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

[Jenny A]

You gave scriptures where Jesus is obviously expressing his subordinance to the Father, but there is a reason for that, Jenny.

Indeed I did, not to mention scriptures in which Jesus says that he, Jesus, should not tempt god.

Phillippians 2:5-11 "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, [b]though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."[/b][emphasis added by Jenny]

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. Otherwise how would exploiting god be an option? 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.

So that is why all of those scriptures that you posted are worded that way, because Jesus BECAME less than the Father once he humbled himself and became a man..and on earth Jesus demonstrated what it meant to become a man, to become less than the Father, but he is still God neverthless, because I can give you scriptures which state that as well.

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.

All of your explanations are pretty lame as they assume odd things like a witness coming upon four supernatural beings and telling people about 1-3 or them and neglecting the others.

Bullshit. If I go downtown to the casino with my cousins Steve and Brandon last night at 11:00...and the following morning my sister ask me when the last time I hung out with Steve, and I tell her that me and Steven hung out last night at the casino....and about two hours later, my brother ask me when was the last time I hung out with Brandon, and I tell him that me and Brandon hung out last night at the casino...when my brother and sister compare notes on who I hung out with last night, it would seem as though there is a contradiction, when in fact there isn't, because both accounts are true...this is an example of how a story can be told and depending on who you talk to you will get different accounts.

Anyone that has had any job where they interview multiple witnesses will tell you the same thing. If all Gospels accounts were the exact same wording and account for every single detail the exact same way, then all we would need is one account.

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.

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.

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."

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.

Bullshit. Even in the dawn definition you gave it states "to begin to become light as sun rises"...and we both that this happens gradually, not at the blink of an eye. As the sun rises it is still kind of dark, and all testify that it is still dark.

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

It's definitional as I explained. If you can control everything except one or two other beings, then you can't control everything. Conversely if you can't be controlled by anything except one or two other beings, then you can be controlled by something. In either case, you aren't omnipotent as omni means everything.

If you agree that omnipotence is the ability to do only what is logically possible, then you have to ask yourself is it logically possible for one being being able to "control" the other two beings. What reason would the Father have to "control" the other two?? If he controls the other two, it would be an action that is taken either for the better, or for the worse, and I can't think of a possible world at which God would need or want to control either, for the better, or for the worse...and if you can, enlighten me.

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