Response to "Trinity Challenge over the omnicience of Jesus"

"Trinity – Was Jesus Omniscient?"

 Now seeing as there are about 3 billion adherents that claim to aligned with religions that adhere to the doctrine of the trinity, there are many versions of the trinity doctrine.  I believe in the trinity of the New Testament church and I define it in my confession of faith.

 "I. God
We believe in the one true living God, self-named Jehovah [Y/J.H.W/V.H]. (Though also titled El, Elohim, Adonai, Theos, Kurios etc.) He is beyond all perfection. He is a spiritual, intelligent, and personal Being, the Creator, Redeemer, Preserver and Ruler of the universe. He is all-powerful, omnipresent, omniscient, self-sufficient, unchanging, immanent, transcendent and eternal. Even greater than His attributes is His Character. God is the most Holy, all Loving, all Righteous, all Merciful, and all Wise Sovereign Lord of All. To Him we owe the highest love, reverence, and obedience.
Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 26:4, 2 Samuel 22:31, John 4:24, Exodus 3:14, Psalm 33:6-9, Colossians 1:17, Acts 17:24-25, Luke 1:37, Deuteronomy 3:24, 32:39, 40, Psalm 147:5, Hebrews 4:13, 1 Samuel 15:29, Isaiah 40:28-31, 57:15, Psalm 41:13, 99:9, Revelation 4:8, 1John 4:8, John 15:9, Psalm 63:3, 48:10, 50:6, Matthew 19:17, Exodus 15:3, Psalm 25:6, 36:5, Romans 11:33, 16:27, Deuteronomy 4:39, Job 25:2-3, Psalm 29:10, Acts 10:36
There is one God-head/substance of God (Elohim), which is composed of three Persons: The Father, Son/Word, and Holy Spirit. These are three distinct persons ye they composed of one ultimate substance. The personal relations of the trinity are as such. The Son Proceeds the father. The Spirit proceeds the Father. The spirit Proceeds the Son
Genesis 1:26, 1John 5:7 Mark 1:10-11, 2Corinthians 13:14, John 14:11, Matt 28:19
From before the beginning of Creation was the Logos/word also known as the Son. He is the second person of the Godhead trinity. According to the Father’s purpose and plan, He was manifest in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. Jesus originated in the virgin womb of Mary. Jesus is the Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament from the blood-line of Abraham and royal bloodline of David. He is the same person as the Son, yet complete in his humanity, including the mind, soul, and spirit. Though Jesus is the reflection of God and one in person He is dueled in His nature. He is both completely human and completely God.
John 1:1,14,18, Matthew 28:19, 1Timothy 3:16, Luke 1:32-35, 2:21, Colossians 2:9, 1 John 4:3, Isaiah 7:14-16,9:6"  http://www.biblesmack.net/about-matt/my-beliefs-freedom-baptist-church-confession-of-faith-3rd-edit/  

Mar 13:³² But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father.

When faced with the above scripture, Trinitarians will immediately deflect"...
 Ok, So let's not deflect.
Mark 13:²⁸ Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When her branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is near: ²⁹ so ye in like manner, when ye shall see these things come to pass, know that it is nigh, even at the doors. ³⁰ Verily I say unto you, that this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done. ³¹ Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away.
³² But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father. ³³ Take ye heed, watch and pray: for ye know not when the time is. ³⁴ For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch. ³⁵ Watch ye therefore: for ye know not when the master of the house cometh, at even, or at midnight, or at the cockcrowing, or in the morning: ³⁶ lest coming suddenly he find you sleeping. ³⁷ And what I say unto you I say unto all, Watch."
 So the start of the parable is focused on signs of the times for the returning messiah to the jewish people.
What were the signs?
mark 13: ⁴ But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun shall be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, ²⁵ and the stars of heaven shall fall, and the powers that are in heaven shall be shaken. ²⁶ And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. ²⁷ And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven."
 So since we have not seen the sun and moon stop shining we are still waiting. But then there are 2 promises. "this generation shall not pass, till all these things be done" and "Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away."
Now at the outset Jesus has a supernatural knowledge by giving prophesy to begin with.   But who is this generation which shall not pass?  We look back again,  Mark 13: ¹⁹ For in those days shall be affliction, such as was not from the beginning of the creation which God created unto this time, neither shall be."
It is a period of affliction.  Many Christians called this the great tribulation but more accurately title the "time of Jacobs trouble".
jeremiah 30: ⁴ And these are the words that the Lord spake concerning Israel and concerning Judah. ⁵ For thus saith the Lord; We have heard a voice of trembling, of fear, and not of peace. ⁶ Ask ye now, and see whether a man doth travail with child? wherefore do I see every man with his hands on his loins, as a woman in travail, and all faces are turned into paleness? ⁷ Alas! for that day is great, so that none is like it: it is even the time of Jacob’s trouble; but he shall be saved out of it."
  Now it is with this message that Christ promises the preservation of His word.
Vs. 32 the controversial text claims that "that day and that hour knoweth no man" then it includes 
"no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father."  The controversy being that the Son is the omniscient, so Why would he have admitted to being limited in knowledge?"
The answer is that one of Christ's natures is limited. The human side, while the other is unlimited the logos. Does the text give humanity to christ person here?
"³⁴ For the Son of man is as a man taking a far journey, who left his house, and gave authority to his servants, and to every man his work, and commanded the porter to watch."
 So here we see that the messiah is given human qualities which fits within the idea of 2 natures theology and does not contradict trinitarian theology.   But are there 2 natures?

