2d ago

The Lord works in mysterious ways?

https://xcancel.com/literaryeric/status/1921330338963374196#m

177 comments

Can't be God's hand. It's lacking the nail holes. Must be the devil's.
- I may not be the most religiously knowledgeable person on the planet.... But didn't Jesus get the Home Depot special, not god?
  
  I don't know about other religions, but we were taught as youngsters in Catholicism that Jesus was god too. They were separate, but one. 🤷
  
  Every religion invented it's own version of the mythology.
  
  Yep, the ultimate hero's journey.
  
  Jesus is God. He isn't God The Father, but God The Father doesn't have a physical/earthly form, so it can't be His hand.
  
  Bro can't manifest a hand while doing a matrix time stop to redirect a bullet.
  So much for omnipotence I guess.
  Also, wasn't humanity made in god's image?
  Doesn't Jesus refer to god as a separate entity?
  Here I am looking for logical consistency in religion, the very definition of logical inconsistency.
  
  Jesus doesn't refer to God as a separate entity.
  He refers to the Father as a separate person, but still their unity as God is emphasised
  John 8:57-58
  So the Jews said to him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.”
  John 10:30
  I and the Father are one.
  John 14:8-11
  Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and it is enough for us.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and you still do not know me, Philip? Whoever has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works. Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me, or else believe on account of the works themselves.
  He also emphasised that He has a distinct relationship with The Father and God that's different to us.
  John 20:17
  Jesus said to her, “Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, ‘I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.’”
  Jesus makes clear that His God is distinct to our God. His God is merely just The Father, which He is obedient to in accordance with His human nature (This is how Jesus was both God and Human- as a perfect Human, He had to worship as well. If He didn't, He wouldn't be a human.) while our God is the whole Triune God.
  As for manifesting hands or whatever, all of creation was made through Jesus.
  John 1:2-3
  He was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him was not any thing made that was made.
  Genesis 1:26
  Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. And let them have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over the livestock and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”
  
  Wild.
  Either way, sounds like there is more than one representation of god that would be capable of having hands, so it's probably just one of those instead of Jesus in the painting.
  
  It's possible, but what I was saying originally was a joke. Although the hand of God depicted Anno Domini is typically depicted with the hole.
  
  Someone better tell Michelangelo!
  
  That was a depiction of the Ancient of Days according to Daniel's vision. Although western Christians do believe the Ancient of Days to be God The Father. Basically every denomination apart from Roman Catholics frown upon depicting God The Father.
  
  Yeah, that makes sense. / S
  
  Would make less sense if The Creator of the Universe wasn't able to manifest Himself as a human
- Wrists would have the nail holes. Hands can't support a human hanging on a cross. But I understand your point!
  
  Yes, but what's amusing to me is that this painting shows the wrist but not the palm.
  
  Wrists are still visible, the term I was using "hand" in this context actually can refer to the upper forearm, it's just me using theological terms, my bad lol.
  Although also in my defence, a hand was what's painted, the wrist is visible, so it's still okay to refer to what's shown as a "hand"
  
  Lets just be real here. We only want one hole in a body part, and it's not the being on the left!
  
  Lmao, true. Although, personally, I'm scared about what vance would do if it was successful. Would basically be a Reichstag fire.
- Everything is God's plan. Still God's hand then.

177 comments