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]

After no human was allowed to see the spectacular sensational actual resurrection, two more curious aspects of the risen savior arose!

1) Even his closest co-workers rather didnt recognice him at once: The two Marys thought him to be the Gardener while already speaking to him. The Emmaus Gang had to have their noses rubbed in by Jesus about his resurrected identity. Thomas wanted to inspect his wounds.

2) And then he still could have made up for letting intomb no ressurection-watch, by just staying, but instead the savior makes his escape to heaven.

[Replying to post 4 by Zzyzx]

I don't care what you believe.

What I care about is that my beliefs are not deemed ridiculous.

You believe that a corpse came back to life and then flew away. How is that not the very definition of ridiculous?

Why would a corpse that came back to life not fly away, if he isnt eager to share the fate of Frankensteins Monster ?
viewtopic.php?t=32345

And note; there is not even a narrative about the details of his ascension. And to my knowing no witnesses!

Why? And Why?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #487]

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.

Interesting is that I learned from experience that believers tend to flee from questions about bad evidence to one of two extremes:

1) With more evidence, everyone would be a christian, and there would be no free will!

2) No matter how much more evidence, not one god hating sceptic would turn into a believer'

Both extreme views are badly wrong of course!

And I see the panicking dogde of question!

[Peterlag]

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Just a couple things hit my mind...

1.) How do you get a witness when the guy is in a tomb with Roman guards outside and probably one heck of a big rock over the door?

2.) Why he was not spotted right away in the garden? He was raised with a different body.

[The Nice Centurion]

One has to wonder what personal gain you are referring to. Obviously in these days it is possible for some Christian ministers to profit greatly from their claimed faith, but that wouldn't have been the case early on.


Tcg

Church leaders and priests with sufficient followers always tended to live on good income.
Yeah, naturally even back then.
Or are you sure that the Sanhedrin, for example, went starving and in rags?

Yet the myth of poor harassed apostles is important for christian myth of course. That makes it not true.

They were even in the position to destroy Annanias and Zephyra for giving not all their money to the poor apostles.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Just a couple things hit my mind...

1.) How do you get a witness when the guy is in a tomb with Roman guards outside and probably one heck of a big rock over the door?

Explained not only in the OP(please read awhole before answering), but also detailed further within thread:

This wouldnt have been a problem for an omnipotent god!

2.) Why he was not spotted right away in the garden? He was raised with a different body.

And there goes the last little bit of credibility or evidence for the resurrection.

Essentially you are saying: it was just some bum crying he was a Zombie. Who would fall for that?

Especially since Miracle-time was over.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I'll have a closer look at this tomorrow but already I can see an elaborate rewriting of what the Bible says happened to make it work. And it contradicts the Bible which makes it clear that both the women were together at the tomb and when they reported to the disciples. The two discrepant stories requires you to rewrite the Bible to make it say what you want it to say.

Um, first off, you are WRONG.

Who is rewriting the Bible?

Everything I said comes straight from the text.

Or, you can tell me where I added or taken something out of the text.

You can't, because I didn't.

But what it says is that in John's gospels they both had no idea what had happened to Jesus. In the synoptics they did, because they had been told by the angel.

I already explained John. Please directly address what I said.

Your syllogism (wrong reasoning dressed up to look like philosophy) is wrong because negative evidence can be valid.

Yeah, but you are the one claiming that they contradict..and if that is the case, then there would be no possible way for the accounts to be harmonized...and as long as the explanations of the difficulties you presented are rational, then the accounts cannot logically continue to be said to be contradictory.

The point about contradiction - and they are real and you know they are but you have to try to explain them

No. More like the fact that I can explain them, makes them not contradictory.

- is that they have to be inexplicable by an excuse that they forgot or didn't know or thought it wasn't important.

Yeah...and in all of those explanations are enough in themselves to make them not contradictory.

That is the point that you are failing to grasp.

It has to be something significant. Like no angelic explanation in John.

Syllogism test.

1. There is no angelic explanation in John.

2. Therefore, there is no angelic explanation.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

Test failed.

Simple things like not saying you have a brother is a strawman of the actual serious omission.

