The Historical Jesus: Did He Create the Universe?

I don't give a rat's ass about that. You play endless empty pointless word games.You're just stalling because you have nothing, no model of Jesus creating the Universe.You're a fraud! Put up or shut up. What a waste of time!

Hi Tan, I am not playing word games . Either Historical Jesus exists or does not exist.If He existed I can show you how He created the universe if He did not exist then there is no way I can show you how He created the universe.I did. So if you want to continue the debate either accept what the Scholars say or refute what they say. They say Jesus is a historical person.
What do you say. If it is no just refute the information given.God Bless,

I don't know what the scholars say, I don't have any interest what the scholars say. What I think has no affect on whether you can present a model explaining how Jesus created the Universe, you know the title of your thread where you chicken out once again, surprise, surprise.The bible is fiction and so is the story of Jesus. Now, put up or shut up. I'm a science nerd waiting and waiting for you to actually say something.

Being forever absent your god didn't sign-off on the design plans. Gaia did. We see no majikal supernatural machinations written on the fabric of the universe. Only Gaia's nature is evident. We don't believe in your god because there is no reason for belief. We let facts inform us and you have none. You really have no idea the wealth of data the CMB provides for us? Oh, I'm sure you can parrot your AI inquiry but it won't be with any understanding. The structure of the entire universe is encoded in the CMB and, contrary to your wishes and religious needs, that revelation includes everything back to 10^-33. Sorry, Reverend, but the evidence does not support this conclusion. Even in parroting your useless AI you comprehend nothing of reality. You don't know what you are talking about and you believe in religious fantasy. You are both ignorant and stupid. This is the stupid you claim you don't do.These are not my assumptions. These are not the assumptions of some clique of determined crazies out to destroy your god. They are the actual discernable facts by thousands of smart people amassed over hundreds of years. It is the long held and well documented consensus of the world scientific community that you reject.And you have to reject the real world. Gaia's creation negates your fanciful religious dreams. Your faith dies in the face of these facts so they must be avoided, ignored, denied. Steel trap rusted shut. We covered this already a number of times. Go back and re-visit the posts upstream.

Those "scholars" are religiously-stained christian apologists. They are believers bound by their Great Commission to further the cause regardless of fact. Mis-named "scholar". Bullshit.Real scholars, unencumbered by faith and commission, do not accept this Jesus as actual.Again, to move the discussion on we will ignore the reality and acquiesce to the conjecture that Jesus, not your god but a charismatic David Koresh/Jim Jones wannabee, may have lived. Give it your best shot, Reverend.

ICANT, you wrote:If angels have freewill give me a scripture where they
were ordered to do something and they did not do it or
where they were ordered not to do something and they
did it anyway. That includes the devil.***Jude 6: "And the angels who did not keep their proper
domain, but left their own abode, He has reserved in
everlasting chains under darkness for the judgement of
the great day."The fallen angels disobeyed God by not remaining where
God placed them. They did not do what He ordered them
to do.2 Peter 2:4 "For if God did not spare the angels who
sinned, but cast them down to hell and delivered them
into chains of darkness, to be reserved for judgement."Sin is the transgression of God laws. They disobeyed
Him.If they had been created as evil beings, without free will,
then they did not do anything other than what they were
programmed to do.Without free will, they would be no different than a wild
animal. And animals are incapable of sinning.God does not reserve animals in chains of darkness
awaiting the day of judgement.

ICANT, in reply to my post asking who you thought Ezekiel
was talking about in Ezekiel 28, you wrote:"The king of Tyre."*** The truth is that you know that Ezekiel was talking
about Satan. But you will not admit this. It does not fit
your narrative.The king of Tyre was the anointed cherub who covers.Just the simple fact that the king of Tyre was a cherub
rules out even the slightest possibility that he was a
mortal man.The king of Tyre was created, not born. Adam and Eve
were the only humans ever created. All angels were
created.The king of Tyre was in the Garden of Eden. Other than
God, Genesis records than only Adan. Eve, and the
serpent were in the Garden of Eden.Revelation 12:9 identifies the serpent as Satan the Devil,
as does Revelation 20:2.The Great Dragon, serpent, Satan, and the Devil are all
one and the same.The king of Tyre, who was Satan, was perfect in all His
ways from the day he was created, TILL iniquity wad
found in him.The king of Tyre (Satan) was cast to the ground.Jesus stated in Luke 10:18 that He saw Satan fall from
heaven.He was cast back down.

