Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Claim away, for what it's worth.
In regards to your eye witnesses in court, you have a slight problem.
In court, eye witnesses are named and are present in the flesh to give there testimony first hand. They are also going to be cross examined, to test the validity of their testimony and this is where many eye witnesses are destroyed in a court of law.
So, if you have the specific names of the eye witnesses and can provide their direct testimony and any cross examination of the same, let us know.
Specific names are... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Naysayer theologians on a Google search search need not bother with their hearsay and speculation.
it's impossible for any human to live two thousand years, but the fact is that writing down the testimony (which is what it was, THEIR TESTIMONY) was the most practical and 'only' way to make it available to every human throughout the centuries, so there isn't any problem with that, thus what's your problem?
At the risk of stating the obvious, refusing to believe a testimony doesn't mean in any way that the testimony isn't true, the only problem is when the witness is deliberately telling lies, but in the case of the Gospel books we know these men were eye-witnesses and lived with Jesus in person, so cross-examination need not apply because these men came from a time when lying would get you stoned to death. But Jesus has already confirmed for us...
John 14:26 "But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR REMEMBRANCE, whatsoever I have said unto you."
Acts 10:41 "And God showed him openly, not to all the people, but unto the witnesses previously chosen by God, specifically us, who did eat and drink with him after he rose from the dead."
Acts 5:32 "And WE ARE WITNESSES of these things; and so also is the Holy Ghost, whom God hath given to them that obey him."
2 peter 1:16 "IN FACT, WE HAVE NOT FOLLOWED CUNNINGLY DEVISED FABLES when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, BUT WERE EYE-WITNESSES of his greatness."
2 Peter 1:17 "For he received from God the Father honour and glory when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, THIS IS MY SON, in whom I am well pleased.
2 Peter 1:18 "And this voice which came from heaven WE HEARD, WHEN WE WERE 'WITH HIM' ON THE HOLY MOUNTAIN."
No need for cross examination, you either believe it or you don't. I'm not the one who will end-up in hell for dribbling contradictions and denials.
Specific names are... Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. That's pretty obvious isn't it? Naysayer theologians on a Google search need not bother with their hearsay.
In a court of law, are you allowed to admit second hand and third hand testimony? "Your honor, an uncle of mine talked to an eyewitness who said that the defendant committed the murder, but that eye witness has since disappeared." Would that work?
Well, redshift is indeed a "fact", but it's cause is not fact. The cause of photon redshift from spacetime is a "theory" which may or may not represent "fact".
In "fact", photon redshift is caused in the lab by several different types of inelastic scattering, as well as by Doppler shift. There are no empirical lab tested 'facts' however which link photon redshift to 'space expansion'. That "belief" is and remains an "act of faith" on the part of the "believer", in the unseen (in the lab). Note that Hubble himself preferred a *non expansion* interpretation of photon redshift.
Likewise, there's little or no doubt that previous mainstream baryonic galaxy mass estimation techniques were seriously and terminally flawed, and they therefore could not account for all the actual matter that was present and observed in earlier lensing studies. This "fact" about the flaws in their mass estimation techniques has been demonstrated *repeatedly* over the last 10 years. On the other hand, those "facts" do not seem to matter to the mainstream, who continue to base their claims about "exotic" forms of matter upon the "belief" that their baryonic mass estimates of galaxies are 'correct'. That's simply another example of an 'act of pure faith' on the part of the "believer", and a belief that actually is refuted by later revelations about their galaxy stellar mass errors since 2006. In short, it's not just faith, it's "bad faith' that flies in the face of known facts.
You do understand, that even Christian NT scholars and historians agree, the 4 gospels were written by anonymous authors, don't you?
If you are not aware of this, you need to study up on the historicity of the NT. Also, they were penned 40-70 years after Jesus died.
No need to corroborate the claims with cross examination of the eye witnesses? How convenient, I wonder if a judge in court would go along with that?
In a court of law, are you allowed to admit second hand and third hand testimony? "Your honor, an uncle of mine talked to an eyewitness who said that the defendant committed the murder, but that eye witness has since disappeared." Would that work?
So therefore how old is the universe?
Is an “all ways” existing universe a rational concept? Could the universe have a rational beginning, springing out of nothing?
I don’t know how this got started; the Bible content is never used as evidence in court, the exception is TV court; the theory of evolution and the big bang theory would not survive in court either.
Salvation is to do with Law but not legalism. There is historical evidence that says the Gospels were written 30 years after Christ while the apostles were still alive and the oldest copies of these dates back to 30 years after the originals were written; this is determined by science; archaeology is claimed to be the most precise of all the sciences.
There is court where all stand before God in judgement and the witnesses are not human.
Written evidence remains exactly that. Third-hand need not apply. It's only you 'claiming' without evidence these to be third-hand, and contrary to the name written at the head of the writings. Men who LIVED AND ATE WITH JESUS, so explain to me how that becomes a third-hand account?? LOL.
The evidence has been written, and has survived 2000 years in the form of 5000 different Greek and Latin and Arabic copies, thus self-evidently verifying the integrity of those writings, and therefore in a court of law such written evidence would qualify as signed document of authenticity. Third-hand is quaint idea but really quite fanciful accusation.
You need to do some homework on NT scholarship and historicity.
The theory of evolution and the big bang would do quite well in a court of law.
You ever watch a court case, in which a forensic pathologist is called to the stand as an expert and they discuss and explain the evidence in a case?
So therefore how old is the universe?
Is an “all ways” existing universe a rational concept?
Could the universe have a rational beginning,
springing out of nothing?
Written evidence remains exactly that. Third-hand need not apply.
