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"?

[Blastcat]

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.

I'm not following you.

You're talking about fiction. If we look for in-story logic and find flaws or if we find validity, it still doesn't mean that the story is NON FICTION.. We need a way to find out if the story is fiction or fact.

As an outsider to the faith, I don't really CARE if the story makes sense or not. If it can't be demonstrated to be a FACTUAL story, then I have just as much interest in the in-story logic as I do about STAR TREK .... or STAR WARS.. or HARRY POTTER..

Yeah, some things make sense, and some don't. But it's STILL a bunch of fiction.

So, how is IN STORY valid logic a rebuttal to the atheist objections?

I'm missing something...

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.

Yes, apparently, if the evidence was good.. we would all be theists. So, the evidence HAS to be this bad.. only perfect people get to heaven. Perfection means believing regardless of the quality of the evidence advanced. The worse the evidence, the better the path to heaven.

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.

Because the evidence is so poor that only PERFECT people get to believe it. You aren't so perfect. Go to hell.. lol... me too. Hell for me. ( Mormon hell , whatever that is )

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

Oh sure there were PLENTY of people ready to give up their lives for Jesus. Maybe the tomb was JAMMED PACKED full of witnesses.. who .... since we have NO evidence that they were IN the tomb.. probably went up to heaven too. Makes sense to me.

I refuted this with explaining that an omnipotent god surely surely could teleport in all the witnesses he wanted.

BUT first, the god would have to invent a teleportation device.. or at LEAST a word.. a miracle word... In the beginning was the word.. and POOF .. Jesus to heaven, witnesses in and out of the tomb safely.

Makes perfect sense.

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.

Sure an all powerful god could create MANY events to be witnessed individually, all seeing different things in different ways. NOT to be confused with "delusion".

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.

GOD WILL NOT OBEY YOU.. makes sense, no?
God's like that.. very strong headed is this god.

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.

Do not pretend to know the mind of god when it is inconvenient for the theist position.

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?

There are some. They just are [strike]shy[/strike] HUMBLE.

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

They are RIGHT but also a bit [strike]shy[/strike] HUMBLE.
AND if they utterly convinced you , you would LOSE your free will.

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.

OH YOU TEASE.

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

Double please.

[Danmark]

LilytheTheologian wrote:

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

I don't know why you would cite to them since they completely disagree with your thesis. Yes, there are big differences in the nativity stories, but I was speaking to the differences in the genealogies, which actually contradict each other.

Alongside scholars such as John Dominic Crossan, Borg was a leader in the Jesus Seminar, which brought a skeptical eye to the Scriptures and in particular to supernatural claims about Jesus’ miracles and his resurrection from the dead.
Like other scholars, Borg tended to view Jesus as a Jewish prophet and teacher who was a product of the religious ferment of first-century Judaism.
http://www.religionnews.com/2015/01/22/ ... t-dies-72/

Crossan asserts that many of the gospel stories of Jesus are not factual, including his "nature miracles", the virgin birth, and the raising of Lazarus.[citation needed] While pointing out the meager attestation and apparent belatedness of the miracles' appearance in the trajectory of the canon, Crossan takes the opposite view, that Jesus was known during earliest Christianity as a powerful magician, which was "a very problematic and controversial phenomenon not only for his enemies but even for his friends," who began washing miracles out of the tradition early on.[citation needed]

Crossan maintains the Gospels were never intended by their authors to be taken literally. He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable. He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb. Crossan believes in vision hypothesis "resurrection" by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians. He has debated Christian apologist William Lane Craig over the resurrection of Jesus. He believes that the rapture is based on a misreading of I Thessalonians 4:16–18.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan

[Clownboat]

If he was going to make up a story, he would have done it at a more advantageous time. Plain old common sense tells anyone, even an elementary school kid that.

First, I find the Roswell story a good analogy. I would love to see you defend the Daniel prophecy as well, but that should be for another thread or perhaps a head to head.

Either way, in regards to the bold.
Plain old common sense you say?

Hard to take such statements seriously when the person is trying to defend a story about a dead body coming back from the dead after 3 days and then eventually ascends to heaven.

Does your common sense claim not apply to you, or does it go out the window when religious beliefs are on the table? Is there a double standard at play here?[/quote]

[Ancient of Years]

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

How about a Catholic apologetic answer? Or at least one derived from Catholic ideas.

