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]

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.

Fair point. But bear in mind 'believe or not' is a faithbased attitude and the logical and evidential approach is sliding scale of credibility or doubt.

This is why 'one angel or two' is not the criterion. It starts with 'the biggies'. The utterly demonstrably conflicting nativities being the test -case. All the excuses are done the last being the missing governorship from - what 4 -1 BC? I'll check.. being used to posit a Previous governorship of Quirinus to have Luke's nativity in Herod's time (if Herod's death can be shited to at least 3 BC not 4. But Josephus shows that Varus was acting governor while Archelaus was in Rome so that plugs the gap - there was no previous 'registration' conducted by Quirinus as governor in Herod's time. There was only the 6/7 AD census and Matthew and Luke conflict on date, milieu and circumstance as well as many other conflicts. It is not just a Biggie but is terminally contradictory.

The resurrections are nearly as bad.
John denied an angelic message. Luke alters it so the disciples are not told to go to Galilee
Mark has nothing beyond the women running away, John has Mary Magdalene (no 'other' Mary) saying she has no clue what has become of the body, but Matthew says the women ran into Jesus on the way to report. Luke near confirms that the women did not see Jesus even though Cleophas says they saw angels.
Luke also has an appearance to Simon (while we are got out of the way with Cleophas so he doesn't have to describe it, because Paul only says in 1.Cor. that Jesus appeared to Simon but does not say where or how, and this remarkable event is reported by nobody else.
While Matthew has the disciples troop off to Galilee, Luke has Jesus appear to them that night and tells them whatever they needed to hear. He says the 11 (minus Judas) were there, but John, while using the evening appearance, has Thomas absent and this whole doubting Thomas thing is effectively denied by Luke.

After the Nativity shows a lack of 'clean hands' in witness testimony, can it be denied that the resurrection accounts fail as badly? This in not about what hats Samuel was wearing, but serious fingerprints of story - concoction.

I need hardly add (aside that few have even tried to tidy up but used misdirection, evasion or just running away) that this is just the test case, with the death of Judas, discrepancies of calling the disciples, rejection at Nazareth, Sermon material and Luke's parables (oh yes), John having no transfiguration (that's a biggie) and thus the more minor contradictions (so many) and signs of fiddled text and invented additions render the whole gospel account more than dubious; they are worthless as a record of what happened.

cue denial. (maybe.I don't know your position on the matter - this post in not personal but evaluative) Expected as Faith, not logical evaluation of data, is what Bible apologetics does, but the point is the Case as presented to the public - if they ever get to hear the case. Christianity works hard to ensure they never do. Only dismissal of 'one angel or two' as though that got over all the contradictions.

p.s 27 Guests, I see. Welcome . That is excellent. I encourage posting and joining in discussion.

[AgnosticBoy]

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

As I said before, answering specific objections was not my intended focus since my point involves showing how having a bad perspective towards the Gospels leads to all types of unreasonable expectations and can even cause someone to see inconsistencies when none really exists. I find that having an unreasonable perspective towards the Gospels is a bigger problem than any contradiction or omission that you can think of.

We can address your point about Mark 16 in a different thread. When I create that thread, I'll provide a link to it here.

[AgnosticBoy]

[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.

You're probably referring to this statement of mine:

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?

NASA is a government agency that is full of scientists/researchers and they are gearing up to study UAPs, also referred to as UFOs:

NASA has selected 16 individuals to participate in its independent study team on unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP). Observations of events in the sky that cannot be identified as aircraft or as known natural phenomena are categorized as UAPs.

The independent study will begin on Monday, Oct. 24. Over the course of nine months, the independent study team will lay the groundwork for future study on the nature of UAPs for NASA and other organizations. To do this, the team will identify how data gathered by civilian government entities, commercial data, and data from other sources can potentially be analyzed to shed light on UAPs. It will then recommend a roadmap for potential UAP data analysis by the agency going forward.

Unidentified aerial phenomena are of interest for both national security and air safety and the study aligns with one of NASA’s goals to ensure the safety of aircraft. Without access to an extensive set of data, it is nearly impossible to verify or explain any observation, thus the focus of the study is to inform NASA what possible data could be collected in the future to scientifically discern the nature of UAP.

Source: https://www.nasa.gov/general/nasa-annou ... m-members/

Pentagon is also accepting reports of UFOs:

The Pentagon is preparing for a flood of new reports as it readies two new portals for submissions: one for historical sightings from current or former government employees and contractors and a second for public submissions of new reports.

Source: CNN

How the government handled UFOs in the past:

On Friday evening the US intelligence community released something remarkable: An unclassified report to Congress of unidentified aerial phenomena (UAP) aka UFOs.

Which is a big deal! Especially when you consider that, for decades, the American government totally denied the existence of flying objects that they simply could not identify or, in some situations, explain.

Source: CNN

That is ample evidence that both government agencies and researchers are taking UFOs seriously. The scientific/systematic study of UFOs is providing an example of how science can deal with anomalous phenomenon - they accept its existence based on well documented cases, while looking to understand them. I think historians can borrow from that and start giving serious consideration to well documented cases of anomalous events in times past (like Jesus's resurrection).

[POI]

As I said before, answering specific objections was not my intended focus since my point involves showing how having a bad perspective towards the Gospels leads to all types of unreasonable expectations and can even cause someone to see inconsistencies when none really exists. I find that having an unreasonable perspective towards the Gospels is a bigger problem than any contradiction or omission that you can think of.

