The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ben_Masada
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Ben_Masada

Guest
The Mystery of the Empty Tomb

All the four gospel writers are unanimous on it that the tomb was empty. But how it got empty is the answer we have got to find for the question.

Starting with Matthew, at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at the sunset, Mary Magdalene with another Mary, went to see the tomb. Never mind that the tombstone was sealed and the guards were there to prevent the approach of any suspect. They either did not know it or the conspiracy to provide an eyewitness had backfired.

As the women arrived there, there was nothing of the sort. However, the writer of Matthew reports an earthquake, as an angel came down to move the tombstone, and sat on it. Who was inside the tomb? Nobody. The tomb was empty. Then, the angel addressed the women and said, “I know you are looking for Jesus. As you can see, he is not here.” The tomb was empty. Even the angel could not be used as an eyewitness, because when he removed the tombstone, the tomb was empty already. (Mat. 28:1-6)

Let us ask Mark about this. He says almost the same, except for the earthquake. When that Sabbath was over, the women brought perfumed oils to anoint Jesus’ body. They were worried only on how to remove the tombstone, which was huge. Never mind that it was sealed and kept by guards, because when they got there, they saw nothing of the sort. So much so that the stone was already removed and the tomb was empty, except for a youngman who was there, telling them that Jesus was not there. That he had been raised. He was right, because by the will of God one rises, but by the will of man one is raised. It means that someone had indeed removed Jesus from there. (Mark 16:1-6)

How about Luke? What did he have to say? That the tombstone was removed, the tomb was empty, but there were two guys asking why the women were looking for the living among the dead. And that Jesus had been raised. Mind you, not risen but raised. The women went to tell the disciples, and they refused to believe their “nonsense and idle tale,” as those were their very words. Probably, Jesus had never mentioned such a thing about himself. (Luke 24:1-11)

Last but not least, we have John, who brought to the tomb only Mary Magdalene. The tombstone was removed as usual, and the tomb was indeed empty. All that Mary could think of, was that Jesus had been taken from the tomb. They all probably had never heard about resurrection. Mary remained at the tomb crying her eyes out. Then, to a guy there, whom she thought was the Gardener, she asked to let her know where he had put Jesus’ body, so that she could take it away with her, if he had been the one who had removed Jesus from there. It means that Mary had come to the tomb with the intention to remove Jesus from there. Bad luck for her, because obviously Joseph of Arimathea had done the removal during the first hours of Friday night. (John 20:1-15)

As we all can see, the mystery is not in the empty tomb but in the how the tomb got empty. Quite easy to solve if we try to understand the difference between rising and being raised, and the inconsistency among the four gospel writers on reporting the “idle tale” of the resurrection. (Luke 24:11)

Ben
 
The Mystery of the Empty Tomb

All the four gospel writers are unanimous on it that the tomb was empty. But how it got empty is the answer we have got to find for the question.

Starting with Matthew, at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at the sunset, Mary Magdalene with another Mary, went to see the tomb. Never mind that the tombstone was sealed and the guards were there to prevent the approach of any suspect. They either did not know it or the conspiracy to provide an eyewitness had backfired.

As the women arrived there, there was nothing of the sort. However, the writer of Matthew reports an earthquake, as an angel came down to move the tombstone, and sat on it. Who was inside the tomb? Nobody. The tomb was empty. Then, the angel addressed the women and said, “I know you are looking for Jesus. As you can see, he is not here.” The tomb was empty. Even the angel could not be used as an eyewitness, because when he removed the tombstone, the tomb was empty already. (Mat. 28:1-6)

Let us ask Mark about this. He says almost the same, except for the earthquake. When that Sabbath was over, the women brought perfumed oils to anoint Jesus’ body. They were worried only on how to remove the tombstone, which was huge. Never mind that it was sealed and kept by guards, because when they got there, they saw nothing of the sort. So much so that the stone was already removed and the tomb was empty, except for a youngman who was there, telling them that Jesus was not there. That he had been raised. He was right, because by the will of God one rises, but by the will of man one is raised. It means that someone had indeed removed Jesus from there. (Mark 16:1-6)

