I find the whole resurrection story implausible for a number of reasons. First of all the whole point of it was to pay for the sins of mankind. The payment was the death of the flesh of Jesus, and he was born in the first place to be sacrificed to the God that caused the pregagncy. Let's be aware that the sin is likely the original sin of Adam and Even so the A&E myth has to be true and real for this whole thing to work. And even if it was true the fall of A&E was arguably caused by God itself. If the creator REALLY wanted obedient humans in the Garden wouldn't it have created them with the capacity for obedience? If God had created Buddhist monks they sure as hell would have had the discipline to be obedient to the rules. But God didn't, it made them easily duped by a temptation it put in the Garden. So the Fall, and the resulting sin, was all a set up.
But it doesn't stop there. The sin that came about got way out of hand apparently. It was so bad that God couldn't redeem the people so decided to kill off the whole planet, even animals. The global flood was supposed to cleanse the planet and create a do-over. Do you follow along here, God either didn't foresee the problems his creation would bring or it is cruel and just wanted to drown a lot of people and animals.
So God saves 7 people. The world starts over, but in a pretty dubious moral situation, if you know the Noah story and his daughters. What happens next? Well damn, sin gets going once again. So the flood fixed nothing, and thousands of years later God decides to remedy things by getting a woman pregnant with a miracle child, and this child was destined to be sacrificed to the God for the sins that God created, and couldn't fix.
So what did the resurrection fix? Well apparently not much. As the story goes Jesus was executed, but then came back to life three days later, so where's the actual sacrifice? It sounds like a huge theological bounced check to me. So if Jesus came back to life when did he actually die, I ask because we hear many Christians expecting Jesus' return. Is he on holiday somewhere, or coming back as a whole new person? This is all Rube Goldberg theology, way too complex, and it doesn't really work.
Realistically the resurrection is absurd. There's no causal benefit to believe in "Jesus the savior" because the payoff supposedly comes after death. So the believer can't test this claim unless, well, you die. Who wants to risk that to find out? Coming back to life is not something that humans do (once brain death occurs). So it's not a plausible thing to believe is true. Now is it a miracle? Why is that a miracle but we see children on the planet starving to death, get diagnosed with deadly genetic diseases, suffer in poverty, etc. If a God wants to perform miracles do it in a way that we can observe, shows mercy and morality, and is practical. But on top of that resurrection isn't rare in historical mythic lore. Pagan gods resurrected. Even Lazarus was resurrected, so why is it unique?
I hear Christians insist Jesus is coming back. Why? If Jesus has to come back what was the point of the last 2000 years? If there's something to fix (yet again) why didn't it get fixed then? This whole theology is one where this God just can't get things done right, nor fixed. The resurrection surely looks to be a huge failure as it served no purpose if Jesus has to come back for another service call.
But it doesn't stop there. The sin that came about got way out of hand apparently. It was so bad that God couldn't redeem the people so decided to kill off the whole planet, even animals. The global flood was supposed to cleanse the planet and create a do-over. Do you follow along here, God either didn't foresee the problems his creation would bring or it is cruel and just wanted to drown a lot of people and animals.
So God saves 7 people. The world starts over, but in a pretty dubious moral situation, if you know the Noah story and his daughters. What happens next? Well damn, sin gets going once again. So the flood fixed nothing, and thousands of years later God decides to remedy things by getting a woman pregnant with a miracle child, and this child was destined to be sacrificed to the God for the sins that God created, and couldn't fix.
So what did the resurrection fix? Well apparently not much. As the story goes Jesus was executed, but then came back to life three days later, so where's the actual sacrifice? It sounds like a huge theological bounced check to me. So if Jesus came back to life when did he actually die, I ask because we hear many Christians expecting Jesus' return. Is he on holiday somewhere, or coming back as a whole new person? This is all Rube Goldberg theology, way too complex, and it doesn't really work.
Realistically the resurrection is absurd. There's no causal benefit to believe in "Jesus the savior" because the payoff supposedly comes after death. So the believer can't test this claim unless, well, you die. Who wants to risk that to find out? Coming back to life is not something that humans do (once brain death occurs). So it's not a plausible thing to believe is true. Now is it a miracle? Why is that a miracle but we see children on the planet starving to death, get diagnosed with deadly genetic diseases, suffer in poverty, etc. If a God wants to perform miracles do it in a way that we can observe, shows mercy and morality, and is practical. But on top of that resurrection isn't rare in historical mythic lore. Pagan gods resurrected. Even Lazarus was resurrected, so why is it unique?
I hear Christians insist Jesus is coming back. Why? If Jesus has to come back what was the point of the last 2000 years? If there's something to fix (yet again) why didn't it get fixed then? This whole theology is one where this God just can't get things done right, nor fixed. The resurrection surely looks to be a huge failure as it served no purpose if Jesus has to come back for another service call.
Last edited: