How exactly did Jesus resurrection happen❓

[The Nice Centurion]

If a world religion claimed that 2000 years ago someone built a time machine, then people would fall over their own feet to constantly ask: "How excactly did this time machine work?"

But now we have in the bible a a main protagonist resurrect from being dead and no one, neither Christian nor Sceptic ever, bothers to ask:
"How exactly did Jesus resurrection happen?"

Marvel fans are known to intensively debate questions like:
"How exactly does Spidermans power of sticking to walls and ceilings work?"

But no one on earth gives a damn about how exactly worked "The Resurrection"!


My first question for debate: Why is that so


Now lets first see what "resurrection" is supposed to mean.

First: A resurrected being in the bible is not undead like Count Dracula as a Vampyre, who has no biological bodily functions anymore and is kept undead alive by magic alone.

A truly resurrected being is supposed to have regained live and full biological bodily functions out of the state of being truly dead.
And he is therefore not being kept alive by magic alone, though magic m i g h t have triggered his resurrection.

Everyone agrees that Jesus is supposed to have been "really dead" ! By current medical definition that does mean already brain dead.

This is the state anyone must reach to honestly resurrect.
For we have semi dead people waking up from clinical death all the time and no one is claiming miracle of resurrection for them.

But lets see what naturally happens after brain death:
"Decomposition (of the brain) often occurs within minutes after death, which is quicker than other body tissues, likely because the brain is about 80% water. Rotting starts in normal ambient temperature at about 3 days, and the brain is essentially vaporized within 5-10 years."

Said all that we can begin trying to find out how Jesus resurrection might have happened in detail.

Bible gives a hint by intensively implicating that Jesus resurrection was triggered by magic.

Bible explains that Jesus died sometime P.M. during first day, was dead the whole second day and resurrected on third day before daybreak.
(Lets say he was dead for somewhat 36 hours.)

Now, said all that; What is possible?

Magic, as the Great Joe Quesada stated when he destroyed the Spiderman comic series for the fans, must not be explained.

But what that magic did do can be researched.

Did magic stop Jesus brain and therefore his body too from decomposing, kept it in a somewhat timeless state and make him arise 36 hours later?

Did Jesus naturally decompose and magic made him re-decompose later to let him be able to better resurrect?

And then we have still the problem that Jesus died supposedly on the cross because fatal hurts and woundings to his body caused his heart to stop.

How therefore did his body compensate this fatal wounds, to still be able to resurrect?

I will stop here explaining, starting the debate with the second and main question:


How exactly did Jesus resurrection happen

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #10]
That wasnt in doubt.

What I seek answers for is;
1) Why is no one interested to know how it happened?
Even in this free and critical forum the answers come sparse.
" Most important fact in history ." I have heard christians say.
" If it didnt happen than our belief is for nothing! " I have read from Paul of Tarsos.
Christians and sceptics LOVE to debate the (im)possibility if it happened or not.
Countless works have been published about "The Resurrection".

And everyone avoids like plague to try and find out the mechanics of it? Really?


2) So has anyone a theory to share about his 5 cents on the mechanics of TR ?

[bluegreenearth]

It's possible that something happens even if we don't fully understand how. Consciousness exist but scientists have not been able to explain how or why. There's also plenty of evidence for UFOs while scientists can not explain all of them.

Yes, there are events that appear to happen but are not fully understood. Where I'm confused is when appeals to other mysteries are offered as explanations for those events and claimed to have the most explanatory power. In the case of UFOs, for instance, appealing to extraterrestrial alien technology may be a possible explanation but does it have the most explanatory power? From my perspective, an appeal to extraterrestrial alien technology has almost no explanatory power because it doesn't really explain observations of UFOs more reasonably than any other imagined cause that cannot be demonstrated to exist in reality. An imagined cause that cannot be demonstrated to exist in reality is indistinguishable in terms of explanatory power from any other imaginary cause that doesn't exist in reality. Therefore, it is completely unhelpful to propose a cause that cannot be demonstrated to exist in reality as the explanation for an observed phenomenon. It is more intellectually honest to leave the matter unexplained until such a time that a proposed cause can be demonstrated to exist in reality.

