One editor at CE referred the Bible as having recorded "eyewitnesses to the Incarnation and Resurrection." The topic offered for discussion is a two-parter, so state what part you are referring to as you respond, please:

(Part 1) Does the NT record "eyewitness" to the Incarnation or Resurrection. If so site chapter and verse. This question should not be misconstued asa asking, "Does the Bible attest to Jesus's divinity or to Jesus's own self-conception as Son of God, Son of Man . The question only asks does Bible attest to eyewitnesses to the Incarnation. Also,the question does not ask, " Is it recorded in the Bible that Jesus appeared to the apostles et.al after the crucifixion." It asks, "Does Bible record eyewitnesses to the Resurrection?"

( Part 2): Pertaining to the possibility of an eyewitness to Incarnation and Resurrection. What visual data could there posssibly be that, upon looking at Jesus, one would be complelled to conclude, " Ah. I see humanity and divinity adjoined in this one person! " or upon looking at Jesus anytime after being removed from the Cross,  "Ah! He has been resurrected from the dead and glorified by the Father." ?

Fishman, I think you are correct.  I think we are back to "definitions" again.

lwall, I think I understand where you're coming from when you say there was no eyewitness to the incarnation.  I would agree with you here.  Mary, with her senses of sight, hearing (and eventually touch) would know that the angel had spoken to her, that she had no relations with a man, yet became pregnant.  However, there was no DIRECT sensory-input evidence that God became a man.  I might give you that one.

But, even if you limit your definition of "eyewitness" (as fishman has pointed out), I still think Mary was right to say that there were eyewitnesses of the resurrection.

With their eyes, they saw Jesus alive.  With their eyes, they witnessed his death on the cross.  After his death, with their eyes (and hands), they witnessed his being alive again.  Even with a narrow definition, there IS eyewitness that Jesus resurrected from the dead.

To All: So do we converge in saying there is no recorded eyewitness to the Incarnation? That such is a ludicroud claim?

Wsa there an eyewitness to the Resurection ? Certainly not! The bible records that people saw Jesus after He was taken from the Cross. THAT IS ALL. That He was Resurrected fom the dead has no eyewitnesses. Only there are those who claim that He was. 

fishman: You say my definition of eyewitness is "...not the one used in standard American English." You actually said that!

OK. Then show me any "standard American English" dictionary's definition of "eyewitness" that says anything other than one who gives testimony to something he/she has seen. Nowhere will you find a definition or common usage of the term to include anything resembling what you claim. Further, you make the ludicrous statement that " "eyewitness" is "notrestricted to visual data" Are you serious?!!

The readers of this post and myself are entitled to have you substantiate your claim and stop this charade.

By the way, are you the same poster who argued with me about human reason and revelation?....claiming that human reason can access revelation? Or is there more than one person on this website who deals in blatant contradictions.

Your example of someone seeing a car speeding away after hearing a gunshot!!!! That to you is an eyewitness account!!...of what! This is laughable. The only eyewitnessing possible is having seen a car whiz by as a terrified little old lady puts the petal to the metal because she was fearful that the shot had been aimed at her!! I mean, get with it, Fishman. Really!

Dear Iwall, You said:  This question should not be misconstued asa asking, "Does the Bible attest to Jesus's divinity or to Jesus's own self-conception as Son of God, Son of Man

Jesus Christ Himself said, "Before Abraham was born, I am".

Jesus divinity is stated in the Holy Scriptures several times. The precise moment when  the Bible states that Jesus is divine was the moment when the Angel appeared to Blessed Mary then explained to her that she would become the mother of Jesus (without the intercourse with a man) that the Holy Spirit would overshadow her and she would conceive.

In the Holy Love of God I am your brother in Christ and my name is Royal

Dear Iwall, Once again I have not missed the point. What you have stated in your original post is what is called a double negative which translates into a positive. You have not been where I have been in psychology. When a person states that they do not want to know the answer to a question then states the question they are begging the answer. I gave you what you wanted, what more do you require?

How else may I serve you my brother in Christ?

In the Holy Love of God I am your brother and my name is Royal.

To FISMAN,the EDITOR,and ALL :

Listen up.

 " No one was an eyewitness to Christ's resurrection and no evangelist describes it...no less was it perceptible to the senses". CCC 647.

The Resurrection is : "The Historic and Transcendent Event" CCC 639ff. As such something eally hapened in time, but the character of this happeing is not summed up, accounted for, explained by, nor witnessed to by any ordinary human perceptuion, visual or otherwise. It is transcendent. Get a philosophical dictionary if you do not know what "transcendent" means. Belief in the R. comes only by way of the "eyes of faith" ( CCC ), and this requirement of faith -eyes pertains to each one of us now just as it did to the Apostles. It is not a matter of my commanding my will to believe in something that I believe someone else believed around  33A.D. That is not faith.That is mere human willfulness and wish fulfillment. If the R. is real for you now; if it is not for you, as William James puts, it "a live option"; if it is not something between you and Jesus which the two of you jointly own and share in an intimate communion; if it is not suffused with a interior, passionate, subjectivity, then you have no "eminent belief " or faith in the R. You are merely trying to believe that which you have been told that others believe.  This necessarily subjective experience faith was as true for the Apostles as is true for each of us. 

The only so called "verification" of the R. was the reporting of the faith experiences of the Apostles. That Apostolic faith was not a conclusion reached by any visual or circumstantial data [ this reference to circumstantial data is but one of Fishman's desperate attempts at an escape hatch, the other being his non-sense about the meaning of " eyewitness". Others on this post actually agreed with him! ]. By the way I am still waiting, Fishman. 

Those experiences  as faith experiences were not ordinary empirical experience wherein the Apostles or any human being might surmise on the basis of empirical data - visual, circumstantial or otherwise - that Christ was risen from the dead. The CCC expresses this in saying that belief in the R. is a matter of seeing with the "eyes of faith". The Apostles saw with the "eyes off faith" as we too must.

"Eyes of faith" does not mean that we come to know of the R. solely by the testimony of others or by seeing Him, for His contemporaraies  stood in the very same faith situation as we, namely, requiring the "eyes of faith"... there they stood then as we do now!  These "witnesses" were not compelled to an eminent belief in R. due to any sense dataum whatever. No eyewitnesses were even possible for this transcendent event, a fortiori, no eyewitnesses reported in the Bible, mkocahn. No eyewitness possible. There, of course, can be experiences that cohere with one's prior belief in the R. such as the empty tomb or compelling, incorrigible post-resurrection experiences.

 But none of these Biblically attested contingent historic events nor any contigent historic event might possibly serve as a necessary departure point for belieng in the R. This is so because historic events - that is, any event in space-time - is utterly contingent! That is to say,it could or could not have happened. That is one elemnt of contingency. The other is the potential for plural interpretations as to what happened empirically and the interpreted meaning of the event. Historic events are always suscptible to more than one reporting as both as actual empirical content -as we all know from life experience: one person says the day was sunny and mild, the other that it was cloudy and cold...- and importantly, that historic events, being susceptible to more than one interoratation, and thus can never offer the certainty of faith.

This later point is most crucial for any discussion of the R. Our belief in the R. had better not rest upon what we mistakenly take to be the "witness of others ", nor rest upon certain Biblical recordings of putative "perceptual data" - the appearance of His body, the linens in the tomb,   nor rest upon recordings of post Resurrection "appearances"  as basis for our eminent belief.  Recall the CCC  " no less was it perceptible to the senses."  ( CCC 647). Jesus reportedly shows the nail holes in his hands to the Apostles.[ By the way, the Gospel reporting here errs, since we have good reason now to believe that nails were not driven into the wrist/hand but in the radial-carpal joint which gave the needed support to a body suspended on a cross.]  Now plenty of people may conclude from this contingent event of nail holes a number of things - wishful thinking on the part of the evangelist who recorded the event; credulity of the Apostles who concluded that Jesus had risen from the dead when He may have just awakened three days later in the tomb from a state of unconsciousness... The point is that historic events are contingent, not necessary, and do not compel to only one interpretation!

 Being grasped by the divine, being open to such grasping, this alone gives the human being those eyes of faith which the CCC regards as so essential. There i  no matter of a crude magic or the need to believe n impossible things. Belef in the R. in the CCC is always imbued with "mystery" and conditioned/ caused by faith, not eyewitnesses, not Apostolic testimony, not sophisticated theories of how a slab of skin and cardiac monitor leads connected to Jesus might allow us  empirical "verification...as Fishman actually proffered seceral posts ago!  

Iwall,

You’re still number one.  Your post does not treat fishman with the same respect that he holds for you.  fishman honors you as a teacher.  You are diminishing your student.  All of us struggle with pride.  Pride is severe, inflexible and demanding with fellow-men, while being complacent and indulgent towards ourselves.  Let us pray for humility.

John gives us the theology of the "Incarnation" in his account of the birth of Jesus. Luke tells us that Gabriel told Mary that, "the Holy Spirit would come over her...and that He shall be called the Son of God". Therefore, having the understanding of what it means to be son and also the Church's teaching on the Triune God, I would say that for sure, Mary witnessed the "Incarnation".

The Holy Spirit testifies to that witness in Luke, Matthew and John. 

well, i've researched about 20 dictionaries now and some weakly favor the definition I'm using, still I have to admit that the predominat definition is the one you are using lwall so in fact it would appear mary is mistaken or mispoke.  She would have been correct to say there are many witnesses to the christ divinity and reserection but the term eyewitness would seem to generally imply an intimacy with the event that is inapproprate. 

Yes , mary was definately incorrect in what she said.

My sincere apologies for my confusion on the matter.

David T -- what does divinity look like? Do you think you can see it?

You can witness it's actions and see and feel it's affects ,but you cannot see it with your eye. 

Can you tell me which person was standing in the tomb when Jesus came back from the dead?

Peter, James and John saw divinity in the transfiguration.

If you really knew me, you would know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him." Jn 14:7

Whomever saw Jesus as man or resurrected has seen divinity.

Can you tell me which person was standing in the tomb when Jesus came back from the dead? An angel and he has been described as sitting.

yeah the angle is a reasonable eye witness.

What do the angels who annonce to the shepards say do they bear witness to his divinity as beings who are capable of sensing the spiritual realm more fully then us.  Certainly they testify to the fact he is the universal saviour who comes to redeam man from sin, which implies devinity?

What do you think lwall-- can an angel be an eyewitness?

Do they have eyes?