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]

.

Danmark, I don't deny that NT writers COULD write with an eye toward fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies, I don't think they did, but they COULD have. But the likelihood of them being able to fit the life of Jesus into more than 300 (and I can give you close to 400 of varying degrees) prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled by Jesus, is so astronomical as to be incalculable.

It is not surprising that storytellers decades or generations after Jesus died could make their idol fit (or seem to fit) "prophesies".

Any of us can make (even) fictional characters fit earlier writings.

There is no extra-biblical information that substantiates the claim of "fit."

There's nothing that makes us believe Alexander the Great even existed. While it is true that crucifixion victims were often thrown in the dirt and dust, what evidence can you provide that Joseph of Arimathea did not offer his tomb to those who buried Christ as foretold in Hebrew prophecy? Right now, you have an "I believe it so it must be true" scenario, with no supporting evidence.

If the Gospel writers were making things up, why do you think they choose to have women, of all people, be the first witnesses of the empty tomb? Women had no legal standing in first century Jerusalem, their word was simply not believed. This does not support your "they made it up" scenario. There is no prophecy regarding the first witnesses to the Resurrection. If Jews, or even former Jews, were going to make it up, why do you think they didn't have MEN with an unblemished reputation be the first witnesses?

[Blastcat]

There's nothing that makes us believe Alexander the Great even existed.

Good. now you understand why some people don't believe Jesus existed.

While it is true that crucifixion victims were often thrown in the dirt and dust, what evidence can you provide that Joseph of Arimathea did not offer his tomb to those who buried Christ as foretold in Hebrew prophecy?

People who try to shift the burden of the proof aren't doing a good job at making a logical argument.

Please provide evidence for YOUR claims.

If we have no evidence against your claims it still DOES NOT prove your claims.
Please.. do the job you need to do.. shifting the burden of the proof is a fallacious tactic that many apologists like to use.. but that just doesn't work.

PLEASE.. if you have a case.. give us your evidence.. if you don't.. just admit it. Pretending doesn't help.

If the Gospel writers were making things up, why do you think they choose to have women, of all people, be the first witnesses of the empty tomb?

First of all, tam.. this is a narrative.. we have NO evidence that any of it is true in any way. Maybe it was women.. maybe it was men.. maybe it was fairies that discovered the empty tomb.. Maybe there was NO tomb.. maybe there was NO Jesus..

Maybe, maybe, maybe.. maybe it's all true.. maybe its all false.. .. so that's for starters.Without EVIDENCE all we have is the narrative and opinions about it.

Women had no legal standing in first century Jerusalem, their word was simply not believed.

So let's have the least reliable person tell us something.. WOW.. if the LEAST reliable person tells ME something.. I'm NOT going to take whatever he says is TRUE...

But apologists can spin it that way.. the least reliable person tells me something so IT MUST BE TRUE.

Try to convince a jury of that next time your in court. Have the LEAST reliable person testify.

This does not support your "they made it up" scenario. There is no prophecy regarding the first witnesses to the Resurrection. If Jews, or even former Jews, were going to make it up, why do you think they didn't have MEN with an unblemished reputation be the first witnesses?

Who cares why they made things up that were stupid?
People who make things up are sometimes stupid.
They might have been brilliant.. and they might have been profoundly stupid..
we just don't KNOW..

What MATTERS is that we just don't know if its TRUE or not.

[Zzyzx]

.

There's nothing that makes us believe Alexander the Great even existed.

I base no decisions or positions on the existence of Alexander the Great – and do not defend his existence. Perhaps you have confused me with someone else?

While it is true that crucifixion victims were often thrown in the dirt and dust, what evidence can you provide that Joseph of Arimathea did not offer his tomb to those who buried Christ as foretold in Hebrew prophecy?

Those unfamiliar with debate often attempt to improve their position with "prove it is not so" – a transparent and ineffective tactic. Perhaps they do not understand that the person making a claim is responsible for providing verifiable evidence their claim is true and accurate – and it is NOT the responsibility of those who say "I don't believe your god tales" to prove non-existence or to provide alternative scenarios.

Is there verifiable (extra-biblical – outside the story itself) evidence to support the existence of Joseph of Arimathea AND his offer of the tomb?

Right now, you have an "I believe it so it must be true" scenario, with no supporting evidence.

CORRECTION: I have taken no such position. I do not pretend to know what happened to a dead body 2000 years ago.

Those who DO claim or pretend to know what happened to a dead body 2000 years ago are hereby asked to provide evidence to show they speak truthfully and accurately.

Notice that it would be very "uneducated" to attempt to use a story to prove itself true. It would be much the same to attempt to use the bible to prove truth (when that is specifically precluded by Forum Rules and Guidelines).

If the Gospel writers were making things up, why do you think they choose to have women, of all people, be the first witnesses of the empty tomb?

