₦airaland Forum

Question: "Is there an argument for the existence of God?"

Answer: The question of whether there is a conclusive argument for the existence of God has been debated throughout history, with exceedingly intelligent people taking both sides of the dispute. In recent times, arguments against the possibility of God’s existence have taken on a militant spirit that accuses anyone daring to believe in God as being delusional and irrational. Karl Marx asserted that anyone believing in God must have a mental disorder that caused invalid thinking. The psychiatrist Sigmund Freud wrote that a person who believed in a Creator God was delusional and only held those beliefs due to a “wish-fulfillment” factor that produced what Freud considered to be an unjustifiable position. The philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche bluntly said that faith equates to not wanting to know what is true. The voices of these three figures from history (along with others) are simply now parroted by a new generation of atheists who claim that a belief in God is intellectually unwarranted.

Is this truly the case? Is belief in God a rationally unacceptable position to hold? Is there a logical and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Outside of referencing the Bible, can a case for the existence of God be made that refutes the positions of both the old and new atheists and gives sufficient warrant for believing in a Creator? The answer is, yes, it can. Moreover, in demonstrating the validity of an argument for the existence of God, the case for atheism is shown to be intellectually weak.

An argument for the existence of God — something rather than nothing

To make an argument for the existence of God, we must start by asking the right questions. We begin with the most basic metaphysical question: “Why do we have something rather than nothing at all?” This is the basic question of existence—why are we here; why is the earth here; why is the universe here rather than nothing? Commenting on this point, one theologian has said, “In one sense man does not ask the question about God, his very existence raises the question about God.”

In considering this question, there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:

1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.

So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.

Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.

Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:

• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.

Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?

To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.

Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.

Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:

• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.

Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God’s existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”

An argument for the existence of God — knowing the Creator

But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:

• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).

These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).

An argument for the existence of God — the flaws of atheism

One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.

Next, it is important to understand the issue that surrounds the seriousness of truth claims that are made and the amount of evidence required to warrant certain conclusions. For example, if someone puts two containers of lemonade in front of you and says that one may be more tart than the other, since the consequences of getting the more tart drink would not be serious, you would not require a large amount of evidence in order to make your choice. However, if to one cup the host added sweetener but to the other he introduced rat poison, then you would want to have quite a bit of evidence before you made your choice.

This is where a person sits when deciding between atheism and belief in God. Since belief in atheism could possibly result in irreparable and eternal consequences, it would seem that the atheist should be mandated to produce weighty and overriding evidence to support his position, but he cannot. Atheism simply cannot meet the test for evidence for the seriousness of the charge it makes. Instead, the atheist and those whom he convinces of his position slide into eternity with their fingers crossed and hope they do not find the unpleasant truth that eternity does indeed exist. As Mortimer Adler says, “More consequences for life and action follow from the affirmation or denial of God than from any other basic question.”

An argument for the existence of God — the conclusion

So does belief in God have intellectual warrant? Is there a rational, logical, and reasonable argument for the existence of God? Absolutely. While atheists such as Freud claim that those believing in God have a wish-fulfillment desire, perhaps it is Freud and his followers who actually suffer from wish-fulfillment: the hope and wish that there is no God, no accountability, and therefore no judgment. But refuting Freud is the God of the Bible who affirms His existence and the fact that a judgment is indeed coming for those who know within themselves the truth that He exists but suppress that truth (Romans 1:20). But for those who respond to the evidence that a Creator does indeed exist, He offers the way of salvation that has been accomplished through His Son, Jesus Christ: "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name, who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God" (John 1:12-13).

Amujale:
Christianity an Islam are both aftermaths of foreign aggressive invasions.

That is to say, Christianity does not favour Africa.

Islam does not favour Africa.

Christianity and Islam are never to be taken seriously, they are the mere after math of an aggressive occupation.

Christianity is a false concept that was manufactured by the Romans in the fourth century.

The Christianity is a massive charade.

{Matthew 12:31-32} He who is not with Me is against Me, and he who does not gather with Me scatters. Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.
Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the one to come.…

Amujale:
Forget and bin all that Hellenistic mumbojumbo and concentrate focus on real history.

Let's all conce trate our focus on things that are real and true. i.e history.

Lets's stop sourcing from the fakery inside of Abrahamic text and instead source from real history.

