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"?

[TRANSPONDER]

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)

It does illustrate (apart from ID denial that what is outside of human experience could possibly be true unless a god dunnit) the remarkable craftyness of making refutation of the gospels depend on proving Abiogenesis. Just imagine what he'd say if I proposed that Something can come out of nothing if he can explain how John 12.20 can make Nothing out of Something.

[Clownboat]

It would literally require a belief in voodoo, hocus pocus science to believe such a claim as inanimate matter coming to life and beginning to talk, think, and have sex.

Let's test this claim of yours shall we.
Are molecules alive or inanimate matter? Are you not made up of inanimate matter (molecules)? Yet here you are, claiming it would take voodoo for inanimate matter to collect into what it does to form what we call life that talks, thinks, has sex and then forms questions on a debate forum.

Your claim that it would take voodoo is clearly false and you should retract it for being false to maintain some level of honor.

Or, you could deceive children by teaching them that a universe popped in to being out of nothing, and that dead matter suddenly came to life, or that a reptile evolved into a bird

.
Sorry, it took a belief in a god for me to deceive children. I don't teach children how the universe came to be or that reptiles evolved into birds. My children do however understand that dead matter can combine to create all sorts of life.

Given a timeframe of billions of years, anything can happen; is the claim.

Please show this claim or kindly retract it for being a dishonest statement.

What's actually true is that given billions of years, you can believe that anything is possible.

What are you even talking about now? You're surely not addressing god magic and this seems like nothing more than a childish retort without any value.

This includes universes from nothing,

Who are you addressing? Are you crying right now?

animals transforming into different kinds of animals,

What? Animals can now transform? You may watch too many cartoons.

and life originating from dead matter.

Please explain what you mean and how it is relevant to god magic.

Funny...because based on the theory of evolution, humans are animals....and they (we) can talk.

This is true and I stand corrected. I was talking about talking snakes and donkeys specifically. It was careless on my part to just say 'animals'.

Oh, the irony.

Now that this has been clarified. Is it quite as funny as you had hoped?

[Clownboat]

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.

Then you would make for a great Mormon.
Why believe me when you have Joseph Smith with his magic glasses and golden plates.

Quite the logical thinking we have going on here is what I am trying to say.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Are molecules alive or inanimate matter? Are you not made up of inanimate matter (molecules)?

So, Clownboat...if what you've been saying is true; what was the point of the Miller-Urey experiment?

Yet here you are, claiming it would take voodoo for inanimate matter to collect into what it does to form what we call life that talks, thinks, has sex and then forms questions on a debate forum.

Bingo, AMIGO.

Your claim that it would take voodoo is clearly false and you should retract it for being false to maintain some level of honor.

It is worse than voodoo, actually. I just don't think we have another word in our English vernacular to describe the ridiculous concept...a clean word, that is.

Sorry, it took a belief in a god for me to deceive children.

Oh, so you are the deceiver of children, not God?

Gotcha.

I don't teach children how the universe came to be or that reptiles evolved into birds. My children do however understand that dead matter can combine to create all sorts of life.

.....

Please show this claim or kindly retract it for being a dishonest statement.

Well, if the universe began some 13.7 billion years without a god...and over the course of those billions of years we have life...

Then in essence, "given billions of years, anything, including life, can happen".

What are you even talking about now? You're surely not addressing god magic and this seems like nothing more than a childish retort without any value.

Yeah, but God is the magician doing the magic tricks. On your view, there is no magician, yet magic is being done....and that is worse that Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or even Alice in Wonderland.

Who are you addressing? Are you crying right now?

?

What? Animals can now transform? You may watch too many cartoons.

Evolution = organic transformation.

You are coming across as disingenuous now.

Please explain what you mean and how it is relevant to god magic.

What I mean is; ABIOGENESIS.

And since abiogenesis is false, that is where the god magic becomes relevant.

This is true and I stand corrected. I was talking about talking snakes and donkeys specifically. It was careless on my part to just say 'animals'.

Hey, for all we know, snakes and donkeys may have been able to talk back in the day.

But those talking species died off, and the nontalking species stuck around and are what we have before us today.

Now that this has been clarified. Is it quite as funny as you had hoped?

[The Nice Centurion]

It does illustrate (apart from ID denial that what is outside of human experience could possibly be true unless a god dunnit) the remarkable craftyness of making refutation of the gospels depend on proving Abiogenesis. Just imagine what he'd say if I proposed that Something can come out of nothing if he can explain how John 12.20 can make Nothing out of Something.

Could you explain here. Especially the first sentence.
"could" makes no sense for me. Did you want to write "couldnt" ?

[The Nice Centurion]

Are molecules alive or inanimate matter? Are you not made up of inanimate matter (molecules)?

So, Clownboat...if what you've been saying is true; what was the point of the Miller-Urey experiment?

Yet here you are, claiming it would take voodoo for inanimate matter to collect into what it does to form what we call life that talks, thinks, has sex and then forms questions on a debate forum.

Bingo, AMIGO.

Your claim that it would take voodoo is clearly false and you should retract it for being false to maintain some level of honor.

It is worse than voodoo, actually. I just don't think we have another word in our English vernacular to describe the ridiculous concept...a clean word, that is.

Sorry, it took a belief in a god for me to deceive children.

