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]

I'll have a closer look at this tomorrow but already I can see an elaborate rewriting of what the Bible says happened to make it work. And it contradicts the Bible which makes it clear that both the women were together at the tomb and when they reported to the disciples. The two discrepant stories requires you to rewrite the Bible to make it say what you want it to say.

Um, first off, you are WRONG.

Who is rewriting the Bible?

Everything I said comes straight from the text.

Or, you can tell me where I added or taken something out of the text.

You can't, because I didn't.

But what it says is that in John's gospels they both had no idea what had happened to Jesus. In the synoptics they did, because they had been told by the angel.

I already explained John. Please directly address what I said.

Your syllogism (wrong reasoning dressed up to look like philosophy) is wrong because negative evidence can be valid.

Yeah, but you are the one claiming that they contradict..and if that is the case, then there would be no possible way for the accounts to be harmonized...and as long as the explanations of the difficulties you presented are rational, then the accounts cannot logically continue to be said to be contradictory.

The point about contradiction - and they are real and you know they are but you have to try to explain them

No. More like the fact that I can explain them, makes them not contradictory.

- is that they have to be inexplicable by an excuse that they forgot or didn't know or thought it wasn't important.

Yeah...and in all of those explanations are enough in themselves to make them not contradictory.

That is the point that you are failing to grasp.

It has to be something significant. Like no angelic explanation in John.

Syllogism test.

1. There is no angelic explanation in John.

2. Therefore, there is no angelic explanation.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test failed.

Simple things like not saying you have a brother is a strawman of the actual serious omission.

Nonsense. Doesn't matter how simple it is, the rule of thumb still applies.

Just because X is not mentioned, doesn't mean that X didn't occur.

Whether simple, major, small, or big, the laws of logic applies to all equally.

Your attempt to explain this shows that you know it is a real contradiction and a valid question. And I don't thinkyou have explained it, not even with writing a new Bible to tell a different story to suit yourself.

I'll have a closer look tomorrow, but I reckon that's plenty for you to think about.

Please enlighten me on how/when I added or omitted anything from the Bible to prove my case.

I will wait.

Otherwise, your accusation is just a sound byte with no basis because you've got nothing to go against anything I say.

You are rewriting the Bible.

So if she left without going inside, then OBVIOUSLY SHE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN JOHN, BECAUSE IT WAS FROM MM's viewpoint, which is why MM WAS THE ONLY WOMAN MENTIONED.

Makes sense?"

No. This idea of the Marys splitting up is contradicted by John that has then reporting back and saying 'We do not know' where Jesus is. As well as Jesus appearing to both of them in Matthew.The synoptics make it clear that the angel appeared to both Marys. Your scenario makes no sense. Everything you said or rather the revised scenario, rewrites what the Bible says.

I asked you just what you explained about John that I did not refute. Please copy or link to this supposed explanation of yours (N.B I refuted your effort to use the angels in the tomb later on asking why Mary is crying to say that John also had an angel at the tomb first thing explaining that Jesus is risen). It is a valid argument that - yes, John has no angelic message. He described the women going to the tomb No angel, no message. You can't dismiss that so easily, especially by your weird syllogism intended to be sarcasm.

syllogism aside, you go off on a different tack and argue the contradictions can be harmonised. Which was my point - the syllogism fails because the argument from negative evidence depends on whether that is significant or not. You can invent, amend and fiddle and make the discrepant stories fit together, while ignoring that Luke says that Cleophas heard about the angels appearing to the marys but not Jesus appearing to them. That makes the more probable explanation that Matthew invented that appearance known to nobody else rather than slotted (for absurd reason to calm the women down when the angel said Jesus had already left for Galilee). Yes, you can fiddle it but it will not persuade anyone other than those who want to believe it, no matter how improbable.

Which is where your argument fails. You are effectively (and repeatedly) that because some things are easily explained everything including the toughies can be easily explained.