^{1 John 5:7} For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. ⁸ And there are three that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one. ⁹ If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son. ^"
 So here the word/logos is independently bearing witness to the Human nature of Christ and is recognizing Him as the son.
The Same author John espouses the God nature of Christ in John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ² The same was in the beginning with God. ³ All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."
john 8: ²³ And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. ²⁴ I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins. ²⁵ Then said they unto him, Who art thou? And Jesus saith unto them, Even the same that I said unto you from the beginning. ²⁶ I have many things to say and to judge of you: but he that sent me is true; and I speak to the world those things which I have heard of him. ²⁷ They understood not that he spake to them of the Father. ²⁸ Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am he, and that I do nothing of myself; but as my Father hath taught me, I speak these things. ²⁹ And he that sent me is with me: the Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him. ³⁰ As he spake these words, many believed on him."
john 8: ⁴² Jesus said unto them, If God were your Father, ye would love me: for I proceeded forth and came from God; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. ⁴³ Why do ye not understand my speech? even because ye cannot hear my word. ⁴⁴ Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it. ⁴⁵ And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. ⁴⁶ Which of you convinceth me of sin? And if I say the truth, why do ye not believe me? ⁴⁷ He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God."
John 8: ⁵⁴ Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that he is your God: ⁵⁵ yet ye have not known him; but I know him: and if I should say, I know him not, I shall be a liar like unto you: but I know him, and keep his saying. ⁵⁶ Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad. ⁵⁷ Then said the Jews unto him, Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast thou seen Abraham? ⁵⁸ Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am."
  Jesus is acting as a man, but he is clearly proclaiming His deity.

" and point to John 21:17:
He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me? And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep."

So if Jesus did not know all things about the 2nd coming why would he know now?
First in his incarnation, Christ submitted many of His deified privileges.
 Philippians 2: ⁵ Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus: ⁶ who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: ⁷ but made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: ⁸ and being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. ⁹ Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: ¹⁰ that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; ¹¹ and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."
 john 1:¹⁴ And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."

Matthew 28:¹⁷ And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted. ¹⁸ And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth."



"Is the Bible contradicting itself? No. The sense Peter is using it was already denoted in John 16.

²⁹ His disciples *said, “Lo, now You are speaking plainly and are not using a figure of speech. ³⁰ Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You; by this we believe that You came from God.”

Notice the apostles don’t say that his knowing of all things proves he is the creator. It proves he came from the creator; that he was taught his doctrine from the creator. John 15:15.
The same sense is given to us in 1 John 2 of those believers taught of the Holy Spirit:

 ²⁰ But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things."

   So after complaints about trinitarians deflecting the author does this practice seeking meaning from John 16.
  One of the logical problems with saying that Jesus was given an equivalent revelation to the apostles is the fact as to the source of the apostles revelation.
John 16: ⁷ Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you."
   As we see the comforter/Paraclete/holy ghost is sent by Christ under Christ authority.
john 16: ¹³ Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. ¹⁴ He shall glorify me: for he shall receive of mine, and shall shew it unto you. ¹⁵ All things that the Father hath are mine: therefore said I, that he shall take of mine, and shall shew it unto you."
    Here we see that it is Christ that hath ownership of creation and Christ that has Sovereignty.

Are the Trinitarians now going to tell us that the elect are the creator as well?
   No, but Jesus is colossians 1: ¹⁶ for by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: ¹⁷ and he is before all things, and by him all things consist."