How about Luke? What did he have to say? That the tombstone was removed, the tomb was empty, but there were two guys asking why the women were looking for the living among the dead. And that Jesus had been raised. Mind you, not risen but raised. The women went to tell the disciples, and they refused to believe their “nonsense and idle tale,” as those were their very words. Probably, Jesus had never mentioned such a thing about himself. (Luke 24:1-11)

Last but not least, we have John, who brought to the tomb only Mary Magdalene. The tombstone was removed as usual, and the tomb was indeed empty. All that Mary could think of, was that Jesus had been taken from the tomb. They all probably had never heard about resurrection. Mary remained at the tomb crying her eyes out. Then, to a guy there, whom she thought was the Gardener, she asked to let her know where he had put Jesus’ body, so that she could take it away with her, if he had been the one who had removed Jesus from there. It means that Mary had come to the tomb with the intention to remove Jesus from there. Bad luck for her, because obviously Joseph of Arimathea had done the removal during the first hours of Friday night. (John 20:1-15)

As we all can see, the mystery is not in the empty tomb but in the how the tomb got empty. Quite easy to solve if we try to understand the difference between rising and being raised, and the inconsistency among the four gospel writers on reporting the “idle tale” of the resurrection. (Luke 24:11)

Ben
Sorry but I dont see the mystery at all. The tomb was empy because Jesus had risen form the dead.
 
I don’t see the issue either. Risen, raised, what are you trying to say?
 
I don’t see the issue either. Risen, raised, what are you trying to say?
I am afraid we are getting ready to get a dose of "Sola Scriptura(replete with personal interpreation of Scripture) from a member of the Jewsish Faith!
 
Guys, Ben feeds off your responses. If you stop responding to him, he’ll stop coming here.
 
What gets me curious is if someone (Joseph of A.) took the body, how did it happen that Jesus appeared to the apostles and many disciples right afterwards? Even if, as some say, he wasn’t dead, it would have taken a long hospital stay and much physical therapy before he was walking, talking, and appearing well. He was seen here and there for 40 days by a large number of people. Then there’s the part of the disciples seeing him going up into the air until the clouds took him from their sight.

So if what you are saying is that the whole thing was a big hoax, why would all these people willingly accept being put to death for spreading the news about Jesus???
 
Sorry but I dont see the mystery at all. The tomb was empy because Jesus had risen form the dead.
Ben It looks like you have your answer, THE TOMB WAS EMPPY BECAUSE JESUS HAD RISEN case closed
 
Sorry but I dont see the mystery at all. The tomb was empy because Jesus had risen form the dead.
The text says that Jesus had been raised and not risen. There is an enormous difference between being raised and risen. By the will of God, one is risen. By the will of man one is raised. Jesus was raised, and there is no use to try to rewrite the text, because it won’t help.
 
I don’t see the issue either. Risen, raised, what are you trying to say?
**That if Jesus had resurrected, he would have risen. Since he was raised, he was simply removed from that tomb to be treated of his wounds or to be laid somewhere else. Obviously, it was to be treated of his wounds, considering that he appeared to his disciples later with convincing proofs that he was alive after his suffering, according to Luke in Acts 1:1-3. And after his suffering does not mean that he died and much less that he resurrected. **
 
More lies from Ben ?

**I pray for all Jews to become completed Jews **in Jesus Christ
No, not lies from Ben, but from the gospel writers. If you check all the quotations I put down, you will do me some justice. Then, you don’t have to apologize; I mean, if you are that big.
 
Guys, Ben feeds off your responses. If you stop responding to him, he’ll stop coming here.
**And then what? Do you prefer to return to feed yourselves on flat food without salt? Have you forgotten what Jesus said to the Jews in his Sermon of the Mount? “You are the salt of the earth.” (Mat. 5:13) We have never lost that salt. Do you know why? Because he said “we are.” He did not say, we have, but that we are. What one has, it can be taken away. But what one is he or she is, no matter what. **
 
Depending on what translation is used. Try the Douay, WEB, ESV, NASB or the NIV there is it translated is risen not to mention the Greek which also render it is risen. But that aside. You are trying to define the words outside of the normal definitions. You also are adding none of the translations render it as “being” raised.
 