I can see us having to go over that reworked scenario of yours, but already i can see how it does not work for anyone who does not already have Faith.

[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.

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Just a couple things hit my mind...

1.) How do you get a witness when the guy is in a tomb with Roman guards outside and probably one heck of a big rock over the door?

2.) Why he was not spotted right away in the garden? He was raised with a different body.

Why does no one read my posts or whole OP before answering?

Thank you.

I'm sure sure what is meant by "no witnesses to the actual resurrection". As the story goes, there wouldn't be as Jesus resurrected inside the tomb with no -one to see it. .

Several problems with that reasoning.
The mythology stars an omnipotent god who could have esily arranged his greatest show to be witnessed by whichever people he wanted.
Why not teleport the greatest historians, physicians and rulers of the time to the burial site?

What? Not enough room for them all inside the tomb to watch listen and learn? No sufficient light inside to see the resurrection sufficiently?

Our omnipotent excellency cant have a problem with dealing with that!
Just make the tomb invisible to show only the rising Jesus therein. Or just send the angel (our god is too lazy to just will the stone gone ??? So he needs his angelic lackey ???) to dispose of the stone BEFORE RESURRECTION TIME and teleport half a dozen of the most important people of the time before the entrance and force them to watch.
Or Perhaps rather the people most involved in this?

How about snatching Tiberius Caesar, King Herod, Pontius Pilate, a young Paul (so he wouldnt even think of starting harrassing christians), Judas (to show him that his planned suicide got obsolete) and Peter (so he could at once start the propaganda machine for Jesus) and give them front seats for "the resurrection" ???

But aside that; That Jesus was alone in the tomb in no way explains the missing resurrection narrative!
For the gospels are so full of narratives of Jesus doing and saing things with no other person there watching that I dont even have to give examples.

Hell, the narrative even tells what Jesus did in Hades. He stroke down Death and Devil.
(Are we to assume that Death and devil couldnt wait to tell the evangelists about their shame?)
So how could the narrative pass its chance to describe the actual resurrection?

Yes. I recall that I dealt with that. There are two scenarios here - one where we have the scene as per the gospels. Burial in the tomb, Tomb guards, the disciples and camp -followers, Pilate and his soldiers, Sanhedrin and Temple police. Normally there would be no reason for anyone to be there apart from the women going to the tomb. There wouldn't be a need for the tomb to even be open if Jesus can walk through walls, but Matthew (alone) has a bit of a show put on.

The other (potential) scenario is a grand miracle where Jesus walks into the Temple, Priest's house, Pilate's dining room, and everywhere, in fact and proclaims his resurrection. There is no reason why God couldn't set that up but it has to be done around the secret and mysterious circumstances described. That alone would suggest that a 'normal' (or natural) event has been dressed up to look like a miracle. it's like that in the Bible. The amazing disappearing god. First makes galaxies, stars, planets and all life. Then destroys it all, or part of it and let's say it was all of it, then destroys armies and wipes out tribes. Then can't stop Israel being clobbered, so becomes Mysterious, then works through natural-normal events given a bit of a tweak. Now appears only in the heads of the faithful and on pieces of toast.

[We_Are_VENOM]

You are rewriting the Bible.

So if she left without going inside, then OBVIOUSLY SHE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN JOHN, BECAUSE IT WAS FROM MM's viewpoint, which is why MM WAS THE ONLY WOMAN MENTIONED.

Makes sense?"

Um, that is a conclusion based on the text.

No Gospels testifies to MM being inside the tomb...do they?

In fact, John has MM going to the tomb (v1), standing outside the tomb (v10), and even looking inside the tomb (v11).

Everything BUT going inside the tomb.

In fact, John specifically states that MM saw the stone had been removed from the entrance, and she went running to Peter and John (the other disciple). John 20:1-2.

So, when I said she left without going inside, that is COMPLETELY in line with John's Gospel.