John 7:¹⁴ But when it was now the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and began to teach. ¹⁵ The Jews then were astonished, saying, “How has this man become learned, having never been educated?”¹⁶ So Jesus answered them and said, “My teaching is not Mine, but His who sent Me. ¹⁷ If anyone is willing to do His will, he will know of the teaching, whether it is of God or whether I speak from Myself. ¹⁸ He who speaks from himself seeks his own glory; but He who is seeking the glory of the One who sent Him, He is true, and there is no unrighteousness in Him."  https://southernisraelite.wordpress.com/page/4/

 So here we see that the teaching is of the Father.
^"12 And there was much murmuring among the people concerning him: for some said, He is a good man: others said, Nay; but he deceiveth the people. ¹³ Howbeit no man spake openly of him for fear of the Jews.
¹⁴ Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. ¹⁵ And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned? ¹⁶ Jesus answered them, and said, My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. ¹⁷ If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. ¹⁸ He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.
¹⁹ Did not Moses give you the law, and yet none of you keepeth the law? Why go ye about to kill me?"
Obviously, this is a conversation meditating on Jesus in His humanity as oppose to understanding him as Christ.  Remember the Lord kept his Identity secret to many.


So after this overview it is obvious that The revelation of scripture is clear; though some confuse the message.
1timothy 3: 
¹⁶ And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Links to criticism of mainline Protestantism/New Evangelical teaching.

Mainline Protestantism/new evangelicalism is the historic cancer to True Christianity. It is a slave to Catholicism and communism. The New Evangelical Movement was a reaction against fundamentalism here are some articles that will arm young believers against the seeds sown among the weeds.
Obviously this Book will help us deal with this issue.
http://www.amazon.com/What-Would-Jesus-Say-Ev…/…/1463753136…
general protestant/evangelical flaws.
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/little-c-catholicism-true-…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/why-ecumenicist-are-evil-b…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/why-should-we-have-separat…

Spirituality
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2015/01/jesus-wasnt-cool.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/mysticism-alternative-evan…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/what-do-we-believe-abou-be…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/biblical-case-for-soul-win…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/case-for-biblical-freedom.…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/letter-to-john-piper-about…
mainline denominations
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/7-reasons-why-roman-cathol…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/07/orthodox-inadequacy.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2009/…/anglican-apostasy.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2009/02/lutheran-losses.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/critical-analysis-of-calvi…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/weaknesses-of-wesleyanism.…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/…/pentecostal-problems.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/false-doctrines-of-church-…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/11/audacity-of-adventism.h…
Important doctrines
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/bibles-case-for-sola-scrip…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2007/09/one-baptism.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/why-genesis-1-is-essential…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2007/05/case-for-rapture.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/20…/…/kingdom-and-church.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/case-for-waldenses-ancient…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/who-is-new-testament-churc…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/new-testament-paradigm-bap…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/is-it-biblical-to-hold-to-…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/jesus-is-key-to-scripture.…
Dangerous but popular teachers/teachings
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/warrenism-and-popular-worl…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/when-music-fades-tuning-ou…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/20…/…/van-tillian-heresy.html
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/the-holocaust-code-decodin…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/correcting-geislers-scriba…
http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/…/keys-to-understanding-grac…

My debate with a physicist and His freind over Geocentricity

I decided and go ahead and reveal the full dialogue with the physicist atheist and his freind. I am still out of fairness not revealing there names, because they did not want there views to be public.  But I know I will not get an official debate so this should be revealed.  btw, this person has regularly debated on facebook these things for years and is quite familiar with it. the physicist is named PMS for his degrees in physics math and science.  The freind is named pp.  and I am ME.

PMS:The lies you tell about science however I cannot take lying down. Your position is internally contradictory. 
ME:demonstrate it. 

ME:honestly I was not so sure about geocentricity until I was destroying your arguments so easily.

PMS:You need a different law of gravity for geocentrism (as Newton's laws predict that lighter objects orbit heavier ones. So this law of gravity won't get geocentric motion of the Sun AND get the correct orbit of the moon for example. I have yet to see you even get one of my arguments let long "destroy it"...              

   Me:  The aether of the universe is heavier than the mass of the sun. But more importantly you are assuming that the universe is only operating with gravitational force. The matter of the universe is mostly plasma. Plasma operates with electromagnetic force. Electromagnetic energy is 10 to the 36 power greater than gravity. So for instance the sun is, in your cosmology is moving by gravity 1.4 million miles a day around the Milky Way. In my cosmology it is moving by a force 10 to the 36th power greater around the earth coast with the gravitational and electromagnetic force of the constellations. Of course I doubt you have studied my research no matter how often I linked it to you. I just want to know are you so ignorant that after years of arguing with regular geo centrist you never studied enough to know, that they are not arguing that the earth is moving the sun?       

