Christian Virgin Birth - Why Jews didn't buy it.

a reply to: glend

Classic. I do not know so no one does. The ultimate cop out. Youve virtually flipped the chess board, but calmly with a smile on your face. Haven't studied religion enough to understand that's the worst of all.

Whatever the ancients named things is irrelevant. We've rediscovered and have our own names. The future generations will be wondering who king Nucleus and the electron army are, not who Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were. Its all real. When an "ancient kings list" says kings ruled for hundreds of thousands of years, you know to look for something that REALLY spans that time frame. And you'll find it all in space. Riding waves long ago mapped by the ancients,inspiration from there creator (of the material realm, so inspired by Satan,the architect)

The late Gkenn Kimball had access to extra biblical documents and said that most people don't understand the true meaning of what happened during the birth of Jesus. When Jesus was born, most people have the understanding that Mary and Joseph were poor and the Joseph was a mere Carpenter but he was actually a "tect", which was a tile worker or a land surveyor. The truth is that Joseph was descended of the House of David he was royalty so Jesus was royalty. Mary was the sister of Joseph of Arimathea, who at the time was one of the wealthiest men in the world, according to these extra biblical documents. When Jesus was born three kings came to visit and they brought three gifts. Frankincense and Myrrh, which were very valuable and high-quality essential oils. Tthe vibrational rate of those oils is among the highest in the world, and they also brought gold. A king's Ransom of gold which at the time was would have only been given to somebody of royal descent. Do the family of Jesus was actually very wealthy and this is something that's just not commonly understood or accepted.

I think that there are a number of misconceptions about events at that time. The important thing is the message of Jesus and what he tried to teach. Jesus tried to teach that WE ALL have divinity within us, the "I AM THAT I AM" which is the name of GOD and the pathway to our own divinity.

Believe in a force greater than yourself.

a reply to: WisdomSeeker

Royalty, eh?

You wish us to place our faith in those bastards???

"They" have done so well so far!

That force greater than yourself don't exactly have the best interest of the everyday common Man at heart.

Just a thought but that's probably the reason for all the misinformation and cloak and dagger crap that surrounds said birth.

a reply to: MatterIsLight

It's interesting what may have happened and I am not sure the exact truth
Fortunately what I am sure of is Christ died for me, an and trough His grace and not upon my effort He loves me.
Jesus has called me to love Him and others, the promise, at some future timrbImwill be with Him
I just have to love Him and others, that's hard enough, that's what I am working on

originally posted by: Raggedyman
a reply to: MatterIsLight

It's interesting what may have happened and I am not sure the exact truth
Fortunately what I am sure of is Christ died for me, an and trough His grace and not upon my effort He loves me.
Jesus has called me to love Him and others, the promise, at some future timrbImwill be with Him
I just have to love Him and others, that's hard enough, that's what I am working on

Yeah that seems to be the main part, which can often get lost in the theology of it all. I could go on and on about how Jesus was the one who shut Pandora's Box, etc, etc, but if we love eachother, turn the other cheek, stay humble, and so forth, the clear answer will eventually arise in our hearts.

a reply to: DpatC

DpatC, I think its best to try understand what happened in perspective of the timeline.

60AD at earliest : Only had first hand witness of Jesus was the Gospel of Mark (Apostle Peter).
- Mark 6:3 Only mentions the mother once but nothing about father ... “Is not this the carpenter, the son of Mary”
- Mark 15:43 Joseph of Arimathea the merchant, that arranged Jesus tomb may have been uncle of Mary (perhaps secret disciple)

64AD Apostle Peter died;
64AD Paul/Saul died;

So after 64AD, during the time of first Roman-Jewish war (66–73 CE) the deaths of Apostle Peter and Paul/Saul must have left a tremendous vacuum within the christian community with many craving for more information about Jesus. Many would have asked who was Jesus father, knowing that "son of Mary" implies that Jesus was born out of wedlock. Illegitimacy had a huge negative stigma in most cultures. So may have impacted the uptake of Christianity.

70AD Gospel of Luke written by the late Pauls/Sauls physician, Luke.
- The churches filled the vacuum and in doing so, turned a negative into a positive. Announcing Jesus had no mortal father, but was born a virgin. Easily swallowed by those brought up on Zeus.

Its very possible that Christianity could have died out if it wasn't for the Gospel of Luke. Given Roman persecution of Jews and Christians at the time. But in turning Jesus from a man into a god they somehow maimed the religion in my view. How can one walk in the footsteps of a god. Can only praise, instead.

