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"?

[Regens Küchl]

A better question is why would they be there to see it since they really did not believe it would happen? So the question "Why no witnesses?" Is an illegitimate question since the actual witnesses, 2000 years later by people not even close to the events, are simply dismissed as liars or legend builders or deluded. They have no basis for these accusations, and they fly in the face of what governs reliable testimony, but we should believe them rather than the witnesses...yet though not one person has even said they witnessed a fish becoming an amphibian or non-living matter becoming a creature (even a single celled organism) they will certainly believe this...get this straight...science ONLY proves that life comes from previous life and that the offspring is of the same genome as its parents.

I have to explain again and again that it is no illegitime question because that god is supposed to be omnipotent and nothing happens without him willing it.

He could have magiced all the witnesses in he wanted. Or could have teleported Jesus body before the full audience and into the middleground of the colloseum in rome, so the holy resurrection would have had really 500 and more witnesses. The emperor Tiberius and his aristocratic elite, important scholars and sceptics to anything magical and so on.

But no. Jesus has much less evidence for resurrection than Romulus.
For at last Proculus got a good clear look at the resurrected Romulus on the road to Alba Longa and further recogniced him problemless.
I AM ONLY ASKING FOR WHAT REASON WAS THE CHRISTIAN GOD AGAINST WITNESSES FOR THE ACTUAL RESURRECTION ?

FarWanderer gave the only serious anwer: That gods magic was too weak to work with anyone around. But this means he is in no way omnipotent - rather weak.

IS THIS T O BE THE FINALS CONCLUSION OR IS HERE ANYONE AROUND WHO OFFERS A DIFFERE N T AN SWER ???

[FarWanderer]

And now please someone be interested in tackling:
WHY DID THAT GOD WISH THAT NO ONE WITNESSED THE ACTUAL RESURRECTION?

Because it wouldn't work if someone were watching.

Do I get a cookie?

You gave the only serious answer here and your conclusion deserves even its own thread fo debate at a later time.

I'm flattered.

But tell me is the magic only hindered by the presence of living persons?

Or would an automatic camera problemless gotten the resurrection filmed?
Mechanical devices are after all never sceptical and do not count as anyone around.

Oh such devices are definitely no good. The more accurate and clear the device is in recording, the more effectively it negates miracles and magic.

Even better would be if robots and androids could problemless stay for watching miracles.
Captain Picards ship could time travel to Jesus crucificion and then smuggle Data into the tomb with Jesus body.
Then with Data as reliable witness we would learn if and how exacly the resurrection happened.
And Worf could put on his Nightgown playing angel and scaring the women away from the tomb.

What do you say? Your answer please.

No problem. People from the future don't suppress magic. Nor do people with superpowers, like Spiderman.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 101 by Regens Küchl]

People have given you different and legitimate answers. Why would someone be in a sealed tomb with Jesus at night? Why? I asked you: If someone you know dies are you going to jump into the grave with them? Especially if you are not expecting anything to happen? The apostles did not expect Jesus to be resurrected. If there was going to be a witness to the actual resurrection, he or she would have to have been sealed in the tomb with Jesus.

Yes, God is omnipotent, and that means HE can do as HE wants, not as you, or anyone else, wants. The witnesses to the risen Christ are sufficient for discerning people who care to work through the entire scenario, and its details, with an open mind. If religion is whatever we invent, we can make it whatever we like, e.g. television evangelists. If it is what God invented and Christ lived, and it is, then we have to take it as we find it, just as we have to take the natural world as we find it.

No, I did not make a mistake when I said Paul met Jesus "in the flesh." He met Jesus in his resurrected body, which is different from a before-death body, but which is still flesh. Jesus' resurrected body fried and ate fish, and Thomas, for one, touched it and found it as substantial as any other body. He found it to be FLESH-AND-BONE.

To get at the truth, you have to examine the small details. I have spent 12 years in formal theological studies; from what you write, I have to assume you have not. That is not meant as an insult, only an observation. It also does not mean I know everything because I do not. No one does. Nor does it mean I am more intelligent than you or anyone else. It just means I have looked at things from every angle in a formal, academic setting and have been taught by some of the greatest thinkers teaching today.

Another small detail that shows the truth of the resurrection in particular and the gospels in general is the fact that all four of them have women as the first discovers of the empty tomb. In first century Jerusalem, women were NOT considered valid witnesses. They simply were not believed. They could not testify before any tribunal, Jewish or Roman. Had the Resurrection been a hoax, the gospel writers would have had MEN be the first to discover the empty tomb.

