Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection ?

[Regens Küchl]

The sacrosanct canonical four gospels have it in it that they avoid to narrate details about or have actual witnesses for their most miraculous and important point.

So we are to assume that in the dark cave Jesus body suddenly regained life and consciousness, stood up, unsheathed the shroud of turin leaving it right there as evidence of the miracle for the future vatican, with newfound superhuman powers opened his tomb careful not to wake up the roman guards and staying nearby did unknown things (garden work?) until he was mistaken for the gardener.

But like a three that falls over in the wood alone, no one witnessed that.
We are at last to assume that no human saw it or found it worth mentioning, for that is indicated by the whole new testament.

The apocryphal gospel of Peter is among the few, perhaps almost the only, (can anyone provide a list, please?) who narrates detailed important information (walking talking cross) about the actual resurrection and also has it witnessed by people.

"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Now It is really funny from every possible standpoint, believer, unbeliever, mythicist, historicist, whatever that we are told of not a one actual witness.

If it was a divine happening to save humanity, then why not let humans witness the most miraculous part of it ?

If it was invented than why not invent actual witnesses too ?

A Believer could say : "Because we have to believe out of faith in the resurrection!" - But this point is moot because we would also have to take it on faith even if the gospels mentioned actual witnesses.

A Mythicist could say : "Because it makes the better drama when witnesses only meet the already risen Jesus!" - But that point is moot beause we, that grew up with this fact in the gospels, are biased that way.

Questions for Debate 1) Why no actual witnesses ?

2) Why dismiss scriptures like the gospel of Peter when it includes actual witnesses and narrates important details.

3) And that is the little brother and second funny thing about the resurrection: The running gag in the gospels about old accquintances never recognicing the risen Jesus at first look.
Mary Magdalene Mistaking him for the gardener, Cleopas and another disciple walking with him to Emmaus without knowing, Apostle Thomas only recognicing him by his wounds . . . .

Why first no actual witnesses and than no recognicing? Dont this two facts together cry aloud : "Hoax"?

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 1 by Regens Küchl]

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

Why would the early church reject something so theologically useful as the resurrection narrative in the Gospel of Peter, if not because it was constrained by the rather less theatrical narratives of the soon-to-be-canonical gospels?

Why would the gospel-writers make up a story so bizarre as the one that they tell about the risen Jesus not looking like Jesus at first glance, if not because that's precisely the story that the apostles told?

In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me. All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

You must first identify the gospel writers before I can comment on why they would make up such a bizarre story.

IMO, since we don't know the writers, it is impossible to speculate on why such a bizarre story was written down. It is bizarre though, on that we seem to agree.

[Goose]

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?� And he said, “Who are you, Lord?� And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.� The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Acts 9:3-9
In the first place all Saul SEES is a light. No one else sees anything. Saul hears a voice. He reports this event after being sick, blind, with no food or water for three days. And we are supposed to take this seriously as if it were somehow real, and not an auditory hallucination recalled by someone who'd just had a stroke or seizure and had no food or drink for three days?

You stated Paul claimed it was a vision. Paul doesn’t claim that here (actually he doesn’t claim that anywhere). As I suspected you are attempting to infer it was a vision. An inference which doesn’t necessarily follow from a bright light. It’s just as possible Jesus, in all his heavenly glory, was the cause of the bright light, standing right behind it. Further, troubling your inference it was a hallucination is the fact that the men with Paul heard an audible voice along with Paul. So the experience was corporate and as a general rule of thumb hallucinations are not a corporate experience but are individual. Therefore, it couldn’t have been a hallucination.

[Danmark]

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?� And he said, “Who are you, Lord?� And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.� The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Acts 9:3-9
In the first place all Saul SEES is a light. No one else sees anything. Saul hears a voice. He reports this event after being sick, blind, with no food or water for three days. And we are supposed to take this seriously as if it were somehow real, and not an auditory hallucination recalled by someone who'd just had a stroke or seizure and had no food or drink for three days?

You stated Paul claimed it was a vision. Paul doesn’t claim that here (actually he doesn’t claim that anywhere). As I suspected you are attempting to infer it was a vision. An inference which doesn’t necessarily follow from a bright light. It’s just as possible Jesus, in all his heavenly glory, was the cause of the bright light, standing right behind it. Further, troubling your inference it was a hallucination is the fact that the men with Paul heard an audible voice along with Paul. So the experience was corporate and as a general rule of thumb hallucinations are not a corporate experience but are individual. Therefore, it couldn’t have been a hallucination.

