Who made God?

Originally posted by rwingett
I see no evidence that he performed any miracles. We have only secondhand testimony from unreliable sources, written decades after Jesus' death.

I, myself, have seen no miracles.

Do you think that eyewitness material that has been confirmed by archeology is unreliable material?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Do you think that eyewitness material that has been confirmed by archeology is unreliable material?

Nothing has been confirmed. That's all wishful thinking on your part. If it had been confirmed, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

I'll let you in on a little clue that you seem to be oblivious to: None of the bible was written by eyewitnesses. None of it. It was all written decades after Jesus' death by people who never met Jesus. Who knows how many revisions the stories went through from the time of Jesus' death to the time they came to be written down.

Originally posted by rwingett
Nothing has been confirmed. That's all wishful thinking on your part. If it had been confirmed, we wouldn't be having this discussion right now.

I'll let you in on a little clue that you seem to be oblivious to: None of the bible was written by eyewitnesses. None of it. It was all written decades after Jesus' death by people who never met Jesus. Who kno ...[text shortened]... tories went through from the time of Jesus' death to the time they came to be written down.

Craig Blomberg points out that even standard liberal dating of the Gospels -Mark in the A.D. 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s- is "still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who have served as a corrective if false teaching about Jesus were going around." (Cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 22-25)

Originally posted by dj2becker
Craig Blomberg points out that even standard liberal dating of the Gospels -Mark in the A.D. 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s- is "still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who have served as a corrective if false teaching about Jesus were going around." (Cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 22-25)

If you accept the date in the 70s for Mark, that means the stories were being transmitted orally for about 40 years before anyone wrote them down. 60 years for John. If we look at the vast differences between early christian sects, we can see clearly that there were many different and divergent stories being passed around at that time. What was finally commited to print almost assuredly bears little resemblence to what Jesus actually said.

Originally posted by rwingett
If you accept the date in the 70s for Mark, that means the stories were being transmitted orally for about 40 years before anyone wrote them down. 60 years for John. If we look at the vast differences between early christian sects, we can see clearly that there were many different and divergent stories being passed around at that time. What was finally commited to print almost assuredly bears little resemblence to what Jesus actually said.

You don't get it, do you?

If the gospel of John was written in the 60s it means John was still alive and he wrote it. That means that it was written by an eyewitness who saw and heard what Jesus said and did.

The same applies to the rest of the gospels. Why do you think there is such a clear correspondence between them?

Originally posted by dj2becker
Craig Blomberg points out that even standard liberal dating of the Gospels -Mark in the A.D. 70s, Matthew and Luke in the 80s, and John in the 90s- is "still within the lifetimes of various eyewitnesses of the life of Jesus, including hostile eyewitnesses who have served as a corrective if false teaching about Jesus were going around." (Cited in Strobel, The Case for Christ, 22-25)

Let me add that Blomberg and many other New Testament experts believe there are solid reasons for dating the Gospels even earlier than this . Prominent apologist J.P. Moreland, a professor at the Talbot School of Theology, articulates several reasons that form a powerful case for Acts having been written between A.D. 62 and 64. For example, Acts doesn't mention several monumental events that it surely would have included if it had been written after they occured. These include the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; etc.

Because Acts is the second of a two-part work authored by Luke, this means his Gospel must have been written before the early AD 60s or within 30 years of Jesus' life.

There is so much more I can say regarding this, but if you are just going to reject it offhand, I might just as well not bother.

Originally posted by dj2becker
You don't get it, do you?

If the gospel of John was written in the 60s it means John was still alive and he wrote it. That means that it was written by an eyewitness who saw and heard what Jesus said and did.

The same applies to the rest of the gospels. Why do you think there is such a clear correspondence between them?

I'm afraid it's you who doesn't get it, DJ.

The authorship of John is an open question. The fact is that we don't know who wrote it. It could have been someone named John, or it could have been attributed to John.

The gospels agree in many spots (but certainly not all spots) because the texts were altered in many instances to make them agree more. Plus the church fathers chose the four gospels that they happended to like and excluded the ones that didn't agree with their interpretation. There were many other gospels that didn't make it into the bible that may have been more authentic.

Originally posted by ckoh1965
jaywill, you are blessed with such a strong faith. You have faith in the holy bible. But some of us require more to convince ourselves, you see. You evidence, if one can consider it as evidence to start with, is based on the bible. Yes, you can quote so many things from the bible, but at the end of the day, all those words were written by humans. And yes, I fficult. After all, the brains that God gave us can, unfortunately, analyse logically.

Ckoh1965,


Yes, I do quote the Bible. I at least try always to include directly or indirectly some portion of the Bible. That is true.

The reason for this is based upon my own experience as a former skeptic, unbeliever, and opposer to the Christian faith.

I had many many arguments. Most of the content of those arguments I don't remember. Eventually what prevailed on me to cause me to open my heart to God were defintely things said in the Bible. Even I didn't know that they were quotations from the Bible, yet eventualy those are the things which stuck with me.

I do not say that it is wrong to reason, to debate, to compare logic, to examine arguments. I can do that with people. But in my experience (which may not be others) it is the words of the Bible which stayed with me and enabled me to reach out and touch God.

I wager that if years from now you open your being and ask God into your life, you probably won't remember many arguments about history, archeology, science, metaphysics, politics, ethics. etc. I wager that probably you won't recall many of these reasonings. I wager that what you'll remember is something said in the Bible which just persuades you that God can be trusted to be faithful to His words.

So if you really don't want God I would advise you to stay clear of reading the Holy Bible. This is from a former skeptic.

Now life might be simplier if there were no other claims to an inspired holy book. But you don't throw up your hands in dispair because there are more than one claim about many many other things important to your life.

If you're an educated person your professors had different claims. Your politicians have different claims. Even your parents had different claims.

You may just have to compare the Bible to the Quran and decide who is imitating who. You may just have to decide which writings give you spiritual life.

"It is the Spirit that gives life. The flesh profits nothing. The words which I have spoken to you are spirit and are life .... Simon Peter answered Him, Lord to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life." (John 6:63, 68)

This decision to choose is not something anyone can do for you. It is between you and God alone. Which you are going to accept as the speaking of God, or neither, is a decision that you alone must make.

Anyway, as far as the existence of God is concerned, I think it takes more "faith" to believe that the universe poped into existence from no cause than it does to believe that an uncreated and eternal God of limitless power and wisdom created it from nothing.

To all Intellectuals,

What makes God unreal to you is your sins. The barrier between you and the real experience of the heavenly Father is not what you don't know about history, archeology, textural criticism, the history of doctrine, Roman politics, Hebrew tradition, Greek language, science, astronomy.

The barrier between you and the living God is nothing that interesting. The insulation cutting you off from sensing the reality of God is nothing that stimulating for discussion.

The barrier is not what you know or don't know, its what you DID. Your sins is what cases the separation. Your sins is what causes the alienation. You sins and the guilt of them is what makes the gulf between you and God.

It is what you did that is the cause of God not being real. Once the actual record of guilty actions is atoned for by accepting the death of Jesus for your sins, there is no problem to substantiating the reality of the Father.

It is man's sins which cause him to be alienated from a holy God. It is the sins of the smart and the sins of the dull. It the sins of the knowlegeable and the sins of the uninformed. The barrier is in the sins, in the transgressions, in the wrongdoings, in the iniquity. That is where the problem lies.

Some of you will now say "You're preaching!! Get out."

I apologize in advance but there is such a thing as someone knowing what their talking about. The barrier, the separation between you and knowing God lies in the real guilt of your real sins.

Originally posted by jaywill
To all Intellectuals,

What makes God unreal to you is your sins. The barrier between you and the real experience of the heavenly Father is not what you don't know about history, archeology, textural criticism, the history of doctrine, Roman politics, Hebrew tradition, Greek language, science, astronomy.

The barrier between you and the living God is ...[text shortened]... rier, the separation between you and knowing God lies in the real guilt of your real sins.

Your egotistical insistence on the validity of your own insight into the nature of reality beggars belief. Isn't there an ounce of honest-to-goodness humility in your character, or has your desperate, mindless zeal dissolved it entirely?

Your offensive view is that anyone who disagrees with you about God does so because they are evil. Get over yourself.

All of us here know we are flawed, limited human beings. Having someone ignorantly parrot back hackneyed religious insults doesn't ease our existential burden.

Originally posted by jaywill
To all Intellectuals,

What makes God unreal to you is your sins. The barrier between you and the real experience of the heavenly Father is not what you don't know about history, archeology, textural criticism, the history of doctrine, Roman politics, Hebrew tradition, Greek language, science, astronomy.

The barrier between you and the living God is ...[text shortened]... rier, the separation between you and knowing God lies in the real guilt of your real sins.

