Who made God?

[OzSpen]

Hi Oz,
Sorry to hear you're not well.
Will keep you in prayer.
So much odd stuff going around.
Let us know...

wondering,

I came home from hospital yesterday, but I'm very weak after losing 4kg = 8.8lbs in the week.

Blessings,
Oz

 

[calvin]

There have been many ups and downs throughout the history of the Church.
Jesus said though that the gates of hell would not prevail against it.
A study of Church history throughout the ages shows that His words are once again true.
Something to ponder on the error of the Roman Eucharist:
Mat 26:27 And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you,
Mat 26:28 for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Mat 26:29 I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” Esv.

Some not too difficult questions::
Verse 27,...what liquid was in the cup Jesus took up and gave to His disciples?
V28 What liquid was actually poured out of the cup and where was it poured?
Literally?
Metaphorically?
V29 (here is a really difficult one) What was the 'this fruit of the vine' that He, Jesus would not drink of again until...? Was it His shed blood? Will He be drinking His own blood in His Father's Kingdom?


Verse 27...Grape juice/Must or Wine.
Verse 28...See answer to Verse 27, and it was poured out down the throats of the Disciples.
Verse 29...again refer to verse 27

1Co 11:27 Whoever, therefore, eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner will be guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord. Esv

Well then, if a priest thinks that bread and wine are transformed into flesh and blood and clearly it is not and was not, is he not guilty concerning the body and blood of the Lord? Has he not in a most unworthy way misrepresented the Eucharist?

 

[calvin]

There is no need to mock what you do not understand. It does not enhance your standing among your peers. If it did, you would need to consider finding new peers.)

Tatty at best. The only standing I am concerned with is that of standing by the righteousness of Christ.
And you think I should change that?...really?

 

[calvin]

wondering,

I came home from hospital yesterday, but I'm very weak after losing 4kg = 8.8lbs in the week.

Blessings,
Oz

Glad to hear you are on the road to recovery.
Well I only really came back to this thread when I learned of your illness.
Now I'm outta here...again.

 

[Jim Parker]

Tatty at best. The only standing I am concerned with is that of standing by the righteousness of Christ.
And you think I should change that?...really?

Well, that's a totally different topic from your cheap shot at the RCC.

 

[Papa Zoom]

The Western church did. No so in the East.
The selling of indulgences was the last straw for Luther but, beginning with Augustine, Platonism and Aristotelian teaching was introduced into the western Christianity and severely changed the trajectory of theology. Much of what the RCC developed through the scholastics transferred directly into Protestantism

It needed to get rid of the selling of indulgences and the Platonic/Aristotelian influence.
What the Reformation did was keep the Platonic/Aristotelian influence, tossed out the original teaching of the Eucharist, denigrated baptism to a public show of having joined the church, and replaced the selling of indulgences with the peddling of cheap grace.
Oh well...
.

The problems went far beyond the selling of indulgences-the last straw in a long line of straws. So that rather puts to rest any idea that the early Church (very early) hadn't already lost its way. The Cadaver Synod in 897 illustrates just one occurrence in a long line of questionable behaviors by a church leader. Another: Benedict IX sole the Papacy. Came back for a month, then left to marry. Also: Pope Sergius III ordered the murder of another Pope and John XII raped women and introduced pagan gods! I could go on. These examples alone make questionable any claims of Apostolic succession and "unity" of the early Church. It was a hierarchy of power and abuse and the Reformation was a natural response to the hundreds of years of abuse by evil men in the early Church. Hence, the smack down. Sent by God no doubt. The problems you cite in today's churches seem to pale in comparison to some of the problems caused in the early Church many hold so dear.

 

[Jim Parker]

The problems went far beyond the selling of indulgences-the last straw in a long line of straws. So that rather puts to rest any idea that the early Church (very early) hadn't already lost its way.

No. It does not. All you have done is expressed an opinion with absolutely no shred of evidence to support it.

The Cadaver Synod in 897 illustrates just one occurrence in a long line of questionable behaviors by a church leader. Another: Benedict IX sole the Papacy.

You are talking about the Roman church which I have already stated had taken Platonic and Aristotelian teachings in via Augustine of Hippo.
The Eastern Church did not.

Pope Sergius III ordered the murder of another Pope and John XII raped women and introduced pagan gods! I could go on.