Fair enough, tho' I think this is picking nits. My thesis is not committed to the word 'vision.' That is why I quoted the passage from The Acts of the Apostles, which records Saul reported he saw a light and heard a voice. Call it what you will. If someone tells me or his psychiatrist that he saw or heard a dead person I submit that anyone who is not committed to a religious belief would conclude a hallucination, dream or some other trick of the mind is the most likely explanation. I also note that that the "men" who were with Saul at the time saw nothing, and more importantly are not named. Anonymous witnesses are not peruasive.

My inference is that Saul reported this event after he he had been blind and without food or drink for 3 days. The account was certainly written after Saul had recovered from whatever it was that left him blind and in great distress after he'd gone three days with neither food nor drink.

His physical situation is consistent with seizure and hallucination.

We balance that explanation against a supernatural cause. The choice is easy for any objective examiner.

Saul under cross examination:

Q: Tell us the names of your traveling companions?
A: Don't know.
Q: You were on a long journey with these men and you don't even know their names?
A: What can I say?

Q: At any rate Saul you claim you saw something, but the men who were with you did not see it even tho' they were right next to you?
A: Right, but they heard it.
Q: Tell us their names again and how they can be reached to corroborate your story.
A: Sorry.

Q: Now Saul, am I correct in my understanding that you reported these events after you had been blind and neither ate nor drank for three (3) full days?
A: Yes, but what's your point?
Q: No further questions of this witness, your honor.

[David the apologist]

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

An impossible happening. Why, oh why did no one see it happen?
Could the reason for that be that it did not happen at all, because it is impossible?
Makes one think! Doesnt it?

If it didn't happen at all, then we have to explain the mass hallucinations that not only affected Jesus' followers, but also the hallucinations that haunted Paul of Tarsus, who was putting a great deal of effort into stamping out Jesus' movement.

Why would the early church reject something so theologically useful as the resurrection narrative in the Gospel of Peter, if not because it was constrained by the rather less theatrical narratives of the soon-to-be-canonical gospels?

Sounds very circular reasoning to me. The non-canonical gospels are dismissable because they were not canonized?

The issue here is that the Gospel of Peter is actually more useful, from an apologetic perspective, than the canonical gospels were. Therefore, it seems that something other than apologetic utility motivated the church's choice of the four canonical gospels. And the main candidate is something along the lines of "we can trace the canonical material back to the apostles and their associates, but we cannot trace the G. of P.'s material back to the apostles and their associates."

Why would the gospel-writers make up a story so bizarre as the one that they tell about the risen Jesus not looking like Jesus at first glance, if not because that's precisely the story that the apostles told?

Assuming you were told that some people met Elvis recently, but he didnt look anything like Elvis.
Still they know it was Elvis because he told them so, or in another case they got the felling it must have been Elvis after he left.
One other who would not believe it, was absolutely convinced because this Elvis let him touch his guitar.
Would you believe that it was really Elvis?

The question I'm asking goes back a step. Assuming that these folks are charlatans that want to fleece me, they're not going to say something stupid like "oh, he didn't look like Elvis at first, but then he did." They're going to say something like "Oh. My. Gosh. I was getting out of bed, and there he was. The king of Rock-and-Roll himself sitting in my chair at the other side of the room. One glance, and I knew it had to be him."

On the other hand, let's assume that these people were hallucinating or something. How likely is it that a hallucination of Elvis won't even look like Elvis?!

So the question is one of how the story got told in the first place, not one of why anyone believed it after it was told.

In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me. All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

The question for debate was: Why are there no resurrection narratives?

And my answer was: because while a substantial number of eyewitnesses testified to seeing the Risen Lord, no eyewitnesses testified to seeing Him rise on Easter Morning.

You cant logically follow that up with the question about any thruthfullness of this nonexistent narratives

We have narratives about people encountering the Risen Lord. For convenience, these are often called "resurrection narratives." I was asking a question regarding "appearance narratives," if you want to get technical.

[Danmark]

If it didn't happen at all, then we have to explain the mass hallucinations that not only affected Jesus' followers, but also the hallucinations that haunted Paul of Tarsus, who was putting a great deal of effort into stamping out Jesus' movement.

