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"?

[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.

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.

Funny? Hilarious. Luke says they arrived to anoint the body, and so does Mark. But Matthew says they just went to look. John gives no reason. There's a problem right there. Your reading comprehension is what requires attention. And tombs were always closed with a rock door. It would be like talking of an open grave just so it was convenient for people to peer in. So here the door had to be wished away, somehow. As you say. The women had to look inside. It wouldn't work if they arrived, found the tomb closed and couldn't get it open.

Yes. Contradictions in the story cast doubt on the story. Sequitur.

Well, yes, it could be claimed with regard to the resurrection of the body that could walk through the rock door. But nobody sees it. Not the (claimed) tomb guard. So If the body was still in the tomb, it could only escort the penitent thief to paradise in the Spirit, yes?

I'm not ignoring the point. It is the point that a new incorruptible body should have holes in so God had to fake a body that shouldn't have holes in just so that people knew it was Jesus. God could equally well have whisked the dead body away to India and faked a replica with the wounds in. When you have miracles, anything can be made to work.

But the point here is that the story is demonstrably concocted (because of the contradictions) so the question of how it worked doesn't arise.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Or the liar emptied the tomb to make his lie more credible!

This theory was already covered..

Matt 27:62-66.

Next..

[The Nice Centurion]

Perhaps the evangelists didnt describe "the resurrection" cause they did not know what to write.

I mean; supposedly the times they watched a deceasing body resurrect must have been rare so far.

How were the to know how exactly a ressurection looks?

Of course if they encountered that problem, they can hardly have been inspired!

[The Nice Centurion]

Or the liar emptied the tomb to make his lie more credible!

This theory was already covered..

Matt 27:62-66.

Next..

Ok - Matthew was the bodysnatcher. And he not only lied, but covered this lie in his gospel.

Covering his lie is what a liar does second best.

[We_Are_VENOM]

This is a classic example of the 'no true Scotsman' logical fallacy.
Based on your frequent use of logical fallacies, I will assume you don't know what I'm talking about. I'll explain with an example:
Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Nonsense. This fallacy does not mirror my logical reasoning at all..because my argument (up until that point) was not to discredit all other alleged resurrected accounts as credible (like Person A), but rather to credit Jesus' resurrection account.

So your fallacy is not an accurate depiction of what is going on here.

Your "gotcha" moment fails, is what I am trying to say.

There are many other resurrection accounts.

Well, we are talking about the Jesus one right now.

They have been provided for you. You discount all but one, the one you favor

They are discounted for good reason.

; however, your favorite resurrection myth is also not credible.

Opinions.

In a number of religions, a dying-and-rising god is a deity which dies and is resurrected. Reincarnation is a similar process hypothesized by other religions, which involves the same person or deity coming back to live in a different body, rather than the same one.
The resurrection of the dead is a standard eschatological belief . . . .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resurrection

Sure, and there are a number of Black, baldhead professional basketball players in the history of the game.

But I like one specific Black, baldheaded player the best (Michael Jordan).

BTW, did you look up the Dunning-Kruger effect?

Yeah, its messed up how that guy can torture you in your dreams.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Ok - Matthew was the bodysnatcher. And he not only lied, but covered this lie in his gospel.

Matt 27:65-66.

Covering his lie is what a liar does second best.

Gotcha.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Two questions that should be easy to address.

1. What tomb?

Jesus' tomb.

2. How do you know (assuming that you answered question 1.) that it was empty?

The Gospel narratives.

You were right, those questions were easy to address.

Tcg

You must atone for that riff raff blunder, sir.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Funny? Hilarious. Luke says they arrived to anoint the body, and so does Mark.

Well, now you have their reason, don't you?

But Matthew says they just went to look.

Reading comprehension.

Sure, Matthew "just" says they went to look, but Matthew doesn't say that they went "just to look".

You are reaching, sir.

John gives no reason.

Argument from silence.

There's a problem right there. Your reading comprehension is what requires attention. And tombs were always closed with a rock door. It would be like talking of an open grave just so it was convenient for people to peer in. So here the door had to be wished away, somehow. As you say. The women had to look inside. It wouldn't work if they arrived, found the tomb closed and couldn't get it open.

Well, they got in there, somehow.

See Gospel narratives for further details.

Yes. Contradictions in the story cast doubt on the story. Sequitur.

Well, yes, it could be claimed with regard to the resurrection of the body that could walk through the rock door. But nobody sees it. Not the (claimed) tomb guard. So If the body was still in the tomb, it could only escort the penitent thief to paradise in the Spirit, yes?

?

I'm not ignoring the point. It is the point that a new incorruptible body should have holes in so God had to fake a body that shouldn't have holes in just so that people knew it was Jesus. God could equally well have whisked the dead body away to India and faked a replica with the wounds in. When you have miracles, anything can be made to work.

?

But the point here is that the story is demonstrably concocted (because of the contradictions) so the question of how it worked doesn't arise.

.......

[The Nice Centurion]

Ok - Matthew was the bodysnatcher. And he not only lied, but covered this lie in his gospel.

Matt 27:65-66.

Covering his lie is what a liar does second best.

Gotcha.

We have no witnesses for the actual resurrection, so why should it be true?

[Clownboat]

[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.

Seriiously? That is where your thinking leads you? You seriously cannot even imagine another scenario about how a tomb could become empty?