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"?

[LilytheTheologian]

[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?

My truthful answer is "I don't know." If, when I was 20, someone would have asked me about my beliefs, I would have said that I WANTED to believe, but I didn't see how it could all be true. Then I studied more and more, and finally, after 12 years came to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. not because I wanted it to be, but because it simply was. There was no other reasonable explanation. And what remains, after everything else has been discarded, no matter how illogical - and I do not think Christianity is illogical - is the truth. But it does take investigation and study. What some people see an inconsistencies in the Bible, with study, not twisting, but study, are shown to be not inconsistent at all. One also has to study the words of Jesus, and his apostles, carefully, because they show, to some degree, what he knew and believed about himself and what others thought about him. Today, people don't know all the Bible requires of them, or all the knowledge it contains. That's why there are still biblical scholars.

Oh, I very much do believe that Christians will dwindle down to a "small remnant" of those who practice and believe, but I don't think Christianity will ever be treated as a myth. It lacks all the qualities of a myth. I think it will just be ignored more and more due to the extreme secularism of the world and because people would rather not be under God's authority. They want to be under their own.

I have yet to see a good motive for the establishment of the early Church. Why didn't these disciples simply go their separate ways, return to their former lives, as the disciples of false messiahs had done previously? And to the posters who say they believed Christ was divine, most of the disciples did NOT believe that until they saw the risen Christ. Even after Peter's confession, it's clear that Peter was not aware of the full import of his words. How would Christ have "fooled" these people in the first century? He didn't have the props David Copperfield uses.

[Hamsaka]

[Replying to post 361 by LilytheTheologian]

My truthful answer is "I don't know." If, when I was 20, someone would have asked me about my beliefs, I would have said that I WANTED to believe, but I didn't see how it could all be true. Then I studied more and more, and finally, after 12 years came to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. not because I wanted it to be, but because it simply was. There was no other reasonable explanation.

Hi Lily,

It's fair to say, then, your conversion was deeply personal, and 'consistent' or very resonant with your personal existence.

These are things that cannot be 'proven', or shown to be 'the truth' past one's own life. This same sentiment is shared with most other Christians, who had similar experiences of their own.

Outside the individual Christian or a group of Christians who agree with each other, there is no 'truth' that can be shown or demonstrated, except for a collection of ancient religious texts. Use of them for evidence of truth can't fly, for all the reasons already mentioned.

A person must have a particular, subjective response to what they hear about the Christian message. Unless one's had that, the message has no unique power, nor is it all that compelling. It's not even all that different than the themes running through other major world religions. The dead raising back to life is hardly uncommon, it seems to be something all gods can do at will.

I had no idea that I was far from alone, having been willing to believe, going through the motions in anticipation of belief 'kicking in' . . . and it never did.

It could be that people who don't believe simply can't. And Bible reading and studying makes skepticism worse for people like me, not better

[enviousintheeverafter]

[Replying to post 361 by LilytheTheologian]

The proofs of Christ's physical resurrection (like those stressed by Luke) need to be understood in the context of the growing internal controversy over the nature of the resurrection. But clearly, whatever else may be the case, followers of Christ believed various things about him, and quite strongly. That much is beyond any doubt.

Also, a word about the "500 eyewitnesses" bit; its already been noted that even if we take Paul at his word, it doesn't follow that this was a veridical experience. But we probably shouldn't take him at his word in the first place; its crucial to keep in mind that we don't have 500 people claiming to have witnessed something. We have one person claiming that 500 people witnessed something. Obviously a huge difference. And its curious that Paul is the only one to mention this, and that it is lacking in the Gospels- especially in Luke and John, who go to great lengths to emphasize the required proofs of Christ's resurrecton (Christ eating, letting people touch him, etc.). Given that they were intent on establishing Christ's bodily resurrection, one has to imagine they would have included a report of such a thing, if it had occurred and it was known to them. Its absence is highly suspicious and calls Paul's assertion into question.

[enviousintheeverafter]

And what remains, after everything else has been discarded, no matter how illogical - and I do not think Christianity is illogical - is the truth.

If one were to remove everything that is either inconsistent (i.e. illogical) or factually incorrect about Christianity, there wouldn't be anything left; a few moral teachings, nothing more. Certainly not a form of theism.

... I don't think Christianity will ever be treated as a myth. It lacks all the qualities of a myth.

I didn't notice this until it was quoted on another thread, so I'll post a similar response here as well. This is a really curious comment. What do you think the qualities of a myth are? The anthropological study of mythology typically identifies such qualities as

-claims about origins (creation of the universe, origins of life, good/bad, etc.),
-moral teachings
-the presence of gods and heroes (characters with supernatural elements or powers)
-themes about good/evil, night/day, life/day, justice/injustice, etc.

as being distinctive of mythology as such. But, obviously, the Bible has all of these things. Indeed, I'm having trouble coming up with a single distinctive feature of mythology which the Bible lacks... Any ideas?

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 361 by LilytheTheologian]

My truthful answer is "I don't know." If, when I was 20, someone would have asked me about my beliefs, I would have said that I WANTED to believe, but I didn't see how it could all be true. Then I studied more and more, and finally, after 12 years came to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. not because I wanted it to be, but because it simply was. There was no other reasonable explanation.

