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"?

[Regens Küchl]

Here is a quote I found that will help the developing of the main thread theme debate.

But remember that my own concern is not the difference or growing of resurrection accounts nor the possibility of legend, but in this debate thread solely the question: Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection ?


http://ffrf.org/legacy/about/bybarker/rise.php

Urging us to consider who Jesus was, Christian apologist Josh McDowell offers three choices: "Liar, Lunatic, or Lord."[29] But this completely ignores a fourth option: Legend. If the Jesus character is to some degree, if not completely, a literary creation, then it was others who put words in his mouth and it is grossly simplistic to take them at face value.

A legend begins with a basic story (true or false) that grows into something more embellished and exaggerated as the years pass. When we look at the documents of the resurrection of Jesus, we see that the earliest accounts are very simple, later retellings are more complex, and the latest tales are fantastic. In other words, they look exactly like a legend.

The documents that contain a resurrection story[30] are usually dated like this:

Writer Date Resurrection passage
Paul: 50-55 (I Cor. 15:3-8)
Mark: 70 (Mark 16)
Matthew: 80 (Matthew 28)
Luke: 85 (Luke 24)
Gospel of Peter: 85-90 (Fragment)
John: 95 (John 20-21)
This is the general dating agreed upon by most scholars, including the Westar Institute. Some conservative scholars prefer to date them earlier, and others have moved some of them later, but this would not change the order of the writing [31], which is more important than the actual dates when considering legendary growth. Shifting the dates changes the shape but not the fact of the growth curve.

I made a list of things I consider "extraordinary" (natural and supernatural) in the stories between the crucifixion and ascension of Jesus: earthquakes, angel(s), rolling stone, dead bodies crawling from Jerusalem graves ("Halloween"[32]), Jesus appearing out of thin air ("Now you see him") and disappearing ("Now you don't"), the "fish story" miracle[33], Peter's noncanonical "extravaganza" exit from the tomb (see below), a giant Jesus with head in the clouds, a talking cross, and a bodily ascension into heaven. Perhaps others would choose a slightly different list, but I'm certain it would include most of the same.

Then I counted the number of extraordinary events that appear in each account:

Writer Extraordinary events
Paul: 0
Mark: 1
Matthew: 4
Luke: 5
Peter: 6
John: 8+

Notice that the curve goes up as the years pass. The later resurrection reports contain more extraordinary events than the earlier ones, so it is clear that the story, at least in the telling, has evolved and expanded over time.

In finer detail, we can count the number of messengers at the tomb, which also grows over time, as well as the certainty of the claim that they were angels:

Paul: 0 angels
Mark: 1 young man, sitting
Matthew: 1 angel, sitting
Luke: 2 men, standing
Peter: 2 men/angels, walking
John: 2 angels, sitting
Other items fit the pattern. Bodily appearances are absent from the first two accounts, but show up in the last four accounts, starting in the year 80. The bodily ascension is absent from the first three stories, but appears in the last three, starting in the year 85.

This reveals the footprints of legend.

The mistake many modern Christians make is to view 30 CE backward through the distorted lens of 80-100 CE, more than a half century later. They forcibly superimpose the extraordinary tales of the late Gospels anachronistically upon the plainer views of the first Christians, pretending naively that all Christians believed exactly the same thing across the entire first century.

Note that the "angels morphing into men" themselves never say that they personally saw Jesus actual resurrection.

For all we know from the canonical gospels, this angels could have heard of the ressurrection from someone who himself had the rumor from athe friend of a friend.
This is extremely unsatisfactory. As is the further illogic that the angel has to remove the big stone to show the empty grave.Which way then did Jesus leave?
Than the angel invites the women to inspect the grave if it is really empty, but the gospels are just reluctant to tell:Did the women dare to mistrust the angels by really entering the dark grave looking for Jesus ???

This stays unclear and so the witness siuation worsens as we study the facts.

The only gospel with clear resurrection facts I found so far is Peter

[Provoker]

Here is a quote I found that will help the developing of the main thread theme debate.

But remember that my own concern is not the difference or growing of resurrection accounts nor the possibility of legend, but in this debate thread solely the question: Why no witnesses for the actual resurrection ?....



....Note that the "angels morphing into men" themselves never say that they personally saw Jesus actual resurrection.

