-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
J
So glad you asked actually! This 8 min video gives an explanation. It may be a little technical, but it is worth it, especially at the end. It not only shows how God existed, but that we can know that it is the God of the Bible (Christ) that is the true God.
This would be good for you to watch too Doseofreality, as it pertains to our recent talks (the last minute part does).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5lY0TcdAw
This would be good for you to watch too Doseofreality, as it pertains to our recent talks (the last minute part does).
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sr5lY0TcdAw
Well, it's convincing to someone who ALREADY believes there is a God, just like Thomas Aquinas' Five Proofs of God is only convincing to those who already believe.
I will add too that while I personally believe that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures with His life, you could argue that the prophecies are vague and could be applied to a number of lives in the thousands of years. I have read that there is a mathematician found that that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY, to the point of being impossible, that Jesus didn't fulfill all these prophecies.
[quotehttp://voices.yahoo.com/what-odds-jesus-700-plus-prophecies-fulfillment-5064980.html]Most scholars acknowledge that there are possibly seven hundred prophecies or more about Jesus Christ in the Bible.[/quote]
MOST. So there is some disagreement over the number. Changes the probability number.
Yeah, WHICH prophecies? Some would be more or less probable than others, thus changing the number greatly.
Mr. Stoner does have the credentials to make this estimate - but he is also a deeply religious Christian. That would color how he reads his calculations, and results. That is just basic human psychology - our worldview affects the way we look and come to evidence. I would like to see an unbelieving mathematician do the same calculations, and see what happens.
But to a skeptic, that is not PROOF, because it is PROBABILITY, which means that there is A CHANCE, however be it small, that the prophets COULD'VE got that much right about one man by luck. Plus, some scholars may argue which prophecies can be interpreted of being fulfilled by Christ. This article throws out the number 700 AND 300. And as the article following explains, if you read the text in a historical context, as in what the OT authors meant when they wrote something vs how the NT interpreted them, it starts to look a little fishy to those who are sincere historians (in other words, they understand that ancient literature of history wasn't written in a factual way like it is today. If you want to argue the Gospels are factual right down to the letter, you would also have to assume that other ancient texts from neighboring countries were as well).
For those who want to educate themselves on an EQUALLY convincing argument ON THE OTHER SIDE, here's a link:
Probability Proves Bible Prophecy (or Not)
If you believe in Jesus, and had a religious experience, this article will mean nothing to you, and look like utter foolishness - just like the article above that one would look like utter foolishness to unbelievers. It's all a matter of perspective. Both are good arguments. If you could prove things about Jesus' existence, I assure you that the Gospels would be considered for history books. But considering the time period they were written and what we know about other works written around that time period (in other words, ancient ways of thinking) that would be a huge feat.
Don't bury your head in the sand as to why people reject the faith (I'm speaking to everyone). If you could tell someone, "Yeah, I know you probably believe x" AND you get that information from a first-hand source, you will appear like an honest listener to the person, rather than just a "soul-winner," and he/she will likely open up to hearing what you have to say.
I will add too that while I personally believe that Jesus fulfilled the Hebrew Scriptures with His life, you could argue that the prophecies are vague and could be applied to a number of lives in the thousands of years. I have read that there is a mathematician found that that it's HIGHLY UNLIKELY, to the point of being impossible, that Jesus didn't fulfill all these prophecies.
[quotehttp://voices.yahoo.com/what-odds-jesus-700-plus-prophecies-fulfillment-5064980.html]Most scholars acknowledge that there are possibly seven hundred prophecies or more about Jesus Christ in the Bible.[/quote]
MOST. So there is some disagreement over the number. Changes the probability number.
Yeah, WHICH prophecies? Some would be more or less probable than others, thus changing the number greatly.
Mr. Stoner does have the credentials to make this estimate - but he is also a deeply religious Christian. That would color how he reads his calculations, and results. That is just basic human psychology - our worldview affects the way we look and come to evidence. I would like to see an unbelieving mathematician do the same calculations, and see what happens.