It isnt much to ask of us, STOP sourcing from liars and fakers and instead choose to source from real history.


Manufactured history created by liars and fakers ❌

Real history ✅

This is my answer-meaning'' 'The only thing wrong with this story-is-the fact they had camera's everywhere, if God was really in this picture, and this man was really crippled-one would think this man would be glorifying and praising God, but sadly, he is not" in this picture only the priest receives the glory from men.
{Matthew 4:4} "Man don't live by bread alone-but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of the Lord.....
So my answer is no, I don't believe God was even in this picture, let alone heal this man...

Maximus69:
I didn't get your answer!

Is the miracle REAL or FAKE?
What biblical proof do you have to back up your answer?

What more can I say to you JW I give my answer and still you refuse to accept it..

Maximus69:
Walahi Talahi you're just dribbling yourself!

The question again ~ is the miracle real or not?

If nothing is working for you, then you need to find something that is working for you.
And besides believing is a better place to be, firstly I am not African, secondly my country is the land full of milk and honey, when my country was discovered they called it the land of the Holy Spirit..
If you believe you are so great in history, then look up the "Spear of destiny-and history will tell you Jesus did exist..

Amujale:
Both Jesus and Christianity was created by olden days Romans.

As in, Christianity was created by liars and fakers.

The Jesus character was invented by liars and fakers.

Concentrate your focus on making our world a better place, something both Jesus and Christianity has failed woefully.

Given that neither Christianity nor Islam is meant to favour Africans, why are we still followimg these false concepts?

{Hebrews 13:8} Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever...
But do you actually believe in the scriptures "JW-don't you believe that miracles happen everyday?

Maximus69:
Pointless comment!

Are you of the opinion that the so called Catholic miracle is real or not?

Period!

The only thing wrong with this story-is-the fact they had camera's everywhere, this was a plan, so the Church receives more followers, and what comes with the followers, "Money, if God was really in this picture, and this man was really crippled-there would be pictures of this man glorifying and praising God, but sadly, he is not" in this picture only the priest receives the glory from men.
The Catholic Church have pulled of all sorts of hog washed stories, to keep the Church believing, the story of Patmos, and what better way was to use 3 children, to tell their story.
The Virgin Mary stories, she is seen in the hearts of the believers, the Catholic's believe statues cry-they claim to know Jesus just like you? But they focus on another-do any of you see Jesus? This so called crippled man does not glorify God, instead he stood up on the pulpit to tell a story that was giving to him, he claims the priest had healed him..
JW--the truth is this- {John 14:12-13} Truly, truly, I tell you, whoever believes in Me will also do the works that I am doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.
And I will do whatever you ask in My name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son.…

Maximus69:
Pointless comment!

Are you of the opinion that the so called Catholic miracle is real or not?

Period!

Only to you!!

Amujale:
You're wrong.

According to most historians and in accordance with all the evidence.

The only differences between you and I, ""Is'' that we believe what the Word of God tells us to believe...
The only unpardonable sin today is that of continued unbelief.
There is no pardon for a person who dies in his rejection of Christ. The Holy Spirit is at work in the world, convicting the unsaved of sin, righteousness, and judgment {John 16:8}
If a person resists that conviction and remains unrepentant, then he is choosing hell over heaven.
“Without faith it is impossible to please God” {Hebrews 11:6}, and the object of faith is Jesus {Acts 16:31}
There is no forgiveness for someone who dies without faith in Christ.
Now you decide "JW" which side of the fence you need to be on..

Maximus69:
I wonder what's wrong with you people!

Jehovah's Witnesses tell you there is NOTHING like spectacular signs and wonders anymore, you people will start arguing profusely like broken stereo player.

Now they're propagating what you believe yet you are still arguing against it!

Which one una dey?