Hi Lily,

It's fair to say, then, your conversion was deeply personal, and 'consistent' or very resonant with your personal existence.

These are things that cannot be 'proven', or shown to be 'the truth' past one's own life. This same sentiment is shared with most other Christians, who had similar experiences of their own.

Outside the individual Christian or a group of Christians who agree with each other, there is no 'truth' that can be shown or demonstrated, except for a collection of ancient religious texts. Use of them for evidence of truth can't fly, for all the reasons already mentioned.

A person must have a particular, subjective response to what they hear about the Christian message. Unless one's had that, the message has no unique power, nor is it all that compelling. It's not even all that different than the themes running through other major world religions. The dead raising back to life is hardly uncommon, it seems to be something all gods can do at will.

I had no idea that I was far from alone, having been willing to believe, going through the motions in anticipation of belief 'kicking in' . . . and it never did.

It could be that people who don't believe simply can't. And Bible reading and studying makes skepticism worse for people like me, not better

Hi again,

It's nice to see you.

I never really had a conversion. I did believe, but not deeply and unshakably. It was more like, "Yes, I do believe, but there is this little kernel of doubt in me that I wish God would take away." Of course, that did not happen, at least not when I asked for it.

I come from a very religious Roman Catholic family. There are many priests in my family, some nuns, and two of my ancestors were archbishops of Strasbourg. I grew up in a Carmelite cloister, among nuns. Priests took to me school and to town festivals, etc. I have never been a stranger to the Church.

I got degrees in drama and French, but I'd always wanted to study English Literature, so when I returned to the US, that's what I did. Then I had a religious experience that most Christians do not have, which I won't describe here, and my entire life changed. It came out of nowhere. I wasn't looking for one, I wasn't thinking about religion, and I was happy enough at the time, but within a week, I'd changed schools and changed my major to theology and gone back to church. And my studies have confirmed my faith for me as I wrote above.

Not everyone who believes is going to have a religious experience on the scale I did (and I wasn't hallucinating, etc., I didn't "see" or "hear" anything, and I have good mental and emotional and physical health). However, I do believe people do have to be ready to accept God. It's a terrible analogy, but it's kind of like putting potatoes into fry into a pan that still cold - nothing's going to happen. To try to force Christianity on those who are not ready or who don't want it yet is going to upset them or make them angry. It's going to push them away. I agree with you completely.

I don't think Christianity can be proven to an unbeliever or disproven to a believer. There is no "hard" evidence on either side. For example, I DO DEFINITELY believe in dinosaurs because, for one thing, there are dinosaur bones, which I've seen. I believe in evolution. I believe in the Big Bang. I believe in God, and I believe Christ was God.

But I believe you're right: the experience of coming to God has to be personal. It can't be rushed or forced. For some people, it will never happen. It will happen for others when they least expect it, like it did for me. Others will always have an uncritical faith that asks no questions, and even I don't understand that one, but I don't doubt it.

I will debate someone, though I'm not the best debater and never was. But I'm not going to try to convert anyone. I think that is between the person and God. In debating, I just ask that people keep options open, but I don't seek to convert anyone. There is no faster way to make enemies. I don't really believe in "Ancient Aliens," but I watch the show with an open mind, and who knows? Maybe some day I will believe in them.

You're right, if I told people what happened to me, they probably would not believe it, so I refrain because there is no way to prove it. And yes, it is fair to say that it was deeply personal, and I think it was meant for me alone. (Just for the record, I did not "see" God or an angel or the Virgin, etc., nor did I "hear" them. I am skeptical of the goings-on in Medjugogie myself.)

Have a good weekend.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 361 by LilytheTheologian]

My truthful answer is "I don't know." If, when I was 20, someone would have asked me about my beliefs, I would have said that I WANTED to believe, but I didn't see how it could all be true. Then I studied more and more, and finally, after 12 years came to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. not because I wanted it to be, but because it simply was. There was no other reasonable explanation.

Hi Lily,

It's fair to say, then, your conversion was deeply personal, and 'consistent' or very resonant with your personal existence.

These are things that cannot be 'proven', or shown to be 'the truth' past one's own life. This same sentiment is shared with most other Christians, who had similar experiences of their own.

Outside the individual Christian or a group of Christians who agree with each other, there is no 'truth' that can be shown or demonstrated, except for a collection of ancient religious texts. Use of them for evidence of truth can't fly, for all the reasons already mentioned.

A person must have a particular, subjective response to what they hear about the Christian message. Unless one's had that, the message has no unique power, nor is it all that compelling.

Correct, and in contrast to Lily's testimony there are many on this forum who have had the opposite experience. They grew up true believers, eventually went into the ministry, or worked as lay preachers or missionaries until they studied more deeply and realized how preposterous their beliefs were. Many of those people still appreciate the core message of Jesus, to treat their neighbors with kindness and empathy, but as to the historical foundation of this or any religion, they found it absurd, impossible. For them it would be intellectually dishonest to continue with such a belief system and they renounce religion entirely. Others move from fundamentalist Christianity to something closer to the tradition of Rudolf Bultmann.

