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?

[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

The purpose, nature or indeed supposed validity of the religion behind the act of Martyrdom is irrelevant - what is relevant is that religious faith can [produce martyrs. Indeed you make the point yourself - Islam produces Martyrs, but not for a 'true' reason - which is the point I was making.

It is also a point that the majority of those martyrs did not see the resurrection themselves (in fact I doubt that any did) and so were dying for what they believed, not what they knew.

Personally I see no difference between Christian Martyrdom (die for your faith and you will go to heaven) and Islamic. After all, isn't that the whole idea behind the 'no atheists in foxholes' apologetic?

Again, ultimately it's the purpose that elicits the belief - God implemented salvation in a manner that reveals where one's heart lies. Those who believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, understand their necessity, whereas there is demography that does not grasp God's justice or righteousness.
The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead, is a token that He will do the same for others who abide by God's Word. Such a notion always creates a dichotomy between two very different types of character.

Sorry, that won't do. This is an appeal to Christian Dogma and appeal to the dubious resurrection claim as a 'fact'. That is demanding that too much be accepted as a Given. I know that the OP is a hypothetical - "Why didn't God arrange for everyone to see the resurrection - no doubts or arguments?" But your post doesn't even address that. It just demands that we accept the Bible and Christian doctrine, no questions. Save your fingers.

The world is a wicked place and you are one of its contributors - and yet, you feel no guilt, shame or awareness of that fact. That's not necessarily Biblical, that's an insightful axiom by anyone capable or willing to be honest and aware.

[brunumb]

Those who believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, understand their necessity, whereas there is demography that does not grasp God's justice or righteousness.

Those who don't believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, realise there is nothing remotely righteous or just in this charade allegedly carried out by God. Human beings do not need any salvation. It's all just a carrot to entice the gullible to join the club.

You don't comprehend morality, or its origins?

Enough to say that God, Jesus and the resurrection have nothing to do with it.

[brunumb]

The world is a wicked place and you are one of its contributors - and yet, you feel no guilt, shame or awareness of that fact. That's not necessarily Biblical, that's an insightful axiom by anyone capable or willing to be honest and aware.

What a monumental display of hubris.

[TRANSPONDER]

[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

The purpose, nature or indeed supposed validity of the religion behind the act of Martyrdom is irrelevant - what is relevant is that religious faith can [produce martyrs. Indeed you make the point yourself - Islam produces Martyrs, but not for a 'true' reason - which is the point I was making.

It is also a point that the majority of those martyrs did not see the resurrection themselves (in fact I doubt that any did) and so were dying for what they believed, not what they knew.

Personally I see no difference between Christian Martyrdom (die for your faith and you will go to heaven) and Islamic. After all, isn't that the whole idea behind the 'no atheists in foxholes' apologetic?

Again, ultimately it's the purpose that elicits the belief - God implemented salvation in a manner that reveals where one's heart lies. Those who believe in the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, understand their necessity, whereas there is demography that does not grasp God's justice or righteousness.
The fact that God raised Jesus from the dead, is a token that He will do the same for others who abide by God's Word. Such a notion always creates a dichotomy between two very different types of character.

Sorry, that won't do. This is an appeal to Christian Dogma and appeal to the dubious resurrection claim as a 'fact'. That is demanding that too much be accepted as a Given. I know that the OP is a hypothetical - "Why didn't God arrange for everyone to see the resurrection - no doubts or arguments?" But your post doesn't even address that. It just demands that we accept the Bible and Christian doctrine, no questions. Save your fingers.

The world is a wicked place and you are one of its contributors - and yet, you feel no guilt, shame or awareness of that fact. That's not necessarily Biblical, that's an insightful axiom by anyone capable or willing to be honest and aware.

nice job. You just did more for the atheist case than everything I've posted since I came here.

[DJT_47]

No one saw the actual resurrection, but so what? Many people witnessed the result of it however.