You really can't demand objective evidence in a Faith&Belief thread. So you want a reason why ICANT and I are believers? Or will it take some sort of objective verifiable "evidence" that Jesus existed? (or in our minds, EXISTS) Reason is indeed winning, but I think that humanity is throwing the Holy Baby out with the bathwater. Just my opinion, of course.For argument's sake, in the Science Forums objective verifiable evidence settles most debates, if only for the moment.(Until new evidence is found)In the Faith&Belief Forum, there can never be objective verifiable evidence. Accordingly, our argument is thus shifting to Reason and reasons. What is the Reason behind Faith and Belief? What is the need for God incarnate...in Communion with a searching humanity? I am similar to ICANT. Not all of my arguments come from YOUTUBE videos. Some of them originate from the statements of other people sans video. I don't always keep up with our EvC conversations, but I make it a point to consider what others say on any given topic. Woah! Dems fightin' words! I have never suggested that your mind is inferior to mine, though I do get frustrated with Peanut Gallery Consensus at times. Remind me again what the crux of our argument is. Fair enough. That is the topic starter. The Good Book vs the secularists. We are talking "was" at the moment. Was there a singularity, according to the latest maths and sciences? Again, keep in mind that this is a Faith & Belief topic. Objective evidence and mathematical models are not necessary.
We use reason and philosophy. Nobody said you had to remain in the Faith & Belief class. The science lab is down the hall...filled with bugs. From what I hear, the scientists are a bit puzzled as to why there seem to be fewer bugs around now than there were 50 years ago. Or am I in error over that assertion? Perhaps this class is not for you. I've got a couple of questions, though. (and yes, Theo they are relevant to the topic! ) When did dragonflies first exist and why did they find a niche? Was there any purpose for them or did they just appear in time? Will some bugs become extinct? If so, why did they even flourish for a season? Could we argue that humans might outlive their usefulness?
| If CANT is a Hebrew scholar and you are uninterested in what he says, to whom are you asking to "put up or shut up?
​

Off topic, but since you asked ...Not in cosmology. Singularities are defined in math but that's a rabbit hole you can go down on your own.The issue is when we reach that point in our model we need to call the flashing error sign something and math provided a ready, and almost accurate, concept.

No this was Tany addressing ICANT, to try and get him to quit stalling.He boasted that he could prove Jesus created the Universe, but still hasn't presented a model. He's a fraud and a poser.ABE: I don't know if he's a scholar or not, but the subject of this thread is not Hebrew history, it's cosmology. This isn't a class, and ICANT stinks as a teacher.

As far as I can tell, entomologists are concerned by the marked decline, because we still have limited knowledge of the life cycles of most species of insects and the ones we study the most are just the ones that have have a direct impact on agriculture, as pests or pollinators. We do know that insects are the major players in the in the terrestrial natural world and that extinctions of whole swaths of insect species would cause whole ecosystems to collapse. There are clear and obvious human activities that are causing the rapid declines of populations, so, no entomologists are not "a bit puzzled."This is off topic.

He means the apologists whom he chooses because they say what he wants to hear. That's what apologetics is: first decide your conclusion and then find "evidences" (I used that apologetics term deliberately) to support your conclusion, distorting those that don't quite do the job or just flat out fabricating them. We see that all the time in creationism. Again, apologetics. In this case it looks very much like The Two Model Approach (TMA) which is the foundational basis for "scientific creationism". Basically at the end of a very busy evening of duty (in a somewhat chaotic environment):

