Who Made God?

Unfortunately for your nonsense theory, Jesus is accused of blasphemy in the other three gospels as well (eg, Matt 9:2-3, Mark 2:5-7, Luke 5:20-21). So all four gospels record that Jesus claimed to be God but you claim they’re wrong and that you know better!What sort of so-called Christian blatantly ignores all four gospels and invents his own delusionary theology? A fake Christian, of course.

But once again you are simply denying reality. The Gospel of John has always been recognozed as different than the other three Gospels which is why Mathew mark and luke are grouped as the Synoptic Gospels. Sorry but that is basic Christian history.Yet the fact also remains that that is what is actually written in the Nicene Creed.

Er, what does this have to do with what we were talking about??? You claimed that the gospel of John was different it that it reported that Jesus claimed to be God - which I then pointed out is incorrect, because the other three gospels report exactly the same thing. (Btw, I was taught about the difference between the gospel of John and the Synoptic Gospels when I was about thirteen.) No, it’s not a fact. But here is a fact - you don’t know what you’re talking about.You claim that - contrary to the evidence provided by all four gospels - the Nicene Creed says Jesus was just a man while on earth. But your claim is easily demonstrated to be nonsense by this fact: The Nicene Creed was formulated by the Catholic Church, which teaches the dogma of the Incarnation - ie, the earthly Jesus was both fully-God and fully-human.

Again, you are simply being dishonest.All through this thread I have repeatedly pointed out that John os different and not one of the synoptic gospels.The author of John though is trying to market a different "Jesus" than in the Synoptics; a Jesus who preforms miracles as a sign of divinity (although the Bible of course also has lots of people who are not divine performing miracles). It a definite difference in marketing. Actually the Church in Rome was but one of the parties at the council of Nicea in 325CE.Yet the fact remains what is actually written takes precedence over the dogma of your cult.The Nicean Creed says that Jesus became man. All the claims of your cult cannot change the fact of what was actually written.

Ok, out of my element ... confusion.I don't think the Bishop of Rome was "The Catholic Church" at the time of Nicaea.Wasn't the Council of Nicaea the embodiment of "The Catholic Church" at the time?

The Roman Church was understood by the Protestant Reformers to have begun when the Bishop of Rome was made Universal Bishop by the Byzantine Emperor Phocas, and called Pope, in 606 AD, the beginning of the papal system.Nicaea came almost three hundred years earlier, and was attended by bishops of all the churches in existence at the time. The Council is understood to have defined the Christian doctrine that is accepted by Christianity in general, the recognition of Christ as God Himself, in opposition to the heresy of Arianism (which today is held mainly by the Jehovah's Witnesses). Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

It was catholic in the sense of inclusive just as in the "I believes" (AkA Apostles Creed); the Holy Catholic Church. The Roman Catholic Church is a later creation that claims through Apostolic Succession a connection to the early Christian Church.But that is a claim that is valid when speaking of ANY of the Apostolic Succession Churches including Henry's creation and all of it's chapters.Nicea was primarily a gathering to kick some factions out of the mainstream Christian communion, and the Nicean Creed was primarily designed as a political touchstone much like the KJV was designed as a political tool to try to tone down the Anti-Roman Catholic segments of the society and to establish the Divine Right of Kings to rule.Edited by jar, : see explanation of the "I believes"

I think that many Evangelicals assume that whenever early believers gathered together it was under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit such as is described (and in my opinion accurately) in the book of Acts. Nicea, however, was likely not such a gathering. I doubt whether many of those Bishops and officials walked in the Spirit on a regular basis....but then again, you will ask what this even means. You basically argue that God is a product of human imagination, consensus, and mythos...whereas Faith and I would argue that God exists perfectly and impartially independent of human input. What we can't do, however, is explain how it is more than coincidental that the God of modern imagination is uncanningly defined through human authors throughout the ages....I suppose we would argue that the Holy Spirit inspired folks such as John Calvin. RC Sproul would likely agree. I believe that Sproul was not simply some conman. He had a genuine love of scripture and of logic, reason, and reality but where you differ is that you are unafraid to throw God and the Holy Spirit away and just go with your reason.

Really, Thug!The one Sproul podcast I commented on for you earlier contained a whopper of a ... apocryphal story. And then the no...thing, no..thing, no.thing, nothing crapola?Genuine love of logic, reason, and reality?BS.Sorry, man, but, no.

Yet again you are simply misrepresenting what I have said. You really need to stop doing that.I point out that all of the evidence shows that every God described has been the product of a human mind. It's not something I argue, it is simply reporting the facts supported by evidence.The God of Genesis 1 is described as an entirely different character than the God in Genesis 2 & 3. Sorry but that is a fact. Ganesha is different than Shiva or Indra or Vishnu. Jupiter is different than Venus. Ra is different than Seth. Odin is different than Loki. Raven is different than Coyote.That is an observation based on evidence that can be verified by anyone. In each case what is being created is a God as desired by the author.I fear that seems to bother you but don't see anyway to put it that could be honest yet make you happy. Why do you think those gathered at Nicea 1 were any different than any gathering of prelates today? Does it matter whether is is a College of Cardinals or the First President and the Twelve or the General Conference or the Chapter of Monks? Again, that is simply misrepresenting my position. You really need to stop doing that.Have you and I discussed Logic, Reason AND Reality? Have you ever heard me ask "What does the evidence show?"

Yes, it does. The believers gathered in the Upper Room in Acts were not simply a hodgepodge group with individual beliefs. They all walked in the Spirit.

You are so untrusting and too skeptical. Though a healthy trait, I think you have a bias against Christian preachers specifically. Theodoric warns us of Ravi Zacharias because of some incident that in Theos opinion tarnished his legacy and reputation.I consider Sproul one of the better ones, for he uses basic philosophical ideas coupled with traditional (and common) Theological understanding of scripture.Zacharias and many of the ministers at his site also use good logic.But im curious. On the atheist side, do you have any favorite people to listen to? Personally I like Matt Dillahunty...he is very logical.

Sorry Phat but that still has no meaning whatsoever.First, there are several references to "the upper room" in Acts. So which instance? The one where Matthias was chosen and Justus rejected?

No. I don't listen to no body. Seriously ...That depends on how you define listen to.I can imagine you listen to fellow religionists for the emotional philosophical comfort. I don’t seem to have such a need.In my younger days I did all the usual listening to the usual list of philosophers from Aristotle and Epicurus, to Joseph Campbell and John McDowell. I still read Khalil Gibran and Bob Dylan not just for the art but also the philosophy. Matt Dillahunty doesn’t do anything for me. There is no challenge there.These days I am almost exclusively centered on videos. Anything from the Royal Institution, PBS SpaceTime , TED Talks, Fermilab, insert long list here. Of late I’ve been into Mythology, the ecumenical councils, the new discoveries at Gbekli Tepe interspersed with Brian Greene, Jim Al-Khalili and Sean Carroll.So, to answer your question, I listen to science, history and occasionally Janis Joplin. Though my brain still sparks an a-ha with some new thought I come across my philosophy is pretty well set and I seem to have no need for verification. Only challenge.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Khalil Gibran .Who ever turned you on to that,,,,,,loved you.