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"?

[enviousintheeverafter]

...If (since) gospel writers (whose identity is disputed by scholars and theologians) were unlikely to have witnessed events and conversations, there is reason to be concerned about their sources of information – which are unknown. Those sources could be nothing more substantial than folklore, legend, myth, oral tradition, embellished tales, etc. Can anyone show that sources were reliable?

Well, and there are some good reasons to believe that the sources were preserved as oral traditions in synagogue (the tendency to view the life of Christ through the lens of the Jewish liturgy, for instance). But, importantly, having unreliable sources of information does not, in itself, discredit the claims; it certainly affects one's initial skepticism towards the claims, but it alone doesn't refute anything- its entirely possible for an unreliable source to be correct, despite being unreliable. We have to consider the other evidence; other known historical facts, internal consistency/consistency with documents from a similar timeframe, etc. Of course, the Bible doesn't really do well in this respect, but its important to note that its evidence which renders the scriptural claims improbable, not the (un)reliability of the source material.

[enviousintheeverafter]

If it was demonstrated that the gospels were written within 5 minutes of these events, by known and named authors, you're still left with a nasty pickle.

The choice is the same to make. Do I ignore a lifetime of experience and a world's history absent of such majicks just in this one instance?

Billions apparently do, for reasons that short circuit my mind.

And, of course, the fact that the Gospels still contradict themselves, one another, and known (historical, geographical, cultural/political) facts. The converse of what I said above also holds; a reliable source can still be incorrect, despite being reliable.

[Clownboat]

Note to clownboat: Oh, I am not playing the “victim card.� LOL When did I EVER do that? I am not a victim! Anything but. I cherish the fact that God has chosen me, among others, to spread his word in many different ways (whether anyone believes it or not). I consider myself the most blessed, and the LEAST victimized, of all persons, in very many ways.

All I've seen is a bunch of God-haters, and that doesn't make God any less real.

Not a victim, but all you have seen is a bunch of people hating on your god?


No real arguments as to why we have the stances we have? Just people a hating on your god? That's all you can see, but your not the victim?

Is it possible for you to hate Santa Claus? I would assume you do not hate Santa because you don't believe that Santa is real. To hate something you don't believe to be real would be awfully silly. Therefore, I submit that you do not view anyone here hating on your god, but instead perceive these inquiries as an attack on your personal feeling of what your god is.

Challenging god concepts lights up the same part of our brains as having our favorite football team challenged (we probably all know a sports nut or two). When claims about your god are challenged, it is hard not to take them personally. Taking challenges of claims personally about god concepts is hard to avoid, but I assure you, I am not aware of any person on this planet that 'hates your god'. IMO, it's a silly notion.

[Clownboat]

It’s an ambiguous saying, I grant you that. Much of what Christ said, on first, or even fifth reading, was ambiguous. Biblical scholars spend a lifetime studying the Bible, and there is still more to learn.

Do you find it logical that a god would create a book with a message for the entire human race, but then require theologians and scholars in order to understand said message? Consider that claim that there are eternal souls on the line. Then there is the fact that even the theologians and scholars cannot agree on what they are trying to make sense of.

How is it even rational to consider the Bible sourced from a god because of this?

If men were to have written the books of the Bible and they were not inspired by a god, I would expect it to be ambiguous and hard to determine what the actual message is suppose to be, but not if there was a god behind it.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 172 by LilytheTheologian]

I don't really see the contradiction; Matthew 16 has Christ say- “For the Son of Man is going to come in the glory of His Father with His angels, and will then repay every man according to his deeds. Truly I say to you, there are some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom.“

I don't see why going on to say something like, "while its going to happen while some who are here still live, no one knows the precise date/hour" would be contradictory- indeed, this seems an obvious and natural interpretation, and one which can easily reconcile the two verses. On the other hand, how would you explain Matthew 16 differently?

