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]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #110]

Do know what sarcasm is?

Look up sarcasm and then say to yourself, "ohhh, that's what he was doing".

I absolutely recognized your sarcasm.

I, on the other hand, wasn't being sarcastic.

Ok, you weren't sarcastic..you were just simply WRONG.

Don't know if that is a good trade-off.

[Diogenes]

"Impracticability?" More like impossibility.
One of the strangest things about religious belief is that an impossible event is imagined to have actually happened; it is called a "miracle;" then the very fact that the thing that didn't really happen, its "miraculousness" is cited as proof of "god," another absurd impossibility.

It's like building garbage out of garbage, then standing back to admire the pile.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to Athetotheist in post #110]

Do know what sarcasm is?

Look up sarcasm and then say to yourself, "ohhh, that's what he was doing".

I absolutely recognized your sarcasm.

I, on the other hand, wasn't being sarcastic.

Ok, you weren't sarcastic..you were just simply WRONG.

Don't know if that is a good trade-off.

I was WRONG about what? Am I WRONG because you typed WRONG in all caps?

You seem to be losing your sense of humor.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I was WRONG about what?

About whatever I disagreed with you on, obviously.

Am I WRONG because you typed WRONG in all caps?

No, you are wrong because of your previously made false statements.

You seem to be losing your sense of humor.

I would rather lose my sense of humor, than lose my soul.

All kinda goes back to the trade-off thing I mentioned before.

[Athetotheist]

I was WRONG about what?

About whatever I disagreed with you on, obviously.

Am I WRONG because you typed WRONG in all caps?

No, you are wrong because of your previously made false statements.

You seem to be losing your sense of humor.

I would rather lose my sense of humor, than lose my soul.

All kinda goes back to the trade-off thing I mentioned before.

Just calling me wrong-wrong-wrong is hardly a substitute for refuting the positions I've taken. Or is it the info in the link I posted that you can't refute?

[oldbadger]

The early you are to the source, the more truth value you will obtain. Historians know and appreciate stuff like that.

No. Although Historians do seek earliest accounts they do not attribute most truth to them........
Many a lie has been told early.
Paul didn't write down anything about the Baptist, Jesus, their missions, any incidents, and I don't think he cared much about them.
If you want to hang your hat on Paul's claims about a last meal and what he thought Jesus said and did there then that's up to you.

[oldbadger]

Seems clear to me.

The question is so irrelevant, that answering yes/no would give it more attention that it deserve.

The above quotes were your answers :-
1. About that last week.
2. A clear indication that (imo) you have no confidence about that last week or you would be able to answer the most simple question.

That on that last 'Palm' Sunday, Jesus and his disciples went sightseeing (modern term) around the Temple after entering Jerusalem until leaving to go back to Bethany, a simple fact that you class as irrelevant, shows a researcher that Jesus might not have been so familiar with the Temple as some imagine, that many Northern Jews may not have attended as many feasts as required each year...... and more. There may be connections there to verses such as Pilate spilling Galilean blood with sacrifices in as much as some Northerners may have been feasting at other venues and Temple funds being lost through that. In fact there are many interesting and relevant points concerning that day's itinerary.

Irrelevant, you say. So I don't think you're too much acquainted with the whole picture as described.

[oldbadger]

Maybe that's why some folks don't have a clear 'picture' of what he did during that last week.

Seems clear to me.

Please....can I ask you another easy question?
What do you think that Jesus and his disciples did on that last...... ummmm...... Tuesday?

[We_Are_VENOM]

No. Although Historians do seek earliest accounts they do not attribute most truth to them........

Many a lie has been told early.

Yeah, but the liars and believers of the lies wouldn't be the same people.

Catch my drift?

Paul didn't write down anything about the Baptist, Jesus, their missions, any incidents, and I don't think he cared much about them.

OR, he wasn't writing with/for those intended purposes.

Ever think of that one?

If you want to hang your hat on Paul's claims about a last meal and what he thought Jesus said and did there then that's up to you.

*Hangs hat nice and neatly*

[We_Are_VENOM]

The above quotes were your answers :-
1. About that last week.
2. A clear indication that (imo) you have no confidence about that last week or you would be able to answer the most simple question.

If the Bible doesn't care about what happened during that last week excluding the things that it recorded about the last week, then neither do I.

That on that last 'Palm' Sunday, Jesus and his disciples went sightseeing (modern term) around the Temple after entering Jerusalem until leaving to go back to Bethany, a simple fact that you class as irrelevant, shows a researcher that Jesus might not have been so familiar with the Temple as some imagine, that many Northern Jews may not have attended as many feasts as required each year...... and more. There may be connections there to verses such as Pilate spilling Galilean blood with sacrifices in as much as some Northerners may have been feasting at other venues and Temple funds being lost through that. In fact there are many interesting and relevant points concerning that day's itinerary.

Irrelevant, you say. So I don't think you're too much acquainted with the whole picture as described.

Your concerns, as genuine as they are...pertains to a whole lot of NOTHING.