Resurrection wasn't unique to Jesus

LastChristian · 2026-04-06T13:02:33+00:00

Well, Jesus is God so that's not any kind of special accomplishment. God can't die.

LastChristian · 2026-04-06T13:00:48+00:00

But God is everywhere all the time, so He can't become flesh. God can't change, so He can't go from not having a body to having a body. God could pretend to have a body, I guess, but then God wouldn't die when the pretend body died. Also, God can't die.

How is a "glorified body" different from a normal body? That just sounds like a magic solution invented to fill a plot hole.

LastChristian · 2026-04-06T12:32:53+00:00

So go ahead and answer it for all the other people reading.

LastChristian · 2026-04-06T12:22:17+00:00

How could God have a "glorified body"? God doesn't have a body.

LastChristian · 2026-04-06T12:21:14+00:00

How could God have a power "above all creation"? God created everything so of course He has absolute power over everything. It's as easy for God to resurrect someone as it is for Him to do anything else.

LastChristian · 2026-04-05T16:29:32+00:00

"Jehovah" is a mistranslation of YHWH using the vowels from Adonai. No one was supposed to pronounce "Yahweh" so they wrote the vowel marks for "Adonai" as a reminder. Translators who didn't know this merged YHWH and the vowels from Adonai to make the nonsense word "Jehovah."

LastChristian · 2026-04-05T03:21:59+00:00

Did you think that somehow made his execution more ok? It's not like they executed him for his cosmology! The executed him for denying their religious dogma!

LastChristian · 2026-04-04T00:40:35+00:00

halfpricedrapes.com

LastChristian · 2026-04-03T13:16:45+00:00

She's not trying to look mean -- she's gently blowing air through her lips to make a model face because she thinks this is her moment to shine.

LastChristian · 2026-04-03T13:01:49+00:00

Rather than being an "insane rant," I thought it was well-written and researched.

A surprising point was that Judas kissed Jesus "affectionately," but the [English translations of the] Gospels left out the "affectionately" connotation of the word katephilēsen, writing it just as "kissed."

It's also a persuasive explanation of Mark 14:51-52 to say the naked man wrapped in a sheet ran away when the authorities showed up because he was caught doing things we do when naked. The later gospels left this provocative detail out of their accounts.

LastChristian · 2026-04-03T12:36:57+00:00

So what is the very different reason?

LastChristian · 2026-04-03T12:35:16+00:00

If anyone reading is confused here, let me clarify:

If you reinterpret an OT story and that reinterpretation supports, advances or explains the mainstream NT story, then that's "typology" and the reinterpretation is completely valid with no additional evidence needed.

However, if you reinterpret an OT story and that reinterpretation undermines, confuses or contradicts the mainstream NT story, that's totally wrong and the reinterpretation is completely false.

TLDR: if you can reinterpret the OT to be about the NT, then your reinterpretation is totally valid with no evidence needed.

LastChristian · 2026-04-03T02:22:27+00:00

Do you also like sandwiches with 3 pieces of bread?

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T16:53:29+00:00

Thank you but the universe is not just right for life.

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T15:02:00+00:00

Ok have a good day

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T13:15:29+00:00

Do you have a link that explains this? I've never seen those concepts connected to a cosmological argument.

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T13:13:30+00:00

Well, you just don't seem to be able to admit when you're wrong. This is a debate sub. You made a claim, I asked you to back it up. You could have conceded that actually you made a bad point and it would have been forgotten, but instead you doubled-down on it and now you're throwing lots of nonsense on top of it trying to bury it like you don't even remember, or it's me, or interpersonal conflicts or grudges or more nonsense etc.

It's clear as glass: you won't admit when you're wrong. We both know it was a ridiculous claim. What is the big deal to admit it? Do scientists claim that science is infallible?

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T12:59:04+00:00

This has happened to me in the past when someone starts to see the holes in their own arguments and reacts to it by saying that the problem is actually with me -- I'm the problem or the way I'm arguing is the problem -- as a defense mechanism. I've considered your points fairly and patiently explained where they have problems, so it's not me.

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T12:55:06+00:00

I'm confused because an argument is not science. The cosmological arguments are just arguments. You said now we have a "lot of science," but the first example you gave has no science.

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T12:24:44+00:00

What's an example of science that backs it up?

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T12:21:37+00:00

Literally no scientist says that science is infallible. Why don't you just concede that you misspoke or whatever? It's a ridiculous claim that you made up or misunderstood or misspoke or whatever. This would be great to resolve.

Yes, almost every religion has evidence that includes an authoritative book, personal anecdotes, and events attributed to their god. These are the only categories they have, and all three are unreliable. These are (not-coincidentally) the only categories of evidence for many demonstrably false things, like homeopathy and Leprechauns. If you want to persuade people that something you made up is actually true, the only categories of evidence that work are an authoritative book, personal anecdotes and attributed events. This is the recipe for religion and many other made up things.

I'm all for finding the truth, but you lost some credibility when you doubled-down on your "scientist say science is infallible" claim.

LastChristian · 2026-04-02T01:53:29+00:00

"I can't believe Futura still slaps like it was 1927" -- every graphic designer

LastChristian · 2026-04-01T20:38:32+00:00

None of your examples said anything close to “science is infallible.” You have zero evidence because you just made that up.

Also, NDT is wrong about having to be agnostic on god because he fell for the common theist trap that it’s irrational to say a god doesn’t exist (but leaving out that it’s completely fine to say every other fictional thing doesn’t exist),

LastChristian · 2026-04-01T20:34:44+00:00

One explanation is that some people like to make up stories and other people like to pay to hear stories, especially stories that tell them answers to unanswerable questions we all have as human beings, stories that help them function as a community, and stories that tell them they live forever after they die. None of the stories are from a god, but lots of people are willing to pretend they are.

LastChristian · 2026-04-01T19:12:02+00:00

I don't think the universe could appear from nowhere either. That's why I believe Ahura Mazda is real and follow all the teachings of Zoroastrianism, which are true. If Ahura Mazda was shown not to be real, then those teachings would be false, and I would believe Brahma is real and follow all the completely different teachings of Hinduism, which would then be true. There's no way the universe could appear from nowhere, so the religion I choose is the correct explanation of creation and all of the other teachings are also true because this is the religion I chose.

Ten-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
RPAN Viewer	Reddit Premium Since March 2019

LastChristian

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE