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?

[Ancient of Years]

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?

Yes, it does make the resurrection story less credible. It was not a question of convincing those who knew Jesus intimately but of convincing others. Finding an empty tomb immediately opens the story to the charge that the body was stolen. Matthew makes it plain that a stolen body story was definitely making the rounds. Since none of the stories have anyone but Jesus followers ever see the risen Jesus, the stolen body story sounds very likely to everyone else. Why leave such an important event as rising from the dead – the payoff! the proof that Jesus was not just another crazy preacher! – without witnesses? Why not have some non-believers see the risen Jesus? Why leave the story so open to suspicion? It really happened that way? Then why was it planned that way?

The only detail that all the Gospels agree on is that the tomb was found empty. The rest of the stories are not just divergent but incompatible. Why is there not a single coherent story about what the disciples saw? Surely that would have been carefully preserved. For that matter why did they not tell some non-believers about what they saw and invite them to come see while Jesus was still around?

Hey there was this tree that suddenly appeared overnight in my back yard. Oh yeah? Let me see. Oh it’s gone now. But it was there for forty days. ……Right

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 2 by Ancient of Years]

Enter the "criterion of dissimilarity." The differences are what lend credence to the story's truth, don't you know?

I'm still dumbfounded this an argument for a resurrection.

[Ancient of Years]

[Replying to post 2 by Ancient of Years]

Enter the "criterion of dissimilarity." The differences are what lend credence to the story's truth, don't you know?

I'm still dumbfounded this an argument for a resurrection.

Small differences are typical of independent accounts. Large contradictions are problematic.

[Hamsaka]

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?

Not yet (but my head would near 'bout be spinning off my neck!). In this situation, I'd have to be convinced the person was really dead, first.

If I'd already been convinced that my friend was dead, by being with the body, and here he comes a week later, and I made sure it was him, I wouldn't have much choice but to accept what I saw. Rarely, a person can appear to be dead, to untrained eyes (I'm a nurse), but once you've seen a lot of dead people like I have, it's pretty obvious .

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 I see it planted there (and I'd rush out to lay hands on it after seeing such a thing appear), of course I wouldn't insist it wasn't there. "There" or "not there" are straightforward binaries. Doesn't matter if I didn't see it planted or not. If I can see it and feel it, it's there.

This analogy has some problems, if we're using it to affirm Jesus' resurrection from the dead. I assume the sapling is analogous to the resurrected Jesus? No one saw him literally rise from death, leave the tomb, but suddenly -- there he is, like the sapling?

A sapling is a common thing, and people have been known to sneak and plant things in secret . A resurrected Christ is tremendously extraordinary, and leagues more difficult a feat than the sudden appearance of a sapling. But I get the gist.

It would be SO much more difficult to accept a dead-now-alive and resurrected person than the strange appearance of a sapling. That's the problem I see, anyway.

If someone were writing a fictional story about Jesus then we would expect someone to witness the resurrection in that story.

Why is that?

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.

Yes, but I sincerely doubt the promoters of the resurrection story were deliberately passing of a fiction as truth. Considering the cultural mindset and it's influences, resurrection from the dead was believed to happen, usually to very special or powerful leaders (who were assumed to be partly divine). I'm not one to claim anyone LIED and that became the foundation of the Christian religion

But yes, it is expected that someone who has an amazing event to tell, will include the testimony of unbiased witnesses (if any) to the extraordinary event in their own re-telling.

But if someone were 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.

I'm not sure I'm following you (what I put in bold). A person recording an event they believe to be true, though they did not witness the event themselves, will include witnesses because there was no one there to witness it? Wouldn't that be embellishing the story, to add fictional witnesses when there weren't any?

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

Yes it does, especially to non believers who one hopes to convert.

A pre-existing acceptance of the divinity of Jesus Christ makes accepting the resurrection, witnesses or no, as easy as a hot knife through butter. For those of us who are skeptical of people rising from the dead, or the existence of gods and demi-gods, events like this (and of such import, according to Christianity) need considerable evidential support. The nature of the event requires it.

It's one of those things that one needs to believe already, if that makes sense. You'd have to have a considerable level of trust and acceptance before 'belief' can legitimately occur . . . because support for that belief (did it really happen?) is only found in the scriptures of the same religion that promotes the claim. It's like trusting Astro-Zenica's 'statistics' for their brand new super expensive treatment for IBS over the stats drawn by their competitor, GlaxosSmithKlein

[Zzyzx]

.

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

If there actually was an empty tomb (which has not been verified – beyond tales that make the claim), and if tales about people seeing the deceased are not verified, does it make sense to doubt the tales?

Would it make sense to doubt similar tales told about OTHER gods – or do you recommend believing what is told in stories about competing gods?

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?

If a long-dead, really-dead friend later visited with me personally (and I had no doubt it was the same person based on questions I would ask and based on actually touching and interacting with the person) I would have no choice but to accept that something "supernatural" that I did not understand had happened.

However, I would NOT accept TALES that someone else saw a deceased friend alive after being long-dead – even if the reporter was a trusted friend – so I darn sure wouldn't accept such tales from people I did not know or could not identify, and whose veracity I could not even investigate.

I would be VERY suspicious if the reporter had an apparent agenda of promoting certain ideas or beliefs.

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?