However they may have seen it as the lesser evil to keep Christianity alive during very trying times.

Thanks for the case for God. referral,

a reply to: Raggedyman


Still defending Your "truth"? Must not be very true...

***Copied from ATS™ many moons ago, if You know who typed this please let Me know...***


Worship equals War Ship.
It is disguised as "worship" but it is truly War Ship. Yes, get that initial giggle out and continue reading My words, as 'worshipping' is the biggest reason for wars.
Those men who build languages for MASSES to think in, are very versed in metaphysical natures.
When You pray to something that You do not know is truly there, You join the 'War Ship'. You worship something You don't know of and cannot see. You divide Yourself from Yourself and everyone around You.
Well in this language We call this "Blind Faith" Now when You have many factions worshipping, just different names that are man made, now there is 'division', the opposite of being WHOLE.
Now You've entered the 'War Ship' You clash with those who pray to the SAME CONCEPT under different names (Gods have no identity, just bogus names Man made up) This is inferior mentality.
Even though they are all human, all came from the SAME SOURCE, all are 5-based beings (think pentagram geometry)
One becomes concrete in what they worship, they judge and demonize those not praying to the same NAME.
Now You have war/division.
ISIS is defending it's concepts because the ONLY power those who join the War Ship have is physical chaos to those who oppose. Internally their people are weak and are not worthy to ascend to their internal potentials.
STOP worshipping and start accepting ALL, no matter the name they worship and if Your 'TRUTH' needs to be pushed then how TRUE is it really?
Truth needs no book, no doctrine, no dogma, no heirarchy. Truth stands on it's own, the rest is just pushing to compete with Truth and that is falsehood.

a reply to: Prene

But those names are just labels you have conveniently pinned on objects.

In Buddhism, there is a saying, once you call a bird, a "bird", you will never see a bird again. That's because our brain is incapable of resolving stimuli in real time so references its known attributes from memory. Even though its beneficial, it also has short coming's. The label is not the bird. Nor is a label our friend, wife, or husband.

So more times than not, we find ourselves interacting with the label, instead of the object behind the label.

So if we cannot see the bird, what hope have we, in knowing GOD.

a reply to: JimNasium

Yeah that's cool and all but

It seems Glend and I are conversing civilly, reasonably gentle and friendly discourse and Glend worships a different faith
Then we have Cooperton, definetly not a mainstream Christian like me and we have a gentle discourse
None of us is courting this warship you are contending for are we, are we?

If some one is looking for a fight they are looking for a fight and any reason is valid

While I agree truth is truth, clearly by what we see your truth is significantly different to mine or maybe if I was to include Glend and Cooperton I could say "our truth" but I guess that's not for me to say....

originally posted by: glend
a reply to: Raggedyman

We as humans use GOD as a label. But none of us have faintest clue what that label really means.

The broadest meaning for "god" as the word is used in the biblical languages and as used in the bible is "mighty one" or "strong one", but like most words, it has multiple definitions and applications. The context can help in determining which definition/meaning is used on that occasion.

God: Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1

Anything that is worshiped can be termed a god, inasmuch as the worshiper attributes to it might greater than his own and venerates it. A person can even let his belly be a god. (Ro 16:18; Php 3:18, 19) The Bible makes mention of many gods (Ps 86:8; 1Co 8:5, 6), but it shows that the gods of the nations are valueless gods.​—Ps 96:5; see GODS AND GODDESSES.

Hebrew Terms. Among the Hebrew words that are translated “God” is ʼEl, probably meaning “Mighty One; Strong One.” (Ge 14:18) It is used with reference to Jehovah, to other gods, and to men. It is also used extensively in the makeup of proper names, such as Elisha (meaning “God Is Salvation”) and Michael (“Who Is Like God?”). In some places ʼEl appears with the definite article (ha·ʼElʹ, literally, “the God”) with reference to Jehovah, thereby distinguishing him from other gods.​—Ge 46:3; 2Sa 22:31; see NW appendix, p. 1567.

