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

[His_Majesty]

Finding the doctrine of trinity in the scriptures is an uphill battle. The NT talks of three beings as god: the father, the son, and the holy ghost (or spirit). The divinity is Jesus is not clear in the Gospels, and Jesus even denies it. In contrast Paul proclaims Jesus as a divine being who became human for a time. Neither view of Jesus gets you to the trinity. Stringing the words father, son, and holy spirit together does not a trinity make, just a simple group of three.

Bullshit. We have Trinity-proof texts, all you have to do is ask

I gave you a number of verses in the Gospels in which Jesus' will appears to be different than god's. That suggests divine or not, Jesus was not the same being as god. To demonstrate that he is the same being you cited Phillipians 2:5-11.

I wasn't demonstrating he is the "same being" or that he is God with Phil 2:5-11...I used that verse to demonstrate the "change of role" that Jesus underwent, which would explain those many verses you used which Jesus made such statements which REFLECT Phil 2:5-11.

In Philipians 2 Paul says Jesus humbled himself to become a human and that he did not expoit his equality with god. That suggests that Jesus is divine, it does not suggest he and god are one being. The decision not to exploit his equality, also does not suggest that God and Jesus are one being, only that they were equal beings before Jesus became flesh.

Still can't quite grasp the concept, can you? No one is saying that God and Jesus are "one being"....Jesus and the Father are two different beings, both of whom are the same GOD. Just apply the title of "God" to both the Father and Son (and the Holy Spirit), and there you have it.

But, if you merely want to argue that the Epistles say that Jesus was a god, you're right, they do. And yes stopping there is polytheistic. Find me a verse that gets you to one divine being.

John 1:1 says it all, and unless you are a Jehovah's Witness, I don't expect any objections to this...read John 1:1, and then read verse 14 of the same chapter...who is God?

I gave you the NRSV: The New Revised Standard Version as I said above. I often give the name of the translation. I notice that you NEVER do. Perhaps because you don't recognize that translating the Bible is neither simple nor uncontroversial.

Well, unless you have New World's Translation (JW bible), even though it may not be phrased the same, we should still be able to get to the same place regardless of which version we use.

I normally use the NIV though.

I mean different gods, not one god in three persons. Fine a verse that says the three are one.

I can give you verses where Jesus was worshiped, prayed to, and called God...would that be good enough?

Luke does not claim to have talked to eyewitnesses.

But he said the story ORIGINATED from eyewitnesses!!!

And given how long after the events he was writing, that makes sense.


What he says is this:

Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first,[a] to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.

Luke 1:1-4 NRSV

He says that: (1) many people have tried to write an orderly account of the events handed down by eyewitnesses; (2) he too will write and order account; (3) he has investigated everything carefully. From which you have a picture that rather than reading past accounts, or recording oral traditions, he went out and interviewed witnesses. That passage means no such thing. And the Gospel that follows reads like what it is, a compilation of oral tradition.

Oral tradition from a oral generation.

I think what you are missing here is the difference between want to and can. An omnipotent being by definition can do anything. Whether it would want to is not part of the definition.

And I think what you are missing here is the "logically possible" part...an omnipotent being can do whatever is logically possible.

You cannot have two omnipotent beings because to be omnipotent they must be able to everything including controlling each other, yet to be omnipotent they must also each be uncontrollable. Therefore you can't have two omnipotent beings.

If one could control the other, then there should be a possible world at which one WOULD control the other...but there is no possible world at which would control the other, so therefore, the other cannot be controlled.

Frequently. That's why I tend to begin with text free of preconcieved traditions like the trinity. Try it sometime.

I do the same thing with evolution.

Hovind does have a long history of debating evolution and very badly too. And he begins in your video by discussing star formation. That is why I did not bother to listen further. The theory of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with star formation.

He is talking about evolution in general, not JUST macroevolution. Hovind is a young earth creationist and a critic of things like the big bang theory, carbon dating, macroevolution, etc.

Now, go listen to Thunderfoot's rebuttal.

Who?