The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb

[Ben_Masada]

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.

**If you want to count a few minutes of Friday before he was put to rest, I’ll let you do it. All Friday night, okay. All Saturday, also okay. At sunset, when Mary Magdalene went to inspect the tomb, she found it already empty, and there was no sign that Jesus had just resurrected. Anyways, where is the third day and the third night? If you take a fews minutes of Saturday evening as the whole Saturday night, I still can’t find three days and three nights. I don’t care what Father Echert said. I have what Matthew said, and there is no rewriting of the text to mean anything else. I am waiting for the three days and three nights. **

 

[simplynoone]

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.

It could be that you are looking at this all wrong. Perhaps it is a little more true to Life. In the heart of the earth could be speaking about other nations that are ruled by their feelings rather than the logic that actually comes quite beautifully via the Laws that were handed to the People by Moses for purpose that the Prophets of in their testimonies.

Then it could be saying that this, being in the heart of the earth, is when Israel would be scattered among the nations … diaspora, which Jesus (enlightened to the testimonies of the prophets) could easily see coming their way via Rome tightening its grip on the area at the time.

The Son of man is a title given to Daniel who was in such a postition of exile from the Land of the Living.

Read Psalm 90.

If the thousand years is as one day to the Lord, then Israel became a Nation and thus was revived on the 2nd Day in accordance with the Tanakh. That would make this the 3rd Day… the Day in which the People, Israel is raised to the Land (as is obvious) and is perfected.

Scriptural Support is in the Tanakh… Hosea 6:2

Also interesting to note would be what is said in 2 Peter 3:8, no? It seems adament by the writer not to be ignorant of one thing : ???

Son of man might not be who you Christians think it is … after all, Deut 4:12 is clear that the very thing Christians try to escape is the very thing that makes me very sure you would not recognize Jesus even if he could come back and was talking to you on this forum even now.

It is no wonder it was said in the testimonies, in the latter end, they will consider. Not quite as mystical, I know. But at least it speaks to what we know in Life… I mean, we are witness to it.

Maybe this is what Jesus meant when he said in John 3 before speaking of the Son of Man and the Son of God (the Son of God being Israel, according to the Tanakh),

Verily, verily, I say unto thee, We speak that we do know, and testify that we have seen; and ye receive not our witness.

Saying you know and actually knowing are two different things…

Of course, if you say you know Jesus, a man, rose from the dead, this must mean that you have evidence your own self to support that your claim is indeed truth… else, don’t you consider that lying? Just thinking out loud.

 

[patrick457]

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.

Just dropping by here to address this. Then you can go on to your discussion.
It’s up to you to choose whether the Shroud is authentic or not, but at least I think there’s good reason to question the Carbon-14 results in 1988, no matter what National Geographic or the History Channel might tell you. There are other opinions out there; I think it prudent to test them all first. And by the way, here’s a good introductory site to the whole thing, run by Barrie M. Schwortz, Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project. aka STURP (who, interestingly, is an Orthodox Jew by faith and still is, even after being convinced that the cloth is Jesus’).

 

[Insight]

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

Certainly, because Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta earned highly respected repetitions for unbiased accuracy, as well as constant credibility, integrity and reliability. Particularly in comparison to someone typing whatever novel thought happens to pop in their head at the moment.

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

Several of us including myself have conducted searches with precise hits pertaining to your apparent resources. Your ideas and notions, particularly of Saint Paul are not surfacing on Jewish sites, but only on a few atheist sites. Most of your ideas and quotes seem to be lifted directly off positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm.

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.

Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region that was earlier called Judea, which spreads between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In November 1947 the United Nations decided on creating a Jewish state partitioned from a segment of Palestine, in addition to a UN-administered and supervised Jerusalem. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

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.

And they never said anything? These highly belligerent vociferous Chief Priests, members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Scribes never challenged Paul’s credentials of being a Pharisee personally educated by the great Gamaliel himself? We had to wait 2 thousand years later till atheists started erecting websites?

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.