We can address your point about Mark 16 in a different thread. When I create that thread, I'll provide a link to it here.

Telling someone they have an "unreasonable perspective towards the Gospels", but not demonstrating why, might not be the best way to go. The video I offered provides a neat and tidy bundle of points which demonstrate grave manipulation. Someone else has done the dirty work and offered a 15-minute video which offers many points to address. No need to re-invent the wheel here... Since you have decided to express your views about me, without adequate justification, I'd then have to say you strike me as an individual who is a believer, disguised instead as an agnostic. If you do not wish to truly have your position challenged, then I do not know what to tell you. The video offers many points, which cause concern. But if you instead wish to hand-wave them away, in favor of protecting your current belief, sobeit.

[The Nice Centurion]

And not one post until yet that dares to try proposing a theory how the mechanics of THE RESURRECTION might have worked.

In my search for such I raided the Internet; Also NADA.

And not one post until yet that dares to try proposing a theory of why that is so.

Instead we are debating UFO agnosticism and Mark 16 now.

Everything it takes if only the theme of mechanics of THE RESURRECTION can be fled from it seems . . .

[TRANSPONDER]

I think we goddless must be fair - the main and relevant point is whether a fantastical claim is real. If it is credibly real, then we might speculate as to what is going on. As for example is prophecy turned out to work, or memories of former lives were conclusively shown correct.

All the time the resurrection looks like a bunch of made up Christian propaganda, any discussion of possible mechanism seems pointless. After all, the Theist have one valid point - the universe is full of unknowns; we can never show that resurrection is impossible, even discounting magic.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #36]
I cannot concur!

As said in my opening post; If it were the main christian believe that Jesus used J.Aritmatheas cave to construct a time machine with which he travelled back and forth the timestream, there would be tons of literature spectaculating about what the mechanics of Christs time machine were.

No serious scientist known to me thinks a perpeetum mobile credibly possible, but works about theoretically possible mechanics and also real live constructed inventions that wants to make true a P.M. we have aplenty.

Defying gravity to reach space was commonly not thought credibly possible and yet people jumped over that shadow and landed on the moon.

If we first had to prove possibility of something before we should tackle the why and how, than we might never have descended from threes

Richard Carrier wrote that scientists will master the art of bringing back to life dead bodies very very soon now.

So, again please; What were the mechanics of Jesus Fauntleroy Christs resurrection? And why is everyone so afraid talking about it?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #36]
I cannot concur!

As said in my opening post; If it were the main christian believe that Jesus used J.Aritmatheas cave to construct a time machine with which he travelled back and forth the timestream, there would be tons of literature spectaculating about what the mechanics of Christs time machine were.

No serious scientist known to me thinks a perpeetum mobile credibly possible, but works about theoretically possible mechanics and also real live constructed inventions that wants to make true a P.M. we have aplenty.

Defying gravity to reach space was commonly not thought credibly possible and yet people jumped over that shadow and landed on the moon.

If we first had to prove possibility of something before we should tackle the why and how, than we might never have descended from threes

Richard Carrier wrote that scientists will master the art of bringing back to life dead bodies very very soon now.

So, again please; What were the mechanics of Jesus Fauntleroy Christs resurrection? And why is everyone so afraid talking about it?

Because we are disinclined to waste our valuable time on a pointless speculation. And along the lines of something I recall I said, if a UFO fabricated the Nativity, we might argue about the motive power of a Flying saucer propulsion system, but until such a claim is validated, it is utterly irrelevant. We don't know that it ever happened, never mind that possibly a miracle was involved - the hypothesis is that even if it happened it was a plan by Arimathea to save Jesus from crucifixion.

Of course a wild theory. but it fits the facts better than a miracle.

So your insistence that we discuss the mechanism (when for all we know, magic is involved) is three times removed from pointless.

Let us, friends, for all that is sensible, not get sucked down those pointless rabbit -hole. Now, I must track down your helpful post on an image cache so I can upload an avatar...I suppose you couldn't give a link???

Darn - sorry, I though I was answering Data. Sorry for Deise Tone, but such speculation is pointless when the thing might be a made up ghost story anyway.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

So your answers are to my first question that christians dont look into Christs resurrection mechanics (CRM) out of fear that their own story would explode into their own faces, . . .

. . . while sceptics do not want to waste their time!


Still logic tells that returning to life from a brain dead state BEFORE brain decomposing starts seems to be rather doable, while regaining full live out of an already decomposed state of mind would mean that either time and the decomposing process must reverse or . . . ???

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #38]

So your answers are to my first question that christians dont look into Christs resurrection mechanics (CRM) out of fear that their own story would explode into their own faces, . . .

. . . while sceptics do not want to waste their time!


Still logic tells that returning to life from a brain dead state BEFORE brain decomposing starts seems to be rather doable, while regaining full live out of an already decomposed state of mind would mean that either time and the decomposing process must reverse or . . . ???

Yes, that's a fair point. While speculations about methods of magic or advanced technology indistinguishable from it by which resurrection might be possible strikes me as fruitless, pointing up the problems in a revival (aside from creative or re -creative magic) may point up a window within which any comprehensible revival could take place. While that may put pressure on the 'swoon'theory, it should consider that (given the salient argument that the appearances are demonstrably fabricated) the explanation that best fits the story up to then is that Jesus was dead and was removed from the tomb by those who put him there.