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"?

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 1 by Regens Küchl]

Who would have been in a position to witness the actual resurrection itself? Improbable, impossible tho' it was and is, who could have been in a position to claim to have seen it. People are usually not buried with living people who can become witnesses, if the point of this question is to ask for actual witnesses.

Certainly one would have thought the Centurions guarding the grave would not have been alone; that followers too would have kept a vigil. In any event no one sees Jesus emerge from the tomb. And why would the stone have to be rolled back? If he had truly conquered death one would think he could, whether a spirit or with a special body, have been able to slip thru the closed door or walls of the tomb with the same ability that allowed him to suddenly appear or to ascend into heaven.

[Student]

If, for the sake of argument, we were to accept the existence of the supernatural together with an omnipotent deity, it would not be unreasonable to accept that this omnipotent supernatural being could reanimate/resurrect his own corpse within a sealed tomb.

As Danmark has already pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to find that there were no witnesses to an alleged event that took place inside a sealed tomb.
And it would not be unreasonable, to suppose that Jesus, with his new spirit body could literally spirit himself away from the tomb without troubling to roll away the stone.

However, in my opinion, it is what the re-animated/resurrected Jesus did, or rather didn’t do, after his alleged resurrection that poses the greatest difficulty and stretches credulity beyond breaking point.

According to three of the canonical gospels (Matthew, Luke & John), the re-animated/resurrected Jesus appeared, on an indeterminate number of occasions, to his followers, and only to his followers, in what can best be described as a clandestine fashion. Subsequently, the re-animated/resurrected Jesus simply disappears* from the scene.

[*Only Luke/Acts provides any record of the private function that was the Ascension and even then the two accounts are inconsistent.]

What I find to be incomprehensible is, after supposedly performing the greatest miracle ever, why didn’t the re-animated/resurrected Jesus appear in public?

Why didn’t the re-animated/resurrected Jesus present himself at the Temple, to the Chief Priest [for ritual purification as required by Jewish law]?
Why didn’t Jesus call in on Herod?
Why didn’t Jesus re-visit the Sanhedran?
Why didn’t Jesus pop by to see Pontius Pilate?

Surely, the resurrected/re-animated Jesus would have nothing to fear and much to gain from renewing his acquaintance with the great and the good, not to mention the great unwashed. And there could be no doubt that Jesus’ “Back From the Dead� tour would have been a sell out, knocking the “Feeding the Five Thousand� gig into a cocked hat.

So, why was the alleged re-animated/resurrect Jesus reticent to the point of invisibility?

[Peds nurse]

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.

Doesn't this make your argument void? You are wondering why there weren't witnesses, making the resurrection more valid, but you wouldn't believe it even if there were witnesses.

[FarWanderer]

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.

Doesn't this make your argument void? You are wondering why there weren't witnesses, making the resurrection more valid, but you wouldn't believe it even if there were witnesses.

As presentations, closed room mysteries, such as Jesus's empty tomb, exist specifically to appear impossible. The whole point of the "empty tomb" narrative is to allow the reader to convince themself that Jesus must have come back to life because "it's the only explanation".

It's a method far more effective in creating ardent supporters than simply claiming it to happen directly. It's really ingenious.

So the question is, is the empty tomb a report? Or a presentation? I'd say quite clearly that it's a presentation, if for no other reason than that it is given to us from the perspective of an omniscient narrator.

[Danmark]

As presentations, closed room mysteries, such as Jesus's empty tomb, exist specifically to appear impossible. The whole point of the "empty tomb" narrative is to allow the reader to convince themself that Jesus must have come back to life because "it's the only explanation".

It's a method far more effective in creating ardent supporters than simply claiming it to happen directly. It's really ingenious.

So the question is, is the empty tomb a report? Or a presentation? I'd say quite clearly that it's a presentation, if for no other reason than that it is given to us from the perspective of an omniscient narrator.