But to a skeptic, that is not PROOF, because it is PROBABILITY, which means that there is A CHANCE, however be it small, that the prophets COULD'VE got that much right about one man by luck. Plus, some scholars may argue which prophecies can be interpreted of being fulfilled by Christ. This article throws out the number 700 AND 300. And as the article following explains, if you read the text in a historical context, as in what the OT authors meant when they wrote something vs how the NT interpreted them, it starts to look a little fishy to those who are sincere historians (in other words, they understand that ancient literature of history wasn't written in a factual way like it is today. If you want to argue the Gospels are factual right down to the letter, you would also have to assume that other ancient texts from neighboring countries were as well).
For those who want to educate themselves on an EQUALLY convincing argument ON THE OTHER SIDE, here's a link:
Probability Proves Bible Prophecy (or Not)
If you believe in Jesus, and had a religious experience, this article will mean nothing to you, and look like utter foolishness - just like the article above that one would look like utter foolishness to unbelievers. It's all a matter of perspective. Both are good arguments. If you could prove things about Jesus' existence, I assure you that the Gospels would be considered for history books. But considering the time period they were written and what we know about other works written around that time period (in other words, ancient ways of thinking) that would be a huge feat.
Don't bury your head in the sand as to why people reject the faith (I'm speaking to everyone). If you could tell someone, "Yeah, I know you probably believe x" AND you get that information from a first-hand source, you will appear like an honest listener to the person, rather than just a "soul-winner," and he/she will likely open up to hearing what you have to say.
I really don't mean to be crass, people. But since I've started moving away from orthodoxy (not in everything), and I've started expressing viewpoints on this site, I get the occasional Crusader on my back, who assumes I am an unbeliever because I have unorthodox ideas. I think different Christians have different ideas as to what constitutes "must believe to be saved" doctrines. While most of them say "Repent with a sincere heart and work out your salvation" is sufficient to be saved, they then follow it up with rules and beliefs that if you don't adhere to them, you're not a believer and you're not saved - in other words, "another gospel." I'm sorry, but that's inconsistent. Why not just convert to Catholicism where they BELIEVE as well as teach that faith + works gets you into heaven? The average "Protestant" Crusader would fit right in. (I don't have any beef with Catholics or Eastern Orthodox. I'm also not saying these two groups are immune to close-eared attitudes. I'm just making a point of how people don't practice what they preach.)
Ok, so, I just had to get that off my chest. Sorry. I want to be accepted here. I'd hate to be shunned and cast out though we have in common what really matters - Christ. Isn't that what CHRISTianity is all about? The point I guess I want to make on this thread relative to the topic is that the discussion is "who made God?" The truth is, you can't prove God's existence. If you could, the skeptic would accept it, like skeptics have accepted scientific theories founded by CHRISTIANS because they were TESTABLE. You could prove it. Also, if you COULD prove God's existence, you wouldn't need faith that He existed. Now, I think the first part of Jdh video made an excellent case for God, but again, it's all about perspective. To think that all philosophical thought on the divine can be summarized with "everything came from nothing" OR "something created everything," shows a lack of study, I'm afraid. Don't mean to be harsh, that's what it indicates, whether or not it's true. What of Jean-Paul Sartre's idea, for example? "Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms."* Just something to throw out there. There are tons of theories and ideas. It is actually kinda fun to read up on opposing ideas. I feel like I'm getting closer to other people, that way. I'm getting closer to understanding them. That's why I'm so passionate for imploring my fellow Christians to open up their minds, and look at other things. I mean, if you're afraid that looking at another argument is going to change your mind about Christ, you're faith probably isn't very strong or stable. There's a whole WORLD of interesting information out there!
NOTE: By the way, I don't mean to insinuate that EVERYONE in CC is close-minded, or unwilling to listen to other views. I'm not lumping everyone into one basket. Just wanted to let you know that.
*Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ok, so, I just had to get that off my chest. Sorry. I want to be accepted here. I'd hate to be shunned and cast out though we have in common what really matters - Christ. Isn't that what CHRISTianity is all about? The point I guess I want to make on this thread relative to the topic is that the discussion is "who made God?" The truth is, you can't prove God's existence. If you could, the skeptic would accept it, like skeptics have accepted scientific theories founded by CHRISTIANS because they were TESTABLE. You could prove it. Also, if you COULD prove God's existence, you wouldn't need faith that He existed. Now, I think the first part of Jdh video made an excellent case for God, but again, it's all about perspective. To think that all philosophical thought on the divine can be summarized with "everything came from nothing" OR "something created everything," shows a lack of study, I'm afraid. Don't mean to be harsh, that's what it indicates, whether or not it's true. What of Jean-Paul Sartre's idea, for example? "Sartre's phrasing is that God would be a pour-soi [a being-for-itself; a consciousness] who is also an en-soi [a being-in-itself; a thing]: which is a contradiction in terms."* Just something to throw out there. There are tons of theories and ideas. It is actually kinda fun to read up on opposing ideas. I feel like I'm getting closer to other people, that way. I'm getting closer to understanding them. That's why I'm so passionate for imploring my fellow Christians to open up their minds, and look at other things. I mean, if you're afraid that looking at another argument is going to change your mind about Christ, you're faith probably isn't very strong or stable. There's a whole WORLD of interesting information out there!
NOTE: By the way, I don't mean to insinuate that EVERYONE in CC is close-minded, or unwilling to listen to other views. I'm not lumping everyone into one basket. Just wanted to let you know that.
*Existence of God - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
NOTE I would like to add to last post:
When I sy be open-minded, I'm not saying you have to AGREE with the person you're talking to. All I'm saying is that even if it's an argument you've heard before, there may be a detail of the argument the person has that you've never heard. You should be educated about what you're arguing against, if you're going to. Basically all I'm saying is don't we shouldn't assume we got it all down pat doctrinally.
When I sy be open-minded, I'm not saying you have to AGREE with the person you're talking to. All I'm saying is that even if it's an argument you've heard before, there may be a detail of the argument the person has that you've never heard. You should be educated about what you're arguing against, if you're going to. Basically all I'm saying is don't we shouldn't assume we got it all down pat doctrinally.
S
How did God come about . . .
He simply tells us in His Word:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God. [SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
- John 1:1-3
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. [SUP]2 [/SUP]For by it the elders obtained a good report. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
- Hebrews 11:1-3
He simply tells us in His Word:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [SUP]2 [/SUP]The same was in the beginning with God. [SUP]3 [/SUP]All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
- John 1:1-3
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. [SUP]2 [/SUP]For by it the elders obtained a good report. [SUP]3 [/SUP]Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
- Hebrews 11:1-3
For thousands of years people had a different way of thinking about things than we do. It wasn't until about 500 years before Christ lived on our earth that people decided to question everything, to tear it apart to be sure it was true. They were every bit as intelligent as we are, in ways more so, but if they were told something from a reliable source they just questioned how it would work in their lives and what they should do with that fact.
If people wouldn't have changed the way they thought, we probably would never have airplanes and automobiles. It wasn't an inventive mind, but in many ways a lot more productive than our way of thinking.
They had the scripture of Genesis, although it was only memorized and repeated orally, wasn't written down at first. They didn't wonder who created God, they said God is our creator, God is way, way superior, I will listen to God. That seems to me to be the most accurate way to think about it.
If people wouldn't have changed the way they thought, we probably would never have airplanes and automobiles. It wasn't an inventive mind, but in many ways a lot more productive than our way of thinking.
They had the scripture of Genesis, although it was only memorized and repeated orally, wasn't written down at first. They didn't wonder who created God, they said God is our creator, God is way, way superior, I will listen to God. That seems to me to be the most accurate way to think about it.
J
I know your just generally referring to me Jamie. That is ok, I don't mind =)
But once again, I must disagree with you on the idea of "opening up our minds to new ideas." These ideas that you propose are outside of the Bible: They include, reincarnation, universalism, the fallibility of the Bible, no such thing as eternal punishment, possibility of God revealing himself in other religions, sex before marriage, etc.
You claim that having Christ in common is most important. You are right. But having Christ in common means accepting and believing his words, and the words of the apostles which are written in the Bible, which all the church fathers agree are true.
You reject many of Christ's words. So once again, i must ask, do we have Christ in common?
i accept you as a person and while you may not believe it, I do love you, which is why I am telling you the truth.
I adhere to Biblical doctrine but how can I adhere to it if I agree with many of your anti-biblical doctrines?
again I am not trying to be mean or harsh, but I must uphold and defend the truth of the gospel.
