Challenge

[vanillamoon]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there was a guy about 2000 years ago who was the son of God and did die for all of our sins, and did rise from the dead. In any case, if there was a guy who died and rose again, how would it be possible? How would Jesus' body function with a hole in his chest, after a couple of days of being dead? How can something go from being totally dead to alive and walking around?

Lazarus too, was also raised from the dead, after decaying somewhat too. And there was another instance I heard of in te old Testament somewhere where more people were raised from the ground.

But then, how would it be possible to do so?

Preferrably a better answer than "through God, all things are possible", or "It isn't possible it just didn't happen it's all a sham", please.

[Bugmaster]

Preferrably a better answer than "through God, all things are possible", or "It isn't possible it just didn't happen it's all a sham", please.

You can't have one without the other, though. According to the Bible, Jesus is God, and God can do anything, including resurrection and zombies. If you accept the fact that Jesus of the Bible existed, you have to accept all the rest of it, too. Which is probably why so many people disbelieve in the whole thing.

[McCulloch]

Hey, if you believe in a God that can create humans out of muck then you can believe anything. Once you allow for miracles, anything is possible.

[vanillamoon]

But isn't anyone curious about the magic behind it?

It's not so much IF it is possible, but assuming if it is possible, HOW?

[kens91765]

Preferrably a better answer than "through God, all things are possible", or "It isn't possible it just didn't happen it's all a sham", please.

You can't have one without the other, though. According to the Bible, Jesus is God, and God can do anything, including resurrection and zombies. If you accept the fact that Jesus of the Bible existed, you have to accept all the rest of it, too. Which is probably why so many people disbelieve in the whole thing.

Gee, this seems to be one place where an Atheist and a Christian could agree.

I would elaborate by saying that it is a matter of faith. By faith I accept that the resurrection did occur. I would submit that only by faith could one believe that it did NOT occur. Since it happened 2000 years ago, neither one of us could employ the scientific method to prove or disprove this event. We are left to rely on evidence. But, of course, you may deny such evidence as I accept it. Then it is only by faith that we either accept or deny this claim.

[Bugmaster]

I would elaborate by saying that it is a matter of faith. By faith I accept that the resurrection did occur. I would submit that only by faith could one believe that it did NOT occur.

Wait, huh ? So, you believe that Resurrection did occur, by faith, which means that you have no evidence of the Resurrection. But then, you say that disbelieving in the Resurrection would require faith, which means that it must have overwhelming evidence behind it. So... which is it ?

Since it happened 2000 years ago, neither one of us could employ the scientific method to prove or disprove this event.

That's not true. We can, and do, routinely employ the scientific method in matters of astrophysics, geology, biology, and yes, even history -- and dealing with much vaster time scales, too. I don't see how the Resurrection is any different.

We are left to rely on evidence. But, of course, you may deny such evidence as I accept it. Then it is only by faith that we either accept or deny this claim.

Evidence speaks for itself; it does not require acceptance. For example, we have very good evidence that things tend to fall down. You only have to drop something to see that it's so. The interpretation of that evidence is open for discussion -- it could be due to gravity, or due to the earth gods, or whatever -- but the evidence itself is fairly obvious.

So... what's the evidence for the Resurrection ?

[kens91765]

Wait, huh ? So, you believe that Resurrection did occur, by faith, which means that you have no evidence of the Resurrection. But then, you say that disbelieving in the Resurrection would require faith, which means that it must have overwhelming evidence behind it. So... which is it ?

It is kind of both. Faith does not require perfect evidence. Faith is not proof. If we had absolute proof, we would not need faith. My faith is in the resurrection being true. Otherwise Christianity is false. Your faith is in it being false. Otherwise, Atheism is false. But we arrive at our respective positions by faith without perfect evidence.

This reminds me of the movie "Contact" starring Jodie Foster and based on a book by Carl Sagen. Did you see it? I am not sure how much the Hollywood folks twisted his words. I never read the book. Sagen died before the film was filming was complete. However, I found it surprising that in the end, Jodie had next to no evidence to back up her claim of a fantastic voyage through space and time. In the end, the science couldn't help. Faith was required. I was amazed that Sagen, of all people, would write something like that.

Since it happened 2000 years ago, neither one of us could employ the scientific method to prove or disprove this event.

That's not true. We can, and do, routinely employ the scientific method in matters of astrophysics, geology, biology, and yes, even history -- and dealing with much vaster time scales, too. I don't see how the Resurrection is any different.

Really? I will state that on August 15th, 1999 I had a ribeye steak for dinner. What scientific procedure could you devise to prove absolutely either that this is true or false. On what basis could you call me a liar if I said this was true?

We are left to rely on evidence. But, of course, you may deny such evidence as I accept it. Then it is only by faith that we either accept or deny this claim.

Evidence speaks for itself; it does not require acceptance. For example, we have very good evidence that things tend to fall down. You only have to drop something to see that it's so. The interpretation of that evidence is open for discussion -- it could be due to gravity, or due to the earth gods, or whatever -- but the evidence itself is fairly obvious.

If you drop something while way out in space and if doesn't fall down, does this mean there is no such thing as gravity? If you weren't there to witness the resurrection, is this proof positive that it didn't happen? If two witness say nearly the same thing at a trial but differ slightly in minor details, does this mean that the evidence of their testimony should be thrown out?

What we are left with is the testimony of others who were there. Unfortunately, they have all died. So, we are left with their written testimony as recorded in a collection of ancient books called the Bible. You may choose not to believe their testimony. I choose to believe it. Since you cannot produce the dead bones of Jesus and I am not able to summon him to your house, both of us are operating by faith. Neither one of us would have the basis to call the other a liar.

[micatala]

If you accept the fact that Jesus of the Bible existed, you have to accept all the rest of it, too.

I don't see that this follows. One could certainly accept that the person referred to as Jesus in the Bible existed, but that some of what is written about him in the Bible is not true (eg. he did miracles, he was raised from the dead, etc.).

[Bugmaster]

I don't see that this follows. One could certainly accept that the person referred to as Jesus in the Bible existed, but that some of what is written about him in the Bible is not true (eg. he did miracles, he was raised from the dead, etc.).

Fair enough, but the OP was talking about The Resurrection. I don't think it makes sense to accept just that, and not the rest of the Bible.

[mishmash]

Okay, for the sake of argument, let's assume that there was a guy about 2000 years ago who was the son of God and did die for all of our sins, and did rise from the dead. In any case, if there was a guy who died and rose again, how would it be possible? How would Jesus' body function with a hole in his chest, after a couple of days of being dead? How can something go from being totally dead to alive and walking around?

Lazarus too, was also raised from the dead, after decaying somewhat too. And there was another instance I heard of in te old Testament somewhere where more people were raised from the ground.

But then, how would it be possible to do so?

Preferrably a better answer than "through God, all things are possible", or "It isn't possible it just didn't happen it's all a sham", please.

Sufficiently advanced nano-technology would work. The nanobots had memory of the original state of the body, so they reconstructed it. Jesus' nanobots were better programmed than most people's, so they could do other miracles, converting water into wine and multiplying the cellular structure of bread and fish out of thin air. Since Lazarus had had previous contact with Jesus, we can assume they sent radio communication to inform him when he was dead, at which point Jesus made them reproduce enough to regenerate Lazarus' body.

Another possibility would be a localized time warp that rewound the body to a previous state. Perhaps the ability to manipulate time in this way gave Jesus the ability to walk through walls and levitate after the resurrection as well.

Please note that the question was specifically NOT "did it happen?" but "how could it have happened?" I'm saying, there are interesting scientific possibilities here. Anybody?