Mary was not perfect or supernatural
Despite later legends and traditions, Scripture presents Mary as a completely ordinary human woman.
Mary’s song of praise indicated that she understood her own need for a Savior. We also see evidence of her limitations. For example, when Jesus disappeared from the family group on a return trip from Jerusalem {Luke 2:41–51}, he was eventually found at the Temple.
She said that she and Joseph experienced “great distress” when they were looking for Him. But think about it, after all those promises made to her, and after all that confirmation of Jesus’ specialness, how could she be afraid of anything happening to him?
Several years later, Jesus had to correct her at a wedding in the town of Cana {John 2:1–11}.
His gentle rebuke {“Woman, what does this have to do with me? My hour has not yet come.”} seems to indicate that she misunderstood their relationship.
We must not avoid the conclusion that Jesus by rebuking his mother, however courteously, declares, at the beginning of his ministry, the purpose of his coming; his only lodestar is his heavenly Father’s will {5:30; 8:29}
This must have been extremely difficult for Mary. She had borne him, nursed him, taught his baby fingers elementary skills, watched him fall over as he learned to walk; apparently she had also come to rely on him as the family provider. But now that he had entered into the purpose of his coming, everything, even family ties, had to be subordinated to his divine mission.
She could no longer view him as other mothers viewed their sons; she must no longer be allowed the prerogatives of motherhood. It is a remarkable fact that everywhere Mary occurs during the course of Jesus’ ministry, Jesus is at pains to establish distance between them {e.g. Mt. 12:46–50}.
Even later, after Jesus began his main ministry and after he had performed multiple amazing miracles and had proclaimed himself to be the Messiah, she was present with his brothers when they came to try to bring him home {Mark 3:21, 31–35; Luke 8:19–21}
They apparently thought He had gone too far, maybe even having lost His mind. Did she fail to completely understand the nature of His ministry, or of his divinity?
Jesus makes a few statements that should give us pause if we seek to elevate Mary too high:
“As he said these things, a woman in the crowd raised her voice and said to him, “Blessed is the womb that bore you, and the breasts at which you nursed!” But he said, “Blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and keep it!” {Luke 11:27–28}
That is a very important statement from Jesus. He directly parries an attempt to elevate Mary beyond her proper position. Also: “But he replied to the man who told him, “Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?” And stretching out his hand toward his disciples, he said, “Here are my mother and my brothers! For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother” {Matthew 12:48–50}.
This indicates that, while Mary had the honor of playing a unique role in the coming of the Messiah, her role as his mother did not give her a special position in heaven or a privileged position in salvation.
Matter of fact-Mary was the mother of many children
While the early church gave Mary the title of “ever-virgin”, and as early monasticism made chastity a virtue in and of itself, the Bible contains statements that go against this.
Scripture is clear that Joseph and Mary did not engage in relations until after Jesus was born {Matthew 1:25}—but this indicates that they had a normal married relationship afterwards.
Jesus is said to have four or five brothers and multiple sisters in Scripture {Mathew 13:55–56; Mark 6:3; Luke 8:19; John 2:12; Acts 1:14}
We even have the names of the brothers: James (the future leader of the church in Jerusalem, {Galatians 1:19}, Judas (the brother of James, {Jude 1:1}, Joseph, and Simon.3
In the Jewish view of the day, having many children would have been seen as a great blessing and a sign of God’s favor on Mary. It may have also been a comfort to have so many other children after having to relinquish the special mother-son relationship she may have expected to have with Jesus.
Mary was one of the first Christians
Even though she was the mother of Jesus, Mary needed to be saved in the way all of us are—through faith in Christ.
And she is clearly listed among the early Christians. For example, she and Jesus’ brothers were among the early disciples in Capernaum after the wedding in Cana {John 2:12}.
She was also in the ‘upper room’ where they were staying after Jesus ascended to heaven from the Mount of Olives: “All these with one accord were devoting themselves to prayer, together with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and his brothers” {Acts 1:14; note, the Greek word ‘brothers’ may refer to ‘brothers and sisters’}.
This is the final word Scripture tells us explicitly about Mary.
Unlike a couple of her sons, Mary did not go on to be a leader in the early church. She did not do any miracles, or give any prophecies that are recorded. She was not seen to be ‘special’ in any sense among the earliest believers and we hear nothing about her again.