Correct.
And let's be very clear, the empty tomb means nothing except the tomb was empty. The most likely explanation is grave robbing, whatever the motivation.

The least likely explanation is a supernatural event - magic.

Remember, Saul/Paul was a contemporary of Jesus yet he never saw him in the flesh or as a resurrected body. His only claim is that he saw him in a vision. There are no claims that Jesus appeared as a resurrected body to Saul or to any other person who was not a believer at the time. Saul/Paul makes no first hand reference to the bodily appearance of Jesus even tho' Paul was the earliest author of the NT. His only reference is a 2d hand account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Since Saul/Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, why wouldn't he appear to Paul in his resurrected body, but only in Paul's delirium induced vision?

[FarWanderer]

If, for the sake of argument, we were to accept the existence of the supernatural together with an omnipotent deity, it would not be unreasonable to accept that this omnipotent supernatural being could reanimate/resurrect his own corpse within a sealed tomb.

As Danmark has already pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to find that there were no witnesses to an alleged event that took place inside a sealed tomb.
And it would not be unreasonable, to suppose that Jesus, with his new spirit body could literally spirit himself away from the tomb without troubling to roll away the stone.

Yeah. But if it were a spirit body, the physical corpse wouldn't have disappeared.

The Christians have to think that Jesus physically resurrected, and then teleported out of the tomb, or something like that.

Or that Jesus somehow physically opened the tomb from the inside, yet it was never reported despite the allegedly present guards.

Those are the only choices, or the empty tomb isn't a genuine "closed room".

[FarWanderer]

As presentations, closed room mysteries, such as Jesus's empty tomb, exist specifically to appear impossible. The whole point of the "empty tomb" narrative is to allow the reader to convince themself that Jesus must have come back to life because "it's the only explanation".

It's a method far more effective in creating ardent supporters than simply claiming it to happen directly. It's really ingenious.

So the question is, is the empty tomb a report? Or a presentation? I'd say quite clearly that it's a presentation, if for no other reason than that it is given to us from the perspective of an omniscient narrator.

Correct.
And let's be very clear, the empty tomb means nothing except the tomb was empty. The most likely explanation is grave robbing, whatever the motivation.

Yep. The guards may as well have not even existed as far as any "eyewitness testimony" goes. Not only did no biblical writers ever interact with these guards at any point, the deliberation of the chief priests and the Pharisees that lead to their placement had none of the biblical writers as witnesses.

This is a realllllly important point folks. Matthew put words into the mouths of the chief priests and the Pharisees that he could never himself have heard them say. And the words he puts don't jive when you realize that even the disciples are depicted as not understanding Jesus's cryptic remarks about his resurrection, yet Matthew tells us that the chief priests and the Pharisees had figured it out?

Then consider how it's not Jesus who needs to be in a closed room to resurrect, but the biblical authors who need his tomb to be a closed room to convince us that his resurrection is the only answer for his body's disappearance.

So, the placement of these guards makes no sense, they were never properly witnessed, and their existence is critically important for the writer's agenda.

Yeah, I think you get the drift.

The least likely explanation is a supernatural event - magic.

Funny thing about that is that even if I were to completely accept the supernatural, for the reason above I think I still wouldn't believe in Jesus's resurrection.

Remember, Saul/Paul was a contemporary of Jesus yet he never saw him in the flesh or as a resurrected body. His only claim is that he saw him in a vision. There are no claims that Jesus appeared as a resurrected body to Saul or to any other person who was not a believer at the time. Saul/Paul makes no first hand reference to the bodily appearance of Jesus even tho' Paul was the earliest author of the NT. His only reference is a 2d hand account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Since Saul/Paul was a contemporary of Jesus, why wouldn't he appear to Paul in his resurrected body, but only in Paul's delirium induced vision?

Because God works in mysterious ways, of course.

[Danmark]

Then consider how it's not Jesus who needs to be in a closed room to resurrect, but the biblical authors who need his tomb to be a closed room to convince us that his resurrection is the only answer for his body's disappearance.

