God of the Paradox
- Thread starter AngelFrog
- Start date
-
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.
Now see. You change your position halfway through. First you say something cannot come from nothing... Then you say something has to have existed eternally. You create some rules to weaken other people's arguments and then you break them to reinforce your own.
And maybe your looking at things the wrong way. The world is not tuned to us. We have adapted to the world.
Your saying a hole is a perfect shape for that particular puddle and I'm saying we are the water that has adapted to the shape of the hole.
Bear in mind, this is a volatile planet that has killed and caused extinction to 99 percent of the creatures that have ever lived on it.
Its prone to earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes and tsunamis that can wipe out entire towns and cities and we have germs and bacteria that wipe us out by the millions. This is not a perfectly designed world. Its a volatile, turbulent and at times unrelenting planet. If it was designed, then the product needs to be recalled.
Also, to Jimbone.. I will get around to your testimony shortly. I want to give it a bit of time and not a quick read through.
And maybe your looking at things the wrong way. The world is not tuned to us. We have adapted to the world.
Your saying a hole is a perfect shape for that particular puddle and I'm saying we are the water that has adapted to the shape of the hole.
Bear in mind, this is a volatile planet that has killed and caused extinction to 99 percent of the creatures that have ever lived on it.
Its prone to earthquakes, typhoons, hurricanes and tsunamis that can wipe out entire towns and cities and we have germs and bacteria that wipe us out by the millions. This is not a perfectly designed world. Its a volatile, turbulent and at times unrelenting planet. If it was designed, then the product needs to be recalled.
Also, to Jimbone.. I will get around to your testimony shortly. I want to give it a bit of time and not a quick read through.
The eye witnesses you refer to are written as eye witnesses in the story. They are not eye witnesses. They are characters in the story.
As for julius ceaser. That's more believable because the claims aren't as extraordinary as the claims in the bible. Regardless of if Julius Caesar actually existed, what's written about him is easier to believe.
Its like comparing a book about someone being able to walk and another about someone being able to fly unassisted.
The guy who wrote the walking book might not even have legs! We dont know! But its much easier to accept as a true story because of the claim.
The flying guy however, needs a little more evidence than just a book saying so... And would it add weight to it if in the same book it mentions some people saw him do it?
I hope you can see the difference in the claims.
As for julius ceaser. That's more believable because the claims aren't as extraordinary as the claims in the bible. Regardless of if Julius Caesar actually existed, what's written about him is easier to believe.
Its like comparing a book about someone being able to walk and another about someone being able to fly unassisted.
The guy who wrote the walking book might not even have legs! We dont know! But its much easier to accept as a true story because of the claim.
The flying guy however, needs a little more evidence than just a book saying so... And would it add weight to it if in the same book it mentions some people saw him do it?
I hope you can see the difference in the claims.
Just throwing this out there...
New Testament archaeological finds:
1. Nazareth Inscription (a law against grave and tomb robbing under penalty of death; dated to the first half of the first century AD)
2. Pilate Stone (indicates that there was an historical figure named Pilate)
3. James Ossuary (the inscription reads: James son of Joseph brother of Jesus)
Arguments from the text:
1. Two different Gospels record two different color words for the robe placed on Jesus. When examined further, the colors these two words describe can be the same, depending on variations in the dying process. Pliny actually spoke on this. So why would two different color words be used to describe the robe placed on Jesus if this account were fake? Why could they not stick with the original color word recorded in a fictional account? Maybe because this wasn't a fake account and the event was recorded by two different eyewitnesses who had two different opinions on the color of the robe.
2. Acts 21:33-34, 37-38 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. [...] As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?" "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?"
Why would the commander think that Paul was an Egyptian who specifically started a revolt and led 4,000 terrorists out into the wilderness? This was the first time he had met Paul. So where was he getting this information? If we look back at verse 34 where people were shouting different things in answer to the commander's question about who Paul was, then we get a better understanding of where the commander got this misinformation. The fact that the narrative does not make this connection in a clear manner tells me that the narrative was more focused on recording events - whether meaningful or meaningless - rather than proving a point. So this narrative seems to be a mundane account of a character in the Bible that only makes sense when closely examined. To me that's a strong indication of a truthful account of mundane factual events.
New Testament archaeological finds:
1. Nazareth Inscription (a law against grave and tomb robbing under penalty of death; dated to the first half of the first century AD)
2. Pilate Stone (indicates that there was an historical figure named Pilate)
3. James Ossuary (the inscription reads: James son of Joseph brother of Jesus)
Arguments from the text:
1. Two different Gospels record two different color words for the robe placed on Jesus. When examined further, the colors these two words describe can be the same, depending on variations in the dying process. Pliny actually spoke on this. So why would two different color words be used to describe the robe placed on Jesus if this account were fake? Why could they not stick with the original color word recorded in a fictional account? Maybe because this wasn't a fake account and the event was recorded by two different eyewitnesses who had two different opinions on the color of the robe.
