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"?

[Student]

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.

On a scientific note water is comprised of molecules [H2O]; you cannot have an atom of water.

Conversely as far as we know, he couldn't restore missing limbs because there was nothing there to work with.

We might equally argue that as water generally contains very few carbon atoms, there would be nothing there [relatively] for Jesus to work with to produce molecules of ethanol, C2H5OH. Certainly insufficient carbon to produce a decent vintage.

[Elijah John]

[Replying to post 344 by Clownboat]

Having voiced my agreement of many of the examples you provided, I have to say, I do not think money and power was the motive of the early Christians and martyrs, nor of most Christians today.

I reserve my contempt mainly for the Fundamentalist prosperity evangelists.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 344 by Clownboat]

Having voiced my agreement of many of the examples you provided, I have to say, I do not think money and power was the motive of the early Christians and martyrs, nor of most Christians today.

I reserve my contempt mainly for the Fundamentalist prosperity evangelists.

If it's valid now, I see no reason as to why it would not be valid then.

From what I understand, being an ancient fisherman was not good work. Finding a way to be respected and given food/shelter would be incentive for such a person. Of course, I do not claim to know what level of fisherman these disciples may have been (those that were), nor their desire for fortune and fame.

I certainly don't believe that most people are Christian now days for these reasons. Some pastors though are obviously suspect. I find it reasonable that the early promoters may have been as well.

There are also examples of Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard to consider. Again, if it's reasonable now, it should be considered reasonable then too IMO.

[LilytheTheologian]

..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?

http://www.naij.com/55285.html
- Bishop T. D Jakes: Bishop Jakes lives in a $1,700,000 mansion. This man of God has been endowed with a $150 million net worth.
- Bishop David Oyedepo. Total net worth of $150 million and properties like 4 private jets and homes in the United States and England.
- E A Adeboye
- Benny Hinn: Israeli televangelist,Toufik Benedictus “Benny� Hinn has an estimated net worth of $42 million.
- Chris Oyakhilome: This is the man behind Believers’ Loveworld Ministries, a.k.a Christ Embassy.His church has an estimated net worth of $30 million – $50 million last year, the charismatic preacher was at the center of a $35 million money laundering case in which he was accused of siphoning funds from his church to foreign banks.
- Creflo Dollar: American Bible teacher, pastor, and the founder of World Changers Church International, Creflo Dollar, has an estimated net worth of $27 million.
- Kenneth Copeland: According to an article by the Associated Press that ran in 2008, “His ministry’s 1,500-acre campus, behind an iron gate a half-hour drive from Fort Worth includes a church, a private airstrip, a hangar for the ministry’s $17.5 million jet and other aircraft, and a $6 million church owned lakefront mansion.
- Billy Graham: American evangelical Christian evangelist, William Franklin “Billy� Graham, Jr., has a net worth of $25 million.
- Matthew Ashimolowo:
- Temitope Joshua: Synagogue Church Of All Nations (SCOAN) has an estimated net worth: $10 million – $15 million

Now what could be the motive?
Certainly not power, fame and fortune!

I don't disagree with any of that, but those men bear no resemblance to the first century Christians, who established the Church. Those are evangelists, mostly televangelists, and I don't deny that they are "in it for the money." Those men are not "men of God." They are "men of Mammon." The early Church, however, had little money and few other resources, and in addition, they had to take care of their own poor. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard also were not Christians. Today's priests, i.e. real Christians, earn about $40,000 a year, peanuts. and they work more than 100 hours per week.

And once again, suicide bombers WANT to die. The early Christians wanted to LIVE, but given the choice of dying or denying Christ, they chose death. There IS a GREAT difference. How many Christian martyrs ran into the old marketplace vowing to die and take everyone around down with them? None.

I still haven't seen a good motive for the establishment of Christianity other than the fact that Christ was, indeed THE Messiah. Other "messiahs' had come and gone, and their followers simply went their separate ways. They were forgotten. Christianity has grown and grown and grown until, as Dropship illustrated and said, it's the "biggest game in town." What accounts for this disparity? Nothing but the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was and is THE Messiah. The great majority of people don't believe in Bigfoot because he's not real. The majority of people don't believe in "Elvis sightings" because Elvis is dead. The majority of people are Christian because Jesus was and is Christ, THE Messiah.

[Hatuey]

[Replying to post 354 by LilytheTheologian]

Many religions have grown and grown, but that doesn't mean that they were correct.
And I don't think you should use the argument from popularity purely because if Christianity dwindled down to a few thousand, you'd still be proclaiming that it was correct, wouldn't you?

Please answer this question: let's say you were able to go into the future a thousand years. Been you arrive, you find no hint of Christianity. After much investigation, you find it is treated like an ancient myth of Greece or Europe. What would change in your mind?

[PghPanther]

[Replying to post 1 by Regens Küchl]

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

Why would the early church reject something so theologically useful as the resurrection narrative in the Gospel of Peter, if not because it was constrained by the rather less theatrical narratives of the soon-to-be-canonical gospels?

Why would the gospel-writers make up a story so bizarre as the one that they tell about the risen Jesus not looking like Jesus at first glance, if not because that's precisely the story that the apostles told?

In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me. All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

Why would any gospel writer make up anything?........

......after all the sources for the story came from decades of oral story telling where every attempt to pass on information can be poisoned by the sincerity of belief not a purposeful manipulation of any truth.

There are plenty of UFO books in which the author is sincere and believes of the accounts of other claims.

But sincerity in stories of claimed accounts from oral transmission don't have any correlation with what is true or not...............especially when its claiming supernatural events within the story.

I know of a story that passed among Christians of a person who was attacked by an armed gunman outside a church and the victim (a believer) was told to deny Christ and they refused to do so and the gunman shot them and the bullets fell miraculously at the victims feet and the gunman ran away in fright while the believer praised God of the miraculous deliverance.

This story was circulated in Bible studies, Young life youth gatherings and even told in church service sermons as a fact and proof of a God with sovereign will.

Over time investigation showed the person never lied about the story but just told some other believers he was threaten by (an unarmed) person outside of a church for his money and he gave some to the robber and started telling the robber about the gospel story of salvation and the robber had enough of the salvation gig and ran away from the preaching......

........over time the story in being told at the very start from the believer it happened to..............to other Christians who started sharing it with other Christians and then it started taking on other elements such as the guy had a gun....or that he had to deny Christ or be shot etc......

......and then over time that inflated story started to begin to grow supernatural elements within it and the enthusiasm for it grew.......to the point where bullets were fired and they ended up falling miraculously to the ground after the victim refused to deny Christ as their savior.

In the end nobody directly lied and everyone was sincere among the believers that shared this story..............but the story became embellished to absurdity from the reality of what really happened.

When it finally got back to the person it actually happened to they were very embarrassed and upset of what it turned into.

As a result, they tried to set the story straight but everyone he told would not believe him anymore even thought he was the very person who had it happened to!

People were so desperate to believe it was true that even when told the truth by the actual person it happened to they wouldn't believe their story........... or even believe he was the actual person it happened to....

....the story had a life of its own by now.

Now what is so different from that story to any other embellished gospel supernatural stories Christians take as actual truth and refuse to believe any other account that doesn't hold to what they want it to be?

The gospel message is an over zealous benevolent embellishment..........by believers who want it to be true.....it is not objective history.

[Zzyzx]

.

I don't disagree with any of that, but those men bear no resemblance to the first century Christians, who established the Church. Those are evangelists, mostly televangelists, and I don't deny that they are "in it for the money."

Wait a minute. The gospel writers are KNOWN as "The Evangelists" as were other Bible characters.

The term means:the preaching of the gospel or the practice of giving information about a particular doctrine or set of beliefs to others with the intention of converting others to the Christian faith. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evangelism

Or – any of the spiritual leaders who are assumed to be authors of the Gospels in the New Testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John http://www.definitions.net/definition/evangelist

How can a theologian NOT know that?

Is this another case of attempting to distance one's self (or sect) from disreputable members of Christianity by declaring that they "are not REAL Christians"?

mostly televangelists, and I don't deny that they are "in it for the money." Those men are not "men of God." They are "men of Mammon."

Can the same be said of ANY church officials who live ostentatious lifestyles?

The early Church, however, had little money and few other resources,

What information is available about early church finances? There is speculation that Paul/Saul profited from establishing churches – and there is speculation that he did not. Which is accurate and why?

Today's priests, i.e. real Christians,

What, exactly, is a REAL Christian? Who decides – on authority granted by whom?

earn about $40,000 a year, peanuts. and they work more than 100 hours per week.

Kindly provide sources to verify hours of work (and identify what is considered working hours).

The early Christians wanted to LIVE, but given the choice of dying or denying Christ, they chose death.

Is this fact or speculation? There are gospel stories to that effect; however, are there other sources of detailed information about the attitudes of those being executed?

I still haven't seen a good motive for the establishment of Christianity other than the fact that Christ was, indeed THE Messiah.

By that reasoning, unless a "good motive" for establishing ANY religion is identified it must be that the gods they worship must be real. Correct?

Other "messiahs' had come and gone, and their followers simply went their separate ways. They were forgotten. Christianity has grown and grown and grown until, as Dropship illustrated and said, it's the "biggest game in town."

Competing messiahs and religions did not acquire the backing of Roman officials to become the official religion of the empire – then spread to Europe – and from Europe forced upon conquered areas.

What accounts for this disparity? Nothing but the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was and is THE Messiah.

Salesmanship

Other popular and large religions are based on their icons ('messiahs", gods, heroes, prophets or whatever name). By this reasoning all those icons must be real. Correct? Or does Christianity have the only TRUE messiah? If the latter, how is that established with certainty?

The great majority of people don't believe in Bigfoot because he's not real. The majority of people don't believe in "Elvis sightings" because Elvis is dead. The majority of people are Christian because Jesus was and is Christ, THE Messiah.

This is the logical fallacy known as "Argumentum ad populum" or "The Bandwagon Fallacy" – fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."

[PghPanther]

..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?

http://www.naij.com/55285.html
- Bishop T. D Jakes: Bishop Jakes lives in a $1,700,000 mansion. This man of God has been endowed with a $150 million net worth.
- Bishop David Oyedepo. Total net worth of $150 million and properties like 4 private jets and homes in the United States and England.
- E A Adeboye
- Benny Hinn: Israeli televangelist,Toufik Benedictus “Benny� Hinn has an estimated net worth of $42 million.
- Chris Oyakhilome: This is the man behind Believers’ Loveworld Ministries, a.k.a Christ Embassy.His church has an estimated net worth of $30 million – $50 million last year, the charismatic preacher was at the center of a $35 million money laundering case in which he was accused of siphoning funds from his church to foreign banks.
- Creflo Dollar: American Bible teacher, pastor, and the founder of World Changers Church International, Creflo Dollar, has an estimated net worth of $27 million.
- Kenneth Copeland: According to an article by the Associated Press that ran in 2008, “His ministry’s 1,500-acre campus, behind an iron gate a half-hour drive from Fort Worth includes a church, a private airstrip, a hangar for the ministry’s $17.5 million jet and other aircraft, and a $6 million church owned lakefront mansion.
- Billy Graham: American evangelical Christian evangelist, William Franklin “Billy� Graham, Jr., has a net worth of $25 million.
- Matthew Ashimolowo:
- Temitope Joshua: Synagogue Church Of All Nations (SCOAN) has an estimated net worth: $10 million – $15 million

Now what could be the motive?
Certainly not power, fame and fortune!

I don't disagree with any of that, but those men bear no resemblance to the first century Christians, who established the Church. Those are evangelists, mostly televangelists, and I don't deny that they are "in it for the money." Those men are not "men of God." They are "men of Mammon." The early Church, however, had little money and few other resources, and in addition, they had to take care of their own poor. Joseph Smith and Ron Hubbard also were not Christians. Today's priests, i.e. real Christians, earn about $40,000 a year, peanuts. and they work more than 100 hours per week.

And once again, suicide bombers WANT to die. The early Christians wanted to LIVE, but given the choice of dying or denying Christ, they chose death. There IS a GREAT difference. How many Christian martyrs ran into the old marketplace vowing to die and take everyone around down with them? None.

I still haven't seen a good motive for the establishment of Christianity other than the fact that Christ was, indeed THE Messiah. Other "messiahs' had come and gone, and their followers simply went their separate ways. They were forgotten. Christianity has grown and grown and grown until, as Dropship illustrated and said, it's the "biggest game in town." What accounts for this disparity? Nothing but the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was and is THE Messiah. The great majority of people don't believe in Bigfoot because he's not real. The majority of people don't believe in "Elvis sightings" because Elvis is dead. The majority of people are Christian because Jesus was and is Christ, THE Messiah.

Your logic and comparison fail a critical analysis.

First the reason why Christian gained traction and became a dominant player in the world view of Western culture was that it addressed the promise of hope eternal and perfect beyond the struggle of a cruel and diseased ridden life so common among the illiterate and poor. When Paul took the message to the gentiles it gained rapid traction with the poor and superstitious just like it is doing today in Africa and parts of Asia.

When the powers to be in Rome saw this trend among the vast population of the masses it began to attract their attention as a vehicle for management of a population. Imagine a belief system where the scriptures tell we are to be subject to the government at hand because it was appointed by God himself and to pay taxes to that government since the money belongs to them and give to God what belongs to him. This attracted Roman officials into the fold as a way to manage these masses.

While church tradition (oral stories that is) claim a divine revelation to Constantine to make Christianity the state religion of Rome....history tells us a different story in which the emperor had an orthodoxy of doctrine hammered out of the various conflicting movements of Christ followers to establish a state religion as a way of control of his subjects. Since the state religion of Christianity started in Rome it spread through every succeeding Western democracy after that and became a dominant world view until a process known as science enlighten humanity in how to deal with reality and manage our environment through working models of consistent and predictable results in reality.

If it wasn't for Constantine using an orthodoxy of belief as a state controlling faith system the belief in Christ would have faded into history's dustbin.........

and to compare the lack of traction in Elvis worship or Bigfoot fanatics to Christ is absurd.................What consequences are claimed if I care or not about Elvis and Bigfoot in my life today........or as you think in the here after?

The demands of Christ and the corresponding consequences of it to your death are a shock treatment to the ignorant and superstitious.....Elvis and Bigfoot......UFOs??........just junk.

They only difference between that junk and your junk with Christ is what I explained above...........same obsession but just a different vice..........

Your confirmation bias does not allow you to accept the historical reality of your religion and so you claim truth where none exists.

[enviousintheeverafter]

Having voiced my agreement of many of the examples you provided, I have to say, I do not think money and power was the motive of the early Christians and martyrs

Agreed; though I believe that Christianity, including/especially its core scriptural/doctrinal claims, is almost certainly false in light of the evidence and conceptual problems, there is little to no evidence that the earliest Christians were being deceitful. All indications, and we have quite a few, are that they genuinely believed that Christ had risen, and was in some sense divine. But obviously that's no guarantee of the truth of their beliefs; especially not in light of the compelling counter-evidence and the far superior naturalistic explanations.

[enviousintheeverafter]

I still haven't seen a good motive for the establishment of Christianity other than the fact that Christ was, indeed THE Messiah.

Obviously a conclusion out of proportion to the facts; the motive was almost certainly that they believed Christ was the Messiah, or at the very least an individual speaking with divine authority.

Other "messiahs' had come and gone, and their followers simply went their separate ways. They were forgotten. Christianity has grown and grown and grown until, as Dropship illustrated and said, it's the "biggest game in town." What accounts for this disparity? Nothing but the fact that Jesus of Nazareth was and is THE Messiah.

That the belief is true is hardly the only, or even the best, explanation for why alot of people believe something. I mean, c'mon. As if large numbers of people have never been completely mistaken. Moreover, this is basically just ignoring the well-documented historical/sociological/psychological factors that have been identified as being crucial to the spread of popularity (Christianity's appeal to populism, the edict of Thessalonica, Christianity's aggressive missionary/apologetic campaigns, etc.).

The great majority of people don't believe in Bigfoot because he's not real. The majority of people don't believe in "Elvis sightings" because Elvis is dead. The majority of people are Christian because Jesus was and is Christ, THE Messiah.

Yeah, obviously its not that simple. Extend this line of reasoning to other beliefs that a great majority of people once held; that the world is flat, that mental illness causes demonic possession, that classical mechanics is correct, etc. etc. No offense, but this is a pitifully invalid argument.