Is Jesus the Son of God....truly or metaphorically?

[StanJ]

Are you aware that https://carm.org/what-trinity agrees with Brakelite, speaking of subordination within the trinity?

There you go with your equivocation and prevarication Barrd. What is DOES state, is; There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity regarding order but not substance or essence.
That order is for US, not God.

The other one, http://heidelblog.net/2013/03/the-athanasian-creed-on-the-trinity/ insists that you must belong to the Catholic church to be saved:

WOW! You must really think I am an idiot? It does NOT say what you assert, so read it again, and stop all your prevarication.
It says small c "catholic faith", NOT capital C "Catholic Church". This is just downright disingenuous Barrd, because I KNOW you can read.

 

[Barrd]

There you go with your equivocation and prevarication Barrd. What is DOES state, is; There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity regarding order but not substance or essence.
That order is for US, not God.

There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity regarding order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third.

There is a hierarchy.

The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16).

Which is pretty much what Brakelite said.


The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).

WOW! You must really think I am an idiot? It does NOT say what you assert, so read it again, and stop all your prevarication.
It says small c "catholic faith", NOT capital C "Catholic Church". This is just downright disingenuous Barrd, because I KNOW you can read.

But I do not believe in the catholic faith, whether small "c" or capital "C".
Guess I'm doomed, then.
So are you, unfortunately. Whether I think you're an idiot or not has nothing at all to do with it...

 

[brakelite]

I didn't read it, I just proved you wrong in that there were writings from him available. His heresy was established by much greater men of God than I, and understanding what I do about the nature of God, I concur with those men. BTW, none of whom were in the RCC.

So "studying to show thyself approved" (as per your signature) means taking others' word regarding faith and Biblical truth? You didnt read what Arius taught though you had it at your fingertips...all you wanted to accomplish was to "prove me wrong". I'll be honest Stan, that would not have been a very hard feat. Don't take too much pride in that.
Arius, and Ulfilas, both termed "Arian" and heretical, were subtly different in their views of the nature of Christ. The main common contention which branded them as enemies of the church was their view of the begotten Son having a beginning, thus not eternal. Thus He was of less authority than the Father, and was subordinate to Him. Arius however went a little further and denied the full deity of Christ...believing Jesus to be not of the same nature as the Father, not being a 'natural born' Son as Ulfilas believed. Arius it appears believed that Christ's divinity was of lesser value than the Father's, because it was granted to Him by 'permission'. I prefer Ulfilas view, as revealed here is his own words. I think this more expresses Christ's divinity as equal to the Father's, not because it was a gift, but derived as of natural right and being of the same essence. Personally, I think this best expresses Biblical truth than what eventuated by the still sun-worshiping Constantine's trinity efforts at Nice.

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord/Master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore, there is one God of all, who is also God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); Neither God nor Lord/Master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

 

[brakelite]

That YOU personally fail to comprehend the mystery of the Godhead, would be nothing new, as since Arius, many have not understood. Jesus may be used in metaphorical sense throughout scripture, with such descriptions as LIGHT, ROCK, and BREAD, but that doesn't contradict WHO He actually is.

If any of us understood the mystery of the Godhead it would not be a mystery Stan. I am a genuine Christian seeking truth. I believe I have asked a valid question. How does one reconcile the 'eternality ' of the Son if He is a literal Son having been begotten? That the question brings to mind the so-called heresies of the past is of little consequence...I want to understand what the scriptures are teaching us today.

Then two are NOT mutually exclusive as you would TRY to make us believe brakelite, in fact they are synonymous with one another, as Is 9:6 prophesied. The choice is to believe God's word, or not, not equivocate about it and try to back away from your intentions. The only one who needs to MAN UP, would be you, IF you are a man?
If I was dishonest I would not have warned you, so convince me you are NOT anti-Trinitarian.

