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"?

[enviousintheeverafter]

No parallels?!?

I think the Roswell legend is an excellent analogy. There was 31 years between the time of the event (1947) and the first legendary embellishment (1978).

Indeed. And the Christ narratives may have had considerably longer than that. And particularly given that they were probably being transmitted/modified orally in synagogue in the midst of the Jewish liturgy during this period its not especially surprising that the narrative ending up conforming to all these various Jewish theological/prophetic themes.

[LilytheTheologian]

No parallels?!?

I think the Roswell legend is an excellent analogy. There was 31 years between the time of the event (1947) and the first legendary embellishment (1978).

Indeed. And the Christ narratives may have had considerably longer than that. And particularly given that they were probably being transmitted/modified orally in synagogue in the midst of the Jewish liturgy during this period its not especially surprising that the narrative ending up conforming to all these various Jewish theological/prophetic themes.

Then why don't the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah? They say he did not fulfill every prophecy. He does not conform to Jewish theology or Jewish prophetic themes. At least not to the satisfaction of most Jews.

[Inigo Montoya]

No parallels?!?

I think the Roswell legend is an excellent analogy. There was 31 years between the time of the event (1947) and the first legendary embellishment (1978).

Indeed. And the Christ narratives may have had considerably longer than that. And particularly given that they were probably being transmitted/modified orally in synagogue in the midst of the Jewish liturgy during this period its not especially surprising that the narrative ending up conforming to all these various Jewish theological/prophetic themes.

Then why don't the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah? They say he did not fulfill every prophecy. He does not conform to Jewish theology or Jewish prophetic themes. At least not to the satisfaction of most Jews.

Lily,

Please take 5 minutes to read this exceptional post by one of our own members, Cnorman.

viewtopic.php?t=24570

If you can return to this thread after reading it and continue to maintain the Jewish prophecies were fulfilled by Yeshua, especially by refuting what he's written, I will bestow upon ye all the gold and likes I have available to me.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Then why don't the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah? They say he did not fulfill every prophecy. He does not conform to Jewish theology or Jewish prophetic themes. At least not to the satisfaction of most Jews.

Alot of Jews did accept Christ, and were converted. But obviously there are many different reasons why someone would disbelieve something (including the trivial reason that one hasn't encountered/heard the claim before), and one simply cannot find a theological or prophetic claim which is unanimously accepted in any religion. So clearly this is not, in itself, a convincing counter-argument.

[historia]

Never have I seen you commit to a theological position of your own.

My interests lie in the area of history rather than theology, hence my username 'historia', the Latin term for history.

Will you participate in a thread about it, perhaps in the Questions for a Member subforum?

No thanks.

[Inigo Montoya]

Never have I seen you commit to a theological position of your own.

My interests lie in the area of history rather than theology, hence my username 'historia', the Latin term for history.

Will you participate in a thread about it, perhaps in the Questions for a Member subforum?

No thanks.

Fair enough. You of course have a theological position, but don't wish to share it. Thanks for responding.

[LilytheTheologian]

No parallels?!?

I think the Roswell legend is an excellent analogy. There was 31 years between the time of the event (1947) and the first legendary embellishment (1978).

Indeed. And the Christ narratives may have had considerably longer than that. And particularly given that they were probably being transmitted/modified orally in synagogue in the midst of the Jewish liturgy during this period its not especially surprising that the narrative ending up conforming to all these various Jewish theological/prophetic themes.

Then why don't the Jews accept Christ as the Messiah? They say he did not fulfill every prophecy. He does not conform to Jewish theology or Jewish prophetic themes. At least not to the satisfaction of most Jews.

Lily,

Please take 5 minutes to read this exceptional post by one of our own members, Cnorman.

viewtopic.php?t=24570

If you can return to this thread after reading it and continue to maintain the Jewish prophecies were fulfilled by Yeshua, especially by refuting what he's written, I will bestow upon ye all the gold and likes I have available to me.

