Evidence for God from Science

IceMobster wrote:If Jesus is God, why did he pray to God (which is supported by Scripture on various places)?
Why does Jesus not say that he is God anywhere in the Scripture?

Bonus question: I have no idea what Holy Spirit's role is in either the Trinity or the world, so explain. I see HS as utterly useless. Even though I know it is obviously not the teaching of the Trinity, I see HS as just a name for God's work in the world. So, yeah, give me your best concerning this 3 questions.

We went thru this before. God is incomprehensible to us. His Spiritual essence we cannot fully fathom.

Romans 1:20 reveals something. One can begin to gain insight into God's Nature by the triunity of things on earth. I have used the weak example of an orange on this forum before. You have a distinct pealing, a distinct fruit, and distinct juice of one orange. Each is 100 percent all orange and all share the same essence, attributes, and function of being orange. The three make it an orange, one orange. These are not parts of the orange but rather all one orange. We like to dissect it and make it into parts but the reality is it is all 100 percent all one orange and our dissection cannot disprove that it is not all one orange either.

The pealing holds together and protects, the fruit makes seed, and the juice establishes life for the orange. God is more than able to send his fruit into the this world to grow his will for our lives and also more than able to establish this life by sending forth his juice to keep things fresh. As weak as this example is, I hope you may gain understanding and stop trying to disprove God and simply accepting what Jesus Christ did for you Romans 1:16 and Romans 10:8,9,10,11,12,13

You need a little zest in your life, some fruit to grow by, and juice to revive you... Why the delay Ice?
-
-
-

Philip wrote:Just a suggestion - and its one I myself need to adhere more to - but when someone asks a relatively straight forward question, let's try to not bury him in words of a million paragraphs and technical verbiage. I think ICE's head must be swimming about right now.

Not just his but mine as well

I mean, I understood what Jac said, but I could not repeat it even in my own words, if that makes sense.

B. W. wrote:And yes Jesus claimed he is God in the bible, by the titles Son of Man and Son of God...

As well as in: John 20:28, John 5:23, John 9:35-38, John 14:9
-
-
-

Why are all of them from the Gospel of John??

How does John 5:19-24 confirm that Jesus is God?
19 Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only what he sees the Father doing; for whatever he does, that the Son does likewise. 20 For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all that he himself is doing; and greater works than these will he show him, that you may marvel. 21 For as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life to whom he will. 22 The Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. 24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

What is with the Father judges no one, but has given all judgment to the Son? They have the same nature, they both are able to judge, they are both God, are they not? So, how come judgment is "reserved" to the Son?

B. W. wrote:

IceMobster wrote:If Jesus is God, why did he pray to God (which is supported by Scripture on various places)?
Why does Jesus not say that he is God anywhere in the Scripture?

Bonus question: I have no idea what Holy Spirit's role is in either the Trinity or the world, so explain. I see HS as utterly useless. Even though I know it is obviously not the teaching of the Trinity, I see HS as just a name for God's work in the world. So, yeah, give me your best concerning this 3 questions.

We went thru this before. God is incomprehensible to us. His Spiritual essence we cannot fully fathom.

Romans 1:20 reveals something. One can begin to gain insight into God's Nature by the triunity of things on earth. I have used the weak example of an orange on this forum before. You have a distinct pealing, a distinct fruit, and distinct juice of one orange. Each is 100 percent all orange and all share the same essence, attributes, and function of being orange. The three make it an orange, one orange. These are not parts of the orange but rather all one orange. We like to dissect it and make it into parts but the reality is it is all 100 percent all one orange and our dissection cannot disprove that it is not all one orange either.

The pealing holds together and protects, the fruit makes seed, and the juice establishes life for the orange. God is more than able to send his fruit into the this world to grow his will for our lives and also more than able to establish this life by sending forth his juice to keep things fresh. As weak as this example is, I hope you may gain understanding and stop trying to disprove God and simply accepting what Jesus Christ did for you Romans 1:16 and Romans 10:8,9,10,11,12,13

You need a little zest in your life, some fruit to grow by, and juice to revive you... Why the delay Ice?
-
-
-

Romans 1:20 reveal what exactly? You mean like there being named 3 things (invisible attributes, eternal power, divine nature) it points to a Triune God? Lol.

