The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb

[Ben_Masada]

---

The gospels were largely written by Jews who were either eye witnesses or followers of eye witnesses of Jesus. I totally refute any modern day claim that they were not Jewish.

If you are ready to refute any modern day claim that the writers of the gospels were not Jewish, you are doing a pretty lousy job, because the gospels are too Hellenistic to have been written by Jews. They were written 50+ years after Jesus had been gone, by Gentiles who could have never been eyewitnesses of Jesus Ministry.

This whole invention of Paul creating Christianity is rubbish.

In that case, the whole book of Acts is rubbish, because it says clearly that Christians started with Paul in Antioch because he spent there a whole year preaching about Jesus as Christ. (Acts 11:26)

As i said much earlier. Read all of Paul’s letters. He is much concerned about being respected as an apostle and as a Jew of the times along with the eye witnesses. He in no way can be said to be a lone voice or claiming a superiority over the eyewitness apostles.

Be sure that I have read all his Letters even more than several times. Take a look at Galatians chapter one. He said after his first visit to the Apostles in Jerusalem, that he was disappointed at the fact that they did not have anything to add to what he already knew. This in my language is a confession of superiority to them.

This whole rubbish comes out of an atheist agenda to downgrade any eyewitness accounts to the form of Christianity we have today. It is not co-herant.

Yes, such a rubbish that you cannot refute with one single eyewitness to the alleged resurrection of Jesus. Even the angel of Matthew cannot be taken as an eyewitness because when he removed the stone, the tomb was already empty. Can you beat that?

You cannot have Paul in his letters appealing to be just as good as the eyewitness apostles that his readers follow without there being eyewitness apostles to follow.

**This only proves that Paul was no kind of eyewitness whatsoever about Jesus. **

You can’t have Paul claiming to have constantly met and have been aproved by apostles without there being a clear understanding of apolostolic teaching in the early church and among early Christians.

**The only instance the Apostles seemed to approve Paul was when they wanted to get rid of him before he created another problem for them in Jerusalem as he had done 14 years before. **

From Paul’s letters we can clearly see that there is apolostolic authority in the early church, and it was from the apostles of Jesus who were of course Jewish and of course eye witnesses.

There was never apostolic authority over the church of Paul. The apostolic authority was over the Jewish Sect of the Nazarenes. What there was between the Apostles and Paul was an endless contention until the Nazarenes gave up their converts and reverted them back to Gentiles if they were willing to follow Paul.

 

[Insight]

Regarding the writers of the NT, they were not Jews and much less Jesus’ Apostles. Too Hellenistic to come from a Jew.

Sure they were Jews, 2 were Apostles, and one is likely the son of an Apostle. Aside from that, Luke was a Greek Physician. Several of us have been providing evidence and/or supporting links. The difficulty is that you are making bizarre unsupported statements with no documentation or links. Hellenism simply refers to Greek influence, particularly the influence after conquests of the of Alexander in the 4th Century BC, which extended from India to Egypt, which was divided into three main areas within 20 years after his death. The major areas that survived down to the first century BC are Syrian kingdom, the Seleucid kingdom, and the Ptolemaic kingdom, which survived in Egypt, which was finally taken over by Rome in 31 B.C. Jewish culture and civilization during the Hellenistic period was in intense dialogue with Hellenistic culture and civilization.

Regarding Paul, we have only his word that he had heard (not seen) Jesus in a vision. Since his word did not enjoy much credibility, anything he said was debatable.

Sure, Paul had enormous credibility, he was a respected Pharisee personally educated in the academy of Gamaliel. Gamaliel, was a highly respected figure in the rabbinical writings such as the Mishnah, and was given the title “Rabban”, as the leading sage of his day.