At Isaiah 9:6 Jesus Christ is prophetically called ʼEl Gib·bohrʹ, “Mighty God” (not ʼEl Shad·daiʹ [God Almighty], which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1).
...
The Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods) appears to be from a root meaning “be strong.” ʼElo·himʹ is the plural of ʼelohʹah (god). Sometimes this plural refers to a number of gods (Ge 31:30, 32; 35:2), but more often it is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. ʼElo·himʹ is used in the Scriptures with reference to Jehovah himself, to angels, to idol gods (singular and plural), and to men.
When applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1) ...
...
The title ʼElo·himʹ draws attention to Jehovah’s strength as the Creator. It appears 35 times by itself in the account of creation, and every time the verb describing what he said and did is in the singular number. (Ge 1:1–2:4) In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces.

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8. ... Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, by Koehler and Baumgartner (1958), page 134, says: “(individual) divine beings, gods.” And page 51 says: “the (single) gods,” and it cites Genesis 6:2; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7. Hence, at Psalm 8:5 ʼelo·himʹ is rendered “angels” (LXX); “godlike ones” (NW).

At Psalm 82:1, 6, ʼelo·himʹ is used of men, human judges in Israel. Jesus quoted from this Psalm at John 10:34, 35. They were gods in their capacity as representatives of and spokesmen for Jehovah. Similarly Moses was told that he was to serve as “God” to Aaron and to Pharaoh.​—Ex 4:16, ftn; 7:1.
In many places in the Scriptures ʼElo·himʹ is also found preceded by the definite article ha. (Ge 5:22) Concerning the use of ha·ʼElo·himʹ, F. Zorell says: “In the Holy Scriptures especially the one true God, Jahve, is designated by this word; . . . ‘Jahve is the [one true] God’ De 4:35; 4:39; Jos 22:34; 2Sa 7:28; 1Ki 8:60 etc.”​—Lexicon Hebraicum Veteris Testamenti, Rome, 1984, p. 54; brackets his.
...
The True God Jehovah. The true God is not a nameless God. His name is Jehovah. (De 6:4; Ps 83:18) He is God by reason of his creatorship. (Ge 1:1; Re 4:11) The true God is real (Joh 7:28), a person (Ac 3:19; Heb 9:24), and not lifeless natural law operating without a living lawgiver, not blind force working through a series of accidents to develop one thing or another. The 1956 edition of The Encyclopedia Americana (Vol. XII, p. 743) commented under the heading “God”: “In the Christian, Mohammedan, and Jewish sense, the Supreme Being, the First Cause, and in a general sense, as considered nowadays throughout the civilized world, a spiritual being, self-existent, eternal and absolutely free and all-powerful, distinct from the matter which he has created in many forms, and which he conserves and controls. There does not seem to have been a period of history where mankind was without belief in a supernatural author and governor of the universe.”
...

Hope that wasn't too much. Didn't want to leave out the description of the true God from The Encyclopedia Americana. I cannot describe that definition as "none of us have [the] faintest clue what that label really means". I and the writers of The Encyclopedia Americana for starters have quite an accurate notion of "God". Just because you might not agree with it, doesn't mean "none of us have [the] faintest clue what that label really means". It's been well researched and explained or defined by many and by the bible. As these short excerpts from the Insight book also demonstrate with references to various Lexicons, scholarly works and bible verses. Oh, and just because you don't give the bible any credit or believe it to be the inspired word of God from Genesis to Revelation, doesn't mean it doesn't define and describe Jehovah God well enough for it to be understood (at least so one can evaluate the claims, or that one at least has a clue what we're talking about here).

a reply to: whereislogic

You believe that GOD is neither incomprehensible nor ineffable. Yet you post a description of GOD that states among other things "In him resides the sum and substance of infinite forces". If our brains cannot define infinite forces then by definition, the forces, thus GOD, are incomprehensible.

I'd go one step further and say that humankind may never have the intelligence to resolve the creation much less the creator,

But this time I will add, in my humble opinion.

a reply to: glend

You know in my humble opinion one of the most trying period for Christianity was the rise of Manichaeism, but that's a thread on it's own. A religion of LIght which in many ways I think Christianity was in the beginning. Personally, i am not sure if evangelists did a bad job of turning Jesus into a Messiah. For all it's problems Christianity does a lot of Good.You can't deny that In it's time it was revolutionary. Amidst all the persecution was the simple call for peace love and understanding.
I could write on this topic for hours, but they do say that midrash is not a solitary exercise, like Socratic dialogue it's a joint enterprise...But for the moment I will shut up

a reply to: DpatC

Christianity has succeeded where others failed because it has every persons wish, found in them. It doesn't dictate rules, like prayer. Followers just to go church Sundays, sing some prayers, knowing salvation awaits them. Who wouldn't buy into that? But is Christianity a true path to salvation. Perhaps no religions are. Religions just show us the doorway. Its our spirit within that guides us the final steps.