God is incomprehensible to us yet I see everyone talking of Him in a very leisure way as if He is their neighbour and they know everything about Him. But let's put that aside.

I've read your comparison once before and I didn't react to it because the comparison is incorrect. Not all parts of the orange share the same essence, attributes and function. It is simply not true. Furthermore, your comparison reduces and splits God into parts which is also incorrect.
Moreover, you conclude with: " but the reality is it is all 100 percent all one orange and our dissection cannot disprove that it is not all one orange either"
Well, of course it is one orange, but it has parts which serve different functions and which consists of different material and each of those parts of the orange (you named 3 of them) have different attributes.

Yeah, just now I've read that you said this example is weak. Well, I'll not accept something which is illogical to my thinking (HS being even worse than Jesus, though).

The zest, fruit and juice is there. In God. You do realize you could have put some 4th thing and, following your logic (well, not logic but thinking with which you tried to persuade me or explain it to me), it would be Fourthune God?

Reminds me of the: "Nice tryyyy, guyyyyyy." https://youtu.be/OelHPDBSiJg?t=1m43s

The delay is there up until I am certain God equals Trinity.

Jac3510 wrote:Jesus prayed to the Father because He is not the Father. The Father is the Father and the Son is the Son. The Son loves and wishes to be in communion with the Father, and so He prays to Him. Moreover, Jesus is a man, and so while He is ontologically equal with the Father and Holy Spirit in virtue of His divine nature, He is inferior to both the Father and the Spirit in virtue of His human nature. When Jesus prayed, then, He was aligning His human will with the divine will, so that He could say He does nothing He does not see the Father do and so that everything He did, He did at the direction of the Father.

Hmmm, aligning of the will makes sense. I do not see how that is connected to Jesus not doing anything He does not see the Father do and that everything Jesus did, He did at the direction of the Father.
Could you elaborate on this and give examples?

Jac3510 wrote: The Holy Spirit played an essential part in the early ministry of Jesus Christ. The HS filled Jesus, empowered Him, led Him, etc. In fact, it was the Holy Spirit that Jesus was filled with, by which He exemplified divine power in His ministry, that He gave to His disciples and to all believers. So while Jesus could have certainly have done anything He wanted in virtue of His own divine nature, He chose to act in virtue of His human nature and for the Holy Spirit to act in and through Him. The result of that is that we, who are not divine, receive and act through the same Spirit that acted through Him.

Heh, what is the Scriptural basis for that? Nowhere does it say that he let the HS empower him, even though the result kinda makes sense.

Storyteller wrote:The Holy Spirit is the breath of God in your soul. Its something felt. That moves you, drives you, compels you to seek truth.

It seems I haven't felt "the breath of God in my soul". Does it smell bad? (I had to. )
Is this considered blasphemy towards the HS? In that case, I am on a highway to hell. (Matthew 12:31-32)
Tn tn tn tn tn tn

Kurieuo wrote:

IceMobster wrote:If Jesus is God, why did he pray to God (which is supported by Scripture on various places)?
Why does Jesus not say that he is God anywhere in the Scripture?

Bonus question: I have no idea what Holy Spirit's role is in either the Trinity or the world, so explain. I see HS as utterly useless. Even though I know it is obviously not the teaching of the Trinity, I see HS as just a name for God's work in the world. So, yeah, give me your best concerning this 3 questions.

Let me put forward questions that abstract from the specifics of why or how.

Question 1) If God exists, then is it logically possible (i.e., there is nothing contradictory) for God to come down to Earth, be born and dwell amongst in human form?

Question 2) If one positively affirms (1), then Who is keeping things running while God gives Himself over to human nature and visits Earth in human form?

Except there is a fallacy here. This implies that God isn't omnipotent since He could not both be 100% human & 100% God whilst "keep running the universe" or "holding the helm" as you state later.

Kurieuo wrote: Now, to the first, it seems easy to answer that God could enter into His creation however God liked. God created it all, so evidently has immense power, so why not? The onus, it seems to me, is on an opposing position to bring forward good reasons why God could not ever enter into His creation in the form of a human baby who then grows into a man.

Given (1) is possible, now then, the universe still needs to keep running and be held together. Does God leave the helm of running our universe? Is such even possible of God to do? Really, I think if God were to leave the helm, then our whole world and created order would collapse in on itself. Since everything is absolutely dependent upon God. Therefore, God, if He comes in human form must somehow subsist in both human and divine forms.

Let's say you somehow do not deny God's omnipotence by saying this.
So, what do you think God is actually doing "being at the helm"? With what actions is He holding everything together? By just existing or being Existence itself is a poor answer.
But you do understand that you are negating Jesus being a part of the Godhead with your last sentence here (and omnipotence as stated earlier).

Kurieuo wrote: I believe these two questions push one to entertain at least a duality in God of some sort, whether such be essential to God's nature or something God's creates within Himself. So then, how does the communion between such work, well, let theologians discuss and nut out.

Fine. Why a 3rd persona out of the blue then?

Kurieuo wrote: Finally, there are questions to do with "Love" that I see add weight to the picture of God as revealed in Scripture and by Christ. That is, does "Love" really exist? If it does, then what is the source of "Love"? Now, many people will affirm love really does exist. And, if one believes in God, they'll readily claim God is love, meaning God is the source of all love. Yet, then without creation, can God really still love if there is no one to love?

I believe one can only legitimately respond "Yes" to this question (that God is love), provided they recognise that "true love" can only be had in relationship from one to another and account for such within God. Therefore, if God is love then God must necessarily be relational within who God is.

To have perfect love, one could say there needs to be 1) The Lover, 2) Beloved and 3) Carrier (of the love). And then, to be perfect, the Lover ought to also be loved by the Beloved, and indeed a pouring out upon the Carrier of such and vice-versa. Thus, Love becomes complete and perfect.

Now remove 1) The Lover, and you no longer can have the beloved and there is also no need for any "love" to be carried from Loved to Beloved. Remove 2) The Beloved, and now The Lover can't exist either for their needs to be a recipient of The Lover's love. Remove 3) And the love of the Lover will never reach the Beloved, indeed one must wonder what even this "love" is comprised of which is exchanged between The Lover and The Beloved if consists of nothing but "empty packets of data" and not even a packet.

Indeed that the love is best recognized in a relationship, but what of the love one has for himself?
Also, "Carrier" is a surplus here. The Lover is the one carrying, expressing, "beloving" the Beloved one (with love). Perhaps if the 3rd persona here is a result of the first two's love, but that makes no sense as that is not what the HS is acknowledge to be.

Philip wrote:Just a suggestion - and its one I myself need to adhere more to - but when someone asks a relatively straight forward question, let's try to not bury him in words of a million paragraphs and technical verbiage. I think ICE's head must be swimming about right now.

As we are mortal and as also God is not fully comprehendible to us, His Trinity of persons within ONE God is not an easy thing to grasp. But it is verified comprehensively across Scripture!

Thanks for support, however, I do not have a problem reading topics that interest me and God indeed interests me.
OH, and yes, I would like to hear as much technical verbiage as possible!! Uh, I wish I was swimming right now. It is really hot here where I live.

Nicki wrote:To me it's Jesus' statement 'Before Abraham was born, I am!' that was his most obvious claim to divinity. I think the Holy Spirit could possibly not be a person, were it not for Jesus' teaching that when he left he would send the Comforter, who is spoken of as a person and seems to be the Holy Spirit. Jesus was saying that his presence in us would be via the Holy Spirit. The HS might seem to be unnecessary to us but if he's part of (or maybe I shouldn't say part, Jac? - included in then) the Triune God that's just the way it is - we won't necessarily understand everything about the roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

Is this the only verse(s) in which the HS is mentioned?
How do you differentiate HS's work from God's work?
As Melanie said, it looks more like the HS is a name for God's (mysterious) deeds/work in this world.

abelcainsbrother wrote:Jesus lived a sinless life,unlike we can and so he prayed.

Jehovah. For you. Get out a bible and follow along
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qT2wpjS7SU

John 8:58
Exodus 3:13-14

John 15:26
John 16:13-16

Sorry about my last reply to you. I was wrong.

Anyway, your first sentence implies only those who are sinless can pray, lol.

Exodus 3 does not confirm Jesus being God. Only God revealing Himself to the people.
John 8:58 is a good one. Missed that one, sorry. Thanks.
John 15:26 and John 16:13-16 is a good one concerning HS. Hmmmm.

Same question I asked BW, why are all these verses from John?
Why is (or is it? I didn't learn them by heart when I read them) there non of such in the synoptic Gospels?

abelcainsbrother wrote:I just didn't go into great depth trying to explain the trinity because it is hard for even Christians to understand it,even though the trinity is biblical.

Try me.
Don't you go Christians master race on me.

The Trinity is biblical. Where? What verses?

Hortator wrote:

Philip wrote:Just a suggestion - and its one I myself need to adhere more to - but when someone asks a relatively straight forward question, let's try to not bury him in words of a million paragraphs and technical verbiage. I think ICE's head must be swimming about right now.

Not just his but mine as well

I mean, I understood what Jac said, but I could not repeat it even in my own words, if that makes sense.

I am yet to read Jac's second reply to this topic (I've read everything else). Don't have the time now, been doing this reply for some time.

IceMobster wrote: Is this the only verse(s) in which the HS is mentioned?

Even if it was then are you saying that is not significant?

How many times does something need to be repeated for it to have meaning?

Sometimes I think we read far too much into how much or how little something is said in the bible.

Once can be enough, when taken into context with the rest of scripture.

Nessa wrote:

IceMobster wrote: Is this the only verse(s) in which the HS is mentioned?

Even if it was then are you saying that is not significant?



Sometimes I think we read far too much into how much or how little something is said in the bible.

Once can be enough, when taken into context with the rest of scripture.

Well, the problem is that it could have been implemented later on. The more verses the lower possibility of something like that happening. Or will you tell me nothing has been added at a later date? Khm, Pericope Adulterae, khm.

Nessa wrote: How many times does something need to be repeated for it to have meaning?

Umm, 3 times would be enough as seen in the synoptic Gospels.

I'm not saying that repetition of verses saying the same thing is not useful or important.

Just not to automatically discount one verse or passage on the basis if it doesn't seem to be repeated.

For example, some may say a particular sin is not really a sin because it's only mentioned ....... times and with those verses the true meaning of them have been 'misinterpreted' etc

Then there is another danger in which something in a verse is emphasized upon as if it is something sacred or extremely important.

IceMobster wrote:Hmmm, aligning of the will makes sense. I do not see how that is connected to Jesus not doing anything He does not see the Father do and that everything Jesus did, He did at the direction of the Father.
Could you elaborate on this and give examples?

See John 5:19, "Jesus gave them this answer: 'Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.'"

See also John 5:30; 7:18; 12:49-50; 14:31.

Note 7:18 for special emphasis, and then consider 1 Cor 2:13 and 1 Pet 4:11.

Jesus, as God, did more than just walk around doing divine things. More than that, as man, He truly lived as man. And as man, He fully submitted to the Father in all things. He is the only human being who has ever done so. And in so doing, an amazing thing happens. In the man Jesus Christ, the human will and the divine will are perfectly aligned. If you know your biblical history, you know that was broken when Adam ate the forbidden fruit, and ever since then, man and God have been out of sync, so to speak--the former in rebellion to the latter. But in Jesus, mankind himself is saved, because Jesus becomes the Second Adam. Just like you were born with Adam's fallen nature, so if you are born again in Christ, you receive His nature--partially in this life and ultimately in the next. That's why the resurrection of Jesus is so important. Christ was perfectly aligned with the Father, and so since Christ is both man and God, He relates to the Father and we to Him (that is, to Jesus), and in so doing, we are related to the Father. So it turns out to be extremely important for Jesus to act not out of His divinity but out of His humanity. And in acting out of His humanity, He redeems humanity by fully submitting it to the Father.

Heh, what is the Scriptural basis for that? Nowhere does it say that he let the HS empower him, even though the result kinda makes sense.

Really?

See Isa 11:1-3; Matt 12:22-28; Luke 3:21-22; 4:1, 14, 18-19; 10:17-21; 11:20 (note comparison to Matt 12:28); John 3:34; Acts 1:1-3 (note that Jesus gave commands through the Holy Spirit), Acts 10:38, etc.

I could offer more, especially by way of serious commentary on Phil 2:5-11 and its implications to take only one example, but I think that should suffice for now.

edited to fix incorrect reference

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:

IceMobster wrote:If Jesus is God, why did he pray to God (which is supported by Scripture on various places)?
Why does Jesus not say that he is God anywhere in the Scripture?

Bonus question: I have no idea what Holy Spirit's role is in either the Trinity or the world, so explain. I see HS as utterly useless. Even though I know it is obviously not the teaching of the Trinity, I see HS as just a name for God's work in the world. So, yeah, give me your best concerning this 3 questions.

Let me put forward questions that abstract from the specifics of why or how.

Question 1) If God exists, then is it logically possible (i.e., there is nothing contradictory) for God to come down to Earth, be born and dwell amongst in human form?

Question 2) If one positively affirms (1), then Who is keeping things running while God gives Himself over to human nature and visits Earth in human form?

Except there is a fallacy here. This implies that God isn't omnipotent since He could not both be 100% human & 100% God whilst "keep running the universe" or "holding the helm" as you state later.

Challenges God's omnipotence in the same way the question, "Can God create a rock so big that He can't lift it?" or "Can God create a square circle?" does. Nonsense remains nonsense even when you talk it about God.

Now, why do you believe that logically God must exist; probably because you see God as a necessary foundational source for everything that exists or something the like, right? If God is the source of all existence, then everything that exists MUST be necessarily be sustained by God in existence. Remove God from the equation, or whatever He is doing to sustain everything in existence, then it all just vanishes like smoke. God as the Aseity, means ALL is dependent upon such.

In fact, quite the opposite to challenging God's omnipotence, Christian theology in embracing God's nature as relational, indeed even social, means God as the Father through the Holy Spirit can continue running the universe and keeping everything in existence while Christ empties Himself of such a role in taking up human nature.

Re: Jesus' nature, it doesn't follow that because Christ gave up certain Divine rights if you will, that He is any less than God the Father. Consider Philippians 2:1-11 where Christ's "emptied Himself" when entering into our world in human form.

• 1Therefore if there is any encouragement in Christ, if there is any consolation of love, if there is any fellowship of the Spirit, if any affection and compassion, 2make my joy complete by being of the same mind, maintaining the same love, united in spirit, intent on one purpose. 3Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind regard one another as more important than yourselves; 4do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8Being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9For this reason also, God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10so that at the name of Jesus EVERY KNEE WILL BOW, of those who are in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11and that every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Cooking right now, wife is on strike. So I'll get to your next section later.

Jac and Kurieuo you guys are brainiacs.

Nicki wrote:Jac and Kurieuo you guys are brainiacs.

Thanks, but you wouldn't say that if you weren't Christian.

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:Now, to the first, it seems easy to answer that God could enter into His creation however God liked. God created it all, so evidently has immense power, so why not? The onus, it seems to me, is on an opposing position to bring forward good reasons why God could not ever enter into His creation in the form of a human baby who then grows into a man.

Given (1) is possible, now then, the universe still needs to keep running and be held together. Does God leave the helm of running our universe? Is such even possible of God to do? Really, I think if God were to leave the helm, then our whole world and created order would collapse in on itself. Since everything is absolutely dependent upon God. Therefore, God, if He comes in human form must somehow subsist in both human and divine forms.

Let's say you somehow do not deny God's omnipotence by saying this.
So, what do you think God is actually doing "being at the helm"? With what actions is He holding everything together? By just existing or being Existence itself is a poor answer.

Here is my response to your question about what God does "at the helm", only dealt with in another thread: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 7&p=192462 (in responding, feel free to quote any part of what I wrote there here)

Kurieuo wrote:

Nicki wrote:Jac and Kurieuo you guys are brainiacs.

Thanks, but you wouldn't say that if you weren't Christian a woman.

There, fify.