The gospels are filled with small, intimate details, like Jesus writing in the sand, weeping at the death of Lazarus, who he loved, etc. that show discerning readers with an open mind that they are, indeed, true, and were written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe.

To greatly paraphrase John Henry Newman: If there had been witnesses to the actual Resurrection, what good what that have done? Many people witnessed some of Christ's 37 described miracles. They were startled at the time, but later joined in the mob who wanted Barabbas saved from crucifixion rather than Jesus. He fed the multitudes in the wilderness; he turned water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana. Cardinal Newman tells us that the people, unstable as water, cried "Hosanna!" when witnessing the miracle, then turned their "Hosanna!" into "Crucify Him!" It is reasonable to assume that had Christ appeared to the multitudes after his Resurrection or had the Resurrection been a public happening, the people would have cried "Hosanna!" once more, then, after Christ ascended to his Father - and he WAS going to ascend to his Father - they would have persecuted his followers.

WHERE was God going to effect the Resurrection "in plain sight?" On the Cross, prior to Jesus' burial? Had there been witnesses to the Resurrection the people would have done just as you are doing: declared that Jesus had not really died or that he was a ghost or that the whole Resurrection was a hoax. The Pharisees would have ascribed the Resurrection to Satan's magic; the populace would have been moved for a short time only, then, not being faithful of heart, they would have persecuted the apostles and anyone else who chose to follow Christ. The Resurrection happened as it did because it was the BEST way for Christ to build up his Church. God loves all souls and wishes all to love him, but he wants that love to be freely given, not forced. Cardinal Newman, who was a wonderful theologian and writer, explains things much better than I can. If you want to know more, you can consult his writings.

[Zzyzx]

.

Why would someone be in a sealed tomb with Jesus at night?

Good point

Yes, God is omnipotent, and that means HE can do as HE wants, not as you, or anyone else, wants.

That is conjecture / opinion / claim. In these debates the Bible is not assumed to be true or authoritative.

The witnesses to the risen Christ are sufficient for discerning people who care to work through the entire scenario, and its details, with an open mind.

There are unverified gospel stories about witnesses. Regardless what details may be presented, the tales are still unverified.

If religion is whatever we invent, we can make it whatever we like, e.g. television evangelists. If it is what God invented and Christ lived, and it is, then we have to take it as we find it, just as we have to take the natural world as we find it.

What we find is stories written long after the claimed events by people who cannot be shown to have witnessed the events they describe or to have personal knowledge.

No, I did not make a mistake when I said Paul met Jesus "in the flesh." He met Jesus in his resurrected body, which is different from a before-death body, but which is still flesh. Jesus' resurrected body fried and ate fish, and Thomas, for one, touched it and found it as substantial as any other body. He found it to be FLESH-AND-BONE.

There is a claim that Paul/Saul "met" Jesus in a "vision" (or hallucination, delusion, fabrication, or whatever it was). His writings say very little about the encounter. It was described by others (primarily by whoever wrote Acts).

To get at the truth, you have to examine the small details.

Examining small details of Gone with the Wind does not determine whether the tale is true or not.

I have spent 12 years in formal theological studies

Kudos. We will expect great things of you. (Most sincerely)

I spent a similar amount of time in formal study of Earth science. While that field is not directly applicable to theological discussion, surprisingly often that background is useful in evaluating the details of Bible stories and Apologist claims.

Additionally, scientific study teaches that claims are to be verified by disconnected others and multiple sources – and that "Take my word for it (or his word or this book)" is invalid as evidence – and that "I think / believe so" is of no significance (nothing more than opinion or conjecture).

It just means I have looked at things from every angle in a formal, academic setting and have been taught by some of the greatest thinkers teaching today.

Agree. Although my academic experience is decades in the past, I also studied with some of the great minds in the field.

Another small detail that shows the truth of the resurrection in particular and the gospels in general is the fact that all four of them have women as the first discovers of the empty tomb. In first century Jerusalem, women were NOT considered valid witnesses. They simply were not believed. They could not testify before any tribunal, Jewish or Roman. Had the Resurrection been a hoax, the gospel writers would have had MEN be the first to discover the empty tomb.

How can anyone say how a hoax would be perpetrated? It may

The gospels are filled with small, intimate details, like Jesus writing in the sand, weeping at the death of Lazarus, who he loved, etc. that show discerning readers with an open mind that they are, indeed, true, and were written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe.