So, I ask again, how am I rewriting the Bible??

No. This idea of the Marys splitting up is contradicted by John that has then reporting back and saying 'We do not know' where Jesus is.

Umm, no it doesn't.

She made that statement based on her knowledge of the situation UP TO THE POINT OF HER DEPARTURE FROM THE GROUP.

The other women didn't know where Jesus went until they went inside the tomb, but since Mary wasn't present when they went inside the tomb, she had no knowledge of Jesus' whereabouts as she made the report to Peter and John, and she simply assumed that the other women didn't as well.

As well as Jesus appearing to both of them in Matthew.The synoptics make it clear that the angel appeared to both Marys.

No, the synoptics say that the angels appeared to the women. It doesn't state which women.

That is what you are assuming.

Your scenario makes no sense. Everything you said or rather the revised scenario, rewrites what the Bible says.

It is called reading comprehension...which means understanding what you read. Some people do an excellent job of it.

Nothing I said was outside of the text.

I asked you just what you explained about John that I did not refute. Please copy or link to this supposed explanation of yours (N.B I refuted your effort to use the angels in the tomb later on asking why Mary is crying to say that John also had an angel at the tomb first thing explaining that Jesus is risen).

My 8 point synopsis was not directly addressed.

It is a valid argument that - yes, John has no angelic message. He described the women going to the tomb No angel, no message.

You are WRONG.

John doesn't describe the women going to the tomb, only Mary, which is my point that John's account of the event is from Mary's perspective.

You can't dismiss that so easily, especially by your weird syllogism intended to be sarcasm.

Lol. It was intended to be sarcasm...but true sarcasm. Let not the truth be lost in the sarcasm.

syllogism aside, you go off on a different tack and argue the contradictions can be harmonised. Which was my point - the syllogism fails because the argument from negative evidence depends on whether that is significant or not.

Which fails because it is subjective. Who decides what is/isn't significant and should/should not be included in the text?

You, or the Gospel writers?

My answer: the Gospel writers.

You can invent, amend and fiddle and make the discrepant stories fit together, while ignoring that Luke says that Cleophas heard about the angels appearing to the marys but not Jesus appearing to them.

"Them" who?

That makes the more probable explanation that Matthew invented that appearance known to nobody else rather than slotted (for absurd reason to calm the women down when the angel said Jesus had already left for Galilee).

?

Yes, you can fiddle it but it will not persuade anyone other than those who want to believe it, no matter how improbable.

Which is where your argument fails. You are effectively (and repeatedly) that because some things are easily explained everything including the toughies can be easily explained.

I can see us having to go over that reworked scenario of yours, but already i can see how it does not work for anyone who does not already have Faith.

You are making this stuff up as you go along. Every day it is some over-stretched REACH which amounts to nothing.

I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #487]

That is a challenge I agree, a spectacular event takes place 2,000 years ago and people strive to create some written record of it, what else could they do? I don't think it would materially help at all if their account said something like "and the room glowed and the dead body turned to smoke and filled the room, then the smoke cleared and our Lord was standing there looking at me" (for example), are you really saying you'd believe it more? like you'd react "Oh OK, then yes, that makes more sense, I believe it now"?

No, nothing could have been written beyond what was written that could convince a skeptic.

Interesting is that I learned from experience that believers tend to flee from questions about bad evidence to one of two extremes:

1) With more evidence, everyone would be a christian, and there would be no free will!

2) No matter how much more evidence, not one god hating sceptic would turn into a believer'

Both extreme views are badly wrong of course!

And I see the panicking dogde of question!

There were people who witnessed Christ's miracles yet still rejected him, still wanted him executed. No matter how strong the evidence might be, prejudice is an ever present risk and will over rule evidence. If it serves someone's purpose to interpret evidence in such a way that they can dismiss it, they will, it happens all the time.

[brunumb]

There were people who witnessed Christ's miracles yet still rejected him, still wanted him executed.

