Hello John,
Here, Jesus was asserting His rulership which was above the current Sanhedrin. He predicted one day they would see the resurrected Christ with glorious power in His kingdom. Mt. 25:31-32 tells us of that time of judgment, which includes those that Jesus was speaking to, after they are resurrected back to life. Boy, will they ever be shocked!

Thanks for your response. Trilobites have hard bodies, but many did not that preceded them that have soft bodies in the Edicaran age, and yet, none are found gradually evolving from one to another--a fact found throughout the 6,000 species of animals on Earth. It's not just the appearance of the trilobites that you have to explain. You mention about assumptions and I assume you mean paleontologists. Plenty of 1st century writers such as Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius mention Christ, so it is not fiction. Evolution still assumes creatures gradually evolve from others, what is missing are the transitions that show a gradual change from one kind to another, for instance, between cats and dogs. Life is far more than metabolism--you need something to kickstart metabolism and even that is not enough. You also need a self-replication mechanism or metabolism will occur only once. How did the organisms such as plants survive if they need an animal to cross-pollinate it? If it could do so without it, there would still be evidence for it, which is not the case. The case for information in the DNA that is a digital code which is stored, sent & translated defies Evolution--Mario Seiglie.

If this is correct, my question would be, so where did the specific genetic material come from? It has billions of chemical letters as a code for that precise creature, that produce the male and female chickens and not some other animal. If the egg contains the same genetic instructions to create a male and female chicken, then there would need to be two chickens to mix their genetic material into the egg or you would have a different creature (from Mario Seiglie).

Thanks for your comment. Of course, we are arguing here about there being a first cause that brought about life, thus "nothing" refers to the absence of the Universe. If there was no first cause, reason indicates you can't have a second thing that is created, and so forth. So we argue for things to exist, there had to be an uncreated first cause. That can get the ball rolling. To imagine "life" came from nothing means life first created itself -- a contradiction in terms since life depends on reproduction and is created from organic matter. Then, how can matter, a physical component, create itself? That would mean matter would be sentient and eternal, something that goes against all the scientific evidence.

Some question about Is. 40:22 and whether it refers to a two-dimensional circle, which would make it a flat earth or to a three-dimensional sphere or a globe. The Hebrew term for "circle" or "globe" which different translations give for the Hebrew term "khug" seems, from the Hebrew Lexicon Brown, Driver and Briggs, to be a "vault" or a three-dimensional object. I have vaulted ceilings in my home, and they certainly are three-dimensional. It would be hard to imagine God sitting over a circle, shaped like a CD disk, when in the same verse it says He stretches out the heavens like a curtain, which is an accurate description of the expanding Universe, something that scientists as a whole did not believe in until the latter part of the 20th century. Hugh Ross, an astrophysicist and a student of Hebrew, mentions Is. 40:22 and other verses that "explicitly describe the sphericity of the earth" (The Fingerprint of God, 1989, p. 16). There is another Hebrew term that means a round object, "dur" but can also mean a circle, so we have two Hebrew terms that can mean a round object or a circle. Unfortunately, Hebrew words can have much broader meanings than English or other modern languages.