"Mass hallucinations?" An interesting issue. Not raised for the first time here of course. Let's look at the list of people who, according to the New Testament, claimed they saw Jesus alive after his death and burial. Leaving aside the crucial issue of who actually wrote the various Gospels and letters/books of the New Testament, who actually wrote that he saw Jesus after the supposed resurrection?

Matthew does not make an explicit claim that he himself saw Jesus after his burial.
Mark does not make a specific reference either, tho' "Mark" reports "he appeared to the eleven themselves...."
Luke only repeats the general claim that Jesus appeared to the "eleven."
None of the the synoptic gospels records anything like, "... and I myself saw him."
Luke reports this interesting phrase:
But their eyes were kept from recognizing him.

This verse has always intrigued me. It might as well say, "People reported they saw Jesus, but he didn't look like Jesus." In other words, it wasn't Jesus at all. It is reminiscent of an "Elvis" sighting.

Then we have the two epistles attributed to Peter. Peter never claims to have seen Jesus post burial.

This leaves us with Paul, who is never specific about Jesus' appearance to him. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles describes an event where the anonymous men with Saul do not see anything and that Saul, after 3 blind days of delirium where he has nothing to eat or drink, reports seeing a light and hearing a voice claiming to be Jesus.

As I recall from reading the NT, that's it. The most important single fact, the fact upon which the entirety of Christianity is based, and there is not one single person who names himself and says, "I myself saw Him." Except possibly for Saul, this is not even a hallucination. It is gossip decades after the claimed supernatural event.

And upon this shaky house built upon sand, the whole of Christianity is based.

[instantc]

So the experience was corporate and as a general rule of thumb hallucinations are not a corporate experience but are individual. Therefore, it couldn’t have been a hallucination.

Also, as a general rule of thumb, people don't come back from the death. A group hallucination is certainly more plausible than a resurrection. Similarly to cases of alien abductions, witchcraft and so forth, it's not enough to show that alternative explanations are unlikely or implausible, they need to be miraculously implausible for the conclusion to follow.

[Regens Küchl]

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

An impossible happening. Why, oh why did no one see it happen?
Could the reason for that be that it did not happen at all, because it is impossible?
Makes one think! Doesnt it?

If it didn't happen at all, then we have to explain the mass hallucinations that not only affected Jesus' followers, but also the hallucinations that haunted Paul of Tarsus, who was putting a great deal of effort into stamping out Jesus' movement.

The Followers seem to have seen someone, but he didnt even look like Jesus, and than made themselves or were made to think it was Jesus.
Do you know that there exists a great number of people of both genders throughout history who claimed to be Jesus.
Wikipedia has a list.
Today they even have their own websites and want to be invited from churches to preach there of themsevels.

Paul never saw or heard Jesus before his "Vision".
If Elvis encountered Paul on the road, claiming to be Jesus, the Apostle would have believed the King of Rock.

Or how do you feel about this theory:
Paul rode a little ahead of his companios on the road to Damascus.
At one point he was waylaid by Christians, who must have hated him bitterly then.
They wanted to kill him off for revenge and cried: "You will never persecute Jesus again!"
The Christians struck him down from his horse and hurt him so that he got temporarily blind, even unable to eat and drink (coma?).
But before this Christians could finish their murder Pauls companios neared, causing the Christians to flee, so that the companions saw or heard only fragments of the attackers.
When he come to himself days later in Damascus Paul choose to change sides or else he feared that the murderous christians would another time kill him.
Of course Paul was sly enough to stile it all into a great conversion by Jesus himself, which automatically cleared the way for him to become a leader and Holy Apostle in the christian sect. Better than making tents and reading in sinagogues.
That Christians who waylaid him knew to better not tell:"Oh no - It was we loving Christians who conversed him by attempted murder!"
And so the Holy Apostle Paul got famous.

Why would the early church reject something so theologically useful as the resurrection narrative in the Gospel of Peter, if not because it was constrained by the rather less theatrical narratives of the soon-to-be-canonical gospels?

Sounds very circular reasoning to me. The non-canonical gospels are dismissable because they were not canonized?

The issue here is that the Gospel of Peter is actually more useful, from an apologetic perspective, than the canonical gospels were. Therefore, it seems that something other than apologetic utility motivated the church's choice of the four canonical gospels. And the main candidate is something along the lines of "we can trace the canonical material back to the apostles and their associates, but we cannot trace the G. of P.'s material back to the apostles and their associates."

You only assume this as a theory because it would help your case, but can you back it up with anything?

Why would the gospel-writers make up a story so bizarre as the one that they tell about the risen Jesus not looking like Jesus at first glance, if not because that's precisely the story that the apostles told?

Assuming you were told that some people met Elvis recently, but he didnt look anything like Elvis.
Still they know it was Elvis because he told them so, or in another case they got the felling it must have been Elvis after he left.
One other who would not believe it, was absolutely convinced because this Elvis let him touch his guitar.
Would you believe that it was really Elvis?

The question I'm asking goes back a step. Assuming that these folks are charlatans that want to fleece me, they're not going to say something stupid like "oh, he didn't look like Elvis at first, but then he did." They're going to say something like "Oh. My. Gosh. I was getting out of bed, and there he was. The king of Rock-and-Roll himself sitting in my chair at the other side of the room. One glance, and I knew it had to be him."

On the other hand, let's assume that these people were hallucinating or something. How likely is it that a hallucination of Elvis won't even look like Elvis?!

So the question is one of how the story got told in the first place, not one of why anyone believed it after it was told.

Here you create a false dichotomy and thereout a strawman(hallutination) which i did not mention.
The world is full of Elvis Impersonators. Some look like Elvis, some not and not a one of this persons is a hallucination.
I recommend the movie "Elvis has left the building" for you to learn more about that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elvis_Has_ ... e_Building

In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me. All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

The question for debate was: Why are there no resurrection narratives?

And my answer was: because while a substantial number of eyewitnesses testified to seeing the Risen Lord, no eyewitnesses testified to seeing Him rise on Easter Morning.

You cant logically follow that up with the question about any thruthfullness of this nonexistent narratives

We have narratives about people encountering the Risen Lord. For convenience, these are often called "resurrection narratives." I was asking a question regarding "appearance narratives," if you want to get technical.

While no one saw the actual resurrection, the appearances seem to narrate that imposters did not even care (or know how) to make a really good impersonation of Jesus.
At the death of Elvis there already existed three Elvis Impersonators . . .

Another thing hard to explain I found in the gospel of Matthew Chapter 28:

1 In the ende of the Sabbath, as it began to dawne towards the first day of the weeke, came Mary Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.

2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for the Angel of the Lord descended from heauen, and came and rolled backe the stone from the doore, and sate vpon it.

3 His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snowe.

4 And for feare of him, the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.

5 And the Angel answered, and said vnto the women, Feare not ye: for I know that ye seeke Iesus, which was crucified.

6 He is not here: for he is risen, as hee said: Come, see the place where the Lord lay.
http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/161 ... 3&verse=32

The unnamed Earthquake - Angel (could it by any chance have been Moroni looking for a cave to hide the golden Plates in?) rolls back the stone before witnesses and invites them to see that Jesus has already left the cave ( perhaps to make room for the Golden Plates?) . . .
Buttt . . .
How could have Jesus already bodily rised and left before the stone was rolled back ???

[Provoker]

The sacrosanct canonical four gospels have it in it that they avoid to narrate details about or have actual witnesses for their most miraculous and important point.

So we are to assume that in the dark cave Jesus body suddenly regained life and consciousness, stood up, unsheathed the shroud of turin leaving it right there as evidence of the miracle for the future vatican, with newfound superhuman powers opened his tomb careful not to wake up the roman guards and staying nearby did unknown things (garden work?) until he was mistaken for the gardener.

But like a three that falls over in the wood alone, no one witnessed that.
We are at last to assume that no human saw it or found it worth mentioning, for that is indicated by the whole new testament.

The apocryphal gospel of Peter is among the few, perhaps almost the only, (can anyone provide a list, please?) who narrates detailed important information (walking talking cross) about the actual resurrection and also has it witnessed by people.

"9. And in the night in which the Lord's day was drawing on, as the soldiers kept guard two by two in a watch, there was a great voice in the heaven; and they saw the heavens opened, and two men descend with a great light and approach the tomb. And the stone that was put at the door rolled of itself and made way in part; and the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered in.

10. When therefore those soldiers saw it, they awakened the centurion and the elders, for they too were close by keeping guard. And as they declared what things they had seen, again they saw three men come forth from the tomb, and two of them supporting one, and a cross following them. And the heads of the two reached to heaven, but the head of him who was led by them overpassed the heavens. And they heard a voice from the heavens, saying, You have preached to them that sleep. And a response was heard from the cross, Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Peter

Now It is really funny from every possible standpoint, believer, unbeliever, mythicist, historicist, whatever that we are told of not a one actual witness.

If it was a divine happening to save humanity, then why not let humans witness the most miraculous part of it ?

If it was invented than why not invent actual witnesses too ?

A Believer could say : "Because we have to believe out of faith in the resurrection!" - But this point is moot because we would also have to take it on faith even if the gospels mentioned actual witnesses.

A Mythicist could say : "Because it makes the better drama when witnesses only meet the already risen Jesus!" - But that point is moot beause we, that grew up with this fact in the gospels, are biased that way.

Questions for Debate 1) Why no actual witnesses ?

2) Why dismiss scriptures like the gospel of Peter when it includes actual witnesses and narrates important details.

3) And that is the little brother and second funny thing about the resurrection: The running gag in the gospels about old accquintances never recognicing the risen Jesus at first look.
Mary Magdalene Mistaking him for the gardener, Cleopas and another disciple walking with him to Emmaus without knowing, Apostle Thomas only recognicing him by his wounds . . . .

Why first no actual witnesses and than no recognicing? Dont this two facts together cry aloud : "Hoax"?

We need to understand the context in which Jesus' death and resurrection happened:-)
God's everlasting gospel promise is that a great everlasting nation will bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth. The chosen nation fell, but God's promise is still everlasting. This means that the chosen nation will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill God's promise.
Since the fall of Israel, God's faithful remnant has been watching for the one who is anointed to "resurrect" the kingdom of covenant Israel. When someone became convinced that the kingdom is coming, he submitted to baptism, which is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of the nation chosen to fulfill God's everlasting gospel promise.
A few weeks before Jesus "died, was buried, and resurrected", his friend Lazarus went through the very same thing, and while Lazarus was in the tomb, Jesus told his disciples that Lazarus was not dead. The chances are very good that Jesus and Lazarus rose from the very same tomb. The crucifixion apparently took place in the private garden of Joseph of Arimathea, who just happened to have a connection with both Jesus and Lazarus. The death, burial, and resurrection, of both Lazarus and Jesus, could very well have been elaborately choreographed baptism rituals.
When Lazarus rose from the tomb, he spent the night with Jesus, who taught him secrets. Seems very ritualistic to me:-)

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 28 by Provoker]

We need to understand the context in which Jesus' death and resurrection happened:-)
God's everlasting gospel promise is that a great everlasting nation will bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth. The chosen nation fell, but God's promise is still everlasting. This means that the chosen nation will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill God's promise.
Since the fall of Israel, God's faithful remnant has been watching for the one who is anointed to "resurrect" the kingdom of covenant Israel. When someone became convinced that the kingdom is coming, he submitted to baptism, which is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of the nation chosen to fulfill God's everlasting gospel promise.
A few weeks before Jesus "died, was buried, and resurrected", his friend Lazarus went through the very same thing, and while Lazarus was in the tomb, Jesus told his disciples that Lazarus was not dead. The chances are very good that Jesus and Lazarus rose from the very same tomb. The crucifixion apparently took place in the private garden of Joseph of Arimathea, who just happened to have a connection with both Jesus and Lazarus. The death, burial, and resurrection, of both Lazarus and Jesus, could very well have been elaborately choreographed baptism rituals.
When Lazarus rose from the tomb, he spent the night with Jesus, who taught him secrets. Seems very ritualistic to me:-)

Sounds like a nice story and the symbology makes a lot more sense than literalism. I would be curious though as to the source and evidence for your claims.

