Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Nobody has ever stopped to question WHY Jesus had to have the stone removed to get out of the tomb. Jesus could simply have materialized outside the tomb or just walked through solid rock. So why did the stone have to be rolled back by the angels??????????? Makes absolutely no sense. And why didn't Jesus simply wait for the women to arrived since he had just risen a few minutes earlier???????? None of this makes any sense when you question from a rational point of view. But it makes absolute sense when you're a writer half a century later trying to write a tale of adventure and derring-do like the Iliad and casting a mythical figure like Jesus as your hero. Makes absolute sense to dress the story up.
I am in no way attempting to affirm the Gospels details concerning the empty tomb. I am simply pointing out that, even with the details given, the conclusion that the tomb was already empty when Gospel Matthew indicates that the Jewish priests set a guard is an obvious one.
I am in no way attempting to affirm the Gospels details concerning the empty tomb. I am simply pointing out that, even with the details given, the conclusion that the tomb was already empty when Gospel Matthew indicates that the Jewish priests set a guard is an obvious one.
when we have a body rising, the "heavy stone" blocking an empty tomb is meaningless.
today, its a safe assumption that jesus peeps got him out of there somehow, alive or dead. If it even happened, that is.
when we have a body rising, the "heavy stone" blocking an empty tomb is meaningless.
today, its a safe assumption that jesus peeps got him out of there somehow, alive or dead. If it even happened, that is.
Nothing in the Bible is meaningless, put yourself in the shoes of a person who spiritualizes everything. You can't name anything in nature recorded in the bible that doesn't have an alternate meaning, and that is why everything is hidden until you learn the language, and the language of the bible is just like any other language that you have to learn step by step.
Does the word,'' Stone,'' just mean stone?
No, and we are looking at the first birth, the firstfruit of many fruits to follow where the Earth itself was pregnant and then gave birth to her first born son. Jesus dying was a consummation, and he was the seed planted in the Earth making the Earth pregnant.
I am in no way attempting to affirm the Gospels details concerning the empty tomb. I am simply pointing out that, even with the details given, the conclusion that the tomb was already empty when Gospel Matthew indicates that the Jewish priests set a guard is an obvious one.
Yes, but (insert ad hoc excuse), therefore (ad hoc excuse IS the truth).
when we have a body rising, the "heavy stone" blocking an empty tomb is meaningless.
today, its a safe assumption that jesus peeps got him out of there somehow, alive or dead. If it even happened, that is.
We also see that Jesus' "peeps" had legal physical possession of the body right from the get go. Joseph of Arimathea was one of Jesus' "peeps." And he took the body of Jesus to his brand new personal tomb. Why? Because he needed to prepare the body by washing and wrapping it, according to Jewish custom. His new tomb was the perfect private place to accomplish that task, because his new tomb was conveniently "nigh at hand" (John 19:42) to the place where Jesus was crucified.
It was the custom of the Jews to inter their dead with other deceased family members. Tombs such as these were constructed to be FAMILY crypts, intended to inter generations of family members. Typically these tombs were constructed with a flat level ledge for laying out the body of the deceased. After a few months the bones would be collected, placed into a stone ossuary with the deceased person's name carved into it, and then ossuary would be placed into a niche cut into the wall. In this manner whole generations of family members would be interred together.
Interring Jesus in his newly constructed personal family crypt not only would NOT have been an act of honoring Jesus, it would have been considered creepy. If Joseph really wanted to honor Jesus, he would have sent the body to Galilee to be interred with family. And so, Joseph's tomb proved to be empty on the first day of the week.
I am in no way attempting to affirm the Gospels details concerning the empty tomb. I am simply pointing out that, even with the details given, the conclusion that the tomb was already empty when Gospel Matthew indicates that the Jewish priests set a guard is an obvious one.
I'm not questioning why the rock was set into place. I'm questioning why the angels found it necessary to roll the rock OUT OF PLACE. There wasn't any reason to. When Jesus rose he could have simply walked through the rock. Then he could have waited outside for the women knowing they were on their way and greeted them himself. So why disappear for a few days? Where did he go? Who would he have visited if not his disciples? The Mormons claim Jesus visited America. This would be a perfect explanation his absence. All the Bible says is "Afterwards he appeared to..." None of this makes a bit of sense.
Just saying, I could write many sermons why that stone was to be seen as rolled away, the biggest part of the tomb story is what nobody sees, Revelation begins in a tomb unwrapping a dead person to resurrection.
Lot's of symbolism to the tomb, a well flowing up from Messiah, and many things.