I do not claim to know the thinking or motivations of writers of religious and/or fictional literature.

Is there assurance that the "empty tomb" story is truthful and accurate? Or is that an "educated GUESS"?

Those who do claim to know about such things are asked to provide evidence that the tale is true.

Women had no legal standing in first century Jerusalem, their word was simply not believed. This does not support your "they made it up" scenario.

Since I do not claim to know that gospel writers "made it up", perhaps you misunderstand my actual position (though understanding the actual position of Non-Theists is often of no concern to Theist debaters). It is easier to argue against straw-men, isn't it?

Care to try to debate against my actual position rather than a straw-man? That is: 1) Gospels were written decades or generations after the events and conversations they describe, 2) gospel writers cannot be shown to have witnessed the events and conversations (if they can even be identified beyond speculation and opinion), 3) Sources of information used by gospel writers are unknown, 4) legends and fables have been developed regarding other proposed gods and god-men, 5) there is no extra-biblical support for any "miracle" or "divinity" claims – including "resurrection", 6) mental gymnastics about who did or said what and why are pure speculation in the absence of verifiable information, 7) those who claim the tales are true and accurate have the burden of providing supporting evidence (outside the tales themselves and/or speculation).

There is no prophecy regarding the first witnesses to the Resurrection. If Jews, or even former Jews, were going to make it up, why do you think they didn't have MEN with an unblemished reputation be the first witnesses?

I do not guess or pretend to know 2000 year old motivations. Do you?

[enviousintheeverafter]

.

Danmark, I don't deny that NT writers COULD write with an eye toward fulfilling the Hebrew prophecies, I don't think they did, but they COULD have. But the likelihood of them being able to fit the life of Jesus into more than 300 (and I can give you close to 400 of varying degrees) prophecies about the Messiah that were fulfilled by Jesus, is so astronomical as to be incalculable.

It is not surprising that storytellers decades or generations after Jesus died could make their idol fit (or seem to fit) "prophesies".

Any of us can make (even) fictional characters fit earlier writings.

There is no extra-biblical information that substantiates the claim of "fit."

There's nothing that makes us believe Alexander the Great even existed. While it is true that crucifixion victims were often thrown in the dirt and dust, what evidence can you provide that Joseph of Arimathea did not offer his tomb to those who buried Christ as foretold in Hebrew prophecy? Right now, you have an "I believe it so it must be true" scenario, with no supporting evidence.

Now there's the pot calling the kettle black. Of course, the "no supporting evidence" includes all the textual evidence undermining the Joseph of Arimathea bit (Paul's silence/apparent lack of knowledge of this, Mark's assertion that the whole council of Sanhedrin called for Christ's death i.e. including Joseph of Arimathea, Luke's claim in Acts 13 that "they", not a him, took Christ's body and buried it) as well as the historical evidence for the Romans not allowing burial of the crucified and Pilates evident cruelty and inflexibility which would likely preclude such an exception. So it turns out that the cupboards not quite as empty as you'd like to think.

[LilytheTheologian]

I went to court to testify in February 2015 because someone owes me a LOT of money (about $US1.5 million). Now, I didn't want to take chances with my witnesses, so when my attorney asked me if anyone could corroborate the claims I was making, I COULD have given her the names of some people who had less than stellar reputations. But I didn't. Why? Because the opposing attorney could readily have found out that these persons had lied in the past, so might be lying then. So, my attorney and I chose the most upstanding, ethical, NON-LIARS we could find to show that my claims were true. We chose people whose credibility could not be attacked.

When someone wants you to believe something, whether it's true or not true, people choose the BEST WITNESSES they have. The women at the tomb were the WORST of all possible witnesses, especially Mary Magdalene (who is the first witness in all four gospels), a woman who had been possessed by unclean spirits until Jesus cast them out. The apostles, had they been lying, couldn't have chosen a WORSE witness. She was (a) a woman with no legal standing, and (b) she had been possessed by devils. So, why would they choose Mary Magdalene? Because what they reported was true, and they were making a scrupulous effort to tell the truth about all things.

And if you're speaking of me, I am NOT a apologist. I am a theologian.

I do NOT respond to posts that are uncivil.

[LilytheTheologian]

There is no prophecy regarding the first witnesses to the Resurrection. If Jews, or even former Jews, were going to make it up, why do you think they didn't have MEN with an unblemished reputation be the first witnesses?

I do not guess or pretend to know 2000 year old motivations. Do you?

I study and make every effort to get at the truth of 2,000 ago. It's my job; I am a theologian.

I beg to differ with your assertion that you do not guess or pretend to know 2000 year old motivations. You are calling the gospel writers fakes because they wanted to promote a new religion. Yet, rhetorically, of course, for what reason? So they could be persecuted and killed rather than live in peace? It makes no sense. Not a bit.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 275 by LilytheTheologian]

I agree that the writers would not have chosen such witnesses; I do not agree that the prior poor behavior of the witnesses automatically make their claims true.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 275 by LilytheTheologian]

I agree that the writers would not have chosen such witnesses; I do not agree that the prior poor behavior of the witnesses automatically make their claims true.