Who were these people? How do we know that they actually existed as real people and were not just part of a fictional story? What if they were actually real people observing some itinerant preacher and became aware that he was just indulging in sleight of hand and other contrived magic tricks?

No matter how strong the evidence might be, prejudice is an ever present risk and will over rule evidence. If it serves someone's purpose to interpret evidence in such a way that they can dismiss it, they will, it happens all the time.

No matter how strong the evidence might be, religious beliefs may be so strong as to prevent acceptance of the evidence. If it serves someone's purpose to interpret evidence in such a way that they can dismiss it, they will, it happens all the time. See how that works?

[TRANSPONDER]

You are rewriting the Bible.

So if she left without going inside, then OBVIOUSLY SHE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN JOHN, BECAUSE IT WAS FROM MM's viewpoint, which is why MM WAS THE ONLY WOMAN MENTIONED.

Makes sense?"

Um, that is a conclusion based on the text.

No Gospels testifies to MM being inside the tomb...do they?

In fact, John has MM going to the tomb (v1), standing outside the tomb (v10), and even looking inside the tomb (v11).

Everything BUT going inside the tomb.

In fact, John specifically states that MM saw the stone had been removed from the entrance, and she went running to Peter and John (the other disciple). John 20:1-2.

So, when I said she left without going inside, that is COMPLETELY in line with John's Gospel.

So, I ask again, how am I rewriting the Bible??

No. This idea of the Marys splitting up is contradicted by John that has then reporting back and saying 'We do not know' where Jesus is.

Umm, no it doesn't.

She made that statement based on her knowledge of the situation UP TO THE POINT OF HER DEPARTURE FROM THE GROUP.

The other women didn't know where Jesus went until they went inside the tomb, but since Mary wasn't present when they went inside the tomb, she had no knowledge of Jesus' whereabouts as she made the report to Peter and John, and she simply assumed that the other women didn't as well.

As well as Jesus appearing to both of them in Matthew.The synoptics make it clear that the angel appeared to both Marys.

No, the synoptics say that the angels appeared to the women. It doesn't state which women.

That is what you are assuming.

Your scenario makes no sense. Everything you said or rather the revised scenario, rewrites what the Bible says.

It is called reading comprehension...which means understanding what you read. Some people do an excellent job of it.

Nothing I said was outside of the text.

I asked you just what you explained about John that I did not refute. Please copy or link to this supposed explanation of yours (N.B I refuted your effort to use the angels in the tomb later on asking why Mary is crying to say that John also had an angel at the tomb first thing explaining that Jesus is risen).

My 8 point synopsis was not directly addressed.

It is a valid argument that - yes, John has no angelic message. He described the women going to the tomb No angel, no message.

You are WRONG.

John doesn't describe the women going to the tomb, only Mary, which is my point that John's account of the event is from Mary's perspective.

You can't dismiss that so easily, especially by your weird syllogism intended to be sarcasm.

Lol. It was intended to be sarcasm...but true sarcasm. Let not the truth be lost in the sarcasm.

syllogism aside, you go off on a different tack and argue the contradictions can be harmonised. Which was my point - the syllogism fails because the argument from negative evidence depends on whether that is significant or not.

Which fails because it is subjective. Who decides what is/isn't significant and should/should not be included in the text?

You, or the Gospel writers?

My answer: the Gospel writers.

You can invent, amend and fiddle and make the discrepant stories fit together, while ignoring that Luke says that Cleophas heard about the angels appearing to the marys but not Jesus appearing to them.

"Them" who?

That makes the more probable explanation that Matthew invented that appearance known to nobody else rather than slotted (for absurd reason to calm the women down when the angel said Jesus had already left for Galilee).

?

Yes, you can fiddle it but it will not persuade anyone other than those who want to believe it, no matter how improbable.

Which is where your argument fails. You are effectively (and repeatedly) that because some things are easily explained everything including the toughies can be easily explained.

