Egg the Trinity

The Egg and i -
A Simple Explanation of The Trinity

http://www.cafelogos.org/eggandi.html

There have been many attempts to explain the “Trinity’” the relationship between God the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit. Some have used examples such as water, watermelons and eggs; the principle behind those illustrations is that even though each thing is one, it is also three. Water can be ice and steam, yet they are the same element. The watermelon has a skin, pulp and seeds; the egg is shell, yolk and egg white.
     I don’t know how our majestic God feels about being compared to watermelons and eggs, but He is also a loving Father, and like any father, I believe God would seek to provide simple explanations so His little children can understand. I don’t believe that God wishes us to be confused about the “Three” that are so apparent throughout the Old and New Testaments.

     I think the illustration that represents the “Trinity” most accurately is the egg example.
     The yolk represents God’s “Person,” His Being, and His Holiness which generates Light that no man can approach (I Timothy 6:16).
     The egg white represents God’s Spirit. Because God’s Person is unapproachable, the Spirit “White” acts as insulation, for we know that it is through the Holy Spirit that God can communicate, speak through and interact with mankind. A good example would be an electrical cord. We can touch the cord, but not the power it is insulating.

     The egg shell is the image of the yolk and the white. Jesus’ Person is the image of God’s Person (Hebrews 1:3), and the Invisible Spirit of the Father that is in Him - “God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself” (II Corinthians 5:19). This is why Jesus said, “He who has seen Me, has seen the Father” (John 14:9).

     The white of an egg is the connection between the yolk and the shell. Jesus’ Person is joined to the Father by the Father’s Holy Spirit, because God’s Spirit is also Jesus’ Spirit - "But you are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if the Spirit of God dwells in you. Now if any man has not the Spirit of Christ, he is not His" (Romans 8:9). – “I and My Father are One” (John 10:30). In Jesus “dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily” (Colossians 2:9)
     In humans, our spirits are designed to operate with and be united to the soul which is the person of anyone and so it is with our Egg. The Spirit white is connected to Jesus’ Person – “I will come to you” (John 14:18) and the Father’s Person, “We will come to him and make our abode with him” (John 14:23).

     It is the Father’s desire to join His Spirit with all of us as well for He has said – “They shall be My sons and daughters” (II Corinthians 6:18). In order to accomplish this union with God and man, He allowed His Shell to be broken with the weight of our sins to cleanse our souls so His holiness can approach, for God cannot look upon sin (Habakkuk 1:13). Through the brokenness of the Shell, His Son, the Spirit white pours out into our beings through our faith in what was done and believers are joined with the yolk, for it is by One Spirit we have access to God the Father (Ephesians 2:18).

     Now God can be in you by His Spirit! You are an egg! - well, sort of. But you cannot be broken when your faith is in Jesus, for the Spirit of the Son that lives in us and gives us the voice through which we cry “Abba, Father,” (Galatians 4:6,) this Spirit of the Father that dwells within you is there to strengthen, protect and guard your person. And when the time comes when death is allowed to crack your shell in its final hour and your believing soul is released; the Spirit of God that holds you will carry you in His arms to your heavenly home because –“ In My Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto Myself; that where I am, there you may be also” (John14:2, 3).
     It is a miraculous invention, the egg. This little child cannot look at one without experiencing a profound sense of wonderment and awe.



Free ebook!- Understanding the Biblical Trinity from the Scriptures - It's all about God's Love for You

The Egg and I - Part Two

    When we look at the egg as an example of the Trinity, we must view it in its entirety. The word Trinity comes from the Latin word trinitas which means tri-unity. The Trinity is a tri-unity, a unity of Three, - God the Father, Jesus, the Son of God and the Holy Spirit. When we separate them we can fall into the error of tritheism, which is the worship of three individual deities as one.

     In Biblical Trinitarianism we can never have one without the other because they are one Spirit; each is the totality of the other which means we cannot have the Holy Spirit without the Father and the Son, “We will come” (into the believer through the Holy Spirit, John 14:23), and we cannot have the Son without The Father whose Holy Spirit is the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20). Thus the Father is in Jesus –" I and My Father are One" (John 10:30), "The Father is in Me" (John 14:10) God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself (II Corinthians 5:19). In Jesus is the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Colossians 2:9). Likewise we cannot have the Father or His Spirit without the Son – “I am the Way the Truth and the Life, no one comes to the Father except by Me”- John 14:6.

     If we separate them we still may have God the Egg yolk, God the Holy Spirit Egg white and God the Son, the Egg shell/image, three individual parts of an Egg, but they cannot be a Trinity, or tri-unity unless they are unified and are seen as one Egg, so to speak.
     The egg example, while not perfect or complete by any means, will still give us a basic understanding of the primary principle of Biblical Trinitarianism.

