One Cubic Meter of Space

[DD_8630]

It's not an appeal to authority but the reasons why most scholars agree.

You have given no reason why most scholars agree. You simply say "Lots of scholars believe Paul believed what he wrote, therefore we know that what Paul wrote actually happened". Can you really not see what's wrong with that kind of argument?

If Hawking is an atheist, he is going to hell.

Only if hell exists, and atheists are for some reason bound to go there. You have demonstrated neither, so this is just another assertion on your part.

However, I think you would be hard pressed to quote him saying that the universe happened all by itself.

Asked in October 2005 on the British daytime chat show Richard & Judy, to explain his assertion that the question "What came before the Big Bang?" was meaningless, he compared it to asking "What lies north of the North Pole?"

He regards the question as meaningless.

Since there were those in the first century claiming Jesus, then if he did not exist, someone would say something, but nobody did, or at least it is not documented.

I disagree. The first century telecommunications was nowhere near as exhaustive as modern technology. If person A lies and says person B existed, who is person C to argue? For all they know, person B did exist.
Only with the advent of global telecommunications and lightspeed-information processing can we readily check the existance of a person.

There is nothing retroactive, but the NT was completed in the first century as you would expect with John's Revelation as the last book of the Bible.

And if Jesus never existed, then his birthdate etc was inserted retroactively, like you'd expect from a hoax.

It's not that suicide mass murderers of Islam don't believe in what they are doing, but they have no objective proof for their faith in claiming Jesus never died by their Koran.

Nevertheless, they die for what they believe in. By your logic, that makes their beliefs de re true. If one is attempting an objective proof, one must remain consistent. So far, you have yet to do that.

Six centuries later they just self-declared it despite the evidence in the first century that remains unchallenged. They are dying for one man's claim in a cave all by himself who rejecting the God of Israel. But praise the Lord we have 40 authors over 1500 years in complete agreement in the 66 books of God's Word.

Actually, the Bible itself is internally inconsistent (not to mention contradictory to reality).

I am glad you could still not overturn the MFA and 4SPFG.

Are all Christians this childish?

[Churchwork]

The various reasons scholars agree are because of all the interconnected points of reference of Paul's travels, associations, and reason for his work.

Hell was already proven. Since resurrection is proven, hell is necessary for those who don't want salvation.

Since Hawking shuts his mind down to the cause of the big bang, that is exactly what you would expect an atheist to do. I call it puff the magic dragon theory, it happened all by itself. Since there are trillions of examples of things with causes, there is no reason for us to think there is not a cause to the universe.

You don't need telecom to dispute something in antiquity. Since the Jewish leadership never denied the historical Jesus and they would be the one's most likely to, because He was claiming to be their Messiah, it's a non-issue. That's why even the most skeptical scholars like Dominic Crossan don't say Jesus never existed. You're on your own.

Those who knew of Jesus' birth and the surrounding events reported it as you would expect. People generally record the event in more detail after it happens.

1 Thess. 5.21 Prove all things.

If a Muslim can't find evidence for their claim Jesus did not die on the cross, then they violate 1 Thess. 5.21. A Muslim, not unlike yourself, dies for a hostility to the evidence for Jesus' death on the cross. This evidence is the MFA. 95+% of scholars agree the meeting of Paul and the apostles as recorded in 1 Cor. 15 and Gal. 1 & 2 is true and authentic. They told Paul, they were with Jesus for his 3 year ministry and in His resurrection for 40 days as Paul believed He saw Jesus resurrected also which had objective reference because those with Paul also saw the same light and heard the same sound when they fell to the ground. If it was a hallucination, it would have been Paul's own experience without others having similar reaction.

Were the apostles lying to Paul or Paul lying to the apostles when they said they saw Him resurrected? They were subsequently martyred, but people don't die a martyrs death for knowingly lying about something. They really believed it with this evidence for us of the meeting of Paul and the apostles. Since hallucination can't be the explanation, we know of no alternative explanation, so it is highly probably true.

You could find no inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible which becomes your testimony. Praise the Lord!