From what I have seen revealed from scripture, I sincerely believe the qualities of the co-equal and co-eternal aspects of the so-called trinity are an error. If the Son is a literal Son, which I believe He most assuredly is, I do not understand how He can be of the same age as His Father. I am not of the opinion that we must believe by faith things which are logically impossible. I liken such faith to what I was taught in Catholic schools regarding the nature of the 'host' in communion. Even as a child, my logic and human sensibilities reacted against the idea I was eating God. I build my faith on what is revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus is a Son. He is a natural begotten Son, this through derivation from His natural Father, has all the Godly and divine attributes and prerogatives of His Father God. If this qualifies me as "anti-trinitarian" and therefore disqualifies me from fellowshiping with you all who I regard as genuine believers and like heirs of the kingdom, then so be it.

 

[Barrd]

So "studying to show thyself approved" (as per your signature) means taking others' word regarding faith and Biblical truth? You didnt read what Arius taught though you had it at your fingertips...all you wanted to accomplish was to "prove me wrong". I'll be honest Stan, that would not have been a very hard feat. Don't take too much pride in that.
Arius, and Ulfilas, both termed "Arian" and heretical, were subtly different in their views of the nature of Christ. The main common contention which branded them as enemies of the church was their view of the begotten Son having a beginning, thus not eternal. Thus He was of less authority than the Father, and was subordinate to Him. Arius however went a little further and denied the full deity of Christ...believing Jesus to be not of the same nature as the Father, not being a 'natural born' Son as Ulfilas believed. Arius it appears believed that Christ's divinity was of lesser value than the Father's, because it was granted to Him by 'permission'. I prefer Ulfilas view, as revealed here is his own words. I think this more expresses Christ's divinity as equal to the Father's, not because it was a gift, but derived as of natural right and being of the same essence. Personally, I think this best expresses Biblical truth than what eventuated by the still sun-worshiping Constantine's trinity efforts at Nice.

I, Ulfila, bishop and confessor, have always so believed, and in this, the one true faith, I make the journey to my Lord; I believe in only one God the Father, the unbegotten and invisible, and in his only-begotten son, our Lord/Master and God, the designer and maker of all creation, having none other like him. Therefore, there is one God of all, who is also God of our God; and in one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power, as Christ said after his resurrection to his apostles: "And behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you; but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be clothed with power from on high" (Luke 24:49) and again "But ye shall receive power, when the Holy Ghost is come upon you" (Acts 1:8); Neither God nor Lord/Master, but the faithful minister of Christ; not equal, but subject and obedient in all things to the Son. And I believe the Son to be subject and obedient in all things to God the Father.

Wow.
Just....wow.
I am amazed, awed, and humbled, all at the same time.

 

[Barrd]

That YOU personally fail to comprehend the mystery of the Godhead, would be nothing new, as since Arius, many have not understood. Jesus may be used in metaphorical sense throughout scripture, with such descriptions as LIGHT, ROCK, and BREAD, but that doesn't contradict WHO He actually is.

If any of us understood the mystery of the Godhead it would not be a mystery Stan. I am a genuine Christian seeking truth. I believe I have asked a valid question. How does one reconcile the 'eternality ' of the Son if He is a literal Son having been begotten? That the question brings to mind the so-called heresies of the past is of little consequence...I want to understand what the scriptures are teaching us today.

Then two are NOT mutually exclusive as you would TRY to make us believe brakelite, in fact they are synonymous with one another, as Is 9:6 prophesied. The choice is to believe God's word, or not, not equivocate about it and try to back away from your intentions. The only one who needs to MAN UP, would be you, IF you are a man?
If I was dishonest I would not have warned you, so convince me you are NOT anti-Trinitarian.

From what I have seen revealed from scripture, I sincerely believe the qualities of the co-equal and co-eternal aspects of the so-called trinity are an error. If the Son is a literal Son, which I believe He most assuredly is, I do not understand how He can be of the same age as His Father. I am not of the opinion that we must believe by faith things which are logically impossible. I liken such faith to what I was taught in Catholic schools regarding the nature of the 'host' in communion. Even as a child, my logic and human sensibilities reacted against the idea I was eating God. I build my faith on what is revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus is a Son. He is a natural begotten Son, this through derivation from His natural Father, has all the Godly and divine attributes and prerogatives of His Father God. If this qualifies me as "anti-trinitarian" and therefore disqualifies me from fellowshiping with you all who I regard as genuine believers and like heirs of the kingdom, then so be it.

