I am an orthodox Christian, ask me a question!

[Jon Paul]

Of course you can dispute the historical existence of ANYTHING if the evidence warrants it. Your distinction is silly, and only goes to prove my point anyway since you agree that historical evidence isn't enough to prove divinity. So where's your proof for Jesus's divinity?

I never said I had proof of Jesus divinity. What I have been dealing with is his historicity, not his divinity.

Bullshit. The earliest gospel was written approximately 40 years after the claimed death and resurrection, that is commonly accepted as historical fact. Anything else you put forth you need to provide evidence. What "first versions" and where's your proof?

No, a late date is accepted only on the grounds of the prediction of the fall of the Jerusalem, which to some mean that it must have been written after the fall of Jerusalem (e.g. past 70 A.D.). That is a philosophical presupposition I don't share. The prediction is entirely possible, even in naturalistic terms as a coincidence or an anticipation on reasonable grounds, or for a Christian, simply a prophesy. It depends on ones philosophical presuppositions what date is possible to entertain. For me, the philosophical reasons to postpone the date beyond the fall of Jerusalem are simply not there, and the historical indications that it is much earlier are almost universally recognised (which is one of the reasons earlier documents like Q are proposed).

---

A realist would assume that reality exists ... you live in a metaphysical fantasy world.

I do assume it to exist, but I am able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it, to a great length, and to the length of defending it from errorneous criticism, while I am only really trying to understand how and why I know it is wrong, rather than immediately dismissing it as unworthy of examination.

What quantum mechanics demonstrates depends on the interpretation, arealist/acausalist (Copenhagen orthodoxy) or realist/causalist (Bohm).

No, it doesn't

You are in error here. It comes down to it, entirely.

because quantum mechanics describes physical reality, how matter is composed of molecules & atoms and how they are composed of yet smaller particles still.

You are presenting the classical Einsteinian view. You clearly haven't observed the Kantianist direction physics has taken since Bohr.

Quantum mechanics is not in itself physicalism or realism, only the largely rejected Bohmian interpretation is. Quantum mechanics in itself, is a theory of observation, and specifically in the standard interpretation, namely the Copenhagen interpretation, a highly subjectivist and aphysicalist one, which maintains that the quantum realm we know is fundamentally unreal and aphysical because as soon as we have information about it, that information has changed according to our observational acts, in Kantian style with the inacessibility of the thing-in-it-itself; the Copenhagen interpretation largely makes this a fact.

Why do you think such great minds as Einstein, Karl Popper, Bohm, etc, worked hardly against the Copenhagen interpretation? Because of the radical character of it's findings, revising the entire classical view of the world.

There is a book I can recommend which tries to fight the bitter fight of realism, entitled Quantum Theory and the Flight From Realism: Philosophical Responses to Quantum Mechanics. But you should note that this is not representative of a standard interpretation of quantum mechanics, which involves fundamental quantum arealism, aphysicalism, unknowability outside of the unrealistic observationally modified information and even then, quantum nonlocality, quantum indeterminacy, quantum acausality, uncertainty, and other things in stark contradiction to classical, Einsteinian metaphysics, and in Einstein's words, a "spooky" picture of the universe.