No one saw the ressurection

[bjs]

I see no reason to give credence to the resurrection. No one saw it actually happen despite the obvious importance of that in lending credibility to the idea of Jesus being special. In none of the stories does anyone see a resurrected Jesus who is not already a follower of Jesus despite the obvious importance of unbiased witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.

Imagine that you spent years living and traveling with a person. Then you saw that person killed. Absolutely, unquestionably put to death. Then you saw that person alive again a week later and you, as well as all the other people who knew that person well, were convinced that it really is the same person now alive. Would it matter if anyone saw that person come back to life? Wouldn’t that fact that the person was dead and is now alive be sufficient reason to believe that the person came back to life?

To make a more mundane analogy, imagine a place in your yard that is only grass. Now imagine that you walk out to that place tomorrow and find that there is a five foot tall sapling there. You did not see the sapling planted, but it is there now. Does the fact that you did not see the sapling being planted matter in any meaningful way? Would you insist that the sapling is not there because you did not see it being planted?

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story. If someone were writing a fictional story that they wanted to pass off as true it would make sense to have Jesus appear to various “unbiased� witnesses to lend credibility to the alleged event.

But if someone where recording actual events then the reason they do record any witnesses to the resurrection is because no one was there to witness it. If anything, this tends to lend a small amount of credence to the story. The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #18]solid body or new holy body ?

ah well, that's a whole other martshelf of wormcans. A New incorruptible body (and it has been arguethed in the past that Paul saw Jesus not as a one off -resurrection that showed how the dead would come to life, but a one -off raising of the Spirit to heaven rather as Elijah, and apparently Adam (whose spirit came as the son fo man to wipe out Adam's sin by Obedience) and I suspect David, also as a Messianic spirit since Jesus only makes sense in the 'David's son' question if David's Lord is in heaven sitting beside God (and i suspect the gospel - writers don't quite get the point, either).

and Jesus could not be born both before 4 BC and after 6 AD....and most of the rest of the book...

(i) And no, he couldn't take a Comfort Break while harrowing Hell.

Different birthtimes, different bodies. Makes sense, - or not!

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to The Nice Centurion in post #21]


"Nobody even said it had to make sense". It does indeed make sense, because it doesn't make sense. Claims that fail, plots that collapse and contradictions that mutually destruct like matter and anti matter producing giggawatts of denial that could power starship in the process. That all makes sense - in the context of a hypothesis that it is not true and it is all made up.

Mostly.

[Purple Knight]

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

No. I'm with you on this one. If you trust the gospels it's pretty solid.

Saw him alive.

Saw him dead.

Saw him alive again.

That = came back to life.

No one saw the resurrection is a lame nitpick. There are far better things to pick at than that, such as ancient people not having the instrumentation to tell for sure whether someone is dead or not.

[Wootah]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]Jesus resurrected in a closed dark cave, which would have made it difficult for a class of jewish schoolkids to stumble into that by chance. .

Yes...the point being (as I understand it) that whatever the resurrection was (aside I think the accounts are made up) it was not a miracle done by God (unless he was totally incompetent...which would explain a few things...) or he would have ensured that everyone who mattered saw it, so there was no more doubt about than about the battle or Actium, or the Neronian fore in Rome.

Everyone who mattered did see it. Technically if only God saw Jesus then still everyone who mattered did see it.

[TRANSPONDER]

For debate: Does the fact that the Gospels do not record any witnesses to the resurrection make the story less credible?

No. I'm with you on this one. If you trust the gospels it's pretty solid.

Saw him alive.

Saw him dead.

Saw him alive again.

That = came back to life.

No one saw the resurrection is a lame nitpick. There are far better things to pick at than that, such as ancient people not having the instrumentation to tell for sure whether someone is dead or not.

Yes - IF you believe the story and ignore or try to excuse all the dubious bits. Bear in mind that, for the beleiver, it is enough to dismiss all doubts and questions, but for someone not already bought in, the excuses and evasions aren't good enought to make this extra0ordinary claim beleivable.

It just comes down to Bible critics understanding the case (amazingly, hardly any seem to), people getting to hear it, and people being open minded enough to opt for the explanation that best fits the facts of what the story says - it is all made up.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #12]Jesus resurrected in a closed dark cave, which would have made it difficult for a class of jewish schoolkids to stumble into that by chance. .