I agree with Brakelite.

 

[Guestman]

At Proverbs 2, it says concerning looking into God's Word, the Bible: "If you call out for understanding and raise your voice for discernment; If you keep seeking for it as for silver, and you keep searching for it as for hidden treasures; Then.....you will find the very knowledge of God......When wisdom enters your heart and knowledge becomes pleasant to your soul, thinking ability will keep watch over you".(Prov 2:3-5, 10,11)

Therefore, "thinking ability" or the capability to use logic, to reason out what is true and what is a falsehood, "will keep watch over you". The apostle Paul wrote to the Ephesians concerning ' readjusting the holy ones views ', "until we all attain to the oneness of the faith and of the accurate knowledge of the Son of God, to being a full-grown man......so that we should no longer be children, tossed about about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching, by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes".(Eph 4:12-14)

Hence, what is required in order to extract Bible truth, accurate knowledge ? Sincere humility, not trying to "force a square peg in a round hole". So when Jesus said that "I and my Father are one" at John 10:30, did he mean that they are literally one ?

Those who are sincerely humble will consider Jesus words at at John 17:1, 11: "Father.....I am no longer in the world (those alienated from God), but they (his disciples) are in the world, and I am coming to you. Holy Father, watch over them on account of your name.......so that they may be one just as we are one".(see also John 17:22) Now what was Jesus saying when he said "so that they may be one just as we are one" ?

That his genuine disciples are literally one or that they are to be in unity as one ? Those who are sincere and not trying to "force a square peg in a round hole", those who use "thinking ability", will recognize that Jesus was speaking of being unified as "one" in purpose, honoring our Maker, Jehovah God, just as the word "one flesh" with regard to a husband and wife does not literally mean they become one flesh, but that they work together so harmoniously that they are considered as "one flesh", like a single individual instead of two.(Gen 2:24; Matt 19:5)

And of where Jesus said that "whoever has seen me has seen the Father also" at John 14:9, does it mean that Jesus is the same as the Father ? Jesus told the Jews: "And the Father who sent me has borne witness about me. You have neither heard his voice at any time nor seen his form, and you do not have his word residing in you, because you do not believe the very one whom he sent".(John 5:37, 38) Jesus establishes that he was sent by the Father, and is not the Father.

Thus, the Father has never been seen nor heard by any imperfect man. That is why Jesus said to the Samaritan woman, that "true worshippers will worship the Father (and not the Son)....God is (not of flesh and blood, but) a Spirit".(John 4:23, 24) The apostle John wrote that "no man has seen God at any time".(1 John 4:12)

Paul wrote that Jesus is "the reflection of God's glory and the exact representation of his very being" (Heb 1:3), hating exactly what God hates and loves what God loves, also being called the "image of God" at Colossians 1:15. Hence Paul notes that Jesus has "sat down at the right hand of the Majesty (Jehovah God) on high. So he has become better than angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs".(Heb 1:4) How can Jesus be God and yet sit down at God's right hand (see Ps 110:1), and ' inherit a name better the angels', since there is no name higher than God's ?

Paul wrote to the Philippians that because Jesus "became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake (that) for this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position (see Dan 7:13, 14 and Matt 28:18) and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name".(Phil 2: 8, 9)

How could Jesus be God, and yet be "exalted to a superior position", since there is no position higher than God and given a "name that is above every other name" ? This is where humility comes into play, where a person who is sincere allows "thinking ability" to do its job well, realizing that Jesus is inferior to the Father, God (see John 14:28), and was "exalted to a superior position", in which "he is at God's right hand....and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him".(1 Pet 3:22) This cannot be anymore clear for sincere, reasonable people.

