Impracticality of resurrection

[Willum]

That a man, or men were brought back from the dead is often trivialized, by saying “God can do anything.“

Resurrection, is practically, very difficult. It would be easier to blacken 1000 stars, have a married bachelor, create a triangle with angles whose sum exceeds 180, and so on, than it would be to resurrect a body three days dead.

I find the statement, “God can do anything,” intellectually lazy, and as a justification, poor, one any eight-year-old could come up with, and write it in a book.

Further, for all of its impossibility, it is not a very effective way to tell the truth. A reasonable man, even several reasonable eyewitnesses and several accounts of such an event, would explain it more reasonably as a large scale deception or magicians trick.

Certainly an omniscience deity could trivially discover a better way.

The topic for debate is twofold, why would an omniscient God use such an ineffective method for communicating the truth, and why, would any reasonable person to believe this method?

[We_Are_VENOM]

I know. I recall that you said somewhere that you didn't think it mattered that Paul said nearly nothing about the things that Jesus did, but a lot about the significance of this resurrection.

Yeah, because in case you didn't know, the resurrection is kind of like the holy grail of Christianity...and in fact our faith depends on it, according to Paul (1Corinth 15:17).

You can opt out of the discussion if you want, but it is just one of the bothersome things about the evidence. I'm struck by how many Jesus -ish things Paul said but in a context that looked like he was saying it himself. For this and many, many other reasons, I reckon that the Gospels are based on Paul's teachings rather than Jesus'.

First off, Paul is clear that (on some occasions) he received revelation(s) from Christ himself.

Now, of course you don't believe that he did, but that is what he said nevertheless.

It would make sense. After the Jewish wars, Jewish Christianity was on the back foot, and Christianity was being taught by Paul's converts with the stories having Jesus recite the things that Paul said.

Heck of a theory, the only problem with it is; there isn't any evidence supporting.

There aren't that many things which Jesus recites that Paul said, at least on paper (besides the Last Supper business).

I wonder whether that remark about the powers of darkness is said by Luke whom (I believe) adapted his gospel to reflect what was in Paul's letters. I'll see whether Luke said it (prediction )There you go Luke 22. 53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. And the Paul passage.

hang on, I'm also looking up this one
I Cornthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Because this might be reflected in Father. forgive them' (the Romans) which again i predict ought to be in Luke.

Yes Luke 23. 34Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

I can predict where something should be and it so often pans out and i can even guess why it is in that Gospel and no other and even what it means.

Can you see why I am thinking this method works?

I appreciate your analysis, however, I disagree.

The prevailing view (one of which I agree) is that Paul never met Jesus, formally.

So, there is no way he could have known about the events at the Last Supper, and what Jesus said on the cross unless it came from those that were there; eyewitnesses.

That is why the whole "The Gospels were influenced by Paul" theory fails.

[We_Are_VENOM]

This my first laugh of the day.
You, hiding behind Aristotle and your version of his logic!

Aristotle would be grinning....ever so!
Aristotle was a Deist, didn't believe in an involved God, nor miracles, and you keep referring to him.
You aren't a closet Deist by any chance?

Reading comprehension; my reference to Aristotle as it pertains to your illogical reasoning has nothing to do with his religious inclinations.

And how you manage to convince yourself that Paul was interested in what Jesus or his disciples did is just a wonder to me.

Hmmm. A Christian, who is NOT interested in what Jesus did.

Quite the oxymoron.

And you don't seem to have taken full interest in what Jesus did, either. All I mentioned was about what Jesus did in the TEmple on Palm Sunday, and then later asked if you know what he did on the next Tuesday....... and there's nothing in reply.

This is all clicking together.

You can have the last word, as you've already wasted enough of my time.

[oldbadger]

This is all clicking together.

As dismissal of all problems. Yes. I don't know how Aristotle would see it, but I'd say any reasonable person would wonder why Paul, who was preaching Christianity, pushing his arguments and making various claims wouldn't repeatedly refer to what Jesus had done and said what the Disciples had told him. But there is almost nothing - just this odd last supper saying. The one source of information seems to be Paul having tea and biscuits (II Cor 12.2) with Jesus in heaven and getting confirmation of whatever he believes in that way.

Paul wasn't interested in Jesus or what he had really wanted, Paul was interested in 'The Lord Jesus Christ' , that's quite different imo.

Lolling and waving all objections away may work fine for Believer -denialism, just as dismissing any serious omissions in the gospels. After all, that method seems to have been applied over a couple of hundred years of Bible -study. But for those who do not do faithbased denial, I don't think it washes anymore.

