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]

To try to force Christianity on those who are not ready or who don't want it yet is going to upset them or make them angry. It's going to push them away. I agree with you completely.

I was a tongue talking street evangelizing Christian of 2 decades. I literally begged, pleaded and cried to my god to make himself known to me.

I was already a believer and I was 'ready' as you put it. I wanted it.
The silence was deafening. Your mileage varied obviously.

This puts in to question your blame that some are just not ready.

[Haven]

[Replying to post 372 by LilytheTheologian]

Lily, thanks for sharing your story . It seems that for you--and many (most) believers--religious beliefs are personal, subjective, and experiential in nature, and don't necessarily relate to any kind of objective reality. Religious experiences, "hallucinatory" or not, can have a very profound effect on a person's life course and belief systems.

I was raised in a fundamentalist Southern Baptist home and ended up leaving that faith for evidential and philosophical reasons. After this, I went through a period of questioning and eventually concluded that no religion is true in an objective sense, though all could have meaning to people on a personal level. I'm still "spiritual" in a sense (I feel most 'connected' when in the mountains / wilderness, surrounded by natural beauty . . . those times are certainly profound "spiritual," if not religious, experiences for me) but, knowing what I know philosophically, historically, and scientifically, there's no way I could believe in a personal god or the literal truth of any religion's claims.

[Haven]

My truthful answer is "I don't know." If, when I was 20, someone would have asked me about my beliefs, I would have said that I WANTED to believe, but I didn't see how it could all be true. Then I studied more and more, and finally, after 12 years came to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. not because I wanted it to be, but because it simply was. There was no other reasonable explanation.

What do you mean by "true" here? Do you mean true to you in a subjective, deeply personal sense, or objectively true (as in corresponding to reality)?

What some people see an inconsistencies in the Bible, with study, not twisting, but study, are shown to be not inconsistent at all.

Without any disrespect, I completely disagree with this. I've also studied the scriptures in depth (both before and after leaving Christianity), and there are some inconsistencies that simply can't be reconciled with a close reading of the Greek or Hebrew and knowledge of the cultural context. Some Biblical claims are simply wrong. Moderate and liberal theologians accept this and feel no need to defend the (in my opinion, foolish) doctrine of Biblical inerrancy, while fundamentalists cling to a sinking intellectual ship just to maintain their dogmas.

I think it will just be ignored more and more due to the extreme secularism of the world and because people would rather not be under God's authority. They want to be under their own.

As a nonbeliever I find this just a little insulting. I didn't leave (fundamentalist) Christianity because I "didn't want to live under God's authority," I left because, after years of honest study and questioning, I found that it made no sense. Painting nonbelievers with such a broad brush is a bit presumptuous, I think.

I have yet to see a good motive for the establishment of the early Church. Why didn't these disciples simply go their separate ways, return to their former lives, as the disciples of false messiahs had done previously? And to the posters who say they believed Christ was divine, most of the disciples did NOT believe that until they saw the risen Christ. Even after Peter's confession, it's clear that Peter was not aware of the full import of his words. How would Christ have "fooled" these people in the first century? He didn't have the props David Copperfield uses.

This is actually pretty common among new religious movements. Even when claims are disproven, many followers hang on and reinterpret their theology. "When Prophecy Fails" by Festinger, Riecken, & Stanley is a good read on this subject.

[Ancient of Years]

For people (did you mean the Apostles?) to wait for Jesus to come to them would require that they were expecting a resurrection to happen. Yet all the Gospels indicate that this was a total surprise.

Jesus told them beforehand "After 3 days I'll rise again"

But they did not understand or believe it. They thought Jesus was dead, period.

