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]

Collecting now other threads that are relevant to this one
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5335

[The Nice Centurion]

If Christ resurrected in a spiritual body, the mechanics of The Resurrections get to be even more complicated.

We must also consider the question if ro receive a new body can still count as resurrection.

And who then stole Jesus left behind non spiritual body so that the tomb could be empty.

Or did Christ himself carry his old shell out of the grabe. Holding his dead body the same way Batman did with the corpse of Robin at the end of "A Death in the Family"

[1213]

If Christ resurrected in a spiritual body, the mechanics of The Resurrections get to be even more complicated.

We must also consider the question if ro receive a new body can still count as resurrection.

And who then stole Jesus left behind non spiritual body so that the tomb could be empty.

Or did Christ himself carry his old shell out of the grabe. Holding his dead body the same way Batman did with the corpse of Robin at the end of "A Death in the Family"

If the body changed, then it would not need to be carried away. I believe the spiritual body is like this current body but upgraded, like this scripture suggests:

Behold, I speak a mystery to you: we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that has been written, "Death was swallowed up in victory."
1 Cor. 15:51-54

[TRANSPONDER]

If Christ resurrected in a spiritual body, the mechanics of The Resurrections get to be even more complicated.

We must also consider the question if ro receive a new body can still count as resurrection.

And who then stole Jesus left behind non spiritual body so that the tomb could be empty.

Or did Christ himself carry his old shell out of the grabe. Holding his dead body the same way Batman did with the corpse of Robin at the end of "A Death in the Family"

If the body changed, then it would not need to be carried away. I believe the spiritual body is like this current body but upgraded, like this scripture suggests:

Behold, I speak a mystery to you: we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that has been written, "Death was swallowed up in victory."
1 Cor. 15:51-54

But the problem there is that the New Incorruptible body is sorta prime -perfect condition. We can't have car -crash victims in heaven. They have to be perfect and whole, right? So what was Jesus (allegedly) doing still with the marks of crucifixion? Let me guess - they were needed by the concocted story to show it really was Jesus. We can tell it is made up in part because that whole Thomas probing Jesus' warv-wounds is contradicted by Luke who says all 11 (minus Judas) were there

[1213]

..
Behold, I speak a mystery to you: we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that has been written, "Death was swallowed up in victory."
1 Cor. 15:51-54

...They have to be perfect and whole, right? So what was Jesus (allegedly) doing still with the marks of crucifixion? Let me guess - they were needed by the concocted story to show it really was Jesus. We can tell it is made up in part because that whole Thomas probing Jesus' warv-wounds is contradicted by Luke who says all 11 (minus Judas) were there

Maybe Jesus had not yet fully changed from natural to spiritual body. John 20:17 indicates that there was some kind of process after rising from death.

Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God, and your God.
John 20:17

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1 Cor. 15:44

If the story would be made up, it would be as simple as how atheists see things.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to 1213 in post #85]
Its a possiblility.
Now we have to research the mechanics of the change from natural body into spiritual body too

[TRANSPONDER]

..
Behold, I speak a mystery to you: we shall not all fall asleep, but we shall all be changed. In a moment, in a glance of an eye, at the last trumpet; for a trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall all be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. But when this corruptible shall put on incorruption, and this mortal shall put on immortality, then will take place the word that has been written, "Death was swallowed up in victory."
1 Cor. 15:51-54

...They have to be perfect and whole, right? So what was Jesus (allegedly) doing still with the marks of crucifixion? Let me guess - they were needed by the concocted story to show it really was Jesus. We can tell it is made up in part because that whole Thomas probing Jesus' warv-wounds is contradicted by Luke who says all 11 (minus Judas) were there

Maybe Jesus had not yet fully changed from natural to spiritual body. John 20:17 indicates that there was some kind of process after rising from death.

Jesus said to her, Do not touch Me, for I have not yet ascended to My Father. But go to My brothers and say to them, I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and My God, and your God.
John 20:17

It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.
1 Cor. 15:44

If the story would be made up, it would be as simple as how atheists see things.

That's a good one, but (And here I am discussing the mechanics ) it sounds to me like latching on some puzzling remark of John's to excuse why the new incorruptible body looked like the old car -crash body . Remember according to John, Thomas did touch him some time later and Jesus still had the holes in him. Since all this stuff seems to come from Paul anyway, wasn't the idea that the bodies would rise from the graves in New Incorruptible bodies and be passed through the fire to burn out the sins and if here was enough left to be saved, they'd get eternal life?

I think you have to explain a bit more than a handy throwaway excuse to explain why Jesus still had the crucifixion marks.

I can. The plot needed it. Luke's Plot needs Jesus to be not recognised so the script could pan out as Luke required. Luke even complicates matters by having Jesus and the penitent thief (whom none of the others know about) in paradise before the Friday is out. Which adds another bit of contradiction as the marys recognised Jesus right away, but John says later when Mary saw him she thought it was the gardener and asked what he's done with the body. Like gardeners were in the habit of opening tooms and taking the bodies out.

Surely you can see why we doubters think the whole story is a contradictory mess and the excuses just don't work?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #79]

The Pon Farr (startrek - Amok time) as an analogy. We know it is a made up story to start with (1). Debating the mechanics of Vulcan biology is useful only for lore affictionadoes.

The resurrection on the other hand, purports to be a record of actual events.

I get your point that discussing those reports is as necesary as any discussion of the Bible.

I can only speak for myself and I suppose I do discuss the mechanics in order to present a case that the records are not a reliable report of events.

I was talking (perhaps getting it wrong) it that the mechanics of how that resurrection was done in raising a body from the dead rather than discussing the records. For me (not for others perhaps) I an sure the resurrection accounts are not eyewitness and are Biblical fabrication.

(1) as another analogy (what is undisprovable doers not make a valid case for anything), one could argue that the episode is based on actual events. Given what we know (analogy of materialist default) we know there were scriptwriters, actors, a studion, a series of written scripts and there is no starfleet or hyperspace travel. It is pointless for someone to argue that it can't be disproved that in some unknown way, dimension or time travel situation it could be based on real events. It is an improbable claim with no decvent evidence for it and deserves mo credibility. This is why appeal to undisprovables and unknowns are valueless as an argument and have merit only to those with Faith in their belief regarding that (Bible record and Startrek episodes alike) as true.

But you must recognice important differences between the Star Trek fan cult and the Jesus Blood Sacrifice religious cult

Star Trek merchandise didnt rule the western world for a 1500 year cult dictatorship, protecting his rule with torture and mass murder.

Star Trek isnt slammed into your face from your birth on. No one gets a Trekker baptizing as an infant.

Star Trek hasnt split up into warring different cults and doesnt have his hands strongly in world politics. Star Trek producers are not known to rape children amass. Trekkers do not try to take away womens choices over their own bodys.

There is no ongoing medial battle about the Truth of Star Trek. No one gets threatened with repercussions here and in the afterlife because he wont believe in Amok Time.

Et cetera

Therefore, with the many medial debates Resurrectionists versus Sceptis I ask this;

If a Resurrectionist says:"Yeah, The Resurrection happened for sure!"

A sceptic normally answers:"No, The Resurrection is enormously improbable because A, B and C!"

Why never but never does the sceptic say: "OK, you say The Resurrection happened. So what do you suppose were the mechanics of The Resurrection"

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #79]

The Pon Farr (startrek - Amok time) as an analogy. We know it is a made up story to start with (1). Debating the mechanics of Vulcan biology is useful only for lore affictionadoes.

The resurrection on the other hand, purports to be a record of actual events.

I get your point that discussing those reports is as necesary as any discussion of the Bible.

I can only speak for myself and I suppose I do discuss the mechanics in order to present a case that the records are not a reliable report of events.

I was talking (perhaps getting it wrong) it that the mechanics of how that resurrection was done in raising a body from the dead rather than discussing the records. For me (not for others perhaps) I an sure the resurrection accounts are not eyewitness and are Biblical fabrication.

(1) as another analogy (what is undisprovable doers not make a valid case for anything), one could argue that the episode is based on actual events. Given what we know (analogy of materialist default) we know there were scriptwriters, actors, a studion, a series of written scripts and there is no starfleet or hyperspace travel. It is pointless for someone to argue that it can't be disproved that in some unknown way, dimension or time travel situation it could be based on real events. It is an improbable claim with no decvent evidence for it and deserves mo credibility. This is why appeal to undisprovables and unknowns are valueless as an argument and have merit only to those with Faith in their belief regarding that (Bible record and Startrek episodes alike) as true.

But you must recognice important differences between the Star Trek fan cult and the Jesus Blood Sacrifice religious cult

Star Trek merchandise didnt rule the western world for a 1500 year cult dictatorship, protecting his rule with torture and mass murder.

Star Trek isnt slammed into your face from your birth on. No one gets a Trekker baptizing as an infant.

Star Trek hasnt split up into warring different cults and doesnt have his hands strongly in world politics. Star Trek producers are not known to rape children amass. Trekkers do not try to take away womens choices over their own bodys.

There is no ongoing medial battle about the Truth of Star Trek. No one gets threatened with repercussions here and in the afterlife because he wont believe in Amok Time.

Et cetera

Therefore, with the many medial debates Resurrectionists versus Sceptis I ask this;

If a Resurrectionist says:"Yeah, The Resurrection happened for sure!"

A sceptic normally answers:"No, The Resurrection is enormously improbable because A, B and C!"

Why never but never does the sceptic say: "OK, you say The Resurrection happened. So what do you suppose were the mechanics of The Resurrection"

Because I have sometimes pointed up similarities between fan conventions and cults, the difference being that he fans know that Startrek or starwars or Harry Potter are not real. Religions have fans that do. In between are things like UFOs where they have believers and do use teligious type apologetics and even mental messages and miracles.

The point being that we have everything from alternate science to conspiracy theories and military re -enactments to starwars conventions. The question is whether the resurrection is a record of an actual event or a Christian tall tale like'Amok time' but it is presented as true.

For me, I know Amok time is scripted and few would seriously argue otherwise. The circumstances we know show it is a Startrek scripted episode and only fans with too much time to waste would discuss Vulcan sexual biology. The resurrection is different it is presented as sorta History but for me it is a made up story or rather three stories. Only Fans would get into the mechanics, though the logic of it can be discussed as well as the contradictions in claimed events.

It is rather the same with the Flood and Ark, where the script shows that the mechanics can't be real so it must be a story. But Fans argue it is real and Ham's Ark is the ultimate piece of fanfic. Here of course we have to discuss the mechanics as the unwritten Rule is 'no miracle..just minor ones. With the resurrection it is ALL miracle and Mechanics are not wanted as that will favor a plan to save Jesus.

So in the end, discussing the mechanics (just think how religious pyramid -construction got) depends on whether it's a story or not.

"There were these two servants"

"What were their names?"

"It doesn't matter.

In the end, the hows and whys only seriously matter if the story is supposed to be real, and if it is a miracle , then the mechanics don't matter anyway, except they do as i found above, but the mechanics of what the story claims, not how the miracle worked. It just Did. That is how miracles make the unworkable work.

Our Pal Mae Von H would say that was too long, but I'm trying to work it out myself

[1213]

...Since all this stuff seems to come from Paul anyway, wasn't the idea that the bodies would rise from the graves in New Incorruptible bodies and be passed through the fire to burn out the sins and if here was enough left to be saved, they'd get eternal life?

I don't know to what scripture you are referring to. But, Bible doesn't give detailed information of how it happens.

I think you have to explain a bit more than a handy throwaway excuse to explain why Jesus still had the crucifixion marks.

I don't think I have to explain anything. The truth is that according to the Bible:
1) There was marks.
2) Jesus was not exactly as normal physical human being, because could move to locked room, was not allowed to touch first, was not instantly recognized.
3) There are the idea of natural and spiritual body.
4) Nothing that indicates he could not have had the marks.

I can. The plot needed it. Luke's Plot needs Jesus to be not recognised so the script could pan out as Luke required. Luke even complicates matters by having Jesus and the penitent thief (whom none of the others know about) in paradise before the Friday is out. Which adds another bit of contradiction as the marys recognised Jesus right away, but John says later when Mary saw him she thought it was the gardener and asked what he's done with the body. Like gardeners were in the habit of opening tooms and taking the bodies out.

I think the story doesn't need any fabrications. And I hope readers understand, if something sounds to you weird, it doesn't necessary mean that things didn't go as told in the Bible.

Please show the scripture, where Mary recognizes Jesus right away?