"
I looked at what you did there, and unsuprisingly I saw this edit of yours:

According to orthodox Jewish and Christian eschatological beliefs, and secular historians and scholars, the concept of the Son of Perdition (also called ""the beast that goes into perdition"" in Revelation  and ) is used in the Bible in one or more of three contexts, forming a triunism (or trinity,http://www.nathan.co.za/message.asp?sermonum=10 see paragraph 40 or typology)Kinship of God and man: An attempt to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology, by J.J. Lanier, see ""Trinitarian Idealism,"" pp 135-147, esp. Syllabus II, p 136 of three potential interpretive references.Kinship of God and man: An attempt to formulate a thorough-going Trinitarian theology, by J.J. Lanier see ""Trinitarian Idealism,"" pp 135-147, esp. Syllabus II, p 136

1) First of all, none of the sources cited say anything about the three context ""forming a triunism or trinity"". None of them. Your claim that this is ""According to orthodox Jewish eschatology and Christian eschatology, and secular historians and scholars"" is completely unsubstantiated by the citations given.
2) Secondly, all three of the sources you cite are sources which you have been told repeatedly not to use because they are not WP:RS. One of them is predictably yet another link to the website on which your own work is advertised, with your idiosyncratic view. So you're not adhering to Wiki policy, and you're deliberately disobeying what you've been asked to do on many previous occasions. Your edit here is a typical example of your WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.
3) Thirdly, you haven't ever provided a single quotation from Bruce or Reed which shows they support your idiosyncratic ""triunisms"" idea. Your claim that they do is completely unsupported by the works of theirs which you cite, and is another example of your WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. You can't point to something they've written and claim that because you interpret it as supporting your view, that it supports your view. That's not how Wikipedia works. You need a third party citation from a WP:RS which interprets them as supporting your view.You have been told this repeatedly.~~~~
"