I read it, and it's very well written, and I have heard similar views expressed from the Jews I know. However the Jews I know DO believe the coming of the Messiah was foretold in prophecy, and the writer of the post failed to cite any Hebrew Scripture for believing as he does. Therefore, I cannot judge what he says. Not without knowing his basis. Point me to a post showing his basis for saying what he does, and I will answer his post. Obviously, he does believe in prophecy because the one prophecy he did cite was that the Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah.

I don't understand how he, a Jew, can possibly say that the Messiah was not foretold in prophecy. Moses, the greatest of all the Hebrew prophets said:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him’.� (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

[Danmark]

I don't understand how he, a Jew, can possibly say that the Messiah was not foretold in prophecy. Moses, the greatest of all the Hebrew prophets said:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him’.� (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

Yes, I suppose Moses was a Messiah. He was anointed and saved his people, or delivered them from bondage according to the legend. A key phrase is "a Prophet like me." How did we move from the idea of a Messiah to THE Messiah, a Prophet of supernatural status? How did a Prophet come to be thought of as God?

[LilytheTheologian]

I don't understand how he, a Jew, can possibly say that the Messiah was not foretold in prophecy. Moses, the greatest of all the Hebrew prophets said:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him’.� (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

Yes, I suppose Moses was a Messiah. He was anointed and saved his people, or delivered them from bondage according to the legend. A key phrase is "a Prophet like me." How did we move from the idea of a Messiah to THE Messiah, a Prophet of supernatural status? How did a Prophet come to be thought of as God?

If you're going to quote God, you really should quote the rest of what he said to Moses that day: "...and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him’.�

One of the things that distinguishes Jesus from Moses and Isaiah and Elijah, other great prophets, is the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and lived among and interacted with those who had not died for a time.

As for the Jews not embracing Jesus as their Messiah: "And he shall be for a sanctuary; but for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offense to both the houses of Israel, for a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem" (Isaiah 8:14; and Isaiah 28:16; 49:6; 50:6; 60:3; Psalms 22:7-8; 118:22; 1 Peter 2:7), etc.

Even in Genesis, the coming of Christ was foretold: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel� (Genesis 3:15). The meaning being that God's Seed, i.e. Christ, would be wounded by Satan, but that Christ would undo the damage that Satan had done.

"Her Seed." Can a woman HAVE a seed No. A woman receives a seed. Mary received the Seed of the Holy Spirit.

Isaiah even foretold Jesus' burial among the wealthy: "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth" (Isaiah 53:9). The passage could also be translated: “...they planned His grave (to be) with the wicked, but it was with a rich man [Joseph of Arimathea] in His death.� The victims of crucifixion were often not even buried, but left for animals to scavenge. Isaiah, however, predicted, hundreds of years before the birth of Christ, that he would be crucified and buried "with the rich."

Isaiah did predict the crucifixion, 700 years before it happened: “But He was pierced through for our transgressions, He was crushed for our iniquities; The chastening for our well-being fell upon Him, And by His scourging we are healed" (Isaiah 53:5). It is almost as though Isaiah were standing at the foot of the Cross at Christ's crucifixion.

As I said, I respect the Jews I have known. All I have known have been kind, giving people. However, the Jews do tend to side-step Isaiah 53 in their teachings. If pressed, they will say it refers to an unknown temple priest or to the nation of Israel itself, but the Jews run into grave problems with this interpretation.

Has the nation of Israel ever been sinless? No. No nation has. Has Israel ever atoned for the sins of all people:

“All of us like sheep have gone astray, Each of us has turned to his own way; But the Lord has caused the iniquity of us all To fall on Him� (Isaiah 53:6).

Has the nation of Israel ever suffered willingly, without protestation, voluntarily?

“He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth" (Isaiah 53:7).

Has the nation of Israel ever actually died, i.e. ceased living, expired? No.

