the Mathematical Gospezillio

I am not sure why I did not post this sooner:

z = essence of God x = character of eternality d = death
w = essence of man y = character of perfection

G(z) --> God; as a function of Godliness
F(y) --> man; as a function of perfection (what hung in the balance)
S(d) --> sin; as a function of death (the consequence)
J(w) --> Jesus; as a function of manhood (what enables Him to substitute)

G(z) = z + y^x [as God; perfect; eternal (depending on perfection)]
F(y) = w + y^x [as man; perfect; eternal (depending on perfection); in God's image]

S(d) = d^(1/x) - z^(1/x) [death; absence of God; powers to nullify eternality]
J(w) = z + y^x + [w - (d^[1/x] - z^[1/x])] [as God; perfect; eternal; as man; the inability to accept sin]

F(S(d)) = w + [d^(1/x) - z^(1/x)]^x [man choosing to sin]
F(d) = w + d - z [man; imperfect and not eternal; death; absence of God]

J(S(d)) = z + y^x + [(d^[1/x] - z^[1/x]) - (d^[1/x] - z^[1/x])] [Jesus accepting sin as a man]
J(z) = z + y^x [as God, perfect; eternal]

F(J(z)) = w + (z + y^x) - z [man taking Jesus' death in stead of his own]
= w + y^x [as man; perfect; eternal]

The first draft was completed on 26 November 2004 and, since then, it has been refined countless times and critiqued twice by people who know their game. The first was my Maths teacher and the second was a friend, a student of Engineering. My teacher was someone who, from the beginning of term I was very spiritually interested in. (I think I made up that phrase but I hope you understand what I mean.) It was almost instantaneous that I cared about where he stood with God. I told myself that, if I did not present my work to him by the end of the term, that would be a great opportunity lost for a silly reason. I showed him after our second last class and it was a very interesting experience. He seemed taken aback and slightly impressed but, what's more, he was uncomfortable with the subject matter in that this-is-something-I-try-to-repress kind of way. I think what motivated me to create a mathematical representation of the Gospel was mostly a realization that metaphors and analogies, when well used, can make a world of difference in terms of comprehension. When you tailor some kind of alegory to a person's particular knowledge, it's like you're speaking their language and the truth of your statements can resonate quite clearly. I believe in analogies, I truly do. It brought me great joy (and still does) to know that I could bring something as important as this to my teacher in his language. [Side note: if you wish to call me a cop-out artist, go for it.]

My engineering friend told me why this does not work which, effectively, has sent me back to the drawing board. That was in June 2005 and here I sit - in March - having made no progress.