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"?

[Ancient of Years]

To a degree of course there were overriding logical principles and the known need for some consistency in telling a narrative.

Folks would have hardly swallowed in a tale a cat thats all white and also all black and also an undead spiritual man who has even problems to get recognized would have been not taken seriously I say.
We have a greater riddle at our hands than can just be answered by the dumbnes of folks back then.
Note that the Gospel of Peter has a certain consistecy and yet it was dismissed. Why?

The catholic canon was decided by the criteria of what was useful by the catholic sect to rule people and not by what makes sense.

The Gospel of Peter did not appear until sometime in the mid 2nd century. Most of the writings that made it into the canonical NT were already well known by the early 2nd century. Although the there was not yet a fully delineated canon, there were key works that were undisputed since the earliest days, including the four Gospels and most of the Pauline letters. Despite popular urban legend the Catholic Church did not invent the Bible.

The Gospel of Peter was not dismissed. It was never in the running.

[Ancient of Years]

P. S.
I just had an Idea: What if the goal of the canon-gosple writers was to strive to satisfy different kinds of beliefs with one tale to attract all the more followers.
The try to satisfy believers in a bodily resurrection and such in a spiritual body and even people who were mainly attracted by good houdini acts and mistery tales resulted in the insufferablepot illogical wonder-potpourry that are the canonical resurrections.

Note that the gospels were in fact aimed to gain a maximal number of followers and note that there were in fact different jewish (not to mention pagan) sects with each his own belief bout possibilitys of resurrection.

P.S.P.S.
And that could explain why this writers averted direct resurrection narratives, for they would have been too factual in favor of either this or that belief.
But if no one saw it directly everyone is free to believe the resurrection happened in a way according to his own special belief.

Is that theory good or what ???

There is not a single resurrection tale. Mark does not really have one to speak of. Matthew and Luke are at major odds over what happened. John 20 is more or less in tune with Luke while John 21 (probably a later addendum) has echoes of Matthew. But Matthew, Luke and John each have both physical and spirit aspects of Jesus. A reader of any of those three would be presented with both ways of thinking about resurrection. No discernible program to gain a broader audience according to beliefs about style of resurrection.

The writers probably avoided direct resurrection narratives because there was no early tradition about the details. The only details we see in common in all Gospels about the resurrection are that women go to the tomb, the tomb is empty and someone tells them that Jesus rose from the dead. (John is even vague about that last point.) After that, the stories are highly contradictory.

Do I have to even say it?

[SailingCyclops]

All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

No. Crack wasn't invented yet. Opium perhaps? Mushrooms? Crack would be a reasonable explanation for writing such nonsense today, but not back than. They obviously had an agenda!

I don't think it was drugs, although drugs could explain much of the nonsense. The entire tall tale seems to be engineered to entice ignorant people of the day into a new religion. Hucksters lie all the time, especially religious hucksters seeking a flock of sheep. Given the provenance of the texts used to support this resurrection fantasy, and the clear departure from reality (the dead NEVER come back to life) it's clear all this was made up.

While I can excuse these ancients for believing such tall tales, after all they were ignorant beyond belief, I find it hard to excuse modern humans who supposedly have access to modern information and education.

[Zzyzx]

.

While I can excuse these ancients for believing such tall tales, after all they were ignorant beyond belief, I find it hard to excuse modern humans who supposedly have access to modern information and education.

Good point.

Ancient people had no idea what actually caused diseases, floods, volcanoes, droughts, tsunami, hurricanes, etc. Thus, when someone proposed that "angry gods" were responsible people did not know any better than to believe them.

Modern people who have access to education and information should (it seems) realize that all of those conditions and events are natural parts of the Earth and its components. As knowledge increases there is less need for supernatural or superstitious "explanations" for what happens in nature (i.e., god-of-the-gaps shrinks as gaps in knowledge are reduced by systematic study and discovery).

However, creative defenders of god concepts often ignore all the above -- and/or focus on unknown or unknowable areas such as origin of the universe or beginning of life. Many also claim knowledge of unfalsifiable (possibly imaginary) concepts or conjectures relating to "afterlife", "soul", "salvation", etc.

[Provoker]

[Replying to post 36 by Provoker]

Provoker, you misread my stone-problem.
I have no problem with the resurrected Wonderman simply pushing the stone away.
In fact this was always what I hold even for the natural understanding.

But I have a problem with the stone getting back in place afterwards by himself so that the angel can simply shove him again away for show.

Any Ideas?

