Jesus Could Not Rise If He Was Dead

In fact, IMHO, an omnipotent god could do even what is logically impossible. I’d have no issue with the usal concept of an omnipotent god creating a rock so heavy he himself couldn’t lift it (and lifting it nevertheless, too).

After all, science showed us that even in the natural world, there are things that aren’t logically possible in our casual understanding of logic. Quantum mechanic is filled with that. So, if our logic isn’t even able to make sense of the natural world, you can’t expect it to be of much help if we throw an omnipotent god into the mix.

No, first offense just gets supervision.

Not just the resurrection, but the parting of the waters, the supposed stopping of the sun, and a million other Bible stories can’t be explained by science. It’s magic. But the real question is whether it actually happened. There is no part in casting about for explanations until someone gives us evidence about the event occurring.

In the fourth movie, Indiana Jones survives an atomic test by hiding in a refrigerator. Now, we can compute the force of the blast at his position, we can compute the temperature from the shock wave and how well a 1950s refrigerator insulates, and we can compute the G forces he undergoes. But we really should relax. It is just a story, which is also true of the Bible.

The only occasion where I can see the reason for this kind of game is when the creationists, to get their crap recognized as science, try to invent explanations for the Flood and such because the obvious answer, it was a miracle, will get them kicked out of schools with no arguments. That is wrong but at least there is a reason.

So, we should all go off and do something useful like trying to make Star Trek consistent of figuring out which category of tornado could blow Dorothy’s house to Oz.

Again, I’m sticking with the hologram theory. :cool:

His resurrection would have meant nothing had he survived being crucified. If He had not died, He could not have risen. Whether or not He rose from the dead is a matter of belief.

His resurrection *did *mean nothing. He didn’t actually give anything up but a weekend.

It was a meaningless gesture where He sacrificed Himself to Himself to avert a punishment that He had inflicted.

None of that nonsense would be necessary for an omnipotent being, by the way.

God has determined the laws of science and how the universe operates. He can make exceptions if He wishes so because He is omnipotent and all powerful. Also you aren’t really Presbyterian unless you adhere to the Westminster Confession of Faith and you can’t honestly attest even to the Apostles’ Creed,.

Well, I daresay Christianity as we know it would have lacked that certain pizzazz if Jesus had been sentenced to, say, 100 hours of community service. It might’ve queered the whole deal.

Is there a rational answer? Yes. It’s a fictitious fairy story. Like the Brothers Grimm or Mother Goose. Do you question those tales based on the laws of nature?

People make shit up. Other people come along and make more shit up. The pious believe. The tale grows. This isn’t history, it’s fantasy.

Oh? Well, just for that I declare myself a Presbyterian.

Now I’m not a Presbyterian.

Now I am one, again.

Now I’m not again.

If the Apostle Police want to come arrest me, let 'em. Meantime, I see no reason my declarations of Presbyterianhood (or, for that matter, non-Presbyterianhood) are inherently invalid.

Those nails had to hurt - but nothing like what his followers later inflicted on unbelievers. Thousands of Jews and infidels and heretics deserve savior credit more than Jesus ever did.
Now, I’ve heard some people say it was worse for Jesus because he was God’s son - but that sounds like some rich brat going to Somalia and then whining about missing lunch.

I am in the camp that wonders what the big sacrifice was if God can bring him back to life anyway? And since He is all knowing, that He knew how it was going to turn out. It always leads me to the conclusion that God is either A) really stupid for an omniscient/omnipotent being or B) a total asshole.

Here is a model that can help explain that:

Every death of a believe is not the believer dieing, they are taken to life as shown in Acts with the stoning of Stephan, and Jesus takes their place dieing for that person. We only experience the pain needed to bring us to salvation, the rest Jesus bears. This is why we must consume His body and blood, he must become us for us to become Him.

So it’s not just the one time death, but that allowed Him to take our deaths from us, for every person who believes.

So any bending of the rules at all, no matter how infrequently, would cause the entire universe to unravel? I seen no reason to accept that claim.

Such a claim would have fooled nobody, so it simply makes no sense.

It is also untrue that nobody recognized him. The Apostle Thomas certainly did, for example.

Yes we should, given that we have no evidence that anything else is possible or even a meaningful concept. What does something “not being material” even mean? How can something exist without being made of something?

He was on the run from the law; wearing a disguise would be sensible.

At that point we are just speaking nonsense then. If logic does not apply to something then we can say nothing meaningful about it, including applying terms like “omnipotent” to it. "If God is omnipotent then he can do ‘X’ ‘’ is after all an argument using logic, something you are claiming does not apply.

We also bend the rules all the time. When we study animals in their natural habitat we will sometimes relocate a animal, sometimes heal one etc. We do certainally voilate the rulles as the animal understands them. We try to do it with as little impact to their lives, but we certainally interfere.

Using that model for angels, they are not bound by our rules, they have been reported to interact with humanity, yet their influence is in such a way that it appears that they are trying to help with as little as obvious contact as possible, so jsut like the nautral animals, we stay in a natural state.

An omnipotent can go beyond what is logically possible, or beyond what we consider logically possible.

Again, that’s just a nonsense phrase.

No. An omnipotent being can’t be omni-benevolent and allow evil to exist, for instance.

If your idea of God requires you to hold conflicting ideas, that’s a flaw, not a feature.