I can see us having to go over that reworked scenario of yours, but already i can see how it does not work for anyone who does not already have Faith.

You are making this stuff up as you go along. Every day it is some over-stretched REACH which amounts to nothing.

I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

You are rewriting the Bible.

So if she left without going inside, then OBVIOUSLY SHE WOULDN'T HAVE AN ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED INSIDE, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN JOHN, BECAUSE IT WAS FROM MM's viewpoint, which is why MM WAS THE ONLY WOMAN MENTIONED.

Makes sense?"

Um, that is a conclusion based on the text.

No Gospels testifies to MM being inside the tomb...do they?

In fact, John has MM going to the tomb (v1), standing outside the tomb (v10), and even looking inside the tomb (v11).

Everything BUT going inside the tomb.

In fact, John specifically states that MM saw the stone had been removed from the entrance, and she went running to Peter and John (the other disciple). John 20:1-2.

So, when I said she left without going inside, that is COMPLETELY in line with John's Gospel.

So, I ask again, how am I rewriting the Bible??

No. This idea of the Marys splitting up is contradicted by John that has then reporting back and saying 'We do not know' where Jesus is.

Umm, no it doesn't.

She made that statement based on her knowledge of the situation UP TO THE POINT OF HER DEPARTURE FROM THE GROUP.

The other women didn't know where Jesus went until they went inside the tomb, but since Mary wasn't present when they went inside the tomb, she had no knowledge of Jesus' whereabouts as she made the report to Peter and John, and she simply assumed that the other women didn't as well.

As well as Jesus appearing to both of them in Matthew.The synoptics make it clear that the angel appeared to both Marys.

No, the synoptics say that the angels appeared to the women. It doesn't state which women.

That is what you are assuming.

Your scenario makes no sense. Everything you said or rather the revised scenario, rewrites what the Bible says.

It is called reading comprehension...which means understanding what you read. Some people do an excellent job of it.

Nothing I said was outside of the text.

I asked you just what you explained about John that I did not refute. Please copy or link to this supposed explanation of yours (N.B I refuted your effort to use the angels in the tomb later on asking why Mary is crying to say that John also had an angel at the tomb first thing explaining that Jesus is risen).

My 8 point synopsis was not directly addressed.

It is a valid argument that - yes, John has no angelic message. He described the women going to the tomb No angel, no message.

You are WRONG.

John doesn't describe the women going to the tomb, only Mary, which is my point that John's account of the event is from Mary's perspective.

You can't dismiss that so easily, especially by your weird syllogism intended to be sarcasm.

Lol. It was intended to be sarcasm...but true sarcasm. Let not the truth be lost in the sarcasm.

syllogism aside, you go off on a different tack and argue the contradictions can be harmonised. Which was my point - the syllogism fails because the argument from negative evidence depends on whether that is significant or not.

Which fails because it is subjective. Who decides what is/isn't significant and should/should not be included in the text?

You, or the Gospel writers?

My answer: the Gospel writers.

You can invent, amend and fiddle and make the discrepant stories fit together, while ignoring that Luke says that Cleophas heard about the angels appearing to the marys but not Jesus appearing to them.

"Them" who?

That makes the more probable explanation that Matthew invented that appearance known to nobody else rather than slotted (for absurd reason to calm the women down when the angel said Jesus had already left for Galilee).

?

Yes, you can fiddle it but it will not persuade anyone other than those who want to believe it, no matter how improbable.

Which is where your argument fails. You are effectively (and repeatedly) that because some things are easily explained everything including the toughies can be easily explained.

I can see us having to go over that reworked scenario of yours, but already i can see how it does not work for anyone who does not already have Faith.

You are making this stuff up as you go along. Every day it is some over-stretched REACH which amounts to nothing.

I can't wait to see what you come up with next.

