More Trinity stuff

[Kurieuo]

Well put, Kuriero

In so far as none of us can truly comprehend the nature of God, I agree with you. However, to deny Christ's divinity to me seems paramount to denying *what* He did on the cross, considering we would be denying His ability to conquer death and be an atoning sacrifice for us....the perfect lamb...the substitutionary death. To that end I think it is imperative to believe not only what Christ did but who He was (which really amounts to the same thing).

A large distinction between Jac's and my position on "faith in Christ" is that Jac largely believes it to be intellectual assent to certain propositions. So for example, Christ being divine, dying to enable us to be reconciled to God, and His rising again would perhaps be some propositions Jac sees as required for true belief in Christ. On the other hand, I took an approach where faith in Christ is not necessarily believing in certain propositions as true, but rather faith in the person of Christ Himself.

I see Jac raises what on first appearance appears to be a dilemma to my position. The question I have to answer in my position on "faith in Christ" is what is essential to believing in the "true" Christ. It certainly seems an intellectual assent of some sort is required to believe in a "true" Christ. For example, someone may put their faith in Christ (e.g., Fortigurn???) while believing Christ was only a man and not in any sense God. Yet if this is the case, then Fortigurn is not really believing in the same person of Christ that I do. Now while I see none of us can completely know or understand who Christ is, I think we are right to draw a line when we say deity is an essential attribute that should not be denied of Christ.*

An appropriate question this raises is why is Christ's deity an essential attribute? I personally see it is because Christ made a promise to us that we can come to God through Him. This promise is based upon Christ's death and resurrection, and Christ's claim to divinity which I see as an important element behind Christ's authority to forgive our sins against God. If Christ was just a man, albeit a righteous man, who died then I see the promise that we are forgiven of our sins against God becomes quite hollow. To have faith in Christ, is to believe in the person of Christ and apart of this is believing the Gospel as being true. His being God is a crucial part to such a promise. You deny His deity, and I see His promise becomes empty. Jesus becomes no more useful towards us than being simply a "wise" man like that of Buddha, Ghandi, or take your pick from history. This is why Jesus' deity matters. If someone rejects it, then I do not see how it is possible Christ's promises are not made vacuous and empty. Christ is simply a "good" man, and we are still in our sins.

* I think it important to note that absence of belief is different to denial of belief. One may not understand Christ's claim of divinity, or even understand the theology surrounding Christ, but they came to have a basic understanding that a person - Christ - died for them and was resurrected which they accepted and put their trust in this person. Such a person I see has "faith in Christ" and so would be saved by grace through their faith in Christ. On the other hand, say such a person was fully aware of the theology of Christ being God which they denied. I say they have denied an essential part of who Christ is. So in this way belief in Christ deity may not be essential to being saved, but it is essential that it not be denied if we are to be talking about the same person - Christ.

[Kurieuo]

Zoegirl quoted:

In so far as none of us can truly comprehend the nature of God,

I can tell you the nature of God. I can almost comprehend it too, and it is more powerful and any of His attributes!


Kurieuo should know my reply. Yes, please tell her for me.

I want to see how well you read me on this site. I get a chance now to see how I really come across to others. Can you answer this question for me with only 10 posts to my name? This could be a little fun.

Actually, I do not know there is any real disagreement here. Perhaps only a misunderstanding?

[Jac3510]

This is Anselm's satisfaction theory, rather than strict penal substitution.

You'll have to qualify that. The two views are closely related--that much is recognized by all. But whereas Anselm saw sin as robbing God of His honor, and therefore the death of Jesus as restoring that as it was the ultimate act of obedience, I see sin as an aberration that must be punished and corrected. God's wrath falls on sin, as we all know. Jesus Christ's death on the Cross satisfied God's wrath, not because it was God who died, but because it was a man who died. A man died for men.

I do see merit to Anselm's view. I think it does a better job than penal substitution of emphasizing the fact that it is Christ's life more so than His death that saves us. But from that standpoint, it is also deficient. A rough comparison might be like trying to explain subatomic physics using Newtonian gravity. It just isn't precise enough!

