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"?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Why is that so?

Stay out of my business.

Good Point! So why not even join a church?

?

Yes.
William Lane Craig you are not.

Okey dokey.

[TRANSPONDER]

As usual, So much said, so little understood and to so little point. I thought I'd mentioned Paul and his vision but the point is rather that the apostolic sightings do not match the gospels.

Opinions.

Now, if the Bible did not contradict there would be other problems. It was just wrong and appealed to miracles. But contradictions would not be an issue. The question really is, since the Bible does contradict so grossly, why do you still believe it?

Loaded question fallacy.

You are the one denying the evidence, not me in denial over some hypothetical harmonised gospel that doesn't exist.

The contradictions are nothing to do with Christianity deriving from Paul's teachings rather than the other way around. It is your objections that are Bogus.

Ok.

Then a lot of irrelevance that isn't worth responding to.

My responses, are about as irrelevant as what I am responding to.

Till you balk at the suggestion of visions of Jesus by the disciples. It is a bit of a reach, I'll grant but (I'll repeat) the differences with the I Corinthians accounts (plus Paul equating it with his own vision) given that the contradiction prove four different and invented stories, a vision of a )spirit) Jesus at least explains the problem, which Bible apologist denial doesn't.

I already responded to this. I stand by what I said.

But yeah, again, you can keep regurgitating the same stuff on various threads.

And I will be there with the axe.

You at least grudgingly allow the undeniable gospel evolution of Jesus from a meat puppet propelled and powered by the Holy Spirit to God pretty much present in a Bod -shaped Bottle called Jesus. Quite apart from Paul making it clear that Jesus was man Messiah and not God. It is proof that Christianity evolved Paul's views

Opinions.

Your syllogism test is Bogus. The argument from contradiction is valid, your denial is what's wrong. As is your dismissal of the point that Matthew having them go back to Galilee is contradicted by Luke, who even alters the angelic message that told them to go to Galillee.

Nonsense.

It is impossible for Matthew to contradict Luke on where they were to meet Jesus, when Luke doesn't give any account on where they were to meet Jesus.

This is an elementary fail of logic.

You are reaching.

You ignore or dismiss

Nonsense. Nothing you said was ever ignored..in fact, everything was addressed.

Now dismiss, yes...but ignore, no.

or pretend you don't understand

I do not pretend, if I don't understand, I let it be known.

and dude, you are not just all over with place but in fingers in the ears denial. And if you think that is winning you the argument you are grievously wrong. It only flags up the denial of those Bible apologists who will not listen.

Opinions.

What more, if anything, do you have? Well Strawman arguments (I am refusing to believe you don't know better). It is pretty evident that Gospels were written in isolation and they didn't know how they were contradicting each other.

Written in isolation, yet a large percentage of the material that they cover are dang near identical.

Makes no sense.

Luke and Matthew would never have had Nativities and Resurrections that contradicted so badly if they have seen each others' Gospels.

You think they contradict, and I find your reasons bogus.

And you schooled nobody. I knew that Paul actually contradicted the Resurrection before I ever cam here.

Did you??

If you did, then why would you conclude that the resurrection account was something that developed over time through all four Gospels, when we have an account (1 Corinth) which precedes all four Gospels?

Makes no sense.

I had to point that out to you, and then you backpedaled from that by making the historically outrageous claim that it was the four Gospels that got the idea of the resurrection from Paul!!

SMH.

Gotta keep the skepticism alive though, right.

You are the one who refuses to be schooled that one does not confirm the other. I also know that the empty tomb is an original claim. As such it is a prime apologetic. I have pointed out some plot problems which you first tried to excuse with 'Oh they were upset'

Yeah, so um...the author of Mark clearly states that the women saw/knew that the tomb was sealed so that no one could get in (15:47).

So if the author has the women KNOWING THIS, then why would he then narrative it suddenly dawning on them the question of who would remove the stone?

Was the author that naïve? No. He recorded it because it happened, thats why.

