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"?

[David the apologist]

[Replying to post 1 by Regens Küchl]

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

Why would the early church reject something so theologically useful as the resurrection narrative in the Gospel of Peter, if not because it was constrained by the rather less theatrical narratives of the soon-to-be-canonical gospels?

Why would the gospel-writers make up a story so bizarre as the one that they tell about the risen Jesus not looking like Jesus at first glance, if not because that's precisely the story that the apostles told?

In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me. All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 2:

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Seems a tactic the theist loves to employ.

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

I suspect they ran out of time.
(Post 33).

...
In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me.

Well thank the Lord, 'cause you sure ain't got you no time to do your own work. (Post 33)


I present the above data so folks know what sort we're dealing with.

[Wootah]

So Houdini is locked in a box floating down the river to the Niagara Falls. All the reports say he got out but didn't see how. So by your logic they don't count as witnesses?

Seeing Houdini is somehow not evidence he got out?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 4 by Wootah]

Glad you brought up Hoodini. The witnesses were intentionally being misled i.e. slight of hand. I would not trust the witnesses of a magicians trick. Likewise why should we trust the writers of the resurrection?

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 4 by Wootah]

Glad you brought up Hoodini. The witnesses were intentionally being misled i.e. slight of hand. I would not trust the witnesses of a magicians trick. Likewise why should we trust the writers of the resurrection?

Yes - but do you note that you are raising a new point because this is necessary due to the refuting of the current point?

[instantc]

[Replying to post 4 by Wootah]

Glad you brought up Hoodini. The witnesses were intentionally being misled i.e. slight of hand. I would not trust the witnesses of a magicians trick. Likewise why should we trust the writers of the resurrection?

Yes - but do you note that you are raising a new point because this is necessary due to the refuting of the current point?

I wish everybody here would make a note of your post. If the current thread is about argument A, and argument A gets refuted, you don't get to "come back" by raising argument B that is essentially unrelated. An honest debater accedes that the argument is refuted and only then may raise alternative arguments to maintain the position.

Too often do conversations go along these lines (crude illustration, usually people tend to be more subtle):

A: Kalam Cosmological Argument proves God's existence!
B: No it doesn't, premise 1 fails for the reasons x, y and z
A: Aha! But, how do you account for moral values, if there is no God?

[Danmark]

Seems a tactic the theist loves to employ.

In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me.

I present the above data so folks know what sort we're dealing with.

Moderator Intervention
These and other remarks by several debaters do not advance an argument. Let's all stick to the arguments for and against the proposition, rather than get into references about how one argues or blanket statements about style or modus operandi
Rules
C&A Guidelines


______________

Moderator interventions do not count as a strike against any posters. They are given at the discretion of a moderator when he or she feels that some sort of intervention is required.

[Regens Küchl]

Let's turn this around, shall we?

Why would the gospel-writers fail to make up a story about this most important event, if not because they were constrained by what the witnesses to the empty tomb and post-mortem appearances actually said?

An impossible happening. Why, oh why did no one see it happen?
Could the reason for that be that it did not happen at all, because it is impossible?
Makes one think! Doesnt it?

Why would the early church reject something so theologically useful as the resurrection narrative in the Gospel of Peter, if not because it was constrained by the rather less theatrical narratives of the soon-to-be-canonical gospels?

Sounds very circular reasoning to me. The non-canonical gospels are dismissable because they were not canonized?

Why would the gospel-writers make up a story so bizarre as the one that they tell about the risen Jesus not looking like Jesus at first glance, if not because that's precisely the story that the apostles told?

Assuming you were told that some people met Elvis recently, but he didnt look anything like Elvis.
Still they know it was Elvis because he told them so, or in another case they got the felling it must have been Elvis after he left.
One other who would not believe it, was absolutely convinced because this Elvis let him touch his guitar.
Would you believe that it was really Elvis?

In short, your post is a pretty impressive piece of irony in that you've done quite a bit of my work for me. All I have to do now is take the lay-up by posing the following question: are the resurrection narratives reflections of actual events in first century Jerusalem, or were the evangelists smoking crack when they wrote these portions of their stories?

The question for debate was: Why are there no resurrection narratives?
You cant logically follow that up with the question about any thruthfullness of this nonexistent narratives

[Korah]

[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.