Hello Regens:
If Jesus' death and burial was staged, Joseph of Arimethia was probably in on it, as well as Lazarus, and maybe Judas Iscariot. I don't think that the stone is any problem at all:-)

But Provoker, your theory about the resurrection being a stage magiced jewish ritual demands attention.

We could be on to something here.

People don't think about it because the church ignores the continuity of bible history regarding the faith of Abraham. By comparing the act of baptism by immersion, with death, burial, and resurrection, the symbolic similarity is pretty obvious. When you consider that God promised that His chosen nation would be established forever, and that His chosen nation was long fallen in the first century, it makes sense that God's faithful would submit to a ritual which symbolizes resurrection from the dead. The problem which the post-Nicaean church has, IMO, is that it does not believe that the kingdom is literally going to rise from the dead. It has come up with some goofy idea that the goal is a spiritual kingdom. Faith is the (spiritual) substance of (literal) things hoped for...IOW, spiritual things are never the goal. Things one waits for already exist in spirit until they arrive, and then they are literal and no more faith is needed:-)

[Ancient of Years]

All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

No. Crack wasn't invented yet. Opium perhaps? Mushrooms? Crack would be a reasonable explanation for writing such nonsense today, but not back than. They obviously had an agenda!

I don't think it was drugs, although drugs could explain much of the nonsense. The entire tall tale seems to be engineered to entice ignorant people of the day into a new religion. Hucksters lie all the time, especially religious hucksters seeking a flock of sheep. Given the provenance of the texts used to support this resurrection fantasy, and the clear departure from reality (the dead NEVER come back to life) it's clear all this was made up.

While I can excuse these ancients for believing such tall tales, after all they were ignorant beyond belief, I find it hard to excuse modern humans who supposedly have access to modern information and education.

The Jews had been suffering under foreign oppressors of one kind of another for many centuries. The original idea of Israel someday being victorious, as in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, gradually evolved over time. Instead of just Israel winning out via divine intervention, everyone who ever lived would be resurrected to be judged. (See Daniel 12 for example.)

Jesus coming back to life would be a sign that resurrection is really possible and that a general resurrection was going to happen soon. As far as NEVER coming back to life, that was the point. If someone actually did it, it had to be by divine power and the whole story of judgment and reward/punishment was really true. People wanted to believe it.

Look around. People today believe some really crazy things that have nothing to do with religion. UFOs, anyone? Lots more examples. Too often modern information and education just provide new opportunities for being crazy. At least the religious crowd has a reason for wanting to believe.

The Gospels were not written to entice people into a new religion. They were written for those who already believed but were getting nervous about the continued no-show of the Son of Man, who would preside over the resurrection and judgment. Mark made the destruction of Jerusalem the sign of the end of days, presenting it as a prophecy of Jesus, when in fact it had just happened when Mark wrote. Mathew and Luke had their own reasons for writing gospels but they included Mark’s Jerusalem imagery. However, they threw in a few disclaimers about the continuing passage of time. John simply gave up on a timeframe and made it all about just having faith.

[Danmark]

The Jews had been suffering under foreign oppressors of one kind of another for many centuries. The original idea of Israel someday being victorious, as in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, gradually evolved over time. Instead of just Israel winning out via divine intervention, everyone who ever lived would be resurrected to be judged. (See Daniel 12 for example.)

Jesus coming back to life would be a sign that resurrection is really possible and that a general resurrection was going to happen soon. As far as NEVER coming back to life, that was the point. If someone actually did it, it had to be by divine power and the whole story of judgment and reward/punishment was really true. People wanted to believe it.

Look around. People today believe some really crazy things that have nothing to do with religion. UFOs, anyone? Lots more examples. Too often modern information and education just provide new opportunities for being crazy. At least the religious crowd has a reason for wanting to believe.

The Gospels were not written to entice people into a new religion. They were written for those who already believed but were getting nervous about the continued no-show of the Son of Man, who would preside over the resurrection and judgment. Mark made the destruction of Jerusalem the sign of the end of days, presenting it as a prophecy of Jesus, when in fact it had just happened when Mark wrote. Mathew and Luke had their own reasons for writing gospels but they included Mark’s Jerusalem imagery. However, they threw in a few disclaimers about the continuing passage of time. John simply gave up on a timeframe and made it all about just having faith.

That's a great summary. The only thing I disagree with is
"Too often modern information and education just provide new opportunities for being crazy."
Crazy always has a reason. Whether it's UFO's or crystals, or 'organic food' or the multitude of conspiracy theories, including I suppose that lizard people run the government, they have their reasons. I'm not in the least convinced that the reasons of the religious are any better or more logical than the others.

