The Mystery Of The Empty Tomb

[planten]

**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, I have been following your posts and find that you have very good valid points against the church posters. I had previously given my opinion that Jesus was a Jew. The Jewish elders were against him and wanted to kill him or stop him short of what Jesus was trying to do.

They put him on the cross for just s few hours on Friday. He was brought down in semi-dead state, placed in a tomb well before sunset and treated with medicines.

When all had departed from the place, his friends removed Jesus from that tomb to a more secure place and put the tombstone in place. Nobody could lift the stone to see if Jesus was inside. He was not there anyhow.

After a day, the stone was lifted while soldiers were guarding it and found not the body of Jesus there. The tomb was empty. They went in city and told all that to the elders of Jews.

There is some dialogue recorded in bibleNT between the elders and the soldiers. So the body of Jesus was not where it should have been. That was well known to every one at that time. Nobody knew where the body had gone. At least we know from the bibleNT that the body (and soul) had not gone up to God in heavens. The same body was walking about on earth with the same wounds and same soul.

There is no mystery of the empty tomb. A few wealthy influential Jews had come to the help of wounded Jesus. They helped him and looked after him well.**

 

[patrick457]

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.

You’ve just confused me here. What?

 

[Ben_Masada]

**Ben, I have been following your posts and find that you have very good valid points against the church posters. I had previously given my opinion that Jesus was a Jew. The Jewish elders were against him and wanted to kill him or stop him short of what Jesus was trying to do.

They put him on the cross for just s few hours on Friday. He was brought down in semi-dead state, placed in a tomb well before sunset and treated with medicines.

When all had departed from the place, his friends removed Jesus from that tomb to a more secure place and put the tombstone in place. Nobody could lift the stone to see if Jesus was inside. He was not there anyhow.

After a day, the stone was lifted while soldiers were guarding it and found not the body of Jesus there. The tomb was empty. They went in city and told all that to the elders of Jews.

There is some dialogue recorded in bibleNT between the elders and the soldiers. So the body of Jesus was not where it should have been. That was well known to every one at that time. Nobody knew where the body had gone. At least we know from the bibleNT that the body (and soul) had not gone up to God in heavens. The same body was walking about on earth with the same wounds and same soul.

There is no mystery of the empty tomb. A few wealthy influential Jews had come to the help of wounded Jesus. They helped him and looked after him well.**

**And when are you going to answer my question about your concern on this matter? I mean, what is in there for you? I am curious to know what possibly would keep a Muslim interested in a debate between Jews and Christians about a subject that concerns the two peoples. Perhaps just for the sake of dialoguing? **

 

[planten]

**And when are you going to answer my question about your concern on this matter? I mean, what is in there for you? I am curious to know what possibly would keep a Muslim interested in a debate between Jews and Christians about a subject that concerns the two peoples. Perhaps just for the sake of dialoguing? **

**Ben, I have my own ideas as a Muslim. I learn something useful from your posts which I did not know before. that was from other threads too. I may not be right in my own ideas. But it is good to learn few things about the senior nation (Jews) and their off-shoots (christians) who have many more off-shoots now such as mormons and JW’s.

My interest is only in Judaism and catholicism. Jesus is of special interest because people are having strange ideas about him. It helps to go to the bottom of things about Jesus and I learned a few new things from your posts about Jesus. e.g.

1. Jesus was a Jew and belonged to the Jews. You wanted to claim jesus for your people.
2. Jesus never wanted to start a new religion. (That was perhaps my own idea.)

If my posts are disturbing your discussion then I will read your posts but I will not send any comments / reply in future.

**

 

[Insight]

**Ben, I have been following your posts and find that you have very good valid points against the church posters. I had previously given my opinion that Jesus was a Jew. The Jewish elders were against him and wanted to kill him or stop him short of what Jesus was trying to do.

They put him on the cross for just s few hours on Friday. He was brought down in semi-dead state, placed in a tomb well before sunset and treated with medicines.