Oh, so you are the deceiver of children, not God?

Gotcha.

I don't teach children how the universe came to be or that reptiles evolved into birds. My children do however understand that dead matter can combine to create all sorts of life.

.....

Please show this claim or kindly retract it for being a dishonest statement.

Well, if the universe began some 13.7 billion years without a god...and over the course of those billions of years we have life...

Then in essence, "given billions of years, anything, including life, can happen".

What are you even talking about now? You're surely not addressing god magic and this seems like nothing more than a childish retort without any value.

Yeah, but God is the magician doing the magic tricks. On your view, there is no magician, yet magic is being done....and that is worse that Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, or even Alice in Wonderland.

Who are you addressing? Are you crying right now?

?

What? Animals can now transform? You may watch too many cartoons.

Evolution = organic transformation.

You are coming across as disingenuous now.

Please explain what you mean and how it is relevant to god magic.

What I mean is; ABIOGENESIS.

And since abiogenesis is false, that is where the god magic becomes relevant.

This is true and I stand corrected. I was talking about talking snakes and donkeys specifically. It was careless on my part to just say 'animals'.

Hey, for all we know, snakes and donkeys may have been able to talk back in the day.

But those talking species died off, and the nontalking species stuck around and are what we have before us today.

Now that this has been clarified. Is it quite as funny as you had hoped?

Could you please tell us to what church you go? I am curious about where one learns your kind of apologetic.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Opinions.

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?

Loaded question fallacy.

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.

Ok.

Then a lot of irrelevance that isn't worth responding to.

My responses, are about as irrelevant as what I am 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.

I already responded to this. I stand by what I said.

But yeah, again, you can keep regurgitating the same stuff on various threads.

And I will be there with the axe.

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

Opinions.

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.

Nonsense.

It is impossible for Matthew to contradict Luke on where they were to meet Jesus, when Luke doesn't give any account on where they were to meet Jesus.

This is an elementary fail of logic.

You are reaching.

You ignore or dismiss

Nonsense. Nothing you said was ever ignored..in fact, everything was addressed.

Now dismiss, yes...but ignore, no.

or pretend you don't understand

I do not pretend, if I don't understand, I let it be known.

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.

Opinions.

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.

Written in isolation, yet a large percentage of the material that they cover are dang near identical.

Makes no sense.

Luke and Matthew would never have had Nativities and Resurrections that contradicted so badly if they have seen each others' Gospels.

You think they contradict, and I find your reasons bogus.

And you schooled nobody. I knew that Paul actually contradicted the Resurrection before I ever cam here.

Did you??

If you did, then why would you conclude that the resurrection account was something that developed over time through all four Gospels, when we have an account (1 Corinth) which precedes all four Gospels?

Makes no sense.

I had to point that out to you, and then you backpedaled from that by making the historically outrageous claim that it was the four Gospels that got the idea of the resurrection from Paul!!

SMH.

Gotta keep the skepticism alive though, right.

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'

Yeah, so um...the author of Mark clearly states that the women saw/knew that the tomb was sealed so that no one could get in (15:47).

So if the author has the women KNOWING THIS, then why would he then narrative it suddenly dawning on them the question of who would remove the stone?

Was the author that naïve? No. He recorded it because it happened, thats why.

And the Bible is known for recording events that doesn't put even some of its key characters in the best light...David's transgressions, Moses' folly, Solomon's blunders, that situation with Noah, and even the ignorance of the apostles...and in this case (in your opinion), the absentmindedness of the women.

It happens, and it happened...whether we like it or not.

Now again, the women were apparently so fixated in anointing Jesus' body, and in their grief forgot that there was a stone blocking the entrance.

The fact that you are even raising this objection goes to show the lengths that you are going through to keep your skepticism sharp.

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.

Sure, whatever you say.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Could you please tell us to what church you go?

I do not attend or belong to any church.

However, Christian apologetics needs to be taught in churches, imo.

I am curious about where one learns your kind of apologetic.

My kind?

[The Nice Centurion]

Could you please tell us to what church you go?

I do not attend or belong to any church.

Why is that so?

However, Christian apologetics needs to be taught in churches, imo.

Good Point! So why not even join a church?

I am curious about where one learns your kind of apologetic.

My kind?

Yes.
William Lane Craig you are not.

[TRANSPONDER]

It does illustrate (apart from ID denial that what is outside of human experience could possibly be true unless a god dunnit) the remarkable craftyness of making refutation of the gospels depend on proving Abiogenesis. Just imagine what he'd say if I proposed that Something can come out of nothing if he can explain how John 12.20 can make Nothing out of Something.

Could you explain here. Especially the first sentence.
"could" makes no sense for me. Did you want to write "couldnt" ?

You are right. I missed that

" ID denial that what is outside of human experience couldn't possibly be true unless a god dunnit", It refers to the fallacy of Argument from incredulity which says that if Creationists can't believe that Life could arise from non -life or something from nothing (or they say they can't) then it can't possibly happen, even if a hypothesis is suggested as to how it could happen. I've seen that happen with the appeal to complexity or astronomical odds against. Also fallacies. And even if it is demonstrated that it can happen (or they think it has been demonstrated) they will argue that just because it could happen that doesn't prove that it Did happen. This is the familiar retreat to faithbased denial, which is what it was as the basis of the argument from incredulity.