You said it: the Shroud exhibits a 3D image that the finest chemists, researchers and scientists in the world cannot explain. No other burial bandage or mummy wrapping has ever done this before. This image is believed to have been impressed into the cloth at the moment of Resurrection.

God Bless

 

[estesbob]

In the Book the “Hobbit” Bilbo Baggions is beset by creatures intent on eating him. Fortunately they turned to stone when the sum came up before they could eat him. I would suggest that we follow the advice of Bilbo and not feed these creatures.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Just dropping by here to address this. Then you can go on to your discussion.
It’s up to you to choose whether the Shroud is authentic or not, but at least I think there’s good reason to question the Carbon-14 results in 1988, no matter what National Geographic or the History Channel might tell you. There are other opinions out there; I think it prudent to test them all first. And by the way, here’s a good introductory site to the whole thing, run by Barrie M. Schwortz, Documenting Photographer for the Shroud of Turin Research Project. aka STURP (who, interestingly, is an Orthodox Jew by faith and still is, even after being convinced that the cloth is Jesus’).

Okay, don’t just hit and run. Now, stay for a minute or two and tell me what is this shroud supposed to prove, that Jesus existed? I have acknowledged it already.
That he was crucified, I believe that already. That he was covered with this shroud after being put to rest in the tomb? Acceptable. To me, it is not solid evidence that he even died, let alone that he resurrected. So, what is it supposed to prove?

 

[Ben_Masada]

Certainly, because Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta earned highly respected repetitions for unbiased accuracy, as well as constant credibility, integrity and reliability. Particularly in comparison to someone typing whatever novel thought happens to pop in their head at the moment.

I’d rather trust the Scriptures.

Several of us including myself have conducted searches with precise hits pertaining to your apparent resources. Your ideas and notions, particularly of Saint Paul are not surfacing on Jewish sites, but only on a few atheist sites. Most of your ideas and quotes seem to be lifted directly off positiveatheism.org/hist/maccoby2.htm.

Why do you have to repeat the same paragraph? There are no Atheists among the Jews. There are many who don’t like religion or talks about religion. But Atheists among the People who brought the true concept of the true God to the world? I don’t think so.

Palestine is a name which has been widely used since Roman times to refer to the region that was earlier called Judea, which spreads between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. In November 1947 the United Nations decided on creating a Jewish state partitioned from a segment of Palestine, in addition to a UN-administered and supervised Jerusalem. Israel declared independence on May 14, 1948 and neighboring Arab states attacked the next day. Since then, Israel has fought a series of wars with neighboring Arab states and in consequence, Israel controls territories beyond those delineated in the 1949 Armistice Agreements.

Our Land of Israel has not been granted to us by man but by God, according to the Scriptures.

And they never said anything? These highly belligerent vociferous Chief Priests, members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Scribes never challenged Paul’s credentials of being a Pharisee personally educated by the great Gamaliel himself? We had to wait 2 thousand years later till atheists started erecting websites?

Would you challenge the claims of someone whose identity you are 100 percent aware of? I didn’t think so.

You said it: the Shroud exhibits a 3D image that the finest chemists, researchers and scientists in the world cannot explain. No other burial bandage or mummy wrapping has ever done this before. This image is believed to have been impressed into the cloth at the moment of Resurrection.

Now speaks the voice of superstition.

 

[Insight]

I’d rather trust the Scriptures.

That’s a full circle, I quoted Encyclopedia Britannica because you wouldn’t accept a scripture quote.

Why do you have to repeat the same paragraph? There are no Atheists among the Jews. There are many who don’t like religion or talks about religion. But Atheists among the People who brought the true concept of the true God to the world? I don’t think so.

Again, your ascertains regarding Saint Paul have been lifted directly off atheist sites, not Jewish sites.

Our Land of Israel has not been granted to us by man but by God, according to the Scriptures.

Another full circle, it was granted by God, taken away by God, then granted again by man.

Would you challenge the claims of someone whose identity you are 100 percent aware of? I didn’t think so.