  PMS:Prove the aether exists. Your "research" is based upon zero understand. Do yourself a favour, pick up a physics textbook. 

Me:We have proved the existence of aether with 4 experiments you have proved dark matter with nothing! You spent thousands of dollars and you still are not scientific.

http://aetherforce.com/a-replication-of-the-silvertooth-aether-experiment-by-doug-marett/

aetherforce.com

http://musada.net/Papers/Paper10.pdf

musada.net


PMS: This is just an assertion not proof. I don't want links. I want you to explain it to me in your own words.
[at this point another facebook person enters the conversation]

ME: This is the problem I have already explained the concept of aether. You did not read it or remember it when referenced. "What of the heaven?
with hints from the rest of the chapter, this is neither the sky nor our current understanding of the cosmos. This would be the substance articulated by the Greeks and early scientists known as the ether.
"According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity." wikipedia"http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/10/a-scientific-exposition-of-literal.html Now it is your turn, define dark matter. Then identify the distinctions between dark matter and Aether. Sense Einstein did not invent the concept of dark matter explain the differences between the void and dark matter and if that would effect Michelson's research

Alright while we wait on those previous questions. I will ask another. What do you do with the sloan scale? The conecentric shells of galaxies around us are curved around us. BBT would assume everything is relatively the same. But if we went to the other galaxies it appears that the galaxies would not point to the other location but to point towards the milky way. How do you respond to the findings?

22 hours ago

PMS

Maxwell's equation do not require an aether, if you simply take a look at them, you'll see no mention of it. Gravity doesn't require an aether either, as it is a dynamics theory of SPACETIME..

about an hour ago

ME:I assume you accept my definition of aether. Please define spacetime. Also make distinctions between it, aether, dark matter and what disproved the existence of aether, since aether was the original understanding of space.

Andy Ide

The MM disproved the aether. It was designed to measure aether drift. None was found (the null result) and aether was abandoned. This was combined with the particle nature of light discovery and the aether is debunked.

Me:  Actually the "null result" was only null with the presuppositions that light is an unchanging constant and that Helio-centrism is true. I contend neither.  There was indeed an either drag found, though it was not adequate for the assumption of earth spinning around the sun. However, if I am arguing that the earth is not spinning around the sun then this repeated experiment is backing me up.

"In that year, Dayton Miller demonstrated the fact that even though the duo's experiment had not specifically found the expected range of interference patterns, they had found an interesting little noticed effect. Miller then went on to suggest that Michelson Morley had found an experimental sine wave like set of data that correlated well with the predicted pattern of data. He also described how thermal and directional assumptions inherent in the experimental arrangement may have impacted badly on the fringe interference data. Thus, the test may have been performed in an imperfectly conceived experimental setup and with a built in mathematical bias against the detection of an appropriate outcome.  Thus, in the future the aether theory in some form or another may still be sustainable as a foundational theory of physics."http://arpast.org/newsevents/articles/article78.pdf pg3

Now in later experiments like the sagnac experiment and the michelson Gale experiment we see an Aether drag. Thus building a case for geo-centricity. The scientist themselves were not geo-centrist thus proving the power of this evidence. But we have to have clarity. How does the nature of vacuum, the nature of dark matter, and the nature of spacetime differ with the Aether?

pp: You can misrepresent the MM all you want. The experiment skowed that light is isotropic and there is no aether."
PMS:
The problem is, the MMX experiment has been repeated with far higher accuracy WITH THE SAME RESULTS. They can't get away from that.

Me:  Of course not, but you can't get away from that either/ether  ;)
Miller worked on increasingly larger interferometers, culminating in one with a 32 m (effective) arm length that he tried at various sites including on top of a mountain at the Mount Wilson observatory. To avoid the possibility of the aether wind being blocked by solid walls, his mountaintop observations used a special shed with thin walls, mainly of canvas. From noisy, irregular data, he consistently extracted a small positive signal that varied with each rotation of the device, with the sidereal day, and on a yearly basis. His measurements in the 1920s amounted to approximately 10 km/s instead of the nearly 30 km/s expected from the Earth's orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment or aether dragging, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation."  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
  Thirring, Hans (1926). "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments". Nature 118 (2959): 81–82. Bibcode:1926Natur.118...81T. doi:10.1038/118081c0
If 10 kilometers per second is nothing then you better start running or your nothing! LOL  But seriously, the experiment as developed by Dayton Miller shows the ether drag is a real thing, only it contradicts heliocentricity.