So speaking in the broadest terms, I can say that I agree with Anselm. But when a stricter, more precise, discussion is necessary, I'm pretty sure I fall into the penal substitution camp.

[Jac3510]

An appropriate question this raises is why is Christ's deity an essential attribute? I personally see it is because Christ made a promise to us that we can come to God through Him.

First off, let me make clear that I see the belief in Christ's divinity as necessary to salvation, because, as implied earlier, I see the doctrine fully in John's usage of the term "God's Son" (John 20:31, etc.). So please don't take this as a denial of that!!!

Isn't it possible, though, that God could have promised that we could come to Him through a "mere man"? Suppose Federal Headship is the wrong principle to interpret from, that is, "in Adam" vs "in Christ" is wrong. Suppose that men are not born sinful, nor are they born unrighteous--they are just simply born with a nature that is capable of sin. Suppose all the details of a theology could be worked out--men have tried to do that for years--then wouldn't it be possible for God to preserve a particular human individual from all sin? Consider the following:

1. God is omnipotent. He is capable of preventing sin.
2. God is Sovereign. He has the right to prevent sin in anyone He so chooses.
3. God promises to keep believers from the sin of apostasy; He promises to keep them from habitual sin. Therefore, the idea that God could keep one individual free from all sin is precedented.

(I'm just suggesting a theology here -- I don't necessarily believe the above three statements are true!)

So . . . God could "adopt" one particular man--Jesus Christ--as His son. Perhaps we are now modified Arians. God promises all of us that through this one man, we can come to Him. He points to the High Priest as a living model of just such a promise. That man dies sacrificially totally without sin, all, of course, by God's power.

In such a scenario, would God's promise be empty or void? I don't think so. Of course, I don't believe any of that is true. I believe that Jesus is divine and that assent to that truth is necessary to be saved, but my point is that the reason I believe that is not because if Jesus is NOT God then the promise becomes empty!

Rather, I see the deity of Christ necessary because the content of saving faith--the thing God is asking us to believe, or assent to--is God's own testimony concerning Jesus Christ. When you believe what God said about Jesus, you are believing that God told the truth, which is the same thing that Abraham and all the other OT saints did to be justified. And what is God's testimony concerning Jesus? He tells us that Jesus is the Christ, that Jesus is His Son (divinity!), that Jesus died and was resurrected for my sins, and that through belief we have everlasting life (that is, I will be resurrected by Him in the last day) in Jesus' name.

Just a different approach. Thoughts?

[zoegirl]

Jac, I did not mean to imply that you don't support the Deity of Christ, rather that in your statement regarding Christ you answered why Christ was necessary. There is no man capable of living pure and righteously, thus the need for Christ's humanity. He is the perfect lamb, the atonement for our sins.

I guess my reply to hypothetical theology rests on the foundational premise that there could be a man that God could preserve to be sinless. If one believes we are born sinners than this "method" of salvation becomes impossible, for again, God must be just and accord death to sinners. If we arent' born sinners and if it is possible that God can remove sin from a man, then why the need for a savior? All we would need is God's preservation. For me, I see our sinful nature as being the foundational problem in this scenario.

I have a problem with the point three, as well. YOu say He promises believers....doesn't this beg the question about what they are believing in? HE promises those that rest in Christ. But does He promise this for non-believers? Surely not, for again, don't we have the question of why we would need a savior. While God's common grace extends to all and prevents much sin, it does not satisfy HIs justice. Aren't we falling into the trap of the argument that many non-believers' use, that of "Certainly God could prevent sin if He wanted to. COuldn't He have prevented Adam? Can't God prevent evil?". If this is all God needs to do, well, gee, let's get on with it and allow God to change our natures now...

You yourself, as such an advocate of free will, would certainly seem to want to avoid this kind of argument. If God "prevents" sin in an individual, wouldn't He be interferring in our free will, in this theology? THis man that you say God "cultivates" as sinless, would really not be an adequate represetative for us, having not really lived a normal human life, having not himself chosen to remain sinless. See, I think that is inherently the problem....we are not capable of having a human representing us....it must be, as you yourself said, a man who has lived a sinless perfect life that satisfies God's justice. God, in HIs love, sacrificed HIs own son as the perfect representative.