And the Bible is known for recording events that doesn't put even some of its key characters in the best light...David's transgressions, Moses' folly, Solomon's blunders, that situation with Noah, and even the ignorance of the apostles...and in this case (in your opinion), the absentmindedness of the women.

It happens, and it happened...whether we like it or not.

Now again, the women were apparently so fixated in anointing Jesus' body, and in their grief forgot that there was a stone blocking the entrance.

The fact that you are even raising this objection goes to show the lengths that you are going through to keep your skepticism sharp.

and when I trashed that you ignore the evidence and just rely on the claim as evidence of the claim. Venom old mate you are the one in the mess, shambles and confusion, not me. You have to ignore the points, strawman the points or dismiss the points. Pretty much par for apologetics course.

The point is the plot problems may indicate that the empty tomb (though common to all gospels) was invented and ran into problems of motivation, which produced contradictions, which are there, denial or no.

Sure, whatever you say.

Most of your post is denial and rubbish. Just one example - I keep posting the same old stuff because you keep posting the same old denial. For example trying to deflect a straight question as to whether hard evidence of Gospel unreliability doesn't give you reason to doubt as a 'loaded question'.

Your only point worth bothering with is the story construction. If course this is hypothetical but the clue is in the empty tomb being common to all 4. Thus it is a claim common to the original story. That it did not originally have an angelic explanation is proven by John not having it and suggests (hypothetically - concedo) a later elaboration of the original claim. This is hard evidence for all your denial or evasion of pointing to angels appearing later on with no message.

So the explanation (repeated) of why the women would go there at all (no good reason) and why it wouldn't have occurred to them that it would be closed is shown to be a plot problem arising from a claim that hadn't been thought through. That is proven by various plot -solutions John gives no reason at all. The synoptic original evidently said it was to anoint the body, but Matthew clearly sees this makes no sense as this had already been done. So he does drop that reason, says they just went to look at the tomb (not very ingenious) and found it opened up by an angel which is described in detail.

So denial aside, it makes more sense to ascribe it to a conflicting story derived from a simple claim 'The tomb was empty - Jesus must have got up and walked'.

What else. Yes, there are common elements in the story which prove an original source. That only goes to show in the purple pencil of redaction criticism, what has been altered, added to or omitted.

Your excuses are irrelevant. The actions of the women contradict your attempt to appeal to the excuse of them being confused. Your denial and failed excuses get you nothing. I reckon my argument is just as good and thus pretty much deflates the 'empty tomb' apologetic, plus having evidence in the incoherent plot and contradictions. You now change your apologetic from the women being Distracted to them being fixated. Once they had done the job and set out, it only then occurred to them the tomb would be closed? Come on - it is your denial that it's even a legitimate point shows how you have to keep your faithbased denial obtuse.

What more. Oh yes, The crummy apologetic that the story makes so little sense, it has to be true or they wouldn't tell it. Sorry. These people were not the sharpest knives in the box, sometimes. And it overlooks that it is the contradictions that discredit a story that otherwise might pass.

[The Nice Centurion]

Why is that so?

Stay out of my business.

Sorry no, I mean doesnt the bible imply if not outright say that any christian should join a church?

Good Point! So why not even join a church?

?

You could teach apologetics there

Yes.
William Lane Craig you are not.

Okey dokey.

You are even better!

[We_Are_VENOM]

Most of your post is denial and rubbish.

Opinions.

Just one example - I keep posting the same old stuff because you keep posting the same old denial. For example trying to deflect a straight question as to whether hard evidence of Gospel unreliability doesn't give you reason to doubt as a 'loaded question'.

But it was a loaded question.

You asked why would I accept the Gospels when they contradict..."the Gospels contradict" is an alleged statement of truth that is embedded in the question.

The question is embedded with a unsupported (and false) premise...making it loaded.

I do not accept any premise that the Gospel accounts are contradictory...nor have you given any solid reasons as to why I should.

But the reaching that you have to do to prove your case is legendary.

Your only point worth bothering with is the story construction.

Which is about 95% of the contention between us.