“His grave was assigned with wicked men, Yet He was with a rich man in His death, Because He had done no violence, Nor was there any deceit in His mouth.� “Therefore, I will allot Him a portion with the great, And He will divide the booty with the strong; Because He poured out Himself to death, And was numbered with the transgressors; Yet He Himself bore the sin of many, And interceded for the transgressors� (Isaiah 53:9, 12).

Some of the prophecies Christ fulfilled could ONLY be fulfilled by a first century man: Jacob said, in Genesis 49:10, "The scepter shall not depart from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until Shiloh comes." The Jewish writer I was directed to, who claims the coming of the Messiah was NOT foretold in prophecy, then goes on to contradict himself and say Christ fulfilled only one prophecy - he was born of the tribe of Judah - seems not to realize that the scepter DID pass from Judah in 70 CE when the Temple was destroyed. By the writer's own admission, this was a sign of the true Messiah. He (the writer) claims there can be no "wiggle room," and I agree with that. Yet he cannot claim that and still claim that the Messiah has yet to be born. The scepter passed from Judah in 70 CE.

I could go on with 100s more Jewish prophecies Christ fulfilled, but at this time, I won't. However, I do, definitely, maintain that Christ fulfilled ALL of the prophecies of the Hebrew Scriptures, and that the possibility of someone other than the Messiah fulfilling ALL of them - concurrently - is so small as to be incalculable.

My post is NOT an attack on Judaism or any other religion. Obviously, I do not agree with all Judaism embraces, but I do not attack it. I respect it and its adherents. I respect many people with whom I disagree.

[Danmark]

I don't understand how he, a Jew, can possibly say that the Messiah was not foretold in prophecy. Moses, the greatest of all the Hebrew prophets said:

“The LORD your God will raise up for you a Prophet like me from your midst, from your brethren. Him you shall hear, according to all you desired of the LORD your God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, nor let me see this great fire anymore, lest I die.’ And the LORD said to me: ‘What they have spoken is good. I will raise up for them a Prophet like you from among their brethren, and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him’.� (Deuteronomy 18:15-19).

Yes, I suppose Moses was a Messiah. He was anointed and saved his people, or delivered them from bondage according to the legend. A key phrase is "a Prophet like me." How did we move from the idea of a Messiah to THE Messiah, a Prophet of supernatural status? How did a Prophet come to be thought of as God?

If you're going to quote God, you really should quote the rest of what he said to Moses that day: "...and will put My words in His mouth, and He shall speak to them all that I command Him. And it shall be that whoever will not hear My words, which He speaks in My name, I will require it of him’.�

I didn't quote God. [I never quote 'God'] I quoted Moses from a book, author unknown, saying "a Prophet like me." The point is that this character Moses in the story says that another Prophet like him is coming, not God Himself coming in the guise of a human.

One of the things that distinguishes Jesus from Moses and Isaiah and Elijah, other great prophets, is the fact that Jesus was resurrected from the dead and lived among and interacted with those who had not died for a time.

Wrong. That is the very subject at issue. That claim is nowhere in the Bible [what Christians call the "Old Testament"]

Even in Genesis, the coming of Christ was foretold: “And I will put enmity between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel� (Genesis 3:15). The meaning being that God's Seed, i.e. Christ, would be wounded by Satan, but that Christ would undo the damage that Satan had done.

"Her Seed." Can a woman HAVE a seed No. A woman receives a seed. Mary received the Seed of the Holy Spirit.

Preposterous! Your analysis appears to rest on the fallacy of equivocation, and misunderstanding the use of "seed" in a hyper technical sense that would have been unknown in Biblical times. Getting the "Seed" of the "Holy Spirit" out of Genesis 3:15 involves an act of will along the lines of fantasy, not logic.

BTW, does either your personal theology/belief system, or that of the school/professors you studied with take the creation, Garden of Eden, Noah and the Flood, the Tower of Babel and so forth literally, as events that actually happened as related in Genesis?