IN your arguement you say that this mythical man would simply be a model....but doens't this really point to the lack in this death?
And could this man be capable of conquering death or would this also be something that God does, in which case, again, couldn't He do the same to all of us....preserve us and then conquer our deaths in our resurrection. All of these things point back to the same question, why need a savior if all God needs to do to satisfy HIs justice is to simply prevent us from sinning.

I think that not only was Christ God, but that HE must be GOd in order to save us. Yes we are to believe that because GOd said it.. But it is also true because it must be true.

[Jac3510]

Zoe, you read WAY too much into my hypothetical situation. I obviously believe that Jesus must be God, and that only God could be capable of being a sinless man. I obviously believe that no form of a "good man" theology would work. Now, why do I believe that? Because Scripture points out all the things you do.

Hey, great. None of that changes my point. I told Fortigurn that I don't see sub. atonement as working because GOD died, but because a SINLESS MAN died. We can go around and around in circles and argue about whether or not a sinless man must have been God in the flesh. I'm saying that debate doesn't matter, because I agree that only God could be a sinless man.

What I am rejecting is the claim that sub. atonement requires the death of divinity. It doesn't. It required a SINLESS HUMAN BEING, divine or not. So find me a non-divine, sinless human being. Oh? He doesn't exist. Ok, well how about God do it Himself? He did, huh? Ok . . . so God fulfilled the necessary requirements of the sinless human's death. That is what I am saying.

What that means is that the theory of sub. atonement, contrary to Fortigurn's claims, is not based on the divinity of Christ. Jesus' divinity may make it logically possible via His sinlessness. But that is a separate issue entirely. So K wants us to believe in the divinity of Christ because it is the basis of sub. atonement. I say that is the wrong reason to believe in His divinity in the first place. I say we believe it because God testified concerning Jesus that He is His Son. If you reject Christ's divinity, then you reject God's testimony. If you reject God's testimony, then you do not believe the Gospel.

See the difference?

[zoegirl]

I know you have no problem with the divinity of Christ...

You were proposing, in the spirit of exploring a hypothetical theoloigical scenario, to examine why God couldn't have brought up a sinless man. I was, in that spirit, exploring why that couldn't be. You brought up the points. Why are you surprised when someone argues with them? I know you don't believe them. But you said...Hey why couldn't this be what happened, hypothetically....I said in return...."hey, here's why"


In your points you *were* arguing for a sinless human tht God simply preserved from sin. *You* were proposing this (aven though, again, I know you don't believe that), so I addressed that.

I agree that it is God's testimony that Jesus is His begotten Son and that we should believe....I simply think that that isn't the only reason to believe it. It had to have been so.

I wonder though, if we need to argue something else. Fortigurn, you don't believe in the doctrine of sub. atonement. Do you believe we need atonement? Do our sins need payment?

[Jac3510]

You were proposing, in the spirit of exploring a hypothetical theoloigical scenario, to examine why God couldn't have brought up a sinless man. I was, in that spirit, exploring why that couldn't be. You brought up the points. Why are you surprised when someone argues with them? I know you don't believe them. But you said...Hey why couldn't this be what happened, hypothetically....I said in return...."hey, here's why"

That's just it, Zoe. I was not asking why couldn't it happen that way. If it helps, reread the original post without the suggested theology. It was simply there for illustrative purposes. I hope you see it is a waste of time for me to try to propose a fully workable theology as to how God could provide a sinless, non-divine man. For one thing, given our agreed upon conservative ideas regarding the effects of the Fall, especially relating to Headship Theology, it's logically impossible to begin with. In the second place, whether or not such a theology could be proposed is superfluous.

My question was then, and is now, whether or not substitutionary atonement works because God died or because Man died. Everyone recognizes that substitutionary atonement requires the sacrifice of a sinless person. The problem is that we recognize that only God could be sinless, so we automatically assume that substitutionary atonement must require God to die. I am saying that is not the case. I am saying that substitutionary atonement requires a sinless man to die. The fact that God decided to take on the role of sinless man (if simply because no human could do it), that doesn't change the fact that substitutionary atonement looks for the death of a man, not the death of a divinity.

