Did Jesus decompose?

[tackattack]

OT a paradox; Jesus was said to be  both god and man.

If he was fully man, by definition, he would be imperfect and commit sin. But, if he was god, by definition he was perfect, and incapable of sin. seems to me, can't have it both ways

Being fully man by definition doesn't mean imperfect and by nature sinful. Adam and Eve were fully mankind and up to a point were sinless. They also introduced sin into the race. Two prevailing schools of thought do an end run around your paradox. Jesus existed prior to the creation of Adam and Jesus was not born the same way regular mankind was and thus not tainted with original sin. A simpler answer would be that Jesus did have a nature that was sinful but over came that nature. Our capabilities only affect our abilities (typically limiting them) they do not necessitate actions and sin is an action.

A little mental gymnastics could even get to the point where because Jesus was 100% God, and sin is going against God, and by definition, you can't go against who you are, he was incapable of sinning. So that while he had the same capabilities as mankind and the same potential limitations, because of His nature was was incapable of going against His own nature and sinning.

[The Grand Nudger]

If jesus were incapable of sinning then the temptation of christ, a narrative that the authors saw important enough to include in matthew, mark, and luke, would be reduced to contrived drama.  In a similar vein, if jesus were not fully human his sacrificial value would be diminished.  He had to suffer.  

 OFC any paradox can be conceptually resolved by simply affirming one side or the other..but in the case of christology the issue becomes the theological equivalent of a hydra.  You chop off one head, two more appear.  This intractability is why the proto-christian authorities punted on the issue and decided to include two contradictory camps, declaring it a "mystery".  

You're not supposed to be able to resolve it, and any attempt -to- resolve it erodes some other christological concept.

[Rev. Rye]

 First and for most those are pictures that may not be accurate as to what happened. Jesus did not decompose nor did He have broken bones as the crucified always did and He was killed upon a tree ie, wood just as the OT prophecies tell us. Miracles in the spiritually realm are the answer, if you do not like this answer then so be it, it's your right to believe as you wish, however it doesn't make your belief real.

GC

Well, I'll give you a point for at least trying to answer the question, and deduct several thousand for failing to reconcile it with basic biology.

[Mister Agenda]

Taken at face value, Jesus 'gave up the ghost' far more quickly than most crucifixion victims, and raises the question of whether he was really dead when taken down or just comatose (and that raises the question of why the Romans would have let him be taken down instead of left to rot as was their custom).

Also, Jesus seemed to have a tough time being recognized by those who knew him after he was supposed to have risen from the tomb, which raises the question of an imposter.

And that's assuming the whole thing isn't just a myth or a gross distortion of what actually happened.

[The Grand Nudger]

The invocation of mytheme and trope...particularly the notion of blood atonement and ritual sacrifice, persuasively suggest that...like the temptiation of christ in the desert, the episode was contrived for theological impact.

[Brian37]

So, a question for religious people who believe that Jesus died and resurrected.

Within a few minutes of death the brain becomes so damaged as to be incapable of sustaining most higher functions. A few more minutes and it can’t communicate with other parts of the body. A few hours later the neurons that physically contract the muscles will break down. After this the body cannot, through its own power, move or maintain any functions.

The story goes that Jesus was dead for (conservatively) nearly 48 hours. Under normal conditions, even with refrigeration, the brain is now mush and the neurons are now gone. The process of decomposition has progressed to such an extent coming back is impossible. And we’re not talking about best case, this is long enough to start to stink. Hell, at this point insects should have showed up.

So, did Jesus decompose prior to his resurrection? If so, how did he resurrect? If not, why not?

The death myth, like the birth myth, are both just that, myths.

If one were to murder someone as implied by the death mythology, the person in reality WOULD NOT survive.

Once enough cells in the body die beyond repair, especially the brain, but even in general, there is no surviving that.

To assume one can survive permanent death, would be like blowing up your car engine beyond repair and assuming it can still function as if it were not blow up.

[tackattack]

If jesus were incapable of sinning then the temptation of christ, a narrative that the authors saw important enough to include in matthew, mark, and luke, would be reduced to contrived drama.  In a similar vein, if jesus were not fully human his sacrificial value would be diminished.  He had to suffer.  

 OFC any paradox can be conceptually resolved by simply affirming one side or the other..but in the case of christology the issue becomes the theological equivalent of a hydra.  You chop off one head, two more appear.  This intractability is why the proto-christian authorities punted on the issue and decided to include two contradictory camps, declaring it a "mystery".  

You're not supposed to be able to resolve it, and any attempt -to- resolve it erodes some other christological concept.

It's not a paradox, they are not contradictory features or properties as you both state. I was attempting to explain it in a way you understood that. I did not say I believed he were incapable of sinning, just that it required mental gymnastics to get to that point. My point was the two natures of God and Man are not paradoxical. Even early Christians realized this, hence the Chalcedonean Creed which is accepted by most modern denominations, even if most can't clearly explain it.
To clear it up, I believe Jesus was a sinless man that was tempted but didn't have a sinful nature.

tempted to sin- Hebrews 4- understands weakness and was tempted, yet without sin. To be tempted you must have volition and choice. He was tempted, but didn't. You can be tempted and not sin, and be 100% flesh (man). This is the goal of the average Christian, although none attain.

The Chalcedonean Creed can be summarized pretty simply in that Jesus is not a God brain in a flesh suit.

[The Grand Nudger]

Early christians absolutely did not realize any such thing.  There was bitter division on the issue - entire subgroups of christians were executed. Hypostatic union was a political compromise between them. In effect, it was decided that both camps were "fully right" so that they could stop killing each other and poaching adherents in the zero sum game of christian authority.

[Brian37]

If jesus were incapable of sinning then the temptation of christ, a narrative that the authors saw important enough to include in matthew, mark, and luke, would be reduced to contrived drama.  In a similar vein, if jesus were not fully human his sacrificial value would be diminished.  He had to suffer.  

 OFC any paradox can be conceptually resolved by simply affirming one side or the other..but in the case of christology the issue becomes the theological equivalent of a hydra.  You chop off one head, two more appear.  This intractability is why the proto-christian authorities punted on the issue and decided to include two contradictory camps, declaring it a "mystery".  

You're not supposed to be able to resolve it, and any attempt -to- resolve it erodes some other christological concept.

It's not a paradox, they are not contradictory features or properties as you both state. I was attempting to explain it in a way you understood that. I did not say I believed he were incapable of sinning, just that it required mental gymnastics to get to that point. My point was the two natures of God and Man are not paradoxical. Even early Christians realized this, hence the Chalcedonean Creed which is accepted by most modern denominations, even if most can't clearly explain it.
To clear it up, I believe Jesus was a sinless man that was tempted but didn't have a sinful nature.

tempted to sin- Hebrews 4- understands weakness and was tempted, yet without sin. To be tempted you must have volition and choice. He was tempted, but didn't. You can be tempted and not sin, and be 100% flesh (man). This is the goal of the average Christian, although none attain.

The Chalcedonean Creed can be summarized pretty simply in that Jesus is not a God brain in a flesh suit.

What does any of this have to do with the bullshit claim a human being can survive permanent death?

If surviving permanent death were possible, then scientist could conduct an experiment where 100 people get strangled, another 100 get gassed, and another 100 get decapitated, and the control group simply get told they are going to die.

NOBODY has or ever will survive the kind of death penalty myth the bible implies. If the bible claims the death was real, there is no escaping that medically speaking. 

NOBODY survives having all the blood drained out of their  body, to the point of complete organ failure and brain death only to dance the jig days later.

[fredd bear]

"Being fully man by definition doesn't mean imperfect and by nature sinful. "

Sorry, that dog won't hunt.

Adam and Eve were the only human beings who have ever existed who were free of original sin. (exception: the Catholics also claim that for Mary, Jesus' mother.) If Jesus was incapable of sining, he was not fully man, but demi-god,. Further , the temptation of Christ in the dessert, by the devil becomes worthless. For the temptation to be meaningful , Jesus MUST have been capable of succumbing to temptation.