Yes, yes, Catholic Bashing is a popular Protestant sport.
Unfortunately, Protestant churches have been equally evil. Maybe you've heard of Oliver Cromwell and his reign of Puritan terror.
Or the Kings and Queens of England who filled the position of Pope in their domains and happily slaughtered any and all opponents. King James was a homosexual and the head of the Church of England.
So some of the popes were evil. Are you saying that no Protestant Church leader has been as evil? Jim Jones maybe?

These examples alone make questionable any claims of Apostolic succession and "unity" of the early Church.

The western church had, by the 9th century, already essentially separated itself from the East.

It was a hierarchy of power and abuse and the Reformation was a natural response to the hundreds of years of abuse by evil men in the early Church.

And the German princes found in the "reformation" an excuse to murder one another, rob their neighbors and accumulating power and killing about 3 million Germans in the process of 100 years of warfare, all in the name of God and blaming it on those damn KATH-licks.

The problems you cite in today's churches seem to pale in comparison to some of the problems caused in the early Church many hold so dear.

The early church had no pope as we have today. They rejected the idea of his authority over the entire church.
The Eastern Church suffered from none of those maladies.
They had no popes for Protestants to hate. They still don't.

All you have done is display your ignorance of the early church and you abiding hatred for the RCC.
Oh well.

 

[Papa Zoom]

No. It does not. All you have done is expressed an opinion with absolutely no shred of evidence to support it.

You are talking about the Roman church which I have already stated had taken Platonic and Aristotelian teachings in via Augustine of Hippo.
The Eastern Church did not.

Yes, yes, Catholic Bashing is a popular Protestant sport.
Unfortunately, Protestant churches have been equally evil. Maybe you've heard of Oliver Cromwell and his reign of Puritan terror.
Or the Kings and Queens of England who filled the position of Pope in their domains and happily slaughtered any and all opponents. King James was a homosexual and the head of the Church of England.
So some of the popes were evil. Are you saying that no Protestant Church leader has been as evil? Jim Jones maybe?

The western church had, by the 9th century, already essentially separated itself from the East.

And the German princes found in the "reformation" an excuse to murder one another, rob their neighbors and accumulating power and killing about 3 million Germans in the process of 100 years of warfare, all in the name of God and blaming it on those damn KATH-licks.

The early church had no pope as we have today. They rejected the idea of his authority over the entire church.
The Eastern Church suffered from none of those maladies.
They had no popes for Protestants to hate. They still don't.

All you have done is display your ignorance of the early church and you abiding hatred for the RCC.
Oh well.

You can look up those things I cite (the evidence you claim I did not offer). Show me where I am wrong in what I pointed out to you. And be careful of your tone. And yes, that's an official warning.

Even the EO split from the early Church because of its corruption. Today they claim (Orthodox Churches) that they are the only true Church and they only can trace their roots back to the First Century Church. The only true Church is the Church where Christ is head. That's any group of true believers no matter what their affiliation.

Pointing out the flaws of the early Church isn't demonstrating hate. It's being accurate with history.

 

[Jim Parker]

Show me where I am wrong in what I pointed out to you. And be careful of your tone. And yes, that's an official warning.

I did.
And what are you talking about "be careful of your tone"?

Even the EO split from the early Church because of its corruption.

That is not correct. (It is also not to say that there wasn't a big problem with the secular power of the popes.)
The split was about the Primacy of Peter, the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders, the filioque, (unilaterally changing the creed) and other issues.

Pointing out the flaws of the early Church isn't demonstrating hate.

Really? That's how I experienced it.
I guess it depends on whether you are sending the flaws or receiving the hatred.
Perhaps it's the tone in which those flaws is presented.
Perhaps my dismay at yet another "papist error" recital coming through.

It's being accurate with history.

A piece of history can be like half a verse. It's true but it's not the whole truth.
That history also includes Francis of Assisi, Father Damien of Molokai, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Father Maximilian Kolbe of Dacau, Father LaForgue (Black Robe) and a host of others. No one seems to remember any of those good folks and martyrs while reciting the litany of what's wrong with those Papists.
I'm sorry if my distress in being presented with yet another recital of the great errors of the RCC comes across. It wounds my spirit when believers attack other believers based on the strife of the Reformation that was over 400 years ago. Yet I have heard it preached from pulpits and by otherwise inspiring TV preachers.

I guess viewing Catholics as 2nd class citizens of heaven will continue until the Lord comes for His fragmented kingdom.

 

[GodsGrace]

wondering,

I came home from hospital yesterday, but I'm very weak after losing 4kg = 8.8lbs in the week.

Blessings,
Oz

Hi Oz,

You'll be getting your strength back.
The important thing is that you recovered and are healing.

May our good Lord make His presence be felt by you at this time and always...

Blessings

 

[GodsGrace]

How is it you ask someone to define a thing that does not exist?

Calvin,
How do you figure that Apostolic succession does not exist?
You could not agree with it, but you cannot say it doesn't exist.

It simply means that Jesus left his orders with the Apostles and they passed them down through the generations.
We could debate what happened with the schism in 1,000 with the Eastern Church.
IOW, which one held on to the truth.
But we cannot say that it does not exist.

Also, it definitely got broken with the reformation.

The Protestant churches that have made up new and different doctrine from what the Apostolic Fathers believed have separated themselves from the Apostolic succession. Some protestants are going back into the RCC and the Orthodox Church because they can't take all the different doctrines anymore. A very important figure in Protestantism just became a Catholic - sorry I can't remember the name.

I think you wrote me another post --- I'll go look for it.

 

[GodsGrace]

Perhaps, not exactly.
Try the formula:
Form, Context, Meaning, and Significance.
Not really different from what you are saying, just clarified a little.


Have you considered that today's scholars have access to more and better researched texts than were available centuries ago?

I can argue over anything
I sometimes think that a lot of these subjects are driven by what we want to believe rather than an open hearted study of the Scriptures.
Other hot topics are death, soul sleep, hell, eternal punishment and works within grace or not.
edited some spelling bads

Hi Calvin,

Re your first comment: You're absolutely right of course. But some on these threads think they ARE theologians. They kind of read the bible and decide what doctrine they like and go with that and fight tooth and nail for it. I believe this is called eisegesis.

As far as today's scholar's:
No, I don't believe they have texts that are better researched than the old ones.
Everything that is found, that I know of, just confirms the gospels. For instance Peter's house was found in Capernaum.
The Dead Sea Scrolls teach nothing new but confirm what we know.
Jericho has indeed been found after the belief that it did not even ever exist.

In fact I'd say that the theologians that came right after the resurrection and in the first couple of hundred years knew much more than those of today. They LIVED that era and did not have to read about it or study it. They knew first hand about the persecutions of the Christians.
They knew Greek and understood what was written very well without having to learn the language.

There were men living then who knew an Apostle or other. Men that knew friends of the Apostles. As time goes on, word gets watered down. I believe the RCC kept the original beliefs in tact and this is what was believed until the reformation when all this new stuff has come about. Doctrines that have nothing to do with what was known for at least 1,500 years. Yes, I dare say I trust the old theologians better.
They DIED for what they believed... The modern day ones don't have to.

Oh. P.S. Your last paragraph. I'd like to believe in OSAS, I really would. But I cannot since the bible clearly does not teach this and I have to go by what the bible teaches, not what Calvin teaches.

 

[OzSpen]

Glad to hear you are on the road to recovery.
Well I only really came back to this thread when I learned of your illness.
Now I'm outta here...again.

Are you saying you won't reply to this thread when I'm participating? If so, what's the cause of avoidance of dealing with me?

 

[OzSpen]

Your opinion that it is a "false document" is less than convincing.
In fact, labeling it a "false document" is a good example of "poisoning the well."
I believe it is biased.

Jim,

Jim,

You are not convinced by my evidence concerning the Protoevangelium of James (the Infancy Gospel of James) that promotes Mary's perpetual virginity. There is more!

Here's one of the problems with the Proto. Here is one spurious example from the text:

And they said to the high priest: You stand by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto you, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be (Protoevangelium of James, para 8).

Zacharias was never a high priest. This is a false statement.

As for the early church fathers stating anything about this book, it was never mentioned by any church father until Origen (ca. 185-254). He wrote

But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or “The Book of James,” that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. Now those who say so wish to preserve the honour of Mary in virginity to the end, so that that body of hers which was appointed to minister to the Word which said, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee,” might not know intercourse with a man after that the Holy Ghost came into her and the power from on high overshadowed her. And I think it in harmony with reason that Jesus was the first-fruit among men of the purity which consists in chastity, and Mary among women; for it were not pious to ascribe to any other than to her the first-fruit of virginity (Origen, The Brethren of Jesus, Commentary on The Gospel of Peter).​

So, no early father even mentions the perpetual virginity of Mary until Origen in the third century.

