Proof there is a God

  • Thread starter Thread starter 311splawndude
  • Start date Start date
acceptance said:
And as for John 1:1, I think you'r overlooking the logical problem. It can be addressed in sophisticated ways, but only by appealing to esoteric religious concepts or arguing that God is above our logical comprehension. Again, I think this gives the Orthodox an advantage in that (at least as far as I can tell) they would not suggest anyone can just read the bible and grok it's more difficult teachings like protestants suggest. As I understand the Orthodox say you need the church and it's tradition for this. On the other hand, I think (And I think Von would agree) that there is a benefit to the layperson being able to read and understand much of the bible, and that there were abuses of laypeople from not being able to do so, as in Martin Luther's time.
Click to expand...
@MontiCristo
 
acceptance said:
I will leave that to Von as I am not really arguing it and I don't know the Orthodox teachings. I also agree that it is silly to understand Paul's use of the word 'all' to include Jesus given his other clear statements. I was just trying to use that as an example about looking to closely at the words in a vacuum. The issue that is really in dispute is that you claim the Orthodox teachings that are outside of the Bible are not from Christ, while Von is saying that they are and that the Church tradition establishes that. I don't see how Col 2:8 excludes this from at least being possible, so you guys need to argue it back and forth.
Click to expand...

"the issue that is really in dispute is that you claim the Orthodox teachings that are outside of the Bible are not from Christ, while Von is saying that they are and that the Church tradition establishes that."

Correct, but i am compelled to ask, and have labored this point throughout this entire conversation, by what standard does one measure these traditions against? There is far, far too much room for subjectivity and we know full well that many "traditions" have not only been wrong, but some of them down right evil.

at the end of the day, there has to be an infallible standard.
The bible makes that claim and it can be confirmed through the eyewitness testimony of many people over the course of centuries.
 
acceptance said:
@MontiCristo
Click to expand...
there are "difficult" teachings and then there are straight forward truths.
I don't question the perspicuity of the scriptures.
The teaching of the sinlessness of Mary isn't difficult, nor is the teaching of the Eucharist.

I also don't wrestle with the fact that God's ways are not our ways and His thinking is higher than ours.
 
MontiCristo said:
Correct, but i am compelled to ask, and have labored this point throughout this entire conversation, by what standard does one measure these traditions against? There is far, far too much room for subjectivity and we know full well that many "traditions" have not only been wrong, but some of them down right evil.

at the end of the day, there has to be an infallible standard.
The bible makes that claim and it can be confirmed through the eyewitness testimony of many people over the course of centuries.
Click to expand...
I understand the problem. The Orthodox have resolved it by appealing to the Church history and the Protestants argue Sola Scriptura. I don't think the Protestants are less subjective though as I've mentioned. I know you want a tidy system that supposedly proves itself in the Bible but I think that biases your interpretation of what the Bible actually says.
 
What are the "logical problems" with John 1?
please explain
 
acceptance said:
I understand the problem. The Orthodox have resolved it by appealing to the Church history and the Protestants argue Sola Scriptura. I don't think the Protestants are less subjective though as I've mentioned. I know you want a tidy system that supposedly proves itself in the Bible but I think that biases your interpretation of what the Bible actually says.
Click to expand...
I know you do, but the difference between us is I have a standard to confirm the validity of my statements and beliefs.
Ya'll do not. Neither of you have presented any documented proof for the claims. You've been on defense the whole debate.

arguing the church has established the "tradition" while at the same time complaining about the vast number of protestant denominations is a contradiction. There are tons of "orthodox" churches that vastly differ from each other.
 
MontiCristo said:
What are the "logical problems" with John 1?
please explain
Click to expand...
God can't be with God and also be God. It's just not how english (Or logic) works. If God is a Trinity, fine, but then Jesus can't be God as he is not a Trinity. As I've mentioned you have to resort to esoteric and to my mind unintelligible religious concepts to resolve this.
 
MontiCristo said:
I know you do, but the difference between us is I have a standard to confirm the validity of my statements and beliefs.
Click to expand...
You "confirm" by referencing a self-reinforcing framework that believes it's interpretation of the Bible is THE correct one. I've pointed out that the language is not as clear as you think, among other issues.
 
acceptance said:
God can't be with God and also be God. It's just not how english (Or logic) works. If God is a Trinity, fine, but then Jesus can't be God as he is not a Trinity. As I've mentioned you have to resort to esoteric and to my mind unintelligible religious concepts to resolve this.
Click to expand...
anyone who thinks that the doctrine of the Trinity compromises monotheism simply does not understand what the doctrine is teaching.

