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]

[Replying to Ancient of Years]

Yes of course it "should" not be a problem. But it raises questions like "Why is the boulder rolled back in some tellings?" and "Why does Jesus use his old physical body at all?"

When the women get there, the stone is already rolled back in all the stories. Matthew is the only one who explains how that happened - an angel did it to show that the tomb was already empty.

There are two traditions about resurrection.

The earliest scriptural reference to resurrection is in Ezekiel’s Valley of the Dry Bones. This is a very graphic depiction of very physical resurrections. (Ironically it was probably not meant literally at all.)

But Paul talks about being resurrected in a spiritual body not a physical one. This is hardly surprising considering how much effort Paul put into equating flesh with sin and/or circumcision.

Jesus seems to be both: Appearing and disappearing, but also eating and inviting Thomas to remove his doubts by touching him. An attempt to reconcile the two views? An oblique reference to the future ‘new heaven and new earth’? Or just the result of trying to come to terms with accounts of a ‘was / was not’ there post-death Jesus?

[Regens Küchl]

While in the Gospel of Peter the stone has to move first so that than the two angel can support Jesus in getting out.

A spiritual body that needs that much aid for moving ? And even the following cross can move by itself .

While in the appearance narratives the eating and touching is made rather clear, the teleportation not so much.

What word would the aramaics or greeks have even used to mean teleportation?

"Was suddenly among them (in a house)" and at emmaus "dissappeared from sight" must not neccessarily mean a supernaturality.
Mark 16: 12-13 has another narrative like emmaus without Jesus disappearing.

Reading Luke that that the two witnesses recogniced Jesus during the meal before he dissappeared gave me one further good idea:
What if this Wonderperson drugged them with something in the food to leave easier the impression he was a Wonderperson. Surely such things were not beneath the charlatans back then.

But if we consider the gospel writers meant jesus teleported out of the tomb we should investigate if teleportation was even a known word or thing in any way back then.

[Danmark]

While in the Gospel of Peter the stone has to move first so that than the two angel can support Jesus in getting out.

A spiritual body that needs that much aid for moving ? And even the following cross can move by itself .

While in the appearance narratives the eating and touching is made rather clear, the teleportation not so much.

What word would the aramaics or greeks have even used to mean teleportation?

"Was suddenly among them (in a house)" and at emmaus "dissappeared from sight" must not neccessarily mean a supernaturality.
Mark 16: 12-13 has another narrative like emmaus without Jesus disappearing.

Reading Luke that that the two witnesses recogniced Jesus during the meal before he dissappeared gave me one further good idea:
What if this Wonderperson drugged them with something in the food to leave easier the impression he was a Wonderperson. Surely such things were not beneath the charlatans back then.

But if we consider the gospel writers meant jesus teleported out of the tomb we should investigate if teleportation was even a known word or thing in any way back then.

This whole issue made no sense to me way back when I was a junior and senior high school kid. In fact it made less sense than the comics.

Superman, the comic book at least back in the 60's had a fairly consistent set of principles the writers tried to stick to. There were some errors of course and the faithful readers would take them to task when those were violated. Originally Superman's flying ability was just from being strong enough to jump far due to Earth's gravity being so much lower than Krypton's. Later he could somehow sustain flight and at least in the movies hover in the air.

If Jesus was a spirit, why would he need the stone rolled back from the tomb? Why would he have a physical body at all? He could suddenly appear as if he'd passed thru walls, yet Thomas could touch his wounds.

The various accounts do not make sense to us because they were written at a time when there were no overriding, organizing principles of science that were known. The writers had no need to try to have such stories make sense from a modern perspective or appear consistent with modern understandings of physics and chemistry.

Jacob wrestling all night with an angel is a similar story that makes no sense if taken literally. I submit that that is one of the primary problems with both Biblical and New Testament accounts. There is no clear distinction between what should be taken metaphorically and what should not. The alleged "eye witness" accounts make no more sense than the metaphorical ones. Is Abraham's attempt to murder his son metaphorical or real? Job certainly has all the features of a play, yet it is also told as if it really happened. One can say the same about the Garden of Eden and creation myths and the story of the Tower of Babel and of Noah. Is the story of Jesus walking on water a metaphor or should it be taken as an actual event?

The entire book of Revelation is a dream, a hallucination, yet we are expected to take it seriously whether as metaphor or a prediction of actual events. In the final analysis what we have is a series of stories that allow the reader to create whatever 'truth' he wants from the muddle.

[Regens Küchl]

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.

[Regens Küchl]

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.

[Regens Küchl]

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 ???

[historia]

But Paul talks about being resurrected in a spiritual body not a physical one.

Or, more precisely, a spiritual body not a natural one.

This is hardly surprising considering how much effort Paul put into equating flesh with sin and/or circumcision.

Here again I think Paul has in mind natural flesh. Paul's "spiritual body" seems to be very much a body, just not one made-up of the sinful flesh that our current bodies are comprised.

[historia]

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.

Please provide evidence to support this assertion.

[historia]

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.

Please provide evidence to support the "fact" that the gospels were written to gain a maximal number of followers.

[Danmark]

But Paul talks about being resurrected in a spiritual body not a physical one.

Or, more precisely, a spiritual body not a natural one.

This is hardly surprising considering how much effort Paul put into equating flesh with sin and/or circumcision.

Here again I think Paul has in mind natural flesh. Paul's "spiritual body" seems to be very much a body, just not one made-up of the sinful flesh that our current bodies are comprised.

This is the area that puzzles me. I guess I always assumed the flesh/spirit dualism referred to our physical bodies into which God breathed a "soul." When the body dies, the soul or spirit remains. But these various hybrid concepts confuse me. A "spiritual body" seems to be a contradiction in terms. If I understand correctly, the Mormons as well have a similar concept of a special body, a "burnished" body.

At any rate these various versions of spiritual or resurrected bodies seem ill defined to me, perhaps hopelessly ill defined or fuzzy. "It's a mystery" is certainly not a satisfying answer.

When I compare this to modern thinking that has the emergence of consciousness from entirely physical organs and bio-electrical processes the former seems hopelessly vague, while the latter is relatively simply despite the fact we have so very much to learn about the details. I'd appreciated it if anyone could amplify these concepts for me.