The Resurrection

[Sheldon]

My point was about the plausibility of technological advances, 

The plausibility of something that has happened seems a pointless discussion, wouldn't you agree? We obviously can't know how plausible future events are, without some objective empirical data to examine, you seem to be taking some examples, and then producing a hasty generalisation fallacy. 

So, what I gather from these responses is that you guys concede to the argument that "miracles" like resurrections are, or will be, technologically possible endeavors, 

Nope, this is an oxymoron, since a miracle is defined as something that defies natural or scientific explanation. If something can be explained by science, then it can no longer be called a miracle, by definition. 

 One person's science is another person's miracle.

Nope, this is another false equivalence fallacy, since science and miracle are mutually exclusive, by definition. 

that they are not inconsistent with broader reality, and that your only objection is whether they happened in the Bible.

Objection? That's an odd way to phrase it, obviously I disbelieve unevidenced hearsay, from archaic gospel myths, making claims that are at odds with known scientific facts, why wouldn't I? Do believe them from all other religions and myths?