     When we view the egg in its entirety we have the Biblical Trinity, One that is Three.
     When we separate them and view them as individual deities, that is the error of tritheism, which is the worship of three individual gods as one.
     When we see them as three individual spirits, (God is one Spirit (John 4:24), then that is the blasphemy of polytheism which is the worship of more than one God.

copyright 2009 by H.D. Shively

below the jump, from a comment I found

Exponential Entrepreneur

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salim_Ismail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_(drink)
sort of milk, only food need,,
Also note there is a beef steak may be only grown in a petri-dish

http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ninetonoon/audio/201764464/building-the-future-with-exponential-organisations

Building the future with exponential organisations

Updated at 5:08 pm on 19 August 2015

• Share on Twitter
 
• Share on Facebook
 
• Share on Google Plus
 
• Share on Reddit
 
• Share on Linked In
 
• Share via email

Salim Ismail Photo CC BY 2.0 Jay Cross.

Tech entrepreneur Salim Ismail is the author of Exponential Organisations and Founding Executive Director of Silicon Valley based, Singularity University, which is part think-tank, part business-incubator.

He is about to visit New Zealand as a guest of Callaghan Innovation, to speak about how to build a start-up at a time when disruptive technologies and globalisation are transforming the way we do business.

Salim Ismail discusses exponential technological growth and is optimistic about the impact on sectors like healthcare and finance as well as our systems of governance.

He argues that it is time for a new model - which he calls the Exponential Organisation.

• Listen (duration 33′ :51″ )
• Download: Ogg  |  MP3

Details of Salim Ismail's talk are available on the Callaghan Innovation website.

Colder or Hotter before?

The Most Comprehensive Assault On 'Global Warming' Ever
APObama Global Warming
http://www.dailywire.com/news/2071/most-comprehensive-assault-global-warming-ever-mike-van-biezen
BY: MIKE VAN BIEZEN DECEMBER 23, 2015
475 Comments 146441
It made sense.  Knowing that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and that our industrialized world is adding a large amount of it to the atmosphere on a yearly basis, I accepted the premise that this would cause global temperatures to rise.  But one day about 7 years ago, I looked at the ubiquitous graph showing the “global” temperature of the last 150 years and noticed something odd.  It was subtle, and as I found out later, disguised so that it would be overlooked.  There appeared to be a period of about 40 years between 1940 and 1980 where the global temperatures actually declined a bit.  As a data analysis expert, I could not ignore that subtle hint and began to look into it a little more.  Forty years is a long time, and while carbon dioxide concentrations were increasing exponentially over the same period, I could not overlook that this showed an unexpected shift in the correlation between global temperatures and CO2 concentrations. Thus I began to look into it a little further and here are some of the results 7 years later.

Before we begin, let’s establish what we know to be correct.  The global average temperature has increased since the 1980’s.  Since the 1980’s glaciers around the world are receding and the ice cap of the Arctic Ocean has lost ice since the 1980’s, especially during the summer months.  The average global temperature for the last 10 years is approximately 0.35 degrees centigrade higher than it was during the 1980’s. The global warming community has exploited these facts to “prove” that human activity (aka burning of fossil fuels) is the cause of these increasing temperatures.  But no direct scientific proof or data has been shown that link the current observations to human activity.  The link is assumed to be simply a fact, with no need to investigate or discuss any scientific data.

Here are 10 of the many scientific problems with the assumption human activity is causing “global warming” or “climate change”:

1. Temperature records from around the world do not support the assumption that today’s temperatures are unusual.

The all-time high temperature record for the world was set in 1913, while the all-time cold temperature record was set in 1983.  By continent, all but one set their all-time high temperature record more recently than their all-time cold temperature records.  In the United States, which has more weather stations than any other location in the world, more cold temperature records by state were set more recently than hot temperature records.  When the temperature records for each state were considered for each month of the year, a total of 600 data points (50 states x 12 months), again cold temperature records were set in far greater numbers more recently and hot temperature records were set longer ago.  This is directly contradictory to what would be expected if global warming were real.

2. Satellite temperature data does not support the assumption that temperatures are rising rapidly:

Starting at the end of 1978, satellites began to collect temperature data from around the globe.  For the next 20 years, until 1998, the global average temperature remained unchanged in direct contradiction to the earth-bound weather station data, which indicated “unprecedented” temperature increases.  In 1998 there was a strong El Nino year with high temperatures, which returned to pre-1998 levels until 2001.  In 2001 there was a sudden jump in the global temperature of about 0.3 degrees centigrade which then remained at about that level for the next 14 years, with a very slight overall decrease in the global temperatures during that time.

3. Current temperatures are always compared to the temperatures of the 1980’s, but for many parts of the world the 1980’s was the coldest decade of the last 100+ years:

If the current temperatures are compared to those of the 1930’s one would find nothing remarkable.  For many places around the world, the 1930’s were the warmest decade of the last 100 years, including those found in Greenland.  Comparing today’s temperatures to the 1980’s is like comparing our summer temperatures to those in April, rather than those of last summer.  It is obvious why the global warming community does this, and very misleading (or deceiving).

