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

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #60]

Well, yes. 'Miracles don't happen' is actually a fair skeptical standpoint as the burden of proof is on the claimant for this or that miracle. Even if they try to make it 'It is true until the skeptics 100% disprove it". That is not how the logic of the materialist default works.

The mechanics in the sense of making the miracle look credible, even if nobody can even start to suggest how it was done, is fair. But just pointing to this or that Holy Book, or even ancient historical records, is not of itself going to validate the claim. The 'mechanics'showing that resurrection miracle probably never happened (which is my pitch) is a very fair argument, as an example.

[1213]

...
Smart and rational guy. I don't know if he is still theist. It doesn't matter. His doubts and reasoning bear attention. Especially about what "Following Jesus" means.

It is very sad that many people don't know what Christian means. Bible tells a Christian is a disciple of Jesus. And a disciples of Jesus is a person who remains in the word of Jesus. It seems to me that the person on the video was never really a Christian, by Biblical definition.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

[TRANSPONDER]

...
Smart and rational guy. I don't know if he is still theist. It doesn't matter. His doubts and reasoning bear attention. Especially about what "Following Jesus" means.

It is very sad that many people don't know what Christian means. Bible tells a Christian is a disciple of Jesus. And a disciples of Jesus is a person who remains in the word of Jesus. It seems to me that the person on the video was never really a Christian, by Biblical definition.

…The disciples were first called Christians in Antioch.
Acts 11:26
Jesus therefore said to those Jews who had believed him, “If you remain in my word, then you are truly my disciples. You will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
John 8:31-32

It is one of the reasons why one should reject Christianity, the Bible and all its' teachings, becvause they accuse each other of not really being Christians. It is also a disgusting, cheap and malicious smear to tell one who was a devoted and convinced Christian who fought to validate it to themselves but could not (happened time and again) that they were never Really a christian.

I may find a video to explain what a foul and dirty shot that is as there are limits to what can be posted here.

I may do a few of them. Not just because they show what a shallow, self-regarding and nasty accusation it is but to show the process. Initial sucking into church, ongoing indoctrination and total dedication until they start to study and then it falls apart.



I know - it's a doctrinal thing. Anyone who leaves could never have been for real in the first place.It's a personal (or doctrinal) coping device like is anyone teaches a different doctrine must not be in touch with God's Truth no matter how much sense it makes.

But to me it shows how Christianity doesn't make bad people good - it makes good people bad.



it is - I reckon - a way of dismissing the whole matter of doubt and question. If they had really been a Christian - they nevdr would have left.



But there's the thing. How does one tell? Pastors have left and all the time they were not 'Really' Christian.? Deceivers, false prophets, antichrists as John says. But then, if people are in contact with God,why doesn't anyone get tipped off 'this guy is not a real Christian?' Isn't it showing it's all their own beliefs and rationalisations, nothing from a god. And if we get nothing from a god, it might as well not be there.

[TRANSPONDER]

This is a worthwhile watch, too. Mainly I noted the term 'Deconstruction' rather than deconversion. But right away these dudes are dismissing all these deprogrammed former Christians as 'never really in the faith'. I'll be generous; this isn't just a smear but supposing they believe once in the faith, nothing can deprogram you. But I doubt they read any deconversion -stories which show fervent and active Christians who deconverted because they read the Holy Book with an open mind. which may mean they weren't n 'Faith' which means the ability to not listen to anything that questions it.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #63]
But this is mainly an evangelical point of view.


Catholics solve same problem in a different way;
"Once a baptized catholic - Always a baptized catholic !!!"
(Infant baptizide and enforced baptizide included.)

This means from a catholic point of view everyone once baptized catholic, whatever he does he remains a true catholic christian.

For example if someone converts from catholicism to islamist terrorism and blows himself up during sunday service in a filled church he still died as a true catholic christian.


LDS church officially forbids all believers to touch anti-mormon stuff. Nothing may be read that isnt pro LDS.

Magical underwear protect us from Fawn Brodie

Jehovahs Witnesses have direct orders from their high priests to flee and never concur if someone should debate them into a corner

But all denominations shake hands with atheists worldwide when it comes to do whatever necessary to avoid research/debate about THE MECHANICS OF THE RESURRECTION

[1213]

It is one of the reasons why one should reject Christianity, the Bible and all its' teachings, becvause they accuse each other of not really being Christians. It is also a disgusting, cheap and malicious smear to tell one who was a devoted and convinced Christian who fought to validate it to themselves but could not (happened time and again) that they were never Really a christian.

I think the matter is a simply an issue of what is true and what is not. Bible gives the definition and if person doesn't fit to that definition, he is not a Christian. To be offended of truth is ridiculous. That could be compared to that you would be offended that people don't see you as the president of U.S. even when you would insist that you are.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #63]
But this is mainly an evangelical point of view.


Catholics solve same problem in a different way;
"Once a baptized catholic - Always a baptized catholic !!!"
(Infant baptizide and enforced baptizide included.)

This means from a catholic point of view everyone once baptized catholic, whatever he does he remains a true catholic christian.

For example if someone converts from catholicism to islamist terrorism and blows himself up during sunday service in a filled church he still died as a true catholic christian.


LDS church officially forbids all believers to touch anti-mormon stuff. Nothing may be read that isnt pro LDS.

Magical underwear protect us from Fawn Brodie

Jehovahs Witnesses have direct orders from their high priests to flee and never concur if someone should debate them into a corner

But all denominations shake hands with atheists worldwide when it comes to do whatever necessary to avoid research/debate about THE MECHANICS OF THE RESURRECTION

The religions can make any claims they like. They are not binding. I recall a scandal (which has been quickly smothered) about LDS people going around and baptizing dead people into the Mormon church without permission or even telling anyone. I believe they are the only ones to do that but other religions of course grab babies and suck them into the indoctrination machine and try to keep them there. That's why they would love to shut atheists up, and down, too.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is one of the reasons why one should reject Christianity, the Bible and all its' teachings, becvause they accuse each other of not really being Christians. It is also a disgusting, cheap and malicious smear to tell one who was a devoted and convinced Christian who fought to validate it to themselves but could not (happened time and again) that they were never Really a christian.

I think the matter is a simply an issue of what is true and what is not. Bible gives the definition and if person doesn't fit to that definition, he is not a Christian. To be offended of truth is ridiculous. That could be compared to that you would be offended that people don't see you as the president of U.S. even when you would insist that you are.

Thank you for appealing to evidence and logic. Faithclaims you apparently say above mean nothing. NOTHING. Evidence and reason is all. Why would anyone think they are President? Where is the evidence?

What is in the Bible is on evidence (I would argue) a Christian is one who beleives in Jesus as the resurrected Messiah.

I wouldn't even accept the Jefforsonian version as one who follows the moral indications without believing the resurrection.

Apart from that, doctrinal differences don't matter. In my Book they are Christians, whether they believe in Hellfire or not.

[The Nice Centurion]

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.

Then, to make your like feel more comfortable, I might rephrase; Please try to find an explanation for the s u p p o s e d mechanics of The Resurrection.

We have a chance of two out of three that Jesus never existed.

As a believer must claim a resurrection miracle performed by someone who most probably not even mastered the miracle of being an alive person, this kills outright any case for easter.

Still I am reading now book: THE EMPTY TOMB chapter 2; "Have we sufficient historical evidence for the resurrection?"

These guys do everything to be able to claim excellent research, but wouldnt touch research about the Mechanics of the Resurrection.

[The Nice Centurion]

Thank you for appealing to evidence and logic. Faithclaims you apparently say above mean nothing. NOTHING. Evidence and reason is all. Why would anyone think they are President? Where is the evidence?

Many MAGA people and probably the Donald himself believe Trump to be still President and claim that there is evidence aplenty that Biden cheated.
Thats why they call the Donald "President Trump" on Twitter!
But that means that after his winning the presidency 2024 he will serve a third time, which is against the law. Oh bother.

What is in the Bible is on evidence (I would argue) a Christian is one who beleives in Jesus as the resurrected Messiah.

I say a christian is anyone who got baptized.

Including Infant baptizide, enforced baptizide, baptizide by desire, baptizide by blood and baptizide of the dead.

I wouldn't even accept the Jefforsonian version as one who follows the moral indications without believing the resurrection.

Try the Joseph Smith version. But even LDS hide the allegedly restorated "inspired version" of their founder and first prophet under their beds while embracing the evangelicals King James revised version.
Thats not even the bible Joseph Smith used as basics, since he used the King James original version.

Apart from that, doctrinal differences don't matter. In my Book they are Christians, whether they believe in Hellfire or not.

Says you!