Comment Thread for The Resurrection of Jesus - Apologiaphoenix vs Gary

[Mikeenders]

The seventh century BCE is not "anywhere near as late as the common era", Mike.

I know that Gary. thats my point. Thats why I have no issue with any prophecy I rely on being written after the fact. I rely on no prophecy that could have been written that late. In my defenses of the Bible I merely take CE as the cutoff to make sure I rely only on prophecies that could not possible be written after the fact. i've explained that three times now. Are you always sooooo obtuse?

Did you graduate from college, Mike?

Yes Gary went to seminary and studied Greek and hebrew too. Now stop being idiotic and deal with the issues.

[Mikeenders]

The point is that your ancient holy book makes the claim that your Bronze Age, middle-eastern god, Yahweh, controls the weather, as if he were standing behind a screen pulling separate levers for rain, thunder, and sunshine. Science has proven that weather works by the laws of nature, not by some invisible being with a temperamental, vindictive temperament pulling levers behind a gigantic screen, somewhere on the outer limits of space.

What is a law of nature Gary? You have no proof whatsoever it is any different from a law of God. That is how the bible states god created everything - by law. you are just lying about "as if pulling separate levers" nonsense to save face. Now tell the good people here the science that indicates that the law does not originate from God. What experiment established that Laws of nature are derived by nature because if have none you are forced to do the same thing theists do with the law of god - accept as a brute fact the laws of nature with no explanation for why they are what they are

You can't think gary. You just rely on cliff notes form others.

Jews say that Christian translators distorted the Hebrew of the Hebrew Bible to "shoehorn" Jesus into passages as they translated the Hebrew Bible into other languages. For anyone who speaks more than one language, it is very easy to see how this can be done.

Drivel. I can use and have in previous posts used Jewish translations. there are slight differences but at the end of the day they say the same things and I can and have debated with rabbis just using their own translations . I know you are desperate to change subject again but I'll pass on getting into the virgin birth passages . suffice to say virgin is a perfectly good understanding since most unmarried women were virgins.


P.S. apparently you have learned nothing from your previous debacle of copying and pasting from others. how you think you are going to influence anyone to your point of view when you don't even understand the issues to give your own rebuttals and discuss the issues in your own words is a wonder to behold.

[tabibito]

Please explain the fundamentals of the Trinity, Tabby, without invoking at any time the term "mystery".

1/ Man is made in the image and likeness of God i.e. man is an analogue of God.
2/ Man is a trinity, being body, soul, and spirit.

That man is in some way triune is acknowledged even to some (very limited) extent in secular psychology - id, ego, superego, a position still held as valid by a number of psychological models.
There are fundamental differences between the triune man and the triune God, chiefly with regard to substance which in man is different for the body than it is for the soul and spirit.

The fundamentals of the nature of a trinity are easily demonstrated.

[One Bad Pig]

Yes, I use mockery and sarcasm to point out that people should fear Yahweh just as much as they should fear Zeus, Jupiter, Baal, Ra, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I cannot disprove that any of these beings exist, but I can point out how very, very, very improbable their existence is and therefore why there is no need for anyone to fear them.

Thank you for confirming my point.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Rain storms, floods, fires, droughts, insect infestations, disease, fatal illness, epilepsy, thunder, lightning, to mention a few.

Yeah. Let's see. What do I have on the problem of natural evil?

This is an Ebook I wrote with an atheist on the topic. It's a debate we had.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Natural-Di...ural+Disasters

This is where I was called to be a guest on Unbelievable? to debate the problem of evil after the Haiti earthquake.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com...s-God-in-Haiti

This is my interview with David Wood who did his dissertation on the problem of evil.

http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...2DavidWood.mp3

This is my interview with Greg Ganssle on the problem of evil and thinking about God.

http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...regGanssle.mp3

This is my interview with Clay Jones on the problem of evil.

http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...2ClayJones.mp3

Also, let's address this:

Why must the universe have a beginning? If your god does not require a beginning then why should the universe require a beginning. Maybe we will never know the origin of the universe, but not knowing is not a reason to throw up our hands and say, "A god must have done it!"

Because the universe contains motion in it which means the moving of potentiality from actuality. In order to explain motion and avoid an infinite regress per re (As opposed to per accidens) there must be a mover that is Himself not moved by anything else. This is a being of pure actuality per the first way of Aquinas and this, everyone knows to be God.

For instance, Bill Craig has the Kalam like this.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.

This is an entirely valid argument in its form. That doesn't mean it's true, but it is valid. Yet I don't really like the argument. You still don't have enough on the beginning, especially if you go with science alone uninformed by metaphysics. So I prefer my argument instead.

Whatever undergoes change depends on something else for its existing.
The universe undergoes change.
The universe depends on something else for its existing.

Too many people treat existence as a given as if something can perpetuate its own existence by force of will or something like that. Existence is not a given. Existence is the main question to be answered and not just how something came to exist, but how it continues to exist.

[Gary]

1/ Man is made in the image and likeness of God i.e. man is an analogue of God.
2/ Man is a trinity, being body, soul, and spirit.

