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"?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 163 by Danmark]


It’s not embarrassing in the slightest. And thank you for asking an intelligent question in a thoughtful and calm manner. It is a question that has confused several who have not studied ancient languages.

Once again, it would be helpful in exegesis if you knew Koine Greek. Apparently, John Loftus does not know how to read and interpret it, either. “Genea� or “generation� was often used as a synonym for “genos,� which means “race,� “stock,� “nation,� or “people.�

The words of Jesus are more properly translated, and ARE translated in some newer translations of the Bible, as “This RACE shall not pass away until all these things are fulfilled.� HAS the human race passed away? No.

I'm no Koine Greek expert (I read a little, but I'm nowhere on your level admittedly), but I think the context makes clear that he's referring to a generation.

Your statement about "genea" is true (it's etymologically related to our English words "kind" and "kin"), but in the context in which it appears in that verse, it clearly refers to a generation of people living at the time.

Why would Jesus refer to the entire human race in this passage? Wouldn't a return of Jesus after humanity had gone extinct be absurd? Wouldn't it be plainly obvious that he would return before human extinction? So why would he say such a thing? It would not be obvious, however, for Jesus to return within the generation of people alive during his ministry. A statement like this, therefore, would help clarify the time frame of Jesus' return (to a generation, not a day or hour, so there is no contradiction).

What's more, that isn't the only place where Jesus predicted his own return in the lifetime of first-century individuals. We also have Matthew 16:27-28, which explicitly has Jesus claiming that some standing there won't taste death until the Son of Man (which Christians presume to be Jesus, although this is debatable) returns in power and glory. It's hard to take that any other way than a first-century parousia.

Edit: I listed the wrong Greek verse (for some ridiculous reason!).

Here is Matt 16:28 in Greek (I knew something wasn't right!)
28ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι εἰσίν τινες τῶν ὧδε ἑστώτων οἵτινες ο� μὴ γεύσωνται θανάτου ἕως ἂν ἴδωσιν τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθ�ώπου ��χόμενον �ν τῇ βασιλείᾳ α�τοῦ.

Many of the misunderstandings in exegesis come about from the tendency to substitute modern English without even a basic understanding of the nuances of the original Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic. Almost every so-called Bible “discrepancy� can be cleared up by studying the original language. This is one of them.

I respectfully disagree, but that's a topic for another thread (I'd actually love to discuss this with someone who has some knowledge of the original Biblical languages).

You might read Koine Greek as well as I. I don’t know your reading level, and Greek was never my favorite subject, nor were the ancient Greek philosophers. I thought they would be, but no. I actually preferred Aramaic to Greek.

I have to admit, to someone who is not a biblical scholar, even to someone who is a devout reader of the Bible, that is a confusing passage. Many of the things Jesus said are confusing to today’s readers, although not quite as confusing to ancient readers/listeners.

There is parallel in Chapter 9 of Mark (it's found in Luke as well) that you are probably familiar with. Admittedly, Matthew wrote a much smoother Greek than did Mark, which was really very rough, but Mark’s Greek comes to the point better than Matthew’s, so I prefer Mark’s. Both are describing the same event. In Mark 9 Jesus says, “Assuredly, I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the Kingdom of God present with power.� The key word is "present."

Clearly, in translation, that seems like Jesus is talking about the Second Coming. However, if you reference the Greek (Koine Greek, for those who do not know, was everyday Greek.), it means there are some standing there (“here�) who will see a presentation of the Kingdom of God. And what did Christ do? He took Peter, James, and John up on a mountain and they experienced the transfiguration. Appearing with Jesus was the prophet Elijah and Moses, who were seen speaking with Jesus.

During the transfiguration, Jesus was glorified, just as he will be glorified during his Second Coming and as the resurrected faithful will be glorified at the Second Coming. Moses was there to represent all of those who had died and would be resurrected from Sheol, or “Abraham’s bosom,� as it was commonly known. Elijah, who was taken up to heaven without suffering the death of the body, was representative of those who will still be alive when the actual Second Coming does occur, those who will not have to suffer the death of the body. The fact that Moses is there indicates to some that he had become subservient to the New Covenant.

