Is there anything that God can not do?

So, Shaky you are basically asking the old age question, "Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony"?
Yes, we can trust their testimony.Being biased about something does not mean that you cannot tell the truth. Take for example the case of a robbery of a small store. The robber shoots and the wounds two employees, escapes, but is later apprehended. At the trial the employees who have recovered from their injuries are brought in to testify. Both of these witnesses are biased in that they want to see the perpetrator properly punished. But, under oath their testimony is accepted as perfectly valid -- providing there aren't obvious problems. So, being biased does not automatically mean that the testimony they give is not true.Furthermore, the fact is that there were plenty of people around who could have discounted what the apostles had written if what they wrote was inaccurate. Yet, we find no evidence of any such thing in any writings of the time. Yes, the disciple were biased. But to what? To lying? To exaggerating? Or were they biased towards the truth of who Jesus is and what He had done?
Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk the lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth.
Shaky, nice talkin to you.

Originally posted by Son of Man
So, Shaky you are basically asking the old age question, "Since the New Testament writers were biased, can we trust their testimony"?
Yes, we can trust their testimony.Being biased about something does not mean that you cannot tell the truth. Take for example the case of a robbery of a small store. The robber shoots and the wounds two employees, escapes, but is later apprehended. At the trial the employees who have recovered from their injuries are brought in to testify. Both of these witnesses are biased in that they want to see the perpetrator properly punished. But, under oath their testimony is accepted as perfectly valid -- providing there aren't obvious problems. So, being biased does not automatically mean that the testimony they give is not true.Furthermore, the fact is that there were plenty of people around who could have discounted what the apostles had written if what they wrote was inaccurate. Yet, we find no evidence of any such thing in any writings of the time. Yes, the disciple were biased. But to what? To lying? To exaggerating? Or were they biased towards the truth of who Jesus is and what He had done?
Of course, just because eyewitnesses wrote about Jesus rising from the dead does not mean it actually happened. This is true, but why would the disciples lie about this? Why would they risk the lives, their families, their cultural ties, and even end up dying for it all if they knew it was all a lie developed out of their "bias"? It doesn't make sense. But what does make sense is that the disciples were telling the truth.
Shaky, nice talkin to you.

You missed my point.

Jesus became a legend and nothing was written down for at least 60 years. People get things wrong and that is how legends began. I have spent many years studing this. I my keep your beliefs, I do not wish to change them, but I know some of the truth of this Jesus.

Here... some things were kept out of the bible, because they didn’t agree with the people in Rome. Here is a book of the things that Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas. Warning, if your faith is week, do not read this.

http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

Originally posted by Son of Man
Adam, give me a reason why it is stupied not to belive in The Bible? You should bck up your statements.

Why would I give you a reason why it is stupid to not believe in The Bible? 😕

Can god make a boulder he can't lift? hmmmmmm, cuz if he made the boulder he wouldnt be able to lift it and there's something he cant do, but if he can lift the boulder then he cant make a boulder that he cant lift. hmmmm, but god has already accomplished this in some aspect, no one knows what though, but its just a cool thing to think about

Originally posted by fruits
Can god make a boulder he can't lift? hmmmmmm, cuz if he made the boulder he wouldnt be able to lift it and there's something he cant do, but if he can lift the boulder then he cant make a boulder that he cant lift. hmmmm, but god has already accomplished this in some aspect, no one knows what though, but its just a cool thing to think about

That is just a paradox.

Do not get lost here, not my intention. God CAN do anything he wants but he has his own rules, rules he chooses not to break. By creating us he gave us the freedom to act. If we are not able to be as powerful as he is then he cannot do anything about it due to his own regulations.-serious

Originally posted by redcaped
Do not get lost here, not my intention. God CAN do anything he wants but he has his own rules, rules he chooses not to break. By creating us he gave us the freedom to act. If we are not able to be as powerful as he is then he cannot do anything about it due to his own regulations.-serious

That is like saying that the sky stays up there, because it wants to, and we can’t stop it.

You can’t understand God. You can’t say anything about God and be correct. No person, no book, nothing can understand God at all.

I do so is what you just read from me.