Isn't it childish to be unable to overturn the 4SPFG and MFA, yet still remain unsaved?

[DD_8630]

The various reasons scholars agree are because of all the interconnected points of reference of Paul's travels, associations, and reason for his work.

Yet the only record of these are from Paul himself. Funny, that.

Hell was already proven. Since resurrection is proven, hell is necessary for those who don't want salvation.

The resurrection is proven? I believe we are still discussing that.

Since Hawking shuts his mind down to the cause of the big bang,

What makes you think he does that?

that is exactly what you would expect an atheist to do.

Atheism is simply the nonbelief or disbelief in deities. Are you this prejudice against

I call it puff the magic dragon theory, it happened all by itself.

Why would you call it that? Puff was brought into existance by Jackie Paper.

Since there are trillions of examples of things with causes, there is no reason for us to think there is not a cause to the universe.

Actually, there is: quantum mechanics. Look it up.

You don't need telecom to dispute something in antiquity. Since the Jewish leadership never denied the historical Jesus and they would be the one's most likely to, because He was claiming to be their Messiah, it's a non-issue.

In case you hadn't noticed, they did, and they do.

That's why even the most skeptical scholars like Dominic Crossan don't say Jesus never existed. You're on your own.

Perhaps, but that doesn't make me automatically false. You, for example, vhemently deny that quantum mechanics has anything spontaneous in it. You are own your own.

Those who knew of Jesus' birth and the surrounding events reported it as you would expect. People generally record the event in more detail after it happens.

People generally record things at or around the time they happen, especially when God manifests right in front of them. Funny how they decided to wait several decades after then end of the whole story to write anything.

If a Muslim can't find evidence for their claim Jesus did not die on the cross, then they violate 1 Thess. 5.21.

Since 1 Thessalonians 5:21 is a NT passage, I doubt a Muslim would care.
Besides, another translation of that verse is "Test all things; hold fast what is good." A good scientific principle, one which you seem to reject.

A Muslim, not unlike yourself, dies for a hostility to the evidence for Jesus' death on the cross.

A Muslim does not believe that Jesus was God incarnate, but I daresay the majority of Muslims believe that he actually existed.

You could find no inconsistencies or contradictions in the Bible which becomes your testimony.

Inconsistencies in the Bible? Tell me, at what day and at what time did Mary Magdalene find Jesus' tomb to be empty? Each gospel gives a different account.

[Churchwork]

Not at all. Paul is mentioned by other writers as well such as Luke and Peter as further corroboration.

If we were still discussion resurrection, you would have some alternative explanation for the resurrection eyewitness group testimonies which you don't.

Since Hawkings shows no justification for a universe that always existed the burden of the proof would be on him. Just realize you can't find anything in his writing to justify his assumption.

In case you didn't notice, you can find nothing in Jewish writings that denied the historical Jesus. They deny He is God, but they don't deny the historical Jesus, that He walked the earth and was crucified. Since Jesus did not appear to them in His resurrection, they can't deny it on that basis.

Atheism is the belief in either the always existing universe or that it popped into existence all by itself. In my experience, atheists flip flop between both views. However, we have clearly proven the uncreated creator in the 4 Step Proof for God as you know.

Don't miss the point about puff the magic dragon it happened all by itself. No analogy is always quite perfect.

Take a look at quantum mechanics again. Nothing in it demands something happen all by itself without a cause. That is lame, considering the evidence for trillions of things with causes and no hard evidence for something without a cause. 1 Thess. 5.21 Prove all things.

I don't know any Christian quantum physicists that claim something in quantum mechanics happens all by itself without a root cause. How silly. I do know many unsaved souls try to think it is possible though they have no evidence.

You're not automatically false about Jesus, but rather, since you can't explain away the multiple attestation in various group settings of being with Jesus both before and after His resurrection, therefore, you are highly probably wrong.