But once again, I must disagree with you on the idea of "opening up our minds to new ideas." These ideas that you propose are outside of the Bible: They include, reincarnation, universalism, the fallibility of the Bible, no such thing as eternal punishment, possibility of God revealing himself in other religions, sex before marriage, etc.
You claim that having Christ in common is most important. You are right. But having Christ in common means accepting and believing his words, and the words of the apostles which are written in the Bible, which all the church fathers agree are true.
You reject many of Christ's words. So once again, i must ask, do we have Christ in common?
i accept you as a person and while you may not believe it, I do love you, which is why I am telling you the truth.
I adhere to Biblical doctrine but how can I adhere to it if I agree with many of your anti-biblical doctrines?
again I am not trying to be mean or harsh, but I must uphold and defend the truth of the gospel.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeve515 seeing as you already *do* believe in God, I think this video does a great job of explaining "*how* God didn't come about, but always was/is", especially if you're a ponderer (...like I am)...but only scripture best explains "why" such is true.
----
But to the skeptics or agnostics; with love, know ahead of time that God doesn't need to prove himself to anyone because he's not on trial and man is not his judge, nor does he need to be accepted by any man. It's under a false premise to say that the onus is on anyone to prove that God exists. He doesn't need our belief for him to exist (contrary to the still prevalent Greco-Roman concept that says 'gods need our faith for them to live'), nor does he need a relationship with us (he wants one...but doesn't need it). The proof of his true love is that he doesn't need us in any way...at all...but *still* wants a relationship with us. Wow!
He so much doesn't need to prove himself that I don't know how to phrase it any better...and in fact he won't prove anything until we first prove ourselves to him.
Actually if you think about it, we're the ones on trial.
Man is who needs to prove "we" exist and that we seek to please him, each of us given a certain timeframe to do that. This is why scripture calls the written accounts of our lives "The Book of Remembrance" & "The Book of Life". We're the ones God needs to know & remember, not vice-versa...because we don't want Christ to say to us "I never know you" (Matthew 7:21-23). It's a death sentence for God to forget a person - literally, erasing us out of those figurative "books" as if we never were - since our very breath is from his breath.
Christ said to a person who wanted to follow him but who first wanted to bury his father, "let **the dead** bury the dead" (Luke 9:60). You see we've not actually proven we're "alive" until God himself can say he knows us...until then, it's just a matter of time before we "prove" otherwise, isn't it?
It's only in faith that we can do anything to please him...but when we DO choose to show faith in him first - like Jeve515 has, evident in his very question - he rewards us with that proof. Faith must always come first. This is why unbelievers can never - and will never - find proof of God. In fact, God purposely makes available strong delusion (i.e. proof to the contrary) so that those who do not love the truth will be more convinced of the lie and be judged for it in the end (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). It is 100% our choice.
Hebrews 11:6
...without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he *rewards* those who earnestly seek him.
----
But to the skeptics or agnostics; with love, know ahead of time that God doesn't need to prove himself to anyone because he's not on trial and man is not his judge, nor does he need to be accepted by any man. It's under a false premise to say that the onus is on anyone to prove that God exists. He doesn't need our belief for him to exist (contrary to the still prevalent Greco-Roman concept that says 'gods need our faith for them to live'), nor does he need a relationship with us (he wants one...but doesn't need it). The proof of his true love is that he doesn't need us in any way...at all...but *still* wants a relationship with us. Wow!
He so much doesn't need to prove himself that I don't know how to phrase it any better...and in fact he won't prove anything until we first prove ourselves to him.
Actually if you think about it, we're the ones on trial.
Man is who needs to prove "we" exist and that we seek to please him, each of us given a certain timeframe to do that. This is why scripture calls the written accounts of our lives "The Book of Remembrance" & "The Book of Life". We're the ones God needs to know & remember, not vice-versa...because we don't want Christ to say to us "I never know you" (Matthew 7:21-23). It's a death sentence for God to forget a person - literally, erasing us out of those figurative "books" as if we never were - since our very breath is from his breath.
Christ said to a person who wanted to follow him but who first wanted to bury his father, "let **the dead** bury the dead" (Luke 9:60). You see we've not actually proven we're "alive" until God himself can say he knows us...until then, it's just a matter of time before we "prove" otherwise, isn't it?
