theology asserts.

that's all for now.

more later as i can finally articulate what's been upsetting me (and i believe is actually grieving the Spirit) about this discussion. many good points have been made in the model, and valid questions posed re Trinitarian doctrines but the overall implications and inferences of p/p/s/MM are WRONG.

zone

One question...

Why do you care so much about the Pharisees and their tribunals?

my answer is because next-to-nobody (in the universal church) knew anything about them a decade ago.

and they're moving so quickly i'm going to keep doing what i did way back then (when i received all this from the Spirit); monitor the progress of the Temple Cult; and report to the church....whoever has ears to hear.

99.9% still glaze over at the mention of all that....so there's much to do. Doc and i have been gathering and posting info, and its up to God after that who receives it and what they do with it.
that's my 2 cents.

zone wrote:i've given this discussion (over various threads and over forums, over time) much thought.

i'll post the things i've taken issue with. but since its not my model, and since the parts i've taken issue with are not my constructions/fill-in-the-gaps, its not up to me to disprove them. i think the inferences and presuppositions are self-evident.

Trinitarianism as a defense for the injection of some of these ideas into Theology.... particularly attempting to explain (HOW) God... is not a valid defense. this model stands or falls on its own merits, not due to the faults of another.

Agreed. A God-model stands or falls on its own merits. You misunderstand, and thus indavertantly misrepresent, much of what I've presented at each stage of our discussions. And I've ALSO copiously and specifically shown where Trinity is literally impossible from the actual text. Trinity multiplied God's singular hupostasis into three and assigned Him ousia that He is not. And one speaks one's OWN Logos. If the Father spoke (which He did) the Logos is HIS OWN. And many more points.

Misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I present is not a refutation. The actual content must be refuted, not your misconception of it. Trinity has been refuted. You may challenge that by showing God's multiple hupostasis and singular ousia from the text Sola Scriptura. That can't happen, and all other inference and deductive hermenetic is based on that importation and superimposition.

Hebrews 4:12
For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.

- there's been all along an attempt to take every portion of this passage absolutely literally, esp: 'joints and marrow'....resulting in a 'scientific/biological/anthro' explanation for what's been termed the "HOW" of the Godhead, as well as the "HOW" of the first resurrection, or quickening of a man who is dead in trespasses and sins.

a buttress for this argument has been "the life is in the blood" (this has to be looked at much more closely, which i hope to do, when i get time).

Only as clarification for Greek renderings. Evidently not in the functional manner you percieve. You misunderstand at virtually every point to whatever degree.

one by-product of this biological/physiological/metaphysical (oxymoronic?) explanation is the absolute necessity of DENYING original sin/our corruption/sin nature

Man is utterly depraved in any pragmatic funtional sense. My issue with Auggie's Original Sin is the "how", not the "what". His nebulous declarations are just repeated without having an understanding of "how". Man's spirit is NOT depraved because it came from God and returns to Him. There was certainly a death (thanatos) of man's spirit. I explain "how". Auggie just declares it and everyone bleets right along not knowing "how".

- it has required a reworking of language to infer man's nature was NOT cursed and corrupted by sin resulting in sin as a literal resultant condition of the entire man; to a kind of deflation of the 'good' part of man's (Adam's nature - "divine??); a "burying" of it.

Mankind is in spiritual death (thanatos). Cursed. Corrupted. No "deflation" of good. Man's spirit must be resurrected from this death (thanatos). That MUST happen in this temporal life or it CAN'T happen. It's a HOW thing, not a WHAT thing, which is the whole premise of it.

I would even largely concede it as semantics with you personally; but there is much left to the "how" that Auggie's "what" doesn't even deal with.

Maybe you should attempt to explain the "how" since you completely misunderstand mine and Auggie left it off. How is Original Sin transmitted to mankind...specifically? I take issue with the doctrine and its blind propagation without understanding, not the practical truth that it merely describes.

Man's temporal being is depraved, and man cannot recognize or effect change in his depraved spiritual condition. Only God can do so by His Word and Spirit. Period. Man is spiritually dead (thanatos). My issue is that nobody actually knows what that means and hide behind Auggie's doctrine.


Man's sin/death is not just in the marrow/blood. It PENETRATED there at the conjoining point. Again, you misunderstand. I can attribute some of it to my deficiencies of expression; but some of it IS because you're a bit caveman-ish at times.



Man's spirit is not "actually and literally in his blood". No, the zone misunderstanding and perception of the PPS model is self-contradictory; not the actual model. You can't critique something effectively that you misunderstand and misrepresent and misperceive.



