Who Moved the Stone? - Examines the Evidence of the Resurrection

Product Information

Maybe Jesus moved the stone? Well, Jesus had been flogged within an inch of His life. Many victims of a Roman flogging never made it to the cross but died first. Jesus was pronounced dead at the cross by a Roman executioner, someone very familiar with death. Even after that pronouncement, a spear was thrust into His side and water and blood issued forth, a sign of death. Then His body was wrapped in linen and left in a damp tomb for three days. Can we really believer that after three days He revived, broke free from his wrappings, leaned against the stone which sealed the tomb and gave the 1.5 to 2 ton stone a shove and broke free? That would be a greater miracle than God raising Jesus. Why is it that three of the Gospel accounts have all Apostles departing from the Last Supper to the Garden when Judas departs independently (and thence arrives with the arrest squad)? Richard Swinburne, who recently examined the case for the Resurrection from the scientific, rationalist position, reached the conclusion that "the detailed historical evidence" is "so strong" that, "despite the fact that such a resurrection would have been a violation of natural laws, the balance of probability is in favour of the resurrection." A dispassionate lawyer or historian would have to consider the case proven.

Who Moved the Stone? – AnswersAZ Who Moved the Stone? – AnswersAZ

Appearances. The Resurrection witnesses identified the risen Jesus with the earthly Jesus. "After his suffering, he showed himself to these men and gave many convincing proofs that he was alive. He appeared to them over a period of forty days" (Acts 1:3, NIV). When Jesus is said to have been seen or to have appeared, the disciples saw Him with ordinary vision. "Look at my hands and my feet," He said. "I have seen the Lord!" the witnesses announced (Matt. 28:17; Luke 24:34, 39-46; John 20:14,18, 20; 1 Cor. 15:5- 8). Jesus is reported to have spoken (Matt. 28:9, 18-20), to have walked (Luke 24:13-16), to have distributed food (Luke 24:30), to have eaten (Acts 1:4), to have performed signs (John 20:30), to have given a blessing with His hands (Luke 24:50), to have shown His hands and His side (John 20:20), and to have been touched (Matt. 28:9). The joke that Jesus was playing on this woman had gone too far. During the whole course of the dialogue between Mary and Jesus, she did not suspect in the least that she was actually talking to her Master. She had failed to see through the gardener’s DISGUISE. Jesus must have been laughing under his breath. He could suppress it no longer. “M.A.R.Y!” he uttered. Only one word, but it was enough. This one word “Mary!” did, all that the exchange of words failed to do. It enabled Mary to recognise Jesus. Everyone has his own unique’ and peculiar way of calling his or her near one or dear one. It was not the mere sound of the name, but the way he must have deliberately intoned it that made Mary to respond –“Master!, Master!” She lunged forward to grab her spiritual master, to pay her respects and to give reverence. Frank Morison, J. H. Jowett, M.A. of Birmingham: A Critical Appreciation (Birmingham: Allday, 1908). Re-released as J. H. Jowett M.A., D.D.: A Character Study (London: James Clarke, 1911). Ahmed Deedat’s Encounter with Christian Missionaries – Video – by Sheikh Ahmed Deedat - June 19, 2017Letter to G. K. Chesterton, dated February 19, 1930, Letters of T. S. Eliot, Volume 5 1930–31, 107. I remember this aspect of the question coming home to me one morning with new and unexpected force. I tried to picture to myself what would happen if some two thousand years hence a great controversy should arise about one who was the center of a criminal trial, say in 1922. By that time most of the essential documents would have passed into oblivion. An old faded cutting of The Times or Telegraph, or perhaps some tattered fragment of a legal book describing the case, might have survived to reach the collection of an antiquary. From these and other fragments the necessary conclusions would have to be drawn. Is it not certain that people living in that far-off day, and desiring to get at the real truth about the man concerned, would go first to the crucial question of the charge on which arraigned? They would say: "What was all the trouble about? What did his accusers say and bring against him?" If, as in the present instance, several charges appear to have been preferred, they would ask what was the real case against the prisoner.Strongly influenced by late 19th century skeptics, Frank Morison decided to discover Jesus' true nature by looking critically at the facts surrounding his death and resurrection. He wound up being convinced of Jesus' divinity but it is a fascinating read even if you had no doubt of that fact. I have never read anything quite like this book which still holds up even though it is over 70 years old. Morison evaluates things that I never thought to question such as why Judas chose that particular night to turn Jesus over to the Pharisees, whether the Pharisees and Pontius Pilate worked hand in hand in Jesus' case, and where the apostles hid out (and why) during the trial and subsequent events. In some ways this reads like a "true life" murder mystery as the author reconstructs events and traces people's actions. Last Easter week, I decided it'd be appropriate to reread this famous work of Christian apologetics. Morison, an atheist journalist (and colleague of Dorothy Sayers'), started looking into Jesus' death to try to write a materialistic account of what must've really happened, but during his investigation he became convinced that Jesus really did rise from the dead. This book is the result of his investigation. The way Morison treats the gospels as historical documents can be a bit disconcerting for an evangelical like me; he seems to have been strongly influenced by the historical/literary criticism of his day. Parts of the gospel accounts he places in the realm of later distortions to the more literal and solid witness in the Gospel of Mark. He also seems to be weak on the matter of the Roman guards at what was Jesus' tomb. Still, there is much good logic and helpful review of the chronology of the trial, death, resurrection, and later events.

Who Moved the Stone?: A Skeptic Looks at the Death and Who Moved the Stone?: A Skeptic Looks at the Death and

If this book helps anyone to do that, we thank God for it. But I wouldn't recommend this book be used for that end.The Christian has already reproduced the Bible in over a thousand languages and broadcasts it to the four corners of the globe, terrifying the nations of the world to accept the “BLOOD OF THE LAMB”, that Christ died for the sins of mankind, that he (Jesus) is the only savior. All this is against the clear evidence of his own Holy Book. Less helpful is the cultural absorption of critical theories about the Bible's veracity. Markan priority means supernatural events in later gospels are discounted and the angel at the tomb becomes Mark himself. This is based on the incorrect assumption that meeting angels does not generate fear. Further Bible study would have cured this error. On Christ’s Death and Resurrection: Revisiting the Classic monograph: Who Moved the Stone? By Frank Morrison. An Easter essay by Dr. Jeremiah Mutie.