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]

[Replying to post 240 by Danmark]

You've only partially answered my post with "quibbles." I'll wait until you answer all of it before I reply.

If others care to take on the ENTIRE post, I'll certainly answer them as well.

BTW, I am a Christian, and I NEVER speak of the "Old Testament." I speak of the Hebrew Scriptures because that is what they are. And the Hebrew Scriptures speak, in prophecy, of the coming of THE Messiah. ALL of those prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

Edit: I said the Jewish writer gave no source for his assertions, and he did not. Of course, I do know that source: the writings of Moses Maimonides (1138 - 1204), a medieval Jewish philosopher. Again, I mean no disrespect to the Jewish people, and Judaism is filled with very learned men, but even a very learned man cannot override the word of God in the Hebrew Scriptures, which the ancient Hebrews accepted unequivocally. It would be like Roman Catholics (and I am a Roman Catholic) elevating Augustine of Hippo or Thomas Aquinas to the status of Moses, Isaiah, and Elijah. As the writer stated, there can be no "wiggle room." And the Hebrew Scriptures definitely DO foretell the coming of the Messiah in prophecy, prophecy the Jews accepted. It is not unusual today for atheists to embrace the philosophy of Moses Maimonides in attempting to discredit Christ. However, if one accepts the philosophy of Maimonides, one also has to express disbelief in the Hebrew Scriptures because Maimonides and the HS are at odds with each other. In addition, if one embraces the philosophy of Maimonides, one must embrace theism because though he sought to discredit Christ, Maimonides did believe in God.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 240 by Danmark]

You've only partially answered my post with "quibbles." I'll wait until you answer all of it before I reply.

If others care to take on the ENTIRE post, I'll certainly answer them as well.

BTW, I am a Christian, and I NEVER speak of the "Old Testament." I speak of the Hebrew Scriptures because that is what they are. And the Hebrew Scriptures speak, in prophecy, of the coming of THE Messiah. ALL of those prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ..

You don't want to answer my questions and arguments, but call them 'quibbles.' That is not an argument. I see mere assertion and a statement of faith, not argument. Christians mangling, misappropriating and reinterpreting Jewish scripture and telling Jews what it 'really' means has always struck me as something that should embarrass the Christian. As has been observed many times, various Christian writers wrote their stories and arranged their 'facts' to attempt to fit ancient prophesies into their theories and doctrines.

Painting a bullseye around an arrow sticking in a wall is not an impressive display of marksmanship. And even then, the after the fact targets are frequently painted poorly. A classic example is the differing genealogies of Jesus, one in the Luke, the other in Matthew. Matthew's starts with Abraham, while Luke begins with Adam. The lists are identical between Abraham and David, but differ radically from that point. Traditional Christian scholars have put forward various theories that seek to explain why the lineages are so different, such as that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's follows the lineage of Mary. Modern biblical scholars see both genealogies as inventions, conforming to Jewish literary convention.
Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, The First Christmas (HarperCollins, 2009), R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Eerdmans, 1985)

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 240 by Danmark]

You've only partially answered my post with "quibbles." I'll wait until you answer all of it before I reply.

If others care to take on the ENTIRE post, I'll certainly answer them as well.

BTW, I am a Christian, and I NEVER speak of the "Old Testament." I speak of the Hebrew Scriptures because that is what they are. And the Hebrew Scriptures speak, in prophecy, of the coming of THE Messiah. ALL of those prophecies were fulfilled in Jesus Christ..

You don't want to answer my questions and arguments, but call them 'quibbles.' That is not an argument. I see mere assertion and a statement of faith, not argument. Christians mangling, misappropriating and reinterpreting Jewish scripture and telling Jews what it 'really' means has always struck me as something that should embarrass the Christian. As has been observed many times, various Christian writers wrote their stories and arranged their 'facts' to attempt to fit ancient prophesies into their theories and doctrines.

