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"?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Ok. This touches on point 2 of the Resurrection apologetic 'Paul attested to the resurrection'.

This has been a Problem or Question for the atheist, Bible - denier and Resurrection -skeptic (takes a bow ) Paul said that Peter, the apostles, 500 Christians at once and (finally) James saw the resurrected Jesus. And if I accept that Paul and his writings (up to Philemon at least) are real, that validates the resurrection, right?

You left out the part where Paul stated that Jesus appeared to him, also. So that is first-hand testimony.

But I saw it like this: As soon as I realised that the resurrections were so contradictory that they had to be invented validations of a Dogma (just as the nativities were invented contradictory tales), just what was Paul confirming?

People read the Bible and look for any little excuse as to why they refuse to believe. Or let me put it to you this way; if there were none of those alleged contradictions, would you be a believer in Christ?

Probably not. So, it isn't about the contradictions, is it?

The clue was in Paul saying that Jesus appeared first to Peter Well, that isn't what the Gospels say at all

First off, then your theory that the Gospels borrowed from Paul is bogus...if the accounts do not harmonize.

Second, you are simply wrong here....but I gotta hand it to ya; you definitely seem unfazed with being wrong all the time.

That said, lets see whatcha got...

, apart from Luke, which I'll get to. Then to the 12 - the immediate disciples. And then to 500 at once? When did that happen?

It happened whenever it happened.

It must be some time after the events of the gospels when the Christian community had got quite large.

Quite large? Jesus was a rock star. It didn't have to be a "Christian" community, but more like a "Jesus" community.

If Jesus can feed 5,000 at one time...then certainly 500 can be at his council at any point in time.

And then to James? But wasn't he one of the 12?

No. We've been through this. The James mentioned here is, James, brother of Jesus.

Wasn't he the leader of the Christians after Jesus?

Yeah, because once you've been covered by the blood of Christ, it prompts you to go on to do bigger and better things than you were doing before.

Thus, the leadership of Christians.

He only saw Jesus after 500 of the community had?

And?

And after all that, Jesus finally appeared to Paul, which must have been his conversion which must (according to Paul) been when he was at Damascus which was 36/7 AD (Nabatean war and capture of Damascus) - a mere handful of years after the crucifixion.

And?

Something odd is going on here and Paul is not describing the gospel claim. How about the disciples were moping about after Jesus had been executed and Peter gets a vision of Jesus in heaven? "Cheer up lads. He is in heaven and will come again and succeed next time." Of course this was his messianic spirit because his body was still where it had been put.

Fail to see the point. You are reaching.

"Yes, yes," They all say, having visions of their own (only too easy) and the resurrection becomes a dogma of the Nazoreans with, I suppose, the canny and practical James finally going along with it. So after Paul had sold this idea to his Greek churches (Jesus' messianic spirit was what he taught - not a god) that got the man - Messiah transformed into a demigod and then pretty much God in person by the early Christians, which is what we find in the gospels, which thus have to be written post Paul. QED

Hmm. Not the way the Bible put it, but hey.

There's the empty tomb. I will just propose that this was a common and original claim (possibly true) in all 4 gospels, but the angel at the tomb was added later (John doesn't have it) and Mark had nothing more.

Syllogism test..

1. John doesn't have it, and Mark had nothing more.

2. Therefore, it didn't happened.

Test; FAILED.

Matthew invented a tale of Jesus going back to Galilee

Unsupported assertion.

, the disciples going there and being told to take the word to all nations. That links up with Jesus saying he was sent to Israel (explaining why it fell to the disciples to take the word to the Gentiles).

?

But Matthew was wrong. Luke got a sight of Paul's letters and learned that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and it was Paul's 'mission' to convert the gentiles. So of course he altered the message (from going to Galilee to staying in Jerusalem Luke 24. 7 and 49.) and wrote Acts (a bio. loosely based on Paul's letters.) to explain how the Mission passed to Paul - with the Disciples' approval.

?

But Luke had read I Corinthians and knew that Jesus has 'appeared first to Simon'. But that wasn't what the gospel account of the resurrection said at all. So he altered that as well. Cleophas comes back from Emmaus and is told that Jesus has appeared to Simon. Luke doesn't give an account of this and of course none of the other gospels even mention it. In fact I think that Luke send us off to Emmaeus to get us out of the way while Jesus 'appears to Simon'.

Syllogism test..


1. Gospel X doesn't mention Y.

2. Therefore, Y didn't happen.

Test; FAILED. Illogical reasoning.

