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

[1213]

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

I like more of the 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]

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

I like more of the 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's rather like the Abraham believed God' argument . Believing IN Jesus or God is a pre- requisite of doing his commands in either case. And believing Jesus was a crazy good healer for that time or could make a few buns and a couple of fish go a long way will not save, but that he resurrected from the dead is what saves, and not the good works.

[1213]

...Believing IN Jesus or God is a pre- requisite of doing his commands in either case. ...

I don't think that is true. Please explain why do you think so, if you mean with "believing in" that one believes Jesus or God is real?

[TRANSPONDER]

...Believing IN Jesus or God is a pre- requisite of doing his commands in either case. ...

I don't think that is true. Please explain why do you think so, if you mean with "believing in" that one believes Jesus or God is real?

Because it's like believing the orders, recommendations and advice of an August body such as a government, one first has to believe they exist. As you said, you cannot follow someone whom you think is dead (or no longer exists) so righteousness first has to assume the existence of the being.

One can then 'serve,who only stand and wait' so long as they don't sin. Paul was selected for a Job and never mind his free will, but because others were NOT selected to do anything but Believe in God, does that make them any less Righteous?

[The Nice Centurion]

OK. Now I got it partly.

Transponder says that he dislikes the Pon Farr and therefore he wont debate the mechanics of The Resurrection.

Pon Farr must be a general atheist problem because atheists in general tend to search for escape routes from having to research the mechanics of The Resurrection.

All this will be subjected to further scrutinizing later, but I believe to have finally found it;

The reason why christians never dare to speak, or write about the mechanics of The Resurrection.

It's because for some reason touching the subject of the mechanics of The Resurrection ridicules the believer a n d his belief.

As a stage magician would also be ridiculed if forced to explain the mechanics of his tricks to his amazed audience.


After we now have time and again tried to solve the riddle of why believers a n d unbelievers both hide under their beds when confronted with the question of the mechanics of The Resurrection, it remains the question about Agnostics of The Resurrection.

Why do Agnostics of The Resurrection also flee from debate/research about the mechanics of The Resurrection

[TRANSPONDER]

OK. Now I got it partly.

Transponder says that he dislikes the Pon Farr and therefore he wont debate the mechanics of The Resurrection.

Pon Farr must be a general atheist problem because atheists in general tend to search for escape routes from having to research the mechanics of The Resurrection.

All this will be subjected to further scrutinizing later, but I believe to have finally found it;

The reason why christians never dare to speak, or write about the mechanics of The Resurrection.

It's because for some reason touching the subject of the mechanics of The Resurrection ridicules the believer a n d his belief.

As a stage magician would also be ridiculed if forced to explain the mechanics of his tricks to his amazed audience.


After we now have time and again tried to solve the riddle of why believers a n d unbelievers both hide under their beds when confronted with the question of the mechanics of The Resurrection, it remains the question about Agnostics of The Resurrection.

Why do Agnostics of The Resurrection also flee from debate/research about the mechanics of The Resurrection

I just don't get why you can't understand that it is pointless to discuss the way something happened when whether it happened at all it severely under question. The Pon Farr is an analogy (from something we all accept isa a made up story) to why it is pointless to speculate about the mechanics of something else than (on evidence) is also a made -up story.

[1213]

Because it's like believing the orders, recommendations and advice of an August body such as a government, one first has to believe they exist. As you said, you cannot follow someone whom you think is dead (or no longer exists) so righteousness first has to assume the existence of the being.

I thought we were speaking about following a commandment. All that is needed for that is to know the commandment. Then a person can decide is it good to be obeyed or not.

One can then 'serve,who only stand and wait' so long as they don't sin. Paul was selected for a Job and never mind his free will, but because others were NOT selected to do anything but Believe in God, does that make them any less Righteous?

It seems to me that you make up your own religion. I try to remain in what is said in the Bible. I recommend to read what it says about righteousness. For example:

…He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

[TRANSPONDER]

Because it's like believing the orders, recommendations and advice of an August body such as a government, one first has to believe they exist. As you said, you cannot follow someone whom you think is dead (or no longer exists) so righteousness first has to assume the existence of the being.

I thought we were speaking about following a commandment. All that is needed for that is to know the commandment. Then a person can decide is it good to be obeyed or not.

One can then 'serve,who only stand and wait' so long as they don't sin. Paul was selected for a Job and never mind his free will, but because others were NOT selected to do anything but Believe in God, does that make them any less Righteous?

It seems to me that you make up your own religion. I try to remain in what is said in the Bible. I recommend to read what it says about righteousness. For example:

…He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10

"You thought wrong" (Bufort Tannen). One first needs to know an Authority has agency before the commands mean anything. Aside from trying use your making up your own version of Christianity against me, I can credit that you honestly try to interpret what is in the Bible correctly (and you have made some decent points) but that doesn't make you right. Even if I conceded the Christian religion was right and true, and that one credited that John reported Jesus' sayings rather than his own opinions, Jews were God - worshippers as much as Christians. This meant they were going to be saved and Christians weren't, and each supposed the other side was in error, devil influenced or not.

Thus what is really at issue here is not deeds (though the gospels try to point an accusing finger at the Jews) but belief. Not just belief in God and/or Jesus but what was believed about them and observing their rules. But believing in the origin of those rules is what is needed first. Following the rules without the belief is not going to save, or if you think it does, you have indeed invented your own religion.

[The Nice Centurion]

OK. Now I got it partly.

Transponder says that he dislikes the Pon Farr and therefore he wont debate the mechanics of The Resurrection.

Pon Farr must be a general atheist problem because atheists in general tend to search for escape routes from having to research the mechanics of The Resurrection.

All this will be subjected to further scrutinizing later, but I believe to have finally found it;

The reason why christians never dare to speak, or write about the mechanics of The Resurrection.

It's because for some reason touching the subject of the mechanics of The Resurrection ridicules the believer a n d his belief.

As a stage magician would also be ridiculed if forced to explain the mechanics of his tricks to his amazed audience.


After we now have time and again tried to solve the riddle of why believers a n d unbelievers both hide under their beds when confronted with the question of the mechanics of The Resurrection, it remains the question about Agnostics of The Resurrection.

Why do Agnostics of The Resurrection also flee from debate/research about the mechanics of The Resurrection

I just don't get why you can't understand that it is pointless to discuss the way something happened when whether it happened at all it severely under question. The Pon Farr is an analogy (from something we all accept isa a made up story) to why it is pointless to speculate about the mechanics of something else than (on evidence) is also a made -up story.

But of course I understood your comparing to Pon Farr, but for some reasons I choose to give an answer soaked in sarcasm.

As you wisely said it makes no sense to solve a mistery (gospels resurrection implicating mistery) by appealing to another mistery; The Resurrection.

Shouldnt at last the very next step of christians be to do everything possible to explain the mechanics of the resurrection?

And sceptics should logically be interested to intensively ask believers about said mechanics, so to make their own debating position increase.

There are so much debates and books of sceptics versus believers about the implicated resurrection, that both sides would own every sane reason to also talk through the theorized mechanics of The Resurrection.

But christians fear to ridicule themselves AND what they believe in if they research The Resurrection about its mechanics.

So sceptics? Sure thing not everyone of them plays the Pon Farr card when it comes to this question.

What about the rest of them? Do they not wish to ridicule christians or are they all closet christians who fear to be striked down by the godly might of some glorious answer?

It is ridiculous in itself that NO ONE wants to debate 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.