• Posit that there are two-and-only-two "mutually exclusive" "models" for origins: the "Creation Model" and the atheistic "Evolution Model."
  ​
  One of the obvious problems with this is that evolution (ie, biological evolution as we all understand it, but creationists refuse to) is in fact not contrary to the idea of Divine Creation (which creationists also refuse to understand). So they are positing a conflict which in fact does not exist.
  ​
• Into the "Creation Model" you put young-earth creationism and into the "Evolution Model" you put everything else, "including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern" (Dr. Henry Morris, past President of the ICR, Father of "Flood Geology", cofounder of "scientific creationism", and master debater (take care to not delete that "de-", or not if it suits your fancy)).
  ​
  Part of the problem is that there are a far greater number of actual models than the TMA will allow. Just the existence of roughly 288,000 different "creation models" based on that same number of different gods in human history (and possibly also prehistory), all of which the creationists dump unceremoniously in the "evolution model", is decisive evidence that there are far more than just two "mutually exclusive" "models".
  ​
  Despite the TMA's efforts to lump all those non-"Creation Model" ideas into the "Evolution Model", that is a deception. Every single "non-'Creation Model'" needs to be evaluated separately. To put it in colloquial terms, "There are a thousand different ideas of how this should work. Disproving this one idea only eliminates that idea, but does nothing to eliminate the other 999 ideas."
  ​
  IOW, each and every idea in the "Evolution Model" must be addressed and disproven in order to disprove the "Evolution Model".
  ​
  Please note that since most of those ideas in the "Evolution Model" come from "most of the world's religions, ancient and modern", they are of supernatural nature which is immune to testing and disproving. Hence, as per the TMA, it is impossible to disprove the "Evolution Model".
  ​
• Then use the TMA to set up a false dichotomy (AKA "false dilemma") that seeks to "prove creation" solely by "disproving evolution".
  ​
  In the case of a true dichotomy, such a proof can be useful. And indeed I have seen it used in several math classes as proof by contradiction: basically, assume the opposite and show that to be impossible.
  ​
  But that can only work within a very narrow set of conditions:
  ​
  Oh frak it!

OK, it's late and proceeding through the logic will take so long that I will greatly exceed my not-even-allowable intake of post-stressful-duty tequila.The bottom line is that creationism attempts to "prove creation" solely by "disproving evolution". The "logical" basis for that is, again, the use of a true dichotomy applied in a proof by contradiction. But they don't actually do that.Remember that "scientific creationism" and "The Two Model Approach" are part and parcel of a deliberately crafted deception whose purpose is to deceive both the courts and the general public.Their "Creation Model" is the only part of the TMA that is actually defined, but they also must never divulge it to the public nor to the courts -- refer to my page based directly on an ICR publication which describes their creation model. Pure YEC, through and through. But if they were to ever directly present it, then that would give away their entire game. So they don't.In all their "two model", "balanced treatment" public school materials, they never ever directly present their "Creation Model", but rather are extremely vague about some "unnamed Creator", etc. Yet at the same time, they present the "evolution model" as being "atheistic".Indeed, the only actually defined "model" in the TMA is the "Creation Model" , which is the standard for consigning the ideas that disagree with it to the "Evolution Model", "including most of the world's religions, ancient and modern."(picking up on this line of thought the next morning)OK, creationists' "Two Model Approach" is complete and utter bullshit.But it makes me wonder whether the TMA isn't just an instance of standard apologetics bullshit that is far more pervasive and pernicious. Instead of being something particular to creationist false and deceptive argumentation, could this be typical of the fundie approach to everything?To summarize what the TMA does, creationists use it to "prove creation" solely by attacking their strawman "evolution model", thus never ever having to present any evidence for creation, never ever having to argue for creation, never ever having to support creation, never ever having to even present creation. That is why they constantly attack "evolution" (whatever that is supposed to mean coming out of their lying mouths) and never ever even consider attempting to support their own position.And that is what we're seeing here in ICANT's approach to "proving" his assertion by constructing a false dichotomy and doing nothing other than attacking his strawman "opposing position" based on his own ignorance. He has no evidence for his assertion, nor even any kind of model or argument for it. All he has is a strawman to attack leaving his assertion as "the only alternative."Complete and utter bullshit.

Almost everything ICANT has posted so far has been irrelevant to the topi .

Irrelevant

A completely off topic post. Whuddathunk?