Hi Regens:
I think that your statement here is useful to show how one must think to understand scripture; I am told that the word "Angel" simply means messenger, so there would seem to be no need to think of angels morphing into men. Why couldn't messengers from God simply be men who witnessed the event, but what they saw was not politically correct enough to include in the bible?:-)
My real point here may seem to be off topic, bit it is pertinent to all topics here: There is not a religious language, and a secular language. There is only religious and secular things defined in the common language. However, while the common language moves on to knew words and new meanings over time, the language of our bibles is pretty well stuck in the 17th century. There are political, and doctrinal reasons why some words in the bible have not been translated, or not translated properly. This fact must be taken into account when attempting to understand scripture.
An example is the word "Baptize", which actually means "to bury". Bury implies "complete immersion", but King James was the titular head of the Church of England which baptized by sprinkling. The translators discretely transliterated the word rather translating it, and causing controversy in the church. Bible readers in the 1600s could interpret "baptize" however it suited their preconceived doctrines.
Do you see it?

[Regens Küchl]

Hi Regens:
I think that your statement here is useful to show how one must think to understand scripture; I am told that the word "Angel" simply means messenger, so there would seem to be no need to think of angels morphing into men. Why couldn't messengers from God simply be men who witnessed the event, but what they saw was not politically correct enough to include in the bible?:-)

Interesting, but I see some problems here:
(Note that by "angels morphing into men" I wanted to highlight that not even the gospel canon is coherent in not even this.)

1)Analogy: Do you know the modern Vampirism Subculture? They are to be found online too. People who call themselves vampires, but know they cannot fullfill the standardard of the vampires of legend and Hollywood.
So they explain: "After an emotional shock I was spiritually reborn as a vampire and drink animal blood I buy from the slaughterhouse."
Problematic here is that this means that everyone can call himslf a self styled vampire.

2) Arent simple men who also work as messengers from god called rather "prophets" and are handled by the bible distinctly than angels ?

3) How can this angels in the gospel be simply men when they show supernatural abilitys, features and seem to cause supernatural circumstances, like moving alone the stone from the grave (superpower) and coming with an earthquake (which no simple man could cause). In the Peter Gospel their heads reach the heaven like jesus´s which makes clear that they are supernatural like him.

I do not fully know what you mean by "not politically correct enough to include in the bible". The canonical "bible" did not exist for a long time after the gospels were written. A writer or translator would surely not pass up the chance to let an actual wittness have his say . If he found his language too rough, than he would have just put in his mouth something like "I saw Jesus the Christ rise in Glory with mine own eyes as clear as You now see this stone ! Amen."

But as the canon gospels are about the resurrection they smell like stage magician.
When the stage magician saws the girl in half her body is always inside the wooden box and no stage magician ever saws the girl in halfs without a box and for all to see.
Because that would be impossible, for he would only kill her and the happy ressurrection of a healthy girl afterwards could not be.
The canon gospels paint exactly the same pattern . . .
Yes, this one is one of my main points in this thread.

My real point here may seem to be off topic, bit it is pertinent to all topics here: There is not a religious language, and a secular language. There is only religious and secular things defined in the common language. However, while the common language moves on to knew words and new meanings over time, the language of our bibles is pretty well stuck in the 17th century. There are political, and doctrinal reasons why some words in the bible have not been translated, or not translated properly. This fact must be taken into account when attempting to understand scripture.
An example is the word "Baptize", which actually means "to bury". Bury implies "complete immersion", but King James was the titular head of the Church of England which baptized by sprinkling. The translators discretely transliterated the word rather translating it, and causing controversy in the church. Bible readers in the 1600s could interpret "baptize" however it suited their preconceived doctrines.
Do you see it?

Another Important example for false translating (which reaches not only from the KJV but from the original gospels is the "virgin" Mary.

The original word for it was "young woman" and not virgin, but our gospel writers read it wrong and and so the young woman mary morphed back into a virgin.

[Provoker]

Interesting, but I see some problems here:
(Note that by "angels morphing into men" I wanted to highlight that not even the gospel canon is coherent in not even this.)

1)Analogy: Do you know the modern Vampirism Subculture? They are to be found online too. People who call themselves vampires, but know they cannot fullfill the standardard of the vampires of legend and Hollywood.
So they explain: "After an emotional shock I was spiritually reborn as a vampire and drink animal blood I buy from the slaughterhouse."
Problematic here is that this means that everyone can call himslf a self styled vampire.

2) Arent simple men who also work as messengers from god called rather "prophets" and are handled by the bible distinctly than angels ?

3) How can this angels in the gospel be simply men when they show supernatural abilitys, features and seem to cause supernatural circumstances, like moving alone the stone from the grave (superpower) and coming with an earthquake (which no simple man could cause). In the Peter Gospel their heads reach the heaven like jesus´s which makes clear that they are supernatural like him.

I do not fully know what you mean by "not politically correct enough to include in the bible". The canonical "bible" did not exist for a long time after the gospels were written. A writer or translator would surely not pass up the chance to let an actual wittness have his say . If he found his language too rough, than he would have just put in his mouth something like "I saw Jesus the Christ rise in Glory with mine own eyes as clear as You now see this stone ! Amen."

But as the canon gospels are about the resurrection they smell like stage magician.
When the stage magician saws the girl in half her body is always inside the wooden box and no stage magician ever saws the girl in halfs without a box and for all to see.
Because that would be impossible, for he would only kill her and the happy ressurrection of a healthy girl afterwards could not be.
The canon gospels paint exactly the same pattern . . .
Yes, this one is one of my main points in this thread.
Another Important example for false translating (which reaches not only from the KJV but from the original gospels is the "virgin" Mary.
The original word for it was "young woman" and not virgin, but our gospel writers read it wrong and and so the young woman mary morphed back into a virgin.

Hi Regens:
I agree with everything you wrote here. The reason why I pointed out that angel means messenger, is to imply that if all the words in the bible had been translated rather than simply transliterated, the post-Nicaean Christian church would probably not exist at all. The hierarchy established by the church might not work if "angel" was translated as "messenger". The closest we could come to a one word translation of "Apostle" would probably be "messenger" as well.
The bible is full of doctrinal manipulation by playing with the words. Synagogue and church both mean exactly the same thing...assembly. The only reason I can see for not properly translating them, is to imply a political separation between Jews and Christians. It is already clearly explained in the gospels, that Jesus came to heal the backsliding of the Jews. Surely a thinking person can easily conclude that the assembly of Jesus(Christianity) was made up of backslidden Jews who came back to the Jewish faith...the faith of Abraham...the gospel of the coming kingdom/great nation.
Thomas, called Didymus, if properly translated into English would be "Twin, called Twin". It seems likely that these Hebrew and Greek words were not translated because some of the non-cannonical gospels claim that Thomas was Jesus' twin brother Judas...not Escariot. That knowledge would certainly throw a cat amongst the church's pidgeons:-) There is so much post-Nicaean church politics in the word play of scripture, that there is no way one can reasonably understand it without appealing to biblically recorded history as context.

[Regens Küchl]

Now I understand why historian Richard Carrier spent years to learn to read and write in four foreign languages.
And why he says that the historians two major qualitys must be: 1)recognicing lies and fakes when he sees it and 2)learnig to know and feel ancient cultures as clear as the one he lives in.
The problem of recently deliberately manipulated ancient scripture adds itself to the problem that a highly different modern culture of today just doest have in its language all words to translate it absolutely correctly a n d we have not the absolute understanding of how ancient culture comprehended the scripture.

I think I read that early christianity made the greek word for "church" split up from the word temple. Not sure here about the details.

Of course the modern verbal distinction between sinagogue and church makes sense `cause they are absolutely different in religion, in political might and more.

And some christian sects like Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons have gone back to the word "temple", wanting to declare that only they have ancient roots in true christianity.

However; No translation can cover up that in the gospel canon there were no actual witnesses for the resurrection

Someone above compared that to a closed room mistery. But this is an absolutely wrong analogy, while I am much rather inclined to ask for further debate: Why is the resurrection presented like a stage magicians trick

No witnesses for the actual happening.

Not even a narrative of the actual happening while there are narratives of other events that no christian could have actually witnessed like the secret talk of the roman guards with the jewish priests and then the secret talk of the jewish priests with pilate. But no word about the event of the resurrection.

The angels/messengers/young men fullfill the stage role by crying: "Look the girl was sawn in halfs when you didnt see it, but now it is healthy and pretty again."

And they have to remove the stone to show that the occupant of the tomb has already left.
Did he walk through solid stone, was the stone put back for better effect , or is it the bad writing of an untrue story.