[Pierac]

Zoegirl quote: In so far as none of us can truly comprehend the nature of God

My quote: I can tell you the nature of God. I can almost comprehend it too, and it is more powerful and any of His attributes!

Zoegirl, God's nature is Love. I know you know this, so it's no surprise. But have you processed it? God is not justice, yes it may be an attribute but it is not who He is. That is the same for all His attributes. Yet God IS love, it is who He is.

Now,
Jac3510 and Fortigurn do you guys have the same theology of who God is? I myself do not believe in the Trinity. It really does not take much research from a historical point of view to see that it is a tradition of men. The fact that the Bible is of course silent on the issue should also be a major concern. As you probably already know, most churches today have a zero tolerance policy regarding disbelief in the Trinity. What I find fascinating, is that throughout history Christians have been excommunicated and some even burned at the stake over this tradition of men. All over and issue that was never discussed by the Prophets, Apostles, or Jesus Himself. And it still continues today, except for the burning.

The study of who God is apart from the Trinity has been pretty much an isolated one. Most Christians are not willing to discuss it. This makes it difficult to test ones findings. Like most, I do not want to believe something that is not true but no one will discuss it.

My research into the relation between the God the Father and Jesus His Son has a focal point in one word. Begotten. The concept that Jesus was begotten is unavoidable even among Trinitarians. This puts, Christians in three camps of belief regarding when Jesus was begotten. There may be more but so far I have found only three.

First, we have those that believe that Jesus was “eternally begotten.” I believe this was at one of the many councils of Nicaea. Now, the words eternally and begotten are incompatible. One has no beginning and the other does. Eternally begotten, is no different than saying square circles. I have found no scripture to support this so can't post it here.

Second, we have those that believe that Jesus is the beginning of God's creation. They cite Rev 3:14 to support their view. "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: They also include Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Meaning that the first thing that God ever created was Jesus. And then through Jesus created everything else.

Third, we have those that believe that Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:31 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; … Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Do the two of you believe in any one of the three I listed? If not, are there more options?

I have a second question. Can that which is begotten compare to that which is unbegotten. Can that which is created, compare to that which is uncreated? Thus began my on going search for the truth of who God is.

Peace,
Paul

[zoegirl]

Zoegirl quote: In so far as none of us can truly comprehend the nature of God

My quote: I can tell you the nature of God. I can almost comprehend it too, and it is more powerful and any of His attributes!

Zoegirl, God's nature is Love. I know you know this, so it's no surprise. But have you processed it? God is not justice, yes it may be an attribute but it is not who He is. That is the same for all His attributes. Yet God IS love, it is who He is.

Now,
Jac3510 and Fortigurn do you guys have the same theology of who God is? I myself do not believe in the Trinity. It really does not take much research from a historical point of view to see that it is a tradition of men. The fact that the Bible is of course silent on the issue should also be a major concern. As you probably already know, most churches today have a zero tolerance policy regarding disbelief in the Trinity. What I find fascinating, is that throughout history Christians have been excommunicated and some even burned at the stake over this tradition of men. All over and issue that was never discussed by the Prophets, Apostles, or Jesus Himself. And it still continues today, except for the burning.

The study of who God is apart from the Trinity has been pretty much an isolated one. Most Christians are not willing to discuss it. This makes it difficult to test ones findings. Like most, I do not want to believe something that is not true but no one will discuss it.

My research into the relation between the God the Father and Jesus His Son has a focal point in one word. Begotten. The concept that Jesus was begotten is unavoidable even among Trinitarians. This puts, Christians in three camps of belief regarding when Jesus was begotten. There may be more but so far I have found only three.

First, we have those that believe that Jesus was “eternally begotten.” I believe this was at one of the many councils of Nicaea. Now, the words eternally and begotten are incompatible. One has no beginning and the other does. Eternally begotten, is no different than saying square circles. I have found no scripture to support this so can't post it here.

Second, we have those that believe that Jesus is the beginning of God's creation. They cite Rev 3:14 to support their view. "To the angel of the church in Laodicea write: The Amen, the faithful and true Witness, the Beginning of the creation of God, says this: They also include Col 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. Meaning that the first thing that God ever created was Jesus. And then through Jesus created everything else.