When all had departed from the place, his friends removed Jesus from that tomb to a more secure place and put the tombstone in place. Nobody could lift the stone to see if Jesus was inside. He was not there anyhow.

After a day, the stone was lifted while soldiers were guarding it and found not the body of Jesus there. The tomb was empty. They went in city and told all that to the elders of Jews.

There is some dialogue recorded in bibleNT between the elders and the soldiers. So the body of Jesus was not where it should have been. That was well known to every one at that time. Nobody knew where the body had gone. At least we know from the bibleNT that the body (and soul) had not gone up to God in heavens. The same body was walking about on earth with the same wounds and same soul.

There is no mystery of the empty tomb. A few wealthy influential Jews had come to the help of wounded Jesus. They helped him and looked after him well.**

OMG, another one. Hey, maybe Scotty beamed Him out of there. While we are being diverted by this two ring circus, Obama an Pelosi are trying to slip FOCA through in the Health Care Reform Bill.

God Bless

 

[Lapell]

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

O.K., Ben! I only replied to that post of yours mentioning it, that’s all…

 

[Lapell]

**Ben, I have my own ideas as a Muslim. I learn something useful from your posts which I did not know before. that was from other threads too. I may not be right in my own ideas. But it is good to learn few things about the senior nation (Jews) and their off-shoots (christians) who have many more off-shoots now such as mormons and JW’s.

My interest is only in Judaism and catholicism. Jesus is of special interest because people are having strange ideas about him. It helps to go to the bottom of things about Jesus and I learned a few new things from your posts about Jesus. e.g.

1. Jesus was a Jew and belonged to the Jews. You wanted to claim jesus for your people.
2. Jesus never wanted to start a new religion. (That was perhaps my own idea.)

If my posts are disturbing your discussion then I will read your posts but I will not send any comments / reply in future.

**

planten, I don’t see much why you should be excluded from this discussion if you wish to say something.

 

[Lapell]

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.

And perhaps the resurrected mummies could appear and disappear at will, so we could have these strange visitors where we are…

 

[Lapell]

**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. **

What has this verse to do with the founding of the empty tomb? When Sabbath was ended, the women went to buy spices to bring to the tomb at the break of day. So yes, they went out to buy the spices when darkness has fallen, so they certainly were good Jewesses… but I fail to see what your point is.

 

[adrift]

Ben Masada;5472822:

adrift;5469892:

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.

That is NOT what Mark says. What Mark says is:

1 When the sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary, the mother of James, and Salome **bought spices**

so that they might go and anoint him.
2
Very early when the sun had risen, on the first day of the week, they came to the tomb.

They BOUGHT the spices after sabbath but they didn’t go to the tomb until Sunday morning.

 

[Bill_Pick]

**Ben, I have been following your posts and find that you have very good valid points against the church posters. I had previously given my opinion that Jesus was a Jew. The Jewish elders were against him and wanted to kill him or stop him short of what Jesus was trying to do.

They put him on the cross for just s few hours on Friday. He was brought down in semi-dead state, placed in a tomb well before sunset and treated with medicines.

When all had departed from the place, his friends removed Jesus from that tomb to a more secure place and put the tombstone in place. Nobody could lift the stone to see if Jesus was inside. He was not there anyhow.

After a day, the stone was lifted while soldiers were guarding it and found not the body of Jesus there. The tomb was empty. They went in city and told all that to the elders of Jews.

There is some dialogue recorded in bibleNT between the elders and the soldiers. So the body of Jesus was not where it should have been. That was well known to every one at that time. Nobody knew where the body had gone. At least we know from the bibleNT that the body (and soul) had not gone up to God in heavens. The same body was walking about on earth with the same wounds and same soul.

There is no mystery of the empty tomb. A few wealthy influential Jews had come to the help of wounded Jesus. They helped him and looked after him well.**

Plante, Here are your words "I had previously given my opinion that Jesus was a Jew. " Well with all your hog wash you got one right,Jesus was a Jew…After over 3000 post you got ONE right. ==Way to go. You may be a Christian B4 its all over yet.