But I must plead with you again that we must find clarity as to the nature of Aether vs. dark matter vs. space-time.  After all physics doesn't stop at the moon.

Also I don't want to leave the topic of the Copernican principle abandoned. based upon the evidence of galaxies in concentric shells around us How can there be no preferred locations when all other observed locations are contorted towards us?



PMS)

Before we do a gish gallop, We have to examine the Michelson-Morley experiment again when it was repeated in the last 15 years or so with the SAME result. So the claim of the geocentrists is false.

ME:"the claim of geocentrist is false" because the Michelson Morrely experiment as you have clearly stated has always had the same result. And as shown has always revealed an aether drag of as high as 10kilometers per second which defies your contention of helio centricity and vindicates my view over and over?"

PMS:  That was not the result of the MMX, it was that the speed of light was the same in all directions and that it was the same in different frames of reference.

Me:We have public record to the contrary.  Thirring, Hans (1926). "Prof. Miller's Ether Drift Experiments". Nature 118 (2959): 81–82. Bibcode:1926Natur.118...81T. doi:10.1038/118081c0
wikipedia cited it.

PMS:http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/morley.html 

http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0305117

So you see, it's not the data which says that the original experiment and conclusions are correct.

Me: It's not my position that these conclusions are correct. They wanted to have aether physics with heliocentricity
I argue for aether physics with Geocentricity. (among other aspects of New Years cosmology)
All these examples do is try to adjust the scale of the measurement to be estimated zero in your standard.
You can get a satelite far enough away to look like a little blue dot.  But those of us on earth see the earth in at least 50% of our optics over the course of lifetime.
You are hanging on to a "Bait-n-switch" whereby the small scale of either giving an estimated zero is all of the sudden an absolute zero.  But a current that goes as high as 10 kilometers a second is not absolute nothing.  It is just nothing in terms of trying to get the earth to rotate around the sun.  It is my contention that the earth is not rotating around the sun.  You have placed your confidence in the experiments so You can't go back on your word.  We have measured an aether that is incompatible with helicentrism and because  we measured an aether at all and repeatedly found it in a few oter experiments the data is showing us geo centrism.  This works with greater effect as we consider the cosmos.  Of course that begs the question which I keep asking of you.  What is the distinction between Aether and Dark matter and Space-Time in terms of substance?

PMS

No bait and switch. I have shown you that scientists didn't just rest on the single experiment. They improved the accuracy of the experiment time and time again with the same result.

Me: Yes and every experiment shown has an aether drag. Why have you been dodging my question about dark matter and aether and Space time? I asked this question first and you have failed to address it.

PMS:

Every experiment has show the aether is not required.

Me: required for what?

PMS: For physics

Me: If that were true you wouldn't dodge my question for simple definitions.   

PMS:

It is quite clearly true. What do YOU define aether as?

ME:  I already defined Aether previously in our conversation. here it is a second time. ""According to ancient and medieval science, aether (Greek: αἰθήρ aithēr[1]), also spelled æther or ether, also called quintessence, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere. The concept of aether was used in several theories to explain several natural phenomena, such as the traveling of light and gravity." wikipedia"http://biblesmack.blogspot.com/2014/10 /a-scientific-exposition-of-literal.html I then told you that I must assume you hold the same definition. But you never responded. So you do you want to argue another definition? Will you ever define any of the other terms so that we can have a meaningful dialogue?

PMS: That's not really a definition of anything useful.

Me: Perhaps for the first time, you should give me your definitions then.

PMS: I don't want to set up a straw man. My understanding of the aether was that it was required as the medium of light propagation. The MMX has shown that this is false.

ME: If you make the definition then why would you set up a false definition to defeat yourself?  All I could do is point out contradictions. But would you really want to have contradictions in your cosmology anyway? 
 PMS: Give me 2 apparent contradictions.
Me: Well, was your statement about aether a definition? I can't evaluate things that are not defined.
PMS: Agreed, the aether is not a well defined topic.   
 ME:This is because Aether was a concept for an ancient category. much like air. They understood aether as a substance. They knew it wasn't the air itself and it was the substance of space between celestial bodies.
 PMS:  It was thought to be needed, and then came along the MMX and Maxwell's equations.