The earliest and best extrabiblical traditions suggest that John was faithful to the charge Jesus gave him to take care of Mary {John 19:26–27}
One account tells us she lived with John in Ephesus where he ministered until her death. Sadly, we cannot know for sure if this is true, but it is the best-attested tradition.
Mary might be one of the witnesses behind the Gospel of Luke.
We see hints of this in the fact that Luke, the ever-careful historian and fact checker, includes personal details in his Gospel that seem to come from a personal interview with Mary, including the two statements about Mary ‘treasuring things in her heart’ we mentioned earlier, among many other similar details.
What we learn from Mary--Mary is presented in the Bible as an exemplary woman who is worthy of imitation with regard to her faith, her diligence in the Scriptures, and her godly life.
She had the unique privilege of being the mother of the Messiah, and the unique difficulty of having to give up the ‘special’ mother-child relationship to recognize Him as her Lord and Savior. Most importantly, she was saved like every Christian today is saved—by faith in Christ.
In other ways, however, her story is unique. She was the chosen person to bring about the fulfilment of the very first prophesy in the Bible, the one that promised a coming Saviour in the “proto-gospel” of {Genesis 3:15}
“And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will crush your head, and you will strike his heel.
”Thousands of years after that fateful scene in the Garden of Eden, a poor, young Jewish woman became a vessel for the Incarnation of the Son of God, who, as we learned before, came ‘to take away the sins of the world’.
The many hyper-rational, skeptical people alive today want us to doubt Scripture. Yet Mary gives us an example of someone who believed the Word of God without compromise, humbly, and in the face of potential shame. We would do well to imitate her belief in God’s word, and her trust in Christ.

Well Christmas is standing at our doors, while the world see's it as Santa bringing gifts for all to enjoy..
Merry Christmas to all...
Although most Christians celebrate December 25 as the birthday of Jesus Christ, few in the first two Christian centuries claimed any knowledge of the exact day or year in which he was born.
The oldest existing record of a Christmas celebration is found in a Roman almanac that tells of a Christ’s Nativity festival led by the church of Rome in 336 A.D.
The precise reason why Christmas came to be celebrated on December 25 remains obscure, but most researchers believe that Christmas originated as a Christian substitute for pagan celebrations of the winter solstice.
To early Christians (and to many Christians today), the most important holiday on the Christian calendar was Easter, which commemorates the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
However, as Christianity began to take hold in the Roman world, in the early fourth century, church leaders had to contend with a popular Roman pagan holiday commemorating the “birthday of the unconquered sun” (natalis solis invicti)–the Roman name for the winter solstice.
Every winter, Romans honored the pagan god Saturn, the god of agriculture, with a festival that began on December 17 and usually ended on or around December 25 with a winter-solstice celebration in honor of the beginning of the new solar cycle.
This festival was a time of merrymaking, and families and friends would exchange gifts.
At the same time, Mithraism–worship of the ancient Persian god of light–was popular in the Roman army, and the cult held some of its most important rituals on the winter solstice.
After the Roman Emperor Constantine I converted to Christianity in 312 and sanctioned Christianity, church leaders made efforts to appropriate the winter-solstice holidays and thereby achieve a more seamless conversion to Christianity for the emperor’s subjects.
In rationalizing the celebration of Jesus’ birthday in late December, church leaders may have argued that since the world was allegedly created on the spring equinox (late March), so too would Jesus have been conceived by God on that date.
The Virgin Mary, pregnant with the son of God, would hence have given birth to Jesus nine months later on the winter solstice.
From Rome, the Christ’s Nativity celebration spread to other Christian churches to the west and east, and soon most Christians were celebrating Christ’s birth on December 25.
To the Roman celebration was later added other winter-solstice rituals observed by various pagan groups, such as the lighting of the Yule log and decorations with evergreens by Germanic tribes.
The word Christmas entered the English language originally as Christes maesse, meaning “Christ’s mass” or “festival of Christ” in Old English.
A popular medieval feast was that of St. Nicholas of Myra, a saint said to visit children with gifts and admonitions just before Christmas,, This story evolved into the modern practice of leaving gifts for children said to be brought by “Santa Claus,” a derivative of the Dutch name for St. Nicholas–Sinterklaas.

Now it's up to you to push that unscriptural knowledge out the door and read the truth that is written in the KJ's bible
I will just like to add: this is what happens when we decide to listen to unbiblical tradition.
Jesus would argue with the Pharisees because of their fathers tradition back in His time--it has not changed, the Catholic Church still holds on to these same traditions, traditions that are still argued today-between "Truth"...

Jusmudi:
Ok bro

I said: the bibles can take years to read, I didn't mention a day...

