You must log in or register to comment.
This is highly inaccurate. The mathematician isn’t even wearing a bowtie.
I had a math professor that looked just like this. His sneakers were falling apart, shirt always half untucked. We all speculated that he slept in his office.
Engineering is more of a practice, maths is more of a tool, theology is at best the study of the history of cults and brainwashing…
…so there’s really only one science here.
So you see, God is like a triangle. . . No no no, this is simply a metaphor.
Assume a spherical God in a frictionless vacuum…
This is not the best metaphor in the world, this is just a tribute.
My interpretation is one actor with three roles.
God the Maker, God the Incarnate, and God the Presence
Seems like the best reflecting of everyone I’ve heard try to put down a legitimate explanation.
Plus these epithets don’t confuse people into accidental arianism by implying god sired himself.
Christianity asking you to accept the trinity is asking you to accept a logical impossibility. There’s no point in trying to figure it out, the entire exercise is to make you accept it on faith and not question it. It’s not big and profound, it’s a stupid waste of time like that mind trap they made for the Borg on star trek where they would get stuck thinking about it so much they’d die.
Had a comp sci teacher do a decent job making an argument for the 3-in-1 as our limited three-dimensional interpretation of a multi-dimensional (4+) being. A multi-dimensional existence is going to interact with our three-dimensional world in ways that are impossible to interpret holistically since it extends into and is connected through dimensions that don’t exist for us. Like a tesseract, we have visual representations of tesseracts but they aren’t what a tesseract would actually look like if one appeared in front of you one day.
Confirmed, Jesus is in fact a three dimensional cross section of a fourth dimensional being which can inhabit our three dimensional cross section of fourth dimensional space.
cross section
heheheheh
I think it’s more like if you really dig into what most religions believe, like in their leadership. It’s well accepted that if you scrutinize it at all god is the unknowable all so in a way he’s father son and holy Spirit and that’s easy to communicate to the masses. But the truth is that any conception of a deity is so abstract that it shouldn’t really be worth communicating.
But is God the Incarnate wholly God-nature, or is he partly God-nature and partly man-nature?
Short answer: yes
Long answer: one way I think of it in terms of classifying tags. We have the ‘human’ tag and the ‘sinner’ tag. Jesus has the ‘human’ tag and the ‘God’ tag. He didn’t have less of the ‘human’ tag than we do, same with the ‘God’ tag than the other parts of the whole of God.
Again, more oversimplifications, because this shit is weird.
Well, Jesus did get the ‘sinner’ tag towards the end, even though he never sinned.
I’m talking about natures rather than labels though. Or does God only have the definitions humans ascribe to him?
So was I. The whole tags bit is a metaphor.
Yes. Jesus is fully the essence of god, and he is fully the role of God the incarnate here on earth.
So does that mean Jesus wasn’t human?
It means that he’s fully human but also fully God.
He lived, breathed, taught, and died as a man, and just as much, lived, breathed, taught, and ascended as god made into mortal flesh.
It’s a bit more of that one actor many roles idea I’ve stated already, he’s 100% Jesus the man, and he’s also 100% the mortal face of God. It’s like how you are 100% your father’s child at the same time as you are 100% your mother’s child, you don’t stop being one or the other or shift between them as you deem needed or fit, you just are both, and in the same way, Jesus just is both.
Unitarians have entered the chat.
Unitarians are good people.
Except for Thomas Jefferson
Fatphobic much?
You see, the priest is so fat, because they eat all the money that are supposed to go to taxes.
