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"?

[Difflugia]

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.

I don't, either. I think Paul of the epistles was autobiographical. Paul of Acts was loosely based on the epistles in the same way that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter included some historical details of Abraham Lincoln.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

I don't, either. I think Paul of the epistles was autobiographical. Paul of Acts was loosely based on the epistles in the same way that Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter included some historical details of Abraham Lincoln.

Luke made an efforts to fill in the huge gaps in the narrative. Paul hints at the process by which he saw Jesus and how he was taught his Gospel. Luke supposes the conversion was between setting out to slay vampires and becoming one himself in Damascus. But it wasn't from Vampires he became one. My story is that his vision happened while sitting thinking about his problem - how to turn Pagans into Jews - or freaking out with a fit on his pallet while some helpful Corinthians pinned him down, during which seizure, he rose to the 3rd heaven, where Jesus rubber -stamped everything he'd worked out. But in Romans, he explains his reasoning and in later letters he drops hints how the knowledge came to him.

I detect lies everywhere, specifically, he must have heard from the disciples of the resurrection of Jesus (in spirit) to heaven where Paul had his chat with him, but he maintains he got nothing from men. Well, apart from the risen spirit and imminent return, I reckon he did work out his 'Jesus supplants the Law' argument.

But going back to Luke, the puzzles become clear if one supposes the sources he used were the synoptic original, Q document, some letters of Paul and Josephus (e.g the Roman census, the revolt of Judas and Theudas, and the death of Herod Agrippa. There may have been other claims and tales 'Floating' about like "Jesus healed a young man" which may have led to the son of Nain in Luke and Lazarus in John and surely another must be the miraculous draft of fish ("Stand up straight you kippers, you're in the army now") and I suspect may explain why Luke had no walking on water.

The council of Jerusalem in Paul was little more than a hat with Lames who have him a letter seting out conditions for his mission. Luke turns it into a full senate hearing with James ruling against the Party of the circumcision. This is for sure Luke inventing. But I have no doubt that Paul really did seek approval for his mission after (as Luke picked up himself) complaints came in that Paul was teaching against the Jewish Law. James is shown as an observing Jew but willing to do a publicity stunt to cver up for Paul. No way is that an accurate account of Paul's visit to Jerusalem and 'Council of Jerusalem'.