What happens next? God the Father comes on a cloud and says, “This is my Beloved Son,� and an exhortation to pay attention to what he says. What Peter, James, and John (who were chief among the apostles) had experienced was the Second Coming in microcosm. The transfiguration was a glimpse of what was to come. When? No one knew. Why did Jesus do this? I can’t say with certainty, but it appears that he wanted his chief apostles to get a better idea of just exactly who he was and to learn that the Old Covenant had passed away and had been replaced by the New Covenant. Theologians in different parts of the world, at different times, have not agreed entirely on what everything in the transfiguration represents.

Regarding my previous post, I don’t believe myself that Jesus was referring to the entire human race, and I didn’t mean anyone to take what I wrote as implying the entire human race, only that some people would still be living when Christ established his kingdom. (There are religious sects that believe the Second Coming will not occur until the human race dies out, and Christ will then resurrect all. I’m not one of those persons.) People are divided on exactly what he meant. Perhaps he was referring to the Israelites or to those who would come to follow him and form his Church, which seems more likely to me. It’s an ambiguous saying, I grant you that. Much of what Christ said, on first, or even fifth reading, was ambiguous. Biblical scholars spend a lifetime studying the Bible, and there is still more to learn.

I appreciate this approach; however, I'll be candid:

I suggest the reason it is so puzzling and unsettled is because the clear and obvious answer has been rejected. When the clarity of "you'll see this in your own lifetime" is rejected, it takes a powerful lot of convoluted gymnastics to come up with a different, more complicated answer, which in the end turns out to be, "It's a mystery."

Yet when Jesus says something vague or mysterious that is reported differently in different passages, such as who he really is, the same 'theologians' have no trouble recognizing it as clear as can be: "I am God." The difference appears to be in once case, with the clear statement, the meaning conflicts with the interpreters doctrine.

But in the case with ambiguous and conflicting statements, it's easy to pick what one wants to see.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 171 by Danmark]

Jesus never claimed to be God. I take it you know that? Although, I'll admit, it was implied. (Personally, I think he came to his Messianic calling slowly. In his Incarnation, I do not believe he always knew he was God.) His favorite and most used title for himself was "Son of Man."

I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell me how you then reconcile your belief that Jesus believed his Second Coming would happen "soon" with Jesus' clear and unambiguous statement in Matthew 24:36: "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows." There can be no picking and choosing there. Christ stated plainly and unequivocally that he did not know.

Why would Christ say that he did not know if his ambiguous statements were truly indications that he did know? Or even thought he knew?

Even if Jesus were a charlatan, I do not think he would contradict himself like you are suggesting he did. And if he truly thought the Second Coming would happen soon, he would not have made a clear statement that he knew not the day or the hour.

I'd really be happy if you'd give me your opinion about these (to you) contradictory statements.

Thank you.

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 172 by LilytheTheologian]

I don't really see the contradiction; Matthew 16 has Christ say- “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“

I don't see why going on to say something like, "while its going to happen while some who are here still live, no one knows the precise date/hour" would be contradictory- indeed, this seems an obvious and natural interpretation, and one which can easily reconcile the two verses. On the other hand, how would you explain Matthew 16 differently?

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 172 by LilytheTheologian]

I don't really see the contradiction; Matthew 16 has Christ say- “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“

I don't see why going on to say something like, "while its going to happen while some who are here still live, no one knows the precise date/hour" would be contradictory- indeed, this seems an obvious and natural interpretation, and one which can easily reconcile the two verses. On the other hand, how would you explain Matthew 16 differently?

I explained that earlier in a LOOOG post. In Matthew 16, Christ was talking about the Transfiguration, in which his three chief apostles, Peter, James, and John were given a "presentation" of the Second Coming. The word, "present" is used in the original Greek, indicating a presentation.

Even if you don't believe in Christ, surely you can see a contradiction in saying he announced that his Second Coming would be "soon" and his statement in Matthew 24:36 in which he said, "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

The contradiction cannot be attributed to the biblical author because both statements are in the book of Matthew. (The Transfiguration is described in all three Synoptics).

