The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb

[Ben_Masada]

So you say Ben. I simply don’t agree with you.

Just like that, without why and because?****

You don’t have any evidence apart from your own joining of the dots about Joseph.

**Joseph laid Jesus to rest at the sunset of Friday, and at the sunset of Saturday, the tomb was empty. If Joseph didn’t remove Jesus from that tomb, who did it?
Think about Matthew 12:40 before you answer, because he was very accurate about the three days and three nights. **

It is quite obvious that the eventual death of a naked man after hanging on a cross for hours is easily observable and verifiable to a group of Roman soldiers.

Have you ever read Josephus? There were crucified who would remain alive on their crosses for even up to 4 days sometimes. Jesus was taken off after about 4 hours. We have here about 95 to 99 percent that he was still alive.

Death on the cross is by asphyxiation. You cannot ‘play dead’ or go into a coma on the cross as there is a continual exaggerated up and down movement needed for breathing.

Now, you are exaggerating. Many would faint for hours and all of a sudden, when people thought they were dead, they would scream with contortions.

And Paul did not found Christianity. The name ‘Christian’ may first have been coined in Antioch, probably as a derogatory identification, but as Acts says, the Christian message was preached for 3 years before Paul’s conversion.

**Now, you are adding your own words to the text. The word “Christian” could have never been a derogatory identification. I can rather imagine how Paul and his disciples were proud of being called after what they thought Jesus had been. For the Christian message to have been preached for three years before Paul’s conversion, could have set the Apostles on a head on collision with the local Jews in Jerusalem. On the contrary they coexisted peacefully with each other until Paul showed up with his Christology which almost caused him to be killed. **

And as can be read from Paul’s letters, when push came to shove, he appealed to his connection with the apostles for his own authority and acceptance from the Christian population he was writing to.

**For this one here, you are going to provide me with a quotation. The only instance I remember of, is when he arrived in Rome and invited the Nazarenes to explain that he had come under chains not because he had done anything to the Jewish community or the customs of the Jews. (Acts 28:17-20) A big lie because he used to teach the Jews to abandon Moses, to stop circumcising their children and to renounce the Jewish customs. (Acts 21:21) **

 

[adrift]

There is no truth in a dead man with power. Jesus was raised by the power of another man. I think it’s about time you get this printed in your mind. The editors of the NT would not translate a word from Greek into English and compromise the whole text in dealing with such a subject.

You are grasping at this because you choose to ignore that others have translated it differently. however, you are saying there is a difference when there is none.

The root word is rise
dictionary definition
2: to return from death

Your whole argument fails when you define it.

Jesus returned from the dead is all and what an all that the text says.

 

[adrift]

Sorry but I dont see the mystery at all. The tomb was empy because Jesus had risen form the dead.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Mary His mother saw Him dead. John saw Him die.

**Where is it written that his mother saw him dead? That John saw him die, you don’t have to worry; he was not in the Calvary that day. The Romans would never allow a disciple of a crucified to even approach the site of a crucifixion. John is claimed to have been there as a result of a conspiracy to cloud the minds of the readers that Mary Magdalene was not Jesus’ beloved disciple. Besides, we have in Mark 14:50 that when Jesus was arrested ALL his disciples deserted him and fled. **

Your argument is silly. It is based on your own perceptions not on what is written. He was dead. It was so testified.

Who testified that Jesus was dead? Don’t you feel embarrassed to affirm something like that?

We went through this in your thread about no piercing.

That’s right. The Roman soldiers would not do anything beyond their agenda. And spear-piercing was not. John fabricated that piercing in order to document Jesus with Zechariah 12:10, which has nothing to do with crucifixion.

The Roman soldier’s life depended on doing their job.

**Are your sure? Now, I wonder how the women living at their time did not know it and you do. How could the Roman soldiers allow those women to come to the tomb, break the seal to the tombstone in order to get to Jesus’ body and do their anointing when the order from Pilate was to guard the tomb area from the approach of any suspect? You are not reading your Bible Adrift. **

They were experts. There victims did not survive.

It depends on the amound of the bribe. According to the book “The Myth of the Pax Romana,” Roman soldiers were extremely corrupt and too ready to be bribed. God knows with how much Joseph of Arimathea bribed that Centurion to just let him take Jesus off the cross and report to Pilate that everyting was all right.

They certainly would not be able to walk the distance that His disciples say He did. You are right He would still be there at the end of Sabbath since if He hadn’t resurrected.

Now Adrift, you hold your horses right there and read Matthew 12:40. Afterwards you can tell me how you can place three days and three night with less than 24 hours. I have tried that, but I am not that kind of a magician. Perhaps you have the right formula. Nu! I am all ears.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5429838:

When you start to prove what you say is Jewish, then maybe you will have some credibility. I have checked out somethings with Jewish friends and they shake their heads in disbelief at what you say is Jewish. So when you say I know because I am Jewish there is no reason to believe you. Provide some documentation.