[AgnosticBoy]

It's possible that something happens even if we don't fully understand how. Consciousness exist but scientists have not been able to explain how or why. There's also plenty of evidence for UFOs while scientists can not explain all of them.

Yes, there are events that appear to happen but are not fully understood. Where I'm confused is when appeals to other mysteries are offered as explanations for those events and claimed to have the most explanatory power. In the case of UFOs, for instance, appealing to extraterrestrial alien technology may be a possible explanation but does it have the most explanatory power? From my perspective, an appeal to extraterrestrial alien technology has almost no explanatory power because it doesn't really explain observations of UFOs more reasonably than any other imagined cause that cannot be demonstrated to exist in reality. An imagined cause that cannot be demonstrated to exist in reality is indistinguishable in terms of explanatory power from any other imaginary cause that doesn't exist in reality. Therefore, it is completely unhelpful to propose a cause that cannot be demonstrated to exist in reality as the explanation for an observed phenomenon. It is more intellectually honest to leave the matter unexplained until such a time that a proposed cause can be demonstrated to exist in reality.

I agree with your point. In fact, I recently came out as a believer in Jesus's resurrection not to long ago, BUT, I also maintained that accepting that does not mean that I also have to accept all of the supernatural/theological baggage that comes with it. At the least, I wanted to stick with what can be or what was observed (as opposed to also understanding or explaining it).

Goose, who is one of the forum members here, gave me some explanations that involved God being behind it, and I respected his ability for arguing that out. Ultimately, I saw it as unjustified. Also, on the skeptics side, a lot of skeptical explanations tends to involve ignoring certain parts of the observation, and I also see that as problematic. An explanation should be able to explain all of the observation as is, instead of just certain aspects of it that support your side or worldview.

[AgnosticBoy]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #10]
That wasnt in doubt.

What I seek answers for is;
1) Why is no one interested to know how it happened?
Even in this free and critical forum the answers come sparse.
" Most important fact in history ." I have heard christians say.
" If it didnt happen than our belief is for nothing! " I have read from Paul of Tarsos.
Christians and sceptics LOVE to debate the (im)possibility if it happened or not.
Countless works have been published about "The Resurrection".

And everyone avoids like plague to try and find out the mechanics of it? Really?


2) So has anyone a theory to share about his 5 cents on the mechanics of TR ?

Those are excellent questions to focus on, and with that I'd also want to know how can we even go about answering them. Can we use science? Is history sufficient? If any of the two, then to what degree? The best option for me is to remain agnostic about the cause, while at least being open to accepting what was observed. I think historical evidence is sufficient for dealing with the observation part, and I do accept that Jesus rose from the dead based on historical grounds. Why it happened or how seems to be beyond my reach of knowing.

[JehovahsWitness]

I agree with your point. In fact, I recently came out as a believer in Jesus's resurrection not to long ago, BUT, I also maintained that I only accept that he rose from the dead. That does not mean that I have to accept all of the supernatural/theological baggage that comes with it, like getting into the cause and explanation for it. At the least, I wanted to stick with what can be or what was observed (as opposed to also understanding or explaining it).

It seems to me that one cannot claim a man returned from the dead 2,000 years ago without that entailing some "supernatural baggage".

SUPERNATURAL

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

Unless you are claiming Jesus disciples had some "scientific understanding" that scientists have yet to access, by definition accepting Jesus resurrection is accepting a supernatural event and all that entails.



JW

[TRANSPONDER]

HOW DID JESUS RESURRECTION HAPPEN ?

A similar question was asked by first century Christans as recorded in the bible. Below is the anwser provided by the Apostle Paul...

