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]

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.

That's a giant non sequitur. In the first place everyone, Christians included, agree there were no witnesses to the resurrection itself. The only accounts have to do with a tomb that Jesus wasn't in, and those accounts disagree on the details of the empty tomb, which may or may not have hand an angel, or two present.

To compare this event, that supposedly took place in the span of a day or two, or an hour, and compare that to a biological process that took millions of years, a process no single person could witness, is absurd.

[tam]

I don't remember if I posted on this thread from earlier, but I do know that in the times I have checked this thread out, I did not understand your question as you meant it either.

I AM JUST ASKING FOR THE R E A S O N YAHWE HAD FOR WISHING NO WITNESSES.

What Christ needed or wanted a moment (or two or three) directly after being resurrected from the dead... to breathe, to reorient, to regain strength, to to speak with angels, etc, to PRAY to His Father FIRST... without being watched or being concerned about the reactions of others?

What if Christ wanted that because actually witnessing a dead body wake and sit up and talk would be too frightening for most if not all people?

Both of these reasons then would be of love... love for Christ by His Father, and love also for those who belong to and love Christ.

So these would be good reasons to not wish for any witnesses to the actual resurrection.


Especially since not seeing Christ literally open his eyes upon his resurrection does not invalidate the witness accounts from those who saw and knew that He was dead. For instance, according to what is written, the women who prepared Christ for His burial knew that He was dead. They spent time with his dead body, washed Him, covered Him in oils and scents as was the custom, and so seeing Him up and walking a few days later still allows them to make as valid a witness to his resurrection from the dead, than if they were there to see him literally open his eyes and take his first breath back upon his resurrection. But without the fear and shock that might have come were they sitting in the tomb with Him when he suddenly opened his eyes and sat up.



Does that address the question you were asking?


Peace to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[Zzyzx]

.

Especially since not seeing Christ literally open his eyes upon his resurrection does not invalidate the witness accounts from those who saw and knew that He was dead. For instance, according to what is written, the women who prepared Christ for His burial knew that He was dead. They spent time with his dead body, washed Him, covered Him in oils and scents as was the custom, and so seeing Him up and walking a few days later still allows them to make as valid a witness to his resurrection from the dead, than if they were there to see him literally open his eyes and take his first breath back upon his resurrection. But without the fear and shock that might have come were they sitting in the tomb with Him when he suddenly opened his eyes and sat up.

Tam, my criticism of the "resurrection" is more inclusive.

There are only stories about tomb, stones, guards, angel(s), witnesses, etc.

Those stories were written by promoters of the new religion decades or generations after the claimed events. The identity of gospel writers is unknown to or disputed by Christian scholars and theologians, and there is no assurance any of them had first-hand knowledge.

Since we can't be sure who wrote the stories or what their motivations and veracity may have been, it seems unwise to declare that a dead body came back to life based ONLY on those gospel stories. There is NO other evidence that any such thing happened or that anyone saw a "risen Jesus". Yes, "500 witnesses" were claimed in the stories themselves but there are no independent accounts of that Earth Shaking event.

To me the tales seem no more credible than fantastic tales that Elvis didn't really die (or came back to life) and has been seen by many "witnesses." It also seems as though those who believe tales about the "resurrection of Jesus" should, to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, also believe the Elvis tales and similar tales told about other "gods".

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 132:

...
What if Christ wanted that because actually witnessing a dead body wake and sit up and talk would be too frightening for most if not all people?

So ya wait 'til the mother-in-law comes in, and ya do it then.

...
So these would be good reasons to not wish for any witnesses to the actual resurrection.

They'd also be good reasons to try to explain away the medical issues involved in dead folks doin' the Monster Mash.

Conclusions?

I propose there's upwards of a hundred brazillion reasons why there weren't no witnesses to this resurrection. While there's only the one conclusion that comports to the data - it didn't no more happen than the moon's made of cheese.

[Danmark]

JoeyKnothead wrote:

... a hundred brazillion

100 brazillions? Ouch! Sounds painful. My guess is 100 Brazilians would prevent a resurrection every time.

[FarWanderer]

Had he left behind irrefutable proof to even the most hardened of doubters, there would be no necessity for faith.

And here I thought you of the position that:

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.

So apparently it is not enough that I work through the details with an open mind, I need faith too.

Any argument, so long as it validates Christianity, eh?

[LilytheTheologian]

Had he left behind irrefutable proof to even the most hardened of doubters, there would be no necessity for faith.

And here I thought you of the position that:

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.

So apparently it is not enough that I work through the details with an open mind, I need faith too.

Any argument, so long as it validates Christianity, eh?

No, certainly not. Christianity doesn't need "any argument." There is a cosmos of validation. You have, it appears, closed your eyes and mind to that validation. I've asked ten or more questions on here that no one could refute, so all just ignored them and steered the topic in a different direction. You have the proof, and you have the ability to read books on the subject and obtain more if you do have an open mind.

Are you saying you are more intelligent than geniuses like Kant, Hegel, Descartes, Fichte, Leibniz, Rousseau, Kierkegaard, Maritain, Spinoza, Bacon, Wittgenstein, et al.? They all believed in God and the divinity of Christ.

And no, you don't NEED faith to KNOW God exists and Christ was divine. You deliberately twisted my words to make it sound like I said one needed to have faith to know God exists. I said MAYBE - just speculating - that the reason God chose not to have any witnesses to the ACTUAL Resurrection was because he wanted people to believe it based on faith.

[JoeyKnothead]

JoeyKnothead wrote:

... a hundred brazillion

100 brazillions? Ouch! Sounds painful. My guess is 100 Brazilians would prevent a resurrection every time.

We now have some sound, confirmatory data to suggest that an argument from numbers might be a good way to go.

[Danmark]

I've asked ten or more questions on here that no one could refute, so all just ignored them and steered the topic in a different direction.

Your conclusion that they "could not be refuted" does not follow, particularly from your suggestion that they were 'ignored. Since your list of ten are all well known claims, I suggest you'd get a better response if you started with just the best one, in your opinion. It might even be better to put it in it's own new topic. I assure you, you'll get a better response than from a shotgun approach using shells that have already been fired.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 139 by Danmark]

What are the ten questions or claims I made that are well known? I just pulled the number ten out of the air. Could have been twelve or fifteen. Maybe twenty.

I don't need any answers to them. I don't want a response. I just found it curious that people SO eager to disprove Jesus existed or was not divine did not refute them and let them stand as proof. I am especially curious if they are so "well known" that you cannot even list them.

People have been trying to make Jesus into a myth for centuries. It hasn't worked yet, and I really doubt that its going to work in the future. Even Carl Sagan, genius that he was, made zero progress in refuting Jesus' divinity. Like it or not, that "small remnant" of believers will remain until human history comes to a close.

Feel free to refute them if you can. I'm going to be occupied all evening at a WWE wrestling match. I actually enjoy watching them as I'm a 3rd degree black belt in Taekwondo. One can't read theology books all the time.