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

[Thumpalumpacus]

RE: Jen's reply to His_Fallacy:

---

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.

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.

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.

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.


What???


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.



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.

I don't get it.

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

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.


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.

---

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.

---

[Cyberman]

You will need someone far more credible than him, because seriously, he's laughed at and scorned in the scholarly community.

Need more well-poison? I know a good supplier. For a price.

[Free]

You will need someone far more credible than him, because seriously, he's laughed at and scorned in the scholarly community.

Need more well-poison? I know a good supplier. For a price.

He doesn't need me to poison any well. He poisoned it himself the moment he opened his mouth.

Anyone who uses honest skepticism sees right through his arguments.

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I often wonder if the hatred of religion can take the atheistic mind so far as to castrate skepticism in favor of a strap-on commonly known as denialism.

If you think Humpherys has a single rational argument supported with tangible evidence, bring it here.

[The Valkyrie]

Need more well-poison? I know a good supplier. For a price.

He doesn't need me to poison any well. He poisoned it himself the moment he opened his mouth.

Anyone who uses honest skepticism sees right through his arguments.

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I often wonder if the hatred of religion can take the atheistic mind so far as to castrate skepticism in favor of a strap-on commonly known as denialism.

If you think Humpherys has a single rational argument supported with tangible evidence, bring it here.

Haven't read the website so I can't really comment on that.

I will reply to your point about some atheists taking their hatred for religion to what I would call hysterical levels.

Yes, there are some among the atheist community who have done just that, and they're quite often the most outspoken among our community, just as the hysterical, hate inducing theists are often the most vocal among their communities.

Fortunately, for every atheist and, for the most part theist, like that there are 20 or more rational people to drown them out.

[abaris]

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I didn't even know Ken Humphreys existed before he was mentioned in this thread. Doesn't change a thing though. My reason (pun intended) tells me, there's absolutely no evidence for the historical Jesus. There's also no evidence for him not having lived.

Doesn't change the fact though, he's a walking collection of preexisting myths.

[Minimalist]

"Paul" seems as legendary as fucking jesus. Xtians desperately assert that "Clement of Rome" - another phony literary character - wrote an epistle that they date to the persecution of Domitian. Trouble is, there was no persecution of Domitian. Decius, 250 AD, was the first Roman emperor to persecute xtians and he didn't even single them out. That epistle is so important because it is the only first century reference to "Peter" or "Paul" but the fact is that like the rest of the nonsense it comes from the second century.

So much of the story cannot withstand scrutiny.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/persecutions.html

Humphreys from Jesus Never Existed?

Please don't tell me that's how you conclude that Jesus was a Myth? Almost every position he holds is an argument from silence.

Not once does he provide a single stitch of tangible evidence to support his assertions.

All he says is stuff such as, "This guy said nothing, that guy said nothing, this place never existed, yada yada yada."

You will need someone far more credible than him, because seriously, he's laughed at and scorned in the scholarly community.

You know, the fact of the matter is that you will shit on any author who disputes what you believe because....simply....people like you are inherently intellectually dishonest. Facts mean nothing to you.

Well lad, I can't find a citation from a webstie called Isuckedjesus'cock.com because those are committed to upholding your point of view. You believe in a scattered selection of your own bullshit and there is nothing that anyone can say which will dissuade you.

Again, people like the prof and some of the other fundies we have around here are jackasses but they are more honest than you. They do not attempt to whittle down their bullshit to something more politically correct in the 21st century.

You are a phony.

P.S. when you can come up with evidence that Humphreys is wrong, get back to us.

[Free]

He doesn't need me to poison any well. He poisoned it himself the moment he opened his mouth.

Anyone who uses honest skepticism sees right through his arguments.

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I often wonder if the hatred of religion can take the atheistic mind so far as to castrate skepticism in favor of a strap-on commonly known as denialism.

If you think Humpherys has a single rational argument supported with tangible evidence, bring it here.

Haven't read the website so I can't really comment on that.

I will reply to your point about some atheists taking their hatred for religion to what I would call hysterical levels.

Yes, there are some among the atheist community who have done just that, and they're quite often the most outspoken among our community, just as the hysterical, hate inducing theists are often the most vocal among their communities.

Fortunately, for every atheist and, for the most part theist, like that there are 20 or more rational people to drown them out.

Hey! I appreciate your candor and your honesty. Thank you.

[Esquilax]

Need more well-poison? I know a good supplier. For a price.

He doesn't need me to poison any well. He poisoned it himself the moment he opened his mouth.

Anyone who uses honest skepticism sees right through his arguments.

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I often wonder if the hatred of religion can take the atheistic mind so far as to castrate skepticism in favor of a strap-on commonly known as denialism.

If you think Humpherys has a single rational argument supported with tangible evidence, bring it here.

Hey look, turns out he needed a whole lot more well poison!

[Free]

Humphreys from Jesus Never Existed?

Please don't tell me that's how you conclude that Jesus was a Myth? Almost every position he holds is an argument from silence.

Not once does he provide a single stitch of tangible evidence to support his assertions.

All he says is stuff such as, "This guy said nothing, that guy said nothing, this place never existed, yada yada yada."

You will need someone far more credible than him, because seriously, he's laughed at and scorned in the scholarly community.

You know, the fact of the matter is that you will shit on any author who disputes what you believe because....simply....people like you are inherently intellectually dishonest. Facts mean nothing to you.

That is not the "fact of the matter" whatsoever. I pride myself on critical thinking and will not hesitate to expose logical fallacies whenever they present themselves.

There is nothing intellectually dishonest with pointing out the fallacious reasoning and bravado Humprehys employs in abundance. I will even give you a chance to prove me wrong.

Bring me his best argument, just one.

Well lad, I can't find a citation from a webstie called Isuckedjesus'cock.com because those are committed to upholding your point of view. You believe in a scattered selection of your own bullshit and there is nothing that anyone can say which will dissuade you.

Please don't get so upset as to employ fallacious ad hominems and insults. All that ever does is further my point about atheistic extremism.

P.S. when you can come up with evidence that Humphreys is wrong, get back to us.

Like I said, bring me his best argument. Just one.

[Cyberman]

You atheists- who propagate reason and rationale religiously- should be utterly ashamed of yourselves for allowing your anti-Christian bias to influence your opinions to such a point as that you are quite willing to crucify reason and rationale by intentionally refusing to acknowledge the almost innumerable logical fallacies Ken Humphreys employs on his website.

I often wonder if the hatred of religion can take the atheistic mind so far as to castrate skepticism in favor of a strap-on commonly known as denialism.

And now you've switched to poisoning the forum well. Please at least try to stay focussed. Countering whatever claims you bring to the table does not equate to "anti-Christian bias" nor "hatred of religion". Some of us don't particularly care for random strangers telling us how we think and what we believe. As Matt D would say, "you're done."