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]

But, the most compelling factor is derived from the understanding that this was God's manner in which offered salvation to mean. The question is not about the logistical implausibility of a man, dead in the grave for three days, being revivified for forty days before ascending into heaven. But, rather, that man is in need of redemption, and that by God's willingness to raise Jesus from the dead although he became a curse by being hung on a tree, serves as a token that we, sinners, will also have the opportunity to be resurrected if we accept Jesus' final sacrifice for sin.

All that does is introduce another claim needing justification, that is that man is in need of redemption. This is nothing more than a biblical assertion, but it also contributes absolutely nothing towards verifying the resurrection event.

You need evidence to qualify whether man is in need of redemption? You hold yourself in rather high esteem - no need for continuous correction, apologies or shame ...throughout your entire life?
...sorry, but it is your claim that requires substantiation.

[brunumb]

But, the most compelling factor is derived from the understanding that this was God's manner in which offered salvation to mean. The question is not about the logistical implausibility of a man, dead in the grave for three days, being revivified for forty days before ascending into heaven. But, rather, that man is in need of redemption, and that by God's willingness to raise Jesus from the dead although he became a curse by being hung on a tree, serves as a token that we, sinners, will also have the opportunity to be resurrected if we accept Jesus' final sacrifice for sin.

All that does is introduce another claim needing justification, that is that man is in need of redemption. This is nothing more than a biblical assertion, but it also contributes absolutely nothing towards verifying the resurrection event.

You need evidence to qualify whether man is in need of redemption? You hold yourself in rather high esteem - no need for continuous correction, apologies or shame ...throughout your entire life?
...sorry, but it is your claim that requires substantiation.

Sorry, but all you have is a religiously informed opinion. If you want to wallow in the need for personal redemption, go for it. Until you can demonstrate the truth of it, you are just indulging in a personal fantasy or self delusion.

[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?

[DB]

But, the most compelling factor is derived from the understanding that this was God's manner in which offered salvation to mean. The question is not about the logistical implausibility of a man, dead in the grave for three days, being revivified for forty days before ascending into heaven. But, rather, that man is in need of redemption, and that by God's willingness to raise Jesus from the dead although he became a curse by being hung on a tree, serves as a token that we, sinners, will also have the opportunity to be resurrected if we accept Jesus' final sacrifice for sin.

All that does is introduce another claim needing justification, that is that man is in need of redemption. This is nothing more than a biblical assertion, but it also contributes absolutely nothing towards verifying the resurrection event.

You need evidence to qualify whether man is in need of redemption? You hold yourself in rather high esteem - no need for continuous correction, apologies or shame ...throughout your entire life?
...sorry, but it is your claim that requires substantiation.

Sorry, but all you have is a religiously informed opinion. If you want to wallow in the need for personal redemption, go for it. Until you can demonstrate the truth of it, you are just indulging in a personal fantasy or self delusion.

The world's a cesspool, and we're all complicit - who do you intend to exonerate?

[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.

[JoeyKnothead]

[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.

There's another dichotomy roaming the wilds...

Those who can show they speak truth, and them that can't.

Of the two, which one are you?

[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.

[POI]

Everyone who mattered did see it. Technically if only God saw Jesus then still everyone who mattered did see it.

Well, the Bible states MANY saw it. And by 'it", I mean Jesus's apparent postmortem tour. Let's start with the '500'. If the Bible mentions '500', I guess this would mean these '500' mattered. Aside from 'faith', (which can be applied to basically any baseless claim), do we have any means to investigate this claim?

[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.

[DB]

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?