**My documentation is the Scriptures. Perhaps you would feel better if I brought to you the opinion of another man, who could even know less than you and I? By using the Scriptures, at least I can claim Divine inspiration. **

 

[Bill_Pick]

Ben Your and Plenten do not believe in the “crucifixion.” so if you will give me a call I got a car I,d love to sell both of you and you can get it cheap,it has 500 miles and was just driven of Sundays,you will love this car give me a call and I have a friend that has a bridge you will love also,Please give me a call,one can get the car and one can get the bridge.

 

[abucs]

OK, this will be my last post as i have other things to do.

1. The obvious ‘why’ i don’t agree with you is that you have no evidence, as stated, and are just joining the dots from your own interpretation. It is a pretty easy case of comprehension, as was claerly stated.
2. 95 to 99% certain. Very funny. Because we have SOME cases (and yes i have read Josephus) of people surviving for days does not say anything about the case of Jesus and says even less about the ability of Roman soldiers to detect obvious death and says absolutely nothing about the possibility of these soldiers not being able to detect the obvious movement needed for breathing to occur. In short, you have said nothing here.
3. People fainting and being cetified as dead by Roman soldiers are two separate things. Do we have examples of Roman soldiers certifying people as dead after crucifixion only for the apparent victim to come back to life ? With the important case of ‘the blasphemy of Jesus’ we have the extra concern of the Sanhedrin who would want to verify death. The idea of surviving the whipping and crucifixtion and lance through the side and Jesus ‘holding his breath’ on the cross fooling all concerned looks extremely weak.
4. I didn’t say that the Christians were not proud of being called Christians, but simply that it is likely the term was derogatory, the way some Christians call Muslims Muhamedans. The gospels often speak about people following ‘the way’ which is probably an older term and from the Jewish Essenes as written in the scrolls at Qumran. Notice that Acts does not say that Christians first called themselves Christians but that Antioch was where THEY WERE FIRST CALLED CHRISTIANS. The Gospels speak of the apostles running away from the Jewish guards at the capture of Jesus and gathering together afterwards fearing for their lives. Peter denies Jesus three times on the night of his capture frightened for his life. According to Acts Stephen was stoned in Jerusalm with Paul taking part before his conversion. This is not co-existing peacefully.
5. Paul very often in his letters tries to convince his readers that he is just as good as ‘those special apostles of yours’. It is obvious that people are preferring to follow Apollos and Peter while Paul tries to appeal that they are all working on the same team. Paul, more than once mentions that he went to Jerusalem and spoke to the apostles who confirmed that what he was preaching was correct. Peter in his first letter also gives his authority to Paul’s message although he mentions some things are hard to understand and mis understood by the people who have read his letters. Read the letters in their entirety. His subservience to the Church structure is strained, but in the end is recognised. He is most definately not running his own show. Read his follower Luke’s account in Acts for exactly where Paul stood in the church.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You are grasping at this because you choose to ignore that others have translated it differently. however, you are saying there is a difference when there is none.

The root word is rise
dictionary definition
2: to return from death

Your whole argument fails when you define it.

Jesus returned from the dead is all and what an all that the text says.

Yes, but word roots go through morphological changes, as to take different semantic. Then, what seems to mean something with the same root, will mean a totally different thing in another form, albeit with the same root. That’s exactly the case with risen and being raised. Sorry pal, but the time to fix that is gone. That was an irreparable blunder.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Your and Plenten do not believe in the “crucifixion.” so if you will give me a call I got a car I,d love to sell both of you and you can get it cheap,it has 500 miles and was just driven of Sundays,you will love this car give me a call and I have a friend that has a bridge you will love also,Please give me a call,one can get the car and one can get the bridge.

You are mistaken my friend, I do believe in the crucifixion. The difference between you and me is that you believe that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans, while I believe that the Roamans crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner as they did Jesus. But I understand you. Faith clouds Reason.

 

[adrift]

Who testified that Jesus was dead? Don’t you feel embarrassed to affirm something like that?

You could have simply asked the question but instead you have to throw in an attack. I would not deny Jesus. John testifies. Your question is answered.

Where is it written that his mother saw him dead?

It was written she was there. It is unreasonable to believe that she would not have remained until He was taken off the cross.

That’s right. The Roman soldiers would not do anything beyond their agenda. And spear-piercing was not. John fabricated that piercing in order to document Jesus with Zechariah 12:10, which has nothing to do with crucifixion

So you say but it is unsubstantiated claim. I remember substantiating that this was one method they used to ensure death.

