Why Jesus Cannot Be the Creator of the Universe

Image result for image of starving children

Fundamentalist Christian:

OK, Gary.  It is good that you admit that there appears to be a creator from looking at creation. Now with regard to why this Creator is the Christian God, the answer is simple. An omnipotent all powerful God that is good, would never have created the earth the way it is today. I mean, a wise, good, all powerful God would never have permitted famines, diseases, aging, dying, suffering. OK, so the only way to explain this is through the fall into sin of Adam, so the God of the Bible makes perfect logical sense. As for evidence, the Word of God is the perfect testimony, the atonement for sin is the only way perfect, all powerful God, could rescue his creation, all of the old testament sacrifices point to Jesus Christ. The bible is the best witness, it is the only evidence I have for the God of Christianity, however it is so many books written by so many different authors and it so perfectly explains both our creation and our redemption, why things don’t work in the world today, and why an all powerful omniscient God has promised that new heavens and a new earth will be created in the final redemption of the cosmos. By grace through faith I confess this.

Gary:

Allowing for all possibilities including the supernatural, I can see how Yahweh, the god of the Old Testament, could be the Creator of our universe.  Our universe is filled with massive suffering and pain and Yahweh didn’t seem to have a problem with massive suffering and pain, even if it involved little children (the Great Flood, the complete destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, the Plague of the First Born in Egypt, the slaughter of the Midianite little boys and their mothers, the slaughter of the Canaanites, the annihilation of the Amalekites…to name a few).  But I just can’t buy the claim that the Jesus of the Gospels is the Creator.  The Jesus of the Gospels would never allow so much suffering and pain, especially when it comes to little children.

25,000 children die each and every day (Read here), the majority of them dying from preventable causes such as starvation and infectious disease.  Would the Jesus of the Gospels who so loved and cared for little children allow such horrific, massive suffering of so many little ones, each and every day, for thousands and thousands of years, if he really is the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of our universe?

I don’t think so.

The Jesus of the Gospels would never allow this daily mass die off of little children to occur.  Jesus cannot be the Creator.  Therefore, trinitarian Christianity cannot be true.

Christianity is false.  That is what the evidence strongly indicates.

Image result for image of jesus on the throne
Yes, ever since Adam and Eve ate his forbidden fruit, Jesus has watched from his throne in heaven as 25,000 children die every day of the year from starvation, disease, child abuse, and war. I don’t buy it.

 

 

 

 

End of post.

 

Advertisements

40 thoughts on “Why Jesus Cannot Be the Creator of the Universe

  1. I am sure Jesus has grim about the bad and is sorrow about the tragic pain and suffering like he showed this when he walked on earth. But how and why should he end suffering now and at which suffering should he stop? From starving and misused children to sweating and stinking after jogging is all suffering and part of this world. So again, which pain and suffering should be out of this world, that you would give your personal “Jesus created” label for it? Perfect World will come, also perfect justice.
    Also is most of the suffering direct or indirect caused by other person/persons and this satanic, godless system itself.

    Like

    1. I am nor more afraid of your invisible spirits and ghouls nor your threats of doom than I am the spirits and ghouls of the witch doctor in the deepest jungle as he shakes his tom toms in my face and pronounces all manner of evil spells on me.

      Your beliefs, as well as those of the witch doctor, are SUPERSTITIONS: ancient, fear-based nonsense which no educated, modern person should take seriously.

      Like

        1. No. I do not believe in the reality of the supernatural. It might exist, but fairies and leprachauns might also exist. I only believe in entities for which there is sufficient evidence. Alleged eyewitness sightings of a walking, talking corpse is not sufficient evidence for me.

          Like

            1. I nor the best scientists on the planet know the answer to the origin of the universe. Since anything is possible, it is certainly possible that the origin of the universe is the supernatural act of an invisible supernatural being. But until more evidence is available, I will hold off making a judgment as to the origin of the universe.

              The current evidence available that points to a possible creator is not necessarily evidence that the Christian god is that creator. Christians need evidence that Yahweh/Lord Jesus is the creator and I haven’t seen any good evidence for that claim.

              Like

                1. I don’t believe that there is sufficient evidence for this very extra-ordinary claim (the resurrection of a first century corpse) for me to believe it. All we have is hearsay claims that approximately 500 people living in the first century saw this resurrected corpse, and all but one (maybe two, we don’t know when James converted) of them were devout followers of the deceased person in question. The one person who was not a follower (Paul) was aware of the beliefs of this new sect, so as another commenter posted, it isn’t like some villager living in the New World in the first century claimed to see Jesus of Nazareth. Only people who knew the story claimed to see this resurrected corpse.

                  Religious zealots have claimed to see all kinds of odd things throughout history, that is why we start off calling these new beliefs “cults” and “sects”. Only after they have been around for a couple of hundred years do they gain respectability, and we call them “religions”.

                  Like

                    1. What evidence would be necessary for me to believe that a brain-dead corpse has been resurrected: Video/audio of the death of the person, the burial of the person, a time lapse video of the body during the three days in the tomb, the moment that the body comes back to life, the corpse exiting the tomb, and the corpse’s interactions with people he knew, all recorded by a source I trust…

                      or…I would have to see and examine (touch/inspect) the resurrected corpse myself.

                      Now I have a question for you: Hindus believe that the Buddha caused a water buffalo to speak in a human language for 45 minutes. What evidence would you require to believe that this event literally happened?

                      Like

  2. That’s easy, I’d want to see several written sources agreeing mostly on the account of events, and written not very long (decades not centuries) after the facts. I’d also want to analyze those written sources and analyze if they were reliable and if they had anything to gain in propagating a lie.
    If the account is hear-say, orally transmitted I won’t believe.

    Like

    1. So if you had twelve alleged eyewitness written statements, from twelve persons all of whom can be confirmed to have existed during the time period asserted, all written within one WEEK of the alleged event, all agreeing that a cow spoke in a human language for 45 minutes, you would believe them?

      Like

        1. How many documented times have we experienced matter and energy in nature appearing out of nowhere? Yet this is exactly what happened in the first moment as begrudgingly admitted by science.
          What do you call something that doesn’t normally happen in nature?: s-u-p-e-r-n-a-t-u-r-a-l
          Now repeat after me:
          If supernatural events could not happen we would not exist.

          Write it on a chalkboard a few times until it dons on you. lol!

          Like

          1. And you try writing this a few times:

            Evidence for a Creator should not be assumed to be evidence for the Christian deity, Yahweh/Lord Jesus.

            Like

          2. You are pushing the God-of-the-Gaps Theory: When science does not (yet, at least) have an answer for some phenomenon in our universe, Christians fill in the gap with: “God did it”. They have done this for two thousand years. Yet, time after time, science has filled in previous gaps with natural explanations. I predict science will discover a natural explanation for this “gap” too.

            Like

            1. I could accuse you also of pushing science-of -the-gaps theory. When science does not have an explanation for something that cannot be observed in a laboratory, atheist fill in the gap with: “Science will figure it out”. “science” or more accurately “scientism” will come up with a philosophical explanation that has nothing to do with real science, because it will not be repeatable, testable and observable, and all of you will eat it up because it will tickle your ears. Something like the multiverse theory to explain the fine-tuning of the constants of the universe.

              Like

              1. At least I do not make a statement of fact on the issue. I admit that I do not know. You on the other hand assert as fact that “a god did it” when you cannot prove it. That is why you call it “faith”.

                Like

              2. “Truth is not dictated by the majority. Truth is dictated by facts.”

                I agree 100%,

                The majority of experts in any field can be wrong. However, most advanced, industrial societies operate by the public placing their trust in consensus expert opinion on issues about which an individual is not an expert. When everyone tries to be an expert on everything, there is chaos.

                You are certainly free to side with a fringe minority of scholars/historians who believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels if you so choose. But I stick with consensus expert opinion. I believe that it has the best track record of discovering/understanding how our universe operates.

                Like

                1. “When everyone tries to be an expert on everything, there is chaos.”
                  Interesting statement; is that a fact? Can you prove that? Because it sure reeks of a little logical fallacy called appeal to authority…

                  Like

                  1. You are misusing the Appeal to Authority Fallacy. It is perfectly logical and appropriate to appeal to the consensus opinion of real experts. One is using an Appeal to Authority Fallacy when one appeals to a single expert’s opinion, or worse, the single opinion of a NON-EXPERT, such as your use of Brian Chilton as an authority on the authorship of the Gospels.

                    From Logically Fallacious:
                    “Be very careful not to confuse “deferring to an authority on the issue” with the appeal to authority fallacy. Remember, a fallacy is an error in reasoning. Dismissing the council of legitimate experts and authorities turns good skepticism into denialism. The appeal to authority is a fallacy in argumentation, but deferring to an authority is a reliable heuristic that we all use virtually every day on issues of relatively little importance. There is always a chance that any authority can be wrong, that’s why the critical thinker accepts facts provisionally. It is not at all unreasonable (or an error in reasoning) to accept information as provisionally true by credible authorities. Of course, the reasonableness is moderated by the claim being made (i.e., how extraordinary, how important) and the authority (how credible, how relevant to the claim).”

                    You are in denial, my friend.

                    I never said: “We know as a fact that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses because the majority of experts say so.” That is a logical fallacy. What I said was “The majority of experts do not believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels, and because the majority of experts do not believe that eyewitnesses wrote the Gospels, I do not believe that they are eyewitness accounts.” That is deferring to authority. That is not a logical fallacy.

                    Like

  3. Asking video/audio of events from 2,000 years ago is very unreasonable of you. The written accounts of many eyewitnesses produced within their lifetimes, with absolutely nothing to gain except death, scorn, and prison is sufficient evidence.

    Like

    1. Please provide a description of the resurrected body of Jesus by even ONE confirmed eyewitness of any of the alleged resurrected Jesus sightings.

      (By confirmed I mean that the overwhelming majority of historians agree that the testimony is that of an alleged eyewitness.)

      Like

      1. 27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

        28 And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God.

        29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

        There’s your description, the resurrected body of Jesus had holes in his hands and a wound on his side. This was written by John the Apostle, eyewitness to the events. Is there any historian that doubts John was a real person?

        Like

        1. Exactly. The disciples insisted on seeing and touching Jesus to believe. I expect the same evidence.

          The majority of scholars/historians do not believe that John the Apostle nor any other eyewitness wrote the Gospel of John.

          Like

          1. The majority means crap. Truth is not dictated by the majority. Truth is dictated by facts:

            Proposed Author by Tradition: Church tradition claims that John the apostle wrote the Fourth Gospel while pastoring as an aged man in Ephesus. Does the evidence back up this assumption?

            Internal Evidence: Internally, as the other Gospels, the author is unnamed. However, a clear reading of the Fourth Gospel denotes that the one named the beloved disciple, or the disciple whom Jesus loved, is also the author of the book. The phrase “the disciple whom Jesus loved” appears 5 times in the Fourth Gospel. This disciple holds a prominent role even to the point that Peter asks about the beloved disciple’s ministry in John 21., son of Zebedee, meets this criterion as well as James, the brother of John. We know that James, son of Zebedee, died in the 40s AD (Acts 12:1-5). The beloved Jesus appears with Peter in 13:23-24; 18:15-16; 20:2-9; and in chapter 21. John is also found with Peter in Luke 22:8; Acts 1:13; 3-4; 8:14-25; and Galatians 2:9. So, only John meets the criteria needed for the Fourth Gospel’s authorship. The question of Peter in John 21 indicates that the author was aged and reflecting back on his life with Jesus and the apostles.

            External Evidence: Referencing the Fourth Gospel’s author, early church father Irenaeus (c. 130-202 AD) writes,

            Further, they teach that John, the disciple of the Lord, indicated the first Ogdoad, expressing themselves in these words: John, the disciple of the Lord, wishing to set forth the origin of all things, so as to explain how the Father produced the whole, lays down a certain principle,—that, namely, which was first-begotten by God, which Being he has termed both the only-begotten Son and God, in whom the Father, after a seminal manner, brought forth all things. [1]

            Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215 AD), as quoted by the church historian Eusebius of Caesarea (c. 263-339 AD) denotes the following:

            Again, in the same books Clement has set down a tradition which he had received from the elders before him, in regard to the order of the Gospels, to the following effect. He says that the Gospels containing the genealogies were written first, and that the Gospel according to Mark was composed in the following circumstances:—

            Peter having preached the word publicly at Rome, and by the Spirit proclaimed the Gospel, those who were present, who were numerous, entreated Mark, inasmuch as he had attended him from an early period, and remembered what had been said, to write down what had been spoken. On his composing the Gospel, he handed it to those who had made the request to him; which coming to Peter’s knowledge, he neither hindered nor encouraged. But John, the last of all, seeing that what was corporeal was set forth in the Gospels, on the entreaty of his intimate friends, and inspired by the Spirit, composed a spiritual Gospel.[2]

