quote:
The Proof clearly states that Man was created in the image of a trinity: three distinct parts (represented by 3, 6, 9 on the clock), all connected and controlled by a single mind(head, 12), Hence, Trinity - Meaning three united by one. The head is an essential aspect, which you failed to notice. And yes, legs must be views as a single entity attached to the torso, For they are united as one and share a single entity on The Cross(6).
Humans have way more than 3 distinct parts though. You can arbitrarily define 3 "parts" if you want to, but you can do that about as easily for any other arbitrary number you want. It doesn't seem to have much significance, especially when the "parts" are as counterintuitive as "left arm, right arm, and the rest". When you do that it's pretty obvious you're trying to force things to fit that really don't.
quote:
The same Scientists who sat down in a round Table to eliminate Pluto could also do the same thing to Venus but on what Authority are they acting upon? Many planetary scientists advocate for a simpler definition, focusing on intrinsic properties like size, shape, and geological activity. By this standard, Pluto would easily qualify as a planet. Pluto exhibits active geology, seasonal changes, and surface renewal processes not seen on most asteroids or other small bodies. These features reflect internal heat and dynamic systems akin to those of terrestrial planets. Unlike asteroids, which are often fragments of larger bodies, Pluto is a primordial object that has retained its integrity since the solar system’s formation.
It's not like scientists are out there trying to force there not to be 9 planets. Pluto was found early so it was in the classical list, but it differs from the 8 uncontroversial planets in some key respects, and if we include it, it's hard to say why things like Eris or the other dwarf planets shouldn't also count. It may be that you can define the category in such a way as to include Pluto but nothing else, but the harder you have to work to do that, again the more clear it becomes you're trying to force the fit.
quote:
I also noticed how you skipped my prior question on how the same 333 derived from the trinity of numbers is also derived from The Cross being fixed into a Time clock as the proof illustrates. I guess that serves as the heaviest stumbling block.
The "how" seems to just be that clocks are based around 12, which is divisible by 3 and 4, so things with 4 parts map on to the multiples of 3. It's not clear why that coincidence (or all of them taken together) are necessarily a product of God, much less a proof.
™ Version 4.2
