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

[POI]

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.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline. For starters, we do not know who wrote what, and when? It's also highly possible that even if 'Mark' was an alleged direct eyewitness account, that the other 2-3 Gospels borrowed directly from what was already written. Leaving it logical to instead assume we are to base our faith/trust in a singular unverified and anonymous supernatural claimed event. And why is it so important to know the author(s)? Because such an event would be further believable, if told by a direct eyewitness, as opposed to secondhand information, (just for starters). We do not know if the author of "Mark" got his information from secondary tales/oral tradition, or from a direct witness(es), or other? I think later believers realized this.... Which is why we have some theists here arguing for 'The Shroud', which was later exposed as a fraud. Having physical relics certainly adds to the validity of a claim.

Further, do historians consider the Gospel(s) "historical" anyways?

[boatsnguitars]

This question is a "How" Question - which the religious tell us is not what they do. They do "Why" - apparently.

Of course, "Why" is really easy to answer when you invent the reason...

I think this skit shows how it happened:


They broke open some wine the night before and decided....

[JehovahsWitness]

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.

There is a difference between that which is "observable" and that which you have personaly observed. That the pilot about to fly the plane you are seated in has the experience and qualifications not to kill you and your whole family is "observable" ; however in all probability you personally have not observed any of the above and you fasten you seatbelt entirely on faith that those that observed were reliable and truthful and the system of transmission of those truths is uncorrupted and fonctions as intended. You may claim for appearances your position is "agnistic" but in reality when you stake your life on something you have taken a positive position as to its truthfullness.

We all live and die by "faith", the only real question is : "Who and/or what are you going to put your faith in?"

[TRANSPONDER]

Of course, but on what basis is that trust? Because of science and technology which one can understand?It isn'ttoo difficult.And trust (which one can check) about airline maintenance and safety practices. That is not the same as Faithclaims - 'trust me'. And that comes down to whether we can trust the Bible, and specifically (for Christianity) the resurrections.

When I say the veracity of that central tenet of Christianity and treating the records as though witness - accounts it the only real point that matters, it isn't a personal obsession, but detecting the case -breaker, one way or the other.If the resurrection -accounts are reliable, Christianity has a case; if not, it has not.

[AgnosticBoy]

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?

I have seen a good sample of your views from this debate here. One response to you stood out to me, which is this one,

All I have to do, at this point, is counter argue that other ancient texts, thought to be generally reliable, also have contradictions, minor inaccuracies, omissions, etc. We are then left with either throwing out most of ancient history or accepting the Gospels along with other ancient texts as generally reliable.

I think there is some gray area when it comes to the degree of inconsistencies, in terms of amount and severity, that would be needed to conclude that an account is unreliable. And because of that, that opens up the door for people to be criticized for being biased by treating the Bible as a special case (treating it different than how other accounts would be treated). This could take the form of Christians applying a different standard to make the Bible look good, or skeptics engaging in a very high level of skepticism to make it look bad.

Sure, very few would disagree with the fact that the Gospels contain inconsistencies, but I think your conclusion goes too far, and falls into the bad side of the skeptic camp. In my view, Goose did a good job addressing some of your points. Because of that, I don't see that you have a rock solid case.

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

Maybe we can start here and see where this goes? The ultimate claim is that Jesus rose from the grave and returned to say 'hi' to some of his followers. Outside of the Gospel'(s) say-so, do we have any corroboration of such an event? Before we answer, let us reflect... "Mark" makes the claim that the tomb was found empty (Mark 16:8). This is where the story line presumably ends.

But wait, later writings then suggest Jesus did come back to say 'hi', (in Mark 16:9-20). Then there is "Luke/Matthew", which show signs of direct borrowing/copying from one-another. Then comes "John", which adds even more 'supernatural-ness' to the storyline.

As I brought up in my response to TRANSPONDER, a lot of the inconsistencies that you can bring up have probably already been debated on. I don't intend to go through those one by one, especially since I see a bigger problem with some of the skeptical perspectives and expectations, and how those lead to perceived inconsistencies (John explains it this way, Mark another way counting as an inconsistency) or lead to the view that the Gospels are historically useless.

So how do we account for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospel accounts? A lot of the problem stems from our expectations. If we expect a level of historical precision that the Gospels didn’t intend to provide, we’re going to run into problems. The truth is that it’s completely normal for ancient (and modern) historical accounts to summarize, paraphrase, omit details, and explain events in a way that highlights their specific points and perspectives.
...
It’s important to point out right off the bat that each of the Gospel writers had a particular intention and focus. Each of them set out to accentuate a specific and unique portrait of Jesus. Through their individual gospels—Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—focused on particular elements of Christ’s ministry and message that they felt illuminate their narrative.