 

[allhers]

Planten ---- 1

Ben ---- 0

Now, both of you now go read chapter 28 and pay particular attention to this part:

Matthew 11-16
While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all
that had happened.
They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the
soldiers, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him while we
were asleep.’
And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy (him) and keep you out of
trouble.”
The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated
among the Jews to the present day.

 

[abucs]

Ben,

people say that the death image on the shroud (and medical people say he was dead) is very unusual not just because it is there and nobody knows why (perhaps there is a natural explanation) not that the body image is not decomposed like an Egyptian Mummy (perhaps the body was taken out at some stage) but that any attempt to take the body out would have caused a ripping of the blood from from the shroud and we would see abrasions on the shroud instead of the intact linen material under the blood stains. So if a body was in the shroud (as it seems to have been) and it was removed before decomposition, there is a question on how it could possibly have been removed while leaving the shroud intact. The sticking dried blood would have fused the body to the shroud and any attempt to remove it would have caused minute tears in the linen of the shroud.

Now perhaps there will be at some time a natural explanation for the shrouds image.

If the current science is correct and the shroud looks to be greater than 1300 years old and the corroborative sciences put it at 2000 years - type of linen used, fitting in with written historical accounts, matching with the Sudarium of Oviedo, minute knowledge of crucifixion practices and bodily responses to that process etc etc - if it is dated at 2000 years old then i think it does make a big difference in my opinion.

It adds validity to John’s Gospel, the Jewish eye witness gospel writer (or Hellenistic fiction writer if you prefer) wrote about 2000 years ago about Jesus being whipped (the shroud shows Roman flagrams being used by two soldiers), Jesus carrying his cross (the shroud shows abrasions on the mans shoulders) Jesus falling 3 times (the shroud shows the mans knees bloodied), the crown of thorns (the shroud shows lacerations about the head), the spear in the side (again shown where a professional soldier would aim to reach the heart from a distance just below the victim), the blood and water coming out (which is medically what we would expect from a body that has suffocated at crucifixion and this is seen on the shroud) Jesus being buried in a cave (limestone fragments found around the feet area which are a match to Jerusalem limestone) Jesus was buried a linen cloth owned by a wealthy man (the shroud is an expensive extremely good quality textile which matches 1st century linen found at Masada) Jesus did not decompose (the body shows no signs of decay) Jesus rose from the dead (there is no sign of the body being removed by natural means).

Now perhaps the dating will change again and the shroud will be shown to be a later forgery by an extremely clever, anonymous and well educated and thorough person who was centuries ahead of his/her time. And that somehow that he/she just fluked the 3D effect and the negative image attributes the shroud has.

But if it is dated to 2000 years ago, then it is an incredible witness to the validity of that Hellenistic writer of yours - John, and his Gospel.

The Turin shroud most certainly matters.

 

[Ben_Masada]

**Ben, I have my own ideas as a Muslim. I learn something useful from your posts which I did not know before. that was from other threads too. I may not be right in my own ideas. But it is good to learn few things about the senior nation (Jews) and their off-shoots (christians) who have many more off-shoots now such as mormons and JW’s.

My interest is only in Judaism and catholicism. Jesus is of special interest because people are having strange ideas about him. It helps to go to the bottom of things about Jesus and I learned a few new things from your posts about Jesus. e.g.

1. Jesus was a Jew and belonged to the Jews. You wanted to claim jesus for your people.
2. Jesus never wanted to start a new religion. (That was perhaps my own idea.)

If my posts are disturbing your discussion then I will read your posts but I will not send any comments / reply in future.

**

Oh no Planten, your posts do not disturb our discussions at all. As I said before, I was just curious about the interest of a Muslim in the religious discussions between Christians and Jews, that’s all. I am sure you are also welcome by our hosts here the Catholics. I am also a guest, and btw, grateful to be tolerated in spite of my controversial views. Feel welcome therefore, as so do I.

