But that isn't what our Lord said, is it?
So we're to ignore that our Lord actually said? I reckon I'll pass on that one. Your interpretation may be one of those that's "too clever by half".
It sounds indistinguishable from Sabellianism also known as Modalism to me, which in the past century was revived by the “Jesus Name” Pentecostals, but I would note that one could baptize using the correct Trinitarian formula of Matthew 28:19 and be a modalist. Indeed, when I was in my teenage years trying to figure out the Trinity and the sermons of my Methodist minister were useless in this regard, particularly since at most we used the Apostles Creed, and I never heard the Athanasian Creed, which is very explicit, or even the Nicene Creed, until I was an adult, an idea similar to modalism had occurred to me. Although when I was 19 I took a recreational exam of the sort one finds in periodicals with the answers on the other page entitled “Are you a heretic” and I instinctively answered correctly in terms of Trinitarian theology and Christology.
I think this was at least partially because earlier in my teenage years when I was trying to work it out I was aware that what I was thinking of was a guess at an analogy, rather than the actual truth of the model; being into computers even way back then in the era when Cray supercomputers were considered Ferraris and a 486DX was the height of desktop luxury, and a 386 was quite nice*, and networking was something I was aware of although ethernet at the time tended to consist of a thick coaxial cable connected to individual computers with “vampire taps” and there were other LAN technologies, many of them synchronous and using a ring topology, which later survived only for SONET in fibre-optic metropolitan area networks, which I think has now been supplanted by superfast ethernet and high powered ethernet transceivers (which are modules which plug into the router or switch, which does much of the work, and there are also multiplexers which allow for different colors of light to be sent down the same fibre), so given that, I thought of God as possibly being like a networked computer. Of course, all of this is quite wrong.
*Of course, if wanted real power, and I did, but seldom got it, you wanted access UNIX machine (the DEC Alpha running Tru64 UNIX (or alternately, VMS, which was designed by the same team that did the kernel and systems programming for Windows NT, which is the basis for all modern Windows, but VMS was more reliable than WIndows until at least Windows 7 and Server 2008 R1 or R2, or perhaps one might argue Server 2003 and Windows XP SP2, due to not having to support the buggy and insecure Windows System32 GUI, which runs (or ran) in the kernel, by the way, so if you pwn the GUI via a security exploit you get absolute root, which combined with the Windows monoculture and the requirement of so much legacy Win9x software, which really should have been sandboxed, but wasn’t, for performance reasons (which also impacted compatibility despite the best efforts of a huge Microsoft team dedicated to maintaining compatibility), so that users were conditioned into running as Administrator, and even after UAC was introduced in Vista, granting admin rights to programs that don’t need them, to create a toxic situation in terms of Windows security which VMS lacked, since it was only being used on workstations and midrange computers, but I digress, one might also have been happy to run or IBM AIX on a POWER cpu (but not an IBM AS/400 or System i, which are database-oriented systems with screen-based terminal interfaces historically used in a lot of business applications, similar to the terminal interfaces used in banking and airline reservations at one time, which make for a lousy interactive experience for programmers) which is different from and more advanced than the PowerPC used in Macs and the BeBox, the latter of which was quite an interesting OS and vastly superior to classic MacOS and the apex of single user operating systems, better than even IBM OS/2 with JFS, or Sun Solaris on a SPARC, or perhaps HP-UX on PA-RISC, or if 3D graphics was your forte, you wanted sgi IRIX running on MIPS CPUs, which survived in the embedded space but not on high end applications.
Finally as a compromise there was 386BSD, and its successor FreeBSD, and then NetBSD and OpenBSD, which were bona fide UNIX that could run on PCs with at least a 386, and likewise early Linux could also run on a 386. Most modern distros want at least a 786 if compiled for 32 bits (which is increasingly rare, i786 is what Linus kernel developers call the Pentium III or IV, I forget which, but it predates the Core and Core 2 (64 bit), and it was a compile time option whether to target the i386, the i586 (Pentium, which Mandriva Linux in its last years was compiled for), the i686 (Pentium II or Pentium III, again, I forget which).
Also PCs with sufficient specs could, and in small and medium and even some large business often did, run UNIXWare and OpenServer, formerly known as Xenix, which was a port of UNIX to x86 developed by Microsoft, both of which were sold by SCO and were popular until SCO was bought out by some lawyers who also also, ironically in light of what they were about to do, bought out Caldera Systems, a Linux distributor, in Utah, who I think were at least partially of the Mormonic religion, who sued IBM, Red Hat and Novell in an attempt to force companies to pay them a license fee for using Linux, which they alleged violated their IP (the case was dismissed after a decade long legal battle). I think these OSes are still being developed by someone,