**Regarding the Shroud of Tourin, there is no longer need to consider. It has been proved a hoax. **

Not any longer, a 2006 book by Brendan Whiting reveals that the square inch sample divided up and sent to 3 labs for radio carbon dating in 1988 was from a 14th century fabric repair to the edge of the Shroud. This was proved via examination of the remnants of the test samples, each lab utilized half their sample and saved the other half. The composition of the saved samples proved to be entirely different from the main part. Then Whiting shows how the pollen samples dated to the 1st Century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Whiting

God Bless

 

[Insight]

This whole rubbish comes out of an atheist agenda to downgrade any eyewitness accounts to the form of Christianity we have today

I think you hit the nail on the head. By not providing any supporting documentation for his extremely unique beliefs and viewpoints, Ben left us with the task of making our own analytical searches. The only direct hits I’m getting concerning his opinions and ideas are on positiveatheism.org. And most particularly on positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm. Abucs, I think you made the very same observation. The site does have some humorous reading though, there seems to be no limit to how far atheists will go to bend and twist meanings in attempt to make their impossible case.

God Bless

 

[Ben_Masada]

Sure they were Jews, 2 were Apostles, and one is likely the son of an Apostle. Aside from that, Luke was a Greek Physician. Several of us have been providing evidence and/or supporting links. The difficulty is that you are making bizarre unsupported statements with no documentation or links. Hellenism simply refers to Greek influence, particularly the influence after conquests of the of Alexander in the 4th Century BC, which extended from India to Egypt, which was divided into three main areas within 20 years after his death. The major areas that survived down to the first century BC are Syrian kingdom, the Seleucid kingdom, and the Ptolemaic kingdom, which survived in Egypt, which was finally taken over by Rome in 31 B.C. Jewish culture and civilization during the Hellenistic period was in intense dialogue with Hellenistic culture and civilization.

**I know what Hellenism and Greek Mythology are. It doesn’t help to paste links here with the opinions of other people. I am Jewish and I know that a Jew would never write that a man can be God. **

Sure, Paul had enormous credibility, he was a respected Pharisee personally educated in the academy of Gamaliel. Gamaliel, was a highly respected figure in the rabbinical writings such as the Mishnah, and was given the title “Rabban”, as the leading sage of his day.

And you don’t have even a single evidence to substantiate what you say, but only Paul’s word. The only time Paul ever saw himself before the Sanhedrin was as a criminal. And he lost his case because he began his defense with a lie. The Pharisees were a very small classe and they were well known in Israel, especially by the Sanhedrin. If Paul had been a Pharisee he would have no need to identify himself as a Pharisee because the Sanhedrin would be aware of. The bottom line is that he was never a Pharisee in his life.

Not any longer, a 2006 book by Brendan Whiting reveals that the square inch sample divided up and sent to 3 labs for radio carbon dating in 1988 was from a 14th century fabric repair to the edge of the Shroud. This was proved via examination of the remnants of the test samples, each lab utilized half their sample and saved the other half. The composition of the saved samples proved to be entirely different from the main part. Then Whiting shows how the pollen samples dated to the 1st Century.

You are watching too much National Geographic on the TV. You have only to use logic to know that a shroud would not survive 2000 years and still exist.

 

[kristine105]

The tomb is empty because Jesus is risen…

 

[Ben_Masada]

The tomb is empty because Jesus is risen…

That’s not what the text says. It says that the tomb was empty because Jesus had been raised and not risen. And the tomb was empty at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at sunset. (Mark 16:1) Therefore, in less than 24 hours. What happened to the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40?

 

[adrift]

That’s not what the text says. It says that the tomb was empty because Jesus had been raised and not risen. And the tomb was empty at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at sunset. (Mark 16:1) Therefore, in less than 24 hours. What happened to the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40?

What language are you reading the text? It doesn’t say that in the Polish text it says He is risen. What does it say in the Greek? It says He is risen. It was found empty at sunrise not sunset. It was more than 24 hours. From Friday three o’clock until Sat 3 is 24 hours. But He didn’t rise then He didn’t rise until Sunday at daybreak. Not less than 24 hours but more than. I have explained the three days. You ignore it. Jewish people at the time counted even a part of a day as a whole therefore Friday was one day Saturday two and Sunday three. As a Jew you should know this.

 

[adrift]

**We are on the same page with regards to personal opinions. Show me evidences in the Scriptures that Jesus used to handle anything pointing to Jesus that he would be God, and we are in business. I am not interested in your decision to accept the opinion of men who decided that Jesus was God. Show me in the Tanach, and we will take it from there.

