Orthodoxy, heresies, and maths

[Theophilos78]

Are the following numerical representations of Orthodox and heretical doctrines correct?

About God

Trinitarian   1+1+1 = 1x3 (1 represents persons in the former and divine essence/nature in the latter)

Sabellianism/Nominalism/Modalism  1=1=1 = 1x1x1 (here = means identical)

Unitarian 1 (3-2) = 1+0 (0=1-1)+0 (0=1-1)

Christological

Eastern Orthodox  1+ 2 (2=1+1) (1 represents subject, 2 represents natures)

Oriental Orthodox  1+1 (1=0,5+0,5)

Nestorianism: 2 (2=1+1) + 2 (2=1+1)

Monophysite 1 + 1 (1=2-1)

[Føroyingar]

[Melodist]

Are the following numerical representations of Orthodox and heretical doctrines correct?

About God

Trinitarian

1=3

Christological

1=2

But even though 1=3 and 1=2, 2=/=3

[Theophilos78]

Are the following numerical representations of Orthodox and heretical doctrines correct?

About God

Trinitarian

1=3

Christological

1=2

But even though 1=3 and 1=2, 2=/=3

This is beyond me. 

[Ashman618]

Guys guys the entire Trinity is 1 divided by 0 and 3 divided by 0 and in all honesty I actually think this literally explains God mathematically

[biro]

Guys guys the entire Trinity is 1 divided by 0 and 3 divided by 0 and in all honesty I actually think this literally explains God mathematically

No, it doesn't.

[Maria]

Be careful. Pride comes before the fall.

Some brilliant Russian Orthodox Christians who were obsessed with mathematics became Name-Worshippers.

[Asteriktos]

The answer is 3. I did it in my head, but my math teachers always insisted that I "show my work" (even when I didn't do any work), so...

[Ashman618]

That's it Im convinced that math is the knowledge of good and evil

[Michał Kalina]

Are the following numerical representations of Orthodox and heretical doctrines correct?

About God

Trinitarian   1+1+1 = 1x3 (1 represents persons in the former and divine essence/nature in the latter)

Sabellianism/Nominalism/Modalism  1=1=1 = 1x1x1 (here = means identical)

Unitarian 1 (3-2) = 1+0 (0=1-1)+0 (0=1-1)

Christological

Eastern Orthodox  1+ 2 (2=1+1) (1 represents subject, 2 represents natures)

Oriental Orthodox  1+1 (1=0,5+0,5)

Nestorianism: 2 (2=1+1) + 2 (2=1+1)

Monophysite 1 + 1 (1=2-1)

I'm not such skilled in theology but as we can se all of these statements are tautologies (that means their Boolean value always equals 1). IMO you shouldn't have proved heresies are true so IMO you should try again (and prove heresies to be false).

Are the following numerical representations of Orthodox and heretical doctrines correct?

About God

Trinitarian

1=3

Christological

1=2

But even though 1=3 and 1=2, 2=/=3

So you are presenting orthodox statement as logically false statements. That might be a better approach since God cannot be understood with our minds...


Seriously, I do not see any sense in that.

[Father H]

Are the following numerical representations of Orthodox and heretical doctrines correct?

About God

Trinitarian   1+1+1 = 1x3 (1 represents persons in the former and divine essence/nature in the latter)

Sabellianism/Nominalism/Modalism  1=1=1 = 1x1x1 (here = means identical)

Unitarian 1 (3-2) = 1+0 (0=1-1)+0 (0=1-1)

Christological

Eastern Orthodox  1+ 2 (2=1+1) (1 represents subject, 2 represents natures)

Oriental Orthodox  1+1 (1=0,5+0,5)

Nestorianism: 2 (2=1+1) + 2 (2=1+1)

Monophysite 1 + 1 (1=2-1)

In general, this seems correct on the Trinitarian. 

The units must all be coherent on the Orthodox part.  Therefore, on the Incarnational part, I would say:

Orthodox (Chalcedonian)--  1p=1d+1h.  d+h=p.  p-h=d.  p-h=d.  1d+1h=2n  This is where p=person (hypostasis) of Christ, d=divine nature of Christ (which is infinite, thus rendering the equation true but impossible to solve), and h=human nature of Christ.   

Orthodox (non-Chalcedonian or para-Chalcedonian)--  1p=1n=1h+1d.  The only difference here is a disagreement that 1d+1h=2n.  The non-Chalcedonians would rather say:  1d+1h=1n.  This is because they disagree with the Orthodox-Chalcedonian definition that 1p=2n.  Rather, they would say that 1p=1n and agree with the rest. 

Nestorians--2p=2n=1h+1d.  This shows that there is a far gap between Nestorianism and the rest of Christianity (eg for them everything equals two, nothing equals one).   

