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

[pocaracas]

I said: The Trinity is the doctrine that the Father, Son, and Holy spirit are three separate beings/persons, that share the same Deity of God

Do you see that? THREE SEPARATE BEINGS/PERSONS, THAT SHARE THE SAME DEITY OF GOD.

You know... this reminds me of Quantum Mechanics... and entangled states.
And, like Richard Feynman once said, "if you think you understand QM, then you don't understand QM."

No one understands that trinity thing... you can use words, but you don't seem to grasp the enormity of how the meaning of those words are challenging each other.

Care to explain how a deity is not a being in and of itself?
What you said "three separate beings that share the same deity" makes as much sense as "three separate beings that share the same being"...
What is a being, in this context?
What is a deity?

It seems you equate "being" to "person"... hmmm... that word is supposed to be referring to a "human being"... doesn't make sense that it should apply to a divine being. Maybe you want persona, which can then relate to personality... and that's something we can grasp a bit easier, as we can sort of understand multiple-personality disorders...

Multiple personalities in one god, simultaneously, each attending to different needs, all working together to... errr... keep this tiny speck of land floating in space and all its human inhabitants... err... not all, just the believers, behaving properly, while they mature spiritually to achieve the afterlife?

Does that make sense?

[Strider]

http://youtu.be/oA0IpS_3S-0

[Minimalist]

Burton Mack gives another exam ple of how Luke's version of the history of early Christianity in Acts is wholly unreal istic: 'Luke says that the standard sermon was preached to the Jews on the day of Pentecost and often thereafter, whereupon hundreds converted and the world became the church's parish overnight', but this is 'a story that does not make sense as history by any standard'. Not only in respect to its absurdly hyperbolic growth, but even just in the context of how people would really behave. As Mack puts it:

No Jew worth his salt would have converted when being told that he was guilty of killing the messiah. No Greek would have been persuaded by the dismal logic of the argumentation of the sermons. The scene would not have made sense as h istory to anyone during the first century with first-hand knowledge of Christians. Jews, and the date of the temple in Jerusalem. So what do we have on our hands? An imaginary reconstruction in the interest of aggrandizing an amalgam view of Christianity early in the second century. Luke did this by painting over the messy history of conflictual movements throughout the first century and in his own time. He cleverly depicted Peter and Paul as preachers of an identical gospel. . . . That is myth making in the genre of epic. There is not the slightest reason to take it seriously as history.

In short, the narrative we have in Acts is so unrealistic, it cannot have been based on anything that actually happened. It's what Luke wishes to have happened, maybe what he wants people to believe happened; but it's certainly not what happened, even in outl ine. And as for this instance, so for all others in Acts.

This conclusion should not surprise us, since all other Acts literature written by Christians was wholly fabricated as well. The Acts of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Acts of Andrew, the Acts of John and the Acts of Thomas all look substantially like the Acts of the Apostles in the NT, yet are obviously not based on any kind of history. They are literary creations, telling stories the authors wanted, using known legendary characters (the various apostles after which they are named, plus in each its own cast of characters, some historical, some mythical, some invented to the purpose). There is really no reason we should privilege the Acts in the NT as somehow more historical or more reliable than any of these others, which were all written within decades of each other. Indeed for this very reason we should have presumed Acts to be fiction all along, albeit historical fiction, just like the Maccabean literature before it and other purported works of religious history. Prior probability favors no other conclusion.

Carrier pgs. 363-64

[Tonus]

If they share the same deity, I hope they make sure to rinse it thoroughly between uses.

[His_Majesty]

Two things: one your ignorance is showing again. "Darwinian" evolution has long been superseded by modern synthesis, that encompasses aspects of biology and population genetics that Darwin simply could not have known about.

Evolution in general hasn't been proven, that I am not ignorant about. That is the one thing that is certain.

Secondly, you can't be indoctrinated into a thing that's demonstrably true, which modern evolutionary theory is.

It is true to those that already believe in the theory. Go figure.

[dyresand]

Evolution in general hasn't been proven, that I am not ignorant about. That is the one thing that is certain.

you can't dispute this.

[Cyberman]

Evolution in general hasn't been proven, that I am not ignorant about. That is the one thing that is certain.

Except inasmuch as evolution forms the basis of modern medicine, of course.

[Minimalist]

An idiot who thinks a dead jew came back to life and then floated up to heaven can dispute anything. Why do you think I call them shitheads?

[dyresand]

Evolution in general hasn't been proven, that I am not ignorant about. That is the one thing that is certain.

Except inasmuch as evolution forms the basis of modern medicine, of course.

modern medicine is great no getting prayed over to get rid of this cold.
or drinking or rubbing some type of past on my skin.

[Cyberman]