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]

The Bible says clearly that Mary Magdalene and the other women all reported what they had seen and heard.

Yes, they all reported what they had witnessed. It does not mean they all reported the exactly same things.

How could you seriously intend that as an excuse for why Matthew says they ran into Jesus on the way bac to the disciples, Luke has Cleophas relate what they saw and hears from the angel(s) but not that they ran into Jesus. Not saying exactly the same thing does not get over that problem.

But John says Mary Magdalene (and another is implied to be there) have no idea what became of Jesus. A clear contradiction even without Matthew's claim that they all ran into Jesus.

Again, I would like to see the scripture you are referring to.

John's account (I'm sure we did this already) where up until Jesus appears at the tom after the disciples go to check Mary has no idea why he is gone. It sometimes seems that atheists know the Bible better than the believers do. I think this may be true; the beleivers cannot know the Bible properly or they'd see the problems.

The 'women on different routes' excuse is stuff made up, nowhere in the Bible, and in fact is denied by the Bible, which you ignore.

Where it is denied? John clearly tells Mary left the tomb soon after she thought it is empty. And all other text suggests that the other women left there and were on a different situation after that.

But Luke says Mary Magdalene and the other women all related to the disciples ahh they had seen and heard. You cannot claim that mary Magdalene and the others together would not tell the disciples (with Cleophas listening) that they had seen Jesus, as Matthew claims, never mind John denying any of this and Mary Magdalene saying nothing about any angelic message (*which John doesn't have). Aside probabilities, the excuses to get over a clear contradiction do noit work, unless you feign to ignore Bibletext that doesn't suit you.

I've said it before - Believers will even deny he Bible if it conflicts with their own opinion. That's what you are doing.

[Diogenes]

...What part of the myth of the resurrection in the NT makes sense to you?

All parts of what Bible tells about the matter makes sense to me. [emphasis applied]

This comment adds additional evidence the Bible makes no sense.

[TRANSPONDER]

...What part of the myth of the resurrection in the NT makes sense to you?

All parts of what Bible tells about the matter makes sense to me. [emphasis applied]

This comment adds additional evidence the Bible makes no sense.

It is simply Faithbased denial of unwanted evidence and for the third time today (I think) I am very glad I am not religious and don't feel obliged to think like that.

[1213]

...why Matthew says they ran into Jesus ...

Matthew doesn't tell Mary was there, when they ran into Jesus.

John's account (I'm sure we did this already) where up until Jesus appears at the tom after the disciples go to check Mary has no idea why he is gone.

Why would she?

[1213]

...What part of the myth of the resurrection in the NT makes sense to you?

All parts of what Bible tells about the matter makes sense to me. [emphasis applied]

This comment adds additional evidence the Bible makes no sense.

Sorry, I try to be clear. The point is, there is nothing in the resurrection story that doesn't make sense to me.

[TRANSPONDER]

...why Matthew says they ran into Jesus ...

Matthew doesn't tell Mary was there, when they ran into Jesus.

But Luke does. That's why Luke contradicts Matthew, who anyway - like John - implies that 'they' (John has Mary say "We") were both there, give or take other women. Apart from these terrible evasions, you commit the faithbased error of assuming Mary wasn't there when they met Jesus because it doesn't say she was there, when all the implications are that she was. This is absolutely fiddling and cherry - picking the Bible to suit yourself, because, of course, if you don't, you have to admit a Real contradiction.

John's account (I'm sure we did this already) where up until Jesus appears at the tom after the disciples go to check Mary has no idea why he is gone.

Why would she?

Because John says so. She reports to the disciples that Jesus' body has been taken and she doesn't know where. And later at the tomb she takes Jesus fro the gardener and asks (so John relates - I think he makes this up) where he has put the body.

You may think you are scoring points by denying everything but it's all good. There must be white -faced Bible-believers out there, jaws dropping to their chest like Marley's ghost, wondering: "Is that what I sound ,like?" when they see that you don't know what your Bible says or rather, pretend you don't know.

47 guests That's not bad for a pointy - eared atheist denounceling.

[1213]

But Luke does.

That is not true.

...assuming Mary wasn't there when they met Jesus because it doesn't say she was there, when all the implications are that she was.

Nothing implicates that. If you disagree, please who what exactly implicates it.

...That's not bad for a pointy - eared atheist denounceling.

You seem to like the Lord of the Rings. What do you think, has Tolkien copied Aragorn from Jesus?

[TRANSPONDER]

But Luke does.

That is not true.

It is true. Luke says that mary Magdalene and the others saw all thise things. You are denying what the Bible says, yet again. And you do yourself, your religion and your credibility no favors in denying validated fact.

...assuming Mary wasn't there when they met Jesus because it doesn't say she was there, when all the implications are that she was.

Nothing implicates that. If you disagree, please who what exactly implicates it.

You are in denial and pretending a stupidity you don't actually have. There is No remark in the Bible to say the women split up and everything to imply (and Luke says so in writing) that they were all together and had all seen and heard what they had, together.

...That's not bad for a pointy - eared atheist denounceling.

You seem to like the Lord of the Rings. What do you think, has Tolkien copied Aragorn from Jesus?

Ho. If anything Gandalf is the Jesus -figure. Aragorn is more an Icon of British Neo - gothic medievalism with elements of longing for pre -reformation Catholicism. I think that Tolkien had a wish (so do I, oddly ) that Constantinople (Minas Tirith) had been saved by Harold and his Saxons, galloping on horseback (with Hardanger fiddle accompaniment) from the Muslim Southrons allied with Satan (even the films can't escape the Muslim element though they try to disguise it) and a decent Latin - catholic (not Byzantine) king takes over the rulership glorious fourth age of the Holy Roman empire. I do adore Tolkien's fantasy world, but I do not approve of it. Nor his snobby and lecturing elves who were no better than the humans they looked down on...uncannily like Vulcans. There's a theist yet to be written on why superior snooty beings have pointy ears. But you won't find me writing it.

[1213]

It is true. Luke says that mary Magdalene and the others saw all thise things. You are denying what the Bible says, yet again. And you do yourself, your religion and your credibility no favors in denying validated fact.

Luke says: "Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles". The group of women told the things Luke tells. Doesn't mean that they necessary saw exactly the same things. I could also tell what Luke told, doesn't mean I also saw the thing happening.

You are in denial and pretending a stupidity you don't actually have. There is No remark in the Bible to say the women split up and everything to imply (and Luke says so in writing) that they were all together and had all seen and heard what they had, together.

Thanks, but John clearly tells Mary left to tell others. John doesn't say that they all went, which is why it is reasonable to think others didn't leave, but remained there and had a different experience.

Ho. If anything Gandalf is the Jesus -figure.

Interesting. I don't think he fits to that well. But, maybe this is not so important that I would have to proselytize you to right think.

Aragorn is more an Icon of British Neo - gothic medievalism with elements of longing for pre -reformation Catholicism. I think that Tolkien had a wish (so do I, oddly ) that Constantinople (Minas Tirith) had been saved by Harold and his Saxons, galloping on horseback (with Hardanger fiddle accompaniment) from the Muslim Southrons allied with Satan (even the films can't escape the Muslim element though they try to disguise it) and a decent Latin - catholic (not Byzantine) king takes over the rulership glorious fourth age of the Holy Roman empire. I do adore Tolkien's fantasy world, but I do not approve of it. Nor his snobby and lecturing elves who were no better than the humans they looked down on...uncannily like Vulcans. There's a theist yet to be written on why superior snooty beings have pointy ears. But you won't find me writing it.

It is interesting that the movie brings Muslim element, for example in the architecture. I don't see it in the book.

And I think the Elves were better, but obviously they have also own flaws. By what see, they are quite equal, some of people and elves are not good and some relatively good.

[TRANSPONDER]

It is true. Luke says that mary Magdalene and the others saw all thise things. You are denying what the Bible says, yet again. And you do yourself, your religion and your credibility no favors in denying validated fact.

Luke says: "Now they were Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Mary the mother of James. The other women with them told these things to the apostles". The group of women told the things Luke tells. Doesn't mean that they necessary saw exactly the same things. I could also tell what Luke told, doesn't mean I also saw the thing happening.

You have taken it out of context. What are these thing? Ther angel and the explanation. Not Jesus. And Luke has Cleophas repeat that later on. They saw the angel who said Jesus had risen, but no mention of them meeting jesus. Even without John who has none of that, you have a discrepancy. Do you not know your own Bible or areyou hoping I don't know it? What we are deing is denialism and trying to pullfast ones.

You are in denial and pretending a stupidity you don't actually have. There is No remark in the Bible to say the women split up and everything to imply (and Luke says so in writing) that they were all together and had all seen and heard what they had, together.

Thanks, but John clearly tells Mary left to tell others. John doesn't say that they all went, which is why it is reasonable to think others didn't leave, but remained there and had a different experience.

What are you even talking about? That is a loose claim without context. John has no angel explaining anything - contradiction tot he synoptics. Mary Magdalene with or without the others (though 'We'implies with others) doesn't know that Jesus has risen, never mind running into Jesus.Massive contradiction with the synoptics. John talk about what Mary magdalene had seen, even without the others. Why is your ososcrabled and ignorant or oblivious of what the Bible actually says?

Ho. If anything Gandalf is the Jesus -figure.

Interesting. I don't think he fits to that well. But, maybe this is not so important that I would have to proselytize you to right think.

Gandalf is always teaching and advising and of course comes back from death. Aragorn does nmore of a Holy Roman Emperor role. But it doesn't matter, whether you proselytize or not, not that your efforts up o know would inspire much confidence in anyone who was not also totally denialist.

Aragorn is more an Icon of British Neo - gothic medievalism with elements of longing for pre -reformation Catholicism. I think that Tolkien had a wish (so do I, oddly ) that Constantinople (Minas Tirith) had been saved by Harold and his Saxons, galloping on horseback (with Hardanger fiddle accompaniment) from the Muslim Southrons allied with Satan (even the films can't escape the Muslim element though they try to disguise it) and a decent Latin - catholic (not Byzantine) king takes over the rulership glorious fourth age of the Holy Roman empire. I do adore Tolkien's fantasy world, but I do not approve of it. Nor his snobby and lecturing elves who were no better than the humans they looked down on...uncannily like Vulcans. There's a theist yet to be written on why superior snooty beings have pointy ears. But you won't find me writing it.

It is interesting that the movie brings Muslim element, for example in the architecture. I don't see it in the book.

The Southrons, and Haradrim, not to mention the Corsairs and Rhun, were clearly modelled on the Muslims of N Africa.

And I think the Elves were better, but obviously they have also own flaws. By what see, they are quite equal, some of people and elves are not good and some relatively good.

I read the Silmarilion (once was enough) and frankly I was shocked at the kinslaying. For me they lost their high moral ground and had no place looking down on men. That'seven without the near racist reluctance to lethuman mary their kind and frankly try to impose conditions that will cause failure if not the handy death of the suitor. But maybe they have socially improved over 6,ooo years, though they seem to pride themselves on their refusal to make any kind of progress.