when Jesus (or his historians) compared his end of life experience with Jonah's gastly gastric 3+1/2 days, he must have been testing whether his listeners were credulous enough to swallow the whole bit, hook line and sinker.
A stunning piece of LOGIC from the Apostle Paul
Welcome miss Ives.
I learned a long time ago that you question nothing, but if you do keep it to yourself.
Ain't that true. There's no such thing as a free conversation with JW. You always have to be guarded. I can't understand how some people are satisfied to live like that, but apparently they are.
Welcome to the forum miss.ives. Could you expand on your comment;
I find that most atheist views, fly out the window if they encounter a spirit being, force, ghost whatever they want to call it and cant explain it scientifically.
Are you saying that you or some atheist you know has actually seen a ghost or spirit?
With respect, science is absolutely not like religion. Dogma is argued dogmatically, science is argued from the facts.
That's how we know Jesus was not resurrected, the facts prove otherwise.
Slim, you're basically quoting Jesus when he said that "with god, all things are possible".
It's an utterly meaningless statement that sidesteps evidence and reason. If that's the only reason to claim the impossible is possible then you really have nothing.
I could be an intelligent penguin who's mastered keyboard and language just to engage with ex cultists on a discussion board, after all with god all things are possible.
There are circumstances surrounding the idea of the resurrection that make it unlike a typing penguin. Such as:
1. The amazing fact of consciousness and the natural question of what becomes of it at death.
2. The course of human history including the history of the Jews and the rise and dominance of Christianity.
3. The very fact that anything exists at all and forces us to confront either a material universe from nothing or a material universe produced by something or someone outside of space and time.
4. The fact that billions of humans over thousands of years have found the Christian story of resurrection meaningful and compelling.
It's a bit silly to compare an idea with the history and reflection on being and consciousness as the resurrection has, with the likelihood of a typing penguin.
Billions of devout believers would argue the same for their prophets flight to Jerusalem on a winged horse. Are we to give that an ounce of credibility too?
Oh I forgot the main difference (I'm tired):
If we allow for the possibility of their being a God, there is plausible explanation for why he might want to perform a resurrection, whereas there is little reason to suppose he'd be interested in creating a typing penguin.
The (or an) explanation for why God intervened to resurrect Jesus is to give mankind hope that death need not be the end, suffering can be reversed, God values us as individuals and ultimately will not forget us. Whether we agree with that story or not, we should acknowledge that it speaks to deep aspects of our human nature, and our concerns, in a way that a hypothetical typing penguin simply does not. (Unless I'm missing out something terribly dramatic and meaningful in the typing penguin scenario)
"If god" just won't cut it Slim. I'm off to bed . .
Your argument that there certainly was no resurrection rests on the assumption there is no God.
Whereas belief in the resurrection rests on the view that God exists and resurrection is a plausible act for such a being.
So I suggest that the argument ultimately turns on whether God exists or not.
Unless you argue that even if God exists then it would have been impossible for him to resurrect Jesus? I doubt you would argue that.
So yes, "if God" is the key question, I would say.
I find that most atheist views, fly out the window if they encounter a spirit being, force, ghost whatever they want to call it and cant explain it scientifically
Where did you find this? How many people did you sample? How do you know their views before and after the event? How do you know it was a spirit or ghost? What are those things made of?
Some will change others will not, no matter what, because they dont want to believe.
I am sure that is true. However, would you expect anyone to change their views without evidence?
Science is like religion, it is dogmatically argued, you have believers and nonbelievers always.
Science is the opposite of dogma.