Nonsense. Doesn't matter how simple it is, the rule of thumb still applies.

Just because X is not mentioned, doesn't mean that X didn't occur.

Whether simple, major, small, or big, the laws of logic applies to all equally.

Your attempt to explain this shows that you know it is a real contradiction and a valid question. And I don't thinkyou have explained it, not even with writing a new Bible to tell a different story to suit yourself.

I'll have a closer look tomorrow, but I reckon that's plenty for you to think about.

Please enlighten me on how/when I added or omitted anything from the Bible to prove my case.

I will wait.

Otherwise, your accusation is just a sound byte with no basis because you've got nothing to go against anything I say.

[We_Are_VENOM]

A P.s on Venom's post. I didn't claim that you did use the 'he forgot' excuse. I just gave that as an example of how apologists try to excuse away omissions. I say that the test case can't be excused, only denied.

Oh yeah, I did suggest that perhaps the women had forgot that the tomb was closed in during their process of mourning.

I stand corrected.

Do I have to revisit the empty tomb excuse? Sure you can appeal to 'people do dumb things'. I say that if they were obtaining grinding pr mincing or pounding or whatever they do with the stuff, and decanting it into jars, it is equally or more reasonable to suggest that 'How do we get in?' might have crossed their minds.

Syllogism test.

1. X didn't cross their minds.

2. Therefore, X did not occur.

Non sequitur. Fallacious reasoning.

On top of that this was clearly a bother to the gospels. Not John as he gives no reason, which (like no explanatory angel) is probably how the original gospel read. But the writer of the synoptic original (I think it is accepted that there was a common original, but Mainstream expertise says it's Mark, which I reject). scratched his balding head with his stylus. 'Wait...why the heck did they go to the tomb at all? To see to the body with burial rites and so on. That'll do."

First of all, no Gospel needs to explain why they went to the tomb. The point is, for whatever reason, the women went to the tomb.

No further explanation is needed.

If I tell you I am going to the grocery store, I don't have to tell you why...and you can assume I am going grocery shopping...but I may be going to..

A. Apply for a job
B. Go to holla at a woman who work there to get her phone number.
C. Buy some scratch off tickets
D. Exercise. It is 2 miles away and a fast-paced walk there and back will get my heart rate going.

Any one of those reasons will suffice, but I don't have to tell you anything.

So regardless of what the women went for, they went. All Gospels attest to the fact that they went.

All of this super-skeptical, nit picking, far reaching stuff is...quite frankly...disgusting.

Mark didn't question that. Luke didn't worry about it as he's already deleted the anointing for burial. Matthew dealt with it by saying they just went to look at the tomb, and explained how they found it open, because the conclusion that Jesus needed it open so he could get out...it has a few red flags. I can see why Matthew needed to work on his version a bit.

I already addressed this.

The point being, Venom old sausage, is that we can both make our claims but I can see how the problem was handled in evolving editions, whereas you can only rely on 'They were dumb'.

What more you got?

That is not what I am saying. I am saying "even if they were dumb, that still doesn't mean it didnt happen. People do dumb things all the time."

Oh yes. Jesus, chum. You need some Bible study. Or maybe you are just trying it on. There are 5,000 men fed bread and fish (Yukk (1) across the board, yes. But Matthew and Mark also have a second feeding of 4,000 which neither John nor Luke have. You may try to excuse this in one way or the other, but if that was the state of the Synoptic original never mind it being what really happened, Luke ought to have it if not John as well. I see Luke's 'Great omission' (as it is called as a way of sweeping it under the rug of faith) rather as Mark/Matthew material not found in Luke. The Syrio -Phoenecian woman, the cursing of the Fig tree and the quote from Psalms on the cross. That they all 4 have the basic feeding of 5,000 is irrelevant to the problem.

Nonsense. Ok, sure...there is another account of 4000 fed.

If Jesus fed 5k on Tuesday, and 4k on Thursday, what can we conclude?

Conclusion: Jesus fed thousands of people between Tuesday, and Thursday.

Plain and simple. Anything besides that is a super-skeptic who is reaching for stuff that just isn't there.