Jusmudi:
We can't finish d Bible just a day. It takes time, though I'm reading ur comment now

The truth is there if anybody wants it, God doesn't force anybody to believe, it's completely up to us to make the right choice.
Our future destiny starts with us today, we may even find what destiny we have chosen as we pass away, but the bottom line is-we can't afford "not to make the right choice.
And then the question begins, facts are" certain Church tradition stopping us from studying the truth, that helps us to make the right choices to be with Jesus..

Quite honestly, praying for those already in Heaven, doesn't sound like a bad idea, but to be frank about it, we don't know for sure who actually made it to Heaven?
We could believe all the disciples had made it, but is there any evident's to prove such a theory!!
So if we were praying to them-and later found out they weren't in heaven, then obviously we were praying to the dead, not the living.
In scripture-Jesus said: let the dead bury their dead, now we do know God wants us to care for the needs of our families {Mark 7:10-13; 1 Timothy 5:8} but not to neglect our spiritual calling in the process.
So who's to know-which of the disciples actually finish their race.
When we look in scripture-we see John and Paul, Peter, Mathew, Mark Luke, Timothy etc... But are we sure some of these apostles made it home?
{Matthew 19:28} Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.
So we don't really know if all the 11 actually followed Jesus, but we do know Judah one of the 12 didn't. I suppose this is a good reason why God said: Focus on the Father-so it is not surprising that it is profoundly rooted in Scripture:
{Hebrews 4:14–16} Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weaknesses, but one who in every respect has been tempted as we are, yet without sin. Let us then with confidence draw near to the throne of grace.
“Pray to the Father in the power of the Spirit, in the name or by the authority and the merit of the Son. That is the Bible’s trinitarian prayer structure "We only can come to God in prayer pleading for grace, because we have a high priest, which is why we pray in Jesus’ name.

The Lord said: read the Word of God, study it, and learn by it, he said pray for each other, asking the elders of the Church to lay their hands on you for healing, Mary and those saints who had already passed, they have finish their race, which means Mary and the saints who have already passed can not lay their hands on the sick, but we can, In Jesus's name-and now it's up to us to finish our race, and after us the next generation to finish theirs.
I believe my sister is with the Lord, and I thank the Lord for making that happen, I don't pray to her-or for her, she's with the Lord-Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercession, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings who are in authority that we may lead a quite and peaceful life in all godliness and reverence.
For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our savior.
Who desire all men to be saved, and come to the knowledge of the truth-for there is one God and one mediator between God and man, the Man Jesus Christ, so my prayers go straight to our Father, Jesus said: Heaven and Earth will pass away, but His Word will always stay.
Someday when it is my turn to pass, I pray I will be with my "New sister, since the "Old sister had passed away, I am so grateful, I had the opportunity to tell her about Jesus 'before she died..
I believe she is with the living in spirit singing Psalms a new song to the Lord, a song that can only glorify His Holy Name, a Name written that every knee will bow before Him, and worship Him as He is the King of kings and the Lord of lords.
God Almighty is His Name-Jesus Christ is Lord ''Amen ''Amen ''Amen..