I'm not questioning why the rock was set into place. I'm questioning why the angels found it necessary to roll the rock OUT OF PLACE. There wasn't any reason to. When Jesus rose he could have simply walked through the rock. Then he could have waited outside for the women knowing they were on their way and greeted them himself. So why disappear for a few days? Where did he go? Who would he have visited if not his disciples? The Mormons claim Jesus visited America. This would be a perfect explanation his absence. All the Bible says is "Afterwards he appeared to..." None of this makes a bit of sense.
I believe the intention was for the women to be able to establish that the tomb was empty. None of the story being peddled by the Gospels makes sense without making assumptions of the occurrence of supernatural make believe, I agree. But with a little old fashion reasoned analysis, the story can easily be brought into conformity with rational reality. All one has to do is eliminated the supernatural components. Which presents the possibility, at least, that the story may be based on certain actual events.
I believe the intention was for the women to be able to establish that the tomb was empty. None of the story being peddled by the Gospels makes sense without making assumptions of the occurrence of supernatural make believe, I agree. But with a little old fashion reasoned analysis, the story can easily be brought into conformity with rational reality. All one has to do is eliminated the supernatural components. Which presents the possibility, at least, that the story may be based on certain actual events.
And, it wasn't that they even lied as we ue the word. In historical context they were using all sorts of things to say their god was bigigier than your god. Sort of like billery and trumpet head lines today.
that's why i laugh when I hear guys like buddha say "if you see me after I die ... kill me.". I just hope the doppelganger understands the honest mistake.
The KJV version of the NT was completed in 1611 by 8 members of the Church of England. There were and still are, no original texts. The oldest manuscripts we have were written down hundreds of years after the events they depict are alleged to have happened. There are over 8000 of these manuscripts and not one of them is the same; and the King James translators didn't use them anyway. Instead, they edited previous translations to create a version of the Bible that their king and Parliament would approve of.
The entire NT was written down in less than 100 years and that is absolutely 150% proven by all shadow of a doubt in archaeology. Atheists claim the Gospel of John was written in the 4th century when there is a fragment of that Gospel from the early 2nd century A.D., about A.D.125. This fragment proves the Gospel has been well circulated before it found its resting place. Papyrus never had a long shelf life so copies had to be made in order to preserve the writings. All the Books of the Bible are better preserved than any of the Roman or Greek works. Those Roman and Greek works were translated into Arabic for hundreds of years, while enduring changes in the language of Arabic before being translated back into Greek and Latin. Yet no atheist ever questions the preservation of Greek and Roman works. I wonder why?
Then there are the Dead Sea Scrolls which read just like the old English Bibles of the 16th century. So I am not going to debate this any further since atheists have already had their asses handed to them back in the 20th century. So many claims made by atheists before the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered and all of them destroyed by that one discovery. This idea that the Bible was never written is also aimed at Jews which is racism since you never reject the writings of any other people except for those things written by Jews. Nazi propaganda has a way of lingering around like a bad fart.
And there are no 8000 contradictory copies. Bart Ehrman has already been well refuted on his money making scam.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rafius
So a book, edited in the 17th century from 16th century translations of 8000 contradictory copies of 4th century documents that claim to be copies of lost letters that were written in the 1st century...is what out 'historian' considers to be 'historical and scientific proof'!
The Bible is the most preserved document of ancient times. The Bible translators of the 16th century used Hebrew and Greek texts from the 9th century which were updated as manuscripts are in the 16th century which were used to translate Hebrew and Greek into English for the first time. The first full and complete Bible translated from the Hebrew and Greek was the 1537 Matthew's Bible, which is still the best English translation of the Bible today. Then came along the Geneva scholars and much was lost in translation. The KJV may be a solid translation but unfortunately the translators followed the Geneva Bible and much was lost in translation.
Then comes along these presumptuous atheists who say that the 9th century manuscripts were too late and there is no proof the Bible exist. Then the Dead Sea Scrolls put a swift end to that mockery as it supported the 9th century manuscripts. This doesn't even count other manuscripts found.
Then there is prophecy...lots of fulfilled prophecy. Kinda hard for Biblical prophecy to fulfill in chronological order if the Bible is badly translated!!
So you have absolutely no argument.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None of this makes any sense when you question from a rational point of view. But it makes absolute sense when you're a writer half a century later trying to write a tale of adventure and derring-do like the Iliad and casting a mythical figure like Jesus as your hero. Makes absolute sense to dress the story up. 