Take MLK for example. he said "My call to the ministry was not a miraculous or supernatural something, On the contrary it was an inner urge calling me to serve humanity.". And in his last speech he said he had been to the mountaintop. I believe he achieved his salvation.

So perhaps you are right, it doesn't matter if Jesus is the messiah or not. Christianity is about love. Providing the motivation to move us in a better direction.

Mandaean's believe Moses was a false prophet and I sometimes get that vibe from Jesus. Was that his secret agenda. A new religion to replace the old laws. Wish we had more facts about John the baptist. We are missing vital keys that makes understanding Jesus even more intriguing.

I think the fear that motivated me to write this thread has subsided. Thanks to you, Raggedyman and others.

originally posted by: rexsblues
I think the story of Jesus is far more tragic than the most devote believers throughout history and the 'faith' have been able to comprehend.

While his real story is very raw and real, it's the superstitious grandiose that even he himself was indoctrinated into from birth that both provided and encouraged his endless imagination to grow, mature and ultimately actualize that faith in ways few have ever done, but at the cost of recognizing the betrayal and lie of altruism that was the conclusion.

"Father why have you forsaken me?"

When he said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" He was quoting scripture and fulfilling another prophecy.

Read Psalms 22, that was written about Him before he was even born, for example, "They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture"

Then in Matthew 27:35: "When they had crucified him, they divided up his clothes by casting lots."

Then read Isaiah 53


He knew what was going to happen to him, as proven throughout the entire gospel.

"Tear down this temple and in 3 days I'll raise it again"
"The Son of Man shall be raised up"

His prayer to God in the garden of Gethsemane.


Everything was foretold and carried out to precision.

a reply to: glend

Your post reminded me of the lyrics to a great song by Mary Chapin Carpenter - Jerico

music.youtube.com...

I don't think we need to do a deep dive into the workings of John the Baptist.

John 8:12 Again Jesus spoke to them, saying, “I am the light of the world. Whoever follows me will not walk in darkness, but will have the light of life.

I have a feeling that the secret agenda has something to do with Light

a reply to: Raggedyman

It's pointless, you have probably been reading little golden books all your life

Like I said - you're ignorant and not widely read; you resort to name calling. Stay under the rock

a reply to: glend
The phrase you mentioned was just further elaboration as to why ʼElo·himʹ (translated "God" or "gods") is a plural and why "when applying to Jehovah, ʼElo·himʹ is used as a plural of majesty, dignity, or excellence. (Ge 1:1)", therefore, translated "God" by most bible translators on those occasions, and translated "gods" on other occasions depending on the context. It was rather insignificant to cherry-pick like that (I included it more for those spreading misinformation about the plurality of the word ʼElo·himʹ). Regardless, your inability to understand that elaboration or detail doesn't make it true that "none of us have [the] faintest clue what that label really means" (that label being "God"). When reading it I thought for a moment to leave it out so we wouldn't have to go there, then I hoped or thought you might not even bring it up noticing that that wasn't part of the keypoints in response to the popular argument that God is incomprehensible/a mystery (Satan wants people to give up on seeking God, he likes to keep people in the dark about Jehovah God in particular and he wants people to think according to the patterns described below); I guessed wrong.

Which is more reasonable—that the universe is the product of a living, intelligent Creator? or that it must have arisen simply by chance from a nonliving source without intelligent direction? Some persons adopt the latter viewpoint because to believe otherwise would mean that they would have to acknowledge the existence of a Creator whose qualities they cannot fully comprehend. But it is well known that scientists do not fully comprehend the functioning of the genes that are within living cells and that determine how these cells will grow. Nor do they fully understand the functioning of the human brain. Yet, who would deny that these exist? Should we really expect to understand everything about a Person who is so great that he could bring into existence the universe, with all its intricate design and stupendous size?

Source: God: Reasoning From the Scriptures

“Who Has Come to Know the Mind of Jehovah?”

“‘Who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, that he may instruct him?’ But we do have the mind of Christ.”​—1 COR. 2:16.

HAVE you ever found it difficult to understand another person’s way of thinking? Perhaps you recently got married, and you feel that you have no way of fully understanding how your spouse thinks. Indeed, men and women think and even speak differently. Why, in some cultures, men and women actually speak different dialects of the same language! Additionally, differences in culture and language can result in different patterns of thinking and behavior. However, the more you get to know others, the more opportunity you have to start to understand their way of thinking.

