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"?

[Zzyzx]

.

I'm not going to explain to you - again - how the gospels and Christ cannot be myth, even if one does not believe everything in the Bible or believe that Jesus was God.

You have expressed an opinion. All (most?) of us have a belly button.

The gospel writers certainly KNEW myth from fact, they knew myth from history.

Is there assurance that they DISTINGUISHED myth from fact and/or history in their writings?

There is NO EVIDENCE that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon or even that the Rubicon itself existed. So one person, who called Caesar an "apparition" by the way wrote it down and a few others copied it. How do we know they are reliable? There is NO EVIDENCE that Alexander the Great even lived. If he did, I don't think think he did anyways near the things attributed to him. He might well have been "just myth." The ONLY reason you doubt the gospels and Christ is precisely BECAUSE Christ was God - and he did NOT make that claim.

Is anyone in these debates offering stories about Caesar or Alexander as grounds for beliefs, actions, decisions?

Would it make any difference in anyone's present life if those accounts were untrue?

Would it make any difference in anyone's present life if gospel accounts regarding Jesus were untrue?

But you have bias as well. You want to DISPROVE the validity of the gospels.

Correction: I do NOT seek to disprove validity of gospels – but instead ask for verification / sound reason / evidence to support any claims made regarding them being truthful and accurate.

[Clownboat]

Matthew was, of course, written for a Jewish audience, so why the explanations?

Sweet! Let's ask the Jews about Jesus being a Messiah, dying and rising from the dead and coming back to earth to establish a kingdom.

I kid of course. Just want to point out the irony that the Jews (the Old Testament being their tradition of 'history') don't accept the words of Paul who turned Jesus into a Messiah. The Old Testament and the book of Mathew does not turn this Jesus into their Messiah, therefore to consider him returning (from the standpoint of most (all?) Jews) is nonsensical in the first place.

Only followers of Paul would consider such a thing I would presume. Now why should anybody care about what Paul said? That's the real question. Personally, I think Jesus would roll over in his grave if he knew what Paul did with his message, but Paul contradicting Jesus would deserve a thread of its own.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 189 by Zzyzx]

If (since) gospel writers (whose identity is disputed by scholars and theologians) were unlikely to have witnessed events and conversations, there is reason to be concerned about their sources of information – which are unknown. Those sources could be nothing more substantial than folklore, legend, myth, oral tradition, embellished tales, etc. Can anyone show that sources were reliable?

Do you apply the same skepticism to all historical documents? Or only those that involve miraculous events, or only those that involve miraculous events upon which a religion is based?

I can give evidence for why the sources can be trusted to an extent. But if you are looking for mathematical demonstration (the kind that a skeptic couldn't say, "Yeah, but". then you will have to discount ALL historical claims). So, I just want to know whether it is worthwhile to put together arguments for the reliability of the N.T. witnesses.

Liam, I think you are getting ahead of yourself here. Forget your Holy Book and forget your religion for a moment.

First, why on earth would anybody on this planet accept claims of miracles (ignoring a vested interest in a religion or Holy Book of course)?

If someone claims to have witnessed a miracle, should we humans not be skeptical? I fear being 'skeptical' about miracles is not strong enough.

Will you be impressed if I referenced miracles that Muslims claim to be as a result of their god. I'm guessing you wouldn't even give such a notion a second thought. However, once the miracles involve a persons own god or holy book, all of a sudden miracles are reasonable. The inconsistency is glaring IMO.

For this reason, I find comparing 'history' to 'history that contains miracles' to be apples and bowling shoes.

[LilytheTheologian]

Matthew was, of course, written for a Jewish audience, so why the explanations?

Sweet! Let's ask the Jews about Jesus being a Messiah, dying and rising from the dead and coming back to earth to establish a kingdom.

I kid of course. Just want to point out the irony that the Jews (the Old Testament being their tradition of 'history') don't accept the words of Paul who turned Jesus into a Messiah. The Old Testament and the book of Mathew does not turn this Jesus into their Messiah, therefore to consider him returning (from the standpoint of most (all?) Jews) is nonsensical in the first place.

Only followers of Paul would consider such a thing I would presume. Now why should anybody care about what Paul said? That's the real question. Personally, I think Jesus would roll over in his grave if he knew what Paul did with his message, but Paul contradicting Jesus would deserve a thread of its own.

