MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2)

[His_Majesty]

Let's look at a better translation in context shall we?

Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God
as something to be exploited, but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,
he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death— even death on a cross.

Philippians 2:5-11 NRSV

So Jesus began in the form of god but did not regard equality with god as something to be exploited. Sounds pretty separate from god to me.

Jenny, The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all three different individuals that are all equally God..they share the same nature. When you say "sounds pretty separate from god to me", when you say that, you are thinking in polytheistic terms which means you still don't understand the Biblical concept of the Trinity.

Otherwise how would exploiting god be an option?

Well, I don't know what "exploited" means in the translation that you gave...you tell me...the one that I gave said "grasped", and based on that term, I know EXACTLY what it means.

And yes because separate Jesus humbled himself then separate god exalted him. It all sounds rather, separate. It doesn't sound coequal either. Polytheistic in fact. So, one more example of separateness and separate wills. Thanks.

Nonsense. If it clearly say that he lowered himself and became a slave/servant, then what was he before he lowered himself and became a servant?? What do you think he was, in context, Jenny?

The fact that you can quote scriptures that say Jesus became man and therefore less than god but was still god nevertheless doesn't change the fact that in those scriptures he is separate from god. Polytheism again.

You keep saying "separate" from God, what does that mean? Do you mean different persons, what?

Bullshit yourself. Have you ever interviewed witnesses? Anyone who interviews multiple witnesses will tell you that their accounts tend to be irreconcilable period. Trust me, it was my job and I've done it a few times (mild understatement). But never did I encounter a witnesses who when asked a perfectly natural question like "who did you see?", or, "what did you see?" would tell about one dead body splayed out on the concrete when they saw four, or tell of one police car when six showed up. In fact it's rather hard to get them to stick to just one body or police car at a time.

They say hindsight is 20/20, and it is easy to look back on something and say that they should of did this, or they should of said that. Now, you claimed that you interviewed witnesses before, and I am sure if it involved some shit like homicide, you would know that shortly after the event happens, the emotion level of everyone involved is at an all time high. We need to look at the narratives as people that went through something traumatic, they just lost their beloved friend in a most excruciating fashion, and on top of that, his body wasn't where it was supposed to be.

You consider that, and add on the fact that not everyone is as thorough in explaining things like others, and also the fact that a person can only explain something based on their perspective.

I can just hear it now, Mary is asked "and did you see an angel at the tomb?" and she says yes because she did see one, but doesn't immediately pop out with, "oh yes there were a bunch of angels, two inside and two out." Actually, I'm pretty sure you couldn't stop her narrative to ask questions. If she'd seen the empty tomb and the angels, you wouldn't be able to shut her up until she'd told the whole story.

What???

Nor can I imagine the authors of the gospels interviewing witnesses, if they could find any alive after 30 years asking questions like, "and Ms. Mary did you see an angel at the tomb? Please be careful and only answer my precise question with a narrative."

It would be a narrative from her perspective. When you ask anyone about the famous question of "What were you doing on 9/11?", everyone will give you a slight "narrative" from their personal perspective..and I guarandamntee that in 30 years, they will be telling the same story.

The gospels are very obviously a collection of folk lore, whether there was a Jesus or not. They are stories. Historical fiction. They do not bare the markings of men who questioned witnesses and weighed evidence. If they had done so, they surely would have told us.

Apparently Luke did. In fact, he said that he CAREFULLY investigated everything from the beginning. Now, maybe you feel differently than Luke, myself, and the rest of the 2 billion people that believe that the Gospels represent historical facts, but that is ok...Christianity is a coalition of the willing...and if you ain't willing to accept by faith, then obviously, Christianity isn't for you.

Still kinda dark eh? Is that the very best you can do?

So are you gonna pretend as if it isn't still kinda dark at dawn?

No omnipotence is in and of itself logically impossible because of the problem of not being about to make something bigger than you can lift.

I don't get it.

But even setting that little problem aside, if omnipotent means not all powerful with regard to the powers of others, than it isn't omnipotent.

If the other power is of necessity, then it isn't logically possible....if the other power is contingent and the omnipotent being couldn't do something to it, thennnn we would have a problem.

Whether two powerful beings would want to be in power over the other is not the question.

It isn't the question? Yes it was the question, you were the one talking about one being and his capability of "controlling" the other being...that is what you said, and then when I shoot down that kind of logic, all of a sudden, it isn't the question??

The question is whether they could both be omnipotent at the same time and the answer is no. This equation does not work: a < b < c < b < a.

Advice for you Jenny, have good reasons first, and thennnn draw the conclusion. Ever tried that?

---

Since what he says in the first minute reveals he doesn't know what evolution is, why would anyone need to listen further. But if you really must have a longer rebuttal, you can find hours and hours of it here:

Man you people kill me...every time someone disagrees with evolution they always have to get accused of being ignorant of the theory..."you just don't know what evolution is....you just don't understand it", as if the theory of evolution is this secret society and only those that believe in it can fully understand what is...bullshit.

We don't believe in evolution, not because of what we don't understand, we don't believe in evolution because of what we DO understand....and with respect to Mr. Hovind, the man has a longggg history of debating evolutionists, and he actually debated three evolutionists at one time...and during his lectures, he actually quotes and uses illustrations from actual biology books, right there on the projector screen, for all to see. So in the video, it isn't as if he is willing to have his beliefs challenged, he was actually out there on the forefront willing to debate anyone on the theory, and has debated many evolutionists, from the likes of Massimo Pigluicci, to Kenneth Miller, to Eugenie Scott.

So you can say what you want about Mr. Hovind, but you can't ever accuse him of getting his ass handed to him in any debate on the subject of evolution...but the same can't be said for the evolutionist that he's debated.