I think you're like me in that sometimes your typing gets ahead of what you want to say. I think you meant: I do not agree that the prior poor behavior of the witnesses makes their claims UNTRUE.

No, prior poor behavior or a pattern of lying does not preclude one from changing and becoming an upstanding citizen. A prior pattern of lying does not preclude a person from telling the truth. However, someone with no legal standing is LESS LIKELY to be believed that someone with legal standing who always does his best to tell the truth. We've all heard the story of the little boy who cried "wolf" and was not believed when a wolf was actually present.

The real point is that women had no legal standing. They could not act as witnesses, yet all four gospel writers place Mary Magdalene as the first witness to the risen Christ. People who are going to make up a lie as big as the Resurrection would have chosen men if they hoped to get a lie across. They only other explanation is that the gospel writers were telling the truth.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I went to court to testify in February 2015 because someone owes me a LOT of money (about $US1.5 million). Now, I didn't want to take chances with my witnesses, so when my attorney asked me if anyone could corroborate the claims I was making, I COULD have given her the names of some people who had less than stellar reputations. But I didn't. Why? Because the opposing attorney could readily have found out that these persons had lied in the past, so might be lying then. So, my attorney and I chose the most upstanding, ethical, NON-LIARS we could find to show that my claims were true. We chose people whose credibility could not be attacked.

When someone wants you to believe something, whether it's true or not true, people choose the BEST WITNESSES they have. The women at the tomb were the WORST of all possible witnesses, especially Mary Magdalene (who is the first witness in all four gospels), a woman who had been possessed by unclean spirits until Jesus cast them out. The apostles, had they been lying, couldn't have chosen a WORSE witness. She was (a) a woman with no legal standing, and (b) she had been possessed by devils. So, why would they choose Mary Magdalene? Because what they reported was true, and they were making a scrupulous effort to tell the truth about all things.

For one thing, we aren't talking about a court of law. We're talking about a religious tradition. And while women may not have been counted as reliable witnesses in legal proceedings, women were both respected and played a significant role in the early church. And given that the oral traditions were likely being preserved and transmitted in that exact setting, that woman may have shared this narrative is both possible and plausible. Moreover, given that women were the ones responsible for preparing bodies for burial, and the disciples had supposedly fled, anyone besides the women finding the tomb would have been implausible. What where they doing there, instead of the women who should have been there? Women finding the tomb makes sense.

Also, even if the women were a deliberate fabrication, why suppose that the author was not clever enough to foresee the line of argument you've been advancing? Isn't it conceivable that they said to themselves, "well, no one would think that its a lie if I say the tomb was found by women, because who would make that up?". They may well have been more clever than you give them credit for. But one way or another, this is not a compelling line of reasoning.

And if you're speaking of me, I am NOT a apologist. I am a theologian.

Your posting history belies this, but there isn't a very significant difference between theology and apologia anyways so the point is moot.

I do NOT respond to posts that are uncivil.

Or civil posts which contain inconvenient arguments, evidently.

[Danmark]

When someone wants you to believe something, whether it's true or not true, people choose the BEST WITNESSES they have. The women at the tomb were the WORST of all possible witnesses, especially Mary Magdalene (who is the first witness in all four gospels), a woman who had been possessed by unclean spirits until Jesus cast them out. The apostles, had they been lying, couldn't have chosen a WORSE witness. She was (a) a woman with no legal standing, and (b) she had been possessed by devils. So, why would they choose Mary Magdalene? Because what they reported was true, and they were making a scrupulous effort to tell the truth about all things.

And if you're speaking of me, I am NOT a apologist. I am a theologian.

Are you suggesting the two are mutually exclusive categories? It is clear you are an apologist, based on what you've written here. You may also be a theologian; you certainly claim to be.

Your

Because what they reported was true, and they were making a scrupulous effort to tell the truth about all things

is a mere conclusion, not a fact as you suggest.

Credibility or reputation for honesty is only one factor in evaluating a potential witness. ANYone's credibility may be attacked. If one is fortunate to have a variety of witnesses, one chooses the most articulate ones who have the least credibility problems, but in general a litigant is stuck with the witnesses he or she has. If your only witness is of low social status, then she or he is your witness. You can call them or not.
Sometimes even the defendant in a criminal case makes an excellent witness, even if he has prior convictions for crimes of dishonesty. He makes a good witness because of his demeanor, his apparent artlessness, the fact his story 'rings true' and is in accord with the facts; and it may even be that he is telling the truth.
When a witness of even the highest social status tells a ghost story, he is not likely to be believed.