Your misconception is they waited decades to write about these events. There is no reason to think this. I am sure they wrote quite soon. You're confusing the final product with previous writings that went into the finalized product only a couple of decades later. For example. A first draft of "War on the Saints" by Jessie-Penn Lewis did exist I am sure, but many editions later, you have the final final product. They say the 9th edition is the best one and most true given all assessment of previous editions. It is better than the 10th edition. The 10th edition is akin to the NRSB or the NASB or the NKJV for various reasons, so that is why the 9th edition is so higly prized. The most accurate Bible versions are the KJV, RSV and ASB for various reasons. These are your center Bible versions which are 95+% the same. It is unreasonable to think early papyrus' could still be preserved that went into the NT books, but one still exists from about 105 AD which is unprecedented in antiquity so close to the events in which they occurred.

A Muslim should care about the fact that we should prove all things, testing all things and holding fast that which is good, so I am sad to hear that they do not, you admit.

It is not that Muslims don't say that Jesus did not exist or that Jesus is not God, but they expose their error when they specifically say Jesus did not die on the cross. Six hundred years later to make that claim without any supporting evidence to try to overturn the evidence we have established is showing a belligerency and mindlessness. Their testimony ironically is that Jesus did die on the cross because they have no evidence in their claim to show otherwise. Of the 45 earliest sources, the most well attested fact is that Jesus died on the cross. Of the 17 non-Christian sources, 12 of them refer to his death. There is no first or second century sources that say Jesus did not die. It is only centuries later that people make up stories. It's embarrassing for them.

The gospel's don't give a different time when Mary found Jesus' tomb empty. This has been well addressed by scholars. I have written about it as well. It is a timing issue with respect to what aspect of when the women are being referred to, whether on the way, where they are on the way, or at the tomb. It is a non-issue and the same answer is always given. It would be wise to respond to that answer that is always given instead of avoiding it. This gives strength to the Bible, because such different explanations shows there was not mere copying of one gospel to the next, but they differ in their explanations in many ways to confound the unregenerated soul, yet they do not contradict each other. That is powerful!

[DD_8630]

Not at all. Paul is mentioned by other writers as well such as Luke and Peter as further corroboration.

Who, according to my hypothesis, never existed. They were dreamed up by Paul, and their works retroactively written.

If we were still discussion resurrection, you would have some alternative explanation for the resurrection eyewitness group testimonies which you don't.

Of course I do: it didn't happen. There were no eyewitnesses. Paul dreamed it up.

Since Hawkings shows no justification for a universe that always existed the burden of the proof would be on him.

To do what, exactly? He does not posit some magic entity in the sky as the explanation for some particular problem. The burden, I would imagine, is on those who do.

Just realize you can't find anything in his writing to justify his assumption.

Perhaps you forgot, I already gave a quotation. Look it up.

Atheism is the belief in either the always existing universe or that it popped into existence all by itself.

No. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities (note that this encompasses both nonbelief and disbelief). Any belief a person has pertaining to the formation of the universe is unrelated to their stance as an atheist, though there are certain statistical trends. Nevertheless, the two are unrelated.

In my experience, atheists flip flop between both views. However, we have clearly proven the uncreated creator in the 4 Step Proof for God as you know.

Since it proves no such thing, your point is moot.

Take a look at quantum mechanics again.

Again? I do it for a living.

I don't know any Christian quantum physicists that claim something in quantum mechanics happens all by itself without a root cause. How silly.

Quantum mechanics is famous for its counter-intuitivity.

You're not automatically false about Jesus, but rather, since you can't explain away the multiple attestation in various group settings of being with Jesus both before and after His resurrection, therefore, you are highly probably wrong.

Since I can, I'm not.

Your misconception is they waited decades to write about these events.

Since there is no earlier documentation, why would I think otherwise?

There is no reason to think this. I am sure they wrote quite soon. You're confusing the final product with previous writings that went into the finalized product only a couple of decades later. For example. A first draft of "War on the Saints" by Jessie-Penn Lewis did exist I am sure, but many editions later, you have the final final product. They say the 9th edition is the best one and most true given all assessment of previous editions.

Yes, I am aware of this notion.