Or (as a historic theory goes) was it the understanding of early christianity that Jesus changed his old body into a spiritual body and than (as I personally spin on this theory here for the sake of this debate) this new body was able to pass through walls which would also explain his later sudden appearance in a houseamong his apostles).
But then this new body still had the wounds Thomas put his hand in

Even assuming the most embarassing possibilitys logic does not follow.

[Provoker]

Now I understand why historian Richard Carrier spent years to learn to read and write in four foreign languages.
And why he says that the historians two major qualitys must be: 1)recognicing lies and fakes when he sees it and 2)learnig to know and feel ancient cultures as clear as the one he lives in.
The problem of recently deliberately manipulated ancient scripture adds itself to the problem that a highly different modern culture of today just doest have in its language all words to translate it absolutely correctly a n d we have not the absolute understanding of how ancient culture comprehended the scripture.

Hi Regens:
It is my opinion that if someone wants to understand the bible, he should not start reading suggeested verses in the last half of the book, and accept pre-conceived doctrines based on those verses. He should start reading at the beginning of the bible, and let the story of the bible build as he reads. When a continuous theme becomes clear, he should use that theme as context in which to interpret scripture. That way he can be rightly suspicious if at some point there is a radical departure from the continuous theme.
Think of a book which has the first half of one story, and the last half of another story. If we only concentrate on words and sentences from here and there, we will come to false conclusions and never become aware that the book is made up of two different stories.
It is pertinent to know that scripture was originally written as flowing narrative, and it was not divided into verses until the middle ages:-)

I think I read that early christianity made the greek word for "church" split up from the word temple. Not sure here about the details.

Of course the modern verbal distinction between sinagogue and church makes sense `cause they are absolutely different in religion, in political might and more.

They may different today, but they were not different in the first century. Jesus came to heal the backsliding of the lost sheep of the house of Israel...the Jews. They had backslidden from the faith of Abraham(the good news of the coming kingdom), and Jesus was committed to bringing all the backslidden Jews back into the fold from which they had strayed. The assembly of Jesus was made up of Jews who had returned to the faith of Abraham, after having been backslidden. The Christian Church was was the Jewish faith until the 4th century when Constantine turned it into the gentile, antisemitic, universal church of the Roman Empire.
It is clear that Paul was converting gentiles to faithful Jews. It is clear that Paul would not preach religious laws or rituals to his gentile converts. It is also clear that the one and only thing which defines a Jew is circumcision of the heart. Paul explained that God preached "the gospel" first to Abraham saying; "In thee shall all nations be blessed". That is a quote from the Abrahamic Covenant, believers in which, submitted to circumcision of the flesh. The reason Paul refers to circumcision of the heart, is because while the Jews were backslidden from the faith, they continued to circumcise the flesh, so it no longer defined a faithful Jew.

And some christian sects like Jehovahs Witnesses and Mormons have gone back to the word "temple", wanting to declare that only they have ancient roots in true christianity. However; No translation can cover up that in the gospel canon there were no actual witnesses for the resurrection

Someone above compared that to a closed room mistery. But this is an absolutely wrong analogy, while I am much rather inclined to ask for further debate: Why is the resurrection presented like a stage magicians trick

A little background context: While captive in Babylon, faithful Jews began to prostlytize for the new nationalist movement known as "Judaism", and since the purpose of Judaism is first to resurrect the kingdom of Covenant Israel, the sign that one had joined the movement was "baptism", which is symbolic of "resurrection".
It is quite possible that Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection, was an elaborately staged baptism ritual. In the garden where Jesus was crucified, was the tomb of Joseph of Arimethia. Rome did not crucify people in private gardens. Jesus was a buddy of Joseph of Arimethia, as was Lazarus, who had risen from, probably the very same tomb, a few weeks earlier. When Jesus and his disciples heard that Lazarus was dead, Jesus was unconcerned, and told his disciples that Lazarus was not dead. That certainly sounds staged:-)

No witnesses for the actual happening.
Not even a narrative of the actual happening while there are narratives of other events that no christian could have actually witnessed like the secret talk of the roman guards with the jewish priests and then the secret talk of the jewish priests with pilate. But no word about the event of the resurrection.

The angels/messengers/young men fullfill the stage role by crying: "Look the girl was sawn in halfs when you didnt see it, but now it is healthy and pretty again."

And they have to remove the stone to show that the occupant of the tomb has already left.
Did he walk through solid stone, was the stone put back for better effect , or is it the bad writing of an untrue story.