Me:  Much like air is thought to be needed. There was no "dark matter" or "space time" that is the back drop to scientific dialogue. In order to deny Aether you have to be careful to define what you have denied. Because you are creating new terms which have to prove that they exist by being different than aether and yet fulfilling the other functions. 
Me:So let me ask you... is the copernican principle a claim you assume by faith or is it a fact you have ascertained?
 PMS:Maxwell's equations do not require an wther.[ether] EM waves do not require a medium.
   1 day later
Me:
Do you argue that the Copernican principle is an observed fact or is it an assumption you prefer?                                                                                                                                    
1 day later..
Me:You know as you referred to Maxwell's equations it reminds me of a previous conversation we had and I asked you if numbers are real. Numbers are mental abstractions, they are symbols of reality.  But you have to have observations in order for the numbers to bear any reality.
this also brings up the fact that you have yet to define dark matter, space time, and vacuum.
Is there any observation experimental data to prove the existence of dark matter?  If there is not, then could not dark matter be simply another word for Aether?  In James Maxwell's day Aether was the working concept,  but there was no discussion of dark matter. 
 2 days later
 Me:If we are talking about  the Copernican principle saying the earth has no preferred position in space, we have to look deeper into nature.
The fact that we are having this conversation stems from the fact that life has come to earth.
We have yet to find this life on other planets or in other galaxies.
There are many conditions that have to be met in order for that to be possible.
Our planet must be solid.
Our planet must have liquid water
Our planet must have air
Our planet must have the right size to balance the water and earth and the right gravity
Our planet must  have plants and organisms which conduct photosynthesis,
Our planet must have an ecosystem available.
 
We must have a sun at a appropriate distance to warm our earth
It must also have appropriate motion for the earth to warm on both sides.
We must have a moon at an appropriate distance to churn the seas.
Our sun and moon are in unique positions.
They are a perfect shape and distance to not only accomplish these things but they are in alignment as we see from the solar eclipse every couple years.  This alignment was necessary as these bodies were then used to determine many scales of time by which we were able to move onto developing technology.

We also need protection from gigantic celestial bodies.  This is provided to us by the gas giant planets.

Not too mention the many pressure and radioactive areas which could also destroy life.

Obviously with all these conditions we are in a unique place.  But if our position is unique, it breaks the Copernican principle and demands that we search for a center of space and consider the earth as a candidate. At which point we see the universe spin around us and must then search for a way to disprove that by observation. 
                                                                                                                               

pp:That logic does not make sense.
     2 days later
Me: I guess we will have to agree to disagree

PMS:I agree with pp, this is a rant with no understanding of reality, let along science.














                                                                 
                                                                                                                                                  

Finding Paul

  In the quest for denying the gospel, Bible critics first started the denial of the authenticity of Jesus as supernatural or the Son of God.  We see this as early as the 1700's with Thomas Jefferson and his Jefferson Bible that has the miracles cut out of it.
  Then Bible Critics obviously attacked the resurrection for Christ as a myth.  But evangelical scholars countered showing that Christ by the nature of the gospels was either the Lord a Liar or a lunatic.
 In the generation evangelical scholars argued that if the Bible is simply treated as a historical text, the case for the resurrection is most convincing as Jesus life death burial and resurrection are all historically verified with no corpse to contradict it.
So then Jesus denial is the inevitably back tracking argument.
Well if we can assume that we can accuse any historical figure of mythology when does it inevitably end?

Scripture
2 Peter 3:¹⁵ And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; ¹⁶ as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction."

Acts (luke) 16:
⁹ And a vision appeared to Paul in the night; There stood a man of Macedonia, and prayed him, saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us. ¹⁰ And after he had seen the vision, immediately we endeavored to go into Macedonia, assuredly gathering that the Lord had called us for to preach the gospel unto them."

^{colossians 4:10} Aristarchus my fellowprisoner saluteth you, and Marcus, sister’s son to Barnabas, (touching whom ye received commandments: if he come unto you, receive him;)
1 peter 5: ¹³ The church that is at Babylon, elected together with you, saluteth you; and so doth Marcus my son.
   Now it is the traditional history of the church which teaches that this is the Mark who authored that gospel.  In fact that he based his gospel upon the preaching of the apostle Peter.   Now Peter knows Mark and knows if Paul exist.  He would not want anyone challenging the orthodoxy of the Gospel which he had been charge to guard. Why would Peter want the publication of a fictional character which on at least one occasion "opposed him to his face".

colossians 4: ¹⁴ Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you. 
  Now here we see that Luke is spoken of in the same circle with Paul and mark.  Many scholars believe Luke to have borrowed from mark's testimony which makes sense and adds weight to this likely circle which would have been based upon a historical Paul.

