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]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #441]

How about this..

I will show you how a person can rise from the dead (resurrect), once you show me how life cam arise from dead matter.

Deal?

I would suggest - only if you do not reject the explanation as 'speculation' (it's a mechanism, right?) and you don't resort to 'God did it. That's your explanation'. Then that might be a deal.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You demonstrate desperation. You may be trying to confuse but I'm not confused. Mark and Luke say they went there with spices. Matthew contradicts that. He says they went to look at the tomb. Of course he wouldn't say 'just to look' as that would imply that there could be another reason.

Sorry if Matthew didn't give the full itinerary of the women's plans at the tomb.

He must not have known or cared that some unbelievers living some 2,000 years later would request such.

It shows that for him that was the only reason.

Wrong. To say that the women went to LOOK at the tomb does not contradict the women going to the tomb to anoint Jesus.

__________

Me: I am going to the car dealership to look at a few cars.

Wife: Ok, sweetheart. See you later.

*I leave the house..and as I leave, I see my daughter riding her bike.*

Daughter: Hello, best dad in the world. Where are you going?

Me: Oh, just going to the dealership. Seeing which ones they will let me test drive this week.

Daughter: Ok, best dad in the world. See you later.


*Daughter goes in house*

Daughter: Hey mom. Dad said he is going to test drive some cars. Do you think they will let him test drive the Ferrari?

Mom: Test drive? He told me he was going to LOOK at some cars, not test drive. What we have here, my daughter, is a contradiction on our hands.

Daughter: Not necessarily, mom. Because maybe in the process of looking at cars, he may also test drive a few. Because after all, two propositions can be true at the same time. Dad taught me that.

Mom: Hmm. I didn't think of it that way. You make your father proud.

Daughter: And Aristotle, too.

You are the one 'reaching'. Argument from silence is not a fallacy. For some reason, Bible apologists seem to wish it was.

The gist of all your objections.

"They got in there somehow"? Is that supposed to be some kind of explanation?

*See Gospel narratives for further details, I said.

I'm just pointing up the problem with the women going to anoint the body without thinking about not being able to get in.

Which I addressed before.

Which, when you come to think of it may explain why in this case, Matthew changed it. Moreover he explains how the tomb was opened, which is clearly not synoptic original material and nor is the tomb guard.

One account covers the fact that it was open for them to get in after the entrance was initially covered...the other account covers how it got opened after it was initially covered.

You are reaching, sir.

Matthew was trying to deal with the plot - problem of the closed tomb.

And it was dealt with.

You may recall that you tried to argue that they were so upset that, while they were obtaining, pounding and bottling spices it never occurred to them that they wouldn't be able to get in. That didn't wash either.

I stand by what I said.

I know. You are at a loss, you haven't a clue, you have nothing. Give it up, old pal.

This is like taking candy from a baby.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to post 9 by Regens Küchl]
I posted two days ago in "Historicity" what I should have posted here:
Well, Nonsense, those of who believe in God (and I confess that I do) know that God has the power to be the cause of a missing corpse. That's precisely what Christians have believed for 2,000 years. Some cavil that no one was inside the tomb to tell us about the moment Jesus rose from the dead. Yet everyone seems agreed that by Easter Sunday the tomb had been securely sealed with no living human inside to witness the event. (Not that any human eyes would be expected to see anything inside a grave?) OK, so no one to witness it and write or even tell about it? So that dismisses the objection that no one saw and wrote about the Resurrection itself.

I sorta agree with that - the situation would require that nobody actually saw the thing happen. Yet that's not the point, which is: Why would God leave it as dubious as that? Why not send an angel to summon the all from Caiaphas to Cleophas and let them all see it happen? It's the whole 'Why does God not just come down and give a press - conference?" argument. What on earth is he waiting for?

Even without me conviction that the Bible is concocted history (or at least fiddled) I'd simply doubt that any god with an atom of sense would do it in this cockamamie way.

[The Nice Centurion]

Lazarus is seen leaving the tomb but no one, not even Jesus, looks at him while he actually resurrects.

Gospel of Peter has some apostles see Jesus leaving the tomb helped by 2 angels. If the angels witnessed the big reset err resurrection, their word is mum.

Romulus vanishes misteriously, officially without witnesses. Later he meets Proculus on the street to Alba Longa to tell him that he descended to the gods.
But no onlookers were allowed for the descending.

Not only all evangelists, but also to my knowing all Jesus movies restain from describing/showing the actual resurrection.


Why? Why? Why Why?

[Clownboat]

Lazarus is seen leaving the tomb but no one, not even Jesus, looks at him while he actually resurrects.

Gospel of Peter has some apostles see Jesus leaving the tomb helped by 2 angels. If the angels witnessed the big reset err resurrection, their word is mum.

Romulus vanishes misteriously, officially without witnesses. Later he meets Proculus on the street to Alba Longa to tell him that he descended to the gods.
But no onlookers were allowed for the descending.

Not only all evangelists, but also to my knowing all Jesus movies restain from describing/showing the actual resurrection.


Why? Why? Why Why?

Why? Decomposing bodies do not return to life.

It would literally require a belief in god magic to believe such a claim.
Many a child did I deceive by offering them 'tickets to heaven' and justified doing so because of my god magic beliefs.

With god, all things are possible is a claim.
What's actually true is that with a belief in god magic, you can believe that anything is possible. This includes global floods, creation events, resurrections or that animals can talk.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #455]
If it did not happen, did Paul and the evangelists know that they were writing fiction?
Lets suppose there was no resurrection; Why did the writers not describe their fantasy anyway;
If they consciously saw the resurrection as nothing more as a literary device or not; the Question remains:

Why not narratively describe and/or write there were some witnesses to the actual resurrection ?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #455]
If it did not happen, did Paul and the evangelists know that they were writing fiction?
Lets suppose there was no resurrection; Why did the writers not describe their fantasy anyway;
If they consciously saw the resurrection as nothing more as a literary device or not; the Question remains:

Why not narratively describe and/or write there were some witnesses to the actual resurrection ?

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? The clue was in Paul saying that Jesus appeared first to Peter Well, that isn't what the Gospels say at all, 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 must be some time after the events of the gospels when the Christian community had got quite large. And then to James? But wasn't he one of the 12? Wasn't he the leader of the Christians after Jesus? He only saw Jesus after 500 of the community had? 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.

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.

"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

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. Matthew invented a tale of Jesus going back to Galilee, 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'.

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

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

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. 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.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Why? Decomposing bodies do not return to life.

And dead matter does not become living.

It would literally require a belief in god magic to believe such a claim.

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.

Many a child did I deceive by offering them 'tickets to heaven' and justified doing so because of my god magic beliefs.

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.

With god, all things are possible is a claim.

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

What's actually true is that with a belief in god magic, you can believe that anything is possible.

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

This includes global floods, creation events, resurrections

This includes universes from nothing, animals transforming into different kinds of animals, and life originating from dead matter.

or that animals can talk.

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

Oh, the irony.

[The Nice Centurion]

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. 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.

Very good explanation.
But I like also this one very much.
(Perhaps they are both right. And I really miss FarWanderer.)

As presentations, closed room mysteries, such as Jesus's empty tomb, exist specifically to appear impossible. The whole point of the "empty tomb" narrative is to allow the reader to convince themself that Jesus must have come back to life because "it's the only explanation".

It's a method far more effective in creating ardent supporters than simply claiming it to happen directly. It's really ingenious.

So the question is, is the empty tomb a report? Or a presentation? I'd say quite clearly that it's a presentation, if for no other reason than that it is given to us from the perspective of an omniscient narrator.

[Diogenes]

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.