Sunday, 28 June 2015
A MIRACLE ONLY FIVE MINUTES AGO
THERE ARE REALLY ONLY TWO CHOICES
IT'S ALL OVER
A QUOTE FROM EB
I DONT THINK
THE ROTHSCHIDS HAVE BEEN IN CONTROL FOR A VERY LONG TIME
The Rothschilds claim that they are Jewish, when in fact they are Khazars. They are from a country called Khazaria, which occupied the land locked between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea which is now predominantly occupied by Georgia. The reason the Rothschilds claim to be Jewish is that the Khazars under the instruction of the King, converted to the Jewish faith in 740 A.D., but of course that did not include converting their Asiatic Mongolian genes to the genes of the Jewish people.
You will find that approximately 90% of people in the world today who call themselves Jews are actually Khazars, or as they like to be known, Ashkenazi Jews. These people knowingly lie to the world with their claims that the land of Israel is theirs by birthright, when in actual fact their real homeland is over 800 miles away in Georgia
So, next time you hear an Israeli Prime Minister bleating about the so-called persecution of the Jews, consider this, every Prime Minister of Israel has been an Ashkenazi Jew. Therefore when all these Prime Ministers have curried favour with the West for their re-establishment of a Jewish homeland, they have knowingly and deliberately lied to you, as they were never from that region, and they well know it, because it is they who call themselves Ashkenazi Jews.
The Book of Revelation, Chapter 2, Verse 9, states the following which would appear to be about these Ashkenazi Jews:
"I know thy works, and tribulation and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but arethe synagogue of Satan."
The Book of Revelation, Chapter 2, Verse 9, states the following which would appear to be about these Ashkenazi Jews:
"I know thy works, and tribulation and poverty, (but thou art rich) and I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but arethe synagogue of Satan."
The most wealthy bloodline in the world bar none and the leader of the Ashkenazi Jews in the world today is the Rothschild family. As you will see in the timeline, the Rothschilds have obtained this position through lies, manipulation and murder. Their bloodline also extends into the Royal Families of Europe, and the following family names: Astor; Bundy; Collins; duPont; Freeman; Kennedy; Morgan; Oppenheimer; Rockefeller; Sassoon; Schiff; Taft; and Van Duyn.However, these are not the only bloodlines to worry about. You are probably aware of the centuries old pratice undertaken by many Ashkenazi Jews whereby they would change their name, in order for them to appear part of the dominant race of the country in which they lived, so as they could obtain influential positions in that country, which they would then exploit to serve their real masters elsewhere. There is plenty of evidence to prove the Rothschilds continue that deceptive tradition.
Furthermore the Rothschilds are known to sire many children secretly that they can put into positions of power when required. This started with the very first man who took the name Rothschild, who had a secret sixth son. Finally, remember the world is a diverse place, I could if I wanted change my name to Rothschild, or any of the names listed above, and that would not make me part of this family anymore than converting to Judaism in 740 A.D. will make these Ashkenazis Jewish.
Please, therefore, do not automatically assume someone you see with the name Rothschild or any of the names listed above are part of the Rothschild criminal network. Furthermore and most importantly, the majority of Ashkenazi Jews are innocent and not part of this network. Check the facts out for yourself first, this article is designed to inform people who the enemy is, not single out people of a particular race or people with a particular surname, who may have nothing to do with this Rothschild criminal network.
1743: Mayer Amschel Bauer, an Ashkenazi Jew, is born in Frankfurt, Germany, the son of Moses Amschel Bauer, a money lender and the proprietor of a counting house.
Moses Amschel Bauer places a red sign above the entrance door to his counting house. This sign is a red hexagram (which geometrically and numerically translates into the number 666) which under Rothschild instruction will end up on the Israeli flag some two centuries later.
1753: Gutle Schnaper, an Ashkenazi Jew (future wife of Mayer Amschel Bauer), born to respected merchant, Wolf Salomon Schnaper.
1760: During this decade Mayer Amschel Bauer works for a bank owned by the Oppenheimers' in Hanover, Germany. He is highly successful and becomes a junior partner. Whilst working at the bank he becomes acquainted with General von Estorff.