[Zzyzx]

.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell me how you then reconcile your belief that Jesus believed his Second Coming would happen "soon" with Jesus' clear and unambiguous statement in Matthew 24:36: "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

When was "Matthew" written? Perhaps forty or fifty years (or more) after the supposed conversation?

Is there assurance that the words attributed to Jesus were actually his words verbatim, remembered and retold with unerring accuracy? Additionally, "Matthew" is in Greek while Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, so translations were involved (still maintaining absolute accuracy?). AND, the earliest existing copies of "Matthew" are from centuries later. Was the copying of copies unerringly accurate also?

I wouldn't "hang my hat" on that one – though many do and maintain absolute accuracy was attained in oral tradition and/or folklore for decades or generations and accuracy in translating, copying and editing over the centuries.

[Danmark]

.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell me how you then reconcile your belief that Jesus believed his Second Coming would happen "soon" with Jesus' clear and unambiguous statement in Matthew 24:36: "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

When was "Matthew" written? Perhaps forty or fifty years (or more) after the supposed conversation?

Is there assurance that the words attributed to Jesus were actually his words verbatim, remembered and retold with unerring accuracy? Additionally, "Matthew" is in Greek while Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, so translations were involved (still maintaining absolute accuracy?). AND, the earliest existing copies of "Matthew" are from centuries later. Was the copying of copies unerringly accurate also?

I wouldn't "hang my hat" on that one – though many do and maintain absolute accuracy was attained in oral tradition and/or folklore for decades or generations and accuracy in translating, copying and editing over the centuries.

Good points. As I've written before, one need to no more than than simple read the common sense of the words and have no trouble with this supposed contradiction between "within the next 40 years" and "not knowing the exact day or hour."

Illustrations:
"We'll see you next year, sometime in the Spring."
"We've scheduled that for roughly four years from now, but the exact date has not been set."
"We've got to get together sometime next week."

I do not understand why there should be any mystery about this. When two provisions of a law appear to contradict each other, the first rule of statutory construction is to see if they can be harmonized without doing violence to the meaning of either.

It makes perfect sense for Jesus to say, "I'll be back while some of you are still alive, but be ready. Be ever vigilant and prepared, because you will not know the exact hour or the day."

[LilytheTheologian]

.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell me how you then reconcile your belief that Jesus believed his Second Coming would happen "soon" with Jesus' clear and unambiguous statement in Matthew 24:36: "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

When was "Matthew" written? Perhaps forty or fifty years (or more) after the supposed conversation?

Is there assurance that the words attributed to Jesus were actually his words verbatim, remembered and retold with unerring accuracy? Additionally, "Matthew" is in Greek while Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, so translations were involved (still maintaining absolute accuracy?). AND, the earliest existing copies of "Matthew" are from centuries later. Was the copying of copies unerringly accurate also?

I wouldn't "hang my hat" on that one – though many do and maintain absolute accuracy was attained in oral tradition and/or folklore for decades or generations and accuracy in translating, copying and editing over the centuries.

Valid questions.

The latest dating techniques place the writing of Matthew at 40 CE, early enough for an eyewitness to have written it. The 26th chapter of Matthew has been dated to 40 CE.

I concede Jesus no doubt spoke Aramaic, and he almost surely spoke Hebrew. Whether he understood any Greek is not known. I also concede that things do get lost and mistaken in translation.

If we were comparing a saying in Mark to Matthew or Matthew to Luke, etc. I could see your reasoning more clearly. However, even if the book had been edited, what would an editor gain by contradicting himself?

I understand your objections, but because we are talking about one gospel - Matthew - and one written less than 10 years after the fact, I still see a contradiction.

[LilytheTheologian]

.

I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell me how you then reconcile your belief that Jesus believed his Second Coming would happen "soon" with Jesus' clear and unambiguous statement in Matthew 24:36: "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

When was "Matthew" written? Perhaps forty or fifty years (or more) after the supposed conversation?