So, the placement of these guards makes no sense, they were never properly witnessed, and their existence is critically important for the writer's agenda.

Good point. How would they know?
Matthew 28:11-15,

While they were going, behold, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all that had taken place. And when they had assembled with the elders and taken counsel, they gave a sufficient sum of money to the soldiers and said, “Tell people, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him away while we were asleep.’ And if this comes to the governor's ears, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.� So they took the money and did as they were directed. And this story has been spread among the Jews to this day.

I've never known exactly why, but this passage always nagged at me when I was a Christian. It seemed contrived. It reads like a myth. "And that is why to this day Ravens are black." It reads like "she doth protest too much." The disciples DID come and steal the body so they tried get ahead of the story and suggest some reason for the truth to be a lie.

This brings me to one of the reasons religion in general fascinates me:
How did any of this obvious malarkey ever pass the smell test. Why did any of it get believed in the first place, and even stranger, why is any of it believed today? It makes absolutely no sense to me, but in an age when von Daniken's silly nonsense, the power of crystals, astrology, abominable snowmen, sasquatches and all manner of other silliness is taken seriously, I shouldn't be surprised. What confuses me is that people with reasonable educations who otherwise seem intelligent and thoughtful, people who would never believe in the power of crystals and the rest of the hokum, take this 1st Century stuff seriously.

[Goose]

Remember, Saul/Paul was a contemporary of Jesus yet he never saw him in the flesh or as a resurrected body. His only claim is that he saw him in a vision.

I'm curious. In regards to the resurrected Jesus appearing to Paul, where does Paul claim he saw Jesus in a vision? I suppose we should also ask what you mean by "vision."

There are no claims that Jesus appeared as a resurrected body to Saul or to any other person who was not a believer at the time. Saul/Paul makes no first hand reference to the bodily appearance of Jesus even tho' Paul was the earliest author of the NT. His only reference is a 2d hand account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Here's what Paul writes to the Corinthians:

• For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
  

It seems to me Paul is implying Jesus appeared to him just as he had appeared to the disciples.

[Danmark]

Remember, Saul/Paul was a contemporary of Jesus yet he never saw him in the flesh or as a resurrected body. His only claim is that he saw him in a vision.

I'm curious. In regards to the resurrected Jesus appearing to Paul, where does Paul claim he saw Jesus in a vision? I suppose we should also ask what you mean by "vision."

There are no claims that Jesus appeared as a resurrected body to Saul or to any other person who was not a believer at the time. Saul/Paul makes no first hand reference to the bodily appearance of Jesus even tho' Paul was the earliest author of the NT. His only reference is a 2d hand account in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7.

Here's what Paul writes to the Corinthians:

• For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that He appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. After that He appeared to more than five hundred brethren at one time, most of whom remain until now, but some have fallen asleep; then He appeared to James, then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to one untimely born, He appeared to me also.
  

It seems to me Paul is implying Jesus appeared to him just as he had appeared to the disciples.

Not at all.

Now as he went on his way, he approached Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven shone around him. And falling to the ground he heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?� And he said, “Who are you, Lord?� And he said, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting. But rise and enter the city, and you will be told what you are to do.� The men who were traveling with him stood speechless, hearing the voice but seeing no one. Saul rose from the ground, and although his eyes were opened, he saw nothing. So they led him by the hand and brought him into Damascus. And for three days he was without sight, and neither ate nor drank.

Acts 9:3-9
In the first place all Saul SEES is a light. No one else sees anything. Saul hears a voice. He reports this event after being sick, blind, with no food or water for three days. And we are supposed to take this seriously as if it were somehow real, and not an auditory hallucination recalled by someone who'd just had a stroke or seizure and had no food or drink for three days?

I imagine Saul's vision was of the same order as Joseph Smith's or anyone else, assuming they are sincere, who report auditory or visual hallucinations.