1 CORINTHIANS 15:35

Nevertheless, someone will say: “How are the dead to be raised up? Yes, with what sort of body are they coming?”+ 36 You unreasonable person! What you sow is not made alive unless first it dies.+ 37 And as for what you sow, you sow, not the body that will develop, but just a bare grain, whether of wheat or of some other kind of seed; 38 but God gives it a body just as it has pleased him, and gives to each of the seeds its own body. ... And there are heavenly bodies+ and earthly bodies;+ but the glory of the heavenly bodies is one sort, and that of the earthly bodies is a different sort. [...] 42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised up in incorruption.+ 43 It is sown in dishonor; it is raised up in glory.+ It is sown in weakness; it is raised up in power.+ 44 It is sown a physical body; it is raised up a spiritual body.

So Paul compared the process of a resurrection to that of germination if a seed. If someone understands how the information contained in the DNA of a seed can result in a plant or a tree, then they can understand to a degree how all the information of a human can be transfered to a new body. Humans theorize about the transfer of consciousness and 'mind uploading' but the bible presents the transfert of a persons entire memory, consciousness and personality into a new body.

In biblical language this is referred to as the miracle of resurrection .



RELATED POSTS

Did Jesus post resurrection body carry the wounds inflicted on it during his execution ?
viewtopic.php?p=967900#p967900

Why did Jesus' disciples not recognise him after his resurrection?
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 49#p967749

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE CONDITION OF THE DEAD , RESURRECTION and ... MIRACLES

That doesn't help much as you 'generation of a seed' is an analogy n and not a very good one. It might be better compared to a comet appearing or a lightning -strike, but even those are not unique and that's where Paul's parallel fails because he was talking about the resurrection at the Last days and Jesus' one - off immediate rising was not, I think, the same thing.

Good god man.I had a look at some of your linked discussions. In the one I looked at you deny that Jesus bore the wounds of crucifixion. But the account says he did. How can you possibly claim he didn't?

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #10]
That wasnt in doubt.

What I seek answers for is;
1) Why is no one interested to know how it happened?
Even in this free and critical forum the answers come sparse.
" Most important fact in history ." I have heard christians say.
" If it didnt happen than our belief is for nothing! " I have read from Paul of Tarsos.
Christians and sceptics LOVE to debate the (im)possibility if it happened or not.
Countless works have been published about "The Resurrection".

And everyone avoids like plague to try and find out the mechanics of it? Really?


2) So has anyone a theory to share about his 5 cents on the mechanics of TR ?

Those are excellent questions to focus on, and with that I'd also want to know how can we even go about answering them. Can we use science? Is history sufficient? If any of the two, then to what degree? The best option for me is to remain agnostic about the cause, while at least being open to accepting what was observed. I think historical evidence is sufficient for dealing with the observation part, and I do accept that Jesus rose from the dead based on historical grounds. Why it happened or how seems to be beyond my reach of knowing.

My problem with that approach is that we assume (a priori) that the account is true. If all the accounts agreed as much as -say - the crucifixions, then there would still be discussion, but they do not; they disagree almost totally. So the question should not be how it happened, but whether it happened.

[AgnosticBoy]

My problem with that approach is that we assume (a priori) that the account is true. If all the accounts agreed as much as -say - the crucifixions, then there would still be discussion, but they do not; they disagree almost totally. So the question should not be how it happened, but whether it happened.

Your point makes it seem as though the Gospels would need to have some type of external corroboration in order to be accepted by historians. That isn't the case. Unlike science, historians don't accept or reject accounts simply based on external corroboration (or lack thereof), but they also go based on the internal details. They use various criteria, like the criterion of dissimilarity, to evaluate those internal details. That's what historians use to establish validity in the Gospels.

As for the inconsistencies, sure that can be a problem, but I question if they are enough to call the entire account into question. For instance, what type of inconsistencies are we talking about? If it's something minor, like the time of the day that Jesus resurrected, does that warrant discarding the entire account? If two witnesses tell us slightly different accounts, does that automatically mean that they are lying or that we can't arrive at the truth somehow, or to some degree?

