The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb

[Ben_Masada]

What the disciples describe is not a physically broken man, but a man who appears to be both fully restored and gloriously changed. There is no evidence that the post-resurrection Jesus was under any physical disability. Note that these appearances all took place within 50 days of his crucifixion, which would have left insufficient time for any healing of this magnitude under the medical treatment available then (or now).

How gloriously changed was Jesus after the alleged resurrection? Luke says that his convincing proofs that he was alive were by eating and drinking with his disciples for 40 days, just as he used to it before. According to physiology of living beings, he had to go to the bathroom and defecate. If we are to do this after resurrection, thank you but no, thanks. I prefer to remain in the dust of the earth.

 

[Ben_Masada]

That’s your world-view, and it is probably the reason we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

Of Course! I am Monotheist. You believe in the Trinity.

Red herring. I said nothing about what God “should” do (in the future, as “should” implies) since God has no obligation to do as I wish, but we are talking about what God did do (in the past).

According to whom, Paul and his disciples, the Gentiles who wrote the gospels?

As I’ve said before, for you to require “raising” be done by a physical agent is groundless. You do yourself a disservice by limiting yourself to the New American Bible.

**Are you discarding a Catholic version of the Bible, whose translation was sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and signed by the Pope Paulus PP. VI? **

Check out the Douay Rheims Bible, Matthew 28:6. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which in the NAB use “raised”, the word is “risen”. This tells me that “was raised” versus “is risen” is translator’s preference. By way of interesting note, numerous Protestant translations use “rise”. Perhaps you would have better luck if you tried using the source language for your exegesis?

Yes, that’s odd that you would prefer a Prostestant version of the Bible than a Catholic one. Unless you are not a Catholic?

 

[Spirithound]

**Are you discarding a Catholic version of the Bible, whose translation was sponsored by the Bishops’ Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine and signed by the Pope Paulus PP. VI? **

Yes, that’s odd that you would prefer a Prostestant version of the Bible than a Catholic one. Unless you are not a Catholic?

Are you deliberately missing the point of everything I write?
The Douay-Rheims is Catholic. I’m not discarding the NAB, I’m showing you that rise and raise have been used interchangeably.

 

[Bill_Pick]

That’s your world-view, and it is probably the reason we will never see eye to eye on this issue.

Red herring. I said nothing about what God “should” do (in the future, as “should” implies) since God has no obligation to do as I wish, but we are talking about what God did do (in the past).

As I’ve said before, for you to require “raising” be done by a physical agent is groundless. You do yourself a disservice by limiting yourself to the New American Bible. Check out the Douay Rheims Bible, Matthew 28:6. In Matthew, Mark, and Luke, which in the NAB use “raised”, the word is “risen”. This tells me that “was raised” versus “is risen” is translator’s preference. By way of interesting note, numerous Protestant translations use “rise”. Perhaps you would have better luck if you tried using the source language for your exegesis?

Ben do you believe some of the Bible and not all the Bible,The Bible said Jesus die on the cross and this you do not believe,and it also said Jesus is God and this you do not believe , so Why did you read a book you do not believe==.90% of the people on this board are Christians,so why are you here–do you think you can get christians to believe what you are saying-remember christians have faith.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Are you deliberately missing the point of everything I write?
The Douay-Rheims is Catholic. I’m not discarding the NAB, I’m showing you that rise and raise have been used interchangeably.

In that case there is a contradiction from version to version within the same Church, because “risen” and “being raised” are definitely different. Grammatically, semantically, morphologically, and last but not least, Theologically.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben do you believe some of the Bible and not all the Bible,The Bible said Jesus die on the cross and this you do not believe,and it also said Jesus is God and this you do not believe , so Why did you read a book you do not believe==.90% of the people on this board are Christians,so why are you here–do you think you can get christians to believe what you are saying-remember christians have faith.

