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"?

[Zzyzx]

.

In that case why didn't a single person claim to have seen Jesus come walking out of the tomb?

Zzyzx wrote:
Can it be said with certainty that NO person made that claim?
Perhaps it would be useful to consider the concept "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

If they did make that claim, why on earth would anybody want to suppress it?

Is it necessary that something be "suppressed" in order to not be available 2000 years later? Was every claim recorded and preserved?

How can anyone KNOW that no such claim was made? The honest answer is that no one can know that. Anyone can GUESS whatever they wish about who said what, but those are nothing more than guesses.

The whole resurrection tale cannot be shown to be truthful and accurate (and cannot be falsified). So, why would any rational person claim to KNOW one way or the other? It is important to distinguish between "believe" and "know." Knowledge that can be verified by multiple disconnected sources does not require belief.

Notice that I make no claim to know that the tale is false. Those who claim to know it is true are asked to demonstrate with verifiable evidence that they speak truthfully and accurately.

[Dropship]

Jesus can walk thru walls, yet Thomas can touch the holes in his 'flesh.' In essence, this is one of the problems with trying to have a logical discussion about any of this folklore..

But you'll miss out on all the fun and speculation and detective work..
We can regard it as "Superscience"; for example when the risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, he said "Don't hold on to me because I haven't yet ascended to the Father", so perhaps he was literally a "ghost" and knew that Mary would freak out if she tried to hug him and find her arms going through thin air as if he was a hologram (John 20:17)
"Ghosts" of course can walk through tomb walls easily, piece o' cake..
Later when he appeared to others, he invited them to touch him to prove he was solid, and also had a meal with them.
We can therefore assume that after he "ascended" to God as a ghost, he was "regenerated" into a new solid body and beamed back down to earth..

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 302 by Dropship]

Anything is possible with faith. It might have been spaceships and aliens with laser cannons, ya know.

[FarWanderer]

..Anyone writing a tale can say "There were hundreds of witnesses" who saw something..

In that case why didn't a single person claim to have seen Jesus come walking out of the tomb?

Different sources, different levels of honesty.

An actual empty tomb seems possible enough for me. In fact, I'd say an actual empty tomb would explain why this thread even exists.

One of the main reasons I think no one saw Jesus's resurrection is because the gospels argue so hard for the tomb being empty, while they just kinda claim without making any argument that a whole bunch of people saw Jesus afterword.

If there really was an empty tomb which became the foundation of the Christian tradition, followed by subsequent embellishments, it would explain quite neatly why no one saw the resurrection itself. It'd be because the unobserved resurrection was established early on as a core of the tradition, before artistic liscense got too out of hand.

[FarWanderer]

People have been trying to make a “myth� out of the Resurrection for 2,000 years now, and they haven’t succeeded. This “myth� view is the widest held view of skeptics today, yet it is the weakest by far. It is biblical scholar and theologian, NT Wright who debunks the “myth theology.� The ancient Jews, Wright said, knew as well as we know today that people who are dead and buried don’t come back to life. The Jews then and the Jews now, do believe in the resurrection of the body, but not until the end of human history. They certainly didn’t expect Jesus to return to life and were dumbfounded when he did. It’s no wonder some, like Thomas, were unwilling to believe it at first. And, as Wright says, it is one thing to make up a story and quite another to endure persecution for it. Although we do not know how all of the disciples died, James and Stephen were stoned to death, John was even thrown into a vat of boiling oil, though it seems not to have harmed him. Would the disciples, who seemed to be men of intelligence and mental health be willing to die for something they had made up if denouncing it would have saved their lives? And what would be the point of making it up anyway? It didn’t buy them a wealthy life of luxury and relaxation. It brought them trouble and persecution, instead.

One does not have to be entirely honest, discerning, or sane in order to fight for a cause. One does not have to know, or even believe, that Jesus was physically raised from the dead, to believe that the movement has value.

For centuries, the Jews tried to say that Christ’s body was stolen.

Did they? Is there any evidence of this outside of matthew 28:11-28:15 (which doesn't even account for centuries).

This, too, is a hypothesis filled with errors. The entrance to the tomb was barred by a stone and guarded by Roman soldiers. How could anyone have gotten in, much less gotten in and left with the body?

You're right. It's ridiculous. The early Jews would have to have been really stupid to believe that anyone could slip passed those guards.

Which is why I don't believe they ever did believe that. It's far more plausible that Matthew is just lying, trying to make non-believing Jews look stupid.

Moreover, if the disciples stole the body, they knew Christ wasn’t resurrected, and we return to the dilemma of why they would die for a lie, and something that made no sense to lie about in the first place. What is really required with this hypothesis is not how Christ’s body could be stolen, but why the apostles would do it.

Whoever might have done it, it may have been done to preserve the cult. It may have been done for attention. It may have been done to give people hope.

Others contend that Christ didn’t really die but was merely in a swoon or trance.

Who contends this? I swear, apologists like bringing up this idea more than skeptics.

Finally, desperate people resorted to the “hallucination� theory.