That man is in some way triune is acknowledged even to some (very limited) extent in secular psychology - id, ego, superego, a position still held as valid by a number of psychological models.
There are fundamental differences between the triune man and the triune God, chiefly with regard to substance which in man is different for the body than it is for the soul and spirit.

The fundamentals of the nature of a trinity are easily demonstrated.

I don't think so. The id cannot die on a cross why the superego sits on a throne in outer space.

The trinity is simply "spin" to try to make 1+ 1 +1 = 1

If there are three separate persons there are three separate gods. Period.

[Gary]

Yeah. Let's see. What do I have on the problem of natural evil?

This is an Ebook I wrote with an atheist on the topic. It's a debate we had.

http://www.amazon.com/God-Natural-Di...ural+Disasters

This is where I was called to be a guest on Unbelievable? to debate the problem of evil after the Haiti earthquake.

http://www.premierchristianradio.com...s-God-in-Haiti

This is my interview with David Wood who did his dissertation on the problem of evil.

http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...2DavidWood.mp3

This is my interview with Greg Ganssle on the problem of evil and thinking about God.

http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...regGanssle.mp3

This is my interview with Clay Jones on the problem of evil.

http://deeperwaters.ddns.net/podcast...2ClayJones.mp3

Also, let's address this:



Because the universe contains motion in it which means the moving of potentiality from actuality. In order to explain motion and avoid an infinite regress per re (As opposed to per accidens) there must be a mover that is Himself not moved by anything else. This is a being of pure actuality per the first way of Aquinas and this, everyone knows to be God.

For instance, Bill Craig has the Kalam like this.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
The universe began to exist.
The universe has a cause.

This is an entirely valid argument in its form. That doesn't mean it's true, but it is valid. Yet I don't really like the argument. You still don't have enough on the beginning, especially if you go with science alone uninformed by metaphysics. So I prefer my argument instead.

Whatever undergoes change depends on something else for its existing.
The universe undergoes change.
The universe depends on something else for its existing.

Too many people treat existence as a given as if something can perpetuate its own existence by force of will or something like that. Existence is not a given. Existence is the main question to be answered and not just how something came to exist, but how it continues to exist.

Theories, theories, and more theories.

The bottom line is this: We do not (yet) know the origin of the universe...but we're working on it. Let's wait for the evidence before jumping to any more assumptions.

[Gary]

What is a law of nature Gary? You have no proof whatsoever it is any different from a law of God. That is how the bible states god created everything - by law. you are just lying about "as if pulling separate levers" nonsense to save face. Now tell the good people here the science that indicates that the law does not originate from God. What experiment established that Laws of nature are derived by nature because if have none you are forced to do the same thing theists do with the law of god - accept as a brute fact the laws of nature with no explanation for why they are what they are

You can't think gary. You just rely on cliff notes form others.



Drivel. I can use and have in previous posts used Jewish translations. there are slight differences but at the end of the day they say the same things and I can and have debated with rabbis just using their own translations . I know you are desperate to change subject again but I'll pass on getting into the virgin birth passages . suffice to say virgin is a perfectly good understanding since most unmarried women were virgins.


P.S. apparently you have learned nothing from your previous debacle of copying and pasting from others. how you think you are going to influence anyone to your point of view when you don't even understand the issues to give your own rebuttals and discuss the issues in your own words is a wonder to behold.

Until you can be civil in our discussions, I intend to ignore your comments.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Theories, theories, and more theories.

The bottom line is this: We do not (yet) know the origin of the universe...but we're working on it. Let's wait for the evidence before jumping to any more assumptions.

Gary fails to notice that this was the interactive point of our event. Rather than actually engage with an idea, he chooses to ignore it.

Now you Christians stop ignoring all these problems! Only Gary can ignore arguments against his position!

ponydrinkingjuice.jpg

[tabibito]

I don't think so. The id cannot die on a cross why the superego sits on a throne in outer space.

The trinity is simply "spin" to try to make 1+ 1 +1 = 1

If there are three separate persons there are three separate gods. Period.

Basic math fail ... 1x1x1=1

Basic logic fail ... Analogue is not equal.

[Apologiaphoenix]

How many people were in a triumvirate?

How many triumvirates were there?

[Gary]

Basic math fail ... 1x1x1=1

Basic logic fail ... Analogue is not equal.

Name one NT passage other than the scribe altered Johannine Commae that specifically states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one being and equal in power and status.

[Apologiaphoenix]

Name one NT passage other than the scribe altered Johannine Commae that specifically states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one being and equal in power and status.

Um. Yeah.

Why do we need one that specifically states it?

[tabibito]

Name one NT passage other than the scribe altered Johannine Commae that specifically states that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one being and equal in power and status.

That does not affect the FUNDAMENTAL definition in the slightest. Christ Jesus referred to the Father as "my God and yours." so co-equality isn't much more than an afterthought. More than one passage of scripture shows a definite subordinate role for the Logos to the Father, and a probable subordinate role for the Holy Spirit to the Logos.

And even the Johanine comma doesn't in the slightest grant co-equality.

[Gary]

Um. Yeah.

Why do we need one that specifically states it?

Yes. It was a later invention of the Church. You won't find it in the New Testament.