T have to assume that you do not know that many, many Jews DO accept Christ as the long-awaited Savior. They are called "Messianic Jews," and true to Wikipedia's unreliability, they DID exist in first century Jerusalem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Judaism

There are plenty or sites that write of Messianic Jews. Google can be your friend in this regard.

How did Paul turn Jesus into a Messiah? Paul PERSECUTED Jesus until after the crucifixion. Wow, Paul must have been REALLY, REALLY powerful! To single-handedly begin a religion that now contains more than 3.2 billion adherents and has the longest unbroken record of any institution on earth.

I think you know Paul did not turn Jesus into a Messiah. Paul only spread the word. The crucifixion and the Resurrection happened while Paul was a Jesus-hater. So, too the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. No one "turned" Jesus into a Messiah. He simply was the Messiah. The Bible cannot be understood by taking things in isolation. It's like trying to read ANNA KARENINA in bits and pieces. If you turn to a certain page, you'll find that Levin, himself, is attracted to Anna. Someone not conversant with the entire book, and someone who has not read and studied it cover-to-cover would say, "That Levin is a fool for wanting Anna!" Things taken out of context are never understood properly.

I can't help but chuckle at your signature. How long do you think that "man on fire" is going to live? One minute? Three?

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 204 by LilytheTheologian]

As a whole, the Jewish people do not accept that Jesus is their messiah. If a majority of Jews were convinced, that might present a different dilemma. Most Jews do not believe that Jesus meets the standards set forth in the Torah. Why is God so poor at convincing his own chosen people, I wonder.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 204 by LilytheTheologian]

As a whole, the Jewish people do not accept that Jesus is their messiah. If a majority of Jews were convinced, that might present a different dilemma. Most Jews do not believe that Jesus meets the standards set forth in the Torah. Why is God so poor at convincing his own chosen people, I wonder.

More to the point, why are God's people so stubbornly resistant to their own Messiah?

Maybe you don't know why the Jews did not accept Jesus. Because they wanted a political leader who would lead them to independence from the Romans and any others who might come along, and Jesus insisted on remaining apolitical, difficult as that was in first century Jerusalem.

Despite the fact that most Jews - not all, but most - are still awaiting their savior, I have never met a learned, thoughtful Jew who did not believe Jesus to have been an excellent rabbi and who did not accept his miracles as genuine, and I have known many Jews, even Orthodox Jews and rabbis who accepted Jesus' miracles as genuine.

[LilytheTheologian]

If any of you have studied comparative literature (after getting undergraduate degrees in drama and French in Paris, I started out as an English major here in the US, then switched to RC theology and psychology) you will know that myths take at least three to four generations to become established. There are no parallels – none, zero, zip, nada – in other literature or myth developing and being believed in the presence of eyewitnesses within the short time-frame in which the NT was formed, i.e. fewer than 100 years after the death and Resurrection of Christ.

Historical research supports an immediate belief in Christ’s Resurrection. Take a look at 1 Cor. 15:3-9 and you’ll see that an early version of the Apostle’s Creed included an affirmation of belief about the historicity of the Resurrection. And though the gospels MAY be later, 1 Corinthians has been dated to within seven years – at most – after Christ’s Resurrection, indicting prior public belief.

Scholars may disagree on some dates, but there is almost universal agreement that Paul’s first letters were written within 25 years or fewer of Jesus’ public ministry, and the gospels within 21 years, certainly no later than 65 years. Even if one does not believe the gospels to have been eyewitness accounts, their appearance is too early for myth. The preaching of the apostles ALWAYS centered on the Resurrection. In the space of 10 years after Christ’s Resurrection, devout Jews in the Roman Empire converted to Christianity.