Catholics are just as certain of Paul’s identity as Jews are aware of Moses’ identity.

Now speaks the voice of superstition.

Nay, the voice of some of the finest chemists, researchers and scientists in the world.

God Bless

 

[adrift]

**If you want to count a few minutes of Friday before he was put to rest, I’ll let you do it. All Friday night, okay. All Saturday, also okay. At sunset, when Mary Magdalene went to inspect the tomb, she found it already empty, and there was no sign that Jesus had just resurrected. Anyways, where is the third day and the third night? If you take a fews minutes of Saturday evening as the whole Saturday night, I still can’t find three days and three nights. I don’t care what Father Echert said. I have what Matthew said, and there is no rewriting of the text to mean anything else. I am waiting for the three days and three nights. **

IT is dishonest and best to say that Mary Magdalene went at sunset. All four gospel say that she went at dawn (John says it was still dark) ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. That is not Saturday night. It was Sunday. What Father Echert says is how it is. That you dismiss him without refutation speaks volumes You will accept no explanation and keep posting again and again the same untruth without acknowledging the refutation.

Okay, don’t just hit and run. Now, stay for a minute or two and tell me what is this shroud supposed to prove, that Jesus existed? I have acknowledged it already.
That he was crucified, I believe that already. That he was covered with this shroud after being put to rest in the tomb? Acceptable. To me, it is not solid evidence that he even died, let alone that he resurrected. So, what is it supposed to prove?

Please explain how this cloth was made no one has. Our faith does not rise or fall with it so it really is unimportant.

Insight;5468621:

And they never said anything? These highly belligerent vociferous Chief Priests, members of the Sanhedrin, Pharisees and Scribes never challenged Paul’s credentials of being a Pharisee personally educated by the great Gamaliel himself? We had to wait 2 thousand years later till atheists started erecting websites?

Would you challenge the claims of someone whose identity you are 100 percent aware of? I didn’t think so.

Of course, it would be so illogical to allow someone to claim something they were not. In todays world we are horrified when someone claims to be someone he is not. We have seen that in recent times. To not challenge is verification of the claim. I understand. A point will never be given especially if the person is on shaky grounds.

 

[allhers]

In the Book the “Hobbit” Bilbo Baggions is beset by creatures intent on eating him. Fortunately they turned to stone when the sun came up before they could eat him. I would suggest that we follow the advice of Bilbo and not feed these creatures.

I second this!!

 

[Insight]

In the Book the “Hobbit” Bilbo Baggions is beset by creatures intent on eating him. Fortunately they turned to stone when the sum came up before they could eat him. I would suggest that we follow the advice of Bilbo and not feed these creatures.

When looking at the posts more closely, I’m starting to think we are all being played by a 12 yr old who stumble on an atheism site and decided to have a little fun.

God Bless

 

[Spirithound]

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.

Actually I’m the one with the Master’s in linguistics. And I’ve already shown you that the Douay-Rheims, another Catholic version of the Bible, uses “is risen”. I trust the editors of those versions to tell me that “raised” and “risen” mean the same thing.

 

[Lapell]

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

Which year was the program produced? If it was when they tested with Carbon-14, there was an update some time after that to tell us that the Carbon-14 test was not accurate…

 

[patrick457]

Okay, don’t just hit and run. Now, stay for a minute or two and tell me what is this shroud supposed to prove, that Jesus existed? I have acknowledged it already.
That he was crucified, I believe that already. That he was covered with this shroud after being put to rest in the tomb? Acceptable. To me, it is not solid evidence that he even died, let alone that he resurrected. So, what is it supposed to prove?

Don’t worry my man, I’m still here.
First of all, what is that post supposed to prove? That there are other opinions out there, and that one should consult all available options first.
Now, what is the shroud supposed to prove?
Believers say that it is a proof of the resurrection; non-believers say that it is either one of three things: a cleverly-done hoax; an authentic cloth but one which did not belong to Jesus; an authentic cloth that covered Jesus’ body, with the image being formed in a natural manner - no resurrection necessarily involved.
So, what it is supposed to prove? That is up to you. You are, after all, intelligent enough to form your own decisions, are you not?