Regarding being dishonest because I have pointed to the difference in the semantic of rising and being raised, charge the four gospel writers who were the ones who committed the blunder, not me. You are the one with a Masters Degree in Linguistics. I am sure you know only too well that I am right. If the translator, being a Catholic person, didn’t see this blunder, there is division or stupidity in the Church.**

Jesus said He was God.

Again you are making a claim that the writers blundered but you are using English they did not write in English show me in their writings not a translation of their writings. What you have never dealt with is that the definition means for one to come back from the dead. Once you apply the correct definition your argument falls apart.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Jesus said He was God.

Again you are making a claim that the writers blundered but you are using English they did not write in English show me in their writings not a translation of their writings. What you have never dealt with is that the definition means for one to come back from the dead. Once you apply the correct definition your argument falls apart.

**I don’t think you read or understood my post above. It does not matter to me how they wrote in Greek. I am using a Catholic version of the Bible. The Editor is or was a Catholic and he translated the term or expression as being raised and not risen. Then, a Commission of Catholic Bishops approved and the Pope set his imprimatum. Can you beat that? I didn’t think so.

Jesus did not say he was God. You are being too literal. Tell me, does God ride the wind as one rides a horse? That’s what is said of Him in the Tanach. I bet you believe it literally. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

What language are you reading the text? It doesn’t say that in the Polish text it says He is risen. What does it say in the Greek? It says He is risen. It was found empty at sunrise not sunset. It was more than 24 hours. From Friday three o’clock until Sat 3 is 24 hours. But He didn’t rise then He didn’t rise until Sunday at daybreak. Not less than 24 hours but more than. I have explained the three days. You ignore it. Jewish people at the time counted even a part of a day as a whole therefore Friday was one day Saturday two and Sunday three. As a Jew you should know this.

**Read Mark 16:1. " At the end of that Sabbath…" The end of the Sabbath is at Sunset, and you cannot fight reality. It has been so since more then 4000 years ago.
Then, with regards to the three days and three nights, the reference of Matthew 12:40 is to the time Jesus would have to spend in the tomb. Joseph put him to rest just prior to the beginning of the Sabbath and not at 3pm as you claim above. Therefore, much less than 24 hours. Now, try again to find three days and three nights. **

 

[Insight]

I know what Hellenism and Greek Mythology are. It doesn’t help to paste links here with the opinions of other people.

Well Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta may need to consult you for some accuracy revisions.

I am Jewish and I know that a Jew would never write that a man can be God.

Several of us including myself have conducted searches with precise hits pertaining to your apparent resources, resulting in shared reservations on your claim of being Jewish.

If Paul had been a Pharisee he would have no need to identify himself as a Pharisee because the Sanhedrin would be aware of.

Using your own logic, Paul wrote numerous letters and traverse the land of Palestine from one end to another (several times giving speeches to large educated crowds) without someone calling this proposed bluff of being a Pharisee. There were Chief Priests, members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Scribes present during Paul’s speeches, no one raised their hand and said: “Excuse me, oh no you weren’t”. There is no recorded event of the Sanhedrin challenging Paul when he attested that he was a Pharisee educated by Gamaliel, because they knew it to be true. Paul’s claim of being a Pharisee usually started with the prologue “As you are aware”.

You are watching too much National Geographic on the TV. You have only to use logic to know that a shroud would not survive 2000 years and still exist.

The Museum of Cairo has fine examples of bandages used to wrap mummies that are more than 4,500 years old, they survived, and they are more than twice the age of the Shroud.

The head of the STURP team that investigated the Shroud is Barrie Schwortz, a Hasidic Jewish Scientist, who made it clear that he does not believe in the Messiah. After researching the new findings presented in Whiting’s book, he wrote that they made an incredible mistake. He is now convinced the Shroud is 2,000 years old.

God Bless

 

[Bill_Pick]

**Regarding the writers of the NT, they were not Jews and much less Jesus’ Apostles. Too Hellenistic to come from a Jew.

Regarding Paul, we have only his word that he had heard (not seen) Jesus in a vision. Since his word did not enjoy much credibility, anything he said was debatable.