Painting a bullseye around an arrow sticking in a wall is not an impressive display of marksmanship. And even then, the after the fact targets are frequently painted poorly. A classic example is the differing genealogies of Jesus, one in the Luke, the other in Matthew. Matthew's starts with Abraham, while Luke begins with Adam. The lists are identical between Abraham and David, but differ radically from that point. Traditional Christian scholars have put forward various theories that seek to explain why the lineages are so different, such as that Matthew's account follows the lineage of Joseph, while Luke's follows the lineage of Mary. Modern biblical scholars see both genealogies as inventions, conforming to Jewish literary convention.
Marcus J. Borg, John Dominic Crossan, The First Christmas (HarperCollins, 2009), R. T. France, The Gospel According to Matthew: An Introduction and Commentary (Eerdmans, 1985)

Christians are not reinterpreting, manipulating, or doing anything else to Hebrew Scripture. The prophecies of THE Messiah to come in HS are clear and most are straightforward. The reason the Jewish writer of the post I was directed to probably did NOT list his source is because it was not biblical, but was based on the philosophy of a medieval Jew, instead. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE HEBREW SCRIPTURES, WHICH JEWISH PEOPLE DO ACCEPT AS THE WORD OF GOD to indicate THE Messiah would do the things indicated by the Jewish writer of the post to which I was directed. Nothing. That is entirely the belief of Maimonides and only as reliable as Maimonides or any other medieval scholar. Christ fulfilled every prophecy of the Hebrew Scriptures. Every one. What are the mathematical chances of a random man doing that? Or even of a man setting out deliberately to do so? So infinitesimal as to not be calculable.

Borg identified himself as a "Progressive Christian." Crossan believes in God and the divinity of Jesus, but does not identify with any particular group within Christianity (he was previously a Roman Catholic priest who left the priesthood to get married). Despite this, Borg and Crossan did/do NOT believe the differing genealogies mean that Christ was not the Messiah. They DO believe Matthew and Luke had personal views for their genealogies:

http://www.biblewise.com/living/books/t ... istmas.php

I know their writings well.

Regarding the genealogies:

http://www.equip.org/bible_answers/do-t ... e-another/

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apcont ... rticle=932

The explanation you gave is still accepted by mainstream biblical scholars, even the Jewish ones. (Notice how the Jewish writer's post DOES indicate that Jesus fulfilled the prophecy that THE Messiah would come from the tribe of Judah?)

There had been false messiahs before the real one came along. They attracted followings of various numbers. Some were put to death. When they were, their followers disbanded, went their separate ways. Not so with Jesus. His followers banded together even more tightly; Christ's teachings, rather than fading into the background grew to encompass every country in the world, to one degree or another. Even those persons, who under pain of death, denounced Christ to save their lives, did NOT maintain that he was a "fraud."

[Blastcat]

Christians are not reinterpreting, manipulating, or doing anything else to Hebrew Scripture.

This is highly debatable.
You present a controversial opinion as if it were a FACT, but offer no proof that it IS a fact. Sorry.. your opinions have to be PROVED if we are to take them as facts.

So, please offer your proof. Your opinions are NICE, but do not serve as proof that they are TRUE.

The prophecies of THE Messiah to come in HS are clear and most are straightforward.

Extremely debatable. What I see is extremely VAGUE prophecies that have NOT been proved to be "straightforward" at all.

There had been false messiahs before the real one came along.

You will have to demonstrate that this statement is true. The REAL messiah? Please.. that's not true.. it's just YOUR opinion that it's true.

When you make a truth claim that is controversial, don't be surprised if NOBODY is convinced but you UNLESS you provide good evidence or proof for the claim.

Right now, you offer your opinion but NO proof ... You offer us your beliefs.. and DO NOT attempt to justify them with evidence. So.. no. Sorry.

You can believe anything you like for any reason whatsoever, but if you want to convince anyone else, then you have to offer PROOF that what you say is more than mere opinion and happy thoughts.

[LilytheTheologian]

Christians are not reinterpreting, manipulating, or doing anything else to Hebrew Scripture.

This is highly debatable.
You present a controversial opinion as if it were a FACT, but offer no proof that it IS a fact. Sorry.. your opinions have to be PROVED if we are to take them as facts.

So, please offer your proof. Your opinions are NICE, but do not serve as proof that they are TRUE.

The prophecies of THE Messiah to come in HS are clear and most are straightforward.

Extremely debatable. What I see is extremely VAGUE prophecies that have NOT been proved to be "straightforward" at all.

There had been false messiahs before the real one came along.

You will have to demonstrate that this statement is true. The REAL messiah? Please.. that's not true.. it's just YOUR opinion that it's true.

When you make a truth claim that is controversial, don't be surprised if NOBODY is convinced but you UNLESS you provide good evidence or proof for the claim.

Right now, you offer your opinion but NO proof ... You offer us your beliefs.. and DO NOT attempt to justify them with evidence. So.. no. Sorry.