Many Christians are absolutely clued up on their bibles, down to the last verse and word, but when a loud apologetics debater can't answer a simple question then all the blustering, LOLs and catcalls can't cope with just simple facts.

[oldbadger]

And you don't seem to have taken full interest in what Jesus did, either. All I mentioned was about what Jesus did in the TEmple on Palm Sunday, and then later asked if you know what he did on the next Tuesday....... and there's nothing in reply.

This is all clicking together.

You can have the last word, as you've already wasted enough of my time.

That was done and dusted....... as above. Bye Bye......

[TRANSPONDER]

I know. I recall that you said somewhere that you didn't think it mattered that Paul said nearly nothing about the things that Jesus did, but a lot about the significance of this resurrection.

Yeah, because in case you didn't know, the resurrection is kind of like the holy grail of Christianity...and in fact our faith depends on it, according to Paul (1Corinth 15:17).

You can opt out of the discussion if you want, but it is just one of the bothersome things about the evidence. I'm struck by how many Jesus -ish things Paul said but in a context that looked like he was saying it himself. For this and many, many other reasons, I reckon that the Gospels are based on Paul's teachings rather than Jesus'.

First off, Paul is clear that (on some occasions) he received revelation(s) from Christ himself.

Now, of course you don't believe that he did, but that is what he said nevertheless.

It would make sense. After the Jewish wars, Jewish Christianity was on the back foot, and Christianity was being taught by Paul's converts with the stories having Jesus recite the things that Paul said.

Heck of a theory, the only problem with it is; there isn't any evidence supporting.

There aren't that many things which Jesus recites that Paul said, at least on paper (besides the Last Supper business).

I wonder whether that remark about the powers of darkness is said by Luke whom (I believe) adapted his gospel to reflect what was in Paul's letters. I'll see whether Luke said it (prediction )There you go Luke 22. 53 When I was daily with you in the temple, ye stretched forth no hands against me: but this is your hour, and the power of darkness. And the Paul passage.

hang on, I'm also looking up this one
I Cornthians 2:8
None of the rulers of this age understood it, for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.

Because this might be reflected in Father. forgive them' (the Romans) which again i predict ought to be in Luke.

Yes Luke 23. 34Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.

I can predict where something should be and it so often pans out and i can even guess why it is in that Gospel and no other and even what it means.

Can you see why I am thinking this method works?

I appreciate your analysis, however, I disagree.

The prevailing view (one of which I agree) is that Paul never met Jesus, formally.

So, there is no way he could have known about the events at the Last Supper, and what Jesus said on the cross unless it came from those that were there; eyewitnesses.

That is why the whole "The Gospels were influenced by Paul" theory fails.

It doesn't. I agree that Paul (probably) never met Jesus or even stood at the back of the crowd shouting 'Speak up!' at one of his sermons. But whether or not is irrelevant as he originally opposed the disciples and everything that they (and thus Jesus) stood for. He shows little (or no) interest in Jesus, his doings or sayings. So I'd agree that the Gospels are not based on a life of Jesus according to Paul. But what we do find is that many of Jesus' supposed saying (on clean food, for instance) derives from Paul.

Not directly, of course, but the basic ideas of rejection of the Mosaic Law comes from him. Not directly, I say other than from Luke. And there I do think he got a sight of Paul's letters, and so the Gospels had to be changed. The Christian belief was that the Disciples had started the Church off, but Luke knew that they hadn't. That was Paul's mission. So Luke wrote Acts to show how the mission was passed to Paul and he even alters the angelic message at the tomb so the disciples are Not told to go to Galilee, but to stay in Jerusalem. I have already mentioned that singular event of Jesus appearing to Simon, not described by Luke (indeed, i suspect that the whole diversion to Emmaeus was to get us away from the place) and which nobody else has heard of - apart from Paul I Corinthians. 'Jesus appeared first to Simon'. I even suspect that Luke's 23.34 is inspired by Paul's observation that the rulers would not have Crucified Jesus if they had known who he was. This to me is clearly reflected in Luke and is intended to forgive the Romans for crucifying Jesus, which obviously bothered the Gospel -writers a lot as they are intent of getting Rome off the hook and passing the blame to the Jews. .There's also the passage in Acts ([Peter at the council) that I found puzzling the law that (Jewish) fathers were unable to bear. This is a totally Christian view of the Torah as a burden and is what Paul tries to argue. It is imposed on the Jews and just gives them more to be sinful about. Yes, I have my reasons for my view, but it is hardly mainstream or orthodox, and I certainly won't expect you to swallow it. But it does mean that it doesn't fail in the way you would like it to.