 

[Ben_Masada]

Planten ---- 1

Ben ---- 0

Now, both of you now go read chapter 28 and pay particular attention to this part:

Matthew 11-16
While they were going, some of the guard went into the city and told the chief priests all
that had happened.
They assembled with the elders and took counsel; then they gave a large sum of money to the
soldiers, telling them, “You are to say, ‘His disciples came by night and stole him while we
were asleep.’
And if this gets to the ears of the governor, we will satisfy (him) and keep you out of
trouble.”
The soldiers took the money and did as they were instructed. And this story has circulated
among the Jews to the present day.

**Now, please, explain to me three contradictions: The first one is about the guards set at the place to prevent the approach of any supect. At the end of that Sabbath, which is at sunset in Israel, therefore, less than 24 hours, the women went to the sepucher and saw no guards, no sealed stone, but removed, and the tomb empty. Where were the guards? Why was not the stone sealed? Why was the tomb empty in less than 24 hours? (Mark 16:1)

The second contradiction is, for a Roman to sleep at his post, meant sure death. How could they be bribed to say that while they were sleeping the disciples came by night and stole the body?

The third contradiction is, what night did the guards spend at the tomb area if they were set in there only Saturday morning, and at sunset they were no longer in there? (Mat. 27:62) **

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben,

people say that the death image on the shroud (and medical people say he was dead) is very unusual not just because it is there and nobody knows why (perhaps there is a natural explanation) not that the body image is not decomposed like an Egyptian Mummy (perhaps the body was taken out at some stage) but that any attempt to take the body out would have caused a ripping of the blood from from the shroud and we would see abrasions on the shroud instead of the intact linen material under the blood stains. So if a body was in the shroud (as it seems to have been) and it was removed before decomposition, there is a question on how it could possibly have been removed while leaving the shroud intact. The sticking dried blood would have fused the body to the shroud and any attempt to remove it would have caused minute tears in the linen of the shroud.

Now perhaps there will be at some time a natural explanation for the shrouds image.

If the current science is correct and the shroud looks to be greater than 1300 years old and the corroborative sciences put it at 2000 years - type of linen used, fitting in with written historical accounts, matching with the Sudarium of Oviedo, minute knowledge of crucifixion practices and bodily responses to that process etc etc - if it is dated at 2000 years old then i think it does make a big difference in my opinion.

It adds validity to John’s Gospel, the Jewish eye witness gospel writer (or Hellenistic fiction writer if you prefer) wrote about 2000 years ago about Jesus being whipped (the shroud shows Roman flagrams being used by two soldiers), Jesus carrying his cross (the shroud shows abrasions on the mans shoulders) Jesus falling 3 times (the shroud shows the mans knees bloodied), the crown of thorns (the shroud shows lacerations about the head), the spear in the side (again shown where a professional soldier would aim to reach the heart from a distance just below the victim), the blood and water coming out (which is medically what we would expect from a body that has suffocated at crucifixion and this is seen on the shroud) Jesus being buried in a cave (limestone fragments found around the feet area which are a match to Jerusalem limestone) Jesus was buried a linen cloth owned by a wealthy man (the shroud is an expensive extremely good quality textile which matches 1st century linen found at Masada) Jesus did not decompose (the body shows no signs of decay) Jesus rose from the dead (there is no sign of the body being removed by natural means).

Now perhaps the dating will change again and the shroud will be shown to be a later forgery by an extremely clever, anonymous and well educated and thorough person who was centuries ahead of his/her time. And that somehow that he/she just fluked the 3D effect and the negative image attributes the shroud has.

But if it is dated to 2000 years ago, then it is an incredible witness to the validity of that Hellenistic writer of yours - John, and his Gospel.

The Turin shroud most certainly matters.

The shroud of Tourin proves nothing. And don’t say that Jesus rose from the dead, because the term used by the gospel writers is that he was raised. And not from the dead. Why would one raise a dead man from his tomb for, if not that he was alive? Ponder!