...based on your own misperception, not the actual content presented.



Oh dosh. It's Trintiy that is a "how" that has anthematized any living creature who discents.

And my understanding isn't the hidden/lost truth. It's the last percentage of truth that has been obscurred by man's own doctrine and its propagation.

Trinity multiplied God's singular hupostasis and injected ousia for God. Instead of accepting and aligning with any other ancient models that retain God's singular hupostasis, I've maintained EVERYTHING else of Trinity while reinstating the scriptural truth of God's singular hupostasis. It's a completion, not a replacement. I refuse to embrace an erroneous model of God's singular hupostasis just because it's singular. Unitarianism, Arianism, and Oneness are erroneous "hows" for God's singular hupostasis, just as Trinity is erroneous for presenting God with multiple hupostases and an ousia.

I did the only tenable thing. I expended whatever it took to excavate the last bit of truth to fix what the ANFs broke; all while retaining every brilliant and scriptural sub-tenet OF Trinity they contributed. It was a crucial missing sparkplug being replaced, not a car trade-in.



No. Just not misunderstanding those distinctions based on an imported and superimposed multiplication of God's singular hupostasis and injection of ousia for God.



Personal pronouns are a translational reflection of Greek noun gender. The neuters were changed to "he" instead of "it". There remains two in the KJV in Romans 8:16 & 26. The Spirit ITSELF...

Your spirit is a cohesive part of your "her". If you could exhale your spirit, it would be a "her", or the "it" of a "her". Do you need me to post all the scriptural references to "God's Spirit", "His Spirit", "the Father's Spirit", etc.?



Trinity is impossible from the actual text; it's not a matter of unanswered questions. If you disagree, provide scriptural evidence that God is multiple hupostases and an ousia. It ain't in there, cuz it was imported and superimposed. Period.



Your perception of it surely doesn't. It's goofy. It ain't my model. You should comprehend something before you critique it. And just because I take a stand against a doctrine like Original Sin, it doesn't mean I reject the practical truth it attempts to portray by its missing "how" for the "what".



Bovine Scatology!! Trinity has fostered the most heinous conflict imaginable for 1.7 millennia. The danger and demoralizaion that hurts the Body is the stubborn and arrogant refusable to revisit the model for correction; and assuming their IS no better answer, but still retaining multiple hupostases and an ousia for God.



It isn't the Soul of God that is distributed, it's His Spirit. We don't and can't have God's Soul. We cannot be God. We can internally partake OF His mind, will, and emotion by the oida knowledge of our spirit through His indwelling Spirit; but man can't remotely be/become God.

Few understand the difference between gnosis, epignosis, and oida knowledge(s), nor how they contrast and relate to sophia (wisdom) and prudence (phronesis). Thus, they accuse me of being gnostic, when I present epignosis and oida knowledge while they're puffed in their gnosis. Love abounds in epignosis (Philippians 1). Gnosis puffs up.

I'm not Gnostic/gnostic. I rely on epignosis by the oida of my spirit indwelt by His Spirit.



Yep. Merismos can be perverted to mean that by others, but so can any God-model. The idiocy of becoming God doens't require much indepth knowledge of ANY God-model... OBVIOUSLY.

Think, cavewoman... All those who espouse that view are TRINITARIANS. Duh!! The Kenneths Hagin and Copeland, et al, are aligned with YOUR God-model, not mine.



Those all stand alone from God-models, and are promoted almost solely by TRINITARIANS. Hello?!



It's being distributed through Trinity. They don't need another God-model to facilitate doing that crap.



Don't equate my God-model to non-God-model errant theology of "becoming God" by professing TRINITARIANS. It's stoopid.



I'm not convinced you know what's "actually grieving the Spirit", especially since you misunderstand, misperceive, and misrepresent Merismos; and the whole blaming another God-model for the current WOF "becoming God" heresy of professing Trinitarians doesn't even reach UP to being lame.

Do you want to actually understand the view? Or do you just want to continue with your current misunderstanding of it?

Trinity is erroneous. Stand-alone issue.

My view is also a stand-alone issue. If you'd like to comprehend it for what it is, I will oblige. It you want to continue miscomprehending it, that's your prerogative. It stands or falls on its own merit; but it doesn't stand or fall on your complete miscomprehension of it.


On a side note... I'm out of state on family medical. I called an old Pastor friend of mine that I've occasionally mentioned little parts of this to, and we met for dinner. After a 2 hour discussion over dinner, this seminary-trained career Trinitarian Pastor conceded Trinity is unscriptural. He also understood what I presented, unlike you. His jaw was on the ground the whole time, saying, "This is the truth. This is the truth."