I am quite convinced that Paul learned of a spiritual resurrection from the disciples

Nothing wrong in learning from apostles of Jesus, about Jesus.

In fact, I am quite convinced.

and the gospel accounts were separately invented to put substance on this Faith claim and they contradict not only with each other but with Paul.

Yeah, so the Gospels were invented to put substance on this faith claim...and this can be achieved by having each book contradict each other.

Yup, makes perfect sense.

That's my Theory and I'm sticking to it.

Personal problem.

And the point is that it is an alternative to 'Paul confirms the resurrection'. And it is an Alternative that explains the contradictions while the Bible -apologetic version does not, even if it knows of them, or cares.

Yeah, see...what happened was, after I schooled you on how Paul's 1Corin 15:3-7 predates the Gospels, you had to come up with this "alternative to Paul confirms the Gospel".

That is what this is really all about...and that is where all of this left-field reaching comes from...just a whole lot of mumbo jumbo which makes no sense whatsoever.

When you have to go through such lengths to come up with an alternative....it just goes to show where the pain is

Now your point is rather 'Why didn't they invent a performance for everyone?' I have to think about that, but the apologetic has to be that they were stuck with the established narrative, which was that the tomb was open and empty and the women (Sunday at dawn) found it like that.

All Gospels attest to the fact that the tomb was empty.

Given the original version that they told nobody about it having to be changed so that of course they told the disciples they were stuck with the story and didn't dare change it to 'God told everyone in Jerusalem in a dream to assemble at the tomb to see Jesus rise from the dead'. It was too late for that.

Dude, you are all over the place. SMH.

[brunumb]

Why? Decomposing bodies do not return to life.

And dead matter does not become living.

Patently wrong. There is really no such thing as dead matter. Everything, living and non-living is made of the same matter. You can check out all the available elements in the Periodic Table. Living things are structures containing matter organised in such a way that they meet certain criteria that we use to classify them as living. When living things die, those structures break down in such a way that they are no longer able to carry on life functions. The changes are irreversible, unless one concedes that magic will work somehow. Both before and after death, the matter that is involved is the same, just organised differently.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Patently wrong. There is really no such thing as dead matter. Everything, living and non-living is made of the same matter.

You say there is no such thing as dead matter...then in the very next sentence you are differentiating between living, and non-living matter.

Guess what, if something is non-living...it is probably dead (not living).

Quite frankly, you can spare me the rest of it...because if fundamental understandings of the subject are all jacked up, then there is no need to pursue the higher level stuff.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #463]
At last he tried. Isnt it your turn now?
Can you now try to describe in detail what happens during an actual resurrection?

[We_Are_VENOM]

First, of course, Paul never saw Jesus (except in his mind, maybe), before or after the alleged resurrection.

Paul said that Jesus appeared to him.

Now, who am I to believe, Paul or you?

I believe Paul, is what I am trying to say.

I've always found this odd and doubly odd that it is seldom addressed by apologists. Saul and Jesus were contemporaries who traveled the same small locale. Saul, the Pharisee's Pharisee, hated 'Christians,' followers of this unofficial peripatetic Rabbi wandering around with his dusty rabble of illiterate common folk, yet somehow Saul and Jesus never met.

Who said that Paul never met Jesus? Or, is that an assumption with no basis whatsoever?

Yup, it is an assumption with no basis whatsoever.

It must also be remembered that everything Saul/Paul wrote, was after he had a mental crisis complete with full on auditory and visual hallucinations, followed by 3 days without water or food.

Sure, lets go with the "Paul was hallucinating" theory.

That still doesn't negate appearances of Jesus to all of the others he mentioned in 1 Corinth 15:3-7.

I guess they were all hallucinating, too.

Nonsense.

Paul is an unreliable witness who is repeating hearsay, rumor, and his own delusions whenever he talks of Jesus.

Opinions.

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. This touches on point 2 of the Resurrection apologetic 'Paul attested to the resurrection'.

This has been a Problem or Question for the atheist, Bible - denier and Resurrection -skeptic (takes a bow ) Paul said that Peter, the apostles, 500 Christians at once and (finally) James saw the resurrected Jesus. And if I accept that Paul and his writings (up to Philemon at least) are real, that validates the resurrection, right?

But I saw it like this: As soon as I realised that the resurrections were so contradictory that they had to be invented validations of a Dogma (just as the nativities were invented contradictory tales), just what was Paul confirming?

First, of course, Paul never saw Jesus (except in his mind, maybe), before or after the alleged resurrection. I've always found this odd and doubly odd that it is seldom addressed by apologists. Saul and Jesus were contemporaries who traveled the same small locale. Saul, the Pharisee's Pharisee, hated 'Christians,' followers of this unofficial peripatetic Rabbi wandering around with his dusty rabble of illiterate common folk, yet somehow Saul and Jesus never met.

It must also be remembered that everything Saul/Paul wrote, was after he had a mental crisis complete with full on auditory and visual hallucinations, followed by 3 days without water or food. Paul is an unreliable witness who is repeating hearsay, rumor, and his own delusions whenever he talks of Jesus.

Yes. Paul is incredibly reticent about Jesus in life. The impression is that Paul never met him but it almost seems that he knew or cared little about him, (1) but he had a self -confessed anti Christian (or Nazorean) attitude and even activity, and for some reason he switched sides. I guess that you are referencing Acts as to what happened, but to be honest I think the Luke -writer made it all up. I have my own hypothesis about how and why and when Paul converted and even what he says about it, and it wasn't on the Road to Damascus.

(1) I even suspect that the Last Supper reference is more a symbolic reference to God allowing Jesus to be crucified (to establish the loophole in sin) than what I think is a hostile Christian invention of betrayal by one of his followers, with various accusations of bribes (these early Christians never stopped going on about money) and Jesus in fact tells us nothing about Jesus other than the son of David claim. Which I find puzzling and I suspect he might have misunderstood.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #466]

Yes. Paul is incredibly reticent about Jesus in life. The impression is that Paul never met him but it almost seems that he knew or cared little about him, (1) but he had a self -confessed anti Christian (or Nazorean) attitude and even activity, and for some reason he switched sides. I guess that you are referencing Acts as to what happened, but to be honest I think the Luke -writer made it all up. I have my own hypothesis about how and why and when Paul converted and even what he says about it, and it wasn't on the Road to Damascus.

Wild spontaneous guess here, but since Pauls conversion and his license to kill christians before that sound so staged, I have to consider:
What if Paul never really converted at all, but invented a wild history for himself and joined christianity for personal gain?
An acient Tony Anthony?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_An ... vangelist)

[brunumb]

Patently wrong. There is really no such thing as dead matter. Everything, living and non-living is made of the same matter.

You say there is no such thing as dead matter...then in the very next sentence you are differentiating between living, and non-living matter.

Guess what, if something is non-living...it is probably dead (not living).

Quite frankly, you can spare me the rest of it...because if fundamental understandings of the subject are all jacked up, then there is no need to pursue the higher level stuff.

It would help if you did not disingenuously make incorrect claims on my behalf. There is a difference between things that are regarded as living or non-living even though they are all made of the same matter. I notice you only quoted a part of my post and so conveniently disregarded my rebuttal of your statement. The carbon in a non-living diamond is the same as the carbon in a living animal. There is no such thing as living matter, just organised matter that can be classified as a living thing. I wonder if you even know how to classify things as living or non-living. Your pathetic attempt to dismiss my knowledge of the subject matter appears to me as an excuse not to admit to the fault in your own argument.

(Cue flippant dismissal and trivial emoji in response)

[TRANSPONDER]

Ok. This touches on point 2 of the Resurrection apologetic 'Paul attested to the resurrection'.

This has been a Problem or Question for the atheist, Bible - denier and Resurrection -skeptic (takes a bow ) Paul said that Peter, the apostles, 500 Christians at once and (finally) James saw the resurrected Jesus. And if I accept that Paul and his writings (up to Philemon at least) are real, that validates the resurrection, right?

You left out the part where Paul stated that Jesus appeared to him, also. So that is first-hand testimony.

But I saw it like this: As soon as I realised that the resurrections were so contradictory that they had to be invented validations of a Dogma (just as the nativities were invented contradictory tales), just what was Paul confirming?

People read the Bible and look for any little excuse as to why they refuse to believe. Or let me put it to you this way; if there were none of those alleged contradictions, would you be a believer in Christ?

Probably not. So, it isn't about the contradictions, is it?

The clue was in Paul saying that Jesus appeared first to Peter Well, that isn't what the Gospels say at all

First off, then your theory that the Gospels borrowed from Paul is bogus...if the accounts do not harmonize.

Second, you are simply wrong here....but I gotta hand it to ya; you definitely seem unfazed with being wrong all the time.

That said, lets see whatcha got...

, apart from Luke, which I'll get to. Then to the 12 - the immediate disciples. And then to 500 at once? When did that happen?