The women go to the tomb to perform the required burial rites they could not do before the Sabbath. (Lk 24:1)

They did not remember what Jesus had said. (Lk 24:6-8)

The Apostles thought the women’s story sounded like nonsense. (Lk 24:11)

Peter discovered the tomb was empty and wondered what had happened. (Lk 24:12)

Jesus had to explain the whole business to the disciples on the road to Emmaus. (Lk 24:25-27)

The Apostles thought they were seeing a ghost and Jesus had to convince them by eating some fish. (Lk 24:37-43)

Jesus had to explain the whole business to even the Apostles (Lk 24:44-46)

Luke 24

1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. 2 They found the stone rolled away from the tomb, 3 but when they entered, they did not find the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 While they were wondering about this, suddenly two men in clothes that gleamed like lightning stood beside them. 5 In their fright the women bowed down with their faces to the ground, but the men said to them, “Why do you look for the living among the dead? 6 He is not here; he has risen! Remember how he told you, while he was still with you in Galilee: 7 ‘The Son of Man must be delivered over to the hands of sinners, be crucified and on the third day be raised again.’ � 8 Then they remembered his words.

9 When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. 10 It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. 11 But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. 12 Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened.

13 Now that same day two of them were going to a village called Emmaus, about seven miles from Jerusalem. 14 They were talking with each other about everything that had happened. 15 As they talked and discussed these things with each other, Jesus himself came up and walked along with them; 16 but they were kept from recognizing him.

17 He asked them, “What are you discussing together as you walk along?�

They stood still, their faces downcast. 18 One of them, named Cleopas, asked him, “Are you the only one visiting Jerusalem who does not know the things that have happened there in these days?�

19 “What things?� he asked.

“About Jesus of Nazareth,� they replied. “He was a prophet, powerful in word and deed before God and all the people. 20 The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him; 21 but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel. And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place. 22 In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning 23 but didn’t find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. 24 Then some of our companions went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but they did not see Jesus.�

25 He said to them, “How foolish you are, and how slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken! 26 Did not the Messiah have to suffer these things and then enter his glory?� 27 And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

28 As they approached the village to which they were going, Jesus continued on as if he were going farther. 29 But they urged him strongly, “Stay with us, for it is nearly evening; the day is almost over.� So he went in to stay with them.

30 When he was at the table with them, he took bread, gave thanks, broke it and began to give it to them. 31 Then their eyes were opened and they recognized him, and he disappeared from their sight. 32 They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?�

33 They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together 34 and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon.� 35 Then the two told what had happened on the way, and how Jesus was recognized by them when he broke the bread.

36 While they were still talking about this, Jesus himself stood among them and said to them, “Peace be with you.�

37 They were startled and frightened, thinking they saw a ghost. 38 He said to them, “Why are you troubled, and why do doubts rise in your minds? 39 Look at my hands and my feet. It is I myself! Touch me and see; a ghost does not have flesh and bones, as you see I have.�

40 When he had said this, he showed them his hands and feet. 41 And while they still did not believe it because of joy and amazement, he asked them, “Do you have anything here to eat?� 42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish, 43 and he took it and ate it in their presence.

44 He said to them, “This is what I told you while I was still with you: Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms.�

45 Then he opened their minds so they could understand the Scriptures. 46 He told them, “This is what is written: The Messiah will suffer and rise from the dead on the third day, 47 and repentance for the forgiveness of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at Jerusalem. 48 You are witnesses of these things. 49 I am going to send you what my Father has promised; but stay in the city until you have been clothed with power from on high.�

[PghPanther]

If any of you have studied comparative literature (after getting undergraduate degrees in drama and French in Paris, I started out as an English major here in the US, then switched to RC theology and psychology) you will know that myths take at least three to four generations to become established. There are no parallels – none, zero, zip, nada – in other literature or myth developing and being believed in the presence of eyewitnesses within the short time-frame in which the NT was formed, i.e. fewer than 100 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ.

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). Since 1978, the legend has grown to enormous proportions. If Mark was written circa 60 CE, that would be about 30 years from the time of the death of Jesus (circa 30 CE). So if the Roswell story can be embellished in less than 30 years in modern times, why couldn't the story of Jesus be embellished in ancient times? It would have been much easier for the story to take on legendary elements in ancient times.