I explained that earlier in a LOOOG post. In Matthew 16, Christ was talking about the Transfiguration, in which his three chief apostles, Peter, James, and John were given a "presentation" of the Second Coming. The word, "present" is used in the original Greek, indicating a presentation.

Even if you don't believe in Christ, surely you can see a contradiction in saying he announced that his Second Coming would be "soon" and his statement in Matthew 24:36 in which he said, "However, no one knows the day or hour when these things will happen, not even the angels in heaven or the Son himself. Only the Father knows."

The contradiction cannot be attributed to the biblical author because both statements are in the book of Matthew. (The Transfiguration is described in all three Synoptics).

I'll be swinging by your place of work next week to drop off a package. I don't know the day or the hour though.

Therefore I will be stopping by your place of work within the next few thousand years? This would be a jump Evel Knievel would be scared to make I fear.

[liamconnor]

[Replying to post 189 by Zzyzx]

If (since) gospel writers (whose identity is disputed by scholars and theologians) were unlikely to have witnessed events and conversations, there is reason to be concerned about their sources of information – which are unknown. Those sources could be nothing more substantial than folklore, legend, myth, oral tradition, embellished tales, etc. Can anyone show that sources were reliable?

Do you apply the same skepticism to all historical documents? Or only those that involve miraculous events, or only those that involve miraculous events upon which a religion is based?

I can give evidence for why the sources can be trusted to an extent. But if you are looking for mathematical demonstration (the kind that a skeptic couldn't say, "Yeah, but". then you will have to discount ALL historical claims). So, I just want to know whether it is worthwhile to put together arguments for the reliability of the N.T. witnesses.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Do you apply the same skepticism to all historical documents?

We should; if we don't know who the source is, when they wrote, and/or where/how they got their information, this certainly detracts from their initial credibility (though, as I noted to ZZyzx, this is hardly a conclusive consideration; it simply affects our initial assessment).

Or only those that involve miraculous events, or only those that involve miraculous events upon which a religion is based?

No, as above, not only those- but reporting events that bear every mark of mythology/legend/folklore certainly creates even more skepticism/prima facie implausibility as to the accuracy of the claims and reliability of the source. At best, we would simply expect more rigorous proofs of the accuracy of these sorts of claims than we would if it was merely claiming something familiar and precedented, like that someone got married and had children, or went off to war.

I can give evidence for why the sources can be trusted to an extent. But if you are looking for mathematical demonstration (the kind that a skeptic couldn't say, "Yeah, but". then you will have to discount ALL historical claims).

I haven't seen anyone claim any such thing; asking for mathematical demonstrations of historical claims is unreasonable. What we would want would be the same things we would expect of any historical document or empirical hypothesis; internal consistency, external corroboration, and consistency with the rest of our best theories and evidence. Of course, as has been reviewed almost ad naseum, the Gospels do not really satisfy these criteria either.

[liamconnor]

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"?

Let's look at this clearly. The argument is that because there are injurious details in the gospels, they are therefore a hoax? Made-up? That is, a gospel writer who wants to write "so that you might know the exact truth about the things you have been taught" would make up details that clearly don't help his case at all?

In a court of law details given that at first glance injure the defendant's case are those which the judge considers most reliable: i.e., when the defendant states "Yes, I was in the vicinity of the crime when it occurred" is not likely to be doubted.

I am not arguing that injurious details in the gospels are proof of their reliability; but no one seems to recognize both sides of the coin: yes, the are strange things in the gospels--but why make them up? Characteristic of a hoax is strained perfection. I make an appeal to everyone to reckon up all the details they would have left out of this "fiction", and then ask, "So, if this is so obvious to me, why did they they include them?" For instance:

1) Why make up women (unfavored class in ancient world and least likely to be trusted) as the first reporters?

2) Why have all your 'heroes' doubt?

3) Why have two guys walking along and not recognize Jesus when he shows up?

None of this feels like strained perfection.