Many of the eyewitnesses to Christ’s public ministry were very hostile toward the gospels (Mt 12:22). Some of these people were quite powerful and had the means, motive, and opportunity to correct any falsehoods about Jesus the apostles and gospel writers claimed. Yet, no one did anything to even attempt a “correction.�

Anyone who is conversant with myth knows, even at first glance, that the gospels do not resemble either Greek myth or Jewish legend. The gospels understate everything, they completely lack embellishment, and they contain many details that, in the hands of persons who were filled with hate, jealousy, etc., would serve to discredit their claims. The Jesus of the gospels is certainly no legendary hero like Beowulf, for example. Just look at John 20, for example, and what you’ll find is hardly evidence of “mythical� creation: (1) No attempt is made to describe the Resurrection itself. If the apostles asked Jesus how it was accomplished, and he told them, they did not tell their readers. (2) Mary Magdalene didn’t even instantly recognize her “hero.� Not the stuff of myth. (3) Mary Magdalene not only did not immediately recognize her hero, she didn’t even see anything special about him in the early morning light of the first Easter. She took him for a gardener. (4) By the end of the first Easter, Jesus' friends were still in hiding in fear of the Jews. (5) In a book that feminists claim is filled with paternalistic bias (and of course it is), women, of all people, were the first witnesses to the Resurrection! The word of women didn’t count for one thing legally in first century Jerusalem. The writers might as well have had a donkey be the first witness. (6) And yet the courage of the women, some of whom are even unnamed, put the cowardice of the men to shame!

If anyone were going to invent a mythic Christ, and a mythic Resurrection, it certainly would not have been the ancient Jews. There has never been a race of people or a culture so opposed to confusing deity with humanity. Never.

Edited for typos.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 206:

More to the point, why are God's people so stubbornly resistant to their own Messiah?

I propose it's 'cause they don't cotton to no stubborn* Christian demanding they accept the Christian "messiah".

Maybe you don't know why the Jews did not accept Jesus. Because they wanted a political leader who would lead them to independence from the Romans and any others who might come along, and Jesus insisted on remaining apolitical, difficult as that was in first century Jerusalem.

Kinda hard to accept a "messiah" that ain't one.

Despite the fact that most Jews - not all, but most - are still awaiting their savior, I have never met a learned, thoughtful Jew who did not believe Jesus to have been an excellent rabbi and who did not accept his miracles as genuine, and I have known many Jews, even Orthodox Jews and rabbis who accepted Jesus' miracles as genuine.

Notice the poisoning of the well, where it's "learned, thoughtful" "jews" who accept Christian claims.

Should we trust our theology to someone who'd run around poisonin' every well in town?


The Jews have a term for the folks who accept Jesus as "messiah". They call 'em Christians.


Alas, the god concept is exposed: It can't possibly be LilytheTheologian who's got it wrong, nope, it's gotta be them muley ol' Jews, and their inability to just plop out the womb a right and good Christian.


This right here is one reason I find religion, and Christianity in particular, so insulting and damaging to society.

Where you reject "my extra-special, constitutionally protected belief" - it must be you who's wrong, and stubbornly at that!


"Theology" is only as good as the unsupported, sense-assaulting claims it seeks to "understand".


(edit: replaced a word that means the same as the other'n, but maybe using the same'ns best. I had use "mule-headed", 'cause I felt it provided the proper impact, only I ain't tryin' to just fuss, but to expose the problem for what it is)

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 207:

Historical research supports an immediate belief in Christ’s Resurrection.

Argumentum ad speedygonzalesum.

If I believe right here and now the moon ain't there, is it gonna fall from the sky?

We see myth every time we see unsupported claims, right there when the claimant fails to support 'em. Especially when these claims violate all we know about the world.

[LilytheTheologian]

From Post 207:

Historical research supports an immediate belief in Christ’s Resurrection.

Argumentum ad speedygonzalesum.

If I believe right here and now the moon ain't there, is it gonna fall from the sky?

We see myth every time we see unsupported claims, right there when the claimant fails to support 'em. Especially when these claims violate all we know about the world.

Are you sure about that? Because I don't think anyone else is going to be, not even the non-believers.

Definition of a REAL myth:

https://www.google.com/search?q=myth+de ... 8&oe=utf-8

myth
miTH/
noun
noun: myth; plural noun: myths

1. a traditional story, especially one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.

2. a widely held but false belief or idea.

Sorry to be so disappointing, but I don't think your belief is (1) a traditional story, or (2) a widely held false belief.

You've resorted to the oldest and most useless trick in the book: If you have no rebuttal, resort to namecalling and silliness. From now on, I will not respond to your posts. They are not amusing and I find they add nothing to what some of us are trying to do, i.e. have a serious discussion. I'm not even going to bother to READ your posts.