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"?

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 249 by Danmark]

Borg and Crossan are the best people to explain what they mean by the different nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. They do it here:

http://connectionsonline.org/wp-content ... 08Conn.pdf

You can see that both theologians still believed that Jesus was God, the promised Messiah. They believe the nativity stories, and the differing genealogies, are parables, microcosms of the entire gospel itself. It makes sense since Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience, and Luke for a Gentile audience.

In no place does either author discredit Christ's divinity or right to be called the Messiah.

[FarWanderer]

Before I would ever even entertain that my view that Jesus was THE Messiah could be false, someone would have to present me with the mathematical calculations showing that any random man could fulfill all of the 100s of Hebrew prophecies,

A lot higher if he knows what they are and acts to fill them.
And a lot higher if he's to some degree retroactively fictionalized to have fullfilled them.
And higher still if Hebrew prophecies were reinterpreted to fit what the man did.

prophecies the ancient Hebrews, and most modern Jews, accept as true, prophecies that had to have been fulfilled by a first century Jew prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. And, prophecies that your Jewish writer, himself seems to believe since he claims Jesus DID fulfill the one about being from the tribe of Judah.

I have proven my point. No one has countered it with anything but grasping at straws like the differing genealogies. Both Borg and Crossan did/do not believe this negatively impacted Jesus' divinity, and both accepted that divinity. It is YOU who is free to believe what you like. No one has ever said you are not. But if you want to refute what I write, please give me some basis for doing so, not just "because I said so." I do not do that. I do not shoot into a pond and hope I kill a fish. I back up what I write with scripture, usually Hebrew Scripture that was written centuries prior to the birth of Christ. Please return the favor.

We can't well refute your "100s" of prophesies unless you actually tell us what they are. 200+ is quite a lot, so could we start with your best 5 or something?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 245 by LilytheTheologian]


Moderator Comment
Hi Lily,

We do expect people to make their arguments on the debate site. It is not sufficient to say, 'read the bible' or 'go study biology'. As best as possible we expect evidence to be given in the thread to support our arguments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Blastcat]

People, whether they believe Christ was THE Messiah or not, can find out most about his life by reading the Bible.

Well, for sure the Jesus story is TO BE FOUND in the Bible...

I have quoted the Jewish historian Josephus, who was no fan of Christian, the Roman historian Tacitus, archeologists who found evidence of Pontius Pilate's existence, etc.

Josephus wasn't a witness.. he wasn't BORN when Jesus died. And his Antiquities of the Jews was written about 60 years after Jesus was supposed to have died.

There is much debate regarding whether and to what extent his writings are authentic or tampered with by later Christians which had to have occurred no later then the 4th century when the Testimonium Flavianum is first referenced.

Tacitus, born 20 years after Jesus was supposedly put to death, is NOT found to be a good source of information about Jesus. Many problems are to be found in his ANNALS that render the mentions highly suspect. The oldest copy of that part of the Annals is from the 11th century. Hardly a witness to the events, and highly suspect as accurate in any way. Many scholars think that the "Chrstus" or "Chrestus" mentions might be interpolations.

I understand you do not believe Christ was THE Messiah. That is fine. That is your stance. Show me why he is not. Use evidence.

This is the fallacy of shifting the burden of the proof. If I have a claim, and you reject that claim, it is NOT for you to prove me wrong. but for ME to prove my claim TRUE.

I would need to give you evidence for MY claim.. and NOT the other way around. IF you cannot provide adequate evidence to convince me that your claim is true, then I won't buy it.

I asked the question, "How could ANY MAN fulfill the hundreds of prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures regarding THE Messiah hundreds and hundreds of years before Christ's birth?

The question is spurious. It assumes that someone DID fulfill hundreds of prophecies in the first place, a claim that is incredible. How could a man do it.... that's not the right question. It's more DID a man do it?

"Some prophecies in the Bible, such as the ones about Jesus, seem to be fulfilled only because the Gospels twist unrelated verses in the Old Testament to convince their various audiences to become Christians (and sometimes even made things up to convince readers, like the fake genealogy numbers of Matthew 1:17). Other prophecies are very vague, and so all kinds of events could occur that would "fulfill" them. Still others were never predicted until after the event took place. And since there's also a large number of unfulfilled prophecies, alleged prophecy fulfillment is not sufficient to compel belief in the inerrancy of the Bible. "

From http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Failed_biblical_prophecies

I've supplied the most evidence. If I haven't, give me some evidence that Christ was not the Messiah, evidence that is not your opinion only.

