My original answer was more general, so I moved it to the question fredsbend asked a few days prior: Should we encourage/discourage bait titles? Should titles stand on their own?.
This question is more specific to the example you cited about Jesus' bodily functions.
The question of whether or not Jesus had normal bodily functions after resurrection is a valid question.
This particular example asks for doctrinal positions, or specific teachings, so it fits within the site's guidelines on that level. It can't be closed as primarily opinion-based" or "General philosophical or sociological questions are off-topic unless clearly asking for a doctrinal answer". It asks for the doctrinal answer.
I hate to say it, but this looks to me, personally, like a "gray area" one - one where the community is going to use their judgment.
It is perfectly valid to close and delete questions because they are rude or offensive, or for any number of other reasons not covered in the "standard close reasons". Troll questions, questions based on some bias, questions not about Christianity, and many, many others. That's why there's an open "Off topic because..." close reason.
So question that needs to be answered in order to get to the heart of this particular question is "What's offensive?", and that's subjective. This is one of those cases where the community should get to decide on a question-by-question basis.
We're not going to get a hard-and-fast rule on this.
Bear in mind that a large swath of our target audience holds that Jesus deserves awe, reverence, and respect. And further, that you simply don't go out in a public place and talk about the bathroom habits or abilities of someone you love, revere, and respect. That's going to offend them.
Another portion of our audience isn't bothered by it. They see it as no big deal. Different upbringing, different background, different cultural norms, and different generations all play a factor.
I seriously doubt that you're going to be swayed into believing that the original title was necessarily bad, because if you were the type of person that "gets" how that offends some people, you' wouldn't have asked in that manner and wouldn't have asked this Meta question. It'd be obvious to you. To you it's not that big a deal, and I'm not saying you're wrong in your view.
On the same hand, you're not ever going to convince that group of people that this question wasn't a bad thing. It's simply too ingrained that "there are certain things you don't do, talk about, or say about/in front of someone who deserves respect".
In this particular case, I believe that what happened with the question was the right thing. The original title was one that would offend a large enough group that editing it was a good thing. that's a personal opinion, not an official site guideline.
The edits didn't change the meaning of the question, and it didn't alter the original purpose. All that happened was that, in the end, the title was edited in such a way that it wouldn't be as offensive to those with easily offended sensibilities, and as a result it's also more adult sounding than the original. It's also less likely to be a troll-attractor.
The only other way I could have seen it going down with the same result would have been if someone had edited the title for you.
Either way, the end result is the same. The valid question still sits open on the site, and the title is less likely to be an issue of contention.
While I can't make you see things the way the more easily-offended of us do, I would ask that you try to keep them in mind when posting questions and answers for the reasons covered here as well as the ones in this answer.