4. The world experienced a significant cooling trend between 1940 and 1980:

Many places around the world experienced a quite significant and persistent cooling trend to the point where scientists began to wonder if the world was beginning to slide into a new ice age period.  For example, Greenland experienced some of the coldest years in 120 years during the 1980’s, as was the case in many other places around the world.  During that same 40-year period, the CO2 levels around the world increased by 17%, which is a very significant increase.  If global temperatures decreased by such a significant amount over 40 years while atmospheric CO2 increased by such a large amount we can only reach two conclusions: 1. There must be a weak correlation, at best, between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures, 2. There must be stronger factors driving climate and temperature than atmospheric CO2.


5. Urban heat island effect skews the temperature data of a significant number of weather stations:

It has been shown that nighttime temperatures recorded by many weather stations have been artificially raised by the expulsion of radiant heat collected and stored during the daytime by concrete and brick structures such as houses, buildings, roads, and also cars.  Since land area of cities and large towns containing these weather stations only make up a very small fraction of the total land area, this influence on global average temperature data is significant.  Since the daytime and nighttime temperatures are combined to form an average, these artificially-raised nighttime temperatures skew the average data.  When one only looks at daytime temperatures only from larger urban areas, the “drastic global warming” is no longer visible.  (This can also be seen when looking at nearby rural area weather station data, which is more indicative of the true climate of that area).

6. There is a natural inverse relationship between global temperatures and atmospheric CO2 levels:

Contrary to what would be assumed when listening to global warming banter or while watching An Inconvenient Truth, higher temperatures increase atmospheric CO2 levels and lower temperatures decrease atmospheric CO2 levels, not the other way around.  Any college freshman chemistry student knows that the solubility of CO2 decreases with increasing temperatures and thus Earth’s oceans will release large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere when the water is warmer and will absorb more CO2 when the water is colder.  That is why the CO2 level during the ice ages was so much lower than the levels today.  That doesn’t take away the fact that we are artificially raising the atmospheric CO2 levels, but just because we do, that doesn’t mean that this will cause temperatures to increase in any significant way.  The 40-year cooling period between 1940 and 1980 appear to support that premise.  What we can conclude is that the ice ages were not caused by changes in the atmospheric CO2 levels and that other stronger factors were involved with these very large climate changes.



7. The CO2 cannot, from a scientific perspective, be the cause of significant global temperature changes:

The CO2 molecule is a linear molecule and thus only has limited natural vibrational frequencies, which in turn give this molecule only limited capability of absorbing radiation that is radiated from the Earth’s surface.  The three main wavelengths that can be absorbed by CO2 are 4.26 micrometers, 7.2 micrometers, and 15.0 micrometers.  Of those 3, only the 15-micrometer is significant because it falls right in range of the infrared frequencies emitted by Earth.  However, the H2O molecule which is much more prevalent in the Earth’s atmosphere, and which is a bend molecule, thus having many more vibrational modes, absorbs many more frequencies emitted by the Earth, including to some extent the radiation absorbed by CO2.  It turns out that between water vapor and CO2, nearly all of the radiation that can be absorbed by CO2 is already being absorbed. Thus increasing the CO2 levels should have very minimal impact on the atmosphere’s ability to retain heat radiated from the Earth.  That explains why there appears to be a very weak correlation at best between CO2 levels and global temperatures and why after the CO2 levels have increased by 40% since the beginning of the industrial revolution the global average temperature has increased only 0.8 degrees centigrade, even if we want to contribute all of that increase to atmospheric CO2 increases and none of it to natural causes.

8. There have been many periods during our recent history that a warmer climate was prevalent long before the industrial revolution:

Even in the 1990 IPCC report a chart appeared that showed the medieval warm period as having had warmer temperatures than those currently being experienced.  But it is hard to convince people about global warming with that information, so five years later a new graph was presented, now known as the famous hockey stick graph, which did away with the medieval warm period.  Yet the evidence is overwhelming at so many levels that warmer periods existed on Earth during the medieval warm period as well as during Roman Times and other time periods during the last 10,000 years.  There is plenty of evidence found in the Dutch archives that shows that over the centuries, parts of the Netherlands disappeared beneath the water during these warm periods, only to appear again when the climate turned colder.  The famous Belgian city of Brugge, once known as “Venice of the North,” was a sea port during the warm period that set Europe free from the dark ages (when temperatures were much colder), but when temperatures began to drop with the onset of the little ice age, the ocean receded and now Brugge is ten miles away from the coastline.  Consequently, during the medieval warm period the Vikings settled in Iceland and Greenland and even along the coast of Canada, where they enjoyed the warmer temperatures, until the climate turned cold again, after which they perished from Greenland and Iceland became ice-locked again during the bitter cold winters.  The camps promoting global warming have been systematically erasing mention of these events in order to bolster the notion that today’s climate is unusual compared to our recent history.

9. Glaciers have been melting for more than 150 years

The notion of melting glaciers as prove positive that global warming is real has no real scientific basis.  Glaciers have been melting for over 150 years.  It is no secret that glaciers advanced to unprecedented levels in recent human history during the period known as the Little Ice Age.  Many villages in the French, Swiss, and Italian Alps