Does that satisfy your inquiry into what early church fathers thought of this document. Origen also used this document and his interpretation of the perpetual virginity of Mary to support chastity of men and women. So Mary was ascribed as 'the first-fruit of virginity'.

So this Protoevangelium was used not only to laud the perpetual virginity of Mary but to use Jesus and Mary to promote chastity.

Oz

 

[eugenelester]

In my sharing the Gospel in my secular Australian culture, I sometimes meet this objection when I begin discussing God: ‘You claim that there is eternal life for all who believe. Who on earth made God? There's no point in going any further unless we can get a satisfactory answer to this question'.

I'm coming at this from a view that these people have no respect for the Bible. To quote the Bible will get an automatic rebuff.

Leading Christian apologist Norman Geisler, in the book Who Made God? And Answers to over 100 Other Tough Questions of Faith (Zacharias & Geisler 2003), addressed the title of the book, Who Made God? (Zacharias & Geisler 2003) this way:

Who Made God?

“No one did,” he wrote. “He was not made. He has always existed” (2003:23).

But, wait! Is this credible? If the universe has a beginning (and modern science has concluded that it indeed DID have a beginning), then wouldn’t God need a beginning as well?

According to Geisler, “Only things that had a beginning – like the world – need a maker. God had no beginning, so God did not need to be made” (2003:23)

Sounds a little like a cop-out, doesn’t it? Not so, says Geisler. Here is more of his answer:

“Traditionally, most atheists who deny the existence of God believe that the universe was not made; it was just “there” forever. They appeal to the first law of thermodynamics for support: “Energy can neither be created nor destroyed,” they insist. Several things must be observed in response.

“First, this way of stating the first law is not scientific; rather, it is a philosophical assertion. Science is based on observation, and there is no observational evidence that can support the dogmatic “can” and “cannot” implicit in this statement. It should read, “[As far as we have observed,] the amount of actual energy in the universe remains constant.” That is, no one had observed any actual new energy either coming into existence or going out of existence. Once the first law is understood properly, it says nothing about the universe being eternal or having no beginning” (2003:24, emphasis added).​

In other words, the first law of thermodynamics does not require a cause or creator for God.

Moreover, if God IS, then He has supernatural power. And the very definition of ‘supernatural’ means that He stands OUTSIDE of nature. If God is God, then God needs no Creator.

As Geisler explained: “It is absurd to ask ‘Who made God?’ It is a category mistake to ask, ‘Who made the Unmade?’ or ‘Who created the Uncreated?'” (2003: 24).

Is this a reasonable approach to answering the question or do you have another and better approach to answering this question from secularists?

Oz

Works consulted
Zacharias, R & Geisler, N (gen eds.) 2003. Who made God? and answers to over 100 other tough questions of faith. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan.

When we talk about God, we mean that He is the Absolute, it is meant that He is absolutely eternal and endless and has neither beginning nor end like a geometrical line. It is incorrectly to put a question «Where did God come from?» The same situation with a question: "And where did begin a line"? Next time answer an atheist: "I will say you where God is from, when you will show me the beginning of a geometrical line".
http://en.apologet.net/where-did-god-come-from/

 

[OzSpen]

When we talk about God, we mean that He is the Absolute, it is meant that He is absolutely eternal and endless and has neither beginning nor end like a geometrical line. It is incorrectly to put a question «Where did God come from?» The same situation with a question: "And where did begin a line"? Next time answer an atheist: "I will say you where God is from, when you will show me the beginning of a geometrical line".
http://en.apologet.net/where-did-god-come-from/

Thanks, eugene. Generally, I have to establish common ground before I get to the point where an atheist may ask a question, 'Who made God?' However, I raised the issue in this thread because some non-Christians do object this way. Your analogy is an excellent one.

Oz

 

[Randy]

Faith without works is dead and won't justify anyone. (James 2)

.

You didn't answer my question.
What work or works have you done to have your sins forgiven?

If someone has faith enough and opens the door then that is sufficient.
Rev 3:20

James received his salvation by the grace of God through Jesus Christ. Not by works.


Deeds is a sign of one who has received or not received the Fathers promise. The new creation. Christ in us as that Spirit was sent in Jesus name. "By their fruit.."

A sign of true salvation - Zacchaeus who was a chief tax collector.

When Jesus reached the spot, he looked up and said to him, “Zacchaeus, come down immediately. I must stay at your house today.” 6 So he came down at once and welcomed him gladly.
7 All the people saw this and began to mutter, “He has gone to be the guest of a sinner."