Internal argument
1 peter 1: ² elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace unto you, and peace, be multiplied. ³ Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, ⁴ to an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven for you, ⁵ who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time."
It is inherent in this passage that Peter is preaching a Pauline message.  When we look at earlier passages of scripture it is clear that Peter has learned these teachings about salvation and his previous sermons were lacking in this sophistication.  Peter learned from Paul, but you can not learn from someone who does not exist. 

Galatians 6:
¹¹ Ye see how large a letter I have written unto you with mine own hand."
Here we see evidence of another scribe. this means that there was interaction with others.  Obviously Paul's assistant would testify that he is real.  If not then the conspiracy would be much easier to trace.


agreement
"Virtually all scholars agree that seven of the pauline letters are authentic..... These seven cohere well together and appear stylistically, theologically, and in most every other way to be the same person.  they all claim to be written by Paul.  There is scarce reason to doubt that they actually were written by Paul."Bart D. Ehrman Pg. 93 Forged
  Here the famous Bibe Scholar turned atheist affirms that a minimum of 5 Biblical books were written by the apostle Paul  now if if Paul wrote these epistles it is obvious that he exist!

Josephus correlates with acts in regards to the Egyptian whom Paul is accused of being
"Next in order, after other matters, he proceeded in his narration:'The Jews were afflicted with an evil greater than these, by the Egyptian imposter. Having come into the country, and assuming the authority of a prophet, he collected about thirty thousand that were seduced by him.  He then led them forth from the desert to the Mount of Olives, determining to enter Jerusalem by force, and after subduing the Roman garrison, to seize the government of the people, using his followers as body guards. But Felix anticipated his attack by going out to meet him Roman military, and all the people joined in the defense; so that when the battle was fought, the Egyptian fled with a few, and the most of his followers were either destroyed or captured." 
"Josephus gave this account in the second book of his history; and it is worthwhile to add also to this account in the second book of his history respecting the Egyptian that which mentioned in the Acts of the apostles.  It was there said to Paul by the centurian under Felix when the multitude of the jews raised a sedition against the apostle, "Art thou not indeed that self same egyptian that excited and led away the four thousand assassins in the desert into the desert?:" Acts 21:38) Such, however, were the events that happened under felix."Eusibius ecclesiastical history trans C.F. Cruse Book 2 chapter 21 pg. 57
Acts 21: ³⁷ And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek? ³⁸ Art not thou that Egyptian, which before these days madest an uproar, and leddest out into the wilderness four thousand men that were murderers? ³⁹ But Paul said, I am a man which am a Jew of Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, a citizen of no mean city: and, I beseech thee, suffer me to speak unto the people."

Would a factual character put a fictional character on trial as accidentally another factual character?
  Josephus discusses a criminal named the "Egyptian" who caused Festus a great deal of turmoil.  it is also obvious that Paul was not as notorius a character as the Egyptian and though he had friends he was not "news worthy".

Church history
 "Matthew also issued a written gospel, among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and laying the foundations for the church.  After their departure,  Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter also did hand down to us in writing what had been preached by Peter.  luke also the companion of Paul, recorded in a book the gospel preached by him.  Afterwards, John, the disciple of the Lord, who also had leaned upon his breast, did himself publish a gospel during the residence at Ephesus in Asia." Irenaeus  Against Heresies Book 3 Chapter 1
 Here Irenaeus lays out Paul as both the primary source of luke's gospel and an apostle in his own right.  Irenaeus had the reputation of orthodoxy being a 2nd generation disciple of the apostle John himself.  John ministered in the same area which paul had.  If Paul was a myth or fraud wouldn't John be disturbed about it?  At least enough to mention it to his students.

Virtually all the apostolic church fathers cite at least one of Paul's writings,  even though the 72 apocryphal books were rejected.  Which means that epistles of paul were tested for authenticity.