The "mundane example" can have a rational explanation in the real world. I can arrange to have a large tree delivered to someone's yard, during the night at added cost (without being supernatural). A spade-truck (http://dutchmantruckspade.com/ and http://local.moving.com/truck-rental/sp ... rental.asp ) can accomplish that "impossible" task with ease.

Thus, a "miraculous" event (sudden appearance of a tree in one's yard) can have a very rational, real world, explanation -- no gods required.

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.

Perhaps gospel writers were not very bright – or were unfamiliar with literary techniques?

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.

Gospel tales of the "resurrection" were written long after the claimed event – by people who cannot be identified by Christian scholars and theologians. We have NO accounts by people who saw the "resurrected Jesus" – except a claim that Paul/Saul saw him in a "vision" or hallucination or delusion or whatever it was.

No one other than cohorts even mentions the supposed sightings of Jesus or the "many saints" said to have been resurrected and "show themselves".

The gospel accounts defy what expect from fiction and instead seem closer to what we experience in real life.

Which of us experience in real life long dead bodies coming back to life?

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

The lack of witnesses to the actual claimed "resurrection" is just one of many reasons to regard the tales as less than credible.

[The Nice Centurion]

.bjs wrote:
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?

If a long-dead, really-dead friend later visited with me personally (and I had no doubt it was the same person based on questions I would ask and based on actually touching and interacting with the person) I would have no choice but to accept that something "supernatural" that I did not understand had happened

The False Jean d'Arc, years after the alleged public execution of Jean d,'Arc fooled even her own brothers beyond doubt.
She must have been very resembling and convincing to have achieved that.
So how can one even in extreme cases conclude beyond doubt that its the same person?

https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/502 ... c-imposter

(But magine her not even resembling Joan d'Arc and claiming to her brothers, her village and the King to have now a new body.
Even in the dark and superstitious middle ages this people would have just barfed!)

[MrPPT]

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.

You say there is no reason to give credence to the resurrection because there was no one to see Yeshua Hamashiach being resurrected from the dead. Obvious and of course you won't see Yeshua coming back to life after being dead for three days. But it did happen.

There are plenty of reason you won't see Yeshua coming back to life after being dead for three days. I don't know all the reasons but I can give you some irrefutable reasons why the resurrection was not witnessed at the moment of life.
1. Yeshua HaMashiach was buried in a tomb, the tomb was sealed with a big stone about 4 - 6 ft in diameter and about an inch thick. The stone itself would weigh between 1 tonne/1000 kilos to 2 tonne/2000 kilos. It would take 2 or 3 very strong men to move this stone, and I do believe there were no forklifts around to help them move it. So this is your first problem you have to remove in order for the resurrection to be witnessed.

2. This point is the biggest problem you have to remove before you can move the stone away to witness the resurrection; the tomb was guarded by Roman Centurions also known as a guard, and a guard of Roman soldiers back in those days quantified probably 16 Roman Soldiers, these soldiers were trained in war, and deadly skilled in their careers. They also knew the consequences for their failure so they had every rationale reason to kill anybody who tried to "steal" the body of Yeshua Hamashiach. If you don't know what the consequences are for their failures, do some research yourself.

3. This point is what the Roman Guard based all their decisions on when the guarded the tomb of Yeshua Hamshiach. The tomb was sealed with the Roman seal, which means by emperor's authority the tomb was sealed. The seal was acquired by the Jewish authorities then because they remembered Yeshua's confession of Him rising again on the third day, so the Jewish authorities used this statement made by Yeshua as warrantable for having the seal administered to the tomb. With this seal in place, the Roman guard will kill everyone who tried to break it, because breaking the seal is like breaking the law and the law this seal represented was established by emperor Caesar himself administered by Pontius Pilate.

So now you have articulated to you three very good reasons why the resurrection (you claimed never happened) was not witnessed.

4. I will also give another point not many people consider. The followers of Yeshua HaMashiach were NOT warriors, or soldiers or men of strength or status or influence or power or authority or statesmen. The followers were not men of any kind of power or position of authority, I say this so you know these followers had no power and position of influence to scam the situation to go in their favour. The followers of Yeshua were fishermen, tax collectors, street rabble, people of low status and low power. They were content to live under the rule of the Roman empire, and living under the rule of the Roman empire meant they were able to live their lives with their limited freedoms. I say this point in case you try and say "the followers of Yeshua must have stolen the body", because this is what people normally do when they are on a power trip, they jump over the other bigger points which were made and try to justify themselves on the minor details of the argument levelled against them.

So a recap for you;
1. Yeshua was buried in a tomb and the tomb was sealed with a big stone.
2. The tomb was sealed with a Roman seal.
3. The tomb was guarded with a Roman Guard consisting of about 16 Roman soldiers trained and skilled in war.
4. The followers of Yeshua HaMashiach were fishermen, adulteresses, tax collectors and other kinds of people who had little to no influence in Jerusalem at the time Yeshua HaMashiach walked the earth.

These are some of the reasons No One witnessed Yeshua HaMashiach coming back to life.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not buying any of that, for example, because I am absolutely convinced that there was no tomb guard and it was invented by Matthew on his own, in order to scotch and suggestion that someone took the body away - he pretty much says so himself...But the point of the OP is why God didn't arrange it better, so there were reliable witnesses assembled to see the whole thing and no doubts and quibbles about what happened.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Ancient of Years in post #2]

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