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"?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #410]
The Huge market for Books like Strobels proves my point. "Evidence and Witnesses" help enormously to sell a religion.

Joseph Smith knew that and produced his "Witnesses" of the Book of Mormon.
(The Book of Abraham was a relatively minor clumsyness of his. LDS ignore it and Temple Lot settled for JS to be a "Fallen Prophet".)

Another "forum classic" proves my point: The try to use Occams Razor to prove that the resurrection is the most probable explanation for the gospel narratives.
viewtopic.php?t=32479

Still the question remains unanswered:
Why No Witnesses for the actual Resurrection of Christ?

Perhaps it would be helpful to study resembling mythological resurrections.
There are a lot. Can someone tell me which of them are narratively as nonexistent as Christs?

I know only the Romulus-case nearer - and this gets as shady and clumsy as Christs.
viewtopic.php?t=28819

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #410]

Yes. The thing about evidence is how it is presented. Advocacy for the resurrection always takes a biased view, while protesting that they are being objective. And people will fall for it unless someone shows them how they are being fooled.

Of course some will not want to know. Some may accept that it's all false but swing with it anyway. which is their business and they are hardly going to tell skeptics that they must be wrong.

The name of the game has always been the propaganda battle. Atheists have won the case for some time. The problem since then was to Get people to understand that and be ok with it. Too many have been sold a very effective lie. That religion is what you are and any attack on religion is personal. It is not hard to sell the Big Lie that religion is Good because it is what they and their society is. You cannot tell people that's wrong. In America this was given a huge boost by the Red Scare. And it is in its' own interest to keep the 'Communism' threat going even though it has long gone (what we have now is Authoritarian capitalism, and the cap badges make no difference). But all this is delusionary scare tactics to fool people, and religion is a very effective part of that, because people take religion almost as personally as National identity.

I hadn't meant to go all political, but that's where the presentation of the Story, the misrepresentations of Strobel and the like, and the whole national support for an exploitative and even dangerous lie leads there. To me the matter of why no witnesses to the resurrection is Academic at best. Much more practical is 'Why do people - even atheists- swallow the story that religion is Good, even if it isn't true?'

[Diogenes]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #410]

Yes. The thing about evidence is how it is presented. Advocacy for the resurrection always takes a biased view, while protesting that they are being objective. And people will fall for it unless someone shows them how they are being fooled.

Of course some will not want to know.

I agree more with this last, than with "how the evidence is presented." For most it does not matter how the evidence is presented, nor how strong the evidence is. Who presents the evidence may matter more, especially if the 'who' is yourself. For most it is only when they come to a place in their own minds where they are open to really examine evidence that a change in judgment can occur.

Until then, confirmation bias will rule, no matter how powerful the evidence. People will defend their faith as if their lives depend upon it. That is why forums like this are good for exercising ones writing and rhetorical skills and for spurring one to engage in at least a little research, but I have never witnessed a single debater here ever change their position publicly regarding their belief or lack thereof. It may have happened; I'm just not aware of it. Perhaps someone will volunteer that he either lost his faith or was converted by an argument here. I'll wait.

God did not need to "harden Pharaoh's heart." Pharaoh did that himself.

I was raised in an Evangelical home. My grandfather was an evangelist. My parents were ardent, tho' thoughtful believers. My friends were Christians. I still have many friends who are Christians or Mormons and I love and admire them. I went to a Christian college. I became a lay missionary to a foreign country. I led people to Christ. Like Luther, I harbored doubts, but understood that honest doubt was part of faith.

But eventually I realized thru study that my faith was misplaced. But it was no one's argument that changed my mind. It was only when I came to a place where I was open to truth that the scales fell from my eyes. The Book of Abraham is a prime example. The proof that Smith's "translation" of the papyri is phony is as solid as the proof for the Earth not being flat, yet the Mormon church still avidly defends it.

And speaking of Flat Earthers, once they get hooked into Flat Earth culture by some very goofy videos online, it is virtually impossible to get them to admit the Earth isn't flat. This and human resistance in general is documented in an excellent recent book by Kelly Weill.



[edit] I can't help myself. Speaking of wacky arguments and the tenacity of belief, this photo of the Lake Pontchartrain bridge in Louisiana:


... inspired arguments like:
"Its a magic trick, the designers changed the height of each tower to produce that effect."
"Clearly just the bottom of the lake is rounded." Clearly my personal favorite. I spit my drink on that one.
"Each tower is custom built to enable this optical illusion!!!"
"NASA edited that photo to make it SEEM like there’s curvature. Alternatively it may be mirage effect."
"Actually, it’s the lake hills that are causing the drop. The fourth power lines are on the other side of the water hill."
That one inspired this response:
"LAKE HILLS!??! Seriously, where did you get your education? A cracker Jack box?"