 

[Ben_Masada]

That’s a full circle, I quoted Encyclopedia Britannica because you wouldn’t accept a scripture quote.

**Would you be able to give me a quote from the Scriptures Jesus used to handle? I doubt it. **

Again, your ascertains regarding Saint Paul have been lifted directly off atheist sites, not Jewish sites.

Paul left Judaism when he became Hellenist.

Another full circle, it was granted by God, taken away by God, then granted again by man.

Men are the tools in the “hands” of God to deal with men.

Catholics are just as certain of Paul’s identity as Jews are aware of Moses’ identity.

**Are you sure? Show me in your NT where someone else rather than Paul himself saying that he was a Pharisee. **

Nay, the voice of some of the finest chemists, researchers and scientists in the world.

And who could that be?

 

[Ben_Masada]

IT is dishonest and best to say that Mary Magdalene went at sunset. All four gospel say that she went at dawn (John says it was still dark) ON THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK. That is not Saturday night. It was Sunday. What Father Echert says is how it is. That you dismiss him without refutation speaks volumes You will accept no explanation and keep posting again and again the same untruth without acknowledging the refutation.

It is completely wrong! It is unacceptable to allow the Hellenist Gentiles who wrote the gospels to try to change the Jewish Culture and customs by saying that the end of a Sabbath is in the morning of the next day. Mark says that at the end of that Sabbath Mary Magdalene went to see the tomb and… The end of the Sabbath has been at sunset for more than 4000 years and there is nothing dishonest about it. The dishonesty resides in the pretention of Christians to change Jewish reality to accommodate their caprice.

Please explain how this cloth was made no one has. Our faith does not rise or fall with it so it really is unimportant.

I am not the one who fabricated this fiasco. If one needs to explain something about it are yourselves. It doesn’t mean anything to me at all.
Ben Masada;5468847:

Of course, it would be so illogical to allow someone to claim something they were not. In todays world we are horrified when someone claims to be someone he is not. We have seen that in recent times. To not challenge is verification of the claim. I understand. A point will never be given especially if the person is on shaky grounds.

If someone shows up claiming he is the Messiah, would you take your time to identify him in a more proper manner? Perhaps you would. I would laugh at him, because I am sure of what I stand for.

 

[Ben_Masada]

When looking at the posts more closely, I’m starting to think we are all being played by a 12 yr old who stumble on an atheism site and decided to have a little fun.

God Bless

**Wow! If I were 12 years old with this knowledge of both Scriptures, mine and yours, I would beat Jesus in the Temple. He knew only the Hebrew Scriptures. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Actually I’m the one with the Master’s in linguistics. And I’ve already shown you that the Douay-Rheims, another Catholic version of the Bible, uses “is risen”. I trust the editors of those versions to tell me that “raised” and “risen” mean the same thing.

**Oh yes! Spirithound, sorry pal. And you still insist that the semantic of being raised and risen means the same thing. Well, I am not going to argue with the
“Doctor” who must have something up to his sleeves to open that Grammatical exception to the rule. **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Which year was the program produced? If it was when they tested with Carbon-14, there was an update some time after that to tell us that the Carbon-14 test was not accurate…

Lapell, I have decided to drop this subject, because it proves nothing.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Don’t worry my man, I’m still here.
First of all, what is that post supposed to prove? That there are other opinions out there, and that one should consult all available options first.
Now, what is the shroud supposed to prove?
Believers say that it is a proof of the resurrection; non-believers say that it is either one of three things: a cleverly-done hoax; an authentic cloth but one which did not belong to Jesus; an authentic cloth that covered Jesus’ body, with the image being formed in a natural manner - no resurrection necessarily involved.
So, what it is supposed to prove? That is up to you. You are, after all, intelligent enough to form your own decisions, are you not?

Tell me Patrick, was that for the laughs or for the gags? Egyptian mummies have been recovered with clothes on them. Perhaps they resurrected too.