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"?

[Regens Küchl]

[Replying to post 69 by Zzyzx]

Of course, but the questions in my OP eaborated further in the direction of:
And if the resurecction did not happen we have but gospels that strongly make a case for indicating a resurrection
But if the authors wanted to make a case for the resurrection then why not narrate it directly or write about direct witnesses.

The only eception, gospel of peter, was not taken into canon. Why not when clearly its included actual direct resurrection narrative is the heart and soul of christian religion.

PUT THATGOSPELOFPETER into the bible already !!!!!!

[Regens Küchl]

We do not talk here about the undead resurrection of Count Dracula which happening without witnesses were not so suspectible.

We talk about the resurrection about a incarnation of a god of whom christian dogma teaches that he is omnipotent and nothing happens without his will.

So we must strangely concur that god wanted no witnesses for the actual resurrection.

In another thread someone said that no witnesses were possible because no living person was buried with Jesus.
But this dodge fails in multiple ways.

Firstly seeing him leave the tomb would also count as actual witnessing, but for that god it could have been no problem to provide all the witnesses he wanted even for the exact moment of his rising.

He could also have chosen to work miracles to teleport in for the resurrection the greatest naturalist sceptics and mightiest men and emperors of the time.

If the emperors of Rome and China were teleported in to watch Jesus resurrect they could have made christianity state religion in their empyres at once.

What an impact that would have made then and what an impact this historical fact would have impressing sceptics today and bringing them to believe is hardly imaginable.

Instead we get an empty tomb which only a few of Jesus followers attested (even that only according to legend) and than half baked ghost storys in the way of now you see me, now you see me not.
Even less serious than Bigfoot and Elvis sighting.
Perhaps in the line of Mokele Mbembe encounters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mokele-mbembe.

As if that were not poor enough that Jesus makes a final doge by acending to heaven.
Does that mean that Heaven is really up there in a certain place to nail in the milky way like Jack Chick suspects in a track or ascended Jesus all the way to near Kolob?
Did he fly all the way through the cosmos without witnesses again or did he meet space aliens whose ships opened fire?

That god could have willed all the greatest medic sceptic naturalists to be brought to the tomb to inspect and study Jesus dead body finding it dead and while studying marking its holy risings to resurrection and glorious miracle of coming to holy life.
That medics would have written exact books about what they saw and sceptically inspected. That would be evidence to evangelize hard sceptics even today.

Or at the least the apostles could have gathered at Jesus body to honor him while suddenly seeing him resurrect.

Not to mention that Nikodemus and Josef of Arimathea could at least have confirmed their empty tomb.

But not even that !!!

So in sight of that gods dogmatical omnipotence the fact of no actual witnesses is a gigantic proof against christianity!

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 72 by Regens Küchl]

Supernatural powers work best when no one is looking. The next best thing is when only the faithful are looking. But if a skeptic is around, forget it. The eyes of a skeptic are utter poison to the supernatural, so Jesus had to escape to heaven before any skeptics spotted him and destroyed him. Staying around for even 40 days is quite a feat!

[Zzyzx]

.

Supernatural powers work best when no one is looking. The next best thing is when only the faithful are looking. But if a skeptic is around, forget it.

Excellent summation.

Adding: Supernatural feats "work" even better if they are just stories reported long afterward by people who did not witness them. Such stories have convinced people for thousands of years to believe in invisible, undetectable "gods" (with a little help from threats and promises -- and a little "do-good-ism" thrown in).

Evidently it appeals to many to have a powerful friend "helping" them -- even if the help isn't dependable or demonstrable (or real).

[Hatuey]

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"?

Wouldn't you imagine that one of the Roman guard would be one of the most prolific writers about Christ and his message and the work of the apostles? It seem ridiculous that not one of the Roman guards became a large part of the burgeoning movement and well known throughout it and down though the ages.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 75 by Hatuey]

It's not a miracle for a corpse to disappear from an open room, so Matthew had to employ some magic for the bad guys to put some guards there. But they were magic guards, so it's hard for skeptics to find traces of them.