[Provoker]

[Replying to post 28 by Provoker]

We need to understand the context in which Jesus' death and resurrection happened:-)
God's everlasting gospel promise is that a great everlasting nation will bless all nations with everlasting peace on earth. The chosen nation fell, but God's promise is still everlasting. This means that the chosen nation will have to be resurrected from the dead to fulfill God's promise.
Since the fall of Israel, God's faithful remnant has been watching for the one who is anointed to "resurrect" the kingdom of covenant Israel. When someone became convinced that the kingdom is coming, he submitted to baptism, which is symbolic of the death, burial, and resurrection of the nation chosen to fulfill God's everlasting gospel promise.
A few weeks before Jesus "died, was buried, and resurrected", his friend Lazarus went through the very same thing, and while Lazarus was in the tomb, Jesus told his disciples that Lazarus was not dead. The chances are very good that Jesus and Lazarus rose from the very same tomb. The crucifixion apparently took place in the private garden of Joseph of Arimathea, who just happened to have a connection with both Jesus and Lazarus. The death, burial, and resurrection, of both Lazarus and Jesus, could very well have been elaborately choreographed baptism rituals.
When Lazarus rose from the tomb, he spent the night with Jesus, who taught him secrets. Seems very ritualistic to me:-)

Sounds like a nice story and the symbology makes a lot more sense than literalism. I would be curious though as to the source and evidence for your claims.

Hello Dan:
It all goes back to the everlasting, unconditional, good news statement of God, which became the faith of Abraham when he believed it. Abraham was justified in his belief, and was counted as right, because it came from God.
The important thing to note here is that God did not say; "I have good news and bad news". He only had good news.
If mankind was doomed to everlasting hellfire because Adam sinned, and something could be done to avert it, this would have been the time to reveal it. God would actually have been being dishonest by revealing good news and not revealing the bad news.
Pagan priesthoods were famous for warning the religious, that if they did not make a sacrifice to appease the god, that the god might do something bad to them. Basically, it is the old Mafia protection racket:-) A red flag should become obvious when God's everlasting, unconditional good news promise, suddenly had conditions added, and the blessing was no longer peace on earth for all, but everlasting heavenly bliss for those who meet the conditions. This is traditional pagan religion, somehow taking precedence over God's own words. The church based on this sudden change of direction, has absolutely nothing about God's everlasting gospel promise in it's doctrines. Sounds like a peaceful takeover, and a cover up to me...LOL
It seems clear to me that the historical events which are recorded in the bible, represent the story of how men tried unsuccessfully to establish the great everlasting nation of God's promise, and faithful men's resolve to try again.
(1) God states that a great nation will eventually establish everlasting world peace.
(2) Those who believe God begin watching and waiting for the one who will establish and lead that great nation.
(3) The children of Israel faithfully promises to become that great nation, and follows 10 laws of national unity.
(4) The nation of Israel breaks the 10 laws, becomes nationally divided, and falls into non-existence.
(5) The small remnant which remains faithful to God's promise, begin to watch and wait for the one who will resurrect the fallen nation from the dead.
(6) The priesthood, serving the foreign rulers, tells the Jews that God expects them to follow old Israelite laws and ritually practice old Israelite government functions.
(7) The Jews forget God's unconditional gospel promise, and put their faith in following the orders of the priesthood.
(8) The foreign rulers(Rome) pretends to give the Jews a king(Herod) and a kingdom, so they think their great nation has arrived.
(9) Jesus comes to tell them the truth that God does not have them under any laws, and they should return to their faith in the coming great nation(kingdom resurrection).
(10) Jesus is killed to stop him from assembling a body of followers, because Rome might see it as a threat, and kill all the Jews.
(11) The apostles continue preaching the gospel of the coming kingdom in Jesus' name.
(12) Rome marches on Jerusalem in 70AD forcing the apostolic church underground.
(13) Constantine becomes ruler of the Roman Empire, sees the underground church, and it's goal of resurrecting David's kingdom, as a threat to the national security of the Roman Empire, and tricks the apostolic church into the open.
(14) Constantine legislates a new set of doctrines onto the church, and God's everlasting gospel promise is conspicuous by it's absence from those doctrines. Constantine promotes the long dead Jesus to the common pagan position of; god sired, dying, rising, god man savior.
(15) Constantine establishes a new, universal Roman church, and forces all the churches of the empire to join.
(16) Constantine establishes a priesthood over the Roman church, which perpetuates Constantine's pagan doctrines to this day.


Sometimes that clear story is hidden behind short stories about Jehu driving his chariot furiously, Gideon tricking the Philistines, and Sampson killing Philistines with the jaw bone of an ass, but the history recorded in the bible tells the real story:-)
What do you think?