Let’s see: Three?

by theodotdoron

The trinity consists of three, right. It takes two, baby, just me and you. Which one is it? For the law I find in the Old Testament, and I deliberately don’t generalize it by saying The Jewish Law, it takes two people two witness one person doing something for it to count as having happened. That in combination to a marriage does the following:

In a marriage, two become one. Interesting. It is such an intimate setting, that the two no longer are viewed as being two, but as being one. I always sensed that one can never really one hundred percent pinpoint who is to be blamed for a marriage break down, now I have the judicial basics to back my notion up.

One would have to lead a three way marriage for that to be the case. If you want a clear victory in a divorce, you should be polygamist. Hm, otherwise, it takes two to make your deeds actually existent. Inferring from that, a baptism also takes place amongst witnesses. As to ensure it had actually taken place.

My memory can deceive me, and my hubby is to wrapped up in the events for him to have an objective view, so, another person is needed. From that I infer that the best conversation is to be had with three people. In a group of three. The trinity did not need mankind to keep them entertained, they were doing just fine.

The trinity is one of those mysterious aspects of the Christian faith. In mereology I came across interesting factors of how a part relates to a whole. There we encounter clear issues that are not at all straight forward. From that angle I inferred that three can be distinct and yet be one, for a regular part-whole relationship is just as magic.

Yet why it is three and not for or two, baby, I have no idea. And I do enjoy the intimacy a marriage gives, still though, it is only an extension of myself, or I am an extension of him. And don’t get too worried, I have no identity issues, no threat that I may be symbiotic connected, it rather is a fact which, when overlooked, is just as silly.