You just don't understand that God created the spiritual realm; He doesn't reside there. He is apart from ALL creation, both spiritual and natural. That's all transcendent means, not some New Age rambling. God is apart from ALL creation. He doesn't have His self-subsisence/-existence in a realm, because He's... ummmmm... y'know.... SELF-subsistent/-existent. All else apart from Him is immanence.

Uncreated = Transcendent. Created = Immanent. Simplez. God externalized His "Uncreatedness" into creation that is apart from Him.

zone wrote:

my answer is because next-to-nobody (in the universal church) knew anything about them a decade ago.

and they're moving so quickly i'm going to keep doing what i did way back then (when i received all this from the Spirit); monitor the progress of the Temple Cult; and report to the church....whoever has ears to hear.

99.9% still glaze over at the mention of all that....so there's much to do. Doc and i have been gathering and posting info, and its up to God after that who receives it and what they do with it.
that's my 2 cents.

Yep. I asked because I agree. It's to correlate so YOU'll understand that Theology Proper is same-same.

Awareness is a threshhold that you's guys have gone far beyond, and rightly so. But you disdain anyone doing the same for Theology Proper.

Oh wow. Good post zone.

I think I'm starting to understand the infatuation with this thing now.

It stanks of gnosticism.

Strangelove wrote:Oh wow. Good post zone.

I think I'm starting to understand the infatuation with this thing now.

It stanks of gnosticism.

No, in your own puffed-up gnosis as a novice, you accuse others of what YOU stank of. That's what the gnostics were about.

Gnosis is fine for the Eschaton Agenda schtuff. But spiritual truth can't be pursued gnostically, which has been the Trinity way.

Trinity is Gnostic at its core foundation. You just can't see PAST that and judge other things as gnostic from your own puffed-up gnosis.

Having begun in the Spirit by faith, you turn to your flesh and your mind.

That's how Trinity has spread. Gnostic initiation. It's a hybrid seed.

THAT's why I was lost. The Gnosticism within Trinity. Even today, most Trinis demand assent to their doctrinal formula as the threshhold of salvific faith.

One of the REAL issues is Trinitarians (and anyone else) representing the spiritual realm/heaven as uncreated. All else but God, His Spirit, and His Word is created. God alone is uncreated. Heaven is NOT part of God or where God inherently exists. God is SELF-existent. He is I AM. He IS existence, as is His Word which was made flesh. Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; and He, too, is I AM.

The heavens are created. All of them, both spiritual and natural. In the beginning, God CREATED the HEAVENS and the earth.

Heaven isn't God nor is it part of God nor an extension of God. God isn't a realm, and God isn't in a realm. God is I AM. He is Self-Subsistent/-Existent.

The corruption begins in man's mind (gnosis) at Genesis 1:1 by not recognizing the heavens are created. It's followed up with many seeing a gap shortly thereafter to enable Evolution, whether Theistic or not.

Go ahead. Tell me all about heaven as uncreated. Bring God down to creation. Might as well. Trinity doctrine has already made God's own eternally pre-existent Logos and Spirit into 2 separate hupostases. Keep diluting the one true Almighty God with Manology, and making Him in man's image.

PneumaPsucheSoma wrote:
No, in your own puffed-up gnosis as a novice, you accuse others of what YOU stank of. That's what the gnostics were about.

Gnosis is fine for the Eschaton Agenda schtuff. But spiritual truth can't be pursued gnostically, which has been the Trinity way.

Trinity is Gnostic at its core foundation. You just can't see PAST that and judge other things as gnostic from your own puffed-up gnosis.

Having begun in the Spirit by faith, you turn to your flesh and your mind.

That's how Trinity has spread. Gnostic initiation. It's a hybrid seed.

THAT's why I was lost. The Gnosticism within Trinity. Even today, most Trinis demand assent to their doctrinal formula as the threshhold of salvific faith.

How can I see past "Trinity" if I dont care about it?

You keep attacking me like I'm a creedal trinitarian scholar. I'm not. I dont care either way. I dont demand anything of you other than to friggin RELAX yourself on this anal issue that you seem to have placed so much critical importance on.

I wont condemn people who choose to use an innocent word to give God a triune gist. If you wanna do that then its a huge mistake. One you keep making.

You think you've discovered how God actually raises up believers...erm....physiologically? Is that correct? What zone is asserting? The Church seems to have missed this for centuries, but you've got it?

It's really quite sad to see this PPS.

Are you saying that spiritual truth should be pursued gnostically? I mean...are you admitting to being a gnostic dude?