[AgnosticBoy]

I agree with your point. In fact, I recently came out as a believer in Jesus's resurrection not to long ago, BUT, I also maintained that I only accept that he rose from the dead. That does not mean that I have to accept all of the supernatural/theological baggage that comes with it, like getting into the cause and explanation for it. At the least, I wanted to stick with what can be or what was observed (as opposed to also understanding or explaining it).

It seems to me that one cannot claim a man returned from the dead 2,000 years ago without that entailing some "supernatural baggage".

SUPERNATURAL

(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature

Unless you are claiming Jesus disciples had some "scientific understanding" that scientists have yet to access, by definition accepting Jesus resurrection is accepting a supernatural event and all that entails.



JW

I agree. The only supernatural aspect I'd be willing to accept is what is observable. If I can't observe it or its effects, and especially if I can't explain it, then generally I remain agnostic on those aspects.

[The Nice Centurion]

My problem with that approach is that we assume (a priori) that the account is true. If all the accounts agreed as much as -say - the crucifixions, then there would still be discussion, but they do not; they disagree almost totally. So the question should not be how it happened, but whether it happened.

You are argumenting a beloved error here.

Sherlock Holmes (Pseudo) scientists try to riddle questions like: "Were Holmes and Watson a Homosexualist couple? Was Holmes in truth a female in disguise?" et cetera

Mickey Mouse Universe (Pseudo)scientists tackle questions like "Why turned Donald Duck out to be suchn a loser in live?" et cetera

The thruthfulness of the SH storys or the MMU has of course to be assumed a priory to have the debate.

And in case of The Resurrection Account we even know that almost all christians believe it to be really true.

Sceptics can assume it to be true for the sake of argument. Even as a way to argue against its plausibility.

We may call that The Resurrection Account pseudoscience if you like.

So my questions still stand.

[TRANSPONDER]

My problem with that approach is that we assume (a priori) that the account is true. If all the accounts agreed as much as -say - the crucifixions, then there would still be discussion, but they do not; they disagree almost totally. So the question should not be how it happened, but whether it happened.

Your point makes it seem as though the Gospels would need to have some type of external corroboration in order to be accepted by historians. That isn't the case. Unlike science, historians don't accept or reject accounts simply based on external corroboration (or lack thereof), but they also go based on the internal details. They use various criteria, like the criterion of dissimilarity, to evaluate those internal details. That's what historians use to establish validity in the Gospels.

As for the inconsistencies, sure that can be a problem, but I question if they are enough to call the entire account into question. For instance, what type of inconsistencies are we talking about? If it's something minor, like the time of the day that Jesus resurrected, does that warrant discarding the entire account? If two witnesses tell us slightly different accounts, does that automatically mean that they are lying or that we can't arrive at the truth somehow, or to some degree?

Yes, the gospels do need to have enough consistency to be credited. I have pointed up some areas where there is not only consistency, but support by 'embarrassment'. e.g if it was just made up the Jews would have stoned Jesus not the Romans do a crucifixion, which the writers then have to explain away.

But with the Nativities it is mustual destruction. They are quite different stories. That precedent made, yes the resurrection is almost as bad. Your point 'enough to call the entire account into question'yes, absolutely. And I'm happy to go through them. My old flip about 'one angel or two'is the typical 'time of day' excuse. No, the whole point is that the differences are mutually destructive. It is a hoary and quite unacceptable excuse that they are minor things. And quite aside from 'if the resurrection goes, it all goes', if fabrication is shown in principle, then the others that might be explained also go. Like the death of Judas, or the rejection at Nazareth, Lucan parables (oh yes), transfiguration, sermon material inclusive....and most of the rest of the Book.

incidentally, if and when we discuss this and the serious nature of these contradictions is shown, I'd like to know where this 'minor inconsistencies' excuse comes from. It seems a universal excuse even from those who know the Bible backwards. It can't be they don't compare passages. They must know. Why is this near - lie put about?