I, as one among many, do not doubt that Jesus was human – VERY human, with human emotions, human knowledge, human characteristics – and that some people knew him

What I question is 1) that Jesus was anything MORE than human, 2) that "eyewitness accounts" are valid first-person / actual accounts (not hearsay, legend, fable).

There are stories about such things. What has not been determined is whether the stories are true. Of course, the stories themselves cannot rationally be used to prove themselves true (no matter how much detail they may include). That science fiction may contain amazing detail and be internally consistent is no assurance that the stories are true.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 104 by Zzyzx]

NOTHING in antiquity had proven witnesses, as in they went before a notary, etc. and left behind their notarized signature attesting to the events, etc. There were no cameras, so no photos were recorded. No paintings since Jews of the time did not have their portraits painted. There is no evidence that Alexander the Great even existed, yet because people do not worship him today, he is taken to have existed. We can either accept antiquity as it is, or throw out all of it. (I believe Alexander the Great existed, but he might as well be just as much as myth as no "proof" exists for his exploits.)

As for the hypostatic union, Jesus was either Lord, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth, and there are many, and valid arguments showing that he was not a liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. (Myth probably least of all.) Therefore, he was Lord, and divine.

If you know the criteria for establishing a myth, you can easily, and fairly quickly, figure out why Christ cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be a myth.

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to post 101 by Regens Küchl]

People have given you different and legitimate answers. Why would someone be in a sealed tomb with Jesus at night? Why? I asked you: If someone you know dies are you going to jump into the grave with them? Especially if you are not expecting anything to happen? The apostles did not expect Jesus to be resurrected. If there was going to be a witness to the actual resurrection, he or she would have to have been sealed in the tomb with Jesus.

Yes, God is omnipotent, and that means HE can do as HE wants, not as you, or anyone else, wants. The witnesses to the risen Christ are sufficient for discerning people who care to work through the entire scenario, and its details, with an open mind.

The implication being that everyone in the world is either Christian, ignorant, or closed-minded. This is quite the claim!

If religion is whatever we invent, we can make it whatever we like, e.g. television evangelists. If it is what God invented and Christ lived, and it is, then we have to take it as we find it, just as we have to take the natural world as we find it.

No, I did not make a mistake when I said Paul met Jesus "in the flesh." He met Jesus in his resurrected body, which is different from a before-death body, but which is still flesh. Jesus' resurrected body fried and ate fish, and Thomas, for one, touched it and found it as substantial as any other body. He found it to be FLESH-AND-BONE.

One miracle or another. What's it matter?

To get at the truth, you have to examine the small details. I have spent 12 years in formal theological studies; from what you write, I have to assume you have not. That is not meant as an insult, only an observation. It also does not mean I know everything because I do not. No one does. Nor does it mean I am more intelligent than you or anyone else. It just means I have looked at things from every angle in a formal, academic setting and have been taught by some of the greatest thinkers teaching today.

I appreciate the balance. Your experience does count for something, but not everything.

Another small detail that shows the truth of the resurrection in particular and the gospels in general is the fact that all four of them have women as the first discovers of the empty tomb. In first century Jerusalem, women were NOT considered valid witnesses. They simply were not believed. They could not testify before any tribunal, Jewish or Roman. Had the Resurrection been a hoax, the gospel writers would have had MEN be the first to discover the empty tomb.

I don't understand this argument. If it's sound, it would make the fact that their testimony was accepted entirely inexplicable.

In other words, this argument says Christianity shouldn't exist, even if Jesus were raised, because no one would have believed the witnesses.

The gospels are filled with small, intimate details, like Jesus writing in the sand, weeping at the death of Lazarus, who he loved, etc. that show discerning readers with an open mind that they are, indeed, true, and were written by eyewitnesses to the events they describe.

It's not as though the typical skeptic takes the position that everything in the NT is false...

But most will say certain parts are more suspect than others.

To greatly paraphrase John Henry Newman: If there had been witnesses to the actual Resurrection, what good what that have done? Many people witnessed some of Christ's 37 described miracles. They were startled at the time, but later joined in the mob who wanted Barabbas saved from crucifixion rather than Jesus. He fed the multitudes in the wilderness; he turned water into wine at the wedding feast at Cana. Cardinal Newman tells us that the people, unstable as water, cried "Hosanna!" when witnessing the miracle, then turned their "Hosanna!" into "Crucify Him!" It is reasonable to assume that had Christ appeared to the multitudes after his Resurrection or had the Resurrection been a public happening, the people would have cried "Hosanna!" once more, then, after Christ ascended to his Father - and he WAS going to ascend to his Father

Uh why? What's the hurry?

