I have seen this argument a few times, but I have never been able to make sense of it.Ancient of Years wrote: 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.
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?
"You don't know that nobody saw it". Just as we don't know that nobody saw the resurrection. We could have had a crowd of Jewish schoolkids on a field trip watching wide -eyed as Jesus resurrected "There are many who would give their pocket money to see what thou hast seen, now go thou and do likewise" But because they ran away and said nothing to anyone, we don't know about it and there is no epistemological argument for us to do so.
”
"
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). 
