The Historical Jesus: Did He Create the Universe?

That assumes the evolutionary process would be ongoing. It could be that evolutionary processes resulting in the physical laws we are familiar with only occur at really extreme energy densities and temperatures which no longer exist in our universe.Newton's laws are a decent example. Those laws work for low velocity, low gravity, and low mass environments. However, Newton's laws break down in more extreme environments. For example, Mercury's orbit "breaks" Newton's laws due to the more extreme gravitational well it finds itself in (i.e. the massive Sun right next door). Actually, all planetary orbits have a precession in their orbit, they are just harder to measure.Quantum mechanics and general relativity are the two pillars of physics and cosmology, but a lot of physicists I have heard from think they are both wrong because they break down in extreme conditions. Just the inability to unify the two shows that they are probably wrong in some sense.So I think it is naive of us to think that physics behaves the same in all conditions. These are common beliefs, but the thrust of this thread was to find some evidence for these beliefs.

You don't even mention Jesus once. You're supposed to be presenting evidence and providing arguments that the Jesus of history (not of faith) created the universe.The premise of this thread is ICANT's, and I don't think it's one you buy into. I don't think you even accept a Jesus of history. Why are you arguing for something you don't believe?--Percy

Percy, I have mentioned Jesus many times. I was prepared
to give more outside the Bible evidence for Jesus and
miracles attributed to Him, but you said that no more
was needed.None of us can go back in time; all we can do is produce
evidence. Most people will interpret the evidence to fit
their worldview.Personally, it does not bother me that the board sometimes
gets off the topic. I am flexible.

So you're saying we're just figments of the God Thingy's imagination? I can see where that would appeal to you.

And once evidence is distorted to fit their world view it loses it's value as evidence.

Tanypteryx, you wrote:"And once evidence is distorted to fit their world view
it loses it's value as evidence."***Evidence can be distorted by anyone. No group has a
monopoly on it.It is an accepted fact that Jesus lived and died. He was
crucified on a stauros. The majority of scholars accept
this as fact.The disagreement is in the resurrection of Jesus from
the dead.Many scientists refuse to accept this because it goes
against nature and physics.Note that it is not science that reject the resurrection;
it is scientists who reject.Scientists reject the resurrection because it involves the
supernatural. They make assumptions.Everybody knows that no one dies and comes back to life.
It is, by natural processes, impossible.But, by utilizing the same logic, it is also impossible for
life to come from non-life, from nothing. This is the law
of nature.The Apostles and Disciples believed that Jesus rose from
the dead.A man will give his life for a cause that he believes, even if
the belief is wrong.But a man will not give his life for a known lie.The disciples ran when Jesus was arrested and crucified.
They were scared to death.They did not expect their Messiah to come back from the
dead.Once the Messiah of a cult is dead, the cult falls apart.
Jesus' disciples denied knowing Him. They were hiding
behind closed doors (for fear of the Jews) when the
resurrected Christ appeared to them.The Jews believed that the Messiah would overthrow the
Romans and establish His Kingdom when He appeared.Jesus did not do that. And worse still He was treated as
a common criminal. He was taken, beaten, spat on, and
crucified. He died a horrible death.Every bit of belief that they had in Him was now purged
from them. He was not the One.These same men, who feared for their lives, were suddenly
emboldened. They were no longer afraid to die. Only one
explanation will suffice. The saw and embraced the living
Lord: Jesus.Men did not believe in the resurrection because of the
New Testament. They believed in the New Testament
because of the resurrection.I will write the rest of what I want to say after I walk the
dogs at the pound.I love these dogs, and I hate to see them living in cages.
I walk each if them for 15-20 minutes twice a week.I do this at two animal shelters. I would like for more
people to visit their animal shelters. There are many dogs
and cats that need a hood home.Some have been horribly treated.

Tanypteryx, I want to make it clear in that everyone at that
place and time knew exactly where Jesus was buried.He was placed in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea, a
wealthy Pharisee, and a member of the council.It is also clear that (Matthew 27:62-66) pilate, by request
from the chief priest and Pharisees, posted guards to
watch over the tomb.The Pharisees fearing that His (Jesus') disciples might
steal His body, were told to make it as secure as they
knew how.It was closely guarded.It were the women who found the empty tomb. In that
day and environment, women were not to be highly
trusted.The courts of the land did not value the word of women.
Their word was of non-importance.Knowing this, why the the writers of the New Testament
record that it were women who found the empty tomb?Because it was the truth.Paul wrote his first epistle to Corinth around 54-55 A.D.
This was roughly 23-24 years after the death of Christ.Paul states in 1 Corinthians 15 that the risen Christ was
seen by Cephas (Peter), then by the 12 Apostles. Vs.5.After that Be was sewn by over 500 brethren at the same
time. The majority of them were still alive at the time Paul
was writing this. Vs. 6. Over 500 is a lot of people.Some say that they were suffering mass hallucinations.
But these people did not expect to see Jesus alive.Paul states in verse 7 that James, the half brother of Jesus
saw Him.James did not believe that his brother was the Messiah.Who would believe this about their brother?James became a leader of the congregation in Jerusalem.
He was martyred because of his great faith.Paul was a hostile witness for Christ. He had brought many
Christians to Jerusalem to be beaten or killed. He despised
Christians. Vs.9.Miraculously, Paul became the the biggest supporter of
Jesus. Why, because Jesus appeared to him.Pail was beaten, put in chains, and locked on prison
numerous times for his faith.All of the Apostles suffered greatly for their preaching
of the risen Christ. All except John was Martyred.None of them recanted their faith. They died because
of it. No one dies for a known lie.They are the greatest witnesses for Jesus Christ. Their
lives were dictated by what they heard and witnessed.No force on earth could persuade them to deny what they
had witnessed.