[Regens Küchl]

[Replying to post 72 by Regens Küchl]

Supernatural powers work best when no one is looking. The next best thing is when only the faithful are looking. But if a skeptic is around, forget it. The eyes of a skeptic are utter poison to the supernatural, so Jesus had to escape to heaven before any skeptics spotted him and destroyed him. Staying around for even 40 days is quite a feat!

Interesting. But your post is poison to the dogma of omnipotence. If the mere presence of a sceptic hurts and hinders the magic of the christian god then he cannot be omnipotent.

But your answer concedes with the bible Juges 1:19 where it is stated that god fears iron.
And iron is also a general poison to magic. Even Superman says that in a DC Comic.

One can only conclude that even if the resurrection happened and a god was behind that he must be far from omnipotent.

But back to the sceptical problem: Paul was a sceptic to christianity if there ever was one and still claimed a magical vision powerful enough to turn his whole live around.
What is to make of that? Did Paul lie perhaps?

[Regens Küchl]

[Replying to post 75 by Hatuey]

It's not a miracle for a corpse to disappear from an open room, so Matthew had to employ some magic for the bad guys to put some guards there. But they were magic guards, so it's hard for skeptics to find traces of them.

Losing you here absolute.
The sanhedrin talked to Pilate to put roman guards in guard of the tomb. Where is the use of magic in that?
And why would Pilates Legionnaires be magic beings? From whence would Pilate even have gotten magical guards and for what reason?

[Regens Küchl]

[Replying to post 75 by Hatuey]

I could imagine valid argumens against your assumtion. Even a literate roman guard after witnessing miracles would probably buy rather a lot of cheap wine instead of the extremely expensive pergament and ink.
And if he did write all down who would want to sell it? Not only for political reasons would romans declare him a lunatic covering up his lazy guarding. His days in the roman military would be over forever.
And Pilate could have taken it personally if a roman guard wrote down that his sentence was magically overruled.

Besides that:Only the gospel of Peter has the guards watching while the canonical gospels are extreme cautious to state that the guards passed out for the resurrection and did actually witness nothing.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 72 by Regens Küchl]

Supernatural powers work best when no one is looking. The next best thing is when only the faithful are looking. But if a skeptic is around, forget it. The eyes of a skeptic are utter poison to the supernatural, so Jesus had to escape to heaven before any skeptics spotted him and destroyed him. Staying around for even 40 days is quite a feat!

Interesting. But your post is poison to the dogma of omnipotence. If the mere presence of a sceptic hurts and hinders the magic of the christian god then he cannot be omnipotent.

I guess he's not then.

But your answer concedes with the bible Juges 1:19 where it is stated that god fears iron.
And iron is also a general poison to magic. Even Superman says that in a DC Comic.

Not only do we have one credible source, but two. Must be true.

One can only conclude that even if the resurrection happened and a god was behind that he must be far from omnipotent.

"Far" from it? How far from omnipotence is "far" from it?

But back to the sceptical problem: Paul was a sceptic to christianity if there ever was one and still claimed a magical vision powerful enough to turn his whole live around.
What is to make of that? Did Paul lie perhaps?

That one is easy. Paul stopped being a skeptic.

[Replying to post 75 by Hatuey]

It's not a miracle for a corpse to disappear from an open room, so Matthew had to employ some magic for the bad guys to put some guards there. But they were magic guards, so it's hard for skeptics to find traces of them.

Losing you here absolute.
The sanhedrin talked to Pilate to put roman guards in guard of the tomb. Where is the use of magic in that?

In the fact that it ever happened at all.

And why would Pilates Legionnaires be magic beings?

Because there weren't any non-magical ones available.

From whence would Pilate even have gotten magical guards

From Matthew!

and for what reason?

To make sure it was impossible for Jesus's body to disappear by non-miraculous means, thereby PROVING without reasonable doubt, that Jesus was raised from the dead.