[LilytheTheologian]

[Replying to post 361 by LilytheTheologian]

My truthful answer is "I don't know." If, when I was 20, someone would have asked me about my beliefs, I would have said that I WANTED to believe, but I didn't see how it could all be true. Then I studied more and more, and finally, after 12 years came to the conclusion that it HAD to be true. not because I wanted it to be, but because it simply was. There was no other reasonable explanation.

Hi Lily,

It's fair to say, then, your conversion was deeply personal, and 'consistent' or very resonant with your personal existence.

These are things that cannot be 'proven', or shown to be 'the truth' past one's own life. This same sentiment is shared with most other Christians, who had similar experiences of their own.

Outside the individual Christian or a group of Christians who agree with each other, there is no 'truth' that can be shown or demonstrated, except for a collection of ancient religious texts. Use of them for evidence of truth can't fly, for all the reasons already mentioned.

A person must have a particular, subjective response to what they hear about the Christian message. Unless one's had that, the message has no unique power, nor is it all that compelling.

Correct, and in contrast to Lily's testimony there are many on this forum who have had the opposite experience. They grew up true believers, eventually went into the ministry, or worked as lay preachers or missionaries until they studied more deeply and realized how preposterous their beliefs were. Many of those people still appreciate the core message of Jesus, to treat their neighbors with kindness and empathy, but as to the historical foundation of this or any religion, they found it absurd, impossible. For them it would be intellectually dishonest to continue with such a belief system and they renounce religion entirely. Others move from fundamentalist Christianity to something closer to the tradition of Rudolf Bultmann.

True, Danmark, and I believe everyone's belief ought to be respected. I respect your right to NOT believe in God, but I reserve the right to have my believe in Christ as the Messiah respected as well. (You are respectful, I do NOT mean you.) We all have the right to believe as we do. I think all of us are doing our best to live the right kind of life according to our beliefs. Debating can be fun, and it can sharpen intellectual skills, but when it devolves into name-calling and insults, it's just wrong (again, I am NOT speaking of you.).

[Danmark]

True, Danmark, and I believe everyone's belief ought to be respected. I respect your right to NOT believe in God, but I reserve the right to have my believe in Christ as the Messiah respected as well. (You are respectful, I do NOT mean you.) We all have the right to believe as we do. I think all of us are doing our best to live the right kind of life according to our beliefs. Debating can be fun, and it can sharpen intellectual skills, but when it devolves into name-calling and insults, it's just wrong (again, I am NOT speaking of you.).

The believer should be respected, but not necessarily the belief. Is that a fair distinction? We should respect the person, but not necessarily the methodology used or the conclusion reached.

[LilytheTheologian]

True, Danmark, and I believe everyone's belief ought to be respected. I respect your right to NOT believe in God, but I reserve the right to have my believe in Christ as the Messiah respected as well. (You are respectful, I do NOT mean you.) We all have the right to believe as we do. I think all of us are doing our best to live the right kind of life according to our beliefs. Debating can be fun, and it can sharpen intellectual skills, but when it devolves into name-calling and insults, it's just wrong (again, I am NOT speaking of you.).

The believer should be respected, but not necessarily the belief. Is that a fair distinction? We should respect the person, but not necessarily the methodology used or the conclusion reached.

I think both sides should respect each other's beliefs, however that does not mean that either side has to agree with the conclusions of the other side or even how they were reached. I greatly respect the scholars on "Ancient Aliens," for example, and I respect their work, but so far, I don't believe it. I'm sure they would not believe mine. We are going to disagree - I even disagree with some believers - and that's okay.

[Danmark]

True, Danmark, and I believe everyone's belief ought to be respected. I respect your right to NOT believe in God, but I reserve the right to have my believe in Christ as the Messiah respected as well. (You are respectful, I do NOT mean you.) We all have the right to believe as we do. I think all of us are doing our best to live the right kind of life according to our beliefs. Debating can be fun, and it can sharpen intellectual skills, but when it devolves into name-calling and insults, it's just wrong (again, I am NOT speaking of you.).

The believer should be respected, but not necessarily the belief. Is that a fair distinction? We should respect the person, but not necessarily the methodology used or the conclusion reached.

I think both sides should respect each other's beliefs, however that does not mean that either side has to agree with the conclusions of the other side or even how they were reached. I greatly respect the scholars on "Ancient Aliens," for example, and I respect their work, but so far, I don't believe it. I'm sure they would not believe mine. We are going to disagree - I even disagree with some believers - and that's okay.

Then we can agree to disagree. I have no respect for utter nonsense such as the 'Ancient Aliens' silliness. I have no respect for the belief in astrology, YEC and science denial in general. I have no respect for the belief the obvious myths depicted in Genesis 'really' happened. I have no respect for religious beliefs in general that are used to justify calling certain classes of people 'sinners' because fundamentalism dictates [or so they think] they hold such unkind views. Why should I respect racist beliefs, whether or not they are generated by religious belief?