Because you hadn't posted in a while I removed your daily post limit restriction, but this new post again fails to address the topic in any way. I'm setting your daily post limit to 1 again.

AND when it is distorted by anyone to fit their world view it loses it's value as evidence. It is not an accepted fact, by billions of people, and you have not demonstrated that a majority of scholars accept it, considering that you have shown no verifiable independent evidence that it is not fiction.What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? And the lack of any independent supporting evidence that Jesus existed. And what does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Scientists need supporting evidence, but this still does not address the subject of this thread. Actually, there is no independent supporting scientific evidence for the resurrection of any character in your story. Nope, you have that wrong, scientists reject it because there is not a shred of supporting evidence. They assume there would be supporting evidence if it's true, but we are still waiting for you to explain how anything you have said relates to the subject of this thread.
​ What does this have to do with the subject of this thread? Can you name that law of nature?Please explain what this has to do with the subject of this thread. You are just making stuff up now. The stories were written 100+ years after the supposed events, so you couldn't possibly know what anyone from that time believed. Please explain what this has to do with the subject of this thread. Stll nothing about the subject of this thread. More nothing. This is pointless.

Tanypteryx, you wrote:"It is not an accepted fact, by billions of people, and you
have not demonstrated that a majority of scholars
accept it, considering that you have shown no verifiable
independent evidence that it is not fiction."
​
"What does this have to do with the subject of this thread?"I was reprimanded for getting off topic, but I believe I was
on topic.I respect the moderator and his position; therefore, I will
explain why I did so, and no longer post on this topic.The topic "The Historical Jesus: Did He Create the Universe"
is under "Religious Issues."More importantly it is also under "Faith & Beliefs," which is
anything dealing with historical science. Historical science is
based on assumptions.Since no one was around when the universe was created, we
are limited to the evidence that we have.What is that evidence?The Bible makes numerous claims about Jesus the Christ.Fulfilled prophecy is one piece of evidence.
Returning from the dead is another piece of evidence.I have already addressed why I believe the eyewitnesses to the
resurrection.Historical science and observational/operational science are
very different. Observational science shows conclusively that
to return from the death is not possible without supernatural
Interference.Life does not come from nonlife. Historical science cannot help
us here. Observational science can.There are at least 4.3 billions Christians and Muslims that
believe Jesus existed. This is more than half of that world's
8 billion people.In addition, many Hindus also believe that Jesus existed.
Many Hindu religious and political leaders venerate Jesus as
an Avatar. He is often times placed in the Hindu Pantheon.But, contemporary scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus
existed.Biblical scholars and historians view theories of His non-existence
as being effectively refuted.In any event, observation science is quite certain that life
did not come from nonlife.And if life came from pre-existing life, the pre-existing life very
well might be the Creator of all.There is no way to answer the question without evidence for
or evidence against Jesus creating the universe.I will read your reply, but I won't post on this topic again.

If Jesus existed, he existed 2,000 years ago, is the universe 2,000 years old?

Phat, here is a new video from Clint's Reptiles that dropped today. It's kind of a follow-up to his Evolutionary Biologist Reacts to Creationist Arguments video (see my Message 430), but he reviews a number of creationist videos to comment on what they get wrong (eg, commonly the "we never see dogs giving birth to non-dogs" nonsense, basically claiming that evolution requires us to evolve out of our clade, which evolution tells us is clearly impossible). He offers this thesis statement at about the 24:50 timemark (my transcription):

quote:

---

This video comes from a channel called Bible Explored and it sounds like somebody asked him to define "evolution". This is honestly a great activity to do if you don't want to simply make strawman arguments all day. That is why it was so important for me to create a STEELMAN of young-earth creationism.

​

If I can't explain someone else's position so accurately that they could sign off that I had it right, then why would they have any interest in my criticism of their position? I don't even know what it is.

​

Not to mention the fact that I might end up agreeing with them if I understood their position correctly.

​

It's another thing to disagree with positions that you assume they hold but that aren't their actual positions.

​

So if you are debating someone and you want to have any chance of actually persuading them that they are wrong, correctly articulating their position is basically an essential place to start.

​

I would love it if more creationists would attempt this, but it is also essential to be open to the possibility that you don't have it right. That is unless you just love strawman arguments.

---

He puts it so much better, but that's what I've been saying to creationists for decades. And we've all seen creationists run for the hills to escape having to define what they mean by "evolution"; ie, the constant and constantly unanswered question of: "What are you talking about?" Though Clint may be making a bad assumption here with " ... and you want to have any chance of actually persuading them that they are wrong ... ". Maybe they're not interested in convincing us of anything. Maybe they're far more interested in convincing themselves (and only themselves).As I reposted from a Quora posting reposted once on FaceBook: That seems to be a better explanation for what creationists are trying to accomplish with their nonsensical false claims. They know they have no hope of convincing us with their lies (especially when we know far more about the subject matter than they do), so they go through that evolution solely for the purpose of convincing themselves that if they keep polishing their turd it will turn shiny.