It is better than the 10th edition. The 10th edition is akin to the NRSB or the NASB or the NKJV for various reasons, so that is why the 9th edition is so higly prized. The most accurate Bible versions are the KJV, RSV and ASB for various reasons. These are your center Bible versions which are 95+% the same. It is unreasonable to think early papyrus' could still be preserved that went into the NT books, but one still exists from about 105 AD which is unprecedented in antiquity so close to the events in which they occurred.

Given that we have an almost complete set of records from the time, I don't see why the originals should be so elusive.

A Muslim should care about the fact that we should prove all things, testing all things and holding fast that which is good, so I am sad to hear that they do not, you admit.

I admit nothing: I am not a Muslim. I advise that you speak to one of them. In any event, the notion is not a Christian one, it is one derived from logic.

It is not that Muslims don't say that Jesus did not exist or that Jesus is not God, but they expose their error when they specifically say Jesus did not die on the cross.

Since there is no evidence for this, I fail to see their error.

The gospel's don't give a different time when Mary found Jesus' tomb empty. This has been well addressed by scholars. I have written about it as well. It is a timing issue with respect to what aspect of when the women are being referred to, whether on the way, where they are on the way, or at the tomb.

Then you should have no problem in explaining why Mary Magdalene needed to be told on at least two seperate occasions that Jesus rose. Was she suffering from amnesia?

It is a non-issue and the same answer is always given. It would be wise to respond to that answer that is always given instead of avoiding it.

Since I have been given no answer, I can hardly be expected to respond.

This gives strength to the Bible, because such different explanations shows there was not mere copying of one gospel to the next, but they differ in their explanations in many ways to confound the unregenerated soul, yet they do not contradict each other. That is powerful!

No, it shows that even self-contradictory can be reconciled with ad hoc explanations. That said, why did the Gospel writers split the whole finding-Jesus thing into four sets of events (sets that give no indication that they are part of a damn complex series of events)?

[Churchwork]

What's important is you have no evidence for your hypothesis. And I am thankful.

It's possible Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written immediately after said events. Their final form though was established within a few decades at the most.

Since you can't find the originals for anything in antiquity, to make this demand just on the Word of God is telling.

Mary did not need to be told Jesus arose on two separate occasions. You misread something.

These are not four different set of events, but four different perspectives to verify authenticity.

Notice how you are always wrong in your assessments.

I am comforted that you disagree with 95+% of scholars, but have no evidence for your beliefs.

Your answer can't be to everything it was dreamed. One good reason for this is that Paul said people he mentioned that agreed with him could have contested their agreement, but of course, none did. Nobody documented in the first or second century denied the existence of Jesus.

Atheism denies the evidence for God and claims there is no uncreated Creator. But, atheists don't have anything to support something happens all by itself. Quantum physicists don't say something happens all by itself, but say it is so complicated, they don't know the causes of some things on a quantum level, which is reasonable, since it is quite complicated. I heard there is are as many different theories in the quantum world as there are scientists who study it. That doesn't sound like a basis of strong evidence for puff the magic dragon in order to reject Jesus as your Lord and Savior.

One thing you can't do is deny the historical Jesus based on lack of documentation, because nothing in antiquity is more well documented. For example, Jesus is documented four times more within the first century and a half than the Emperor of Rome who died the same decade.

John wrote John. Paul wrote the epistles. Peter wrote Peter. James wrote James. Matthew wrote Matthew. Luke wrote Luke. Mark wrote Mark. Jude wrote Jude. Until shown otherwise, we should not claim otherwise two thousand years after the fact. While we can doubt the other books in the 2nd and 3rd centuries which contradict the books of the Bible, the authenticity of the 66 books of God's Word remain God's revelation for the ages.

If Christ did not to return for a million years, the most cherished book in the history of mankind would still always be the Bible.

Praise the Lord!

[DD_8630]

What's important is you have no evidence for your hypothesis.

I have cited observed phenomena, textbooks, and world famous physicists, all of which agree with me unanimously. You have done nothing to refute any of this, and have provided no evidence of your own. For this, I am thankful.

