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"?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #571]

I'm a bit lost here. Are you suggesting the 3,000 or 5,000 (I forget the numbers from the stories) people didn't know that Jesus performed a miracle to feed them? What about Mary and Martha who most certainly were aware of their brother's resurrection. Jesus healing the blind man on the Sabbath which so upset the Pharisees? And Mary had a public conversation with her son before he reportedly created wine from water. Are we to suspect no one else heard that conversation? Jesus reportedly performed many public miracles. Oh, and the reattachment of the ear Peter cut off. Did people close their eyes when that happened?


Tcg

I is not the first time I recognice that it happens you dont really read posts before answering them. My above quote from Robert Price answers most your questions, so you neednt get confused.

"Lukes" ear? Translation problem! I'm all ears for your argument. Nighty night! Too dark to see a miracle.
Word could also mean ear was hurt. So Jesus stilled the blood. Oh great miracle!

There are two Jesus magically feeding crowd wonders in the Gospels and they indicate that the fed guests were only aware to get fed.
That it was miraculous fish, the crowd was unaware of.

The resurrection of Lazarus (only found worth to mention by John) was seen by close relatives Maria and Martha who easily might have been in on the Hoax.

Jesus made himself sparse to nonexistent when it came to public miracles.

If only he would have been more like Benny Hinn.

Cut to the Spoiler Individual concoction explains much, and a cover up of a mission quite unlike the Christian one - possibly, it might coincidentally look like that, but a deliberate plan explains a lot more. Hypotheses, sure but I'd say they were first and second choice and an actual miracle . third choice at best.

Aside from two Jesus - feedings which, since they are not in Luke or John suggests to me two versions of the same tall tale and the editor of the Mark/Matthew gospel put both in, just to be sure. Luke didn't use that version, which is why I postulate a Synoptic with material used by Mark and Matthew but not by Luke. The 'didn't use it' excuse just makes less sense than Luke didn't see it. One can argue of the crowd that they were aware of the miracle and that's why they were talking (at least) about what sort of prophetic figure this Jesus was.

Yes. Taken as an actual event - account, it sounds set up. Jesus is collecting followers in Peraea (where John collated his rabble before) when a note arrives from Bethany, tipping Jesus off. They knew where to send it, so for sure they were in on the plan. In no hurry, Jesus sets out a couple of days later for Jerusalem (skipping Jericho and Blind bar -Timaeus (1) and arrives pretty late in the day. After announcing that Lazarus had been in the tomb for days and absolutely not forty minutes before Jesus arrived, Jesus performs this stunning miracle for the mass of followers he'll need as support to stage his descent on the Temple where Pilate with 1,000 troops is keeping guard as the governor always did at festivals.

The feeling is of secrecy in this mission, but also of being as public as possible with people traipsing from the Decapolis to hear him. Even a centurion , who could hardly be a God -worshipper, (2) knew of Jesus' reputation as a healer at least. The answer is one of the clues that it was written by Roman Christians so of course Jesus slaggs off the Jewish teachers of the Law and just loves Gentiles, and the whole thing reflects an absurd and anachronistic knowledge of Christian doctrine. Herod knows that King of the Jews is prophesied in scripture, the Sanhedrin know that claiming to be son of God and messiah means a blasphemous claim to be God incarnated. And this Roman soldier has Faith in Jesus already. The writers making it up to put their own opinions and doctrines into the story and Jesus' mouth explains these disparities.

(1) aside from John actually using healing an blind man story but in Jerusalem, IF we were to 'weave together' (Bible apologetic to cover up discrepancies, but here it works for we heathens ) Jesus with his mass of followers in tow Faith - heals Bar Timaeus (if they know his name, they know him) to further convince his supporters and incidentally..I just love this...Bar-Timaeus is primed to use the son of David epithet to apply to this healer and prophet, because Jesus will need that acclaim - monicker when he marches on the Temple. It's a great story (I Tried to turn it into novel and I was sad to think it might just look that way (if anyone looked, let alone saw what they were looking at) rather than actually being that way.

(2) interesting discussion with my Christian colleague in the 90's - this goes way back,friends - there was plenty of opportunity to argue.In Galilee, Antipas would have Jewish soldiers with a Jewish Centurion. But Luke doesn't think so as the elders have to explain why Jesus should help a Roman sergeant (which is what a centurion really was) and it went onto whether Antipas would have a Roman Cohort there, but of course Romans had fortresses in Galilee (e.g Sepphoris...which Jesus never visited at it was gone by the time these Gospel were formed - after the Jewish war) and perhaps a guard on the lucrative fish trade in Capernaum.