Following his father's death, Bauer returns to Frankfurt to take over his father's business. Bauer recognises the significance of the red hexagram and changes his name from Bauer to Rothschild, after the red hexagram or sign signifying 666 hanging over the entrance door ("Rot," is German for, "Red," "Schild," is German for, "Sign").
Now Mayer Amschel Rothschild, he discovers that General von Estorff is now attached to the court of Prince William IX of Hesse-Hanau, one of the richest royal houses in Europe, which gained its' wealth by the hiring out of Hessian soldiers to foreign countries for vast profits (a practice that continues today in the form of exporting, "peacekeeping," troops throughout the world).
He therefore makes the General's re-acquaintance on the pretext of selling him valuable coins and trinkets at discounted prices. As he plans, Rothschild is subsequently introduced to Prince William himself who is more than pleased with discounted prices he charges for his rare coins and trinkets, and Rothschild offers him a bonus for any other business the Prince can direct his way.
Rothschild subsequently becomes close associates with Prince William, and ends up doing business with him and members of the court. He soon discovers that loaning money to governments and royalty is more profitable than loaning to individuals, as the loans are bigger and are secured by the nation's taxes.
1769: Mayer Amschel Rothschild is given permission by Prince William to hang a sign on the front of his business premises declaring that he is, "M. A. Rothschild, by appointment court factor to his serene highness, Prince William of Hanau."
1770: Mayer Amschel Rothschild draws up plans for the creation of the Illuminati and entrusts Ashkenazi Jew, Adam Weishaupt, a Crypto-Jew who was outwardly Roman Catholic, with its organization and development. The Illuminati is to be based upon the teachings of the Talmud, which is in turn, the teachings of Rabbinical Jews. It was to be called the Illuminati as this is a Luciferian term which means, keepers of the light.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild marries Gutle Schnaper.
1773: Amschel Mayer Rothschild born, the first of Mayer Amschel Rothschild’s sons. He like all his brothers who follow him, will enter the family business at the age of 12.
1774: Salomon Mayer Rothschild born.
1776: Adam Weishaupt officially completes his organisation of the Illuminati on May 1 of this year. The purpose of the Illuminati is to divide the goyim (all non-Jews) through political, economic, social, and religious means. The opposing sides were to be armed and incidents were to be provided in order for them to: fight amongst themselves; destroy national governments; destroy religious institutions; and eventually destroy each other.
Weishaupt soon infiltrates the Continental Order of Freemasons with this Illuminati doctrine and establishes lodges of the Grand Orient to be their secret headquarters. This was all under the orders and finance of Mayer Amschel Rothschild and the concept has spread and is followed within Masonic Lodges worldwide to the present day.
Weishaupt also recruits 2,000 paid followers including the most intelligent men in the field of arts and letters, education, science, finance,and industry. They were instructed to follow the following methods in order to control people.
1) Use monetary and sex bribery to obtain control of men already in high places, in the various levels of all governments and other fields of endeavour. Once influential persons had fallen for the lies, deceits, and temptations of the Illuminati they were to be held in bondage by application of political and other forms of blackmail, threats of financial ruin, public exposure, and fiscal harm, even death to themselves and loved members of their families.1777: Nathan Mayer Rothschild born.2) The faculties of colleges and universities were to cultivate students possessing exceptional mental ability belonging to well-bred families with international leanings, and recommend them for special training in internationalism, or rather the notion that only a one-world government can put an end to recurring wars and strife. Such training was to be provided by granting scholarships to those selected by the Illuminati.
3) All influential people trapped into coming under the control of the Illuminati, plus the students who had been specially educated and trained, were to be used as agents and placed behind the scenes of all governments as experts and specialists. This was so they would advise the top executives to adopt policies which would in the long-run serve the secret plans of the Illuminati one-world conspiracy and bring about the destruction of the governments and religions they were elected or appointed to serve.
4) To obtain absolute-control of the press, at that time the only mass-communications media which distributed information to the public, so that all news and information could be slanted in order to make the masses believe that a one-world government is the only solution to our many and varied problems.
1784: Adam Weishaupt issues his order for the French Revolution to be started by by Maximilien Robespierre in book form. This book was written by one of Weishaupt's associates, Xavier Zwack, and sent by courier from Frankfurt to Paris. However en route there, the courier is struck by lightning, the book detailing this plan discovered by the police, and handed over to the Bavarian authorities.
As a consequence, the Bavarian government orders the police to raid Weishaupt's masonic lodges of the Grand Orient, and the homes of his most influential associates. Clearly, the Bavarian authorities were convinced that the book that was discovered was a very real threat by a private group of influential people, to use wars and revolutions to achieve their political ends.
1785: The Bavarian government outlaw the Illuminati and close all the Bavarian lodges of the Grand Orient.
Mayer Amschel Rothschild moves his family home to a five storey house in Frankfurt which he shares with the Schiff family.
1786: The Bavarian government publish the details of the Illuminati plot in a document entitled, "The Original Writings of The Order and Sect of The Illuminati." They then send this document to all the heads of church and state throughout Europe, but sadly their warning is ignored.
1788: Kalmann (Carl) Mayer Rothschild Born.
1789: Due to the European ignorance of the Bavarian government's warning, the Illuminati's plan for a French Revolution succeeded from this year to 1793. This revolution was a bankers' dream, it established a new constitution and passed laws that forbade the Roman Church from levying tithes (taxes) and also removed its exemption from taxation.
1790: Mayer Amschel Rothschild states,
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
DO YOU KNOW SERIES
Matthew 6:24King James Version (KJV)
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
I REST MY CASE......any questions??????????
DO YOU KNOW SERIES
Matthew 6:24King James Version (KJV)
24 No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.
I REST MY CASE......any questions??????????
THE MONEY SCAM
1790: Mayer Amschel Rothschild states,
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws."
Pope Francis a wolf in sheepskin clothing
Matthew 16:18King James Version (KJV)
18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I WILL BUILD my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
The Catholic Church is in eclipse.....but it will come out....THE SUN ( SON ) will shine again soon!!!!
AFTER SOME REALLY DRASTIC AND TERRIFYING EVENTS THAT ARE JUST AROUND THE CORNER OF HISTORY..HIS STORY...THE TRUE CHURCH WILL EMERGE PURIFIED AND UNDERGROUND....
MANY PEOPLE DO NOT UNDERSTAND...THEY REFUSE TO UNDERSTAND...THAT WHEN GOD SAID HE WOULD BUILD HIS CHURCH, HE COULD NOT GUARANTEE GOOD PEOPLE...HE CANNOT INTERFERE WITH OUR FREE CHOICE...OTHERWISE WE WOULD BE ROBOTS....
We live in very exciting times.....
Do all you can to win people to Jesus. Nothing is more important than telling the LOST, SICK, DISCOURAGED, AND HURTING WORLD......that Jesus loves them.....
AND PLEASE PRAY FOR ALL THESE BANKSTER. MILITARY, RELIGIOUS, DISCIPLES OF SATAN WHEREVER THEY ARE, BECAUSE WHERE THERE IS LIFE THERE IS HOPE..
PRAYER CHANGES THINGS...
ROTHSCHILD HISTORY BY ANDREW HITCHKOCK
A CHILD'S GUIDE TO HOW THE WORLD OPERATES
Saturday, 20 June 2015
To all my Jewish friends
Thursday, 18 June 2015
SABRE RATTLING
IT'S ALL HAPPENING NOW!!!
LETTER TOVA MUSLIM
WAR WAR AND MORE WAR!!!
Matthew 16:25King James Version (KJV)25 For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.
Revelation 6:15
Viewing the King James Version.Revelation 6:15.
And the kings of the earth, and the great men, and the rich men, and the chief captains, and the mighty men, and every bondman, and every free man, hid themselves in the dens and in the rocks of the mountains;
Revelation 6:16
Viewing the King James Version.Revelation 6:16.
And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb:
Lord Jesus, I come before you, just as I am, I am sorry for my sins, I repent of my sins, please forgive me. In your Name, I forgive all others for what they have done against me. I renounce Satan, the evil spirits and all their works. I give you my entire self, Lord Jesus, now and forever. I invite you into my life, Jesus. I accept you as my Lord, God and Saviour. Heal me, change me, strengthen me in body, soul, and spirit.
Come Lord Jesus, cover me with your Precious Blood, and fill me with your Holy Spirit. I love you Lord Jesus. I praise you Jesus. I thank you Jesus. I shall follow you every day of my life. Amen.
Mary, My Mother, Queen of Peace, St. Peregrine, the cancer saint, all the Angels and Saints, please help me. Amen.
Say this prayer faithfully, no matter how you feel. When you come to the point where you sincerely mean each word with all your heart, Jesus will change your whole life in a very special way. You will see.
THIS REALLY WORKS..I SHOULD KNOW BECAUSE IT HAS AND IS AND WILL WORK FOR ME EVERY DAY OF MY REMAINING LIFE.
Sunday, 14 June 2015
THE SORROWFUL MYSTERIES
SOMETHING WICKED THIS WAY COMES
On an occasion when Jesus was "tempted by the Devil,"
Think about this. Satan tempted Jesus by offering him "all the kingdoms of the world."
FATHER PETER ROOKY THE MIRACLE PRAYER
DOWN WITH THOSE WICKED CONSPIRACY THEORIES
OTHER HISTORICAL REFERENCES AS EVIDENCE
OTHER HISTORICAL REFERENCES AS EVIDENCE
Evidence from the JEWISH SOURCES:
Talmud, b. Sanhedrin 43a: On the eve of the Passover Yeshu [Jesus] was hanged [or crucified]. ... Since nothing was brought forward in his favor he was hanged on the eve of the Passover.
The Amoa "Ulla" (Ulla was a disciple of Youchanan and lived in Palestine at the end of the third century) adds: "And do you suppose that for (Yeshu of Nazareth - Jesus) there was any right of appeal? He was a beguiler, and the Merciful One hath said: "Thou shalt not spare neither shalt thou conceal him." It is otherwise with Yeshu, for He was near to the civil authority.
Note here that the writers of the Talmud took their job seriously. These men were Jews who did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah. They were not Christians but they documented Christ's crucifixion.
EVIDENCE FROM ROMAN SOURCES:
Cornelius Tacitus in his Annals, xv. 44: Christus ... was executed at the hands of the procurator Pontious Pilate.
Lucian of Samosata: (Christ was) the man who was crucified in Palestine
Note here that these men were professional historians. They researched their work before publishing it. They also documented Christ's crucifixion.
Therefore, three types of witness all of whom are from the 1st or early 2nd century have been presented.
=============================================================
INFORMATION SURROUNDING ROMAN CRUCIFIXION AND CHRIST'S DEATH
Jesus could have never survived crucifixion, Romans were very careful to eliminate that possibility. Roman law laid the death penalty on anyone who bungled an execution.
The fact that the Roman soldier did not break Jesus legs, the procedure for hastening death, indicates that He had already died. The other two prisoners legs were broken. To breathe while hanging on a cross one had to push oneself up with one&146; legs, otherwise one would asphyxiate. That is why the legs of the crucified were often broken; to prevent the crucified person from pushing himself up to breathe. Obviously Jesus, out of exhaustion, stopped breathing and died before the soldiers needed to break His legs. If Jesus were not dead, it would have been obvious because he would have been pushing himself up and down the cross to breathe. The Roman executioners were experts, they would not have been fooled. Some people have claimed that the Roman guards were really trying to save Jesus life by not breaking His legs. Why would the Roman guards try to save someone who was a seen as a threat to the empire? Further, by not insuring Christ's death, the Roman guards were putting their own lives at risk.
Jesus died from many different problems, one was the actual crucifixion. But before the crucifixion, Jesus was beaten and flogged. He was so exhausted that another man had to carry his cross.
To elaborate on the whipping, the Romans would strip a person down to the waist and would tie him in the courtyard. Then they would take a whip that had a handle about a foot and a half long. At the end of the handle, it had four leather thongs with heavy, jagged bones or balls of lead with jagged edges, wound into the end of the straps. There were a minimum of five straps of different lengths. The Romans would bring the whip down over the back of the individual and all the balls of lead or bone would hit the body at the same time. The Jews would only permit 40 lashes, so they never did more than 39 so they wouldn't break the law if they miscounted. The Romans, however, were unhindered. They could lash as many times as they wanted. So, when the Romans whipped a Jew, they struck 41 or more lashes out of spite to the Jews. So Jesus had suffered at least 41 lashes.