And I am thankful.

It is my understanding that the Christian God looks poorly upon the prideful.

It's possible Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written immediately after said events. Their final form though was established within a few decades at the most.

Possible, but improbable. That is the point.

Since you can't find the originals for anything in antiquity, to make this demand just on the Word of God is telling.

Since we can find the originals, your whining is pointless. We have love letters, divorce papers, execution documents, all from the time of Christ. We have a Jewish historian documenting theological and political movements around the time of Christ, and who lived during the time of Christ. Oddly enough, there is no mention of Jesus.

Mary did not need to be told Jesus arose on two separate occasions. You misread something.

Matthew 28 tells us how Magdalene went up to the tomb and was told that Jesus was risen. This occured at dawn on the eve of the Sabbath.

John 20 and Luke 24 detail the same thing as Matthew 28, but this time on the Sabbath.

Mark 16 details the same thing again, but this time after the Sabbath.

Each time, Mary Magdalene has to be told that Jesus is risen, much to her subsequent shock.

So what's up with that?

These are not four different set of events, but four different perspectives to verify authenticity.

That is your contention, yes. However, you have not answer my question: why where the events of the day split into four

Your answer can't be to everything it was dreamed. One good reason for this is that Paul said people he mentioned that agreed with him could have contested their agreement, but of course, none did. Nobody documented in the first or second century denied the existence of Jesus.

Nobody except Paul proclaimed it either.

Atheism denies the evidence for God and claims there is no uncreated Creator. But, atheists don't have anything to support something happens all by itself.

Yes, they do: quantum mechanics. You have told me that you have no education in physics, so how on Earth can you make such grandose statements about it? You know nothing about what you are talking, and instead rely on your a priori assumptions. You have given me no names, no evidence, no papers, no textbooks, no journals, no nothing. I have given you evidence, and you have dismissed it out of hand in favour of your religious beliefs. You have no proof, Churchwork. You have only your faith.

I have science on my side. I have the rigour of quantum mechanics and the unprecidented precision in the evidence that supports it.

Quantum physicists don't say something happens all by itself, but say it is so complicated, they don't know the causes of some things on a quantum level, which is reasonable, since it is quite complicated.

Who? Who said this? What specific scientist made this specific statement?

I heard there is are as many different theories in the quantum world as there are scientists who study it.

You heard wrong.

One thing you can't do is deny the historical Jesus based on lack of documentation, because nothing in antiquity is more well documented.

Yes, it is.

For example, Jesus is documented four times more within the first century and a half than the Emperor of Rome who died the same decade.

And Harry Potter is in more documentation than Her Majesty the Queen of England. Your point?

John wrote John. Paul wrote the epistles. Peter wrote Peter. James wrote James. Matthew wrote Matthew. Luke wrote Luke. Mark wrote Mark. Jude wrote Jude. Until shown otherwise, we should not claim otherwise two thousand years after the fact.

And who claims that James wrote James, etc? What evidence do you have to support this assertion? I stand by the null hypothesis. You stand by your cultural beliefs and a priori assumptions.

If Christ did not to return for a million years, the most cherished book in the history of mankind would still always be the Bible.

I rather like the Qu'ran. It's poetry is unsurpassed.

[Churchwork]

The point about documentation is that you can't say the historical Jesus is not documented enough.

Whether you like the poetry of the Koran or not, it is wrong, because it has nothing to support its claim over six centuries later that Jesus did not die on the cross. The Bible is about truth, whereas obviously the Koran is not.

Just to let you know, you are getting an infraction for repeating that something in quantum mechanics happens all by itself even though you have no evidence to support your assumption. Naming processes in now way proves they happen all by themselves.

The book of James starts off with, "This letter is from James..." It is in keep with the personality of James, so there is no reason to think it is not him. The burden of the proof remains on you. You can take your obstinate attitude to anything, but you lack proof.

Scholars have cited various plausible explanations for what you think is a discrepancy. Let me know when you have read them.