God has not revealed everything about Himself.
'“The secret things belong to Yahweh our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may do all the words of this law.'
Deuteronomy 29:29

John 1:1 says the word "logos" was eternally face to face with God, and has an eternal relationship with Him.
It would be helpful for you to study predicate nominative construction with regard to how the order of Greek wording is used.
In Greek this passage literally reads "The Word Was God".
 
acceptance said:
I didn't argue that, reread what I wrote.
Click to expand...
"Jesus is identified as ego eimi in the sense of the old testament ani hu, then one is left with two persons sharing the one nature that is God, and this, when it encounters John's discussion of the Holy Spirit, becomes the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity."
- Dr. James White " the forgotten trinity".
 
MontiCristo said:
Correct, but i am compelled to ask, and have labored this point throughout this entire conversation, by what standard does one measure these traditions against? There is far, far too much room for subjectivity and we know full well that many "traditions" have not only been wrong, but some of them down right evil.
Click to expand...
I noted yesterday that it is all established through the writings of the early church fathers. We have a whole history of Mary not contained in scriptures that you don't know about because protestants are caught in the sola scriptura heresy and so even writings from the earliest church fathers are ignored by you. So you have an incomplete understanding of the faith. You have scripture, but not the tradition of the church that for 200 years was the basis of all christianity and for four ecumencial councils, went completely unchallenged. Protestants have already argued, and lost, these debates a five hundred years ago. Paul clearly indicates we are not only to hold to scripture, but also the traditions passed down from the early church.
 
VonBonfire said:
I noted yesterday that it is all established through the writings of the early church fathers. We have a whole history of Mary not contained in scriptures that you don't know about because protestants are caught in the sola scriptura heresy and so even writings from the earliest church fathers are ignored by you. So you have an incomplete understanding of the faith. You have scripture, but not the tradition of the church that for 200 years was the basis of all christianity and for four ecumencial councils, went completely unchallenged. Protestants have already argued, and lost, these debates a five hundred years ago. Paul clearly indicates we are not only to hold to scripture, but also the traditions passed down from the early church.
Click to expand...
wrong again
Paul did not

'But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to the gospel we have proclaimed to you, let him be accursed! '

Galatians 1:8
 
again, where are these writings? what do they say? you continuously appeal to them, but cannot provide a single word.
 
all of the following denounced the teaching that Mary was sinless.

The council of Nicaea
The council of Trent
The 2nd council of Nicaea

and more.
 
VonBonfire said:
Then your answer was non biblical, wrong, and heretical.

So far you aren't doing very good with your one viewer, acceptance. I think he is open minded enough to realize that holy tradition plays a part of early christianity whereas you are in complete denial stuck in your sola scriptura heresy.
Click to expand...

MontiCristo said:
I woke this morning and realized this thread had spun completely out of control.
The OP was seeking Proof of God and all we managed to do was debate and pick at each other in a fashion that is borderline unbecoming.
I apologize to @311splawndude who originated the post, I'm more than sure this is not what He wanted to see.

There is no need for any of us to put God on trial and attempt to prove to men that He exists. His Prescence is clearly perceived by looking at the wonderous creation and intricacies of life. In addition the objective standard of morality that is written on each of our hearts is evidence of His fingerprint.

@311splawndude or anyone else following - if you have never truly heard the gospel - pay attention because here it is :

If you have ever lied, stolen, coveted, bore false witness, been disrespectful to your parents, or have broken any other of God's commands (the whole lot of us have), then you are a sinner and have violated a Holy God. The scripture says Heb 9:27 "for it is appointed unto man to die once, and then comes judgment". You will face God for your sins one day when you die, you cannot escape death nor His judgment. However, God in His infinite grace and wisdom has provided a means of reconciliation, a means of washing every sin you ever committed away. He sent His son to take the full weight of your sin. The scripture says 2Cor 5:21 "he who knew no sin, became sin so that we might become the righteousness of God". Christ's death was God pouring out His wrath that was due us for our sin on Christ. He was then buried and the 3rd day He rose again defeating death! Why is this significant? Because death could not hold Him, for He knew no sin.
So what does this mean for you the sinner? It means repenting of your sin and placing your faith in Jesus Christ reconciles you to God. He no longer sees your sin, no longer burns with righteous indignation over your sin, and judgment is no longer coming. You are free from the wrath of God. John 3:36 " he who has the son has life, he who does not have the son does not have life, but God's wrath remains on him".

There is nothing else required other than faith in Christ.
No worship or exalt of Mary, no confessing to a priest, no eating and drinking of anything particular, no magic prayer, no money given.

simply repentance and faith.

Romans 4:4-5 says, "Now to the one who works, his wages are not credited as a favor or a gift, but as an obligation. But to the one who does not work, but believes and completely trusts in Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is credited to him as righteousness
Click to expand...
Amen
 
I've never dealt with someone so obtuse.

let's try again. read this very slowly.

BY WHAT STANDARD ARE THESE TRADITIONS TO BE CONFIRMED AS RELIABLE ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top