[Ancient of Years]

The Jews had been suffering under foreign oppressors of one kind of another for many centuries. The original idea of Israel someday being victorious, as in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, gradually evolved over time. Instead of just Israel winning out via divine intervention, everyone who ever lived would be resurrected to be judged. (See Daniel 12 for example.)

Jesus coming back to life would be a sign that resurrection is really possible and that a general resurrection was going to happen soon. As far as NEVER coming back to life, that was the point. If someone actually did it, it had to be by divine power and the whole story of judgment and reward/punishment was really true. People wanted to believe it.

Look around. People today believe some really crazy things that have nothing to do with religion. UFOs, anyone? Lots more examples. Too often modern information and education just provide new opportunities for being crazy. At least the religious crowd has a reason for wanting to believe.

The Gospels were not written to entice people into a new religion. They were written for those who already believed but were getting nervous about the continued no-show of the Son of Man, who would preside over the resurrection and judgment. Mark made the destruction of Jerusalem the sign of the end of days, presenting it as a prophecy of Jesus, when in fact it had just happened when Mark wrote. Mathew and Luke had their own reasons for writing gospels but they included Mark’s Jerusalem imagery. However, they threw in a few disclaimers about the continuing passage of time. John simply gave up on a timeframe and made it all about just having faith.

That's a great summary. The only thing I disagree with is
"Too often modern information and education just provide new opportunities for being crazy."
Crazy always has a reason. Whether it's UFO's or crystals, or 'organic food' or the multitude of conspiracy theories, including I suppose that lizard people run the government, they have their reasons. I'm not in the least convinced that the reasons of the religious are any better or more logical than the others.

Never said logical. But religious people believe there is something in it for them in the end. If lizard people really did run governments, anyone who 'exposed' them might find himself eaten.

[Danmark]

The Jews had been suffering under foreign oppressors of one kind of another for many centuries. The original idea of Israel someday being victorious, as in Isaiah, Ezekiel and others, gradually evolved over time. Instead of just Israel winning out via divine intervention, everyone who ever lived would be resurrected to be judged. (See Daniel 12 for example.)

Jesus coming back to life would be a sign that resurrection is really possible and that a general resurrection was going to happen soon. As far as NEVER coming back to life, that was the point. If someone actually did it, it had to be by divine power and the whole story of judgment and reward/punishment was really true. People wanted to believe it.

Look around. People today believe some really crazy things that have nothing to do with religion. UFOs, anyone? Lots more examples. Too often modern information and education just provide new opportunities for being crazy. At least the religious crowd has a reason for wanting to believe.

The Gospels were not written to entice people into a new religion. They were written for those who already believed but were getting nervous about the continued no-show of the Son of Man, who would preside over the resurrection and judgment. Mark made the destruction of Jerusalem the sign of the end of days, presenting it as a prophecy of Jesus, when in fact it had just happened when Mark wrote. Mathew and Luke had their own reasons for writing gospels but they included Mark’s Jerusalem imagery. However, they threw in a few disclaimers about the continuing passage of time. John simply gave up on a timeframe and made it all about just having faith.

That's a great summary. The only thing I disagree with is
"Too often modern information and education just provide new opportunities for being crazy."
Crazy always has a reason. Whether it's UFO's or crystals, or 'organic food' or the multitude of conspiracy theories, including I suppose that lizard people run the government, they have their reasons. I'm not in the least convinced that the reasons of the religious are any better or more logical than the others.

Never said logical. But religious people believe there is something in it for them in the end. If lizard people really did run governments, anyone who 'exposed' them might find himself eaten.

I'd say EVERYone thinks there's something "in it for them." Sometimes it may be nothing more than feeling one is in the illuminati, the 'in crowd,' part of a rare and arcane group who has "the knowledge."

Tho' of course I cannot speak to any particular individual's reasons's for their religious faith, for the vast majority it is simply an accident of culture, the tradition they were born into, whether of their own family or the culture at large.

Regardless of how they journeyed in that faith, if they left it, at some point when in crisis they returned to it as a place of safety and comfort. The reasons for justifying the belief come later, after the decision to believe.

[Zzyzx]

.

The reasons for justifying the belief come later, after the decision to believe.

Doesn't this seem to almost always be the case?

Various cultures are dominated by different religions (subject to change over time). Children are taught / indoctrinated to believe the dominant religion's teachings and tales. Once the belief is in place justification is sought.

Sometimes the search for justification leads to learning that beliefs cannot be justified -- thereupon the person may option out of the belief system (as evidenced by many Ex-Religionist members of our Forum).