Are your sure? Now, I wonder how the women living at their time did not know it and you do. How could the Roman soldiers allow those women to come to the tomb, break the seal to the tombstone in order to get to Jesus’ body and do their anointing when the order from Pilate was to guard the tomb area from the approach of any suspect? You are not reading your Bible Adrift.

You just can’t help yourself with attacking can you? Pilate did not order the guard. He provided a guard for the Jews.

Are your sure?

:sad_yes:

Now Adrift, you hold your horses right there and read Matthew 12:40. Afterwards you can tell me how you can place three days and three night with less than 24 hours. I have tried that, but I am not that kind of a magician. Perhaps you have the right formula. Nu! I am all ears.

From before sundown Friday and sunrise Sunday is less than 24 hours:whacky:

You should know the answer. Many today interpret the bible according to what the culture is today. Are you one of those? Jews of that time counted a day as any part of a day. Friday was one day. Saturday was two Sunday was three. :coffeeread:

 

[Bill_Pick]

You are mistaken my friend, I do believe in the crucifixion. The difference between you and me is that you believe that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans, while I believe that the Roamans crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner as they did Jesus. But I understand you. Faith clouds Reason.

You are saying they the Romans crucified thousands of Jews and let them all live,what a waste of time

 

[adrift]

Yes, but word roots go through morphological changes, as to take different semantic. Then, what seems to mean something with the same root, will mean a totally different thing in another form, albeit with the same root. That’s exactly the case with risen and being raised. Sorry pal, but the time to fix that is gone. That was an irreparable blunder.

No that is not the case. The writers were conveying that Jesus was no longer dead. Your definition is unique to you. Please provide a reference other than you say so. No blunder is there at least not with the Gospel writers.

 

[adrift]

You are mistaken my friend, I do believe in the crucifixion. The difference between you and me is that you believe that Jesus was the only Jew crucified by the Romans, while I believe that the Roamans crucified thousands of Jews in the same manner as they did Jesus. But I understand you. Faith clouds Reason.

He hasn’t said That only Jesus was crucified. Again you cannot help yourself the gratuitous insult. It wasn’t necessary to add Faith clouds reason. It is these types of attacks that cause some to loose patience with you and attack back. If you don’t want to be attacked, stop making those type of statements. Doesn’t your reasoning hold up without them? OOPs! I guess I answered my own question.

 

[SteveLohr]

Ben, Planten. Jesus was dead when He was taken from the cross. 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

or

godandscience.org/apologetics/deathjesus.pdf

If He had merely lapsed into unconsciousnesss, that does not explain the reactions of his diciples to his post-resurrection appearance. Assuming He merely swooned and later appeared to his disciples, he would have been a physically broken man who would have merely aroused pity. 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).

Further, all participants, both Roman and Jew, believed He was dead at the time. Pilate even asked the Centurion to confirm He was dead, as He died very quickly. The fact that highly trained Roman troops in fact confirmed He was dead, that all particpants and eyewitnesses agree He was dead, and that the physical evidence as decribed by the eyewitness John is consistent with Him being dead clearly demonstrates that He was in fact dead.

Regards,
Steve Lohr

{Note: and now for something completely different. See youtube.com/watch?v=4vuW6tQ0218 for another take on the ease of determining whether something is dead or not )

 

[Ben_Masada]

1. The obvious ‘why’ i don’t agree with you is that you have no evidence,

That’s a very cheap way to discard an opponent; by discarding his evidences.

1. 95 to 99% certain. Very funny. Because we have SOME cases (and yes i have read Josephus) of people surviving for days does not say anything about the case of Jesus and says even less about the ability of Roman soldiers to detect obvious death and says absolutely nothing about the possibility of these soldiers not being able to detect the obvious movement needed for breathing to occur.

**You are completely mistaken about the Romans. Their job was only to crucify the prospect and let him rot on the cross. It was not their business to check anyone for signs of death. The Jewish authorities were the ones to come and check who was dead and who was not but to cut the time of their suffering by breaking the legs of the ones still alive, and only if the next day was a Sabbath. **

The idea of surviving the whipping and crucifixtion and lance through the side and Jesus ‘holding his breath’ on the cross fooling all concerned looks extremely weak.

**The scourging yes, was in the agenda of the Romans in order to break down resistence at the crucifixion. But the spear-piercing on Jesus’ side never happened, and for the reasons I stated in my thread. It was not a Roman policy. It was fabricated by John in order to document Jesus with Zechariah 12:10, which has nothing to do with crucifixion. **

The gospels often speak about people following ‘the way’ which is probably an older term and from the Jewish Essenes as written in the scrolls at Qumran.