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to bjs in post #1]

I don't know about you but if I was following Jesus around and witnessed him do some things I could not explain like giving site to the blind, and then he told me that he would die and raise himself, like when he said tear this temple down and in three days I will rise it, not the father will rise, but He, Jesus will do it himself, and they said they understood that he spoke of his body.

And then I see that Jesus is crucified, I would probably begin to lose hope until one of my friends told me that Jesus rose. I have to touch his wounds myself, because I saw how they beat him almost to death. I know that no one survives Roman crucifixions, so I know for sure he was dead. If I can see him and touch his wounds, only then will I believe he rose.

Then if Jesus comes to me and says, touch my wounds, see it is I. I would be just like what Thomas said, "My LORD and my GOD." I would know he was God incarnate.

I wouldn't have had to see him raise with my own eyes.

If you witnessed all this wouldn't you believe?

If the gospels are true, this is what Thomas experienced.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to bjs in post #1]

I don't know about you but if I was following Jesus around and witnessed him do some things I could not explain like giving site to the blind, and then he told me that he would die and raise himself, like when he said tear this temple down and in three days I will rise it, not the father will rise, but He, Jesus will do it himself, and they said they understood that he spoke of his body.

If you saw Jesus giving (a) site to the blind, in no way would that be a miracle. Rather it would be very generous of Jesus helping the poor disabled blind to get a little more comfortable by providing them with a site to sit down and rest their Bones.

[Replying to bjs in post #1]And then I see that Jesus is crucified, I would probably begin to lose hope until one of my friends told me that Jesus rose. I have to touch his wounds myself, because I saw how they beat him almost to death. I know that no one survives Roman crucifixions, so I know for sure he was dead. If I can see him and touch his wounds, only then will I believe he rose.

No one survives Roman crucifications, save Josephus friend in his work about the jewish War?

[Replying to bjs in post #1]Then if Jesus comes to me and says, touch my wounds, see it is I. I would be just like what Thomas said, "My LORD and my GOD." I would know he was God incarnate.

I wouldn't have had to see him raise with my own eyes.

If you witnessed all this wouldn't you believe?

If the gospels are true, this is what Thomas experienced.

Why did his friends mostly not recognize Jesus?
Bad Impostor or glorious New Body? How did He look aftertomb? Like Elvis or like Adolph Hitler?

[TRANSPONDER]

For the reasons we see telegraphed in a lot of the book - the Plot requires it. Jesus had to remain unknown until Cleophas had Spoken His Lines. It is story -telling.

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #48]
That the tombgirls (Marys), who knew him well took him for the gardener aftertombs is very telling!
Telling what? Interestingly the non-recognizing scenes in the gospels seem the most authentic ones to me. It surely screams : IMPOSTER!

Cleopas? From the Emmausgang? Listen: I hope You know as well as I do that this Story is a copycat from an ASKLEPIOS Story wherein two travelers Who Visited his temple for healing travel back home none the better. They Rest and are Joined by a stranger. When the Stranger has left they (or was only on of them sick?) feel healed.
They recognize:"That was ASKLEPIOS!" He this time didnt heal this faithful at his temple, only afterwards.
And in this Story it is OK that they didnt instantly recognice Asklepios who was as legendary godly healer Not personally known to them.

What are

" the reasons we see telegraphed in a lot of the book " ???

[The Nice Centurion]

[Replying to Ancient of Years in post #2]

No one saw Moses and the burning bush ....

Dumb analogy for several reasons;
1) Wicked People could Do the unthinkable and deny that Moses existed and that bushes already existed in biblical times.

2) Who says that no one saw Moses and the burning Bush? Tuareg could have sneaked around the place.

3) Big difference here is that Moses Bushburning is AT last vlearly described as Narrative. Oh and until recently Moses was Seen as the author.

Why didnt Jesus Tell Cleopas his detailed resurrection? Or Tell IT to al physician like Dr.Luke?