I can see that we may have to go through your fiddled scenario bit by bit, but clearly you are wrong. We all know that Mary Magdalene and Mary mother of jesus went tot he tomb, first. When they say 'They' met Jesus or 'We do do know where (Jesus is) both of them are referred to. They did not split up or see different things. If Luke adds a lot of other women, he is in contradiction with the original story, and hardly for the first time.

You are again conflating Mary Magdalene going along with Peter and any others to the tomb after reporting back. This is nothing to do with the women going to the tomb first thing. I have made this correction of your argument already. When went inside the tomb or didn't is yet another discrepancy but since it isn't part of the argument is no more than misdirection.

The rest of what you posted is pretty much nonsense. Like i say that Cleophas says that the women saw a vision of angels but no mention of Jesus and mentions the disciples going to the tomb but finding so trace of Jesus. .It is inconceivable that Cleophas would not mention Jesus being seen if he had heard that the women ran into Jesus as Matthew claims. So your 'Then who?' has no point or meaning.

No more that your well-poisoning 'I can wait to see what you come up with next'. Implying that I'm making up mew excuses to refute your explanations. In fact you say that accusation above. In fact you are repeating refuted arguments,and coming up with irrelevant stuff that says nothing useful.

[neverknewyou]

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Resurrections don't happen so of course there were no witnesses, besides, fiction is like that. The entire point of Christianity is that we believe regardless.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Resurrections don't happen so of course there were no witnesses, besides, fiction is like that. The entire point of Christianity is that we believe regardless.

I agree. 'Miracles don't happen' (so the resurrection couldn't have happened, so of course nobody saw it) is a very popular skeptic argument and has validity insofar as extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. It does not mean (in my view) that the claim can be dismissed out of hand, but it does (logically) mean that the evidence for it has to be very, very compelling.

Which is the whole point of the Resurrection - debate. It is claimed that the testimony is undeniable, compelling and admits only of one conclusion: Jesus rose from the dead.

My argument is that it is utterly deniable, not at all compelling and even if it was, would admit of a far better explanation - the disciples took the body.

Which is where the denial starts as you say, the point of Christianity is to believe, without evidence and even in spite of the evidence.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Resurrections don't happen so of course there were no witnesses, besides, fiction is like that. The entire point of Christianity is that we believe regardless.

What doesnt happen ?
Here described is at last an apostolic witness who supposedly met people raised by/because of Jesus.
Quadrathus of Athens.
Quadrathus might even have met and spoken with the two undead who wrote the gospel of Nicodemus!
Sadly he forget to get himself an in-cave frontseat for the resurrection of Christ himself, but still . . .

According to the early church historian Eusebius of Caesarea he is said to have been a disciple of the Apostles (auditor apostolorum).

In his Ecclesiastical History, Book IV, chapter 3, Eusebius records that: 1. After Trajan had reigned for nineteen and a half years Ælius Adrian became his successor in the empire. To him Quadratus addressed a discourse containing an apology for our religion, because certain wicked men had attempted to trouble the Christians. The work is still in the hands of a great many of the brethren, as also in our own, and furnishes clear proofs of the man's understanding and of his apostolic orthodoxy. 2. He himself reveals the early date at which he lived in the following words: But the works of our Saviour were always present, for they were genuine:— those that were healed, and those that were raised from the dead, who were seen not only when they were healed and when they were raised, but were also always present; and not merely while the Saviour was on earth, but also after his death, they were alive for quite a while, so that some of them lived even to our day. Such then was Quadratus.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadrat ... 0Athens%20(Greek,tradition%20of%20the%20Eastern%20Churches.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]
2.) Why he was not spotted right away in the garden? He was raised with a different body.

This!

Assuming you were told that some people met Elvis recently, but he didnt look anything like Elvis.
Still they know it was Elvis because he told them so, or in another case they got the felling it must have been Elvis after he left.
One other who would not believe it, was absolutely convinced because this Elvis let him touch his guitar.
Would you believe that it was really Elvis?