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. The fascinating thing about it is the process of denial. There is a choice before us all the time. To maintain the argument or give it up. When it goes beyond reasonable doubt and becomes denial of validated evidence, one has gone conspiracy -theory. There's degrees of this in all human thinking from partiality through denial to the crazy, and it becomes crazy when they start on saying that the world is conspiring to fake all the evidence just to discredit them.

I've got my own crazy theory I know it's not Accepted Dogma. I think I can approach it with critical thinking , though and not denial. But denial is a tempting option for those whose pet Theories are personal to them.

There is an old theist axiom - 'You cannot deconvert anyone - they can only deconvert themselves'. That's overdone, as I have seen several deconversions on my former board. But they had to accept the arguments. We have seen so much denial here. Sometimes the arguments are fair. Sometimes they are not.

I reckon the biggest false argument about the Gospels (which I maintain are the only things that really matter) is the one about 'weaving it together'. It's a method of covering up seriously conflicting testimony, and 'eyewitness error' is the excuse for it. And on the surface it looks convincing. Which is why the present the strawman - 'Suppose someone sees a car crash and they say it was a white Volvo and someone else says a yellow Prius'. It's a strawman because one says that the drivers got into an argument and the other says one pulled a gun an shot at the other.

You cannot claim the first left it out because he forgot it. Especially if two other witnesses don't mention it. It has to be a lie. This seems obvious to me but the apologists have been able to sell this fake argument for so long. Even to the experts.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #414]
What if the first witness lied for some reason, and also bought two more witnesses?

You cannot dismiss a crime alone on quantity of more witnesses against it!

You would not even want to see if one driver has a shotwound?

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #414]
What if the first witness lied for some reason, and also bought two more witnesses?

You cannot dismiss a crime alone on quantity of more witnesses against it!

You would not even want to see if one driver has a shotwound?

There's the limit of the analogy. We can have a lot more evidence in court cases but the old religious claims can't be checked. The jury has to make up its' mind on the evidence presented. The claim of the advocate that two witnesses must have been bribed to lie would not be a valid argument. Nor is it, apart from you starting from the assumption that it must be true. There's the problem with faithbased bias.

Of course the Faith claim will demand that the shot wound be taken as true unless disproved. But that's where the resurrection falls apart. There is no record of the fellow taken to hospital, so he can hardly have been shot. The excuses get thin. It was an added claim that gets disproved. The principle that serious omission by the others undermines a claim by one is valid. And the 'they all forgot or left it out or didn't think it important' excuses don't wash.

\

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #414]
What if the first witness lied for some reason, and also bought two more witnesses?

If the resurrection was a lie, the tomb would have not been empty.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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

There is an implication here....syllogism test..

1. There are no other resurrections accounts in HISTORY, that have been taken as credible.

2. Therefore, Jesus' resurrection account should not be taken as credible.

Non sequitur.

Test FAILED.

Failed logic aside, who is the big bad boss that gets to decide whether a resurrection account should be taken as credible, anyway?

Just an all-around failure in logical thinking.

I came up with the knowledge that we in fact don't take historical resurrection accounts as being credible.

"We" who? Those who don't believe it?

Surprise, surprise.

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.

Wow. Sounds like you got it all figured out. I am now an atheist. You've convinced me.

[We_Are_VENOM]

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.

Funny.

First you said that the women arrived for no good reason. Then you admit that Luke and Mark provides the reason for the women going to the tomb.

Wow. This is the first time my "reading comprehension" suggestion is towards the author of his own post.

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.

This is also funny. Because if that were the case (no rock), then why would the author include a rock-door to the entrance of the tomb in the first place?

All he would have to do is have the women go to the tomb, and discover it empty..and the resurrection is still "proven".

Makes no sense.

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.

Whether or not the rock was there or not, they would still have to look inside....the women looking inside is a given if the women were to discover the tomb was empty.

SMH.

Cmon now, people.

Something that none of the others mention, and is Matthew's invention. Guaranteed. Just like the tomb guard which nobody else mentions, either.

Syllogism test...

1. The others did not mention X.

2. Therefore, X did not occur.

Non sequitur.

Apparently your favorite one.

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.

It was a bodily resurrection.

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.

Jesus had an incorruptible body...and as it was pointed out to you BEFORE; Jesus' body still had crucifixion marks on it to appease the unbelief of Thomas.

Ignoring the points won't make them go away.

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.

This is nothing but filler of an otherwise poor argument.

[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.

All resurrection accounts were taken as credible naturally by their believers!
Only the quantity of, and the circumstances differ!