If course this is hypothetical but the clue is in the empty tomb being common to all 4. Thus it is a claim common to the original story. That it did not originally have an angelic explanation is proven by John not having it and suggests (hypothetically - concedo) a later elaboration of the original claim. This is hard evidence for all your denial or evasion of pointing to angels appearing later on with no message.

See, that is where you are WRONG.

How can the fact that it did not originally have an angelic explanation be proven by John, when JOHN WAS THE LAST GOSPEL WRITTEN???

Makes no sense.

If John was the last Gospel written, then no prior accounts could have ORIGINATED from him.

Or do you not understand this?

You have the same blunder here, that you have with 1 Corinth and the Gospels.

SMH.

That, plus the fact that I already explained why John's account is different.

Still waiting on a response to that one.

So the explanation (repeated) of why the women would go there at all (no good reason)

You: There was no good reason for you guys to go to the tomb.

Mary Magdalene to other Mary: Who is this guy, living 2,000 years later on an online debate forum, to tell us whether or not it was a good reason to visit our Lord and Savior (and my son's) tomb?

Me to the women: I know, right. And the crazy part about it is, he doesn't even believe in Jesus!!

Mary: What?! Oh, then his opinion REALLY doesn't matter then.

Me: My sentiments, exactly.

and why it wouldn't have occurred to them that it would be closed is shown to be a plot problem arising from a claim that hadn't been thought through.

Hahahaha that hadn't been thought through?

It was thought through enough for the author to literally have the women ponder about how they would get in after he JUST told us that they knew it was closed, right??

Smh.

Sounds like the only thing that hasn't been thought through is your objections, mi amigo.

That is proven by various plot -solutions John gives no reason at all.

Syllogism test.

1. Joh gives no reason about X.

2. Therefore, X did not happen.

Non sequitur. Illogical reasoning.

Test FAILED.

The synoptic original evidently said it was to anoint the body, but Matthew clearly sees this makes no sense as this had already been done. So he does drop that reason, says they just went to look at the tomb (not very ingenious) and found it opened up by an angel which is described in detail.

You are reaching.

Matthew does not tell us why the women went to the tomb, so your explanation as to why they went is nothing but reaching speculation...gotta keep that skepticism sharp.

So basically, you are saying that Matthew had the women going to the tomb for no reason other than to look at it.

I guess the conversation was something like..

Mary Magdalene: Hey girls, it is boring around here. Lets grab some popcorn, and go stare at Jesus' tomb.

Other women: Aight, cool. Lets go.

Makes no sense.

So denial aside, it makes more sense to ascribe it to a conflicting story derived from a simple claim 'The tomb was empty - Jesus must have got up and walked'.

?

What else. Yes, there are common elements in the story which prove an original source. That only goes to show in the purple pencil of redaction criticism, what has been altered, added to or omitted.

Opinions.

Your excuses are irrelevant. The actions of the women contradict your attempt to appeal to the excuse of them being confused. Your denial and failed excuses get you nothing. I reckon my argument is just as good and thus pretty much deflates the 'empty tomb' apologetic, plus having evidence in the incoherent plot and contradictions. You now change your apologetic from the women being Distracted to them being fixated.

They were fixated with going to the tomb to anoint Jesus, while at the same time in a state of sorrow/grief.

Two things can be true at the same time.

Once they had done the job and set out, it only then occurred to them the tomb would be closed? Come on - it is your denial that it's even a legitimate point shows how you have to keep your faithbased denial obtuse.

This is apparently a key element to your skepticism that you just cant seem to let go.

It is silly, and I addressed it enough times.

What more. Oh yes, The crummy apologetic that the story makes so little sense, it has to be true or they wouldn't tell it. Sorry. These people were not the sharpest knives in the box, sometimes. And it overlooks that it is the contradictions that discredit a story that otherwise might pass.

There are a lot of things that are happening which makes no sense, even within the times of smarter, educated, more sharper knives in the box.

And we can these times 2022.

No charges for the lesson, spade.

[Inquirer]

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"?

I'm tempted to respond to this with "because it doesn't matter". A person "witnessing" the resurrection would not add anything of spiritual value.

