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"?

[Clownboat]

Yes, the Gospels account of the resurrection can be taken as credible and contemporary history.

Where else in history are resurrections accounts taken as credible? I would like to compare these credible events to check for credibility.

[The Nice Centurion]

Yes, the Gospels account of the resurrection can be taken as credible and contemporary history.

Where else in history are resurrections accounts taken as credible? I would like to compare these credible events to check for credibility.

We have no real gospel accounts of the actual resurrection!
There are so much gospel scenes of Jesus when alone, told in narrative.
Why couldnt the narrator describe the act of resurrection precisely.

[Difflugia]

Why couldnt the narrator describe the act of resurrection precisely.

Because then we'd all know how to do it and it wouldn't be special anymore.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Where else in history are resurrections accounts taken as credible?

Where else is irrelevant.

Case by case basis.

In this case, it is credible and if there is any evidence against it, I haven't seen it yet.

I would like to compare these credible events to check for credibility.

Then it sounds like you got some digging to do then.

*hands shovel*

Instead of wasting time on here, get to digging.

Let me know what you come up with.

[We_Are_VENOM]

We have no real gospel accounts of the actual resurrection!

"He is risen".

That is the account.

Works for me.

There are so much gospel scenes of Jesus when alone, told in narrative.
Why couldnt the narrator describe the act of resurrection precisely.

There is a difference between "could, yet didn't"...and "did not, because couldn't."

The narrator could have, but didn't...is what I am trying to say.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Because then we'd all know how to do it and it wouldn't be special anymore.

Yeah, I am gonna send the builders of a space shuttle to your house so that they can teach you how to build one.

And after the lesson is over, I'd like to see whether or not you will "know how to do it" (build one)...and will it be any less special.

[Clownboat]

Where else in history are resurrections accounts taken as credible?

Where else is irrelevant.

Actually, I still find it relevant.
Therefore, where else in history are resurrections accounts taken as credible?

I would like to compare these credible events to check for credibility.

Then it sounds like you got some digging to do then.

*hands shovel*

Instead of wasting time on here, get to digging.

Let me know what you come up with.

I came up with the knowledge that we in fact don't take historical resurrection accounts as being credible. You had the opportunity to show otherwise and have failed to do so. You made your bed, so you need to sleep in it.

Unless you can provide examples, historically, resurrection accounts are not taken as being credible. No fear though, either are unicorns, dragon or competing god concepts.

[Diogenes]

This is an old thread that has recently been [ahem] resurrected. It deserves to be. I admit I haven't looked at this crucial aspect of the story for a long time.
We should start with the Gospel accounts. Mark, the earliest and perhaps most reliable of the four, says little about the burial. Matthew fills in some critical details:

...the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered before Pilate and said, “Sir, we remember how that impostor said, while he was still alive, ‘After three days I will rise.’ Therefore order the tomb to be made secure until the third day, lest his disciples go and steal him away and tell the people, ‘He has risen from the dead,’ and the last fraud will be worse than the first.” Pilate said to them, “You have a guard of soldiers [plural]. Go, make it as secure as you can. ”So they went and made the tomb secure by sealing the stone and setting a guard.

_ Matthew 27:62-66

According to Matthew, the Romans, the chief priests, the Pharisees, and the disciples all had compelling reasons to watch or guard the tomb, particularly on that crucial morning of the "third day."
Yet no one was present to observe those crucial hours.
Today Christians, en masse, wake early for 'sunrise services,' yet none were present for this, the first "Easter" Day. There were no Pharisees, no chief priests, no disciples. No One was there to observe the most crucial, the most important event in religious history, a history that claims to be an historical event.

Instead we get this obviously 'contrived decades later' fantastic version with a glowing angel that concludes in Matthew 28:2-4 with:

And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men.

But NO ONE witnessed this. No guards (who had miraculously passed out) no disciples, NONE of the interested parties. Instead just two, 'Mary Magdalene and the other Mary' casually stroll over later in the morning.

The details of this 'event' are even more unbelievable than the rest of the story. There is a reason for this. It did not happen. This is the stuff of myth, not history.

[The Nice Centurion]

This is an old thread that has recently been [ahem] resurrected. It deserves to be.

Thank you! And, to add information; I made this thread years back with my old account. When I forget how to log in, I made my new account. This debate is still worthy indeed!

I admit I haven't looked at this crucial aspect of the story.

No one has, to my knowing. (If someone knows better, please enlighten me!) And this fact in itself is an absolutely psychologically interesting one!

But NO ONE witnessed this. No guards (who had miraculously passed out) no disciples, NONE of the interested parties. Instead just two, 'Mary Magdalene and the other Mary' casually stroll over later in the morning.

The details of this 'event' are even more unbelievable than the rest of the story. There is a reason for this. It did not happen. This is the stuff of myth, not history.

Even if you come to this conclusion, the other important question of my OP remains unanswered:
"Even if it didnt happen, why did the chroniclers prefer to write it down without drescribing the most crucial and most miraculous part?"

[TRANSPONDER]

Thank you.

I'm sure sure what is meant by "no witnesses to the actual resurrection". As the story goes, there wouldn't be as Jesus resurrected inside the tomb with no -one to see it. It could have been any time on the Sabbath but more probably on the Sunday which began the Sabbath evening. The best guess is that it would occur shortly before Dawn on Sunday. Though the probability is that Jesus could walk through the rock door. It didn't need to be open. All that was 'needed' was for the women to arrive, for no good reason. Matthew only says 'to look at the tomb'. John doesn't give a reason. but Luke and Mark have the reason to bring 'spices' even though the anointing for burial had already been done.

I've already mentioned that the problem of getting into the tomb should have occurred to them - our pal Venom suggests they were distraught, but not so much that they hadn't been able to procure and prepare 'spices'. The whole thing smacks of a set scene to prove proof of resurrection. The tomb was empty and it had to be open so they could see it. But it didn't need to be.

I suppose one could say that Jesus could walk through wooden doors but not rock ones, but Matthew explains this problem by having an angel descend and roll the door away because the women will need to look inside. Something that none of the others mention, and is Matthew's invention. Guaranteed. Just like the tomb guard which nobody else mentions, either.

As we can discard Luke's penitent thief, and the Bible apologists should be glad of it as Luke says that the fellow would be in 'paradise' with Jesus 'That day', which means that Jesus would have to have already resurrected to escort his new pal to paradise, and let the believers explain that paradise wasn't the same as heaven.

Because if Jesus had already resurrected, it was in the spirit and the body was still dead in the tomb. Just like the one of the thief, no doubt tossed into a handy ditch for dog-food. Jesus didn't need a New Incorruptible body. And he certainly didn't get one. It was back in the old one with all the marks of crucifixion in otherwise it would look suspicious wouldn't it. One might think it was his twin brother. Who it probably was on the road to Emmaeus, as they should have seen some sign of his tortures. But ok, he kept hands and face covered until it was time for the Reveal. Perhaps when he dished out the bread and they saw the stigmata.

But, all that aside, nobody would have actually watched the process of bodily resurrection which was going on behind closed doors with Chernobyl -like rumblings and flashes of radiant light to imprint his bod and face on the Shroud. Not that Jesus or the angel remembers to tell the disciples to keep it for later exhibition.