It's only in faith that we can do anything to please him...but when we DO choose to show faith in him first - like Jeve515 has, evident in his very question - he rewards us with that proof. Faith must always come first. This is why unbelievers can never - and will never - find proof of God. In fact, God purposely makes available strong delusion (i.e. proof to the contrary) so that those who do not love the truth will be more convinced of the lie and be judged for it in the end (2 Thessalonians 2:10-12). It is 100% our choice.
Hebrews 11:6
...without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he *rewards* those who earnestly seek him.
Last edited:
Don't flatter yourself; there are others. 
lol I'm teasing... but really, I've seen others on here that push their worldview without so much as a "I see your point, but disagree."
Well, I PROPOSE those ideas, meaning as I said before, I am speculating. And why do you feel the need to list everything we talked about in another thread, in this one? Is the purpose to "reveal" to others that I'm a heretic and therefore have nothing valuable to say?
You use the word "many." There are A TON of things Christ said in the Gospels that you and I never discussed. And even the words themselves are up for debate in how to read them.
Well, why are you asking the question, when you already have it in your mind that we don't? You don't want to agree with me, but you want me to agree with you?
I appreciate that. I really do, and I thank you. But these things you are telling me is not new information to me. I am well acquainted with Scripture. You talk as if I haven't given any thought at all to what I believe, or how to approach Scripture.
I mean, in ALL the persuasion you have presented me, you never ONCE (that I can remember, you can reference the post # if I fail to remember) told me the Gospel. At least you downplayed it in favor of rules, doing/not doing this or that. When you argue with people in this manner, you make Christianity look like it is about how to live (which that plays into it), instead of where to put your trust. You talk about following Jesus' words, yet you never once mentioned THE REASON we should even consider Jesus' words - the Resurrection. In "witnessing" to me, you have not shown me the Gospel, but a bunch of side doctrines.
I can say that I love you too, and that is why I want you to see the error in your witnessing. You obviously think you're witnessing to me, rather than mere discussion, because you have made the insinuation that I'm an unbeliever.
WHEN did I ever ask you to agree with me? I asked you to RESPECT my speculations as the workings of a mind that is seeking God. I never told you that you had to agree with me.
Yes, the Gospel - which you hardly touched in all our conversing. The sinless life, death, and bodily resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins - I believe that. I cherish that. And I have faith in that.
lol I'm teasing... but really, I've seen others on here that push their worldview without so much as a "I see your point, but disagree."Well, I PROPOSE those ideas, meaning as I said before, I am speculating. And why do you feel the need to list everything we talked about in another thread, in this one? Is the purpose to "reveal" to others that I'm a heretic and therefore have nothing valuable to say?
You use the word "many." There are A TON of things Christ said in the Gospels that you and I never discussed. And even the words themselves are up for debate in how to read them.
Well, why are you asking the question, when you already have it in your mind that we don't? You don't want to agree with me, but you want me to agree with you?
I appreciate that. I really do, and I thank you. But these things you are telling me is not new information to me. I am well acquainted with Scripture. You talk as if I haven't given any thought at all to what I believe, or how to approach Scripture.
I mean, in ALL the persuasion you have presented me, you never ONCE (that I can remember, you can reference the post # if I fail to remember) told me the Gospel. At least you downplayed it in favor of rules, doing/not doing this or that. When you argue with people in this manner, you make Christianity look like it is about how to live (which that plays into it), instead of where to put your trust. You talk about following Jesus' words, yet you never once mentioned THE REASON we should even consider Jesus' words - the Resurrection. In "witnessing" to me, you have not shown me the Gospel, but a bunch of side doctrines.
I can say that I love you too, and that is why I want you to see the error in your witnessing. You obviously think you're witnessing to me, rather than mere discussion, because you have made the insinuation that I'm an unbeliever.
WHEN did I ever ask you to agree with me? I asked you to RESPECT my speculations as the workings of a mind that is seeking God. I never told you that you had to agree with me.
Yes, the Gospel - which you hardly touched in all our conversing. The sinless life, death, and bodily resurrection of the God-man Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins - I believe that. I cherish that. And I have faith in that.