Again, this is the fallacy of shifting the burden of the proof. It is not up to anyone else to DISPROVE a claim. It's up to YOU to prove it.

There are WAY TOO MANY CLAIMS for us to go around disproving them all.

Some examples of things you might want to disprove when you have the time :

Disprove Santa for me.
Disprove that Vishnu isn't the one true god.
Disprove the Loch Ness Monster with evidence that it DOESN'T exist.
Disprove ALLAH, disprove Russell's tea pot is in orbit in between Earth and Mars

So, Maimonides himself relied on prophecy.[/b] Don't take my word for it, look it up.

It really doesn't matter what some person thought a long time ago. Maimonides is a human, and as you said, could be in ERROR... but so can I , so can you.

If Maimonides WAS mistaken, it still does not prove that some prophecy was fulfilled, or that Jesus is more than a fictional character.

Please, if you want to convince anyone, provide your evidence, we will gladly take a look at it, and will honestly tell you what we think of it.

IF your evidence is overwhelming in FAVOR of your claim, we will be FORCED to accept it as fact, and soon after, become Christians just like you.

If you can't convince us, it's either because your evidence is poor, because your reasoning is flawed in some way, OR because we are fools who none of us doeth good. AS it says in the Bible.

Maybe you think that people who don't agree with you are simply fools and evil, and if that's the case, no manner of evidence WILL change our minds.. but think of this.

Many ATHEISTS have demonstrated their ability to change their minds as many of them HAVE been THEISTS before and changed their minds.

I present myself as an example.
So, some atheists, at least, HAD the capacity to change their minds due to rational argument and evidence. And some atheist might STILL HAVE that capacity.

So, present your argument clearly and have your evidence at hand to support them.
I will give you the MOST benefit of the doubt and even try to HELP your case.

I try to help by pointing out flaws, logical mistakes, and problems with evidence.
It's a critical kind of help, but at LEAST by paying attention to my critique, you might be able to refine your position, because as you say.. nobody is perfect.

Apologetics gives us the SEMBLANCE of an answer to everything, but.. if we CRITICIZE the apologetics.. we find MANY HUGE ERRORS.

It's not good to construct an argument based on HUGE ERRORS. I've pointed out a few in this post. Many people are taking the trouble to help you out in this sub-forum.

Many people have helped ME along.. and I've had to admit to a LOT of mistakes of all kinds. Don't hesitate to return the favor. Be as ruthless as you can.

Cheers.

[Regens Küchl]

Now will follow a SUMMARY of the answers and objections to my OP from this past 26 pages:

The Question being : WHY NO ACTUAL WITNESSES FOR THE RESURRECTION ?

A sceptical (in case the resurrection story not true) excellent solution was found.
(For my OP was a question to sceptics and believers alike.)
This was the answer: By not narrating or have actual witnesses in the story it was left unclear if the resurrection was spiritual or bodily. This was good for the christian movement so that preferators of both kinds of resurrection would join the sect easy.

And further invented actual witnesses could have become subject of uncomfortable nitpicking and questioning.

So much for sceptic solutions.

Later FarWanderer gave an intelligent theist answer: The christian gods resurrection magic is so weak that it would not have worked in the presence of witnesses.

This theist answer would destroy the belief in an omnipotent god and so destroy christianity as it is.

So I still waited for a christian apologetic answer solution to my question.

Not a one came.

END OF SUMMARY PART I

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 249 by Danmark]

Borg and Crossan are the best people to explain what they mean by the different nativity stories in Matthew and Luke. They do it here:

http://connectionsonline.org/wp-content ... 08Conn.pdf

You can see that both theologians still believed that Jesus was God, the promised Messiah. They believe the nativity stories, and the differing genealogies, are parables, microcosms of the entire gospel itself. It makes sense since Matthew was writing for a Jewish audience, and Luke for a Gentile audience.

In no place does either author discredit Christ's divinity or right to be called the Messiah.

Thank you for telling us what they believe in.

An argument from authority is not convincing, however.
I don't CARE who believes what.
I want FACTS.. not beliefs.. you cannot prove a belief by stating a belief.

That's like saying "I believe it rained last night because some other person believes it rained last night."

So WHAT someone else believes what you believe in too?

You ALL might be wrong... maybe it DID or maybe it DIDN'T rain last night.. how about we look at the EVIDENCE that it did?

Please, name dropping isn't going to help your case at all.
Make your case.. present your evidence.