It happened whenever it happened.

It must be some time after the events of the gospels when the Christian community had got quite large.

Quite large? Jesus was a rock star. It didn't have to be a "Christian" community, but more like a "Jesus" community.

If Jesus can feed 5,000 at one time...then certainly 500 can be at his council at any point in time.

And then to James? But wasn't he one of the 12?

No. We've been through this. The James mentioned here is, James, brother of Jesus.

Wasn't he the leader of the Christians after Jesus?

Yeah, because once you've been covered by the blood of Christ, it prompts you to go on to do bigger and better things than you were doing before.

Thus, the leadership of Christians.

He only saw Jesus after 500 of the community had?

And?

And after all that, Jesus finally appeared to Paul, which must have been his conversion which must (according to Paul) been when he was at Damascus which was 36/7 AD (Nabatean war and capture of Damascus) - a mere handful of years after the crucifixion.

And?

Something odd is going on here and Paul is not describing the gospel claim. How about the disciples were moping about after Jesus had been executed and Peter gets a vision of Jesus in heaven? "Cheer up lads. He is in heaven and will come again and succeed next time." Of course this was his messianic spirit because his body was still where it had been put.

Fail to see the point. You are reaching.

"Yes, yes," They all say, having visions of their own (only too easy) and the resurrection becomes a dogma of the Nazoreans with, I suppose, the canny and practical James finally going along with it. So after Paul had sold this idea to his Greek churches (Jesus' messianic spirit was what he taught - not a god) that got the man - Messiah transformed into a demigod and then pretty much God in person by the early Christians, which is what we find in the gospels, which thus have to be written post Paul. QED

Hmm. Not the way the Bible put it, but hey.

There's the empty tomb. I will just propose that this was a common and original claim (possibly true) in all 4 gospels, but the angel at the tomb was added later (John doesn't have it) and Mark had nothing more.

Syllogism test..

1. John doesn't have it, and Mark had nothing more.

2. Therefore, it didn't happened.

Test; FAILED.

Matthew invented a tale of Jesus going back to Galilee

Unsupported assertion.

, the disciples going there and being told to take the word to all nations. That links up with Jesus saying he was sent to Israel (explaining why it fell to the disciples to take the word to the Gentiles).

?

But Matthew was wrong. Luke got a sight of Paul's letters and learned that the disciples stayed in Jerusalem and it was Paul's 'mission' to convert the gentiles. So of course he altered the message (from going to Galilee to staying in Jerusalem Luke 24. 7 and 49.) and wrote Acts (a bio. loosely based on Paul's letters.) to explain how the Mission passed to Paul - with the Disciples' approval.

?

But Luke had read I Corinthians and knew that Jesus has 'appeared first to Simon'. But that wasn't what the gospel account of the resurrection said at all. So he altered that as well. Cleophas comes back from Emmaus and is told that Jesus has appeared to Simon. Luke doesn't give an account of this and of course none of the other gospels even mention it. In fact I think that Luke send us off to Emmaeus to get us out of the way while Jesus 'appears to Simon'.

Syllogism test..


1. Gospel X doesn't mention Y.

2. Therefore, Y didn't happen.

Test; FAILED. Illogical reasoning.

I am quite convinced that Paul learned of a spiritual resurrection from the disciples

Nothing wrong in learning from apostles of Jesus, about Jesus.

In fact, I am quite convinced.

and the gospel accounts were separately invented to put substance on this Faith claim and they contradict not only with each other but with Paul.

Yeah, so the Gospels were invented to put substance on this faith claim...and this can be achieved by having each book contradict each other.

Yup, makes perfect sense.

That's my Theory and I'm sticking to it.

Personal problem.

And the point is that it is an alternative to 'Paul confirms the resurrection'. And it is an Alternative that explains the contradictions while the Bible -apologetic version does not, even if it knows of them, or cares.

Yeah, see...what happened was, after I schooled you on how Paul's 1Corin 15:3-7 predates the Gospels, you had to come up with this "alternative to Paul confirms the Gospel".

That is what this is really all about...and that is where all of this left-field reaching comes from...just a whole lot of mumbo jumbo which makes no sense whatsoever.

When you have to go through such lengths to come up with an alternative....it just goes to show where the pain is

Now your point is rather 'Why didn't they invent a performance for everyone?' I have to think about that, but the apologetic has to be that they were stuck with the established narrative, which was that the tomb was open and empty and the women (Sunday at dawn) found it like that.

All Gospels attest to the fact that the tomb was empty.