**No, Bill Pick, Jews are not proselytizers. We don’t need converts. And Gentiles do not need to convert to Judaism. We don’t have any kind of afterlife reward to promise them. They are all right where they are. My mission is to defend the image of Judaism that Christians distort in the eyes of the world by using a leligious Jew to introduce Hellenistic innovations into it. We have been loosing too many Jews already, who are perishing for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) **

**And yes, I do believe 20 percent of the NT, as acceptable truth. The other 80 percent are made out of non-Jewish interpolations. Therefore, not true. **

 

[adrift]

In that case there is a contradiction from version to version within the same Church, because “risen” and “being raised” are definitely different. Grammatically, semantically, morphologically, and last but not least, Theologically.

Other than you saying there is a difference you have provided no evidence of being so.

Theologically Your being funny again.

1: the study of religious faith, practice, and experience ; especially : the study of God and of God’s relation to the world

r

 

[adrift]

leligious ]

are you being funny again?

 

[Spirithound]

In that case there is a contradiction from version to version within the same Church, because “risen” and “being raised” are definitely different. Grammatically, semantically, morphologically, and last but not least, Theologically.

Well I’m out of ideas. How about you produce some source documents?

 

[Bill_Pick]

**No, Bill Pick, Jews are not proselytizers. We don’t need converts. And Gentiles do not need to convert to Judaism. We don’t have any kind of afterlife reward to promise them. They are all right where they are. My mission is to defend the image of Judaism that Christians distort in the eyes of the world by using a leligious Jew to introduce Hellenistic innovations into it. We have been loosing too many Jews already, who are perishing for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) **

**And yes, I do believe 20 percent of the NT, as acceptable truth. The other 80 percent are made out of non-Jewish interpolations. Therefore, not true. **

Ben Can you tell us how the stone was removed did the guard help and after 3 days do you think Our Lord was still strong to walk away. After His was crucified you are saying He was still strong enough to wald away,and Please remember you say the man was not God

 

[Bill_Pick]

**No, Bill Prick, Jews are not proselytizers. We don’t need converts. And Gentiles do not need to convert to Judaism. We don’t have any kind of afterlife reward to promise them. They are all right where they are. My mission is to defend the image of Judaism that Christians distort in the eyes of the world by using a leligious Jew to introduce Hellenistic innovations into it. We have been loosing too many Jews already, who are perishing for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6)

And yes, I do believe 20 percent of the NT, as acceptable truth. The other 80 percent are made out of non-Jewish interpolations. Therefore, not true. **

Ben Can you tell us how the stone was removed did the guard help and after 3 days do you think Our Lord was still strong to walk away. After His was crucified you are saying He was still strong enough to walk away,and Please remember you say the man was not God

 

[adrift]

Well I’m out of ideas. How about you produce some source documents?

I have been asking for sources for a very long time. Nothing so far:shrug:

 

[John7]

**who are perishing for lack of knowledge. (Hosea 4:6) **

All jews (except Messianic Jews) **are already dead **not having the life of Christ, they have not the life of God in them as is clearly evidenced by Ben’s posts…dead…not alive.

John 17:3
And this is life eternal, that they might **know **
thee the only true God
and Jesus Christ

So question is, how are jews going to know God in the first place if they are dead (Eph 2:1-2:5)? What are they going to do? Consult with other jewish dead to help them out? Go to rabbi-want-to-bes like Ben, who hasn’t a clue about the spirit of the Old Testament, only to get imputed with dead knowledge? Oh yea right teach them the talmud and then they’ll have the knowledge and life of God in them (that’s a joke by the way).

Matthew 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves

 

[adrift]

**Adrift, those near at the cross could not say that jesus was alive. You know that very well. Nobody could say that he was alive. Since he had only fainted on the cross and was not dead, he appeared to be dead.

He was put in an under ground tomb and looked after for a short time. When all had gone away, then the friends of Jesus, taking extra care of Jesus, came and removed Jesus from that tomb. They took him away to a more safe place where his enemies could not find him.
That explains the mystery of the empty tomb. Since he had not died, there was no need resurrect. He simply got up and recovered. Every one of his comrades were happy. i.e. Joseph of armithea and the physician Nicodemus.**

The fallacy in your argument is how crucifixion worked. In order to continue to breath the victim had to continuously push himself up. If he had passed out, he would immediately suffocated. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin. Never heard of him being a physician:shrug:

As far as your argument that the women would not have gone near a dead body, I would need a citation. Do you have one?

 

[Bill_Pick]

Planten, Do you know the one about the three little pigs, I think we like it a lot better. Its better then all your OPINIONS

 

[Bill_Pick]

The fallacy in your argument is how crucifixion worked. In order to continue to breath the victim had to continuously push himself up. If he had passed out, he would immediately suffocated. Nicodemus was a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin. Never heard of him being a physician:shrug:

As far as your argument that the women would not have gone near a dead body, I would need a citation. Do you have one?

Did they put a spear in Jesus???and water come out or did I read that right

 

[Kaninchen]

My ethnic arrogance tells me that we do the most stylish chutzpah and I don’t think that’s a nonsensical claim at all.

 

[Bill_Pick]

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

What the Bible has to say==And on the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared. 2 And they found the stone rolled back from the sepulchre. 3 And going in, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus. 4 And it came to pass, as they were astonished in their mind at this, behold, two men stood by them, in shining apparel. 5 And as they were afraid, and bowed down their countenance towards the ground, they said unto them: Why seek you the living with the dead?

6 He is not here, but is risen. Remember how he spoke unto you, when he was in Galilee, 7 Saying: The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again. 8 And they remembered his words.

Now you say after three days and telling all what is going to go on Our Lord move a very large stone( After being crucified) and just walk away so He was still strong to move a stone. Do You and planten realley think people will believe this garbage,( HERE IS NOT HERE HE HAS RISE) maybe He left Friday,and how may days did He hang on the cross,Being God You may be right

 

[SteveLohr]

Did they put a spear in Jesus???and water come out or did I read that right

Bill-You are correct. In John, who was an eyewitness to the crucifixion writes in John 19:

**John 19:31-37 ( NIV )
Now it was the day of Preparation, and the next day was to be a special Sabbath. Because the Jews did not want the bodies left on the crosses during the Sabbath, they asked Pilate to have the legs broken and the bodies taken down.
The soldiers therefore came and broke the legs of the first man who had been crucified with Jesus, and then those of the other.
But when they came to Jesus and found that he was already dead, they did not break his legs.
Instead, one of the soldiers pierced Jesus’ side with a spear, bringing a sudden flow of blood and water.
The man who saw it has given testimony, and his testimony is true. He knows that he tells the truth, and he testifies so that you also may believe.
These things happened so that the scripture would be fulfilled: “Not one of his bones will be broken,”
and, as another scripture says, “They will look on the one they have pierced.” **

However, Jesus was probably dead before He was speared. The important point is that the spearing of Jesus proves that He was dead. The “blood and water” that John witnessed indicates that Jesus’ pericardium was pierced by the lance. In short, the lance went into His heart. See Dr. William Edwards “On the Physical Death of Jesus Christ” JAMA March 21, 1986, vol. 256. A copy is at:
cfpeople.org/apologetics/page51a024.html

Regards,
SteveLohr

 

[adrift]

adrift;5430401:

but I am afraid you will say I am attacking.

There is a difference in answering an opinion and making a comment about the person.

You said that

I have been even addressed as an idiot.

That is an attack on you not on what you have said. It is not acceptable.

why don’t **you **grow up and stop crying wolf?

Is not addressing what I have said but a personal attack. It is not acceptable

I think it’s about time you get this printed in your mind

did not add anything to your post nor address any issue. It is better left unwritten.

You are not reading your Bible Adrift.

same thing

I would like to say that you are making empty speculations

Is a comment about what I said not what I am. It is not an attack.
Usually if it is a “you” statement it should be unwritten. It would be better to say things like “that statement is empty speculation” to avoid even a hint of attack. I hope I have clarified what is and isn’t an attack.