Jesus went to see his mother first to tell her he was alright. That is why the tomb was already empty. If there were witnesses to the resurrection he would have been mobbed in no time and never gotten to have a quiet moment with his mother.

Sacred Scripture does not record Our Lord's Resurrection in detail, merely the fact that St Mary Magdalene found the tomb empty and He then appeared to her. But what of His Mother, who would have mourned His death more than the others? Why do we not see her there with the women? Why does St Mary Magdalene not also run to her to tell her the wonderful news? The Holy Father has recently taught in one of his Wednesday General Audiences that it is wholly reasonable to believe that Our Lord appeared first to the Blessed Virgin, even though Scripture does not record this intimate moment between the Redeemer and His Beloved Mother. This is the official Vatican news release on the Holy Father's catechesis:

• VATICAN CITY, MAY 21, 1997 (VIS) - The Holy Father focused the catechesis of today's general audience in St. Peter's Square on "Mary and the Resurrection of Christ," and recalled that "the Gospels narrate different apparitions of the Risen One, but not the meeting between Jesus and his Mother."
  
  "From this silence," he continued, "one must not deduce that Christ, after his Resurrection, did not appear to Mary." This omission might be attributed to the fact that "what is necessary for our saving knowledge is entrusted to the word of those 'who were chosen by God as witnesses,' that is, the Apostles," he said, citing the Acts of the Apostles.
  
  John Paul II asked how the Blessed Virgin, who was "present in the first community of the disciples, could have been excluded from the number of those who encountered her divine Son risen from among the dead. On the contrary, it is legitimate to think that the Mother may really have been the first person to whom the risen Jesus appeared. Could not the absence of Mary from the group of women who approached the tomb at dawn constitute an indication that she had already met Jesus?"
  
  "The unique and special nature of the presence of the Virgin at Calvary," added the Pope, "and her perfect union with the Son in his suffering on the Cross, seem to postulate a very particular participation on her part in the mystery of the Resurrection."
  
  The Blessed Virgin, who was present at Calvary and at the Cenacle, "was probably also a privileged witness to the Resurrection of Christ, in this way completing her participation in all the essential moments of the paschal mystery. Embracing the risen Jesus, Mary is, in addition, a sign and anticipation of humanity, which hopes to reach its fulfillment in the resurrection of the dead."

http://www.catholic-pages.com/bvm/resurrection.asp

Another reason for going to his mother’s place before anyone saw him is that he needed some clothes. John 20 says that all the burial linens were still in the tomb. Also he needed to wash up. Not just the blood and stuff but the 75 lbs of myrrh and aloes John 19 mentions. (A good reason for leaving the linens behind.) If Jesus did not get cleaned up and put on fresh clothing, Mary Magdalene would never have mistaken him for the gardener.

Is that in-logic enough?

[LilytheTheologian]

@ 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..

Borg has died, but I have had classes with Crossan and I know he does believe that Jesus was the long-awaited Messiah. Either that or he was lying to our class, and I don't believe he would do that. I can't speak to what Crossan thinks. Only Crossan can. I can only honestly report what he taught to the class I was in (he was a visiting lecturer.) And he taught that Christ WAS the Jewish Messiah.

[LilytheTheologian]

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.

Danmark, I don't deny that NT writers COULD write with an eye toward fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies, I don't think they did, but they COULD have. But the likelihood of them being able to fit the life of Jesus into more than 300 (and I can give you close to 400 of varying degrees) prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled by Jesus, is so astronomical as to be incalculable. Someone asked for only five, so here are five:

1. He would be a priest after the order of Melchisedek. Fulfilled. (Psalm 110.4; Hebrews 5:6).

2. He would come while the Temple of Jerusalem was still standing (Malachi 3:1; Psalm 118:26; Daniel 9:26; Zechariah 11:13; Haggai 2:7-9). Fulfilled. (Matthew 21:12). At some periods of Jewish history the Temple was not standing. It was in the time of Jesus until it was finally destroyed in 70 CE.

3. His own people (the Jews) would reject him (Isaiah 8:14; 28:16; 49:6; 50:6; 60:3; Psalms 22:7-8; 118:22). Fulfilled. 1 Peter 2:7, etc.

4. A messenger, i.e. a “man of the wilderness� would prepare the way for him (Isaiah 40:3; Malachi 3:1) Fulfilled. (John the Baptist) (Matthew 3:1-3; 11:10; John 1:23; Luke 1:17).