 

[Ben_Masada]

What has this verse to do with the founding of the empty tomb? When Sabbath was ended, the women went to buy spices to bring to the tomb at the break of day. So yes, they went out to buy the spices when darkness has fallen, so they certainly were good Jewesses… but I fail to see what your point is.

**Yes, you are right, after the Sabbath they went to buy spices. But I still can’t find three days and three nights even if the women arrived at the tomb in the morning of the first day. **

 

[patrick457]

The shroud of Tourin proves nothing. And don’t say that Jesus rose from the dead, because the term used by the gospel writers is that he was raised. And not from the dead. Why would one raise a dead man from his tomb for, if not that he was alive? Ponder!

I’ll agree that Mark and Luke do not contain any references about being raised “from the dead” in their versions of the story. But what do you make of the following version, I wonder?

Now after Sabbath, in the lightening up into first of Sabbath, Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. His form was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became as dead men. But answering, the angel said to the women, “Do not fear; for I see that you are looking for Jesus, the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised, as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying! And go quickly and tell His disciples that He has been raised from the dead, and behold, He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”

-Matthew 28:1-7

As for the use of “raise”, this is what is called by scholars the ‘divine passive’ (passivum divinum) - a common device where the use of the passive form implies that God is causing the action even if God is not specifically mentioned in the text. The use of the passive egeirō, “to arouse” or “to raise up”, in describing Jesus’ resurrection is actually more common than we think - a number of translations contribute to this confusion, as they render the instances of the passive into the active “risen”. Interestingly, even Paul used the passive form once: Jesus “was raised (egēgertai) on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:4).

 

[Ben_Masada]

Ben Masada;5472822:

They BOUGHT the spices after sabbath but they didn’t go to the tomb until Sunday morning.

Yes, you are right. They bought the spices after the Sabbath, but even if they arrived at the tomb in the morning of the first day, I still can’t find the three days and three nights of Matthew 12:40.

 

[Ben_Masada]

I’ll agree that Mark and Luke do not contain any references about being raised “from the dead” in their versions of the story. But what do you make of the following version, I wonder?

Now after Sabbath, in the lightening up into first of Sabbath, Mary the Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone and sat upon it. His form was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. For fear of him the guards shook and became as dead men. But answering, the angel said to the women, “Do not fear; for I see that you are looking for Jesus, the crucified. He is not here, for He has been raised, as He said. Come, see the place where He was lying! And go quickly and tell His disciples that He has been raised from the dead, and behold, He is going before you into Galilee; there you will see Him. Behold, I have told you.”

-Matthew 28:1-7

As for the use of “raise”, this is what is called by scholars the ‘divine passive’ (passivum divinum) - a common device where the use of the passive form implies that God is causing the action even if God is not specifically mentioned in the text. The use of the passive egeirō, “to arouse” or “to raise up”, in describing Jesus’ resurrection is actually more common than we think - a number of translations contribute to this confusion, as they render the instances of the passive into the active “risen”. Interestingly, even Paul used the passive form once: Jesus “was raised (egēgertai) on the third day” (1 Corinthians 15:4).

**That’s very interesting that you bring to our attention that when the women got to the tomb area, there was an earthquake, an angel came from Heaven, removed the tombstone and what did they see? Nothing. The tomb was empty. Even the angel of Matthew cannot be taken as an eyewitness to the resurrection because the tomb was already empty when he removed the stone. We remain to know who raised Jesus from that tomb before the angel came down to remove the stone. I think Joseph of Arimathea not only made a fool of the guards to watch an empty tomb but also of the angel, who perhaps thought Jesus would come out when he removed the stone. That’s rather funny.

Regarding the terms to rise and to be raised, “Scholars” are lucky to say silly things and be taken as serious. I doubt so-called Scholars who think they can say anything and be accepted just because they enjoy the title. Whenever a read or hear something from a
“Scholar,” I always wait for the other shoe to fall. Therefore, I don’t agree with this so-called Divine passive. And I do see “Divine passive,” but in the “being risen.” The problem is that the gospel writers, to their chagrin, used “being raise” and it happened to no one to fix the blunder. **