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"?

[LilytheTheologian]

I just skimmed over the previous posts, so I apologize if what I write is somewhat repetitive.

I didn't see anyone asking a crucial question: What did "resurrection" mean to a first century Jew? Most of you seem intelligent and well read, so I have to assume you know it meant a bodily resurrection, not a vision, hallucination, spirit, etc.

As for comparing Jesus' resurrection to "Elvis" sightings, there really is no comparison. Hundreds of people, individually, have reported having seen Elvis, at different times and in different places. Hundreds of people saw the risen Jesus alive at the same time. We can dismiss the single report of even five hundred persons (Elvis), but when a group of five hundred sees Jesus alive, and that group is not mentally ill, under the influence of drugs, etc. and not all Jesus' followers, it becomes much harder to dismiss the reports as a "vision."

As for there being no witnesses to the resurrection, one poster already answered that: Why would anyone be in a sealed tomb with Jesus?

[LilytheTheologian]

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"?

No, they don't cry "hoax" at all. Paul, who, if your read his works in the original language, did, indeed, meet the risen Jesus in the flesh tells us that the resurrected body is different from the body prior to death (and I would hope so). It is incorruptible. It will never die again. After resurrection, the soul goes away )it is not needed any longer) and what animates the body is the love of God.

The Jews certainly knew where Jesus was buried. If any sort of hoax was being perpetrated, the Jews would have produced the body and crucified or stoned or otherwise punished the apostles and anyone else behind the hoax.

[Danmark]

LilytheTheologian wrote:

Paul, who, if your read his works in the original language, did, indeed, meet the risen Jesus in the flesh....

"In the 'flesh'?" Even Paul doesn't make that claim. Perhaps you can run us thru this theory using Greek transliteration.

And keep in mind, Saul never reported this event to anyone, until after he had woken from 3 days of complete dehydration after falling to the ground. He then changes his name and runs off in the opposite direction as zealously as he was before he hit his head. I see no reason whatsoever to take this character seriously. When he did a theological 180° his colossal ego compelled him to claim that he too was an 'apostle' who had seen Jesus. This was necessary to attempt to put himself on an equal footing with Peter. I'll say one thing about this guy, he must have been a heck of an orator to convince anyone of this preposterous story.

[FarWanderer]

I just skimmed over the previous posts, so I apologize if what I write is somewhat repetitive.

Welcome to the forum. May your insight be fruitful.

I didn't see anyone asking a crucial question: What did "resurrection" mean to a first century Jew? Most of you seem intelligent and well read, so I have to assume you know it meant a bodily resurrection, not a vision, hallucination, spirit, etc.

As for comparing Jesus' resurrection to "Elvis" sightings, there really is no comparison. Hundreds of people, individually, have reported having seen Elvis, at different times and in different places. Hundreds of people saw the risen Jesus alive at the same time. We can dismiss the single report of even five hundred persons (Elvis), but when a group of five hundred sees Jesus alive, and that group is not mentally ill, under the influence of drugs, etc. and not all Jesus' followers, it becomes much harder to dismiss the reports as a "vision."

I don't think Paul could have conjured his 500 witnesses if his audience were there at the time.

As for there being no witnesses to the resurrection, one poster already answered that: Why would anyone be in a sealed tomb with Jesus?

Indeed. But I think the better question is "Why was Jesus placed in a sealed tomb?"

[Inigo Montoya]

.... but when a group of five hundred sees Jesus alive, and that group is not mentally ill, under the influence of drugs, etc. and not all Jesus' followers, it becomes much harder to dismiss the reports as a "vision."

Greetings, and welcome to the nut-hatch.

I only wanted to point out that this is not a case of plural reports, as in 500 of them.

This is a case of a single report, claiming an audience of 500.

Verrry different.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to Inigo Montoya]

Thank you.

Yes, you are right, but it is still different from 500 separate reports of "Elvis" sightings. That was my point, which I probably didn't make too well. Apologies, and thanks for the correction.

To the other poster, Paul talked of a "spiritual body." And yes, he was dehydrated, etc., but if he was going to lie, don't you think he'd do it at a time when he wouldn't be suspect of hallucination? (I never read that he was subject to them, BTW.)

And what of the Jews? They knew where Jesus was buried. If the resurrection were a hoax, they Jews would have produced the body in short order and punished those involved. The apostles were so scared none but John stood at the foot of the Cross. It only stands to reason they would be too scared to cook up a hoax.

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to Inigo Montoya]

Thank you.

Yes, you are right, but it is still different from 500 separate reports of "Elvis" sightings. That was my point, which I probably didn't make too well. Apologies, and thanks for the correction.

I agree. I'd think 500 individual Elvis sighting claims was far more compelling than a single single claim citing an audience of 500.

I'm troubled by your manners, Lily. They make me want to behave, which is not a good state of mind for me. I fear you'll better me.

Take care.

[LilytheTheologian]

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"?

The Gospel of Peter is not in the biblical canon primarily because of its late date. It was probably written late in the second century. The biblical canon is composed of works written by those who knew Christ personally or who were writing on behalf of those who had known Christ personally. A manuscript produced late in the second century tells us that the author was neither personally acquainted with Christ nor was he acquainted with anyone who was.

As regards the canonical gospels, it was the custom to attach a name of importance to a writing, and not just a biblical one. This was not considered impersonation as it would be today, it was considered a compliment.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to Inigo Montoya]

Thank you.

Yes, you are right, but it is still different from 500 separate reports of "Elvis" sightings. That was my point, which I probably didn't make too well. Apologies, and thanks for the correction.

I agree. I'd think 500 individual Elvis sighting claims was far more compelling than a single single claim citing an audience of 500.

I'm troubled by your manners, Lily. They make me want to behave, which is not a good state of mind for me. I fear you'll better me.

Take care.

If I ever do - better you - I think you'll be my first.

[Danmark]

The biblical canon is composed of works written by those who knew Christ personally or who were writing on behalf of those who had known Christ personally.

This is an enormous distinction. The evidence suggests none of the gospels were written by either an eyewitness or anyone who "knew Christ personally. These anonymous writers, writing decades after the supposed events were writing on behalf of the church, and as you say attached others' names to their works. This was done to elevate the status of these works; to lend them credibility.