Er...no. What makes the concept of God "unreal" is that it fails to be instantiated. That doesn't necessarily mean that the concept itself has no utility, but let's keep it in the proper perspective. Maybe something like vistesd's interpretation of "God as story".

I apologize in advance but there is such a thing as someone knowing what their [sic] talking about.

Apology accepted. Now go find those people who know what they are talking about, and try to emulate them.

Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole
Your egotistical insistence on the validity of your own insight into the nature of reality beggars belief. Isn't there an ounce of honest-to-goodness humility in your character, or has your desperate, mindless zeal dissolved it entirely?

Your offensive view is that anyone who disagrees with you about God does so because they are evil. Get over yourse ...[text shortened]... omeone ignorantly parrot back hackneyed religious insults doesn't ease our existential burden.

Thanks Pawnojeyhole. I agree with you a little.

There isn't much humility in me naturally. I am rather proud. I am worst than you realize.

Maybe God will use someone more humble to say essentially what He has told us:

"No, Jehovah's hand is not so short that it cannot save;

Nor is His ear so heavy that it cannot hear.

But your iniquities have become a separation between you and your God,

And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:1,2)


What I said is based upon this word and became the experience of many people. To identify where the problem lies can save people many wasted years of wondering.

Why is not God real to me? Why is "God" only a theological thought a doctrine and ever shifting idea of which I am never sure? Why don't I know God is real? Why can't I have God for myself in a real way? Why?

" ... your iniquities have become a separation between you and your God, And your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear"

When the iniquites are washed away through believing the finished work of Christ, there is no problem to crying "Abba, Daddy, My Father. My Father God!" and knowing that God is real.

If I'm too proud I'll pray that God would send someone more humble to tell you the same thing. Rejoice with me though. The blood of Jesus cleanses me from the sin of my pride. He is the God of "eternal consolation and good hope".

Originally posted by LemonJello
Er...no. What makes the concept of God "unreal" is that it fails to be instantiated. That doesn't necessarily mean that the concept itself has no utility, but let's keep it in the proper perspective. Maybe something like vistesd's interpretation of "God as story".

[b]I apologize in advance but there is such a thing as someone knowing what their [sic ...[text shortened]... Now go find those people who know what they are talking about, and try to emulate them.

"Jehovah hand is not so short that it cannot save; Nor is His ear so heavy that it cannot hear.

But your iniquities have become a separation between you and your God, and your sins have hidden His face from you so that He does not hear" (Isaiah 59:1,2)

Men's iniquities had made a SEPARATION between them and God.

We don't believe that there is a record of sins. That is a problem. We don't believe that our sins are really guilty. That is a problem. We don't believe that God cares. That is another problem.

The separation between us and God is real sins that really need to be forgiven by a real God.

He is perfection. He is holiness. He cannot abide with iniquity. He cannot abide with that which transgresses His law.

We on the other hand cannot stop our sinning through our own power. We are sold as slaves to sin. So there is a separation.

The separation is so serious that the removal of the separation called for the propotiatory death of Christ the Righteous One on our behalf.

Make no mistake about it LemonJello. You and I deserved to die for what we have done. He saw it LemomJello. He has a record of it. He forgets nothing.

Do you think there is no accounting? What was done to you unjustly. Do you think there is no accounting for how that person made you suffer?

What you did. Do you think there is no accounting for how you made that person suffer?

I don't know about the "existential burden." But I do know that He carried up the burden of the guilt of our sins on to the cross and died there for you and I.

You can put it to the test. You can pray to God that you confess you are hopelessly guilty of your sins before Him and need the redemption of Jesus. Then thank Him that He has died for you. See if the reality of God does not flood into your heart.

Would you put it to the test?

You have nothing to lose but your pride if the Bible is wrong. But if the Bible is right and the separation is not dealt with you will be separated for eternity.

I think it is well worth putting to the test.

Dj2Becker,

My apologies for straying from the subject.

I'll leave peacefully now and let you continue.

Originally posted by jaywill
You have nothing to lose but your pride if the Bible is wrong. But if the Bible is right and the separation is not dealt with you will be separated for eternity.

I like this line best. You stand there accusing all of being miserable sinners, we all deserve to die. Yet you try to tell me in another thread that you believe you religion to be a good thing. I mean, talk about miserable. Oh yes, WHY did you stop responding in our conversation - I thought it was particularly interesting - didn't you?