Regarding the Shroud of Tourin, there is no longer need to consider. It has been proved a hoax. **

Ben, Sorry for jumping in here but can you please give me the info you have on the Shroud of Tourin being a honax, thats one I missed

 

[adrift]

Read Mark 16:1. " At the end of that Sabbath…" The end of the Sabbath is at Sunset, and you cannot fight reality. It has been so since more then 4000 years ago.
verse two continues Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb. The sun does not rise at night it has been that way for more than 4000 years. It was Sunday morning try as you will to twist what was written

Then, with regards to the three days and three nights, the reference of Matthew 12:40 is to the time Jesus would have to spend in the tomb. Joseph put him to rest just prior to the beginning of the Sabbath and not at 3pm as you claim above. Therefore, much less than 24 hours. Now, try again to find three days and three nights.

Just prior to Sabbath does not change that when Sabbath ended He was still in the tomb. He did not rise UNTIL Sunday at the break of day. It does not change that Jews counted the days as a whole for any part so Friday was one Sat two Sun three. Now you try to discount it again by not addressing that issue.

 

[adrift]

Regarding the Shroud of Tourin, there is no longer need to consider. It has been proved a hoax.

No their is a debate that the carbon dating is inaccurate.

Various tests have been performed on the shroud, yet the debates about its origin continue. Radiocarbon dating in 1988 by three independent teams of scientists yielded results published in Nature indicating that the shroud was made during the Middle Ages, approximately 1300 years after Jesus lived.[4] Claims of bias and error in the testing were raised almost immediately and were addressed by Harry E. Gove.[5] Follow-up analysis published in 2005, for example, claimed that the sample dated by the teams was taken from an area of the shroud that was not a part of the original cloth. The shroud was also damaged by a fire in the Late Middle Ages which could have added carbon material to the cloth, resulting in a higher radiocarbon content and a later calculated age. This analysis itself is questioned by skeptics such as Joe Nickell, who reasons that the conclusions of the author, Raymond Rogers, result from “starting with the desired conclusion and working backward to the evidence”.[6] Former Nature editor Philip Ball has said that the idea that Rogers steered his study to a preconceived conclusion is “unfair” and Rogers “has a history of respectable work”.

However, the 2008 research at the Oxford Radiocarbon Accelerator Unit may revise the 1260–1390 dating toward which it originally contributed, leading its director Christopher Ramsey to call the scientific community to probe anew the authenticity of the Shroud.[7][8] “With the radiocarbon measurements and with all of the other evidence which we have about the Shroud, there does seem to be a conflict in the interpretation of the different evidence” Ramsey said to BBC News in 2008, after the new research emerged.[9] Ramsey had stressed that he would be surprised if the 1988 tests were shown to be far off, let alone “a thousand years wrong” but insisted that he would keep an open mind.

 

[adrift]

**I don’t think you read or understood my post above. It does not matter to me how they wrote in Greek. I am using a Catholic version of the Bible. The Editor is or was a Catholic and he translated the term or expression as being raised and not risen. Then, a Commission of Catholic Bishops approved and the Pope set his imprimatum. Can you beat that? I didn’t think so.

Jesus did not say he was God. You are being too literal. Tell me, does God ride the wind as one rides a horse? That’s what is said of Him in the Tanach. I bet you believe it literally. **

It doesn’t matter to you? The truth does not matter? You are making more of an imprimatur than what it is. An imprimatur does not mean that the translation is totally approved only that they do not find it against the faith. They do not read it the same way you do. They read it as intended by the ORIGINAL writers. The Polish translation is also approved by the Pope. It reads is risen. The Greek is also is risen. You are hanging your hat on an imperfect translation. Sorry the Catholic faith does not look at it that way. In fact, that type of looking at scripture is condemned.

 

[abucs]

Ben, you say that you just have to use logic to know the shroud can’t survive 2000 years.
What a really silly arguement. This is your problem Ben. you are just using your own logic - and it obviously is irrational in many areas, but you are very entertaining with your outbursts.

It doesn’t matter how many times you say the gospels were written by Hellenistic Gentiles because hey, you claim to be a Jew living 2000 years later and YOU KNOW that no Jew would EVER write that.

You are so funny Ben, and your logic and arguement is really entertaining. Please continue.

I am really impressed by your stamina Ben. I wouldn’t think someone could keep up your pace for so long without actually showing any concrete intellectual proof for your theories.