Third, we have those that believe that Jesus was begotten in the womb of Mary by the Holy Spirit. Luke 1:31 "And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name Him Jesus. 32 "He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father David; … Luk 1:35 The angel answered and said to her, "The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; and for that reason the holy Child shall be called the Son of God.

Do the two of you believe in any one of the three I listed? If not, are there more options?

I have a second question. Can that which is begotten compare to that which is unbegotten. Can that which is created, compare to that which is uncreated? Thus began my on going search for the truth of who God is.

Peace,
Paul

I was not talking about God's character....absolutely we know of HIs nature and yes I have processed it, I have experienced it, I take joy in it...God's word as well as our experiences reveal it.

I was referring to God's existence in the trinity. Being finite and temporal, we struggle with understanding HIs triune nature and yet we understand that it exists.

And there is no contradiction in eternally begotten. Begotten is not the same as created. The word implies the same nature of the father, the same character.

And I also understand your arguement, Jac, although I am still thinking through it. It's been a while since I have gone through the theology and doctrine and not being a full time Biblical scholar, I have regrettably become fuzzy with the topic. I do struggle with the idea that it could simply be a sinless human (and not because there couldn't be a sinless human), rather I think of Christ's sacrificing Himself as an act of love. He was willing to die for us. SOmehow the idea that it was just a human would not have the same meaning in terms of atonement. Christ fulfilled HIs own requirements and took on our punishment. Somehow the idea of God pointing a man and saying "you, you are to be the one who pays for everybody" to fulfill the entirety of humanity's sin does not seem to be an equal payment. (Am I making sense? )

I'm not doubting the significance of Christ's humanity to the equation, rather I am saying there is another variable in the equation. Christ's divinity and Christ's humanity are both necessary for atonement and not because of the need for divinity for a sinless human.

It's interesting and revealing to me....I can discuss evolution without immediately getting defensive (well, sometimes ), but this topic is almost offensive to discuss for me. It leaves a bad taste to read about people claiming that Christ should not be worshipped as a member of the trinity. I can understand why the previous thread on this topic was locked.

[Pierac]

Zoegirl quoted: I can understand why the previous thread on this topic was locked.

Yes, this is why we will never get at the truth. Do you really think I want to believe a lie? Do you really believe I want to play games with my salvation? You don't understand!

I will tell you this. If you are right then you have nothing to fear. The truth will set you free!

1John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

Jesus asked who is willing to leave the 99 sheep to seek out the one that is lost. Your not willing to leave the 99 Zoegirl! Do not give in to the fear!

[Jac3510]

Pieac - I am a Trinitarian. Fortigurn is not. Also, let me politely suggest not to preach at anyone. "Encouraging" someone to "leave the 99" is first of all terribly out of context (besides that, it is just wrong. Jesus never asked anyone to "leave the 99." That is just you reading something that isn't even close to being there), and second of all, the manner is mildly offensive. These discussions can get caustic enough purely by disagreement without throwing in that kind of condescending rhetoric. Regardless, if I get a chance to, I'll respond to your three points later. I'm not so interested in debating the validity of the Trinity in this thread . . . if it gets too far off the original topic, though, and becomes a free for all, it may not matter.

Zoe - I hope the last part of your post about this being an offensive topic was direct more to Pieac than myself. I certainly don't advocate not worshiping Jesus as part of the Trinity. Besides this, you said that you see Christ's divinity as a necessary part to meet the requirements of substitutionary atonement. May I ask what your basis is for seeing things that way?

[zoegirl]

Zoegirl quoted: I can understand why the previous thread on this topic was locked.

Yes, this is why we will never get at the truth. Do you really think I want to believe a lie? Do you really believe I want to play games with my salvation? You don't understand!

I will tell you this. If you are right then you have nothing to fear. The truth will set you free!

1John 4:18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casts out fear, because fear involves punishment, and the one who fears is not perfected in love.

Jesus asked who is willing to leave the 99 sheep to seek out the one that is lost. Your not willing to leave the 99 Zoegirl!