There are several medical authorities that have done research on the crucifixion. One is Dr. C. Truman Davis, in the state of Arizona. He is a medical doctor who has performed meticulous study of the crucifixion from a medical perspective. Here he gives the effect of the Roman flogging: "The heavy whip is brought down with full force again and again across (a person's) shoulders, back and legs. At first, the heavy thongs cut through the skin only. Then, as the blows continue, they cut deeper into the subcutalleous tissues, producing first an oozing of blood from the capillaries and veins of the skin, and finally spurting arterial bleeding from vessels in the underlying muscles. The small balls of lead first produce large, deep bruises, which the others cut wide open. Finally, the skin of the back is hanging in long ribbons, and the entire area is an unrecognizable mass of torn, bleeding tissue."
Many people would die just from the whipping alone. After Jesus was whipped, they took Him out to the execution area and drove spikes into His wrists and His feet. It says that late that Friday afternoon they broke the legs of the two thieves hanging with Jesus, but they did not break His legs. He was on the cross and they'd already acknowledged Him being dead. Now the Roman executioners speared Jesus. This was the method by which an executioner checked to see if a still victim was in fact dead. If blood and pericardial fluid came out as in Jesus' case, it was an indication of death and there was no need for the legs to be broken to hasten death so that the cross could re-used for the next victim. Eyewitness accounts said blood and water came out separated - indicating Jesus was already dead.
Ahmed Deedat, in his booklet "Crucifixion or Cruci-Fiction," appealed to this phenomenon (the excretion of blood and pericardial fluid coming out) as evidence that Christ was still alive. He supports this in his writing, by an appeal to an article in the Thinkers Digest 1949, by an anesthesiologist. Today, there is more medical research by various people in this area.
To comment on Deedat's error: first, from a scholastic viewpoint: many medical and university or varsity libraries that once carried this journal, no longer do so. It is considered by many in the medical field to be behind the medical times.
Second, from a medical viewpoint: a wound of the type inflicted on Jesus, if the person were still alive, would not bleed out the wound opening but bleed into the chest cavity, causing an internal hemorrhage. At the aperture of the wound, the blood would be barely oozing from the opening. For a spear to form a perfect channel that would allow the blood and serum to flow out the spear wound is next to impossible. The massive internal damage done to a person under crucifixion together with spearing in the area near the heart, would cause death almost immediately. The State of Massachusetts General Hospital, performed over a period of years, research on people who died of a ruptured heart. Normally, a heart has 20 cc's of pericardial fluid. When a person dies of a ruptured heart, there is more than 500 cc's of pericardial fluid, and it would come out in the form of a fluid and clotted blood. Perhaps this is what was viewed when Christ was stabbed by the spear thrust.
PILATE'S REACTION
Pilate was somewhat surprised that Christ was already dead. When a man named Joseph asked for the body Pilate called a centurion and said, "I want you to go and confirm to me that Jesus is dead." This centurion was not a fool. He was not about ready to leave his wife a widow. The centurion would always check with four different executioners in order to ensure himself of the validity of the death warrent. That was according to what the Roman law required. There had to be four executioners, so that in case one man was was a little lax, the other ones would catch him in it. And you would never have all four being lax in signing the death warrant.
Discipline was severe with the Romans. For example, when the angel let Peter out of jail in Acts 12 in the New Testament, Herod called in the guard and executed them all - just for letting one man out of jail. In Acts 16 the doors had been opened up in the jail for Paul and Silas, their chains had been loosened, and the moment the guard saw they were freed, he pulled out his own sword to execute himself. And Paul said, "Wait a minute!" You see, that guard knew what would happen if the prisoners escaped. The prison guard would be executed. He decided he would rather die by his own sword, than be executed by the Romans.
So, Pilate had Jesus' death verified [refer Mark 15:45], and he gave Jesus' body over to Joseph to be buried.
DISCUSSION
Ample proof for the crucifixion and death of Jesus Christ.
