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

[His_Majesty]

If the Bible were inerrant, wouldn't we be able to trust every verse?

You can.

And a voice came from heaven: “You are my Son, whom I love; with you I am well pleased.”

Mark 1:9-11

And?

You gave scriptures where Jesus is obviously expressing his subordinance to the Father, but there is a reason for that, Jenny.


Phillippians 2:5-11 "5 Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant,[a] being born in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, 11 and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

What does verse 6 say, Jenny? That Jesus did NOT consider quality with God a thing to be grasped, which means that he was EQUAL with God (the Father).

Do you see verse 7, Jenny? It says that Jesus took the form of a servant..so if he had to TAKE the form of a servant, what was he before he took that form? Hmmmmm

What does verse 8 say, Jenny? That he humbled himself and became a human, and in verse 9 it say "Therefore", meaning that AFTER Jesus did not concern himself with being equal with God, and taking the form of a servant, being made into a human...THEN God highly exalted him...

So that is why all of those scriptures that you posted are worded that way, because Jesus BECAME less than the Father once he humbled himself and became a man..and on earth Jesus demonstrated what it meant to become a man, to become less than the Father, but he is still God neverthless, because I can give you scriptures which state that as well.

All of your explanations are pretty lame as they assume odd things like a witness coming upon four supernatural beings and telling people about 1-3 or them and neglecting the others.

Bullshit. If I go downtown to the casino with my cousins Steve and Brandon last night at 11:00...and the following morning my sister ask me when the last time I hung out with Steve, and I tell her that me and Steven hung out last night at the casino....and about two hours later, my brother ask me when was the last time I hung out with Brandon, and I tell him that me and Brandon hung out last night at the casino...when my brother and sister compare notes on who I hung out with last night, it would seem as though there is a contradiction, when in fact there isn't, because both accounts are true...this is an example of how a story can be told and depending on who you talk to you will get different accounts.

Anyone that has had any job where they interview multiple witnesses will tell you the same thing. If all Gospels accounts were the exact same wording and account for every single detail the exact same way, then all we would need is one account.

That is why when multiple witnesses are interviewed, investigators have to PIECE TOGETHER what everyone say, and in this particular case, it is clear that there were at least three men present at the tomb when the women arrived. That is what we can determine once we piece together all accounts.

But the dawn/dark distinction is particularly egregious.

Dawn: " to begin to become light as the sun rises." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dawn

morning:"the early part of the day : the time of day from sunrise until noon." http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morning

The modern notion of morning running from midnight until noon is a much later idea having to do with the advent of clocks as opposed to sundials.

Either it was dark and therefore night, or it was dawn or after. It can't be both. Dawn is definitively not dark. And prior to clocks, morning is not dark either.

Bullshit. Even in the dawn definition you gave it states "to begin to become light as sun rises"...and we both that this happens gradually, not at the blink of an eye. As the sun rises it is still kind of dark, and all testify that it is still dark

It's definitional as I explained. If you can control everything except one or two other beings, then you can't control everything. Conversely if you can't be controlled by anything except one or two other beings, then you can be controlled by something. In either case, you aren't omnipotent as omni means everything.

If you agree that omnipotence is the ability to do only what is logically possible, then you have to ask yourself is it logically possible for one being being able to "control" the other two beings. What reason would the Father have to "control" the other two?? If he controls the other two, it would be an action that is taken either for the better, or for the worse, and I can't think of a possible world at which God would need or want to control either, for the better, or for the worse...and if you can, enlighten me.