IceMobster

This is the trinity God the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost and these three are one.We cannot see God and so cannot know what God looks like,but if we could? God would be all three.Since we were created in the image of God Jesus would look like a human,while the rest of God would look different. We won't fully know until we get to heaven.John 1:18

IceMobster wrote:

Kurieuo wrote:I believe these two questions push one to entertain at least a duality in God of some sort, whether such be essential to God's nature or something God's creates within Himself. So then, how does the communion between such work, well, let theologians discuss and nut out.

Fine. Why a 3rd persona out of the blue then?

This is going to get complicated very quickly, but I'll take you on a journey through my thoughts of old.

You are right that a 3rd person appears out of the blue when merely reflecting upon the duality of roles necessary in God who needs to sustain the universe while entering into creation. Yet, then we're only discussing the subject matter at hand because we have "content" to consider provided by Scripture, so then it's not entirely out of the blue, but rather more a question of what should we make of a third person like the Holy Spirit? Let me extend here my thoughts.

Firstly, I'll freely acknowledge, and see nothing wrong with acknowledging, many influences come from Scripture in what are revealed to be roles of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in the Godhead. Further, there are different Christian beliefs on the procession of the Holy Spirit, one all agree upon is that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father. There is controversy over whether the Holy Spirit also proceeds from the Son (i.e., look into Filioque).

Now working with Trinitarian thoughts, let me reflect upon the nature of God and His relationship to the world (the created order) in just free-thinking Kurieuo style which many can find painful. My purpose here is to provide coherent picture between reason and special revelation (Scripture) as to necessary roles of God in relation to a created order.

The following thoughts I had came from when I accepted Panentheism (all exists in God), which has since kind of been usurped in my thinking by Divine Simplicity. The main difference is that DS doesn't (or shouldn't) talk of God and creation in terms of properties-substance talk, but rather in terms of potentialities-actualities. Those who are more visual and very conceptual often lean towards property-substance language, yet I think talking in terms of potentialities and actualities is more "ontologically proper" if you will (that is, a truer reflection of reality).

Nonetheless, I see benefits to presenting my older substance-based view of God here.

If God is the necessary something that has always existed (the Aseity), it made sense for me to conceptualise that anything created can only be composed of God Himself, a divine spiritual substance of sorts. Therefore, I quite naturally logically embraced "all-in-God" (pan-en-theism).

Nonetheless, there needs to be some distinction made within God, splitting the boundary between "God Himself" and the created order which somehow bubbles out of God's substance and is sustained in its own right. If there is no separation, then one actually believes in Pantheism (all is God), which seems far from true and Christians cannot affirm. Therefore, given creation, there is a role that God must fulfill of eternally separating from Himself and yet sustaining all of creation in its own right.

Now for God to enter into true relations with us creatures necessarily means another role is needed. If God just exists as the necessary being that transcends all of creation (1), yet the universe and all of creation needs to be sustained in existence separately from the actual divine substance it is comprised (2), now for God to Himself enter into the created order necessitates requiring God to superimpose Himself within the created order in Himself to be personally present along side us (3).

Christ incarnate, God in human form, is like a "superposition" (to borrow terminology from quantum mechanics) of God, where God personally and directly enters into the sustained created order within Himself. Now, entering into the created order, "Jesus" becomes measurable in many ways, the immeasurable becomes measurable but it doesn't change His true nature or identity.

Now you'll notice I placed (1), (2) and (3) beside roles in my second-last paragraph above. This was to mark out three roles my Kurieuo thinking saw as being logically necessary. It is interesting that these roles kind of line up to what we are presented with in Scripture of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The Word (Christ) created and nothing that was made and brought into existence was made except through Christ. (John 1) Therefore, when actively personally involved in the world, it seems that Christ is fulfills role #3. Further, the Holy Spirit is often represented as the invisible fabric that holds things together. For example, consider having fellowship and being united in spirit of Philippians 2:1-2; is such merely empty words or is there some invisible fabric that exists that we can be joined to? The Holy Spirit seems a lot like the glue, does a lot of the invisible work that keeps everything together. So the role of the Spirit seems to cohere with role #2. And now, the Father who appears to transcend, judge and remain sovereign over all, clearly role #1.

I expect I'll need to clarify some things since these thoughts are now much more complicated. But, if you wanted simple answers then I'd expect you to ask more simple questions like, "how's the weather in Oz?". I suspect you don't care much about the weather here though.