8 But Zacchaeus stood up and said to the Lord “Look, Lord! Here and now I give half of my possessions to the poor, and if I have cheated anybody out of anything,I will pay back four times the amount.

9 Jesus said to him, “Today salvation has come to this house, because this man, too, is a son of Abraham.10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost.”

So Jesus appeared to Paul who wasn't even seeking Jesus. Yet His sins were forgiven. I think Paul is going to preach salvation is by grace not by works. And Paul was also a sign of Gods mercy. The worst of sinners shown grace.

And anyone who sins is a slave to sin unless the Son sets them free and the Son sets them free they are free indeed.


Two asked something of Jesus yet only one received a reply. And that one went from being dead to alive forever and ever. By the grace of God poured out into the world through Jesus Christ our Lord.

One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”
40But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? 41We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
42Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.d ”
43Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.” (Jesus never dies)

 

[Randy]

When we talk about God, we mean that He is the Absolute, it is meant that He is absolutely eternal and endless and has neither beginning nor end like a geometrical line. It is incorrectly to put a question «Where did God come from?» The same situation with a question: "And where did begin a line"? Next time answer an atheist: "I will say you where God is from, when you will show me the beginning of a geometrical line".
http://en.apologet.net/where-did-god-come-from/

The Father is always about His work and so is the Son. Seeking the lost for salvation. Why not answer gently with truth and scripture? As in I don't know where God comes from. But this is what I do know from scripture......If they still insist and want to ask for proof of God the answer is if you don't believe the OT and the NT what can I possibly tell you that would convince you? For it is those words I preach from.

Jesus=>
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Though I would close that the tomb is still empty.


Randy

 

[eugenelester]

The Father is always about His work and so is the Son. Seeking the lost for salvation. Why not answer gently with truth and scripture? As in I don't know where God comes from. But this is what I do know from scripture......If they still insist and want to ask for proof of God the answer is if you don't believe the OT and the NT what can I possibly tell you that would convince you? For it is those words I preach from.

Jesus=>
"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Though I would close that the tomb is still empty.


Randy

Because we need to be able to answer not only on the basis of the Bible. And also because there are incorrect questions. And if you remember the same Bible, then Ivan the Baptist and Jesus Christ Himself did not always answer gently.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I did.
And what are you talking about "be careful of your tone"?

This: "All you have done is display your ignorance of the early church and you abiding hatred for the RCC"
That is directed at the person and isn't allowed. Discuss the issues only. And I don't have any hatred for the RCC. I just take issue with many of their claims. For the record, I appreciate your views on many issues but wish you'd tone down the personal stuff. You don't need it. The meat of your post is enough.

That is not correct. (It is also not to say that there wasn't a big problem with the secular power of the popes.)
The split was about the Primacy of Peter, the sack of Constantinople by Crusaders, the filioque, (unilaterally changing the creed) and other issues.

You're probably right. Maybe corruption wasn't the best choice of words.

Really? That's how I experienced it.
I guess it depends on whether you are sending the flaws or receiving the hatred.
Perhaps it's the tone in which those flaws is presented.
Perhaps my dismay at yet another "papist error" recital coming through.

It's difficult to take seriously a claim of Apologetic Succession when those very apostles were filled with evil and corruption. Not all of course, but enough to show the chain was seriously broken. It's a fact of history and even subsequent Popes have written about it. It's my view that there is but one head of the Church and that is Christ.

A piece of history can be like half a verse. It's true but it's not the whole truth.
That history also includes Francis of Assisi, Father Damien of Molokai, Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Father Maximilian Kolbe of Dacau, Father LaForgue (Black Robe) and a host of others. No one seems to remember any of those good folks and martyrs while reciting the litany of what's wrong with those Papists.
I'm sorry if my distress in being presented with yet another recital of the great errors of the RCC comes across. It wounds my spirit when believers attack other believers based on the strife of the Reformation that was over 400 years ago. Yet I have heard it preached from pulpits and by otherwise inspiring TV preachers.

This is an excellent point. And you are right. We would all do well to keep it in mind.There are more positives than negatives. That doesn't negate the problems and they need to have the light of day shed on them. But there is much more to the story.

I guess viewing Catholics as 2nd class citizens of heaven will continue until the Lord comes for His fragmented kingdom.

I don't hold to this view even a smidgen. And the Church has had problems and splits from the very beginning. Welcome to humanity. Leave us at the helm and we'll find multiple ways to mess things up.