There are still people today who believe that in 1947 an alien craft crashed and was recovered, along with alien bodies, by the United States government, and that this was subsequently covered up and kept secret. Though the "core story" of a saucer crash arose immediately in 1947, the elaborations began to appear as early as 1978, when an eyewitness, Maj. Jesse Marcel, described the recovery of the spacecraft in an interview. He never recanted his story, and since then the legend has grown enormously, with numerous devoted believers. This represents a clear case of a legendary development only thirty years after the fact, with all the subsequent additions to the legend (alien bodies, government threats against witnesses, storage of the craft on a military base in Arizona, physics-defying pieces of debris, and so on) arising less than fifty years after the fact, less than twenty years after the first legendary development. Even though modern literacy, skepticism, and technology have made it possible to expose this legend with copious evidence, thousands still believe it.

Claims of the People's Temple leader Jim Jones walking on water by eyewitness followers were established and spread within days of that account......same with Charles Manson levitating a bus to cross a creek............

Eyewitness accounts especially by those with a vested interest in believing what they observed who then pass these stories to other believers is worthless as a factual account of reality no matter how close to the events they claim to be.............and this is especially true when the fantastic claims of Rosewell like aliens goes even beyond such an embellishment to include claims of the supernatural like in the gospels.

Point in case..........Christ is claimed to take a few fish and loaves of bread and feed thousands with baskets of food left over...............well for those who claim they saw this why didn't anyone ask how it happened?

and why wasn't any of that described in the Biblical account?

I mean you can say it is not important to the theology and the message of that passage.......so the how it was done is not important and only a desire of a "sign by an evil generation". As a result you are suppose to take this claim on faith as "blessed are those that believe and have not seen".......

However, Christ performed many miracles and claimed fulfillments of prophecy where he directly states at this conclusion "This was done so that those who see might believe"..........in other words direct evidence claims or signs to those around him.

But you get one doubting Thomas story and it cancels out all the evidence claims that Christ states in all the other accounts?

The gospels are messed up......their accounts of events are as bad as any book on UFO abductions and just embellished if not even more so.

[PghPanther]

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"?

While we are at it......how about the enmass resurrection of all the saints from their graves claimed in Matt 27?

Not only do we have no witnesses of this event........its not even mentioned in the other gospels..........and you would think it would be the most fantastic event in all of human history.....

Think of it.......100s if not 1,000s of dead humans out of the grave in various levels of decay getting up and heading into Jerusalem to praise witness to the glory of God.

This story reeks of such supernatural embellished nonsense that apologist claim it didn't happen but use the excuse that it is aprocalyptic vision language as a slight of hand to try to get out from under such silliness.......

Even in my decades of my walk with the Lord as a born again believer when I first read that story I thought "Wow I need to believe in this actually happening?"

[parsivalshorse]

[Replying to post 386 by PghPanther]

It does seem rather a moot point. There is no direct eye-witness account of Jesus, let alone the resurrection.

[The Nice Centurion]

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"?

While we are at it......how about the enmass resurrection of all the saints from their graves claimed in Matt 27?

Not only do we have no witnesses of this event........its not even mentioned in the other gospels..........and you would think it would be the most fantastic event in all of human history.....

Think of it.......100s if not 1,000s of dead humans out of the grave in various levels of decay getting up and heading into Jerusalem to praise witness to the glory of God.

This story reeks of such supernatural embellished nonsense that apologist claim it didn't happen but use the excuse that it is aprocalyptic vision language as a slight of hand to try to get out from under such silliness.......

Even in my decades of my walk with the Lord as a born again believer when I first read that story I thought "Wow I need to believe in this actually happening?"

The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many. (Matt. 27:52–53)
https://www-thegospelcoalition-org.cdn. ... matthew%2F

The Gospel of Nicodemus is written by two Jesusfirst-Zombiefruits.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Nicodemus

Still the question about the absent witnesses to the resurrection is an important theological one!