You can believe anything you like for any reason whatsoever, but if you want to convince anyone else, then you have to offer PROOF that what you say is more than mere opinion and happy thoughts.

Look up the bible verses yourself. Take a bible study class. Enroll in my class if you are in the area and have about $1,500 to spare.

Before I would ever even entertain that my view that Jesus was THE Messiah could be false, someone would have to present me with the mathematical calculations showing that any random man could fulfill all of the 100s of Hebrew prophecies, prophecies the ancient Hebrews, and most modern Jews, accept as true, prophecies that had to have been fulfilled by a first century Jew prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE. And, prophecies that your Jewish writer, himself seems to believe since he claims Jesus DID fulfill the one about being from the tribe of Judah.

I have proven my point. No one has countered it with anything but grasping at straws like the differing genealogies. Both Borg and Crossan did/do not believe this negatively impacted Jesus' divinity, and both accepted that divinity. It is YOU who is free to believe what you like. No one has ever said you are not. But if you want to refute what I write, please give me some basis for doing so, not just "because I said so." I do not do that. I do not shoot into a pond and hope I kill a fish. I back up what I write with scripture, usually Hebrew Scripture that was written centuries prior to the birth of Christ. Please return the favor.

[Blastcat]

Christians are not reinterpreting, manipulating, or doing anything else to Hebrew Scripture.

This is highly debatable.
You present a controversial opinion as if it were a FACT, but offer no proof that it IS a fact. Sorry.. your opinions have to be PROVED if we are to take them as facts.

So, please offer your proof. Your opinions are NICE, but do not serve as proof that they are TRUE.

The prophecies of THE Messiah to come in HS are clear and most are straightforward.

Extremely debatable. What I see is extremely VAGUE prophecies that have NOT been proved to be "straightforward" at all.

There had been false messiahs before the real one came along.

You will have to demonstrate that this statement is true. The REAL messiah? Please.. that's not true.. it's just YOUR opinion that it's true.

When you make a truth claim that is controversial, don't be surprised if NOBODY is convinced but you UNLESS you provide good evidence or proof for the claim.

Right now, you offer your opinion but NO proof ... You offer us your beliefs.. and DO NOT attempt to justify them with evidence. So.. no. Sorry.

You can believe anything you like for any reason whatsoever, but if you want to convince anyone else, then you have to offer PROOF that what you say is more than mere opinion and happy thoughts.

Look up the bible verses yourself. Take a bible study class. Enroll in my class if you are in the area and have about $1,500 to spare.

I did. I don't have to spend any more money. Why do you suggest this?

Before I would ever even entertain that my view that Jesus was THE Messiah could be false, someone would have to present me with the mathematical calculations showing that any random man could fulfill all of the 100s of Hebrew prophecies, prophecies the ancient Hebrews, and most modern Jews, accept as true, prophecies that had to have been fulfilled by a first century Jew prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.

Arguments from ignorance always fail. You need to have your beliefs DISPROVED?.. fine. Keep your beliefs.

HOWEVER, if you want to convince anyone else that your beliefs are TRUE.. then you need to prove that they ARE. It's not up to anyone else.

You make claims.. you prove them true or others won't be impressed.

And, prophecies that your Jewish writer, himself seems to believe since he claims Jesus DID fulfill the one about being from the tribe of Judah.

Sorry, these prophecies don't impress me.

I have proven my point.

Sorry you haven't even TRIED to prove your point. You have EXPRESSED your point, and that's all so far.

This is a great example of someone making a claim that isn't supported by evidence.

No one has countered it with anything but grasping at straws like the differing genealogies.

We don't have to counter your beliefs. You have to PROVE your beliefs are true. Otherwise, you wont convince us.

But you are quite free to believe anything at all for whatever reason you chose.

Both Borg and Crossan did/do not believe this negatively impacted Jesus' divinity, and both accepted that divinity.

I'm very happy that they have opinions.
But if ANYONE makes a god claim and doesn't support it with evidence, their claims are dead in the water. I don't care WHO they are.. or WHAT kind of authority they have.

It is YOU who is free to believe what you like.

We are ALL free to believe what we like. HOWEVER, if someone wants to CONVINCE someone else, the onus is on that person to provide sufficient evidence and reason to do so.