What gets me curious is if someone (Joseph of A.) took the body, how did it happen that Jesus appeared to the apostles and many disciples right afterwards? Even if, as some say, he wasn’t dead, it would have taken a long hospital stay and much physical therapy before he was walking, talking, and appearing well. He was seen here and there for 40 days by a large number of people. Then there’s the part of the disciples seeing him going up into the air until the clouds took him from their sight.

So if what you are saying is that the whole thing was a big hoax, why would all these people willingly accept being put to death for spreading the news about Jesus???
**Regarding appearing for 40 days soon after such a crucifixion you have to accept by faith, because it was reported 50+ years after the fact. Then, if we go down into the details of the, according to Luke, “convincing proofs that he was alive after his passion,” the resurrection will be denied anyways. Then to be taken good care of, he got VIP treatment at the hands of a millionary, as was Joseph of Arimathea.

Regarding being willing to die for a cause, holds no water because hundreds of Bahai went to their death in Iran at the time of the Aiatolla Hommeni and never retracted. Muslims do this all the time as a testimony to Islam. Does it mean they have the Truth? I didn’t think so. **
 
Depending on what translation is used. Try the Douay, WEB, ESV, NASB or the NIV there is it translated is risen not to mention the Greek which also render it is risen. But that aside. You are trying to define the words outside of the normal definitions. You also are adding none of the translations render it as “being” raised.
I am glad to be using a Catholic version, Saint Joseph’s edition of the New American Bible. Prefaced by a Committee of Bishops and signed by the Pope. The term used is raised and not risen.
 
And that Jesus had been raised. Mind you, not risen but raised. The women went to tell the disciples, and they refused to believe their “nonsense and idle tale,” as those were their very words. Probably, Jesus had never mentioned such a thing about himself. (Luke 24:1-11)
As we all can see, the mystery is not in the empty tomb but in the how the tomb got empty. Quite easy to solve if we try to understand the difference between rising and being raised, and the inconsistency among the four gospel writers on reporting the “idle tale” of the resurrection. (Luke 24:11)

Ben
The true mystery is why you are trying to twist the words. The text does not support your statement. The term had been raised is the Past Perfect Progressive tense and does not have the meaning you are trying to ascribe to it.
That He had been raised. He was right, because by the will of God one rises, but by the will of man one is raised.
Although, you are making up your own definition I actually agree with you. Jesus is GOD so you are correct that by HIS, will the will of God, He rose.
 
**Regarding appearing for 40 days soon after such a crucifixion you have to accept by faith, because it was reported 50+ years after the fact. **

Reported 50+ years? No it was reported immediately. Don’t confuse being written down with occurring. They are not the same thing.
 
Oh man, I was baking bread today, and I was surprised that it **raised **very nicely…

Oh man, I was baking bread today, and I was surprised that it had **risen **very nicely…

In closing:

Both words can mean the same.
 
The true mystery is why you are trying to twist the words. The text does not support your statement. The term had been raised is the Past Perfect Progressive tense and does not have the meaning you are trying to ascribe to it.

Although, you are making up your own definition I actually agree with you. Jesus is GOD so you are correct that by HIS, will the will of God, He rose.
**If you think I am twisting the words, I’ll be happy to see you straight them up by using the Scriptures. The term "had been raised is not past perfect progressive
but an adjectival-verbal form in the past perfect, but not progressive. Progressive would be “was being raised” and not had been raised.

Jesus is not God because he is dead; and he was not God because he was a Jew and not a Greek. A man to be god or son of god, only in Greek Mythology. And Jesus did not rise; he was raised. You are trying to rewrite the text, and it doesn’t go that way.**
 
Reported 50+ years? No it was reported immediately. Don’t confuse being written down with occurring. They are not the same thing.
**If they had not written down 50+ years after the alleged fact, you would not know today that it had been reported immediately. Can you see any difference from what I said? **
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top