Why did an omnipotent god not teleport the greatest historians and phisicians and rulers of that time to the tomb to witness the greatest miracle of all time ???

[TRANSPONDER]

That's all good stuff. Tall tales can spread and myths and legends be created. The point (to labour it) is whether the Gospel account of the resurrection can be taken as credible and contemporary history.

To repeat the case, IF there was even an original common story, we would have at least a basic story. What we have are 3 conflicting tales, telling us that there was originally no resurrection -story. And Mark having no such story, pretty much proves that. The excuse that it 'Got Lost' will no longer wash. Clearly Mark's gospel ended with the women running away and that's all there ever was. The other gospels were invented later on and that's why they contradict, terminally and totally.

Oh yes, I know there are various tricks and swindles to try to fiddle them together. But no reasonable person (with some help) will be fooled by these apologetics excuses.

The women did not run into Jesus. They could not have done so and neither Luke nor John mention it. There was no appearance to Simon. Not with it being ignored by everyone. There was no angel explaining everything to the women - not when John has the women reporting back to the disciples with no clue what has happened to Jesus. We are looking at total fabrication of a story that wasn't originally there.

cue: I Corinthians.

[We_Are_VENOM]

That's all good stuff. Tall tales can spread and myths and legends be created. The point (to labour it) is whether the Gospel account of the resurrection can be taken as credible and contemporary history.

Yes, the Gospels account of the resurrection can be taken as credible and contemporary history.

To repeat the case, IF there was even an original common story, we would have at least a basic story.

Yeah, um...the original common story is 1Corin 15:3-7, as laid out by Paul...which predates the Gospels.

That is the basic story.

I keep pointing this out to you but you keep carrying on and on, regurgitating the same stuff....so hey, I guess I will have to keep stressing this point as often as you move from thread to thread with the same ole same ole.

What we have are 3 conflicting tales, telling us that there was originally no resurrection -story.

All Gospels attest to Jesus' resurrection, with Paul 1Corin 15:3-7 as the cherry on top.

And Mark having no such story, pretty much proves that.

You are WRONG.

Mark has a resurrection story...

6 But he said to them, “Do not be alarmed. You seek Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. He is risen! He is not here. See the place where they laid Him. 7 But go, tell His disciples—and Peter—that He is going [a]before you into Galilee; there you will see Him, as He said to you.”

That, is the resurrection story^.

Mark doesn't have the post-mortem appearances of Jesus, but so what?

Verse 7 clearly states that the women were to see him in Galilee.

Again, long story short, you are clearly wrong here, and will continue to be wrong every time you raise this objection.

Being wrong doesn't seem to bother you...and I find it disturbing.

The excuse that it 'Got Lost' will no longer wash. Clearly Mark's gospel ended with the women running away and that's all there ever was.

They ran away after they were told that Jesus had risen, thus, RESURRECTION...which you claimed was not in context of Mark's Gospel.

And you were/are wrong.

The other gospels were invented later on and that's why they contradict, terminally and totally.

Opinions.

Oh yes, I know there are various tricks and swindles to try to fiddle them together. But no reasonable person (with some help) will be fooled by these apologetics excuses.

No excuses...just good, old fashioned apologetics.

The women did not run into Jesus. They could not have done so and neither Luke nor John mention it.

Syllogism test...

1. Luke and John didn't mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Fallacious reasoning.

Test failed.

There was no appearance to Simon. Not with it being ignored by everyone. There was no angel explaining everything to the women - not when John has the women reporting back to the disciples with no clue what has happened to Jesus. We are looking at total fabrication of a story that wasn't originally there.

cue: I Corinthians.

Nah. You were already owned on this one.

Well actually, you were already owned on all of it, but this was was the zinger.

Still no adequate response to my breakdown.

But see ya around. I will see which thread you show up to next with the same ole stuff.