The term “The Way” had nothing to do with the Essenes. It was just another name for the Sect of the Nazarenes. Read Acts 9:1,2. Paul went to Jerusalem for letters of authorization to go to the synagogues of Damascus and arrest those who were living according to “The New Way.” Those were Nazarene Synagogues, as the text clearly says. When Paul returned he went up to Jerusalem to try to join the Sect and the Apostles were afraid of him because of his persecution of the disciples..

1. Paul very often in his letters tries to convince his readers that he is just as good as ‘those special apostles of yours’.

**I know, as he said himself that his gospel was not of human invention, because he had not even come to Jerusalem to meet those who were apostles before him. It means that the gospel of the Apostles was of human invention. Not his. (Gal. 1:11; 2:6) **

It is obvious that people are preferring to follow Apollos and Peter while Paul tries to appeal that they are all working on the same team. Paul, more than once mentions that he went to Jerusalem and spoke to the apostles who confirmed that what he was preaching was correct.

Provide the quotation.

Peter in his first letter also gives his authority to Paul’s message although he mentions some things are hard to understand and mis understood by the people who have read his letters. Read the letters in their entirety. His subservience to the Church structure is strained, but in the end is recognised. He is most definately not running his own show. Read his follower Luke’s account in Acts for exactly where Paul stood in the church.

Peter did not write those letters. In my Catholic version, Saint Joseph’s edition, in a preface to those letters state that they were written by an unknown author and attributed them to Peter. This preface only came to confirm my suspictions.

 

[Ben_Masada]

You could have simply asked the question but instead you have to throw in an attack. I would not deny Jesus. John testifies. Your question is answered.

John was not at the Calvary. If you want a human opinion, I’ll give it to you, although I am sure it won’t help. “The Myth of the Pax Romana” by Prof. Erick Hinnerman, a German Schollar of the 19th Century. Do I have to mail you the book?

It was written she was there. It is unreasonable to believe that she would not have remained until He was taken off the cross.

I would like to say that you are making empty speculations but I am afraid you will say I am attacking.

So you say but it is unsubstantiated claim. I remember substantiating that this was one method they used to ensure death.

Never mind and substantiate again.

You just can’t help yourself with attacking can you? Pilate did not order the guard. He provided a guard for the Jews.

Sorry, but you are going to take this one as an attack but I have to say that you have become paranoid with almost anything I say is an attack. I am about to conclude that the only solution is to stop picking up your posts for a reply.

From before sundown Friday and sunrise Sunday is less than 24 hours:whacky:

Mark 61:1. “When that Sabbath was over Mary Magdalene…” In Israel the Sabbath is over at sunset. Mary went to the tomb and the tomb was empty. Therefore 24 hours or less, because the resurrection did not occur at the time she arrived at the tomb.

You should know the answer. Many today interpret the bible according to what the culture is today. Are you one of those? Jews of that time counted a day as any part of a day. Friday was one day. Saturday was two Sunday was three. :coffeeread:

**Three days and three nights, said Matthew in 12:40. At sunset of that Saturday, I can’t come up with more than 24 hours. I am sorry! I must have missed my Math class that day. **

 

[adrift]

abucs;5430362:

1. The obvious ‘why’ i don’t agree with you is that you have no evidence,

That’s a very cheap way to discard an opponent; by discarding his evidences.

:newidea: brilliant when you are told you have no evidence counter with you have discarded my evidence and still provide no evidence That is truly funny
:

 

[Ben_Masada]

You are saying they the Romans crucified thousands of Jews and let them all live,what a waste of time

I don’t know what you mean. Why don’t you read Josephus? He says that the Romans crucified thousands of Jews. O course, I don’t mean in the same day. Just that Jesus was not the only Jew to be crucified. That’s all.

 

[Spirithound]

That’s the whole problem my friend, Jesus was not God. You have forgotten that we are talking about Judaism, and this kind of Mythology of a man being God is possible only in pagan Mythology. I don’t even need to ask you to prove anything about this because it’s impossible. Jesus was a religious Jew and not a Greek Apollos.

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

Regarding “why God cannot raise someone,” I juxtapose your question with another: Why should God do what you wish He did?

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).

By the power of God one rises; by the power of man one is raised. This is so elementary that I wonder how a person with a Masters in Linguistics does not understand it. To raise someone, it requires a physical action, and God is incorporeal.

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?

 

[adrift]

adrift;5430401:

**

Mark 61:1. “When that Sabbath was over Mary Magdalene…” In Israel the Sabbath is over at sunset. Mary went to the tomb and the tomb was empty. Therefore 24 hours or less, because the resurrection did not occur at the time she arrived at the tomb.**

The rest of the scripture is:

But at daybreak on the first day of the week

. The first day of the week is Sunday not Saturday and daybreak is not night.

Jews of that time counted a day as any part of a day. Friday was one day. Saturday was two Sunday was three.