-serious^

Shaky, I know about the the second century gnostic gospel of thomas. I was not put into the cannon of scriptureb because it was written in the second century. That is a whole diffrent story.....
Anyway, The synoptics have early dates. Let me demostrate my argument.
None of the gospels mention the destruction of the Jewish temple in 70 A.D. This is significant because Jesus had prophesied its destruction when He said, "As for these things which you are looking at, the days will come in which there will not be left one stone upon another which will not be torn down," (Luke 21:5, see also Matt. 24:1; Mark 13:1). This prophecy was fulfilled in 70 A.D. when the Romans sacked Jerusalem and burned the Temple. The gold in the Temiple melted down between the stone walls and the Romans took the walls apart, stone by stone, to get the melted gold. Such an obvious fulfillment of Jesus' prophecy most likely woud have been recorded by the gospel writers iff they had been written after 70 A.D. Also, if the gospels were fabrications of mythical events then anything to bolster the Messianic claims succh as the destruction of the temple as Jesus prophesied would surely have been included. But, it was not included suggesting that the gospels (at least Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were written before 70 A.D.this argument is important when we consider the dating of the book of Acts which was written after the gospel of Luke by Luke himself. Acts is a history of the Christian church right after Jesus' ascension. Acts also fails to mention the incredibly significant events of 70 A.D. which would have been extremely relevant and prophetically important and naturally would have garnered inclusion into Acts had it occurred before Acts was written.Remember, Acts is a book of the history of the early Christian church. The fact that the incredibly significant destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple is not recorded is very strong evidence that Acts was written before A.D. 70.If we add to this the fact that Acts does not include the accounts of "Nero's persecution of the Christians in A.D 64 or the deaths of James AD.62 Paul A.D. 64, and Peter A.D. 65, and we have further evidence that it was written veryearly and not long after Jesus went to heaven.
(Countioued)

Originally posted by redcaped
I do so is what you just read from me.

? How is "I do so" what I just read from you?

I think you are trying to tell me that you believe what you just wrote.

You can believe anything you like, that does not make it true. I don't want to change you or what you believe. The path you are on, is the one you should be on. However, if you ever wish to suffer less, I have some suggestions that might help.

look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God"😉 "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

1.At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59.

and 2.It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes before the Acts (Acts 1:1). The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

Oh,Adam_PoE, I dont understand your question.Later.

No really there aren't many things I can't do but thanx for asking...

Originally posted by Son of Man
look at Acts 1:1-2 it says, "The first account I composed, Theophilus, about all that Jesus began to do and teach, 2 until the day when He was taken up, after He had by the Holy Spirit given orders to the apostles whom He had chosen." Most scholars affirm that Acts was written by Luke and that Theophilus (Grk. "lover of God"😉 "may have been Luke’s patron who financed the writing of Luke and Acts."2 This means that the gospel of Luke was written before Acts.

1.At the earliest, Acts cannot have been written prior to the latest firm chronological marker recorded in the book—Festus’s appointment as procurator (24:27), which, on the basis of independent sources, appears to have occurred between A.D. 55 and 59.

and 2.It is increasingly admitted that the Logia [Q] was very early, before 50 A.D., and Mark likewise if Luke wrote the Acts while Paul was still alive. Luke's Gospel comes before the Acts (Acts 1:1). The date of Acts is still in dispute, but the early date (about A.D. 63) is gaining support constantly.

For clarity, Q is supposedly one of the source documents used by both Matthew and Luke in writing their gospels. If Q actually existed then that would push the first writings of Christ's words and deeds back even further lessening the available time for myth to creep in and adding to the validity and accuracy of the gospel accounts. If what is said of Acts is true, this would mean that Luke was written at least before A.D. 63 and possibly before 55 - 59 since Acts is the second in the series of writings by Luke. This means that the gospel of Luke was written within 30 years of Jesus' death.

Oh,Adam_PoE, I dont understand your question.Later.

Your interpretation of these words, in this language, is modern. 2000 years ago they would, and did not see it the same way.

You have blinders on, and cannot see the truth. I am sorry about that. I suggest you read the “The Power of Myth”.

Originally posted by Godshinto
No really there aren't many things I can't do but thanx for asking...

😄 So... you are god?

Every body, get him......

pile

I never suffer. I see others do. The fact exists and I have proof, otherwise I won't say it. Each person make their own reality.-serious

I have to say one thing that I belive is that god lacks the human touch he doesn't look ahead to see what will happen to people after all of his decisions I mean think about it really. Sorry about the sacraligious thing I said before but after my father died I don't think much of religion any more.

Originally posted by Son of Man
Oh, Adam_PoE, I dont understand your question.

Originally posted by Son of Man
Adam, give me a reason why it is stupied not to belive in The Bible?

Shaky, I dont understand your post. I have "blinders on"?

What do you mean by, "Your interpretation of these words, in this language, is modern. 2000 years ago they would, and did not see it the same way".
Shaky this is not interpretation, it is truth. Anyway.Here is a list of things God can't do

1.Forsake you
2.Leave you in the darkness, if you belive in His Son.
3.send to hell those who belive in him.

Later.

Originally posted by redcaped
I never suffer. I see others do. The fact exists and I have proof, otherwise I won't say it. Each person make their own reality.-serious

Everyone suffers from time to time. Yes we all make our own reality, but still there is only one true nature of reality.