Why is God called "the Creator of Heavens and Earth"?

Critics sometimes charge, "Events such as the virgin birth, the resurrection and ascension, Jesus' turning water into wine and walking on water didn't really happen. They were inserted to elevate Jesus to the status of a divine figure, though, if he lived at all, he was no more then a mere mortal."

A professor of a world literature class to which Josh McDowell spoke asked the question, "What do you think of Greek mythology?" Josh answered with another question, "Do you mean, were the events of the life of Jesus, the resurrection, virgin birth, etc., just myth?" The professor answered, "Yes." Josh replied that there is an obvious difference between the events recorded about Christ in the Bible and the stories conveyed in Greak mythology that bear a vague similarity. The similar stories such as the resurrection, and others, of Greek mythology were not applied to real flesh and blood individuals, but instead to non-historical, fictional, mythological characters.

However, when it comes to Christianity, these events are attached to the historical Jesus of Nazareth whom the New Testament writers knew personally. The professor replied, "Your right, I never realized that before."

An inscription in the Vatican states plainly, "He who will not eat of my body, nor drink of my blood, so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved." This is not terribly surprising, unless you consider that this is inscribed on the remains of the temple the Vatican was built on, one dedicated to the God Mithras.
Mithras was known to his followers as "The light of the world," or "The good shepherd," and exhorted his followers to share ritual communion. Mithras was also reputedly born in a cave, with shepherds in attendance, on the twenty-fifth of December.

Thousands of years before Jesus, there was another passion story told about a God man, born of a virgin mother, in a stable. He travels about with his followers, preaching and performing miracles, including turning water into wine. Eventually, he incurs the wrath of the religious authorities, who are appalled that he refers to himself as a god. He allows himself to be arrested and tried for blasphemy. He is found guilty and executed, only to rise from the grave three days later, where the women weeping at his tomb do not recognize him until he assumes his divine form, as the God Dionysus.

These coincidences so disturbed one early Christian church father, Justin Martyr, that he accused the devil of sending an imitator of Christ in advance.

I'm sorry, that's supposed to be credible evidence of what? Why do we worship Jesus Christ instead of Mithras?

Answer: Lies have a short life span. And so do claims that can't be proved with secular history and archeology!

Understand? No one gives two licks about Sun Gods or Mithras for the matter!

Originally posted by ushomefree
Give me an example? Please, enlighten me.

Christian fundamentalist Josh McDowell you say... well that explains a lot of you views. Speaking about errors...

Josh McDowell is an INTERNATIONALLY known speaker, author, and traveling representative for Campus Crusade for Christ. A graduate of Wheaton College and Talbot Theological Seminary, he has written more that forty-five books, including the classic "A Ready Defense" and appeared in numerous films, videos, and television series.

Mr. McDowell DID NOT earn such success telling a few knock-knock jokes.

So he is considered to be a fundamentalist by tons of other Theologists who have attened far more known universities.

it aint cause he is succesfull that what he says is true. And he sure as hell aint succesfull because of his clear and unbiased insights

Then why is Josh McDowell successful?

Jeffery Lowder, the co-founder of the Secular Web:
"Those believers who rely on ETDAV as an apologetic resource will still have to deal with the negative evidence. But in place of having it presented to them by McDowell in relative comfort of ETDAV, they will instead be blind-sided by this negative evidence when they hear it for the first time coming from the skeptics they will be trying to convert. Imagine the surprise of such Christians when they realize that they have only been told half the story, and that half containing serious flaws.....What excuse can McDowell have for leaving out the negative evidence in ETDAV, and leaving users of ETDAV caught off guard and unprepared to answer skeptics? The answer, i.e., that McDowell never had any desire whatsoever to examine all the evidence, immediately suggests itself."

Christian apologist J.P Holding:
"It is a fair start for the new Christian, but a waste of time for the knowledgeable one...Don't expect it to answer things like, oh, the points Jeff Lowder brought up against the secular references to Jesus...In fact, don't expect it to answer anything found on the Secular Web...The cover blurb says that it is intended to help Christians ‘answer questions challenging (them) in the 21st century’ I suspect someone at Thomas Nelson got the numbers on the century reversed. 12th century, perhaps, but use this in the 21st century against the 21st century skeptic or critic and you may as well hand them the keys to the steamroller and lie down on the pavement...The bottom line is that the "new" ETDAV is a tragic farce, and McDowell bears full responsibility for it. (Although he can share blame too with Bill Wilson, who was the major impetus for the revision, and Norman Geisler, who was the Managing Editor. One can clearly sense Geisler's "shoot from the hip" apologetic style as a factor in snuffing out in-depth revision.)."

Unfortunately, many Christians will probably never hear of these type of reviews due to the comfortable environment that most churchgoers circulate in. However, when fast-food apologetics is confronted by real skepticism on an informed level, the results can have eternal consequences for the newly interested apologist if he’ s not prepared.

he has written more that forty-five books, including the classic "A Ready Defense" and appeared in numerous films, videos, and television series.

Originally posted by ushomefree
Then why is Josh McDowell successful?

Jerry Springer is succesfull that doesn't make everything he says true

Enough about Josh McDowell... we are getting away from the point. All Josh did was present facts through secular history that support the Christian faith. If Josh was wrong, then historians and archeologists got it wrong too.

Further more, if nothing he said was true, people wouldn't consider him an authority in apologetics. People would walk away. It's that simple.

People would walk away. It's that simple

Originally posted by ushomefree
All Josh did was present facts through secular history that support the Christian faith.

If you look at the bible and read the first chapter, you will realize that it (god) did not create the universe from nothing. It was created with "darkness" and "water".

Thats not what it says at all.

clickclick, one problem with you christians is that you came up with all sorts of beleifs by reading just one sentence and not what is before or after it.
The first sentence says:
In the beggining (beggining of what?) God created the heavens and the earth.
No.2:
And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved across the waters (aka the deep)
-Later(god) parted the waters and the darkness to create the heavens.

The first sentence is saying: This is what god did, he created this.
It does not mean anything else. The definition of create does not mean out of nothing.

Think about this and look it over and ask yourself,"Where the hell in the bible does it state or imply that he created the earth and the heaven from nothing?"

Do not insult me because you have an inferiority complex, that is not my problem.

In the beggining (beggining of what?) God created the heavens and the earth.
No.2:
And the earth was without form and void and darkness was upon the face of the deep, and the spirit of God moved across the waters (aka the deep)
-Later(god) parted the waters and the darkness to create the heavens.

The first sentence is saying: This is what god did, he created this.
It does not mean anything else. The definition of create does not mean out of nothing.

Think about this and look it over and ask yourself,"Where the hell in the bible does it state or imply that he created the earth and the heaven from nothing?"

What do you think the begining means? The begining of the universe. Its funny that you claim one of the problems is such and such and yet you make things up. Are you so desperate that you have to lie to try and make a point or discredit something? I sure hope not but it appears to be the case. It doesnt say that he made it out of water, or koolaid, or cream cheese.

suger and flower on the other hand

Sometimes opinions are insults. These are my true opinions. They are bias and have also been spoken in arrogance. I apologize, I don't even know if you are a christian.

An inferiority complex is when someone needs social acceptance. I do not need social acceptance, I desire it. I desire to change other people's opinions. I'm on a mission, not playing a game.

In your opinion, what did I lie about? I might have made a mistake in what I stated that needs correcting. Just give me your opinion please and I wont argue with you. I'm just want to know.

Yeah but you are forgetting their are three heavens the first is where god dwells, the second is where all angels and demons and satan dwell until Michial the arc angel throws him to the earth during tribulation period the third heaven is the universe so see god made earth to be another heaven like place but when sin entered man death came oh yeah we all have are opinion on how god created heavens and earth but most people do say that they believe in gods way more than in evolution.

three heavens huh, just like first second and third class then..........I think I take businees class with a glassof red wine to go