"Mass hallucination" is not a very good theory, but there's more to the problem than that. People in groups often influence each other's interpretation of events. Mass delusions are not so implausible.

Christ, however, appeared MANY times to his disciples.

Allegedly.

They touched him.

Allegedly.

As the story goes, he wasn't recognized at first. Should we be sure this person encountered after the crucifiction is the same person that was crucified?

As to Paul reporting that Christ appeared alive before more than 500 persons, many of those persons were no doubt still alive when Paul reported the incident. Yet no one disputed it. Not one.

Exactly what we'd expect from people who don't exist...

James, a relative of Christ’s, who is referred to as his “brother,� was very skeptical of Christ’s ministry…until he, too, had contact with the risen Christ. After that, James became the head of the Church in Jerusalem and was eventually put to death for his beliefs.

What is the evidence that James was skeptical?

You know Thomas doubted until he touched Christ’s wounds,

Allegedly.

Although the moral of the story is that skepticism is bad.

and that Paul persecuted Christians until he encountered Christ on the Damascus road.

I do not doubt that Paul had a change of heart. However, what it means for an exhausted traveler to singularly "see" or "encounter" Christ on a desert road is highly open to interpretation.

[Dropship]

It might have been spaceships and aliens with laser cannons, ya know.

Suddenly I'm (gulp) afraid..
"And God sent an angel to Jerusalem to destroy it. As he was destroying, the Lord looked and relented of the disaster, and said to the angel who was destroying, “It is enough; now restrain your hand.� Then David lifted his eyes and saw the angel of the Lord standing between earth and heaven, having in his hand a drawn sword stretched out over Jerusalem" (1 Chron 21:16/16)

[Danmark]

Jesus can walk thru walls, yet Thomas can touch the holes in his 'flesh.' In essence, this is one of the problems with trying to have a logical discussion about any of this folklore..

But you'll miss out on all the fun and speculation and detective work..
We can regard it as "Superscience"; for example when the risen Jesus appeared to Mary Magdalene, he said "Don't hold on to me because I haven't yet ascended to the Father", so perhaps he was literally a "ghost" and knew that Mary would freak out if she tried to hug him and find her arms going through thin air as if he was a hologram (John 20:17)
"Ghosts" of course can walk through tomb walls easily, piece o' cake..
Later when he appeared to others, he invited them to touch him to prove he was solid, and also had a meal with them.
We can therefore assume that after he "ascended" to God as a ghost, he was "regenerated" into a new solid body and beamed back down to earth..

Great example of this making no sense whatsoever. Before he 'ascends' he is operating both as ghost and as resurrected body. Your average 12 year old comic book reader would have a field day with his letter to the editor about the inconsistencies.

We shouldn't make too much of this. We all know this stuff was made up gradually, to serve various traditions and church doctrines. It is really much too much to expect these ancient writers dabbling into the fantasy genre to have the sophistication of a modern 12 year old comic book reader.

[Dropship]

..We all know this stuff was made up gradually, to serve various traditions and church doctrines..

Can you be more specific mate and tell us exactly which traditions and doctrines?
As I keep asking, what on earth would have been peoples MOTIVES for "inventing" Christianity and getting themselves thrown to the lions?

[Danmark]

..We all know this stuff was made up gradually, to serve various traditions and church doctrines..

Can you be more specific mate and tell us exactly which traditions and doctrines?
As I keep asking, what on earth would have been peoples MOTIVES for "inventing" Christianity and getting themselves thrown to the lions?

This is an overly simplistic and just plain false argument. Some scholars assert there is no evidence Christians were 'thrown to the lions' in the Coliseum in Rome.
See: Hopkins, Keith (2011). The Colosseum. Profile Books.

The spread of the practice of throwing Christians to beasts was reflected by the Christian writer Tertullian (2nd century). He states that the general public blamed Christians for any general misfortune and after natural disasters would cry "Away with them to the lions!" This is the only reference from contemporaries mentioning Christians being thrown specifically to lions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_ad_bestias

Yes, Christians were persecuted. So were virtually all members of every religion who found themselves members of a minority in a larger culture. It's still going on today. By this logic, ALL religions are true, which gets us back to the truth that
"Everyone is an atheist. Atheists just believe in one less god than you do."

This whole 'persecuted for their beliefs' stuff is nothing more than an attempt to demonstrate moral superiority of one culture or belief system over another. If there were any merit to your argument, then Muslim suicide bombers prove Islam is the one true religion and Japanese Kamikazes proved Shinto is the 'one true belief.'

[Dropship]

..If there were any merit to your argument, then Muslim suicide bombers prove Islam is the one true religion and Japanese Kamikazes proved Shinto is the 'one true belief.'..

You're forgetting one thing mate, Christianity is the ONLY one with the Son of God himself in it, which kinda gives it an edge over all the rest..
I mean, if you bought a set of "The History of Rock n' Roll" videos and found that the King himself (Elvis) wasn't in there, youi'd demand a refund, right Elv?
"Uh-huh"..