Monophysite--1a+1b=1c   Here "c" is a different "product" 

[NicholasMyra]

This doesn't work because it assumes the same value is used by each number present.

1 hypostasis 2 natures, for example. Who says that a nature has the same value as a hypostasis?

[dzheremi]

I thought you weren't a Muslim anymore, Theophilos? Why are you still turning the Holy Trinity into a math problem?

[Ashman618]

The cosin. of the 1 essence times The 2 natures going off on a tang. Add a few fishermen and a tax collector = Orthodoxy 

[Father H]

This doesn't work because it assumes the same value is used by each number present.

1 hypostasis 2 natures, for example. Who says that a nature has the same value as a hypostasis?

What are you talking about?  You are talking arithmetic, I think.  That's the point of the variables.  Did you not read my post?  I clearly defined all of the terms.  I am sorry that my doctorate, two master's degrees, an undergrad degree with minors in mathemetics and physics, and my position as a member of the board of regents of an Orthodox Seminary and teacher of Dogmatic theology and trustee of the Orthodox Christian Education Commission are not enough for you to have a little more respectful tone than "that doesn't work" on your first impulse.   

The definition of d as infinite (a sideways make all equations work. 

Now, given that, I want you to explain why, with variables clearly defined in the equations giving do not work, either mathematically or theologically.  Since you are so quick to challenge, I want you to explain your position clearly, precisely, and without a hint of ambiguity by way of mathematics or Theology.  I think that I have done so and if you are going to make such bold definitive statements I deserve the same in return. 

[Father H]

The cosin. of the 1 essence times The 2 natures going off on a tang. Add a few fishermen and a tax collector = Orthodoxy 

Have you been listening to Foxnews radio recently?   

[Father H]

I thought you weren't a Muslim anymore, Theophilos? Why are you still turning the Holy Trinity into a math problem?

Theophilos never turned it into a math problem.  However, when we are discussing numbers, such as one, two, or three, math is involved.  Sorry, but you are wrong and he is right.   

[dzheremi]

As the smiley is meant to suggest, I was being facetious, Father.

[Father H]

As the smiley is meant to suggest, I was being facetious, Father.

Gotcha, thanks.  And a blessed night... 

[NicholasMyra]

Father,

Sorry for the confusion but I was replying to the OP.

[Theophilos78]

I'm not such skilled in theology but as we can se all of these statements are tautologies (that means their Boolean value always equals 1). IMO you shouldn't have proved heresies are true so IMO you should try again (and prove heresies to be false).

I am not trying to prove anything true or false. This is all about numerical representations. 

[Theophilos78]

I thought you weren't a Muslim anymore, Theophilos? Why are you still turning the Holy Trinity into a math problem?

This is not a math problem. Only a numerical representation of some doctrines and heresies. 

[Theophilos78]

This doesn't work because it assumes the same value is used by each number present.

1 hypostasis 2 natures, for example. Who says that a nature has the same value as a hypostasis?

What is your suggestion? What should I replace numbers with while talking of natures?

[Theophilos78]

I thought you weren't a Muslim anymore, Theophilos? Why are you still turning the Holy Trinity into a math problem?

Theophilos never turned it into a math problem.  However, when we are discussing numbers, such as one, two, or three, math is involved.  Sorry, but you are wrong and he is right.   

Thanks, Father!

[Fabio Leite]

Gödel produced a mathematical ontological proof of God. To be honest I don't know enough maths to even understand it, much less to assess its correctness. Anyway, here it is:



To which the "translation" seems to be this:

Definition 1: x is God-like if and only if x has as essential properties those and only those properties which are positive
Definition 2: A is an essence of x if and only if for every property B, x has B necessarily if and only if A entails B
Definition 3: x necessarily exists if and only if every essence of x is necessarily exemplified
Axiom 1: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive.
Axiom 2: Any property entailed by—i.e., strictly implied by—a positive property is positive
Axiom 3: The property of being God-like is positive
Axiom 4: If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive
Axiom 5: Necessary existence is positive
Axiom 6: For any property P, if P is positive, then being necessarily P is positive.
Theorem 1: If a property is positive, then it is consistent, i.e., possibly exemplified.
Corollary 1: The property of being God-like is consistent.
Theorem 2: If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
Theorem 3: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del%27s_ontological_proof

[HabteSelassie]

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!



I wonder if this is in part what Isaac Newton invented calculus for, apart from trying to uncover Biblical secrets of Gammetria?

stay blessed,
habte selassie

[Father H]

Father,

Sorry for the confusion but I was replying to the OP.

In that case, I am the one who is sorry.  A blessed Lord's day to you. 

[Tags:]

OrthodoxChristianity.net > Moderated Forums > Free-For-All > Religious Topics (Moderator: Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)) > Topic: Orthodoxy, heresies, and maths