Yes...the point being (as I understand it) that whatever the resurrection was (aside I think the accounts are made up) it was not a miracle done by God (unless he was totally incompetent...which would explain a few things...) or he would have ensured that everyone who mattered saw it, so there was no more doubt about than about the battle or Actium, or the Neronian fore in Rome.

Everyone who mattered did see it. Technically if only God saw Jesus then still everyone who mattered did see it.

God seeing anything is an unsupported and invalid claim and counts for nothing as evidence for evaluation. It is a matter of the supposed eyewitness testimony and (I hate to labour the point but I shall valiantly do so) so it comes down to whether the tall tale and extraordinary claim of the resurrection is credible. Especially given the extra Logical Entity of God having masterminded the whole thing. It is a valid point to make that it was very poorly witnessed and a god that organised it could have done it better. After all, IF one were to credit the resurrection -account(s) it would work better as a fake resurrection, just as the crucifixion account works better as a Fake crucifixion. But in fact (fact) the accounts would not (despite claims to the contrary) stand up in a court of Law, unless the jury was stuffed with primed and bribed jurors, which is what the Biblical apologists are banking on - that the peanut gallery will be as dismissive.

I wonder. I think people are quite willing to learn that they have been lied to and will get quite annoyed about it. So to sum up, your case has to overcome three hyrdles - the credibility hurdle (is it reliable as witness record?), the actuality - hurdle (if true, does it fit the facts better as a fake than a miracle?) and the 'God saw it' claim which is really a total irrelevance.

[DB]

[Replying to bjs in post #1]

Most scholars agree that the New Testament Scriptures were written between 40 - 90 AD - many men contemporaneous to the events of Jesus were still alive to refute falsified information - dispel any fabricated myths. The fact that the story of Jesus' resurrection has survived until the present day, and that many martyrs have given their lives for that belief right from the first century until now, is a profound testimony to the veracity of the event.

But, the most compelling factor is derived from the understanding that this was God's manner in which offered salvation to mean. The question is not about the logistical implausibility of a man, dead in the grave for three days, being revivified for forty days before ascending into heaven. But, rather, that man is in need of redemption, and that by God's willingness to raise Jesus from the dead although he became a curse by being hung on a tree, serves as a token that we, sinners, will also have the opportunity to be resurrected if we accept Jesus' final sacrifice for sin.

In other words, for those of us who did not have the privilege to witness Jesus' resurrection, we are convicted by the principle that lays behind it - we believe that God is holy, that Jesus obeyed God unto death, that God's mercy allowed Jesus' sacrifice to offer redemption to man - no matter in what manner the atonement played out in history.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to bjs in post #1]

Most scholars agree that the New Testament Scriptures were written between 40 - 90 AD - many men contemporaneous to the events of Jesus were still alive to refute falsified information - dispel any fabricated myths. The fact that the story of Jesus' resurrection has survived until the present day, and that many martyrs have given their lives for that belief right from the first century until now, is a profound testimony to the veracity of the event.

But, the most compelling factor is derived from the understanding that this was God's manner in which offered salvation to mean. The question is not about the logistical implausibility of a man, dead in the grave for three days, being revivified for forty days before ascending into heaven. But, rather, that man is in need of redemption, and that by God's willingness to raise Jesus from the dead although he became a curse by being hung on a tree, serves as a token that we, sinners, will also have the opportunity to be resurrected if we accept Jesus' final sacrifice for sin.

In other words, for those of us who did not have the privilege to witness Jesus' resurrection, we are convicted by the principle that lays behind it - we believe that God is holy, that Jesus obeyed God unto death, that God's mercy allowed Jesus' sacrifice to offer redemption to man - no matter in what manner the atonement played out in history.

Well, here we go again....those who have heard this before go and make coffee and a snack....

I won't comment on 'scholars', but I will say that the 'We' group who agree with your assertions aren't the only ones alive. There are many who look at the resurrection -claim and don't buy it. What's the evidence for it?

The record in the Gospels and Paul. Now, given that the story is set during the governorship of Pilate we have a 1st c AD date. No problem there. We can assume that the original story was circulating while Paul and the disciples were still alive.