Let me suggest a 4 part test for determining the credibility of witnesses. It is based on David Hume's criteria.
1) Do the witnesses contradict each other?
2) Are there a sufficient number of witnesses?
3) Were the witnesses truthful?
4) Were they non-prejudicial?
Part #1. The answer to this question is the witnesses do not contradict each other. The Christian, Roman, and Jewish witnesses all agree that Jesus was crucified.
Part #2. There is indeed a sufficient number of witnesses. Several witnesses from Christian sources, and two witnesses from Roman and Jewish sources have been presented. There are actually more witnesses that could be mentioned, but this is enough.
Part #3. The witnesses were truthful. There is no documented evidence contradicting what the witnesses presented. All of the early sources that mention Jesus' death, all state that He was crucified.
Part #4. A case could be made for the Christian sources being prejudicial; however, they were Christians because they witnessed Christ's death AND CHRIST'S RESURRECTION. The Jewish and Roman witnesses were clearly not prejudicial.
CONCLUSION
Jesus Christ was crucified. All of the known evidence supports and corroborates the crucifixion. There is no legitimate reason doubting Christ’s crucifixion
Muhammad and the Quran are flawed. Muhammad made an error when he said that Christ was not crucified. Muhammad was not a true prophet, he was a false prophet. The Quran is not the word of God.
More for my Muslim friend
Helping a Muslim to see the Truth
The Holy Trinity: A Simple Explanation for Children
Son: Dad? How can God be three in one and one in three? That seems crazy.
Father: Criminy, son. Can’t you ask me an easier question, like how an electron can be a particle and a wave at the same time?
Son: Right now, it’s the Trinity I’m worried about.
Father: OK, I’ll take a shot at it. The first thing you should be clear on is that God is not both three and one of the same sort of thing. That would be like saying that I had three oranges that are one orange, or three lines that are one line. It would be a flat contradiction.
Son: So you mean that he is three in one way, and one in another?
Father: Yes.
Son: OK. But what are the two ways?
Father: Well, take a string quartet. On the one hand, it’s four men. On the other, it’s the Guarneri Quartet, a single item. Clear?
Son: Sure.
Father: OK, good. Forget that notion. The Trinity means nothing of the sort.
Son: Great. I guess that would have been the easy way out, huh?
Father: Right. No such luck. But it does give us our first clue. Like the four men of the quartet and the quartet itself, the three Persons of the Trinity are different sorts of things than the One being of God. It’s just that in the Trinity, the Three are not separated from each other into different things, like the men of the quartet.
Son: What are the different types of things in God?
Father: Well, God is one in being – that is, he is one actual thing – in which there are three Persons. The difference is between a thing that has a personal aspect to it, and the person who is the personal aspect of that thing.
Son: I don’t get it. If a thing has a personal aspect, then doesn’t that mean that it is a person?
Father: Not quite. I mean, yes; but there is more to it than that. Think of yourself. There is the person of you, and then there is the thing of you at a given time. The thing of you is more than just the person of you. It is also a sack of fluids, of a certain size and weight, organized in a certain way, and so forth. Sometimes it is sick, sometimes asleep. It might even be in a coma. The person of you is just one aspect of the thing we all call “David.”
Son: I’m not so sure of that. Isn’t the person of me always the same thing as the whole of me?
Father: No. When you were two, you were the same person you are now, right?
Son: Yeah.
Father: Well, does it make sense to say that the *person* of David was three feet tall when you were two, or does it make more sense to say that the *body* of David was three feet tall?
Son: The body, I guess.
Father: Right. You are the same *person* you were then, but you now have almost completely different properties as a *concrete being* than you did when you were two. Just look at you now: a strapping young lad. Back then, you were just a baby in diapers. Not only are you bigger and stronger, but almost all the particles that made up your body at age two are gone. It’s like the difference between an acorn and a mighty oak. The acorn and the oak are not the same thing at all, are they?
Son: No, not really. I suppose you’re going to talk about the caterpillar and the butterfly next.