Oh ...and new years'resolution...not to overdo the capital letters, foopnotes and Emojjies.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #591]
Very confusing your mention of "Jewish Centurion" being really a roman Sergeant.
(Maybe rather a roman Captain)

Roman auxiliary troops or jewish henchmen of evil antichristian Antipas who out of evil fun called their kazike a centurion . . .

This apologetic website gives a good overview;
http://www.believersmagazine.com/bm.php?i=20130511

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #591]
Very confusing your mention of "Jewish Centurion" being really a roman Sergeant.
(Maybe rather a roman Captain)

Roman auxiliary troops or jewish henchmen of evil antichristian Antipas who out of evil fun called their kazike a centurion . . .

This apologetic website gives a good overview;
http://www.believersmagazine.com/bm.php?i=20130511

Sorry. Either Antipas allowed Rome to have a 'Presence' in his province or he had his own Jewish troops organised along Roman lines. And Captain is fair in numbers, perhaps, but Sergeant in view of the daily hands - on control of the men.

Either way, we have coherence problems as to to why a Roman centurion would have 'Faith' in Jesus, and the clue is another for Roman Christian authorship of the gospels.

Thus from my view the article you linked is lessened in value (though the bit about what kind of soldiers were stationed in Judea was handy) as irt assumes the interactions with Romans in the Gospels is true. I doubt it very much. I noted they had a problem with the centurion at the crucifixion. In Mark and Matthew he says this man was the Son of God. Luke sees a comprehension problem here and he says 'this man was innocent'.

[The Nice Centurion]

All 7 Centurions in the NT are the type of THE NICE CENTURION.
A christian propaganda figure, practically popping out of thin air whenever christians need him.
His duty is to come the help of christians with hand, heart and voice.

The whole NT is designed to shed a good light at the roman people. The jews as a whole are the villains. The choice for them; Become one of the best (christians), or die with the rest (jews).

Romans are to be christianized. Jews already are sworn enemy. Thats the message of the NT.

Thats the reason Pilate is such a nice man, washing all guit offa himself.

And the Herodes/Kaiphas Mafia is drawn pitch black.

A roman christian author is not needed, only christian propahanda by christians at its best.

[TRANSPONDER]

All 7 Centurions in the NT are the type of THE NICE CENTURION.
A christian propaganda figure, practically popping out of thin air whenever christians need him.
His duty is to come the help of christians with hand, heart and voice.

The whole NT is designed to shed a good light at the roman people. The jews as a whole are the villains. The choice for them; Become one of the best (christians), or die with the rest (jews).

Romans are to be christianized. Jews already are sworn enemy. Thats the message of the NT.

Thats the reason Pilate is such a nice man, washing all guit offa himself.

And the Herodes/Kaiphas Mafia is drawn pitch black.

A roman christian author is not needed, only christian propahanda by christians at its best.

Absolutely. This is just another clue that indicates the gospels were written by Roman Christians and wanted to put Gentiles in a good light. Samaritans or a woman from Tyre would do at a pinch, but a Roman Centurion (sergeanting maybe 80 men) was better. Luke twiggs this problem and has that bunch of elders turning up to convince Jesus why h should help the centurion who just loved the Jews and built them a synagogue, like Capernaum didn't already have one.

Matthew of course has nothing of this (there was a miserable apologetic that Matthew didn't trouble to mention it) and Mark doesn't have the story at all.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #595]
In case that american author Robert Prize and german author Hermann Deterring are right that Paul never existed, than Paul was a pretty slick propaganda invention;

He is a convinced jew who just so changes colors and turns christian (applause). But he is also roman citicen (a roman by all means) who develops himself into a christian (applause).
He was a murderer of innocent christian martyrs, the worst kind of criminal (from a christian point of view) then he redeems himself by becoming a christian Tele- or Papiryvangelist, travelling bible salesmanand snakehandler.

"From Saul to Paul" is what until today people advice others whom they want to come over to their side.
Yes, even Captain Kirk gave this advice to Harry Mudd.

[Difflugia]

In case that american author Robert Prize and german author Hermann Deterring are right that Paul never existed, than Paul was a pretty slick propaganda invention;

He is a convinced jew who just so changes colors and turns christian (applause). But he is also roman citicen (a roman by all means) who develops himself into a christian (applause).
He was a murderer of innocent christian martyrs, the worst kind of criminal (from a christian point of view) then he redeems himself by becoming a christian Tele- or Papiryvangelist, travelling bible salesmanand snakehandler.

"From Saul to Paul" is what until today people advice others whom they want to come over to their side.
Yes, even Captain Kirk gave this advice to Harry Mudd.

