|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Historical Jesus: Did He Create the Universe? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10296 Joined: Member Rating: 7.1 |
candle2 writes: If these laws were determined by an evolutionaryprocesses they would be evolving, changing. 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.
The universe and its laws are being upheld by God and His Son. Hebrews 1:3. Without Him upholding His Creation it would crumble, and fall into decay. These are common beliefs, but the thrust of this thread was to find some evidence for these beliefs.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22934 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 6.8 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 892 Joined: |
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 produceevidence. Most people will interpret the evidence to fit their worldview. Personally, it does not bother me that the board sometimesgets off the topic. I am flexible.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capt Stormfield Member Posts: 429 From: Vancouver Island Joined: |
God is upholding it is the reason we are able to perform experiments and make predictions. So you're saying we're just figments of the God Thingy's imagination? I can see where that would appeal to you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.5
|
candle2 in Message 528 writes: 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. And once evidence is distorted to fit their world view it loses it's value as evidence.Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3 If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument. - - Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 892 Joined: |
Tanypteryx, you wrote:
"And once evidence is distorted to fit their world viewit loses it's value as evidence." ***Evidence can be distorted by anyone. No group has amonopoly on it. It is an accepted fact that Jesus lived and died. He wascrucified on a stauros. The majority of scholars accept this as fact. The disagreement is in the resurrection of Jesus fromthe dead. Many scientists refuse to accept this because it goesagainst 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 thesupernatural. 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 forlife to come from non-life, from nothing. This is the law of nature. The Apostles and Disciples believed that Jesus rose fromthe dead. A man will give his life for a cause that he believes, even ifthe 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 thedead. 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 theRomans and establish His Kingdom when He appeared. Jesus did not do that. And worse still He was treated asa 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 purgedfrom them. He was not the One. These same men, who feared for their lives, were suddenlyemboldened. 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 theNew 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 thedogs 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 morepeople to visit their animal shelters. There are many dogs and cats that need a hood home. Some have been horribly treated.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 892 Joined: |
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, awealthy Pharisee, and a member of the council. It is also clear that (Matthew 27:62-66) pilate, by requestfrom the chief priest and Pharisees, posted guards to watch over the tomb. The Pharisees fearing that His (Jesus') disciples mightsteal 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 thatday 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 Testamentrecord 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 wasseen by Cephas (Peter), then by the 12 Apostles. Vs.5. After that Be was sewn by over 500 brethren at the sametime. 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 Jesussaw 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 manyChristians to Jerusalem to be beaten or killed. He despised Christians. Vs.9. Miraculously, Paul became the the biggest supporter ofJesus. Why, because Jesus appeared to him. Pail was beaten, put in chains, and locked on prisonnumerous times for his faith. All of the Apostles suffered greatly for their preachingof the risen Christ. All except John was Martyred. None of them recanted their faith. They died becauseof it. No one dies for a known lie. They are the greatest witnesses for Jesus Christ. Theirlives were dictated by what they heard and witnessed. No force on earth could persuade them to deny what theyhad witnessed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13107 From: EvC Forum Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 9.5
|
candle2 in Message 531 writes: 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. AND when it is distorted by anyone to fit their world view it loses it's value as evidence.
candle2 in Message 531 writes: It is an accepted fact that Jesus lived and died. He was crucified on a stauros. The majority of scholars accept this as fact. 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?
candle2 in Message 531 writes: The disagreement is in the resurrection of Jesus from the dead. And the lack of any independent supporting evidence that Jesus existed. And what does this have to do with the subject of this thread?
candle2 in Message 531 writes: Many scientists refuse to accept this because it goes against nature and physics. Scientists need supporting evidence, but this still does not address the subject of this thread.
candle2 in Message 531 writes: Note that it is not science that reject the resurrection; it is scientists who reject. Actually, there is no independent supporting scientific evidence for the resurrection of any character in your story.
candle2 in Message 531 writes: Scientists reject the resurrection because it involves the supernatural. They make assumptions. 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. candle2 in Message 531 writes: Everybody knows that no one dies and comes back to life. It is, by natural processes, impossible. What does this have to do with the subject of this thread?
candle2 in Message 531 writes: 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. Can you name that law of nature? Please explain what this has to do with the subject of this thread.
candle2 in Message 531 writes: The Apostles and Disciples believed that Jesus rose from the dead. 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.
candle2 in Message 531 writes: A man will give his life for a cause that he believes, even if the belief is wrong. Stll nothing about the subject of this thread.
candle2 in Message 531 writes: But a man will not give his life for a known lie. More nothing. This is pointless.
candle2 in Message 531 writes: 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. Stop Tzar Vladimir the Condemned! What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that it has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --Percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq Why should anyone debate someone who doesn't know the subject? -- AZPaul3 If you are going to argue that evolution is false because it resembles your own beliefs then perhaps you should rethink your argument. - - Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
candle2 Member (Idle past 124 days) Posts: 892 Joined: |
Tanypteryx, you wrote:
"It is not an accepted fact, by billions of people, and youhave 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 wason topic. I respect the moderator and his position; therefore, I willexplain 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 isanything dealing with historical science. Historical science is based on assumptions. Since no one was around when the universe was created, weare 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 theresurrection. Historical science and observational/operational science arevery 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 helpus here. Observational science can. There are at least 4.3 billions Christians and Muslims thatbelieve 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 Jesusexisted. Biblical scholars and historians view theories of His non-existenceas being effectively refuted. In any event, observation science is quite certain that lifedid not come from nonlife. And if life came from pre-existing life, the pre-existing life verywell might be the Creator of all. There is no way to answer the question without evidence foror evidence against Jesus creating the universe. I will read your reply, but I won't post on this topic again.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9580 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 6.6
|
If Jesus existed, he existed 2,000 years ago, is the universe 2,000 years old?
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London. Olen Suomi Soy Barcelona. I am Ukraine. "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dwise1 Member Posts: 6076 Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
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: 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:
dwise1 writes in Message 301:
Two decades ago I was on a Google "origins" forum where a creationist inadvertently revealed their secret strategy; that was a real epiphany for me. After decisively refuting a claim he made (the old sea-salt claim, as I recall) such that he himself admitted that his claim was false, I asked him why creationists have so little to support their position (well, nothing actually) that they have to resort to such unconvincing false claims, to which he replied (from memory): "You only find them unconvincing because you are not yet convinced." That means that they don't care about the evidence, they don't care about the truth, and they don't even want to convince us about anything. All they care about is convincing themselves and keeping themselves convinced. I've posted this before from Quora, but it's been a year so here it is again:
quote: 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024