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]

.

..Water magically turning into wine..

Surely you don't believe in magic mate?

Correct. I do not believe in magic -- but many people do believe that the items listed actually happened -- along with the tale about Jonah and the whale and similar tales.

Think of it as "Superscience"

I think of it as super-foolish. As an amateur vintner, I am aware of what it takes to make wine.


BTW there is a sub-forum thread set aside for jokes and jokesters (to keep such nonsense out of debates) http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=10136

[Dropship]

Looks ridiculous, preposterous, doesn't it? That is exactly how billions of people see the supernatural claims of all religious fundamentalists, including Muslims and their first cousins, Christians.

Nah mate, Atheists and Muslims both reject Jesus as the Son of God, but Christians don't.
Like I said, Christianity is the biggest game on the park..

[Zzyzx]

.

Here's what you said mate,

Moderator Comment

Kindly refrain from addressing members as "mate", "buddy", "dude" or similar terms. Though they may be acceptable in your social circles, they are not here.

In fact, it is best to refrain from addressing people directly and personally -- and stay with discussion of ideas, topics, issues

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Dropship]

Think of it as "Superscience"

I think of it as super-foolish. As an amateur vintner, I am aware of what it takes to make wine.

On a scientific note, Jesus couldn't conjure up wine out of thin air, he had to have atoms and molecules of water to work with. Same with some other of his 37 miracles, for example he had to spit in the dust to make mud pies to plaster over a blind mans eyes so the atoms and molecules could form themselves into new eyes.
Same when he reproduced enough loaves and fishes from a few samples to feed thousands of people.
In modern scifi terms we'd call it "Replication of Matter" or as I said "Superscience"..
Conversely as far as we know, he couldn't restore missing limbs because there was nothing there to work with.

[Blastcat]

..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?

I've been asking the same thing: Why would people "invent" a Resurrection that caused them more trouble than anything else, and cost most of them their lives?

Good question.. got any answers?

How about this:

You may be under the false assumption that these believers were rational.
I don't see why you would assume that to be the case.

People who believe that people can be raised from the dead aren't what I would call rational at all. This is NOT something that we commonly accept as normal behavior.

We have NO reliable evidence of any resurrection event of any kind EVER... so to believe in one AGAIN without any evidence at all is STUNNINGLY irrational.

So, irrational people behaving irrationally is at LEAST consistent.

For example, I will mention the people who "made up" Heaven's Gate and who all died except for one. Why DO people believe in strange things that causes them suffering and sometimes leads them to death?

I think that's a complex problem. But we DO know that religions are a part of the problem. When we ENHANCE irrationality, we should not be surprised that people ACT irrationally.

2000 years ago, the masses in the middle east were illiterate, superstitious, gullible and uneducated. No WONDER they fell for some good preaching.. it was the hot thing at the time. They hardly had NETFLIX.

To sell a lot of books and become famous? (I'm joking, of course. People didn't buy books then because books - as we know them - weren't invented.

That's right. Most people were illiterate.. they couldn't look up facts like we can. This would make the masses more easily persuaded by clever rhetoric and magic tricks.

Water into wine... puhlease.. any magician worth his SALT could perform that kind of illusion. EVEN back then.

"He said that the jugs were full of water.. I know because a friend of a friend told a friend of mine that his wife tried a jug and it LOOKED like water a lot. NOW.. it's all wine.... "

People didn't become famous for inventing a supernatural happening.)

Yes.. they do. I suggest you look up "faith healers".
Some of those are very famous by invoking religious hocus-pocus.

Preachers weren't popular back then?
People were LESS gullible about magic and superstitions back then?... odd... I wonder how the religion got STARTED then. I thought the apostles had SOME street creds and a LITTLE popular.

Why establish the early Church?

For about the same reasons as most religions?
I suggest you look up "theocracy"..

Again, to be persecuted and martyred?

Maybe it was to feel good.. The people were being persecuted and martyred anyway.. so.. why not have some fun with your pals and drink a bit of wine and eat a little bread?

No?

I don't think the apostles had a "death wish" since all but John hid after Jesus was arrested.

They all hid .. ok.. they didn't have a death wish. So.. they didn't want to be persecuted and martyred. Guess they tried to keep it private and on the down low.

So they DIDN'T create a religion to die and be tortured and persecuted. I think you just answered your own question.

There is no possible motive for what the disciples of Jesus did - post-Resurrection - other than the fact that Jesus was, indeed, God, and the Resurrection was true.

WOW.. no possible motive but the one you give.
NO POSSIBLE MOTIVE ...

What about the possible motives that ALL preachers and religious people have had for as long as we know about humans?

What about THOSE possible motivations?
Not POSSIBLE?

It was POSSIBLE for billions of others around the world all through history.
And it was POSSIBLE for the early Christians too.

BUT JUST BECAUSE they believed something does NOT mean that what they believe IN was true or is true.

Belief is NOT fact.

DYING for something does still not guarantee that the something is true.

DYING is not a criteria for what is true.

So, sorry. Die for your beliefs if you want. but it won't prove that what you believe in is TRUE.

WHAT IS your criteria for what is true?

[Zzyzx]

.

Think of it as "Superscience"

I think of it as super-foolish. As an amateur vintner, I am aware of what it takes to make wine.

On a scientific note, Jesus couldn't conjure up wine out of thin air, he had to have atoms and molecules of water to work with.

When Jesus was being part of god, according to Bible tales, he created the universe out of nothing. It seems as though "divine power" is adjusted by Apologists to fit whatever argument they wish to make.