Unless, of course that person doesn't WANT to convince anyone BUT himself.. that's fine. You don't have to convince anyone at all. So far, that's what youre doing. Telling us what you believe.. but as to CONVINCING US.. well.. you offer no real evidence that they are true.. so we don't have to PRETEND that they are.

Your claims are dead in the water.

No one has ever said you are not.

I never said that I was not free to believe what I want to believe.
But thanks for making that even MORE plain to me...

But if you want to refute what I write, please give me some basis for doing so, not just "because I said so."

I never said "because I said so"... I only REJECT your claims because you don't offer good evidence for them.

If I make a claim, I have to support it with evidence OR I just wont convince anyone.

You want to make a god claim? .. go ahead.

BUT if you are NOT convincing, it's not up to ME to give you a rebuttal. All you have done so far is MAKE A CLAIM.. and then that's it.

I notice your claim and.. because it's not supported by evidence, reject it.

YOU are free to keep believing in whatever it is you want.

I do not do that. I do not shoot into a pond and hope I kill a fish.

Good for you?

But when you make a claim and you can't support it.. others will simply ignore the claims.

I back up what I write with scripture, usually Hebrew Scripture that was written centuries prior to the birth of Christ. Please return the favor.

Backing up scripture with scripture isn't convincing, sorry. IF it was convincing, there wouldn't BE atheists.

[Danmark]

Look up the bible verses yourself. Take a bible study class. Enroll in my class if you are in the area and have about $1,500 to spare....
I have proven my point. No one has countered it with anything but grasping at straws like the differing genealogies....
But if you want to refute what I write, please give me some basis for doing so, not just "because I said so." I do not do that.

That is exactly what you do. Your arguments stem from the fallacy of authority: "I teach it, so I am correct." The conflicting genealogies are from the New Testament, not just made up "straws." You have admitted you simply ignore facts and arguments directly from scripture if you do not like them, rather than even attempt to argue with them. Instead of calling them "straws," please explain why the genealogies in two books [Matthew and Luke] "written by God" so clearly disagree with each other, and why Biblical scholars call them "inventions" to attempt to agree with Hebrew tradition. This is a very clear example of how the very human authors of the New Testament are painting targets around the arrows.

[LilytheTheologian]

Look up the bible verses yourself. Take a bible study class. Enroll in my class if you are in the area and have about $1,500 to spare....
I have proven my point. No one has countered it with anything but grasping at straws like the differing genealogies....
But if you want to refute what I write, please give me some basis for doing so, not just "because I said so." I do not do that.

That is exactly what you do. Your arguments stem from the fallacy of authority: "I teach it, so I am correct." The conflicting genealogies are from the New Testament, not just made up "straws." You have admitted you simply ignore facts and arguments directly from scripture if you do not like them, rather than even attempt to argue with them. Instead of calling them "straws," please explain why the genealogies in two books [Matthew and Luke] "written by God" so clearly disagree with each other, and why Biblical scholars call them "inventions" to attempt to agree with Hebrew tradition. This is a very clear example of how the very human authors of the New Testament are painting targets around the arrows.

Enlighten me. What FACTS of scripture do I ignore? I never "admitted" that I ignore facts. I don't. Show me where I said that even once? I don't see that I've ignored any. Of all the posters on this thread, I quote the most scripture, back up my assertions with the most scripture. I never said, "So I teach it, so I'm correct." Not once. You are the only one who's said that. That is not something I would say.

I never said the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were "written by God," so don't attribute that to me. They are different in some respects. I don't agree completely with Borg and Crossan, but I do agree with them partially. Not all biblical scholars call the nativities "inventions." Most do not. And Borg and Crossan don't, either. They did and do believe in the divinity of Christ. They believe he was THE Messiah. Don't take my word for it. Read the book.

The scriptures provide the most information about Christ; therefore, the scriptures have to be used in proving he was THE Messiah. I've provided external information as well, however. If we were debating something in physics, we would have to use the laws of physics to prove it. We wouldn't use literary forms.

Instead of attacking me, you need to be scaring up evidence to support your claims. So far, I've seen none.

[Danmark]

Enlighten me. What FACTS of scripture do I ignore? I never "admitted" that I ignore facts. I don't. Show me where I said that even once? I don't see that I've ignored any. Of all the posters on this thread, I quote the most scripture, back up my assertions with the most scripture. I never said, "So I teach it, so I'm correct." Not once. You are the only one who's said that. That is not something I would say.