2. Acts 21:33-34, 37-38 The commander came up and arrested him and ordered him to be bound with two chains. Then he asked who he was and what he had done. Some in the crowd shouted one thing and some another, and since the commander could not get at the truth because of the uproar, he ordered that Paul be taken into the barracks. [...] As the soldiers were about to take Paul into the barracks, he asked the commander, "May I say something to you?" "Do you speak Greek?" he replied. "Aren't you the Egyptian who started a revolt and led four thousand terrorists out into the wilderness some time ago?"
Why would the commander think that Paul was an Egyptian who specifically started a revolt and led 4,000 terrorists out into the wilderness? This was the first time he had met Paul. So where was he getting this information? If we look back at verse 34 where people were shouting different things in answer to the commander's question about who Paul was, then we get a better understanding of where the commander got this misinformation. The fact that the narrative does not make this connection in a clear manner tells me that the narrative was more focused on recording events - whether meaningful or meaningless - rather than proving a point. So this narrative seems to be a mundane account of a character in the Bible that only makes sense when closely examined. To me that's a strong indication of a truthful account of mundane factual events.
You are not making any sense. So you believe something can come from nothing? Or do you think it is more logical to assume that something has always existed instead (Which would then give rise to the things we see today)? Does not life teach us that there is a Cause and an Effect principle? Can we not demonstrate that scientifically thru observation? Can we observe things forming out of nothing? What sounds more logical to you?
I refer to my previous post..
I suppose my basic argument is.. We don't know if the universe was created, we don't know if it is a byproduct of another creation nor we don't know if its been here forever.
And if it was created, we have nothing to indicate what created it or how it was created or why it was created.
And because we don't know.. That doesn't give us licence to make stuff up!
And Jimbone.. I'm still working through your testimony... Its a lot longer than I initially thought lol
I suppose my basic argument is.. We don't know if the universe was created, we don't know if it is a byproduct of another creation nor we don't know if its been here forever.
And if it was created, we have nothing to indicate what created it or how it was created or why it was created.
And because we don't know.. That doesn't give us licence to make stuff up!
And Jimbone.. I'm still working through your testimony... Its a lot longer than I initially thought lol
Nope. . .they avow that they are eye witnesses (Jn 1:14, 19:35; Ac 4:20; 1Pe 5:1; 2Pe 1:16; 1Jn 1:1, 4:14; Lk 24:48; Heb 2:3).
I trust and believe my eye witnesses, and you trust and believe yours.
It's about believing and trusting your eye-witnesses or not.
I believe and trust the eye-witness writers of the NT.
I trust and believe my eye witnesses, and you trust and believe yours.
It's about believing and trusting your eye-witnesses or not.
I believe and trust the eye-witness writers of the NT.
I think the difference lies in the nature of the books in question. The author of Harry Potter does NOT represent herself as God.
The Bible represents itself as being of divine authorship, and having divine authority.
One is not obliged to accept these claims; but having accepted them, one is then obliged to accept Scripture as authoritative.
Everyone has some criteria for deciding what to believe. Once one has decided to believe something, ignoring the implications would be hypocritical.
The Bible represents itself as being of divine authorship, and having divine authority.
One is not obliged to accept these claims; but having accepted them, one is then obliged to accept Scripture as authoritative.
Everyone has some criteria for deciding what to believe. Once one has decided to believe something, ignoring the implications would be hypocritical.
God giving the account of what happened in the beginning with the creation within His Word does not equate with anyone making anything up. Like I said (in the other thread), the Scriptures say everyone is without excuse that there is a God and the creation itself testifies to that fact. Also, God's Word is backed up by tons of evidences, too. So one has to willingly ignore God and His Word and be actively against God so as not to believe in Him; Or do you think that everyone who accepts Jesus Christ and has a changed life is just delusional?
Last edited:
If the claim of Jesus in the bible was false,
we would have tons of Rome history that said it was false.
they would have proclamed it to the world in there history, but do not.
and the Jews and there land, no way on this green earth would they
have there land back if not ordained by God, and bible recorded it was going to happen.
we would have tons of Rome history that said it was false.
they would have proclamed it to the world in there history, but do not.
and the Jews and there land, no way on this green earth would they
have there land back if not ordained by God, and bible recorded it was going to happen.
No, believing in God by faith is trusting in Him sight unseen without the need for evidence. You are later rewarded by evidence in time because of your belief. Not because you still need to believe. God merely shows a believer evidence when He knows they will believe despite the evidence. For the Scriptures say, "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Last edited: