Resurrection of the 'Son of God' (sic) from the 'Pseudo-Son-of-Pseudo-Man'; Counter-Resurrection of the 'Son of Man' from the 'Pseudo-Son-of-Pseudo-God'. Therefore a free-somatic pseudo-physical precondition of bound-somatic metaphysics (both happen to be primary as opposed to secondary state subordinate) is paralleled by a free-somatic pseudo-metaphysical precondition of bound-somatic physics (both happen to be secondary state hegemonic). Logically - and ecclesiastically - all this leaves so much to be desired ... that it is a mystery how anyone could ever have taken either outcome seriously - least of all from a religious standpoint!

Resurrection of 'God the Father' (!) from 'Pseudo-Man-the-Pseudo-Father'; Counter-Resurrection of 'Man of Father' from 'Pseudo-God-the-Pseudo-Father'. Therefore a bound-psychic pseudo-metaphysical precondition of free-psychic metaphysics (both happen to be primary as opposed to secondary church hegemonic) is paralleled by a bound-psychic pseudo-metaphysical precondition of free-psychic physics (both happen to be secondary church subordinate).  And these are the aspects of their respective elements and/or pseudo-elements that are never mentioned, much less considered, by apologists of Christianity - namely the church aspects, whether hegemonic (catholic) or subordinate (protestant), notwithstanding the omission of the female elements and/or pseudo-elements from such a resurrectional and/or counter-resurrectional scenario.

Were the Christian civilization more than merely an extrapolation from a kind of Middle East anchor Judaically in back of itself, there would be no place for resurrectional theories at all. But precisely because it is - or was - merely extrapolative, as 'Son' from so-called 'Father' (in reality Devil the Mother hyped as God the Father, the ‘best of a bad job’ starting-point of civilization), you end-up with a paradoxical logic that actually defies logic because that which is postulated as arising, in resurrection, is merely the somatic aspect of a totality of factors in which psyche, whether in 'Pseudo-Man-the-pseudo-Father' pseudo-physically or in 'God the Father' metaphysically is necessarily absent.


And the same of course applies to the counter-resurrectional position, scarcely acknowledged by Protestants, of the 'Son of Man' from 'Pseudo-God-the-Pseudo-Son', a descent from northwest to southeast points of the intercardinal axial compass that leaves the church, and therefore psychic aspects (albeit secondary vis-ŕ-vis anything metachemical to pseudo-chemical), entirely out of the theological frame.