Father: A good bet. You’re right. Same sort of thing. But then, when you think about it, the same sort of analysis holds between any two moments of your life. What you’ve got with a human person is a single life, distributed across a whole series of different beings, that exist in different places in the universe. I mean, when you think about it, the me and you of right now are many thousands of miles away from the me and you of just a moment ago, thanks to the velocity of the Earth and our Solar System through space.
Son: Right. If we were to go back in time even a minute, we’d find ourselves in outer space.
Father: Yes! The you of right now is in a completely different orientation to the whole universe than the you of a moment ago. Considered in those terms, there’s almost nothing about the you of now that is like the you of a moment ago.
Son: Yet I’m still me. So, OK. What *is* a person, anyway?
Father: That’s a pretty big question in its own right. For the time being, let’s just look at the origin of the word. It comes from the Greek prosopon, by which the Greeks meant “mask.” A prosopon was a mask worn by an actor in a Greek drama, to signify the face of the character he was playing. So prosopon means, not just the literal mask, but also the outward appearance or aspect of a thing, as distinct from its inward substance. The face of a person, then, is in a sense his prosopon. And in fact, one of the things that “person” meant in old-fashioned English of even a few decades ago was appearance, aspect or face.
Son: So are the Persons of the Trinity just three different outward aspects of the one God?
Father: No. God does have different appearances to us creatures, depending on our situation; but the Persons are not “nothing but” those different appearances. That’s actually a pretty serious heresy, called modalism.
Son: Well then, why does the Church use the word “person” for the Trinity?
Father: Let’s dig deeper into the word. Prosopon is made up of two parts. First is the prefix pro, which stands for a bunch of different things: at, near, by, to, towards, with, with regard to; so, our nearest English equivalent is probably “for.” Second is the word ops, which also means a bunch of things: to see with the eyes, to perceive, to experience, to know, to beware, to care for or take heed of, and so forth. These are its primary meanings. Only secondarily does it mean what we take it to mean when we think of an actor’s mask: to be seen, to show oneself, to appear. And that this meaning of “appearance” is secondary makes sense: only if you are angry on the inside, for example, are you likely to appear angry on the outside.
Son: So, prosopon means …?
Father: Well, it seems to mean something like, “thing for seeing with the mind, for perceiving or knowing.” And then it also means, “thing for appearing or showing oneself.”
Son: I look out through my face, or with my face – and my face looks like the sort of person who is looking out through my face, so that if I am looking out while feeling angry, the face I look out through is likely to look angry to other people.
Father: Yes.
Son: So a person, like a face, is a thing for seeing the world – a thing that sees, and knows, and experiences. And, like a face, a person looks to others like the sort of things that it sees in the world. It puts out to the world what it sees.
Father: Yes.
Son: So to an angry person, the world looks angry. And if the world looks angry to you, you are probably going to feel angry yourself; and so then you will look angry to the world. Same with a happy person, or a sad person, or a really excited person.
Father: Yes.
Son: So the person of me is the one who is seeing the world, reflecting back what it sees.
Father: Yes. And the way that the David of today and the David of twelve years ago can be the same person, even though those two Davids are quite different things, is that the person of David is a certain consistent way of looking at the world, that is just yours. Every parent has seen this. A child of two has the same basic attitude toward the world as that same child at eight, at ten, at twenty.
Son: So that’s how my person is consistent from before birth to right now. I can see that. Things have happened to me that have changed parts of my attitude to the world. I’m older and less innocent. Some pretty bad things have happened to us, and that has changed my idea of what sort of place the world is. But I still feel basically the same way about things. I’m still me, and I recognize in myself today the me that I remember from when I was little.
Father: Me, too. One way of thinking about it is that the you of today includes everything of the yous of all your yesterdays.
Son: I see. That’s just a different way of saying that I am the same as the boy of the Burrito Incident. [smiles in happy recollection] That boy is the same as me. He is inside me.
Father: [chuckles] Right. You are the same person, appearing in lots of things over time. Each of those things is subtly different from all the others, but what they all have in common is the person of you. The boy who laughed so hard during the Burrito Incident is here right now, even though his body is gone, along with the Incident.
Son: What about God?
Father: You are one person in many things. God is three Persons in one thing.
Son: OK. You say the words, but I don’t see what they mean. How can you have three Persons in one thing? Why only one thing?