5. The exact day of his revealment and crucifixion was given to the prophet Daniel (9:24). Fulfilled. A little complicated, but I will try a short version. Speaking of a 490-year period, Daniel foresaw that this period would begin “from the going forth of the commandment to restore and build Jerusalem� (9:25). In the book of Nehemiah, it can be found that this command was given “in the month of Nisan, in the 20th year of the king� (2:1). The king was Artaxerses Longimanus (465-425 BCE). Daniel said that 483 years from that date, the Messiah would be revealed to Israel, but he would then “be cut off, but not for himself� (9:26)), a prophecy referring to the crucifixion, when Jesus was “cut off� for the sins of the world. Four hundred eighty-three years to the day was April 6, 32 CE. On that day, Jesus rode into Jerusalem on a donkey (foretold in Zechariah 9:9) and revealed himself as Israel’s Messiah. He was crucified (foretold in (Psalm 22:16; cf. Zechariah 12:10; Galatians 3:13) the following Friday, fulfilling the prophecy that he would be revealed and then slain.

Granted, as I said above, the NT writers COULD have tailored their writings to fit the prophecies of the Hebrews, but nearly 400 of them? They couldn't have done that. No one could. He had to be of the tribe of Judah (Genesis 49:10). He had to have been born while the Temple was still standing, i.e before 70 CE (See post above, evidence provided). He had to be slain prior to the destruction of the Temple (See a previous post, evidence provided). He would speak in parables (Psalm 78.2). His bones would not be broken (Psalm 34:20). He would be hated for no reason (Psalm 69:4). He would be betrayed by a friend )Psalm 41:9). The betrayal money would be cast onto the floor of the Temple (Zech. 11:13). It goes on and on and on for nearly 400 Hebrew prophecies.

What are the odds of a man born in the first century fulfilling every one of the nearly 400 prophecies made by the Hebrews more than 700 years (in some cases) prior to his birth? No one could engineer that. No writer could twist things to make it seem as though he fulfilled all if he did not truly fulfill them. Many biblical scholars have scrutinized the Bible and the life of Jesus, and there have been no valid claims made that he did not fulfill the prophecies.

I'm not arguing with your right to not believe in Christ as the Messiah. However, I have a right to believe he was. I only present evidence that even the Jews, themselves, believed about the coming Messiah. Many Jews of the first century converted to Christianity. When trouble arose, it was due to the writings of Maimonides, and while I accord him the status of a very learned man, I don't elevate him to the same level as the Hebrew prophets. If I did, I would also have to elevate Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus and the Venerable Bede, etc. to the level of the Hebrew prophets. I don't. Hindsight is 20/20, but the Hebrew prophets did not have that advantage. They were looking forward, into a new millennium, and yet they told their readers what would happen in the life of Jesus.

At some point, we have to stop. Evidence has been provided on both sides, pro and con. People can draw their own conclusions based on the evidence provided, and I have no doubt they will because that's what people do. You and I aren't going to change each other, and that's fine. We've moved too far afield of the OP's question, I think of why no witnesses to the actual Resurrection. I gave my answer pages ago, so I won't repeat all of it here, but it went something like, "Who is going to go into a sealed tomb with Jesus at night? The most logical place for the Resurrection to occur was in the tomb."

[enviousintheeverafter]

Crossan... proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb.

That's not a surprising view, given that this was the standard procedure for crucifixion; many ancient sources attest that it was standard practice for the body to be left on the cross for scavengers and decomposition. Crucifixion was intended to be grisly and dehumanizing, and so to act as a deterrent- victims were not given a decent burial. This historical fact alone, apart from the other historical and scriptural counter-evidence, casts serious doubt on the resurrection narrative, since clearly if Christ was not buried, there could have been no empty tomb and the crucial premise for the resurrection claim is out the window.

[Zzyzx]

.
Most of the biblical "resurrection" stories directly contradict what is known of the real world and of societal customs of the era.

Thus, Apologists attempt to defend the unlikely tales as "miracles" – with all manner of "explanations" for departure from reality and social customs of the era --without any evidence whatsoever that any such things occurred. Empty tombs are not evidence that occupants came back to life and left.

It is not surprising that writers decades or generations after the claimed event might be convincing with "miracle" tales when addressing a poorly informed (by modern standards), miracle-believing, superstitious audience.