Source: https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/bibl ... -explained

For starters, we do not know who wrote what, and when? It's also highly possible that even if 'Mark' was an alleged direct eyewitness account, that the other 2-3 Gospels borrowed directly from what was already written. Leaving it logical to instead assume we are to base our faith/trust in a singular unverified and anonymous supernatural claimed event. And why is it so important to know the author(s)? Because such an event would be further believable, if told by a direct eyewitness, as opposed to secondhand information, (just for starters). We do not know if the author of "Mark" got his information from secondary tales/oral tradition, or from a direct witness(es), or other? I think later believers realized this.... Which is why we have some theists here arguing for 'The Shroud', which was later exposed as a fraud. Having physical relics certainly adds to the validity of a claim.

Some of your standards here fall into a type of anachronistic fallacy. They would not be practical for ancient history unless you discard/ignore much of that history. Here's a better perspective:

Our concept of the author as an individual is what underpins our concern with authenticity, originality, and intellectual property. The ancient Near East had little place for such notions.

They did not place the same value on originality. To them, an author does not invent his text but merely arranges it; the content of a text exists first, before being laid down in writing.

Source: Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible By Karel Van der Toorn pg. 47

Further, do historians consider the Gospel(s) "historical" anyways?

From my research, most historians consider the Gospels to be closest to the genre of ancient biographies.

I've relied on a lot of quotations more than I usually do because I'm not an expert here. But at the least, I think that my points demonstrate that there good and reasonable alternative explanations to counter much of skeptical outlook by some members here.

[POI]

So how do we account for the apparent discrepancies in the Gospel accounts? A lot of the problem stems from our expectations. If we expect a level of historical precision that the Gospels didn’t intend to provide, we’re going to run into problems. The truth is that it’s completely normal for ancient (and modern) historical accounts to summarize, paraphrase, omit details, and explain events in a way that highlights their specific points and perspectives.

None of this addresses what I stated prior. Again, Mark is supposed to end at 16:8. The earliest copiies demonstrate this. Someone comes in later and adds more. The mere fact that we have copies early enough to attest to this, is exactly why you read the excuses you read below:

Footnotes
Mark 16:8 Some manuscripts have the following ending between verses 8 and 9, and one manuscript has it after verse 8 (omitting verses 9-20): Then they quickly reported all these instructions to those around Peter. After this, Jesus himself also sent out through them from east to west the sacred and imperishable proclamation of eternal salvation. Amen.

Source: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV

*********************

You also failed to mention that other Gospels copied, word for word, some of the other Gospels. If each writer, was to write from their OWN perspectives, then you would NOT see this. And it's one thing to bring one's own perspective. But it's another to give contradictory claims:

Source:

I'll stop here.....

[AgnosticBoy]

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.

There is a difference between that which is "observable" and that which you have personaly observed. That the pilot about to fly the plane you are seated in has the experience and qualifications not to kill you and your whole family is "observable" ; however in all probability you personally have not observed any of the above and you fasten you seatbelt entirely on faith that those that observed were reliable and truthful and the system of transmission of those truths is uncorrupted and fonctions as intended. You may claim for appearances your position is "agnistic" but in reality when you stake your life on something you have taken a positive position as to its truthfullness.

We all live and die by "faith", the only real question is : "Who and/or what are you going to put your faith in?"

Sure, I don't deny that I rely on faith, at times. If I accept that the non-observable parts of Jesus's resurrection account (that he descended into Hell, that God was involved, etc), then by that standard, I'd have to accept all other ancient stories that have the same type of details. That would be a problem, of course.

My point about observation is my working solution to dealing with supernatural events from a historical standpoint. The standard right now by many historians is just to ignore those details, even if they have the strongest historical evidence backing them (like multiple attestation, independent sources, etc). I view that as being analogous to how scientists have ignored UFOs despite there being good evidence for them. Now if we can at least accept that they exist because they have been observed, just as some scientists and governments/military are beginning to do today, then why can't we do the same for other extraordinary events that are also well documented? Why can't that standard also be extended to extraordinary events that occurred in the past that were also well documented/witnessed by those in that past time, like say Jesus's resurrection and those hundreds of witnesses?!

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to AgnosticBoy in post #28]
Because that standard never existed. It got just dreamed up by you.

No one besides Erik von Daeniken & Copycats & fanatics accepts spaceship UFOS as a given, because proven by some blurry photos of lightbulbs.

Christianity is the Erik von Daeniken for Jesus, even though best evidence points to Jesus Mythicism - That he never existed.

[boatsnguitars]

...you fasten you seatbelt entirely on faith....

No, because if you don't they won't let you fly. Plus, I've been in air turbulence where I've seen people leave the seat.

Regardless, I love how Theists can rifle off any number of good reasons (observation) for why we have trust in things. They just never seem to apply that standard to their Faith.

Name me one person who converted to a religion that they had no idea about in the first place - and got everything right about that religion: as in, a true revelation from God. Of course, Christians will cite the character Paul in the fairy tale they call the Bible... Then they will say, "Oh, you just reject that!"

Of course! It's not credible. It doesn't even meet the real standard JW is allowing for other things.