Archaeology)
Reliable history) Bible text critic Sir. William Ramsey discuss the historical reliability of Luke's account in Acts.
"I may fairly claim to have entered on this investigation without prejudice in favor of the conclusion which I shall now justify to the reader.  On the contrary, I began with a mind unfavorable to it, for the ingenuity and apparent completeness of the Tubingen theory had at one time quite convinced me.  It did not then lie in my line of life to investigate the subject minutely; but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the book of Acts as an authority for the topography of Asia Minor.  It was gradually born upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth.  In fact beginning with the fixed idea that the work was essentially a second century composition, and never relying in it's evidence as trustworthy for first century conditions, I gradually came to find it a useful ally in some obscure and difficult investigations."Ramsey, Sir William St. Paul the traveler and the Roman citizen baker book house 1962 cited by Josh McDowell Evidence that demands a verdict pg.72.  Even with a negative view as to the bibles accuracy the book of Acts which mentions Paul is highly historically accurate.


 There is a body!

"Eusebius goes on to report “that in his [Nero’s] time Paul was beheaded in Rome itself and that Peter was likewise crucified. (Eccl Hist. 2.25.5) Paul’s execution took place at the end of Nero’s reign, c. A.D. 65-68. His legal status as a Roman citizen protected him from the ignominious sentence of crucifixion suffered by Peter.
The traditional spot for the beheading is known as the Abbey of the Three Fountains (the head reputedly bounced three times before coming to rest), which is south of the modern center of Rome. Early reports stated he was laid in the family tomb of a devout Roman noblewoman named Matrona Lucilla. His remains may have subsequently been hidden in catacombs for safekeeping during Vespasian’s reign (see below). Nearby the abbey is the monumental Church of San Paolo Fuori Le Mura (St. Paul Outside the Walls) where the remains of Paul are entombed. Owing to popular interest in the location of Paul’s burial, experts from the Vatican undertook in 2002 to investigate the area beneath the main altar where it was believed his tomb is located.

The team first conducted a survey in order to reconstruct the shape of the original basilica built by the Emperor Constantine around A.D. 320. In A.D. 390, the Emperor Theodosius enlarged the structure and encased Paul's remains in a sarcophagus located on view in the middle of the basilica. Later emperors further enlarged and embellished the church such that it became the largest and most beautiful in all of Rome. Unfortunately, the building was largely destroyed by a fire in 1823.

Having established the layout of the original small basilica, a second excavation was begun under the altar that brought to light the sarcophagus, which was situated at the ground level of the 4th century building. Vatican Museum archaeologist George Filippi states, “We know for sure it’s the same object because the stone coffin is embedded in the layer of the Theodosian basilica.” An earthquake in A.D. 433 caused the collapse of portions of the building. Subsequent renovations raised the level of the floor and the sarcophagus was buried and covered by a marble tombstone.

The main altar of the modern church, named the Papal Altar, was erected atop the concrete and debris left by the 1823 fire that had buried the original sarcophagus and tombstone. The excavations revealed an inscription on the marble tombstone bearing the Latin words “Paulo Apostolo Mart,” which translates to “Apostle Paul, Martyr.” Archaeologists further opened up a window measuring 70 cm. wide and 1.00 meter deep to reach the side of the sarcophagus. An ancient hole in the cover about 10 cm. wide was discovered which, according to Filippi, was used to dip pieces of fabric inside the coffin in order to produce relics out of the pieces themselves.
Earlier this year Pope Benedict announced the finds from an inspection of the contents of the sarcophagus. A tiny hole drilled in the coffin revealed:

traces of a precious linen cloth, purple in color, laminated with pure gold, and a blue colored textile with filaments of linen. It also revealed the presence of grains of red incense and traces of protein and limestone. There were also tiny fragments of bone, which, when subjected to Carbon 14 tests by experts, turned out to belong to someone who lived in the 1st or 2nd century."http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/10/08/New-Discoveries-Relating-to-the-Apostle-Paul.aspx#Article

Argument from silence:

The  Apostle Paul may have stirred up commotion in his day.  But he was a traveling tent maker and not royalty.  Others may have made records but the major records before he died would not be the type to necessarily last 2000 years.  Contention against the existence of Paul has no evidence to debunk the witness of Him.  If their case were to hold any water they need to provide the names of these conspirators.  they would also need to prove that the conspirators had accomplished this.   But in reality the only argument to debunk the record of Paul is silence.  However the silence of a conspiracy silences the silencers.  

If the Apostle Paul Existed then his account of the resurrection argument for it is genuine.  It is obvious that these left leaning conspiracists in academia were not comfortable defending against this witness.

1 Cor. 15:1 Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand; ² by which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain. ³ For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; ⁴ and that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures