How....does God exist ?

1/ Know. New_Testament "God, in Christ revealed."

Does it reliably inform us of things ?

"In the Priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas" Luke 3:1 &ff

Acts_Ch_4:5_&_ff

"5The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem. 6Annas the high priest was there, and so were Caiaphas, John, Alexander and the other men of the high priest's family."

This may seem insignificant to the casual reader, but in my humble opinion, it speaks volumes about internal consistency and reliability.

Then.....
Acts_3

"1The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. 2They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people and proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead."

2 key points.

1/ "Sadducees" (No resurrection)
2/ Disturbed that the apostles are PREACHING it.

Entirely consistent with what is known of the Saducees.

If Luke can be trusted on such things, why not also with Acts 4:8 & ff

"8Then Peter,...said to them: "Rulers and elders of the people! 9If we are being called to account today for an act of kindness shown to a cripple and are asked how he was healed, 10then know this, you and all the people of Israel: It is by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom you crucified but whom God raised from the dead, that this man stands before you healed."

'which' crippled man was this ?

This one:
Acts 3:10ff
One day Peter and John were going up to the temple at the time of prayer—at three in the afternoon. 2Now a man crippled from birth was being carried to the temple gate called Beautiful, where he was put every day to beg from those going into the temple courts.

a)Crippled from BIRTH.
b)Known the whole community "carried to the temple gate DAILY

Reliable Testimony....about God.

BOAZ-David
I have been finding your contributions the comments section less and less helpful. You really need to start thinking for yourself theologically instead of sprouting bible references. This is the problem with Biblicist orientation, you rely on quotes to make your point and that was never their point in the first place. Remember Luther’s maxum was sola scriptural, not sola biblica.

Thanks for trying Sells, I've tried shock treatment and psychotherapy but alas he's still fixated with seeing “his” biblical text on the screen. It’s all narcissistic, nothing religious about it at all.

Sells,

You chide Boaz_David, but perhaps by (a) looking at only a theistic explanation of God's (Gods') existence and (b) then assuming the God that then without exists, is Judeo-Christian, you, as I stated earlier, act with an a priori assumption. Your field of explanation becomes too limited. You are guilty of the same thing, as Boaz to a lesser degree.

That said, I believe you are correct asserting the supremacy of scripture over quotes. My understand is, early Christians moved fairly quickly to Codexes over Scrolls, "suggesting" that readers flicked backwards-and-forwards, through the text.

Just the same, I think the answer to the question to, How God does Exist? is to be found in the behavioural sciences and neurology.

Given the alternative explanations available, to us today; I feel a Luther or an Abelard [a favourite of mine], would have left Christianity. Pure spectulation, of course. But, consider,they confronted fixed thinking, and tried to open people's minds to wider possibilities. Scroll-back through the postings here: It's Bible school. The discourse moves forward, without considering alertnative assumptions. Friends, Blinkered. Blinkered. Blinkered.

When the Western scientists first came to China, they were astonished that such an advanced civilization (China) believed the Earth orbited the sun. Again, Blinkered. Blinkered. Blinkered. Embedded, a priori views.

How do you know you are correct, if you wont consider the possibility you are wrong? What if Zeus is God? Or, God does not
exist [except in our minds and culture?

Let's not pick on David Boaz,he too is trying to make sense of this crazy world.We are born insecure beings and thus crave power to quench our insecurities.The ultimate power is the concept of "god" who will be our protector.For many this concept has been perverted to attain political power.

I think that Einstein discovered much more than nuclear science in his "theories of relativity".If space time and matter/energy are all interwoven,then that means the infinite present can exist.It does not necessarily mean that our consciousness in its' present form will always exist,however it suggests that there is a non ordinary reality that can ursurp our vision of the finite,hedonestic world of consumerism.

The real prophets are the great thinkers who search for truth without notions of enternal rewards.If we knew for sure,there would be no point in living.It is all about courage,love and tenacity.Only we make the rules to facilite fairness and only we can hold up this fragile umbrella called civilisation.Our notion of religion/spirituality must evolve into a more dynamic science based reality,and not based merely on heresay.

We seem to be back in incomprehensible-to-non-theologian territory here, but I'll plough on for a little while in the hope of uncovering something I can relate to.

>>The early church arrived at the doctrine of the Trinity in order to understand the relationship between the truth (Father) of the event (particular history) and our perception of it (Spirit)<<

"Arrived at" is an interesting phrase, given the number of thinkers who were excommunicated along the way. "Compromised upon... in order to avoid even more damaging schisms" might be closer to the reality.

But whatever their motivation, I can understand their problem. On the one hand, a solid biblically-supported argument that the whole point was to worship a single God and abolish polytheism forever. On the other, the need to promote the concept of a Son of God, who had actually existed in earthly form, and was therefore a very powerful talisman.

Gibbon enunciated Sells' position more elegantly with his description of the "third way" pursued at the Council of Nice.

"The Logos is no longer a person, but an attribute... The incarnation of the Logos is reduced to a mere inspiration of the Divine Wisdom, which filled the soul and directed all the actions of the man Jesus." [Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire]

In fact, Gibbon's description of the council of Nice is extremely revelatory of the depth of the politics involved, and confirms the dictum that history is written by the victor. Trinitarianism could easily have been badged heretical, had the Arians been smarter in their use of precedent - emphasising the common use of triad deities in other religions, for example, in contrast to the biblical instruction to have no other God...

Gibbon also said, almost apologetically:

"The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven, arrayed in her native purity. A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption which she contracted in a long residence upon earth, among a weak and degenerate race of beings." [Ibid].