The Origin of God

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
In case you missed my edit:

They'd have you believe that all one need do is proclaim, "I believe, I believe". Yet Jesus says different:

Matthew 7:21-23
"Not everyone who says to me,'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven...Depart from me, you who work iniquity.'"

Why do you plac ...[text shortened]... us "LORD" when it is Paul that you follow? Paul wasn't even a true disciple of Jesus.

Look! I'm not going to go there if you don't answer this question.

Which of the scriptures do you recognise as the word of God?

Originally posted by josephw
Look! I'm not going to go there if you don't answer this question.

Which of the scriptures do you recognise as the word of God?

Do you really think that what scriptures I "recognise as the word of God" is relevant?

What is relevant is what Jesus taught. Isn't Jesus the one you call "Lord"?

Luke 6
46 "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock; and when a flood occurred, the torrent burst against that house and could not shake it, because it had been well built. 49 But the one who has heard and has not acted accordingly, is like a man who built a house on the ground without any foundation; and the torrent burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really think that what scriptures I "recognise as the word of God" is irrelevant?

What is relevant is what Jesus taught. Isn't Jesus the one you call "Lord"?

Luke 6
46 "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a ...[text shortened]... t burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

"Do you really think that what scriptures I "recognise as the word of God" is irrelevant?"

No. What you think is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether or not you can answer a strait question.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Do you really think that what scriptures I "recognise as the word of God" is irrelevant?"

No. What you think is irrelevant.

What is relevant is whether or not you can answer a strait question.[/b]

If what I think is irrelevant, then why is it important that I answer your question? This doesn't make any sense.

Why do you focus on what I think rather than what was taught by Jesus?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If what I think is irrelevant, then why is it important that I answer your question? This doesn't make any sense.

Why do you focus on what I think rather than what was taught by Jesus?

Good night ThinkOfOne.

I'm too tired to think any more today. Another day.

Originally posted by josephw
Do you need some help figuring out which is which? 🙂

Thanks for the offer but i think i'll be fine.

Judging by some of your posts do you know which is which?

Originally posted by josephw
God is the prime mover. He is subject to nothing. Everything is subject to Him.

According to the Bible God is everywhere at once. From one end of creation to the other. From eternity past to eternity future. There are no constraints on God what-so-ever.

God is willing to reveal Himself to anyone willing to know Him.

There is a verse that says, and I ...[text shortened]... st the command, "draw close to Me", and then the promise, "and I will draw close to you."

That has nothing whatsoever to do with responding to my post, it's just a collection of rhetorical statements.

Blah, blah and thrice; blah.

Originally posted by josephw
I've heard the question asked many times, 'where did God come from', or 'who created God'?

The question assumes that God came from somewhere or had a beginning.

My question is this. Why is the concept or idea of an eternal being, without beginning or end, so difficult to understand?

The concept is not difficult at all to understand. Beyond mere understanding, however comes the choice of of whether one wants to entertain that idea as a possible reality - and it is entirely a choice.

Many choose not to. What seems to be so difficult to understand for you is why anyone would make such a choice in contradiction to your choice. It's only a choice; nothing more and nothing less, regardless of the choice.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Do you really think that what scriptures I "recognise as the word of God" is relevant?

What is relevant is what Jesus taught. Isn't Jesus the one you call "Lord"?

Luke 6
46 "Why do you call Me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47 Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a m ...[text shortened]... t burst against it and immediately it collapsed, and the ruin of that house was great."

Do you really think that what scriptures I "recognise as the word of God" is relevant?

What is relevant is what Jesus taught.

----------------ToO---------------------------------------

Can't you figure out the connection? What you recognise as the Word of God affects how you interpret scripture. If , for example , you totally ignore one set of things Jesus says and only focus on other sayings of Jesus you will inevitably end up with a skewed interpretation (which is what you have).

That's why it's relevant. I would have thought it was obvious. The fact that you just continue to treat your INTERPRETATION of Jesus as the only truth possible , doesn't make it true. You have to have a reasoned argument. Your rationale doesn't add up. Sadly , you can't address this , you just walk away and find some other person on which you can ply your trade , feigning to discuss and debate when in reality you are on a crusade.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Within the Lord's Prayer is the "forgive us our trespasses section "

2) A man who trespasses cannot logically have overcome sin

3) Jesus taught his followers to confess their sins to God regularly.

4) Therefore this directly contradicts your interpretation of Jesus. It doesn't add up.

5) You will never accept this because you can't debate or discuss openly and fairly.

6) Nevertheless I have proved your position to be self contradictory and illogical.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by knightmeister

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1) Within the Lord's Prayer is the "forgive us our trespasses section "

2) A man who trespasses cannot logically have overcome sin

3) Jesus taught his followers to confess their sins to God regularly.

4) Therefore this directly contradicts your interpretati ...[text shortened]... illogical.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hold on a moment. Jesus is teaching while he's alive and Christians believe that his death is the atonement for sins. Jesus is instructing for the forgiveness of sins because 1) He's not dead yet, and 2) He's not making the assumption that all have been baptized - either in his listening audience at the time or after. Regardless of whether you believe that or not, I don't think it's quite fair to ignore that a Christian believer may be making that distinction while you seem to not be making that distinction.

Originally posted by Badwater
The concept is not difficult at all to understand. Beyond mere understanding, however comes the choice of of whether one wants to entertain that idea as a possible reality - and it is entirely a choice.

Many choose not to. What seems to be so difficult to understand for you is why anyone would make such a choice in contradiction to your choice. It's only a choice; nothing more and nothing less, regardless of the choice.

If it's not too difficult to understand , then why do they ask where God came from?

I disagree. If one should ask where God came from, then it must be because they don't understand the concept of an eternally existing God.

Originally posted by josephw
I've heard the question asked many times, 'where did God come from', or 'who created God'?

The question assumes that God came from somewhere or had a beginning.

My question is this. Why is the concept or idea of an eternal being, without beginning or end, so difficult to understand?

It is difficult for humans to comprehend something like God and his existance. The Bible explains these thoughts at such scriptures as: Rom 11:33-36. Ps 19:21 & 90:2-4 & 139:7-12. Am 9:2-4. Isaiah 43:10,11. Rom 1:18-20. Rev 10:6. 2Ch 16:9.

Originally posted by galveston75
It is difficult for humans to comprehend something like God and his existance. The Bible explains these thoughts at such scriptures as: Rom 11:33-36. Ps 19:21 & 90:2-4 & 139:7-12. Am 9:2-4. Isaiah 43:10,11. Rom 1:18-20. Rev 10:6. 2Ch 16:9.

True. Comprehending God more fully takes time and effort, but I'm talking about understanding just the simple concept of the existence of an eternal God without beginning or end.

Originally posted by josephw
I've heard the question asked many times, 'where did God come from', or 'who created God'?

The question assumes that God came from somewhere or had a beginning.

My question is this. Why is the concept or idea of an eternal being, without beginning or end, so difficult to understand?

I never had a problem with it, jo. But you're right--the thought seems to send some people right over the edge.

Originally posted by PinkFloyd
I never had a problem with it, jo. But you're right--the thought seems to send some people right over the edge.

So far over the edge they can't seem to get in on the debate about it.

Do you think it's because they know they can't win?