Or (as a historic theory goes) was it the understanding of early christianity that Jesus changed his old body into a spiritual body and than (as I personally spin on this theory here for the sake of this debate) this new body was able to pass through walls which would also explain his later sudden appearance in a houseamong his apostles).
But then this new body still had the wounds Thomas put his hand in

Even assuming the most embarassing possibilitys logic does not follow.

Do we know how heavy the rock was? Maybe he could have simply shoved it away:-)

[Student]

[Replying to post 16 by FarWanderer]

[font=Times New Roman]Please accept my apologies for the tardiness of my response. [/font]

If, for the sake of argument, we were to accept the existence of the supernatural together with an omnipotent deity, it would not be unreasonable to accept that this omnipotent supernatural being could reanimate/resurrect his own corpse within a sealed tomb.

As Danmark has already pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to find that there were no witnesses to an alleged event that took place inside a sealed tomb.
And it would not be unreasonable, to suppose that Jesus, with his new spirit body could literally spirit himself away from the tomb without troubling to roll away the stone.

Yeah. But if it were a spirit body, the physical corpse wouldn't have disappeared.

The Christians have to think that Jesus physically resurrected, and then teleported out of the tomb, or something like that.

Or that Jesus somehow physically opened the tomb from the inside, yet it was never reported despite the allegedly present guards.

Those are the only choices, or the empty tomb isn't a genuine "closed room".

[font=Times New Roman]Thank you. It was my intention to draw attention to this incongruity in the various accounts of the resurrection.

Paul, who makes no reference to a tomb, empty or otherwise, quite clearly states that it is a spiritual body that is resurrected. The physical, corruptible body is left behind. Consequently, there would be no need for the stone to be removed from the doorway of the tomb for Jesus to be resurrected, and for his spirit body to appear to the apostles and Paul.

However, according to the gospels, it is Jesus’ physical body that disappears from the tomb; to demonstrate this fact, it is necessary for the stone to be removed from the doorway of the tomb and for various followers to discover the tomb empty and the body gone. Jesus’ reanimated corpse subsequently has a number of interesting encounters with the disciples [who frequently, and inexplicably, fail to recognise him].

g.John represents some a sort of halfway house with Jesus resurrected spirit body/reanimated corpse initially being unready for physical contact [Jn 20:17]. Subsequently the resurrected spirit body/reanimated corpse teleports through walls, into and out of a locked room and permits the disciples to delve into his wounds.

Evidently, there was no hard and fast tradition [surrounding the resurrection event] to constrain each successive evangelist [both canonical and apocryphal]. Each evangelist therefore felt free to expand and elaborate the story as they saw fit.[/font]

[Regens Küchl]

[Replying to post 36 by Provoker]

Provoker, you misread my stone-problem.
I have no problem with the resurrected Wonderman simply pushing the stone away.
In fact this was always what I hold even for the natural understanding.

But I have a problem with the stone getting back in place afterwards by himself so that the angel can simply shove him again away for show.

Any Ideas?

But Provoker, your theory about the resurrection being a stage magiced jewish ritual demands attention.

We could be on to something here.

[Ancient of Years]

If, for the sake of argument, we were to accept the existence of the supernatural together with an omnipotent deity, it would not be unreasonable to accept that this omnipotent supernatural being could reanimate/resurrect his own corpse within a sealed tomb.

As Danmark has already pointed out, it would not be unreasonable to find that there were no witnesses to an alleged event that took place inside a sealed tomb.
And it would not be unreasonable, to suppose that Jesus, with his new spirit body could literally spirit himself away from the tomb without troubling to roll away the stone.

Yeah. But if it were a spirit body, the physical corpse wouldn't have disappeared.

The Christians have to think that Jesus physically resurrected, and then teleported out of the tomb, or something like that.

Or that Jesus somehow physically opened the tomb from the inside, yet it was never reported despite the allegedly present guards.

Those are the only choices, or the empty tomb isn't a genuine "closed room".

The stories have several instances of Jesus teleporting after the resurrection. In Luke Jesus disappears from in front of the disciples on the road to Emmaus and later reappears in the middle of the disciples in Jerusalem. In John he appears in the locked room two times. Teleporting out of a tomb should not be a problem,

[FarWanderer]

[Replying to Ancient of Years]

Yes of course it "should" not be a problem. But it raises questions like "Why is the boulder rolled back in some tellings?" and "Why does Jesus use his old physical body at all?"