Question: "What does it mean that God sent Jesus in the “fullness of time”? Why did God send Jesus when He did? Why not earlier? Why not later?"
Answer: “But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law” (Galatians 4:4).
This verse declares that God the Father sent His Son when “the time had fully come.”
There were many things occurring at the time of the first century that, at least by human reasoning, seem to make it ideal for Christ to come then.
1) There was a great anticipation among the Jews of that time that the Messiah would come. The Roman rule over Israel made the Jews hungry for the Messiah’s coming.
2) Rome had unified much of the world under its government, giving a sense of unity to the various lands. Also, because the empire was relatively peaceful, travel was possible, allowing the early Christians to spread the gospel.
Such freedom to travel would have been impossible in other eras.
3) While Rome had conquered militarily, Greece had conquered culturally.
A “common” form of the Greek language (different from classical Greek) was the trade language and was spoken throughout the empire, making it possible to communicate the gospel to many different people groups through one common language.
4) The fact that the many false idols had failed to give them victory over the Roman conquerors caused many to abandon the worship of those idols.
At the same time, in the more “cultured” cities, the Greek philosophy and science of the time left others spiritually empty in the same way that the atheism of communist governments leaves a spiritual void today.
5) The mystery religions of the time emphasized a savior-god and required worshipers to offer bloody sacrifices, thus making the gospel of Christ which involved one ultimate sacrifice believable to them. The Greeks also believed in the immortality of the soul (but not of the body).
6) The Roman army recruited soldiers from among the provinces, introducing these men to Roman culture and to ideas (such as the gospel) that had not reached those outlying provinces yet. The earliest introduction of the gospel to Britain was the result of the efforts of Christian soldiers stationed there.
The above statements are based on men looking at that time and speculating about why that particular point in history was a good time for Christ to come.
But we understand that God’s ways are not our ways (Isaiah 55:, and these may or may not have been some reasons for why He chose that particular time to send His Son.
From the context of Galatians 3 and 4, it is evident that God sought to lay a foundation through the Jewish Law that would prepare for the coming of the Messiah.
The Law was meant to help people understand the depth of their sinfulness (in that they were incapable of keeping the Law) so that they might more readily accept the cure for that sin through Jesus the Messiah (Galatians 3:22-23; Romans 3:19-20). The Law was also “put in charge” (Galatians 3:24) to lead people to Jesus as the Messiah.
It did this through its many prophecies concerning the Messiah which Jesus fulfilled.
Add to this the sacrificial system that pointed to the need for a sacrifice for sin as well as its own inadequacy
(with each sacrifice always requiring later additional ones).
Old Testament history also painted pictures of the person and work of Christ through several events and religious feasts (such as the willingness of Abraham to offer up Isaac, or the details of the Passover during the exodus from Egypt, etc.).
Finally, Christ came when He did in fulfillment of specific prophecy.
[Daniel 9:24-27] speaks of the “seventy weeks” or the seventy “sevens.” From the context, these “weeks” or “sevens” refer to groups of seven years, not seven days.
We can examine history and line up the details of the first sixty-nine weeks (the seventieth week will take place at a future point).
The countdown of the seventy weeks begins with “the going forth of the command to restore and build Jerusalem” (verse 25).
This command was given by Artaxerxes Longimanus in 445 B.C. (see Nehemiah 2:5).
After seven “sevens” plus 62 “sevens,” or 69 x 7 years, the prophecy states, “the Anointed One will be cut off and will have nothing.
The people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary” and that the “end will come like a flood” (meaning major destruction) (v. 26).
Here we have an unmistakable reference to the Savior’s death on the cross.
A century ago in his book The Coming Prince, Sir Robert Anderson gave detailed calculations of the sixty-nine weeks, using ‘prophetic years,’ allowing for leap years, errors in the calendar, the change from B.C. to A.D., etc., and figured that the sixty-nine weeks ended on the very day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, five days before His death.
Whether one uses this timetable or not, the point is that the timing of Christ’s incarnation ties in with this detailed prophecy recorded by Daniel over five hundred years beforehand.
The timing of Christ’s incarnation was such that the people of that time were prepared for His coming.
The people of every century since then have more than sufficient evidence that Jesus was indeed the promised Messiah through His fulfillment of the Scriptures that pictured and prophesied His coming in great detail.
So I do hope you do understand this, only Jesus can save you, because asking Mary or the saints, anybody in this matter to save you is a waste of your time..

Jusmudi:
To u not to me

To be honest, anybody who can't seem to get Jesus right in the first place, didn't get Jesus at all-praying to Mary expecting her to save you, is something the Catholic Church made up, it isn't scriptural, 'most people who read their bibles already know we pray directly "To" the Father.
If you have peace believing a lie, then keep your peace, "But know this-believing all truth sets us free
I don't need to ask about my parents, family or friends, the Lord gave us a choice, heaven or Hell-the Lord said: by their fruit we know them..

Jusmudi:
Did I tell u I don't believe in God? U said Marys role ended after d resurrection of Christ but I'm telling u dt no matter how great u are, people must always ask about your parents. Mary is still performing her duty to those who seek for her intercession. Bros what are we arguing? U don't believe n I believe, den y can't u allow me to believe in peace? As far we worship same God(Jesus) den forget how I meet him. U see dis life eh, we can never be same even twins can never be same ooo. Anyway I'm happy there are some people who still believe n devote dia time for God.

Mary new people like u ll argue that was y she said in Luke 1:48
New American Standard Bible
"For He has had regard for the humble state of His bondslave; For behold, from this time on all generations will count me blessed.
I'm proud of u bro