Maybe i’ll tune in again 
1 Like
I am particularly interested in the Gospel accounts of Jesus being subjected to attempts by the devil to sway Him from His course.
Seen some comments critisizing both dawkins and collins, even on who said they read collins book and that it strengthened their atheism, and then replied to a commenter as to why they couldn’t grasp “The God Delusion” is because they are looking at it through a biased (christian) lens. I do wonder what exactly determines the strengthening or weakening of one’s position.
Oh, and the video was good.
1 Like
I like how all his answers in Matthew 4 are from the much maligned Pentateuch.
Indeed. The finality of Mat4:10-11 IMO answers most of the questions regarding evil done in this world:
Matthew 4:10-11 (KJV)
Mt 10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
11 Then the devil leaveth him, and, behold, angels came and ministered unto him.
1 Like
I remember struggling with Collins’ perspective on this in “Language of God.” At times he seems inconsistent. Sometimes talking like miracles do fit within the scientific explanation of things and some times not. That is why I seem to be more like Dawkins and simply pushing for a change in the definition of miracles. Though it seems to me that every time this gets talked about on the forum it ultimately comes to question of Jesus’ resurrection, which isn’t a problem for me because of Paul’s explanation in 1 Cor 15 of resurrection to a spiritual body rather than to a physical/natural body. Eventually this has people ask me what happened to the physical/natural body of Jesus then? And for me that is the old rabbit disappearing from the hat trick… something for which the possible explanations are endless. Because I certainly do not believe in bodies rising from graves which is frankly like a zombie/vampire movie… only making Christianity into something creepy rather than hopeful… This is beside the fact that it doesn’t make much sense in general since there is nothing special about the matter the body is made up of at any particular time.
The gospel accounts of the risen Jesus paint a more complete picture of how “this mortal body must put on immortality.”
1 Like
Nope. The gospels do not say anything whatsoever about the transition to a resurrected body. It simply shows us what the resurrected body of Jesus can do. Which includes much of what the physical/natural body can do and more.
It’s like the creation account in Genesis, we are not told how God made man in his image, it just says that he did it.
I like how you said the resurrected body can do much of what a physical body can do and more.
The gospels also inform us that the tomb was empty, his body was not there, “the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.”
Thanks, Niobium. Agreed!!
removed this post
How frustrating! So difficult to fix it when responded to wrong person!
It does not follow that the resurrected body is made from the matter of the physical/natural body and that resurrection means bodies must rise from graves like zombies or vampires. The gospels do not say anything about what happened to the body of Jesus in the tomb. And in 1 Cor 15 Paul explains that the physical/natural body is made of the dust of the earth and that the spiritual body is made of the stuff of heaven. He says flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. And yet the spiritual body does come from the physical body like a plant from a seed, and the seed can be tiny because what it supplies is the information not the substance. It might be different enough that it is not easily recognized but it does take its form from the choices we make in life.
1 Like
I enjoyed the video so far. They are both very polite and considered in their speech. Although I am a Christian, Richard Dawkins has a habit of saying things I have often wanted to ask in my fundamentalist churches when growing up.
3 Likes
I agree it’s not necessary for there to be a body. In most cases the matter isn’t there anymore. But in the case of Jesus, I think we would have gotten all kinds of things mixed up about the resurrection if his body was not resurrected to new life. And yet the scars were still there.
Unless you think some people are resurrected carrying their heads in their hands or with faces horribly burned, there is only one possible explanation for those wounds. They were there because Jesus chose to have them. And the reason why is rather obvious. Thomas said he wouldn’t believe unless the wounds were there. So Jesus chose to have them so that Thomas would believe. But in that case, there is no connection to the matter of the physical/natural body whatsoever.
There is another. First we have to know that many of the promises to the nation of Israel in the OT can be appropriated as personal to the individual in the New:
For no matter how many promises God has made, they are “Yes” in Christ.
2 Corinthians 1:20
Then there is this:
Behold, I have engraved you on the palms of my hands.
Isaiah 49:16
Jesus is likely to be the only one with scars in heaven, and they have my name on them – I helped put them there and they will be forever a reminder of his grace to me.
Sounds like the same explanation to me. They were there because Jesus chose to have them.
True, but that is not all you said.
He also chose to have them as reminders for us of his love for you and me (and maybe also to echo the words of Isaiah showing that the OT pointed to him).
Or his Father thought it necessary. There are, I think, scars that we will also bear, and our bodies will also not be where they were laid. John 20:12
But Dawkins doesnt know that we would be here without God’s help. He doesnt seem able to consider the possibility that the only reason evolutionary mechanisms work as they do is because God designed them.