Same with some other of his 37 miracles, for example he had to spit in the dust to make mud pies to plaster over a blind mans eyes so the atoms and molecules could form themselves into new eyes.
Same when he reproduced enough loaves and fishes from a few samples to feed thousands of people.

Those "miracles" are claimed ONLY in gospel tales – written decades or generations later by people of unknown (or disputed) identity who cannot be shown to have witnessed events and conversations they record.

A reasoned and/or reasonable "explanation" for the miracle tales is super-imagination (or super-exaggeration / embellishment / fantasy).

In modern scifi terms we'd call it "Replication of Matter" or as I said "Superscience".
Conversely as far as we know, he couldn't restore missing limbs because there was nothing there to work with.

Was there not a person there to "work with?"

It is interesting and illuminating to hear Apologists say "God can do anything" and then "God can't do that."

[enviousintheeverafter]

I do not disagree with you that the women in the early Church were given some measure of respect or even that before Christ's crucifixion, the disciples gave women respect. However, in attempting to convert Jews and pagans to Christianity, the apostles and their successors were very interested that those people, who had not yet been converted and did not accept any elevated status of women, be convinced that the Resurrection was a historical event. The word of the women would carry no weight with the Jews and the pagans, those the apostles were trying to convert. They didn't have to convert the members of the Church!

But again, this assumes that the primary purpose of those narratives was to persuade people. I don't really believe it was the case that anyone was intentionally fabricating anything- I think the earliest Christians believed they had seen Christ, believed others had seen Christ, and their stories were repeated (often inaccurately), embellished, and added to, in the natural way that people do, not through any intentional deceit. And in the context in which this would have been occurring, women played both important leadership roles and were respected. Moreover, as I mentioned, that woman would have found the tomb makes more logical sense than the alternative (given women's role in burials), even if others testimony would have been deemed more persuasive. But it would have been pretty convenient if someone was reported as finding the tomb who happened to be a very credible witness despite their being at the tomb to find it empty not making any sense in the first place.

Please explain WHY the Boston Marathon bomber is not a good analogy?

C'mon... Really? Women were not necessarily criminals and pariahs, even if they were not accorded the same status as men in most contexts.

Please provide evidence that the “myth theory� is the predominant view among biblical scholars today. I know of only four out of hundreds.

Unfortunately, I'm not finding anything like a pew report or survey of the field that gives any sort of breakdown, and I can easily concede that this is merely my impression of the literature from what I've read.

Please provide evidence of large numbers of people being persecuted for what they know is a lie and dying, NOT by suicide at separate times (the Christians martyrs did NOT commit suicide), for something they knew to be false. (Please don’t say Muslim jihadists. They are committing suicide. Jonestown is also not acceptable. That was mass suicide, not individual martyrdom.)

Lots of stuff here. For one, there doesn't appear to be any relevant difference between suicide and persecution in this context, or between mass suicide and individual martyrdom- either way, they're giving their life (often in an unpleasant manner) for something that is likely false, and they may well know to be false. For another, in many cases its not like renouncing their belief would have meant they could live (Nero wasn't going to make exceptions for people who recanted their faith) anyways. And, as noted above, I think the far more likely scenario is not that anyone was lying or being deliberately deceitful- rather, they genuinely believed these things, and were mistaken.

Please provide evidence for your assertion that Christ was NOT buried in a tomb

That leaving bodies on the cross to decompose and be available to wild animals was standard Roman procedure is fairly widely attested by ancient sources (ancient tombstone inscriptions as cited in Hengel 1977, Horace's Epistle, White's translation of Artemidorus' Dream Book, Petronius' Satyricon, etc.), as is the common Roman practice of using mass unmarked graves for criminals (Sherman's translation of 1st century Greek historian Siculusm, Cohoon and Crosby's translation of Dio Chryostom in Discourses, Tactitus in Annals, etc.). We also know from Josephus that Pilate was cruel and inflexible, painting him as the sort of person who would not be likely to make special exceptions. Then there's the dubious textual evidence (inconsistencies, silence, etc.) concerning the burial/tomb tradition. All considered, that Christ was buried in a tomb, much less a known one, is not especially probable in light of the evidence.

Please provide evidence of one “mass hallucination,� i.e. a large number of people hallucinating the exact same thing at the exact same time, not a number of people reporting the same thing, e.g. an "Elvis sighting" at different times and places.

How about the 1995 Milk Miracle? Also, how sure are we that the report numbers of people having seen Christ are accurate anyways?

[Dropship]

It is interesting and illuminating to hear Apologists say "God can do anything" and then "God can't do that."

God can't do everything, for example in one of Jesus's parables Lazarus asked to be let out of hell to warn his family, but God said it was impossible to let him out because there was a "great fixed gulf" between there and here.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 338 by Dropship]

Who is more powerful than God to tell him what he can and can't do? If it's not a "who," but a "what," then WHAT law is higher than God that he must bow down before rather than change it?

[Dropship]

Those "miracles" are claimed ONLY in gospel tales – written decades or generations later by people of unknown (or disputed) identity who cannot be shown to have witnessed events and conversations they record."

Gospel-writers Matthew and John were actual disciples and wrote (or dictated) their gospels in c70 AD and c95 AD, Mark wrote his c60AD, he was a friend of Jesus's right-hand man Peter, and Luke wrote his c65AD, he was a friend of Paul who spoke with the risen Jesus..