- they would have persecuted his followers.

WHERE was God going to effect the Resurrection "in plain sight?" On the Cross, prior to Jesus' burial? Had there been witnesses to the Resurrection the people would have done just as you are doing: declared that Jesus had not really died or that he was a ghost or that the whole Resurrection was a hoax. The Pharisees would have ascribed the Resurrection to Satan's magic;

They could have anyway. They did supposedly know about the resurrection (Mathew 28:11-15). Instead, they dumped a "large sum of money" to make like it never happened, meanwhile letting the Spawn of Satan run amok.

Of course all that actually runs amok in their world is rumors. It's almost like they knew that even though Jesus was raised, he wasn't going to make a post-mortem public appearance.

Oh Matthew.

; the populace would have been moved for a short time only, then, not being faithful of heart, they would have persecuted the apostles and anyone else who chose to follow Christ. The Resurrection happened as it did because it was the BEST way for Christ to build up his Church.

The premise of this argument is that people are moved by stories of miracles more than by witnessing them themselves.

...unless they are Jesus's followers.

It's entirely circular.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 104 by Zzyzx]

NOTHING in antiquity had proven witnesses, as in they went before a notary, etc. and left behind their notarized signature attesting to the events, etc. There were no cameras, so no photos were recorded. No paintings since Jews of the time did not have their portraits painted. There is no evidence that Alexander the Great even existed, yet because people do not worship him today, he is taken to have existed. We can either accept antiquity as it is, or throw out all of it. (I believe Alexander the Great existed, but he might as well be just as much as myth as no "proof" exists for his exploits.)

As for the hypostatic union, Jesus was either Lord, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth, and there are many, and valid arguments showing that he was not a liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. (Myth probably least of all.) Therefore, he was Lord, and divine.

If you know the criteria for establishing a myth, you can easily, and fairly quickly, figure out why Christ cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be a myth.

The 'trilemma,' "liar, lord, or lunatic" is a well known logical fallacy. Which has been exposed in a number of ways.
1. Even according to the gospels, Jesus never claimed to be God.
2. We needn't be restricted to such simplistic categories, which the fallacy suggests are mutually exclusive.
3. One can have a sincere belief he has some quality that he does not have without being a 'lunatic.'
4. One may have a mental disorder, have hallucinations, suffer from a very specific delusion, without being otherwise noticeably "crazy."
5. Then there is the error made at the very beginning in failing to appropriately differentiate between various levels of proof. Even in a modern courtroom, solid evidence is not limited to notarized documents, photographs, and paintings.

However, hearsay evidence is generally excluded [tho' there are several exceptions]. This is why it is important to know whether reports, either new or old, are first hand accounts and whether the reporter has biases.

[Zzyzx]

.
Lily, Thank you for the reasoned theological reply. Though I differ with your points, there is nothing personal involved (and no blanket rejection). I appreciate your input to these debates and look forward to learning powerful arguments / statements in favor of Theism.

[Replying to post 104 by Zzyzx]

NOTHING in antiquity had proven witnesses, as in they went before a notary, etc. and left behind their notarized signature attesting to the events, etc. There were no cameras, so no photos were recorded. No paintings since Jews of the time did not have their portraits painted. There is no evidence that Alexander the Great even existed, yet because people do not worship him today, he is taken to have existed.

Exactly. AGREED. We admittedly do NOT know with certainty the events of antiquity or the accuracy of tales of various characters and their deeds or words. We are in 100% agreement so far.

As verification, we do not even know with certainty the actual words spoken by Lincoln in the Gettysburg Address as recently as a century and a half ago. There are at least five versions available for inspection – some with different wording by Lincoln himself.

How is it, then, that some claim to know with certainty about the deeds and words of biblical characters two thousand years ago?

The earliest documents in existence that pertain to Jesus were produced hundreds of years later. How can we be assured of their accuracy? Or is guessing and "belief" or "tradition" good enough (sufficient evidence) for theological purposes?

We can either accept antiquity as it is, or throw out all of it. (I believe Alexander the Great existed, but he might as well be just as much as myth as no "proof" exists for his exploits.)