Father: Well, it’s only one thing with God, because if there were more than one thing that was God, that would raise the question which one was superior. And that one would be the only one we could call God, properly speaking, because the others would be dependent upon it.
Son: All right, so God has to be one thing. How can you have three persons in one thing? I know it isn’t like the string quartet.
Father: Right. It’s like the person that is you today, that includes the you of yesterday, and that includes the you at the time of the Burrito Incident. The you of today includes those other yous, but not in the way a box contains a ball or a collection of fruit includes an apple, nor in the way that a computer includes a CPU and some RAM. The you of now includes the you of yesterday by knowing him and reiterating him – doing him over again, albeit with some additions. The you of yesterday is in the you of today, not like the yarn is in the basket, but more in the way that the basket of yesterday is in the basket of today. If the basket had been stained yesterday, then the basket of today would be stained, too.
Son: OK. I think I see. And the basket of day before yesterday, that was not yet stained – that’s in the stained basket of today.
Father: Right.
Son: And that’s how the Son includes the Father, and the Father includes the Son. And it’s the same between each of them and the Holy Ghost.
Father: Correct. Now, with you, there can be one person that includes lots of things. But with God, all those inclusions have to be within one thing. So the Divine Persons are all within one thing. Each of the Persons includes both the others. But their relations of inclusion are all within the one thing that is God.
Son: Why is there more than one Person in God? Why are there inclusions in God?
Father: Well, if God were just one Person, he wouldn’t be able to know anything about himself. He would just be, and would know everything *except* himself. That seems like a silly idea. It seems that in order to be the ultimate being, he would have to know everything. And to be omniscient, he would surely have to know himself, too. So he has to look at himself. And that can only be done by a person, a thing for looking or knowing. So the Father has to have a Son, a mind who knows the Father, and is the perfect image of the Father. Then the Father, in knowing the Son, would automatically know what the Son knows of the Father. So that way, the Father could know himself.
Son: What about the Holy Spirit?
Father: Well, just as the Father needs to know himself in the Son in order to know himself at all, so the Father and the Son need to know their knowledge of each other as it is known to a third, in order to know that knowledge themselves. The Son is the Father’s way of knowing himself. The Spirit is the way that the Father and Son know that they know each other.
Son: OK, so let me see if I get this. First there is the Father, and then there is the Son who knows the Father, and then there is the Holy Ghost who knows the Father and the Son knowing each other.
Father: Right, except for one thing: the word “then” should not appear in that sentence.
Son: How come?
Father: Because God is one single thing. He is all at once. The Father is not wholly the Father without his knowledge of his Son’s knowledge of him, nor is he fully the Father without his knowledge of the Holy Ghost’s knowledge of the relationship between the Father and the Son. So, it is not as though there was a time for a while when there was only the Father, without the Son or the Spirit. No, you can’t get the Father at all without getting the Son and the Spirit. It’s a package deal. So all three Persons are eternal, and equal: you can’t have any one of them without having all three.
Son: OK. So there is one being, God, and he has three different things for knowing, three different things that know. Does that mean that the Persons are three different minds?
Father: I think it does, yes. There are three minds in the one being of God.
Son: Thanks, Dad. I think I understand.
Father: You don’t. I don’t, either. We understand our own concepts, maybe. Maybe. That’s a very different thing than understanding God. At best, all we have done here today is clear up the confusions created by our own use of language. But once you’ve cleared away all the conceptual confusions that get in the way of seeing God, you still have to turn and look at him yourself – you have to get your prosopon in gear.
HERE IS SOME MORE FROM OUR HOLY BIBLE..
Jesus said to him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet have you not known me, Philip? he that has seen me has seen the Father; and how say you then, Show us the Father?
Have.
Mark 9:19 He answers him, and said, O faithless generation, how long shall …
he.
John 14:7,20 If you had known me, you should have known my Father also: and from …
John 12:45 And he that sees me sees him that sent me.
Colossians 1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature:
Philippians 2:6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:
Hebrews 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his …
New International VersionJesus saith to him, 'So long time am I with you, and thou hast not known me, Philip? he who hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how dost thou say, Shew to us the father?