That's all fine, but then what we get are evidences of alterations to the story, and serious ones. The original story in the gospels as seen through Paul's eyes is of a human, not a divine being as presented in the gospels, initially entering Jesus at the baptism, but Later On is there from conception. We can see the original facts or events already changed because it simply could not have been like that. The Passover release custom is reliably not true, on all that Jewish tradition knows. There's the problem. Even given the early date, the story has been changed. 2nd c AD and perhaps 3rd, much had been altered and added to and We can see the changes and additions by comparing them with other gospels and seeing the changes and additions.

I know - these are excused in various ways (Witness error) but I argue that it is clear to be seen that witness error will not explain away this evidence of ongoing revision of the story. And the resurrection is the worst after the unarguably debunkable nativities. They contradict totally. And if there had been an actual resurrection, the original story would at least look like it agreed.

I'm sure you will disagree, but I'm just saying, your claims won't wash. You need to have a better claim that 'most authorities agree 40-50 AD'. There more to be argued than that.

Also 'martyrs dying for what they believed' proves nothing. Islamic Martyrs died in their hundreds. You won't see that as evidence that their beliefs were true. The only aspect that may have relevance is that the disciples would not die for a lie. That is, that they died rather than deny they saw Jesus resurrected. Problem. We don't know whether they were martyred at all, apart from the dubious death of John in Acts, the only stories of martyrdoms are later church claims and we may take leave to doubt them. But even if they did die rather than deny the resurrection, what resurrection? It wasn't the one in the gospels, as comparison will show.

I suggest that it was a visionary resurrection, which is surely what Paul 'belatedly' experienced and he sees that as what the others (500 all together - plainly NOT what anyone saw on Sunday night) saw too - imaginary visions, not a solid body walking about.

Again, you will reject that - everyone does. But the evidence is there and the evidence that the disciples actually died for anything really isn't.

Finally your feelgood based on theology proves nothing. Even if Jesusfaith made you the happiest person in the world and lack of it made me the most miserable, that still wouldn't make you right and me wrong.

You are going to need better evidence than this.

[brunumb]

But, the most compelling factor is derived from the understanding that this was God's manner in which offered salvation to mean. The question is not about the logistical implausibility of a man, dead in the grave for three days, being revivified for forty days before ascending into heaven. But, rather, that man is in need of redemption, and that by God's willingness to raise Jesus from the dead although he became a curse by being hung on a tree, serves as a token that we, sinners, will also have the opportunity to be resurrected if we accept Jesus' final sacrifice for sin.

All that does is introduce another claim needing justification, that is that man is in need of redemption. This is nothing more than a biblical assertion, but it also contributes absolutely nothing towards verifying the resurrection event.

[TRANSPONDER]

But, the most compelling factor is derived from the understanding that this was God's manner in which offered salvation to mean. The question is not about the logistical implausibility of a man, dead in the grave for three days, being revivified for forty days before ascending into heaven. But, rather, that man is in need of redemption, and that by God's willingness to raise Jesus from the dead although he became a curse by being hung on a tree, serves as a token that we, sinners, will also have the opportunity to be resurrected if we accept Jesus' final sacrifice for sin.

All that does is introduce another claim needing justification, that is that man is in need of redemption. This is nothing more than a biblical assertion, but it also contributes absolutely nothing towards verifying the resurrection event.

Yep. After the stock 'trust the gospels' Bible - validation (which is what we argue here in what I suspect should be renames 'Debunking Christianity' forum) we just get a load of preaching. And I am aware - having been Authoritatively Told - that Preaching as defined in the Forum Rules does quite fit it, but that is what it is.

[DB]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #27]

Islamic martyrdom is a testimony that Mohammed lived and that he preached a religion - but, it is a mandate by the preacher himself - commit jihad in the name of God.
Christian conviction that leads to martyrdom is having faith as to what Jesus taught in general and became - you will be persecuted in my name but the world is not your home, i will be exalted.

These are two very different dispositions - one is strictly a lemming following orders, while the other is a derived mandate based on wisdom. That is, Christians had the opportunity to run and escape, but, through faith and understanding, they chose to suffer the consequences of their belief: persecution.

Again, the Faithful are compelled by the wisdom and purpose of the event, this is why Jesus declared that blessed are those who have not seen and believed - God implemented a means of redemption that was accessible to all eras, one that was equally meaningful to those who witnessed the resurrection, as for those who were preached the Gospel