            Ignatius of Antioch (c. 35-108 AD) quotes John’s Gospel quite frequently as he writes an epistle to the Antiochians. Ignatius’s quotation of the Fourth Gospel illustrates that the book was viewed in a positive light and authoritative. Ignatius is noted as a disciple of John the apostle along with Polycarp. The Marytrdom of St. Ignatius notes the following:

            Wherefore, with great alacrity and joy, through his desire to suffer, he came down from Antioch to Seleucia, from which place he set sail. And after a great deal of suffering he came to Smyrna, where he disembarked with great joy, and hastened to see the holy Polycarp, [formerly] his fellow-disciple, and [now] bishop of Smyrna. For they had both, in old times, been disciples of St. John the Apostle. Being then brought to him, and having communicated to him some spiritual gifts, and glorying in his bonds, he entreated of him to labour along with him for the fulfilment of his desire; earnestly indeed asking this of the whole Church (for the cities and Churches of Asia had welcomed6 the holy man through their bishops, and presbyters, and deacons, all hastening to meet him, if by any means they might receive from him some spiritual gift), but above all, the holy Polycarp, that, by means of the wild beasts, he soon disappearing from this world, might be manifested before the face of Christ.[3]

            Much more could be given as far as external evidence. However, the presented information should suffice for our purposes.

            Date: Evidence suggests that John’s Gospel was the last to be written at some point after 70 AD. It appears that John may have been written in the mid-80s to early 90s as he may have served as pastor of the church of Ephesus.

            Location and Audience: John’s testimony is preserved while serving in Ephesus in Asia Minor. Thus, he writes to the people of that area, but also to the future generations of the church. Perhaps this is why Clement of Alexandria calls it a “spiritual gospel.”

            Conclusion: I believe that John the apostle authored the Gospel by dictation. That is to say, John most likely provided the material to an amanuensis. The amanuensis documented the aged apostle’s words and added the addendum to the Fourth Gospel and the title “the disciple whom Jesus loved” in reference to the apostle. I think the evidence is quite strong for John the son of Zebedee authoring the Fourth Gospel. Claims to the contrary[4] bring more questions than answers. Such as, why do the other Gospels not elevate the other suggested candidates to a higher light? How is it that John is an inner circle disciple in the other Gospels and is missing in prestige in the Fourth Gospel if John is not the author?[5] To reiterate, I believe an amanuensis was employed in the Gospel’s formation. But the use of an amanuensis does not negate the apostle’s hand in writing. So, for those who erroneously claim that the apostle could not have formed a document such as this, such an argument is dispelled if an amanuensis is employed. It is still quite possible with the knowledge obtained by Jesus and his earlier employment that John, son of Zebedee, could have written the entire Gospel by hand. But, I prefer to think that an amanuensis was employed.

            Notes

            [1] Irenaeus of Lyons, “Irenæus against Heresies, 1.8.5.” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 328.

            [2] Clement of Alexandria, “Fragments of Clemens Alexandrinus,” in Fathers of the Second Century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire), ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. William Wilson, vol. 2, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 580.

            [3] Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, eds., “The Martyrdom of Ignatius,” in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 130.

            [4] Ben Witherington, III holds that Lazarus was the author of the Fourth Gospel.

            [5] For instance, it seems clear that the beloved disciple was one who was prominently known. John the apostle holds such a status.

            About the Author:

            Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently working on his Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.

            Original Blog Source: http://bit.ly/2wVQNSb

            Like

            1. The majority of scholars/historians do not believe that ANY of the early Church Fathers had ever met one of the original Twelve disciples of Jesus.

              Like

            2. Here is the bio of the author of your post:

              “Brian Chilton is the founder of BellatorChristi.com and is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast. He received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and received certification in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Brian is currently working on his Ph.D. in Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University. Brian is a full member of the International Society of Christian Apologetics and the Christian Apologetics Alliance. Brian has been in the ministry for over 14 years and serves as the pastor of Huntsville Baptist Church in Yadkinville, North Carolina.”

              To summarize:

              -your author only has a masters degree, not a PhD.. Therefore, he is not a scholar. He is not an expert.
              -he is a graduate of a fundamentalist Christian institution.
              -he works for the same fundamentalist institution, which means he has signed a “statement of faith” pledging to uphold fundamentalist Christian teaching. This is hardly the environment for fair and open-minded research.

              Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s