Is there assurance that the words attributed to Jesus were actually his words verbatim, remembered and retold with unerring accuracy? Additionally, "Matthew" is in Greek while Jesus likely spoke Aramaic, so translations were involved (still maintaining absolute accuracy?). AND, the earliest existing copies of "Matthew" are from centuries later. Was the copying of copies unerringly accurate also?

I wouldn't "hang my hat" on that one – though many do and maintain absolute accuracy was attained in oral tradition and/or folklore for decades or generations and accuracy in translating, copying and editing over the centuries.

Good points. As I've written before, one need to no more than than simple read the common sense of the words and have no trouble with this supposed contradiction between "within the next 40 years" and "not knowing the exact day or hour."

Illustrations:
"We'll see you next year, sometime in the Spring."
"We've scheduled that for roughly four years from now, but the exact date has not been set."
"We've got to get together sometime next week."

I do not understand why there should be any mystery about this. When two provisions of a law appear to contradict each other, the first rule of statutory construction is to see if they can be harmonized without doing violence to the meaning of either.

It makes perfect sense for Jesus to say, "I'll be back while some of you are still alive, but be ready. Be ever vigilant and prepared, because you will not know the exact hour or the day."

Your examples all have rather firm dates fixed. Not entirely firm, but rather firm. "Next Spring," "four years from now," "sometime next week." Those all have a general date implied.

Jesus didn't say, "I'll be back." You've combined two contradictory sayings into one saying that never took place. LOL Don't say I twist things!

I still see a contradiction. It would do the author or editor of Matthew no good to have Jesus contradict himself.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 174 by LilytheTheologian]

Even if you don't believe in Christ, surely you can see a contradiction in saying he announced that his Second Coming would be "soon" and his statement in Matthew 24:36 in which he said, "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

Hi Lily, nice to meet you I've been trying to see some glaring contradiction here too. Maybe it's not particularly glaring, but subtle?

"Coming soon" seems to easily include "no one except God knows when". "Coming soon" is sufficiently vague as to not conflict with 'no one knows the day or hour'. Could 24:36 be part of something added later?

Just the word 'soon' is provocative, as if it has strong emphasis, but of course it might not.

Its funny, just in general Christian banter, casual conversation, I've only heard about the 'no one knows the day and hour except God'. I never heard the verses before that, with the 'soon' part, nor have I heard about the other references to sooner rather than later Second Coming. The first I've ever heard of them were here on this board, and I was a Christian. I had to go and look it up for myself, I had no idea about that part.

There must be some kind of contradiction there if Christians themselves point it out. It must challenge something important, perhaps?

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 179 by Hamsaka]

Hello Hamsaka, it's nice to meet you, too.

I don't have the Bible memorized, but I'm pretty sure Jesus never said he was coming "soon."

Here are some things he did say:

"Truly I say to you, this generation will not pass away until all things take place. Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words will not pass away." (NAS, Luke 21:32-33)

By "this generation" he could have meant the generation that lives through the end times, which we are living through right now. Not the final day! Just the end times. However, the end times began with Christ's birth. I will not deny it, though. The early Church felt that Christ was coming "soon." Maybe in a matter of days, at first.

Yet he also said this, indicating that his coming would be much farther in the future:

"And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a witness to all the nations, and then the end shall come.: (NAS, Matthew 24:14)

Jesus, himself, said that he did not know the day or the hour:

"No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come." (NIV, Mark 13:32-33)

But he knew we on earth would not be expecting it:

"So you also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him." (NIV, Matthew 24:43-44)

Some people believe 2 Peter holds the answer:

"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance."

I, myself, don't buy the explanation in 2 Peter, although God does live in timelessness. I think there is more to the whole thing. I believe at least one of the statements points to the Transfiguration, which is a short "presentation" of the Second Coming. My fellow debaters, however, disagree.

I have conceded that many of Jesus' statements are ambiguous. He rarely spoke simply and plainly. Even his parables are designed to confound more than to make clear.

So, being an East Coaster, I am tired, but will try to reconcile this tomorrow.

I hope you join us in our debate.