Be intellectual Ben, otherwise we are just going to laugh at you.

 

[Bill_Pick]

verse two continues Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb. The sun does not rise at night it has been that way for more than 4000 years. It was Sunday morning try as you will to twist what was written

Just prior to Sabbath does not change that when Sabbath ended He was still in the tomb. He did not rise UNTIL Sunday at the break of day. It does not change that Jews counted the days as a whole for any part so Friday was one Sat two Sun three. Now you try to discount it again by not addressing that issue.

Ben, Sorry for jumping in here but can you please give me the info you have on the Shroud of Tourin being a honax, thats one I missed
BEN this is your answer

 

[allhers]

That’s not what the text says. It says that the tomb was empty because Jesus had been raised and not risen. And the tomb was empty at the end of that Sabbath, which in Israel is at sunset. (Mark 16:1) Therefore, in less than 24 hours. What happened to the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40?

ewtn.com/vexperts/showresult.asp?RecNum=288478&Forums=0&Experts=0&Days=2003&Author=&Keyword=three+days+and+three+nights&pgnu=1&groupnum=0&record_bookmark=2&ORDER_BY_TXT=ORDER+BY+ReplyDate+DESC&start_at=

Father Echert answered this back in 2003, …(on EWTN web site)…

Matthew 12:40 reads, “For as Jonah remained in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. “ The more usual way in which Jesus refers to his time in the tomb is simply by days, “after three days.” In this instance, probably to accommodate more precisely the OT foreshadowing, Jesus includes nights in the reference to his entombment. The three day span is easy to account for by Jewish reckoning, in accord with sunset. Remember too, that Jews count as a full day even a partial day, when it comes to this reckoning:

Day 1: Late afternoon Friday prior to the sunset Day 2: The entire Sabbath day (Friday night and all of Saturday) Day 3: Sunday, which began with sunset at the close of the Sabbath (Saturday night and Sunday morning)

Click on the link above and read the rest.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Well Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta may need to consult you for some accuracy revisions.

Do the Encyclopedia Britanica and Encarta bring anything different from what is the opinion of another man?

Several of us including myself have conducted searches with precise hits pertaining to your apparent resources, resulting in shared reservations on your claim of being Jewish.

Aha! That’s great. Maybe I am a Catholic camouflaged as a Jew.

Using your own logic, Paul wrote numerous letters and traverse the land of Palestine from one end to another (several times giving speeches to large educated crowds) without someone calling this proposed bluff of being a Pharisee.

**Two things here. The first is that the place was not “Palestine” but the Land of Israel. There was NEVER a “Palestine” country in the History of the world. And second, why would occur to these alleged crowds that Paul was or was not a Pharisee? They knew that a Pharisee would never declare that a man was God. **

There were Chief Priests, members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Scribes present during Paul’s speeches, no one raised their hand and said: “Excuse me, oh no you weren’t”. There is no recorded event of the Sanhedrin challenging Paul when he attested that he was a Pharisee educated by Gamaliel, because they knew it to be true. Paul’s claim of being a Pharisee usually started with the prologue “As you are aware”.

Since you are speculating, I am allowed to do the same that members of the Sanhedrin at Paul’s trial must have laughed and thought that Paul was out of his mind.

The Museum of Cairo has fine examples of bandages used to wrap mummies that are more than 4,500 years old, they survived, and they are more than twice the age of the Shroud.

Good. It’s possible. You are right.

The head of the STURP team that investigated the Shroud is Barrie Schwortz, a Hasidic Jewish Scientist, who made it clear that he does not believe in the Messiah. After researching the new findings presented in Whiting’s book, he wrote that they made an incredible mistake. He is now convinced the Shroud is 2,000 years old.

**Very good. What is that supposed to prove, that Jesus existed? I believed already. That he was crucified? I believed already. It does not prove that he died on the cross, and much less that there was a resurrection. It’s proof only that he was shrouded with, and that the shroud was left behind when he was raised from that tomb. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben, Sorry for jumping in here but can you please give me the info you have on the Shroud of Tourin being a honax, thats one I missed

Well, if you watch TV (channel History or National Geographic) it has been televised that the tale about the Shroud of Tourin was a hoax. Then, I read somewhere a reference to that end.