Should it be more surprising that modern people with far more information available about the real world still accept the "miracle" tales as truthful and accurate? Do they believe similar tales about characters from competing religions?

[Zzyzx]

.

Danmark, I don't deny that NT writers COULD write with an eye toward fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies, I don't think they did, but they COULD have. But the likelihood of them being able to fit the life of Jesus into more than 300 (and I can give you close to 400 of varying degrees) prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled by Jesus, is so astronomical as to be incalculable.

It is not surprising that storytellers decades or generations after Jesus died could make their idol fit (or seem to fit) "prophesies".

Any of us can make (even) fictional characters fit earlier writings.

There is no extra-biblical information that substantiates the claim of "fit."

[Danmark]

Can we agree that Jesus was not 'THE' Messiah, but considered a Messiah by some?

....In contrast, many of my academic colleagues in the field of Christian origins would argue that the identification of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah was one put on Jesus by his followers after his death, as part of their recovery of faith following the unanticipated shock of his crucifixion, not something he claimed himself. According to this understanding the scene in Mark where Jesus is confessed as Christ or Messiah by Peter is projected back into the life of Jesus, implying that he both anticipated his death and understood himself in the role of a “suffering Messiah�:

And Jesus went on with his disciples to the villages of Caesarea Philippi. And on the way he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that I am?� And they told him, “John the Baptist; and others say, Elijah; and others, one of the prophets.� And he asked them, “But who do you say that I am?� Peter answered him, “You are the Christ.� And he strictly charged them to tell no one about him. And he began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders and the chief priests and the scribes and be killed, and after three days rise again (Mark 8:27-31).
....
What we find then, within these multi-layered gospel traditions, is a whole set of textual “categories� with potential “candidates� measured against the reported career patterns, or “contexts� of a given figure—in this case the work, and particularly the deaths, of both John the Baptizer and Jesus.

For over a hundred years now these materials have presented scholars of the New Testament with a classic form of the proverbial “chicken or the egg� question. Do our gospel traditions import and impose these textual categories onto the figures of John and Jesus, long after their deaths, as a kind of exegetical or “scribal� enterprise to explain and justify the shocking and wholly unexpected facts of their deaths–the beheading of John and the crucifixion of Jesus? Or is it remotely possible, or even probable, that figures such as John, Jesus, and for that matter, a whole host of late Second Temple Jewish Palestinian “messiah� figures, intentionally acted within an existing messianic tradition? The Dead Sea Scrolls give us insight into the life and times of the unnamed “Teacher of Righteousness.� Josephus mentions a string of messianic figures, besides Jesus, including Judas the Galilean, Athronges, Simon the Perean, “the Samaritan,� Theudas and “the Egyptian.� I would argue that these and others might well have derived their self-identity and also a self-propelled “career pattern� based on a reading of prophetic “messianic� texts.

"In the BAS DVD Biblical Controversies and Enigmas, Dr. James D. Tabor sheds light on longtime Biblical debates, such as the origins of Christianity, what archaeology reveals about the last days of Jesus and what the Bible says about death, the afterlife and resurrection. For beginners and seasoned readers of Biblical Archaeology Review–and everyone in between!"

The vast majority of critical historians dealing with Christian Origins have taken the former position, put so succinctly by Rudolf Bultmann over a generation ago: the scene of Peter’s confession is an Easter story projected backward into Jesus’ lifetime (Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, I: 26). That Jesus himself ever claimed to be the Messiah is considered unlikely, and that he might have resolutely marched to an anticipated ordeal of suffering, and possible death, is categorized as theological apologetics, or perhaps worse, sensationalist romance (e.g., Hugh Schonfield, The Passover Plot). In contrast, Albert Schweitzer concludes his Quest for the Historical Jesus with the intriguing conclusion:

The Baptist appears and cries: ‘Repent for the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.’ Soon after that comes Jesus, and in the knowledge that he is the coming Son of Man lays hold of the wheel of the world to set it moving on that last revolution which is to bring all ordinary history to a close. It refuses to turn, and he throws himself upon it and is crushed.

The so-called “third Quest� for the historical Jesus seems hopelessly halted between two opinions (e.g. Crossan, Borg and Funk vs. Wright, Ehrman, and Fredriksen).
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/dail ... a-messiah/