It's only you 'claiming' without evidence these to be third-hand, and contrary to the name written at the head of the writings. Men who LIVED AND ATE WITH JESUS, so explain to me how that becomes a third-hand account?? LOL.
The evidence has been written, and has survived 2000 years in the form of 5000 different Greek and Latin and Arabic copies, thus self-evidently verifying the integrity of those writings, and therefore in a court of law such written evidence would qualify as signed document of authenticity. Third-hand is quaint idea but really quite fanciful accusation.
"The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere. When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter. It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe. The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed. But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy. And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero. The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field. So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter. Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time. Now you can ask: what sets the universe off. There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe. It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time." -- Stephen HawkingSince energy cannot be created nor destroyed according to the laws of physics, it's entirely possible that it's eternal for all I know. Various objects might form along specific timelines, but the *whole* universe might be changing forms infinitely.
Considering our laws of physics insist that energy itself cannot be created nor destroyed, yes. It can change forms infinitely, but there's no evidence that there was ever a time that energy did not exist.
In theory at least, our physical universe could have a "beginning" if "matter" as we understand it did not exist at some point in time. Unfortunately there is *zero* evidence to support that idea.
Nothing? No, that simply isn't possible. According to the laws of physics, it could spring forth from a different *form* of energy, but it couldn't spring forth from "nothing".
"The point is that the raw material doesn't really have to come from anywhere.
When you have strong gravitational fields, they can create matter.
It may be that there aren't really any quantities which are constant in time in the universe.
The quantity of matter is not constant, because matter can be created or destroyed.
But we might say that the energy of the universe would be constant, because when you create matter, you need to use energy.
And in a sense the energy of the universe is constant; it is a constant whose value is zero.
The positive energy of the matter is exactly balanced by the negative energy of the gravitational field.
So the universe can start off with zero energy and still create matter
Obviously, the universe starts off at a certain time.
Now you can ask: what sets the universe off.
There doesn't really have to be any beginning to the universe.
It might be that space and time together are like the surface of the Earth, but with two more dimensions, with degrees of latitude playing the role of time."
Are you more qualified in astrophysics than Stephen Hawking? No?
I don’t know how this got started; the Bible content is never used as evidence in court, the exception is TV court; the theory of evolution and the big bang theory would not survive in court either.
Salvation is to do with Law but not legalism. There is historical evidence that says the Gospels were written 30 years after Christ while the apostles were still alive and the oldest copies of these dates back to 30 years after the originals were written; this is determined by science; archaeology is claimed to be the most precise of all the sciences.
There is court where all stand before God in judgement and the witnesses are not human.
Actually, ya, it really does have to come from preexisting *energy*, energy which cannot be created nor destroyed according to the *laws* of physics as we understand them.
Assuming you actually could 'create matter', it would *still* required preexisting energy.
Well, until and unless he can show me that raw energy isn't a constant over over time, I'll have to go with the *laws* of physics.
And yet that statement *is not* true of energy which is constant because energy *cannot* be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms, including into the form of "matter" as we understand it.
Bingo!
Bzzzt. This statement is simply false. The universe is *filled* with *positive* amounts of energy, energy we use and reuse all the time. The sunshine on your face demonstrates this claim to be false.
What "negative energy"? Gravity isn't a form of energy *at all* in GR theory, it's simply a curvature of spacetime, like a hill. It's neither positive or negative energy, it's a *geometric feature* in GR! Holy Cow! Apparently this is "metaphysical gravity", not GR.
Absolutely false. The curvature of spacetime is *caused by* the concentration of mass/energy, and gravity is not a form of "energy' in GR theory at all! it's simply a geometric feature of spacetime that is *caused by* the concentration of mass/energy. We could just as easily call gravity a form of 'positive potential energy' if you like, particularly if there is *distance* involved between objects. This whole claim *defies* GR theory by the way. Gravity is *not* a form of energy in GR theory, it's a *geometric curvature*!
Obvious to whom? How does he know that? Redshift? Give me a break. Redshift has *several* known and demonstrated empirical causes, none of which are 'expanding space'.
Energy! Even the *expansion* of matter would require *energy*, otherwise the whole thing would implode due to gravity. This claim gets weirder and weirder by the minute.
First he claims that the universe 'starts off' at a certain time, and then he claims it doesn't have a beginning. I wish he'd make up his mind already. His own statements as *self conflicted*, and scientifically unsupported by GR which treats gravity as a *curvature*, not a form of 'energy'. He's mixing Newtonian concepts of gravity with a creation mythos that depends and requires *GR theory*! Talk about bait and switch. Gravity simply *is not* a form of 'negative energy' in GR. In fact you can talk about the distances between objects as a form of *positive potential* energy that can turn into *positive kinetic energy* as they attract each other over a distance.
Yawn. He's *again* deviating from GR theory while his *entire claim* about a Big bang is *dependent* upon it! Gravity is not 'negative energy' in GR.
As it relates to 96 percent of their theory I am. Not one of them can name so much as a single demonstrated source of "dark energy', and their failed "predictions" about dark matter at LHC, LUX and PandaX, along with all those revelations about stelar miscounts have demonstrated their repeated *incompetence*. What "qualification" does he have on dark energy if he can't even name a source of the stuff, and the whole claim depends on "standard candles' that aren't actually even "standard' at all?
Please. That was nothing but a ridiculous appeal to authority. At least Alfven won an actual Nobel Prize, unlike Hawking.
Written evidence remains exactly that.
It's only you 'claiming' without evidence these to be third-hand, and contrary to the name written at the head of the writings. Men who LIVED AND ATE WITH JESUS, so explain to me how that becomes a third-hand account?? LOL.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?