Given the original version that they told nobody about it having to be changed so that of course they told the disciples they were stuck with the story and didn't dare change it to 'God told everyone in Jerusalem in a dream to assemble at the tomb to see Jesus rise from the dead'. It was too late for that.

Dude, you are all over the place. SMH.

As usual, So much said, so little understood and to so little point. I thought I'd mentioned Paul and his vision but the point is rather that the apostolic sightings do not match the gospels.
Now, if the Bible did not contradict there would be other problems. It was just wrong and appealed to miracles. But contradictions would not be an issue. The question really is,since the Bible does contradict so grossly, why do you still believe it? You are the one denying the evidence, not me in denial over some hypothetical harmonised gospel that doesn't exist.

The contradictions are nothing to do with Christianity deriving from Paul's teachings rather than the other way around. It is your objections that are Bogus.

Then a lot of irrelevance that isn't worth responding to. Till you balk at the suggestion of visions of Jesus by the disciples. It is a bit of a reach, I'll grant but (I'll repeat) the differences with the I Corinthians accounts (plus Paul equating it with his own vision) given that the contradiction prove four different and invented stories, a vision of a )spirit) Jesus at least explains the problem, which Bible apologist denial doesn't.

You at least grudgingly allow the undeniable gospel evolution of Jesus from a meat puppet propelled and powered by the Holy Spirit to God pretty much present in a Bod -shaped Bottle called Jesus. Quite apart from Paul making it clear that Jesus was man Messiah and not God. It is proof that Christianity evolved Paul's views

Your syllogism test is Bogus. The argument from contradiction is valid, your denial is what's wrong. As is your dismissal of the point that Matthew having them go back to Galilee is contradicted by Luke, who even alters the angelic message that told them to go to Galillee. You ignore or dismiss or pretend you don't understand and dude, you are not just all over with place but in fingers in the ears denial. And if you think that is winning you the argument you are grievously wrong. It only flags up the denial of those Bible apologists who will not listen.

What more, if anything, do you have? Well Strawman arguments (I am refusing to believe you don't know better). It is pretty evident that Gospels were written in isolation and they didn't know how they were contradicting each other. Luke and Matthew would never have had Nativities and Resurrections that contradicted so badly if they have seen each others' Gospels.

And you schooled nobody. I knew that Paul actually contradicted the Resurrection before I ever cam here. You are the one who refuses to be schooled that one does not confirm the other. I also know that the empty tomb is an original claim. As such it is a prime apologetic. I have pointed out some plot problems which you first tried to excuse with 'Oh they were upset' and when I trashed that you ignore the evidence and just rely on the claim as evidence of the claim. Venom old mate you are the one in the mess, shambles and confusion, not me. You have to ignore the points, strawman the points or dismiss the points. Pretty much par for apologetics course.

The point is the plot problems may indicate that the empty tomb (though common to all gospels) was invented and ran into problems of motivation, which produced contradictions, which are there, denial or no.

[Tcg]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #466]

Yes. Paul is incredibly reticent about Jesus in life. The impression is that Paul never met him but it almost seems that he knew or cared little about him, (1) but he had a self -confessed anti Christian (or Nazorean) attitude and even activity, and for some reason he switched sides. I guess that you are referencing Acts as to what happened, but to be honest I think the Luke -writer made it all up. I have my own hypothesis about how and why and when Paul converted and even what he says about it, and it wasn't on the Road to Damascus.

Wild spontaneous guess here, but since Pauls conversion and his license to kill christians before that sound so staged, I have to consider:
What if Paul never really converted at all, but invented a wild history for himself and joined christianity for personal gain?
An acient Tony Anthony?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_An ... vangelist)

If there is any truth to these claims:

2 Coritnians11:23 Are they servants of Christ? I am a better one—I am talking like a madman—with far greater labors, far more imprisonments, with countless beatings, and often near death. 24 Five times I received at the hands of the Jews the forty lashes less one. 25 Three times I was beaten with rods. Once I was stoned. Three times I was shipwrecked; a night and a day I was adrift at sea; 26 on frequent journeys, in danger from rivers, danger from robbers, danger from my own people, danger from Gentiles, danger in the city, danger in the wilderness, danger at sea, danger from false brothers; 27 in toil and hardship, through many a sleepless night, in hunger and thirst, often without food, in cold and exposure.

One has to wonder what personal gain you are referring to. Obviously in these days it is possible for some Christian ministers to profit greatly from their claimed faith, but that wouldn't have been the case early on.


Tcg