[LilytheTheologian]

.

I, myself don't accept, without more proof, the date of 40 CE, and I put the writing of both Mark and Matthew sometime between 40-70 CE, though I do believe both were written prior to the destruction of the temple.

The extreme range of suggested dates for gospels range from 40 CE to 130 CE and most scholars and theologians seem to favor 65 to 100 CE. As the Catholic encyclopedia says, "In our day opinion is rather divided". New evidence doesn't seem to be new or convincing (or even evidence – but rather argument that hasn't been accepted by the scholarly community).

Thus, scholarly preference seems to be that the writings date from thirty to seventy years after alleged events and conversations they describe – and would make it extremely unlikely that writers (whoever they may have been) knew Jesus or witnessed his feats or preaching.

If (since) gospel writers (whose identity is disputed by scholars and theologians) were unlikely to have witnessed events and conversations, there is reason to be concerned about their sources of information – which are unknown. Those sources could be nothing more substantial than folklore, legend, myth, oral tradition, embellished tales, etc. Can anyone show that sources were reliable?

In addition, gospel writers copied from each other or from a common (unknown) source. Thus, casting further doubt upon their reliability – and certainly upon their value as independent accounts.

In the real world, basing decisions on such questionable information would generally be deemed unwise.

I'm not going to explain to you - again - how the gospels and Christ cannot be myth, even if one does not believe everything in the Bible or believe that Jesus was God.

The gospel writers certainly KNEW myth from fact, they knew myth from history.

There is NO EVIDENCE that Julius Caesar crossed the Rubicon or even that the Rubicon itself existed. So one person, who called Caesar an "apparition" by the way wrote it down and a few others copied it. How do we know they are reliable? There is NO EVIDENCE that Alexander the Great even lived. If he did, I don't think think he did anyways near the things attributed to him. He might well have been "just myth." The ONLY reason you doubt the gospels and Christ is precisely BECAUSE Christ was God - and he did NOT make that claim.

This man explains it well:

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articl ... spels-myth

And sure, he has bias because he believes in Christ and his divinity. I do, too. But you have bias as well. You want to DISPROVE the validity of the gospels.

Edit: The post above mine makes an excellent point. If someone, or a group of persons, were attempting to create a "myth," why insert injurious details? First century Jews would have scoffed at women being the first witnesses of the empty tomb. Any myth makers would have made Jewish men of impeccable reputation the first witnesses. If you have to be tried in court, would you want people whose reliability is laughed at for your witnesses? That's what Jesus had in the women.

And why say his intimates didn't, at first, recognize him if it weren't true? If his resurrected body had not changed? To add fuel to the fire of disbelievers? That's laughable. Had the gospel writers been myth makers or liars, they wouldn't have reported that. They were, as the poster above me stated, interested in passing on and preserving the truth, and that is what they did.

[Zzyzx]

.

Do you apply the same skepticism to all historical documents?

I apply the same requests for verification of truth and accuracy in any historical (or modern) document that is cited as grounds for decisions in modern life (particularly if they affect my life in any way).

Or only those that involve miraculous events,

Claims of "miraculous events" are worthy of special scrutiny. They seem to be dismissed by Theists and Non-Theists alike -- except those favoring a chosen "god" (among thousands proposed).

or only those that involve miraculous events upon which a religion is based?

Religious claims of "miraculous events" that are offered in debate are particularly challenged.

If a religion is based upon "miraculous events" it would behoove adherents to verify truth and accuracy of the stories.

I can give evidence for why the sources can be trusted to an extent.

Kindly do so without making excuses ahead

But if you are looking for mathematical demonstration (the kind that a skeptic couldn't say, "Yeah, but". then you will have to discount ALL historical claims).

Excuses

So, I just want to know whether it is worthwhile to put together arguments for the reliability of the N.T. witnesses.

Suit yourself. Readers will evaluate what is presented – or observe that it is not.