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

[Jenny A]

---

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

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.

There is no single understanding of the trinity, but:

The traditional Christian doctrine of the Trinity is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three equally divine “persons,”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. Every significant concept in this statement (God, exists, as or in, equally divine, person) has been variously understood. The guiding principle has been the creedal declaration that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of the New Testament are consubstantial (i.e. the same in substance or essence, Greek: homoousios). Because this shared substance or essence is a divine one, this is understood to imply that all three named individuals are divine, and equally so. Yet the three in some sense “are” the one God of the Bible.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

---

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.

Luke does not claim to have talked to 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.

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.

So I gather. But then you don't seem to "get" logic.

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??

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.

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.

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

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

---

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.

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. Now, go listen to Thunderfoot's rebuttal.