Could a detailed observation and narration of the process of resurrecting settle arguments as to whether such a process took place or not?

Additionally these events took place at a time in history that long predates the scientific revolution, so the relevance of what would arguably be a scientific account has to be questioned here.

The proof of resurrection is not found in some analysis of the exact sequence of events that one might have observed inside the tomb, but in the fact that a dead person is now alive, walking and talking.

If you saw me executed, clearly and undeniably dead and then later saw me alive, walking and talking with you, would you reject that evidence because the exact process was unknown, unobserved, unrecorded?

Everyone who saw Christ executed, dead and later saw him alive is a witness to the resurrection so far as I can see things anyway.

[The Nice Centurion]

I'm tempted to respond to this with "because it doesn't matter". A person "witnessing" the resurrection would not add anything of spiritual value.

Keep your spiritual value! I 'm asking for witnesses!

Could a detailed observation and narration of the process of resurrecting settle arguments as to whether such a process took place or not?

It would be absolutely interesting, and really helpful!

Additionally these events took place at a time in history that long predates the scientific revolution, so the relevance of what would arguably be a scientific account has to be questioned here.

No, it is far better scientifical proof only to play appear and vanish again for cultists begging to see proof for a miracle! *BARF*

The proof of resurrection is not found in some analysis of the exact sequence of events that one might have observed inside the tomb, but in the fact that a dead person is now alive, walking and talking.

If you saw me executed, clearly and undeniably dead and then later saw me alive, walking and talking with you, would you reject that evidence because the exact process was unknown, unobserved, unrecorded?

Everyone who saw Christ executed, dead and later saw him alive is a witness to the resurrection so far as I can see things anyway.

Of course!
I would call foul, because thats the cheapest oldest stage trick cliche ever!

Its always the same. For example: The audience sees a stage magician entering a box, and after a little wile "the magician" leaves the box transformed into a sweet PENGUIN !
OF COURSE, NO ONE EVER sees the man actually transform into this penguin, even though THAT WOULD BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART TO WATCH!

I wonder why thats so? Awww-it couldnt be all a trick, could it?

But if James Randy, Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier had been invited to enter stage to look into the box while the magician transforms AND THEY WOULD SWEAR THEY SAW THE MAN WONDROUSLY TRANSFORM INTO A POLAR BIRD, things would be different.

Even more if they wrote it down in their books, they all would describe the same astonishing experience in detail, trying to find explanations and some time would pass without the trio calling it all out as conspirative psychological experiment on people.

[Inquirer]

I'm tempted to respond to this with "because it doesn't matter". A person "witnessing" the resurrection would not add anything of spiritual value.

Keep your spiritual value! I 'm asking for witnesses!

Could a detailed observation and narration of the process of resurrecting settle arguments as to whether such a process took place or not?

It would be absolutely interesting, and really helpful!

Additionally these events took place at a time in history that long predates the scientific revolution, so the relevance of what would arguably be a scientific account has to be questioned here.

No, it is far better scientifical proof only to play appear and vanish again for cultists begging to see proof for a miracle! *BARF*

The proof of resurrection is not found in some analysis of the exact sequence of events that one might have observed inside the tomb, but in the fact that a dead person is now alive, walking and talking.

If you saw me executed, clearly and undeniably dead and then later saw me alive, walking and talking with you, would you reject that evidence because the exact process was unknown, unobserved, unrecorded?

Everyone who saw Christ executed, dead and later saw him alive is a witness to the resurrection so far as I can see things anyway.

Of course!
I would call foul, because thats the cheapest oldest stage trick cliche ever!

Its always the same. For example: The audience sees a stage magician entering a box, and after a little wile "the magician" leaves the box transformed into a sweet PENGUIN !
OF COURSE, NO ONE EVER sees the man actually transform into this penguin, even though THAT WOULD BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART TO WATCH!

I wonder why thats so? Awww-it couldnt be all a trick, could it?