[Danmark]

Strangely, this Jewish poster, who said the Messiah was not foretold in prophecy, and who was relying on the philosophy of Maimonides, neglected the fact that Maimonides, himself wrote something called "The Jewish Principles of Faith." The sixth is Revelation through God's Prophets, and the seventh is The Preeminence of Moses Among the Prophets. So, Maimonides himself relied on prophecy. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

I'm not aware of anyone who would disagree that the Jewish tradition looks to prophesy and to Moses in particular. That's like saying the sky is blue on a sunny day. The essential point is that New Testament writers wrote to those prophesies to appropriate them for their new religion.

[Blastcat]

Strangely, this Jewish poster, who said the Messiah was not foretold in prophecy, and who was relying on the philosophy of Maimonides, neglected the fact that Maimonides, himself wrote something called "The Jewish Principles of Faith." The sixth is Revelation through God's Prophets, and the seventh is The Preeminence of Moses Among the Prophets. So, Maimonides himself relied on prophecy. Don't take my word for it, look it up.

I'm not aware of anyone who would claim The Jewish tradition does not look to prophesy and Moses in particular. That's like saying the sky is blue on a sunny day. The essential point is that New Testament writers wrote to those prophesies to appropriate them for their new religion.

It says that the Messiah will ride into town on a donkey?.. Let's have this guy ride into town on a donkey.. VOILA.. prophecy fulfilled with the use of RENT A DONKEY.

But are ALL people riding into town a Messiah, too?

Or was it an ass.. or two small ponies.. whatever. It would have been WAY more impressive if the dude rode into town in a BEEMER.

[Regens Küchl]

SUMMARY PART II

what I got instead was tree christian and one sceptic major OBJECTIONS TO MY QUESTION whom I refuted or will now refute.

The sceptic objection said that for a sceptic it was a rhetorical question and so can receive no answer when it is assumed the story was fiction.
I refuted by explaining that debating the in-logic of fictional storys and finding answers to questions left open by the authors is very common especially among fans.
It is done, can be done and often has very intelligent solutions to show.

Christian objection 1 lamented that if there were witnesses than everyone would be a believer which would be bad for gods concept of free will.

But I can refute this fallacy for example by pointing to the eleven official witnesses to the golden plates and STILL NOT EVERYONE IS A MORMON.

Christian objection 2 was that actual witnesses were impossible if no one wanted to be sealed alive within the tomb with Jesus.

Irefuted this with explaining that an omnipotent god surely surely could teleport in all the witnesses he wanted.
And further people as in the Gospel of Peter waiting outside the tomb and seeing the resurrected Christ leave would be acceptable as actual witnesses too.

The third christian objection was telling me that god will not do my bidding or than telling me that god has never reasons for what he does.

This is a fallacious objection for I dont expect god does my bidding.
I just asked for why he didnt want actual witnesses because according to the bible he does indeed have reasons for things he does.
The flood and sodom and gomorrha because of human sin for example.

So we have already 26 pages in a christian apologetic forum and still from no one a real christian apologetic answer to:
WHY NO WITNESSES FOR THE ACTUAL RESURRECTION?

This suggests to me that with my question I struck theological gold
, for why else would christian apologists so hazardly dodge it.

I miself thought up the best christian apologetic answer that could emerge out of my wisdom and will still wait a little longer to post it here.

In the meantime please you give a clear christian apologetic answer to:
WHY NO WITNESSES FOR THE ACTUAL RESURRECTION?

[Elijah John]

@ Lily..

Neither John Dominic Crossan, nor Marcus Borg understand the term "Son of God" in a "2nd person of the Trinity" kind of literal way.

They both understand the term in a very Jewish sense, that the term "Son of God" was one of God's specially annointed, like King David. Crossan and Borg do not believe that Jesus was the literal incarnation of God..

Both Crossan and Borg make the distinction between the "the historical Jesus" and the "Christ of Faith".

Read Crossan's book "Who is Jesus?" or Borg's "Speaking Christian"...

Borg in Speaking Christian makes the distinction in his chapter about Jesus, and refers to the "pre-Easter" and the "post Easter" Jesus. Borg believes the Divine qualities attributed to the Risen Jesus by his followers were projected backwards to the very human, pre-Easter Jesus, qualities he did not have at the time.

But I do not think that either Borg or Crossan even believe the post-Easter Jesus has those Divine qualities in anything but a symbolic, non-literal sense.

Borg does not consider the pre-Jesus Divine in any "only begotten Son of God", eternally pre-existent sense..