I never said the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were "written by God," so don't attribute that to me. They are different in some respects. I don't agree completely with Borg and Crossan, but I do agree with them partially. Not all biblical scholars call the nativities "inventions." Most do not. .

In answer to several facts, arguments and questions you replied:

I'll wait until you answer all of it before I reply.

You've changed "genealogies" to "nativities." You ignore the great differences between Matthew and Luke in that respect and fail to explain why they are so different. I'm happy you admit that Matthew and Luke are not God's Word, tho' you've made that claim about Deuteronomy, even claiming I was quoting "God" when I quoted what was attributed to Moses in that book. Instead of analysis you condescendingly wrote to someone you disagreed with,

Take a bible study class. Enroll in my class if you are in the area and have about $1,500 to spare....

I'm not attacking you, but your faulty analysis and your conclusions substituted for actual analysis. I agree you didn't candidly say "I teach it, so I'm correct," but that's what you have implied since you arrived, talking about your 12 years of study in the field, and citing your mentor as if that reference. to authority meant something as well. From day one you have argued using the fallacy of the claim from authority. And you just did it again just now with your:

Of all the posters on this thread, I quote the most scripture, back up my assertions with the most scripture.

[LilytheTheologian]

Enlighten me. What FACTS of scripture do I ignore? I never "admitted" that I ignore facts. I don't. Show me where I said that even once? I don't see that I've ignored any. Of all the posters on this thread, I quote the most scripture, back up my assertions with the most scripture. I never said, "So I teach it, so I'm correct." Not once. You are the only one who's said that. That is not something I would say.

I never said the genealogies in Matthew and Luke were "written by God," so don't attribute that to me. They are different in some respects. I don't agree completely with Borg and Crossan, but I do agree with them partially. Not all biblical scholars call the nativities "inventions." Most do not. .

In answer to several facts, arguments and questions you replied:

I'll wait until you answer all of it before I reply.

You've changed "genealogies" to "nativities." You ignore the great differences between Matthew and Luke in that respect and fail to explain why they are so different. I'm happy you admit that Matthew and Luke are not God's Word, tho' you've made that claim about Deuteronomy, even claiming I was quoting "God" when I quoted what was attributed to Moses in that book. Instead of analysis you condescendingly wrote to someone you disagreed with,

Take a bible study class. Enroll in my class if you are in the area and have about $1,500 to spare....

I'm not attacking you, but your faulty analysis and your conclusions substituted for actual analysis. I agree you didn't candidly say "I teach it, so I'm correct," but that's what you have implied since you arrived, talking about your 12 years of study in the field, and citing your mentor as if that ref. to authority meant something as well. From day one you have argued using the fallacy of the claim from authority.

No, I have not made the claim from day one that people should believe me because I teach it. I make mistakes, and when I make mistakes, I expect to be correct4ed, with evidence, of course. Those who taught me, though more learned than I, make mistakes, and their students sometimes correct them. Everyone makes mistakes.

People, whether they believe Christ was THE Messiah or not, can find out most about his life by reading the Bible. I have used external sources to show the events surrounding Christ's life did happen. I have quoted the Jewish historian Josephus, who was no fan of Christian, the Roman historian Tacitus, archeologists who found evidence of Pontius Pilate's existence, etc.

I understand you do not believe Christ was THE Messiah. That is fine. That is your stance. Show me why he is not. Use evidence. Don't just attack me. That is not evidence. I asked the question, "How could ANY MAN fulfill the hundreds of prophecies in the Hebrew Scriptures regarding THE Messiah hundreds and hundreds of years before Christ's birth? You did not answer. You just said I was wrong. That is your opinion, but it is not evidence.

I showed that the Jewish writer pointed out to me was relying on the philosophy of a twelfth century Jew named Maimonides, not on scripture. You, and others, wanted that question answered. I answered it. You ignored it, which you have the right to do, but then don't tell me I'm not supplying evidence. Of all the posters here, I've supplied the most evidence. If I haven't, give me some evidence that Christ was not the Messiah, evidence that is not your opinion only. Strangely, this Jewish poster, who said the Messiah was not foretold in prophecy, and who was relying on the philosophy of Maimonides, neglected the fact that Maimonides, himself wrote something called "The Jewish Principles of Faith." The sixth is Revelation through God's Prophets, and the seventh is The Preeminence of Moses Among the Prophets. So, Maimonides himself relied on prophecy. Don't take my word for it, look it up.