But if James Randy, Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier had been invited to enter stage to look into the box while the magician transforms AND THEY WOULD SWEAR THEY SAW THE MAN WONDROUSLY TRANSFORM INTO A POLAR BIRD, things would be different.

Even more if they wrote it down in their books, they all would describe the same astonishing experience in detail, trying to find explanations and some time would pass without the trio calling it all out as conspirative psychological experiment on people.

That is a challenge I agree, a spectacular event takes place 2,000 years ago and people strive to create some written record of it, what else could they do? I don't think it would materially help at all if their account said something like "and the room glowed and the dead body turned to smoke and filled the room, then the smoke cleared and our Lord was standing there looking at me" (for example), are you really saying you'd believe it more? like you'd react "Oh OK, then yes, that makes more sense, I believe it now"?

No, nothing could have been written beyond what was written that could convince a skeptic.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sorry no, I mean doesnt the bible imply if not outright say that any christian should join a church?

No, it does not say that.

You could teach apologetics there

If it is the Lord's will, then let it be done.

You are even better!

Dr. Craig is your favorite Christian apologist's, favorite apologist.

[brunumb]

Most of your post is denial and rubbish.

Opinions.

Oh, OK then. Let's amend that to most of your post is denial and rubbish and opinion. I'll go along with that.

[The Nice Centurion]

I'm tempted to respond to this with "because it doesn't matter". A person "witnessing" the resurrection would not add anything of spiritual value.

Keep your spiritual value! I 'm asking for witnesses!

Could a detailed observation and narration of the process of resurrecting settle arguments as to whether such a process took place or not?

It would be absolutely interesting, and really helpful!

Additionally these events took place at a time in history that long predates the scientific revolution, so the relevance of what would arguably be a scientific account has to be questioned here.

No, it is far better scientifical proof only to play appear and vanish again for cultists begging to see proof for a miracle! *BARF*

The proof of resurrection is not found in some analysis of the exact sequence of events that one might have observed inside the tomb, but in the fact that a dead person is now alive, walking and talking.

If you saw me executed, clearly and undeniably dead and then later saw me alive, walking and talking with you, would you reject that evidence because the exact process was unknown, unobserved, unrecorded?

Everyone who saw Christ executed, dead and later saw him alive is a witness to the resurrection so far as I can see things anyway.

Of course!
I would call foul, because thats the cheapest oldest stage trick cliche ever!

Its always the same. For example: The audience sees a stage magician entering a box, and after a little wile "the magician" leaves the box transformed into a sweet PENGUIN !
OF COURSE, NO ONE EVER sees the man actually transform into this penguin, even though THAT WOULD BE THE MOST INTERESTING PART TO WATCH!

I wonder why thats so? Awww-it couldnt be all a trick, could it?

But if James Randy, Richard Dawkins and Richard Carrier had been invited to enter stage to look into the box while the magician transforms AND THEY WOULD SWEAR THEY SAW THE MAN WONDROUSLY TRANSFORM INTO A POLAR BIRD, things would be different.

Even more if they wrote it down in their books, they all would describe the same astonishing experience in detail, trying to find explanations and some time would pass without the trio calling it all out as conspirative psychological experiment on people.

That is a challenge I agree, a spectacular event takes place 2,000 years ago and people strive to create some written record of it, what else could they do? I don't think it would materially help at all if their account said something like "and the room glowed and the dead body turned to smoke and filled the room, then the smoke cleared and our Lord was standing there looking at me" (for example), are you really saying you'd believe it more? like you'd react "Oh OK, then yes, that makes more sense, I believe it now"?

No, nothing could have been written beyond what was written that could convince a skeptic.

I laid it out for you as understandable as possible why it would be more thrustworthy.

And theologians and apologetics would fall over it.

For theologians "and the dead body turned to smoke" would answer the big theologian riddle if Jesus resurrected in a spiritual or in his original body.

Apologetics like Richard Bauckham would be no longer trumpeting: "Whoaaa - There were eywitnesses of eyewitnesses of eyewitnesses for after the resurrection, So you have to believe!"

He could instead present to us the real deal. Not some fairy tale David Copperfield.