the great question

Ok, so God was appointed. My point is that its a position and not a name and we will all get our chance someday to be God.

 

Holy crap.

 

Okay, if I must abstract your thoughts for you... Why do you believe God was here first -- Or that He exists at all?

 

Again another person that has never heard of the prophecies or anything in the Bible but will say everything against it.

 

there was no first, it all happened at the same time

 

Thats not the way the Bible portrays it....

 

yeah, the bible says lots a stuff

 

I love love love how you tell duck she doesn't know anything yet say this. I love it. For one, if you look at 'solid' evidence, what was recorded in the old testament and commentaries relating to it, or any pre-christian era writings, I doubt there are even 300 prophesies in all, regardless of what they're relating to. Listen to arlia:

Jesus tried to fulfil the expectations of the moshiach, the messiah. I'm sure I've talked about this somewhere before. There are NO prophesies, conjectures, idle chit chats, about the son of g-d appearing before circa 300AD. To believe, or openly comment, that g-d might have a son would possibly end in death in those times. It was considered going against many texts, among which:
Not to entertain the idea that there is any god but the Eternal (Ex. 20:3).
Not to blaspheme (Ex. 22:27; in Christian texts, Ex. 22:28), the penalty for which is death (Lev. 24:16) (blasphemy was to speak of g-d lightly, pretty much)
To know that G-d is One, a complete Unity (Deut. 6:4)

So yeh. Jesus did attempt to fulfil a prophesy, the prophesy that there would be a man (MAN, not deity) who would save the holy and destroy the unholy...He would do things like restore the temple, punish the guilty.. the prophesy of the messiah/moshiach. Unless there was a prophesy saying "one day a guy called jesus will be born," he did not fulfil a prophesy by being jesus.

He actively fought to become the moshiach and fulfil the prophesy. To be the messiah you had to fulfil ALL of the prophesies and he did a pretty bad job of it to tell you the truth, I know he did the triumphial entry and began cleansing the temple but he would also have to kick all the romans out of jerusalem, among other things, the latter being the reason he was arrested- his rising against the romans failed. He died before he completed everything, thus, he didn't fulfil the prophesy of the messiah.

If you would like to prove me wrong, who knows, I may be, please do so, with references to where I can source prophesies which jesus fulfilled. By the way, to save a bit of time, I think it's fair to tell you now there's no reference to a messiah in the old testament, the concept was there but writings on it were created long after the torah was written. They do refer to End of Days though, so you might find something.

 

if nothing could be created by itself, how come god then?

 

jesus did not attempt to fulfil prophecy he did,he was the son of god,he did conquer sin,he ddi rise from the dead,and conquer death and he has saved all of mankind for all sin past pre4sent future,everything

 

interesting point; how could nothing create itself... something or someone had to make nothing

 

What the hell are you talking about? "Nothing" isn't a thing, it's no-thing. It doesn't have to be created, because it isn't a thing that exists. It's like, the absence of something.

This is an example of how abstract thinking can go very wrong when we aren't careful. It also shows why symbols (words) are very inexact and easilly misused; you can make a symbol for nothingness, then talk about it as if it exists. You make a thing out of no-thing, then you get all screwed up.

 

Hahaaaa.... that was just plain awesome.

Well, there's the philosophy of Aquinas's "unmoved mover" argument, which basically means that everything in existance is based on a cause-effect sequence by the start of something that is capable of "moving" (in other words, causing things to happen) without being "moved" itself. I learned it in philosophy class, so it's not like I just pull it out of a box. :H I don't know if this is true (I mean, what is or isn't true, I'm not quite sure myself..heh). I don't really agree with it, because it seems like one big contradiction to me.

 

Key word: "I doubt"

You doubt because you never have done the research.... but all you have to do is go to a simple search engine and type: Messianic prophecies and you will discover numerous sites on the prophecies from the Old Testament that Jesus fulfilled.

Here is what Jesus said,

"This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms."
Tell me a prophecy Jesus did not fulfill!

 

doubt is also fear sometimes.doubt stops u from excepting wat u fear,some people fear believeing that there is a god,because that would mean that they are wrong,some people fear him because they want to feel that they are in control of theyre lives.

 

Hi everybody. Arlia: nice picture you have in your posts. And the question: what did God create first? I have used many hours or maybe days trying to figure that out. An atom? No, too big. Something smaller? Or just an idea? And how much time God has taken to create everything? I think He may have tried many many times what works, but the ultimate question is: what did God create first and why? I have written a story of God beginning to realize His being and about being at all, and I continued it to the point of creation, but the first thing created: there it stopped. Any suggestions?

 

So are you saying that nothing matters or matter can come from nothing? If matter can come from nothing, then are you saying God came from nothing?

If you do, I agree.

My point was is there anything beyond nothing? ... or is it then that nothing is supreme?

 

The problem with all this is that our view of the universe has been changed dramaticly since the early 1900s. With Einsteins theory of reletivity, we now know that space and time are not independent and absolute, but reletive to each other. Quantum theory tells us that there is no "smallest indestructible particle" like Newton thought the atom was; rather, we are all purely energy. All these philosophies are based on this old notion of an absolute space, in which things moved within, and an absolute time, from which all events can be measured. Now we know space itself warps and changes, and time is not absolute across the whole universe but reletive to each event.

Anyways, I can't begin to describe these complex theories here; suffice to say they've shattered the old notions. But our philosophies based on them are still around. Look, Aquinus talks about an unmoved mover, some sort of absolute thing that moves all the rest, but this doesn't match observation. Anyways, it doesn't make sense that something that can't be moved can move something else. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction," so for this unmovable thing to interact with an atom, the atom must interact with it. It goes both ways; but if the atom cannot have any effect on the "unmoved" then how can it interact with it? It's extremely illogical. It's saying the spiritual can affect the material, but the material cannot affect the spiritual. It means that we can't say for sure if an observed event is caused by an orderly cause-effect relationship with other material objects, or is completely random and caused by spirit beings.

This kind of nonsense is prevalant in many or most world philosophies. We need to start including our new understanding into our philosophies, so they can begin to make sense.

 

I guess what I'm saying TrippinBTM is that you seem to think that there is nothing beyond nothing and that nothing has no source other than itself. I am not so sure.

 

I'm very confused by what you're asking.

Is there anything beyond nothing? Are you asking if things exist? Isn't that obvious?

Are you asking if I'm a nihilist? No, I'm not.

Are you asking if matter can come from nothing? Science says weird things are always going on at the quantum level, things popping into existence from what seems to be a void then disappearing again. They say this might have been where the universe came from, events like this. I am undecided though, since it would be very hard to know the origin of the universe.

Did god come from nothing? Well, since I'm a pantheist, and see no duality of spirit and the physical (that is, god is the universe, the universe is god), then if the universe came from nothing, then god did too. But I don't view god as you probably do (as some spirit-being in the sky or something), so it's really a different matter altogether.

Maybe you're just trying to be funny, using the concept of "nothing" as if it were something, thus trying to annoy me. Maybe you misunderstood what I'm saying, that the concept of "nothingness" is always confusing because a concept is something, but "nothingness" is no-thing.