False dichotomy

We can rationally choose to accept some reports of events from the past that are supported by multiple disconnected sources and actual physical evidence.

We can, for instance, rationally accept beyond reasonable doubt that Romans built a coliseum, other major buildings, aqueducts, highways, minted coins honoring emperors, left records or all sorts concerning matters related to the empire, etc. etc.

However, we are not encouraged to make decisions in our lives based upon what Romans of that era are claimed to have said or done. We are not encouraged to accept any supernatural tales about any historical characters (except Bible characters). We do not build palaces of worship or develop a priest class to promote worship of historical characters (except Bible characters).

Why pick some ancient story characters as idols to worship -- and why claim knowledge of exactly what they said and did (when aware of the limitations of historical knowledge)?

As for the hypostatic union, Jesus was either Lord, liar, lunatic, guru, or myth, and there are many, and valid arguments showing that he was not a liar, lunatic, guru, or myth. (Myth probably least of all.) Therefore, he was Lord, and divine.

If one accepts those limited options they still have the burden of demonstrating (not just claiming) that Jesus did not fit into those categories.

Another alternative: Jesus MAY have been a wandering preacher (rabbi?) who perhaps learned the trade from someone named John, gathered a following, preached against Jewish officials and Roman occupiers / rulers, did not last long before being executed. His distraught followers may have told tales about seeing him after he was dead (just as people report seeing Elvis) and those tales may have been embellished or distorted or exaggerated (or in some cases fabricated) over the decades before being recorded by gospel writers of questionable identity decades or generations later.

I do NOT claim to know that the above is accurate – but it IS a reasonable scenario – perhaps more reasonable / rational than believing that a dead body came back to life, visited some followers, then flew away into the sky.

If you know the criteria for establishing a myth, you can easily, and fairly quickly, figure out why Christ cannot possibly, under any circumstances, be a myth.

Perhaps you will be kind enough to explain exactly why Jesus stories (particularly supernatural aspects) CANNOT "possibly under any circumstances, be a myth."

[Inigo Montoya]

I do NOT claim to know that the above is accurate – but it IS a reasonable scenario – perhaps more reasonable / rational than believing that a dead body came back to life, visited some followers, then flew away into the sky.

All well written, Z, with one minor complaint and correction.

What you'd written above the part I quoted isn't perhaps more reasonable/rational than believing a dead body came back to life, visited some followers, then flew away into the sky.

It simply is more reasonable/rational. All due respect, I think you surrender far too much ground hedging your comments in ''possibly's'' or ''maybe's.''

I have never understood this part of the resurrection apologetics. In what universe are dead bodies coming back to life not the absolute least likely explanation for missing bodies? Inference to the best explanation? Really? A body is dead for three days and turns up missing but some folk wrote about seeing it wander about town a bit later on. Therefore it follows logically that it was raised from the dead. How... I don't even... What?

I don't care who says what and when it was said. How is that even on the list of possible explanations?

I'll tell you how, then depart from my rant. It is simply because this entire story exists in a collection of very old and revered texts. If this story was not in said collection of very old and revered texts, no one on these forums would waste an ounce of energy making these ''inferences to the BEST(!) explanation.''

Well... if God exists, resurrections wouldn't be impossible or unwarranted.

Ok. How can we know if this God exists?

He raised Jesus from the dead!

Carry on; I'm not sure what got into me just then.

[Zzyzx]

.

What you'd written above the part I quoted isn't perhaps more reasonable/rational than believing a dead body came back to life, visited some followers, then flew away into the sky.

It simply is more reasonable/rational. All due respect, I think you surrender far too much ground hedging your comments in ''possibly's'' or ''maybe's.''

I plead guilty to understatement – done quite deliberately. In my opinion and experience, ninety yards of ground can be "surrendered" to Apologetics on a 100 yard playing field (of debate) without risk of a "touchdown" or even a "field goal."

All the fancy footwork and aggressive (or philosophical) play trying to advance the "resurrection" as factual is nothing more than running in circles by trying to use tales to prove themselves true – or trying "You can't prove that it didn't happen so it must be true".

Basing a belief system on unverifiable stories about an empty tomb (if such thing existed) and supposed guards, angel (or "young man"), witnesses (with great fanfare regarding gender – but no actual accounts), rolling stone, appearance of the deceased to followers, "visions", etc does not make a strong case for debate. None of the above can be shown to be literal truth – or anything more than folklore, verbal tradition, wishful thinking, etc.