Even if Paul existed, the parts you mention might be propaganda invention. The Paul of Acts is a radically different character than the Paul of the epistles. The theologically confused, yet uncompromising Paul of the epistles has no truck with Judaizers. The only vestiges of his Judaism seem to lie in his deep-seated sexual hangups. When the Corinthian church became even more Pauline than Paul is himself, his only argument (1 Corinthians 6:12-13) seems to be a non sequitur that boils down to, "That's not what I meant!"

Paul of Acts, however, firmly and intentionally has a foot in each world. He's a Roman citizen that is nonetheless a student of Gamaliel, a known persecutor of Christians that instantly overcomes this stigma with his charisma, and so skilled at compromise that he convinces the thoroughly Jewish caricature of Peter to hand over the metaphorical reins of the Church. The curmudgeonly and unpleasant Paul of his own writings has been transformed into a powerful, yet graceful leader. The transformation itself was real whether or not the author of Galatians was the real Paul or a forgery by Marcion.

[boatsnguitars]

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

Right, why would anyone make up anything, especially as important as religious claims? After all, there are no false claims in religion, are there?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #595]
In case that american author Robert Prize and german author Hermann Deterring are right that Paul never existed, than Paul was a pretty slick propaganda invention;

He is a convinced jew who just so changes colors and turns christian (applause). But he is also roman citicen (a roman by all means) who develops himself into a christian (applause).
He was a murderer of innocent christian martyrs, the worst kind of criminal (from a christian point of view) then he redeems himself by becoming a christian Tele- or Papiryvangelist, travelling bible salesmanand snakehandler.

"From Saul to Paul" is what until today people advice others whom they want to come over to their side.
Yes, even Captain Kirk gave this advice to Harry Mudd.

I am sure Paul existed. I'd put it like this; "You couldn't make that fellow up". If he's been invented, the story -tellers would have done a better job. I have a theory... ...that he was in the position you point up - a Jew, but a Roman. He believed in the Pharisee resurrection (Messiah ruling on earth, graves opening, Judgement. And, like eschatological thought since then, it could happen soon. I theorize that Paul was concerned that his fellow -Romans would not be saved, and he caught onto th Jesus saves idea to save them - if they could be persuaded to believe. That is why the Jewish Law had to go as the Gentiles would never accept it. I don't see Paul as a Christian as such but a Messianist Jew - as I think the disciples (and Jesus too) were. Christianity was a Gentile invention.

[TRANSPONDER]

In case that american author Robert Prize and german author Hermann Deterring are right that Paul never existed, than Paul was a pretty slick propaganda invention;

He is a convinced jew who just so changes colors and turns christian (applause). But he is also roman citicen (a roman by all means) who develops himself into a christian (applause).
He was a murderer of innocent christian martyrs, the worst kind of criminal (from a christian point of view) then he redeems himself by becoming a christian Tele- or Papiryvangelist, travelling bible salesmanand snakehandler.

"From Saul to Paul" is what until today people advice others whom they want to come over to their side.
Yes, even Captain Kirk gave this advice to Harry Mudd.

Even if Paul existed, the parts you mention might be propaganda invention. The Paul of Acts is a radically different character than the Paul of the epistles. The theologically confused, yet uncompromising Paul of the epistles has no truck with Judaizers. The only vestiges of his Judaism seem to lie in his deep-seated sexual hangups. When the Corinthian church became even more Pauline than Paul is himself, his only argument (1 Corinthians 6:12-13) seems to be a non sequitur that boils down to, "That's not what I meant!"

Paul of Acts, however, firmly and intentionally has a foot in each world. He's a Roman citizen that is nonetheless a student of Gamaliel, a known persecutor of Christians that instantly overcomes this stigma with his charisma, and so skilled at compromise that he convinces the thoroughly Jewish caricature of Peter to hand over the metaphorical reins of the Church. The curmudgeonly and unpleasant Paul of his own writings has been transformed into a powerful, yet graceful leader. The transformation itself was real whether or not the author of Galatians was the real Paul or a forgery by Marcion.

I agree. Acts has many features related to the letters of Paul (escape from Damascus; council of Jerusalem) but re-invented to suit the writer. I see it as not a report based on an eyewitness, but a biographical fantasy by Luke based loosely on Paul's letters. Indeed, to explain how the Disciples handed the 'mission' over to the Gentiles. I sorta agree that Paul had no truck with those who opposed his gospels, and I suspect these 'Super-apostles' as he sneeringly puts it, were Jesus' followers.

Incidentally, even in Acts Peter does not hand over the Church, so much as act as Paul's advocate and James rules that Paul's mission can continue if his followers observe the minimum 'Noahide' laws. This adaptation by Luke obtains even if, as you say, Paul was a forgery by Marcion, which theory I don't sign up to myself.