(1) sorry but the idea of cold flatbread and cold, bony sardines crossed my mind. Thank God for pot noodles.

The idea of warm, delicious cornbread and fried catfish crossed my mind. Thank God for Jesus.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to post 9 by Regens Küchl]
I posted two days ago in "Historicity" what I should have posted here:
Well, Nonsense, those of who believe in God (and I confess that I do) know that God has the power to be the cause of a missing corpse. That's precisely what Christians have believed for 2,000 years. Some cavil that no one was inside the tomb to tell us about the moment Jesus rose from the dead. Yet everyone seems agreed that by Easter Sunday the tomb had been securely sealed with no living human inside to witness the event. (Not that any human eyes would be expected to see anything inside a grave?) OK, so no one to witness it and write or even tell about it? So that dismisses the objection that no one saw and wrote about the Resurrection itself.

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Just a couple things hit my mind...

1.) How do you get a witness when the guy is in a tomb with Roman guards outside and probably one heck of a big rock over the door?

2.) Why he was not spotted right away in the garden? He was raised with a different body.

Why does no one read my posts or whole OP before answering?

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. .

Several problems with that reasoning.
The mythology stars an omnipotent god who could have esily arranged his greatest show to be witnessed by whichever people he wanted.
Why not teleport the greatest historians, physicians and rulers of the time to the burial site?

What? Not enough room for them all inside the tomb to watch listen and learn? No sufficient light inside to see the resurrection sufficiently?

Our omnipotent excellency cant have a problem with dealing with that!
Just make the tomb invisible to show only the rising Jesus therein. Or just send the angel (our god is too lazy to just will the stone gone ??? So he needs his angelic lackey ???) to dispose of the stone BEFORE RESURRECTION TIME and teleport half a dozen of the most important people of the time before the entrance and force them to watch.
Or Perhaps rather the people most involved in this?

How about snatching Tiberius Caesar, King Herod, Pontius Pilate, a young Paul (so he wouldnt even think of starting harrassing christians), Judas (to show him that his planned suicide got obsolete) and Peter (so he could at once start the propaganda machine for Jesus) and give them front seats for "the resurrection" ???

But aside that; That Jesus was alone in the tomb in no way explains the missing resurrection narrative!
For the gospels are so full of narratives of Jesus doing and saing things with no other person there watching that I dont even have to give examples.

Hell, the narrative even tells what Jesus did in Hades. He stroke down Death and Devil.
(Are we to assume that Death and devil couldnt wait to tell the evangelists about their shame?)
So how could the narrative pass its chance to describe the actual resurrection?

[Tcg]

One has to wonder what personal gain you are referring to. Obviously in these days it is possible for some Christian ministers to profit greatly from their claimed faith, but that wouldn't have been the case early on.


Tcg

Church leaders and priests with sufficient followers always tended to live on good income.
Yeah, naturally even back then.
Or are you sure that the Sanhedrin, for example, went starving and in rags?

Yet the myth of poor harassed apostles is important for christian myth of course. That makes it not true.

They were even in the position to destroy Annanias and Zephyra for giving not all their money to the poor apostles.

I addressed your speculation about Paul. None of this addresses my response.


Tcg

[Peterlag]

[Replying to Regens Küchl in post #1]

Just a couple things hit my mind...

1.) How do you get a witness when the guy is in a tomb with Roman guards outside and probably one heck of a big rock over the door?

Explained not only in the OP(please read awhole before answering), but also detailed further within thread:

This wouldnt have been a problem for an omnipotent god!

2.) Why he was not spotted right away in the garden? He was raised with a different body.

And there goes the last little bit of credibility or evidence for the resurrection.

Essentially you are saying: it was just some bum crying he was a Zombie. Who would fall for that?

Especially since Miracle-time was over.

I try not to read to carefully stuff that has a topic like this one because people who post like this often make stuff up. Like this statement that he got up from his tomb carefully not to wake up the Roman guards staying nearby is not in any of my Bibles. My Bible says the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow: And for fear of him the keepers did shake, and became as dead men.