We should not, therefore, be surprised that our thinking is far different from that of Jehovah. Through his prophet Isaiah, Jehovah told the Israelites: “The thoughts of you people are not my thoughts, nor are my ways your ways.” Then, illustrating this fact, Jehovah went on to say: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so my ways are higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.”​—Isa. 55:8, 9.
Does this mean, though, that we should not even try to understand Jehovah’s way of thinking? No. Although we can never fully understand all of Jehovah’s thoughts, still the Bible encourages us to gain “intimacy with Jehovah.” (Read Psalm 25:14; Proverbs 3:32.) One way we can draw closer to Jehovah is by showing regard for and paying attention to his activities as recorded in his Word, the Bible. (Ps. 28:5) Another way is by getting to know “the mind of Christ,” who is “the image of the invisible God.” (1 Cor. 2:16; Col. 1:15) By taking time to study Bible accounts and to meditate on them, we can begin to understand Jehovah’s qualities and his way of thinking.

Beware of a Wrong Tendency

As we meditate on Jehovah’s activities, we need to avoid the tendency to judge God by human standards. This tendency is alluded to in Jehovah’s words as recorded at Psalm 50:21: “You imagined that I would positively become like you.” It is as one Bible scholar stated over 175 years ago: “Men are apt to judge of God by themselves, and to suppose him restricted by such laws as they deem proper for their own observance.”
...

Just because we cannot fully comprehend certain aspects of God does not mean that we cannot get to know him at all. The Bible does give us many details about God as a Person, about his qualities and about how he deals with mankind. But it also explains that his wisdom and intelligence are beyond human understanding. Thus, the prophet Isaiah says that God’s ways and thoughts are much higher than those of man.​—Isaiah 55:8, 9.

The impossibility of knowing every single thing about God should not surprise us. For example, even though our knowledge of the universe is constantly increasing, scientists admit that they will probably never truly get to the bottom of the mysteries of the infinitely small or the infinitely large. So how could any creature know completely the depth of God’s wisdom, he who is the Creator? Job confessed to Jehovah: “I was not understanding things too wonderful for me, which I do not know.” (Job 42:3; compare Romans 11:33.) Thus, full knowledge of God is, in some respects, beyond our limited understanding. However, the doctrines of many churches go beyond the limits of these simple observations.

The recently published Catholic encyclopedia Théo says: “In church teachings, the term mystery can also be applied to what God reveals about himself, for example, concerning his trinitarian existence.” As in many other theological books, the concept here implicitly developed is that ‘since knowledge of God is inevitably mysterious, it should not surprise us that God is a Trinity and that this Trinity is a mystery.’ Is such reasoning well-​founded?

First, many books acknowledge, as does The New Encyclopædia Britannica, that “neither the word Trinity, nor the explicit doctrine as such, appears in the New Testament.” Moreover, the history of this doctrine shows that it has combined many ideas taken from pagan philosophies that were incorporated into the creeds of the church several decades after the death of the apostles. Therefore, there is no solid proof that the mystery of the Trinity is founded on the Bible.

Since it is impossible to know everything about God, would it make sense for Jehovah to obscure his own identity? No, he desires all humans to know him. (John 17:3) And would it make sense for those who truly want to please him to obscure his identity? To illustrate: If the only opportunity one has to view some beautiful country scenery is through a window, would it be wise to steam up the window, saying: ‘It might as well be steamed up because we can’t see the details anyway?’ Of course not! The Bible and good sense show that our knowledge of God is necessarily limited. But these limits do not at all justify converting our knowledge of God into a mystery like the Trinity.

The majority of Jews didn't believe in Jesus for a number of reasons.


For starters not all of the Jews met Jesus or heard about him. Hard to put faith in him in whom you have not heard.

(Romans 10:12-14) . . .over all, who is rich toward all those calling on him. 13 For “everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah will be saved.” 14 However, how will they call on him if they have not put faith in him? How, in turn, will they put faith in him about whom they have not heard?. . .



Next the Jews religious leaders were blind guides. They were so pompous and arrogant and so focused on their own name and glory when the Christ Jesus did arrive they lied about him. They purposefully deceived the people about who he was.

We know this is the case because Nicodemus, not only a Pharisee, but also a part of the Sanhedrin, the Supreme Court of the Jews confessed that the religious leaders knew that Jesus came from God.