RIght back at you, Pierac

Believe me, I have gone through the doctrinal studies (awhile ago, it may be fuzzy, but I have ) To me, this is somehting that cannot be compromised. THere are plenty of issues that I am willing to shrug my shoulders at, those that I don't view as crucial to salvation....infant baptism, the Lord's supper, age of the universe, .... DOn't get me wrong, I know what I believe regarding these, but I would hope that I could sit down and fellowship and worship with those that believe those different views.

Ah, but there is the crux, *worship* with those that regard Christ as both the Son of God and the Son of Man. I am sorry, but I do find rejecting Christ's divinity offensive (in the same way, I suppose as someone who cringes when somebody uses the LOrd's name in vain). Denying Christ's lordship to me reeks of rejecting His personhood and His abilities and capabilites, much like taking God's name in vain. It is rendering CHrist's work on the cross inneffectual.

(and that previous thread went on for 20 pages!! surely you cann't accuse the board of not being willing to let people discuss, but if you go back and search through the thread, you will see that it went back and forth and back and forth and the content became quite emotional. that's what I meant by understanding why it was locked.)

[Pierac]

Zoegirl quoted:And there is no contradiction in eternally begotten. Begotten is not the same as created. The word implies the same nature of the father, the same character.

Really now?


E-Sword Webster dictionary:

Eternal ETER'NAL, 1. Without beginning or end of existence.


BEGOT', BEGOT'TEN, pp. of get. Procreated; generated.

Do you really not see a contradiction?

Where did you get your belief? Let see…

325 AD - Constantine convenes the Council of Nicaea in order to develop a statement of faith that can unify the church. The Nicene Creed is written, declaring that "the Father and the Son are of the same substance" (homoousios). Emperor Constantine who was also the high priest of the pagan religion of the Unconquered Sun presided over this council. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica:
But wait there's more…
357 AD - Third Council of Sirmium is convened. Both homoousios and homoiousiosare avoided as unbiblical, and it is agreed that the Father is greater than His subordinate Son.

No Zoegirl, the above dates and information are a part of church History! It's not time to Lock the forum but to search for the truth. We are Christian's here. Not some atheist trying to prove Christianity wrong! I believe the only way to the Father is through Jesus the Christ His Son.

Jesus is the Son Of God.
Jesus is the Prophesied Messiah.
Jesus is our Lord and Savior.

Why are you afraid? No one is denying that Jesus is the Son of God, or that He is the Messiah, or that He is our Lord and savior.

I just want someone to test my research in an intelligent manner, with out fear! With the understanding that I both love God the Father and His Son our only savior!
Peace
Paul

[Pierac]

Hi Jac3510, Zoegirl

I'm not trying to prove anything. Such is the confusing nature of forums. I'm trying to learn. I just saw that you had a different view. I wanted to understand it so that it may better help me understand. As you can see it's a touchy topic. That does not mean it should be shut down. I believe all of us here Love Jesus.

The point is to understand the relationship between God the Father and Jesus! Or not to say my way of understanding it is the only way. I pointed out problems not to dismiss the issue but to show we need a better understanding! At least I need a better understanding. May be I should have put that way instead of we, I should have said I need a better understanding. I see serious problems, that does not mean you do or that there really are problems, only that I see them.
The question is are you willing to help me.


Peace
Paul


Let me add something about how I came to this site. I really love Science. When looking in to Hyper Novas (not Supernovas) I saw a problem with the scientist understanding of our universe. (Our mental limitations.) It took a decade or more for our scientific community to come to grasp of the power of a Hyper Nova. [Stars that create black holes.] Yes, it appears that earlier scientist could not wrap their mind around a phenomena that could send gamma rays hundreds of millions of light years from it's source at such a significant magnitude. The math involved is amazing! They just could not believe in that kind of power! They do now of course.

To me it just goes to show how powerful our creator really is. Yet, this happens daily! Utterly unbelievable!

Why is this unbelievable? Because the creator of billions of galaxies, and daily Hyper Novas is a God of Love. A God who tells us in Mat 10:30 "But the very hairs of your head are all numbered.”

Do you get it? The God of the Hyper Novas' (plural) knows how many hairs you have on your head, yet we could not conceive of the power in just one single hyper nova? It took us decades.