Yet, the argument of God, Jesus and the holy spirit as part of a Trinity will continue in for just a little longer until Babylon the Great, the collective body of the religions of the "world" is dispensed with by the political "scarlet-colored wild beast", the United Nations along with the "ten horns" or all the political governments on earth at God's command.(Rev 17:16, 17)

 

[StanJ]

There is, apparently, a subordination within the Trinity regarding order but not substance or essence. We can see that the Father is first, the Son is second, and the Holy Spirit is third.
There is a hierarchy.
The Father is not begotten, but the Son is (John 3:16).
Which is pretty much what Brakelite said.

Apparent would be the key, but Only as far as a son and his father. Not understanding the hypostatic nature of Jesus only furthers you lack of understand this.

The Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26). The Father sent the Son (1 John 4:10). The Son and the Father send the Holy Spirit (John 14:26, 15:26). The Father creates (Isaiah 44:24), the Son redeems (Gal. 3:13), and the Holy Spirit sanctifies (Rom. 15:16).

POINT?

Col 1:16, John 1:3

But I do not believe in the catholic faith, whether small "c" or capital "C".
Guess I'm doomed, then.
So are you, unfortunately. Whether I think you're an idiot or not has nothing at all to do with it...

Only because you obviously don't understand what it is. It has NOTHING to do with the RCC.
It actually means "universal", in referring to Christians. I am very surprised you don't know this particular vernacular, but then again a lot of things you say surprise me given your claims on how much you do know.

 

[StanJ]

I agree with Brakelite.

Of course you do, but sadly, NOT because you understand what he said but only because he disagrees with me.

 

[StanJ]

If any of us understood the mystery of the Godhead it would not be a mystery Stan. I am a genuine Christian seeking truth. I believe I have asked a valid question. How does one reconcile the 'eternality ' of the Son if He is a literal Son having been begotten? That the question brings to mind the so-called heresies of the past is of little consequence...I want to understand what the scriptures are teaching us today.

Hence, why it still is a Godhead, despite your claims that it isn't. That you think the Son cannot be many things, given what Is 9:6 alone states, shows you just DON'T get it. I can't very well explain something to a person who doesn't want to hear and is predisposed to not accepting, despite all your claims to the contrary, what the scriptures tell us. Try wrapping your head around Is 9:6 then ask the same question. Remember, with God, ALL things are possible.

From what I have seen revealed from scripture, I sincerely believe the qualities of the co-equal and co-eternal aspects of the so-called trinity are an error. If the Son is a literal Son, which I believe He most assuredly is, I do not understand how He can be of the same age as His Father. I am not of the opinion that we must believe by faith things which are logically impossible. I liken such faith to what I was taught in Catholic schools regarding the nature of the 'host' in communion. Even as a child, my logic and human sensibilities reacted against the idea I was eating God. I build my faith on what is revealed. What is revealed is that Jesus is a Son. He is a natural begotten Son, this through derivation from His natural Father, has all the Godly and divine attributes and prerogatives of His Father God. If this qualifies me as "anti-trinitarian" and therefore disqualifies me from fellowshiping with you all who I regard as genuine believers and like heirs of the kingdom, then so be it.

The pathway to hell is paved with sincerity brakelite. You and Barrd seem to feel THAT is enough to justify your FEELINGS. Sorry but God's word is ALL we get to set us straight.
The Son is NOT the same age as His Father. Never has been, and never will be. This just shows you don't really get what Heb 1:3 makes clear about His hypostatic nature. The WORD is made flesh in the Son. The word and God are one and the same as John 1 tells us. Maybe you should study John 1 before moving on from those basics?
More and more I get the sense that you still are a RCC child rebelling against the RCC, which BTW, does NOT reflect the Truth of Jesus Christ. As far as any other RCC doctrine, let's stick to THIS issue. You seem to forget I also was RCC as a child, but moved on when I accepted Jesus as my personal saviour way back in 1971. 1 Cor 13:11
The standard of the Trinity has been here for some time now, so if you've gone this far without being called into account for your POV, I can't do anything about that. You knew coming in what it was did you not?
I can't really fellowship with someone who doesn't believe in the same God I do and what the scriptures declare.
Phil 2:2 and 1 Peter 3:8 tells us to be like minded in regards to what Paul and Peter were teaching. Are you?