(John 3:1, 2) . . .There was a man of the Pharisees named Nic·o·deʹmus, a ruler of the Jews. 2 This one came to him in the night and said to him: “Rabbi, we know that you have come from God as a teacher, for no one can perform these signs that you perform unless God is with him.”

Furthermore not all of the Jews rejected Jesus Christ as the Messiah. The Biblical record shows that many did put faith in him and the miracles he performed.

(Matthew 16:13-17) . . .When he had come into the region of Caes·a·reʹa Phi·lipʹpi, Jesus asked his disciples: “Who are men saying the Son of man is?” 14 They said: “Some say John the Baptist, others E·liʹjah, and still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them: “You, though, who do you say I am?” 16 Simon Peter answered: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17 In response Jesus said to him: “Happy you are, Simon son of Joʹnah, because flesh and blood did not reveal it to you, but my Father in the heavens did.

a reply to: whereislogic
To elaborate on:

"For example, even though our knowledge of the universe is constantly increasing, scientists admit that they will probably never truly get to the bottom of the mysteries of the infinitely small or the infinitely large."

Mathematicians... are completely comfortable with infinite numbers, as well as infinitely small distances and objects. Their answers are used in physics to describe the world inside the atom.

But nature is not so comfortable with this. When we try to describe something as a "point" - an infinitely small object, that throws up some of the most intractable problems in physics.

Source: What is the smallest possible thing in the universe? - BBC News (Science & Environment)

The phrase itself "infinitely small" is not incomprehensible. In case someone wants to argue that 'our brains cannot define "infinitely small" therefore the phrase is incomprehensible', or something like that. Don't think anyone was going to do that but it has a familiar ring to it.

Remember I was replying first to the earlier claim:

"none of us have [the] faintest clue what that label really means" (that label being "God")

Which implies total incomprehensibility in the eyes of some readers. Because some people talk or think about the subject as if the only 2 options here are the 2 extremes, total comprehensibility, every aspect about God, or total incomprehensibility, and that only those are valid considerations. As in justifying the statement above that could be interpreted as being about total incomprehensibility just because total comprehensibility is not achieved and as if that's a requirement for one to stop thinking that 'God is incomprehensible'; when the reality is that there are many things we can comprehend/understand about God and just a few things in comparison that are beyond our understanding/comprehension and the scope of our experience. Some of those things we can understand are actually quite simple to understand and have already been covered. It remains inappropiate, inaccurate and misleading to describe the situation as:

"none of us have [the] faintest clue what that label [God] really means"

Or even to imply that:

"GOD...[=] incomprehensible"

I changed "are" to = there. Cause that seemed to be the implication there, especially considering the earlier claim which might even nudge someone towards thinking that 'God is totally incomprehensible' the way it's phrased there. Or it might encourage that way of thinking about the subject. "Fully" is a synonym for "totally" (see previous comment). Just because we cannot fully comprehend certain aspects of God does not mean that we cannot get to know or understand him at all. This system of things and the god of this system of things want you to think that way, that you cannot get to know or understand him at all, so why bother:

a reply to: whereislogic

I don't want to argue semantics. I want you to realise that we are both likely wrong about a great many things. Its because our mind only see's favourable qualities in the things we love (be it friend, partner or GOD), and blinded (gives less weight) to unfavourable qualities. It's the nature of our brain, it taints everything. That does not mean we don't or can't seek truth. It just means we need be aware of our own limitations.

For example:

Our mind accepts Acts 13:47
- For this is what the Lord has commanded us: I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to
the ends of the earth
Our mind doesn't accept Matthew 15:24
- Jesus answered, I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel.

Our mind accepts Matthew 5:44
- But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,
Our mind doesn't accept Luke 19:27
- But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them--bring them here and kill them in front of me.

Our mind accepts John 16:33
- I have told you these things, so that in me you may have peace. In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have
overcome the world.
Our mind doesn't accept Matthew 10:34
- Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.

Therefore, there is no solid proof that the mystery of the Trinity is founded on the Bible.

So my mind accepts Matthew 28:19 but your mind doesn't
-...baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:".


Who is GOD...

So how do we really know that the perfect GOD that created the spiritual also created the material world. Or did the imperfect Demiurge, son of Sophia create the material world and demand we honour him...

"You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God"

A mind that accepts Moses wouldn't ask if jealousy was a quality of a perfect GOD .