 

[brakelite]

Hence, why it still is a Godhead, despite your claims that it isn't. That you think the Son cannot be many things, given what Is 9:6 alone states, shows you just DON'T get it. I can't very well explain something to a person who doesn't want to hear and is predisposed to not accepting, despite all your claims to the contrary, what the scriptures tell us. Try wrapping your head around Is 9:6 then ask the same question. Remember, with God, ALL things are possible.

Where did I suggest there is no Godhead? Cannot the Godhead be made up of two, with a shared Spirit? After all, remember, with God all things are possible. Of course the Son can, and is, all those things in Isa 9:6. How so? Because He is derived from the Father. How can He not inherit all His Father's attributes..have I not said this all along?

The pathway to hell is paved with sincerity brakelite. You and Barrd seem to feel THAT is enough to justify your FEELINGS. Sorry but God's word is ALL we get to set us straight.
The Son is NOT the same age as His Father. Never has been, and never will be.

Stan says, the Son is not the same age as His Father.
Arius says, But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten.... We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.
Careful Stan...sounds Arian to me to say that the Son had a beginning. Yet the trinity declares that the Son is without a beginning...co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit. :huh:

 

[Barrd]

Of course you do, but sadly, NOT because you understand what he said but only because he disagrees with me.

This may be the most arrogant thing you've said yet, old man.
You really have nothing to do with it. Sorry to disillusion you.

No, I agree because it is obvious that the Lord Jesus Christ submitted His will to His Father's will. Thus, they were not co-equal.
Actually, I started out saying that I preferred the term "Godhead" for the very reasons Brakelite gives for not believing the trinity, although he does believe in the Divinity of Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

 

[StanJ]

Where did I suggest there is no Godhead? Cannot the Godhead be made up of two, with a shared Spirit? After all, remember, with God all things are possible. Of course the Son can, and is, all those things in Isa 9:6. How so? Because He is derived from the Father. How can He not inherit all His Father's attributes..have I not said this all along?

No, because the Godhead is ONE, in reality and purpose. Read Is 9:6 again, this time with understanding, not eisegetical eyes.

Stan says, the Son is not the same age as His Father.
Arius says, But we say and believe and have taught, and do teach, that the Son is not unbegotten, nor in any way part of the unbegotten.... We are persecuted because we say that the Son has a beginning but that God is without beginning.
Careful Stan...sounds Arian to me to say that the Son had a beginning. Yet the trinity declares that the Son is without a beginning...co-eternal with the Father and the Spirit.

He's not.
Pulling ONE thing a false teacher says OUT if context doesn't change who he is brakelite. Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Again, you fail to comprehend Jesus' hypostasia.
Maybe you can SHOW us the TRUE man made definition of the trinity that is accepted/confirmed by trinitarians as a WHOLE?

 

[StanJ]

This may be the most arrogant thing you've said yet, old man.
You really have nothing to do with it. Sorry to disillusion you.

You keep saying that after just about every one of my posts now. Try saving that assessment until my LAST post OK?

No, I agree because it is obvious that the Lord Jesus Christ submitted His will to His Father's will. Thus, they were not co-equal.
Actually, I started out saying that I preferred the term "Godhead" for the very reasons Brakelite gives for not believing the trinity, although he does believe in the Divinity of Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

Yes, the Son submitted to the Father, which has nothing to do with not being equal. Read Phil 2:6, and TRY to understand.

 

[brakelite]

Yes, the Son submitted to the Father, which has nothing to do with not being equal. Read Phil 2:6, and TRY to understand.

Phil. 2:6 has more to do with humility than submission. The Father did not command His Son to become a man and die. Phil. 2:6 reveals the wonder of the Son's choosing to lay aside His divinity and become a part of His own creation...for all eternity. What condescension! He considered His own future in heaven with His Father not worthwhile if we weren't there to share it with Him! Amazing. This was voluntary Stan. And of course because the Father and the Son are one, the Father was in the Son reconciling the world to Himself.
But as a man, Jesus had to learn obedience, having never been in such a position. He had to learn what it was like to be human. So He submitted to His Father God. I personally don't see that submission as evidence of the Son's "less than equal" status with His Father. To my mind, Jesus is equal in all things to His Father, except one. That one aspect where Jesus cannot be equal, lies in the fact that He derived everything, I mean everything: His power, His authority, His divinity, even His very life, (John 5:26), from His Father. What Jesus received, made Him equal. He received divinity, the same power, the same authority, the very same life, as His Father, but Jesus Himself admitted that His Father was greater than He...because the Father is the source of all life.
As Paul said, "for in him we live, and move, and have our being"...and "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him."

 

[StanJ]

Phil. 2:6 has more to do with humility than submission. The Father did not command His Son to become a man and die. Phil. 2:6 reveals the wonder of the Son's choosing to lay aside His divinity and become a part of His own creation...for all eternity. What condescension! He considered His own future in heaven with His Father not worthwhile if we weren't there to share it with Him! Amazing. This was voluntary Stan. And of course because the Father and the Son are one, the Father was in the Son reconciling the world to Himself.
But as a man, Jesus had to learn obedience, having never been in such a position. He had to learn what it was like to be human. So He submitted to His Father God. I personally don't see that submission as evidence of the Son's "less than equal" status with His Father. To my mind, Jesus is equal in all things to His Father, except one. That one aspect where Jesus cannot be equal, lies in the fact that He derived everything, I mean everything: His power, His authority, His divinity, even His very life, (John 5:26), from His Father. What Jesus received, made Him equal. He received divinity, the same power, the same authority, the very same life, as His Father, but Jesus Himself admitted that His Father was greater than He...because the Father is the source of all life.
As Paul said, "for in him we live, and move, and have our being"...and "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him."

It has to do with His being EQUAL to, God as the WORD made flesh. Paul says in Colossians that Jesus was FULLY God. That you fail to see when Jesus is speaking in the Gospels as when the WORD is shows you fail to realize just how multi dimensional Jesus was/is. The equality is not something that was taken away from Him, He laid it aside to become a man and the ONLY begotten Son of God. Again your failure to understand the hypostasia is at the root of your confusion. Did Jesus lie then when He said HE is the WAY and the TRUTH and the LIFE? Who did Paul, say is the root of life? What did John 1:18 say about Jesus, being Himself FULLY God? You're flogging a dead horse brakelite.

 

[Barrd]

Well, kids, we can go on trying to get God to fit into our little boxes...

Or we can simply accept that He is beyond our understanding.

You guys can keep on arguing about these things that are beyond our reach if you want.

Me, I'm going to go back to trying to explain quantum physics to my pup. The frogs got bored with Friday...besides, it's raining outside....

:unsure:

 

[Zachary]

The Holy Spirit IS God so yes God begat His son by the Holy Spirit and
that conception was how the WORD became flesh, John 1.
John 1 says the word WAS/IS God.

Why do you speak kindergarden stuff to me? ... Stuff you know that I already know.
Get real.

 

[Barrd]

Why do you speak kindergarden stuff to me? ... Stuff you know that I already know.
Get real.

When it comes to us trying to nail down the nature of God...we are pre-schoolers.
You, me, Brakelite...yep, even ol' Stan up there on his pedestal.
Still barely out of our nappies...

It occurs to me that we have one heck of a lot of gall, thinking that we can teach others all about the unknowable nature of the Creator of the Universe, when we don't even know all there is to know about the universe. Heck, we don't know all there is to know even about this bit of rock we silly humans call "home"....we've got a lo-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-o-ng way to go before we are anywhere near being able to plumb the incredible depths of knowing God.

We know what He has revealed to us.
Let us be happy with that.

 

[StanJ]

Why do you speak kindergarden stuff to me? ... Stuff you know that I already know.
Get real.

Why do you ask, or state things that show you don't know?