The moved boulder

The Concrete Doctor

If Jesus was actually God and able to walk through walls, as suggested in John 20:19, why did he need to roll the boulder away from the front of his tomb. Surely he could just have passed through it without moving it. Would that not have been much more impressive? The rock being moved does suggest human involvement in the tomb being empty.

homer911

Is this a trolling question, or a genuine enquiry?

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/0310295610

The Concrete Doctor

homer911 wrote: »

Is this a trolling question, or a genuine enquiry?

http://www.amazon.com/Who-Moved-Stone-Frank-Morison/dp/0310295610

I had no idea that such a book existed. My query is 100% genuine. It is a question I have been asking and I would love to hear the opinions of people on this forum. I can see why you would ask though.

Peregrinus

One of the things we notice, reading the gospel accounts of the resurrection, is that none of them actually describe the resurrection itself, and none of them claim that there was any witness to the resurrection.

[This is one of the things, incidentally, which make it less likely that the gospel stories are outright inventions. If you were going to make up a resurrection claim out of whole cloth, you’d probably invent a first-hand witness. (As the author of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter in fact did.)]

And this means that it’s important for the authors to include in the stories the little details which point to the reality of the resurrection. In courtroom drama terms, we don’t have an eye-witness, so the forensic evidence from the scene becomes very important.

One of the other things we notice is an emphasis - not just in the resurrection stories but in the subsequent appearance-of-Christ stories - on the physicality of the resurrection. The risen Jesus is not a purely spiritual being, and encounters with him are not visions or impressions. So he eats fish, for example, and has Thomas finger his wounds.

In the resurrection stories, this physicality is emphasised with details like the empty tomb, the folded winding-sheet still left in the tomb and, yes, the moved stone. The moved stone signals that Jesus has not merely “dematerialised”, or been assumed into heaven, or whatever; he has risen from the tomb and passed bodily out into the world. The risen Jesus didn’t need to move the stone, any more than he needed to eat the fish, but his having done both of those things tells us something about the nature of his resurrection.

The Concrete Doctor

Peregrinus wrote: »

One of the things we notice, reading the gospel accounts of the resurrection, is that none of them actually describe the resurrection itself, and none of them claim that there was any witness to the resurrection.

[This is one of the things, incidentally, which make it less likely that the gospel stories are outright inventions. If you were going to make up a resurrection claim out of whole cloth, you’d probably invent a first-hand witness. (As the author of the apocryphal Gospel of Peter in fact did.)]

And this means that it’s important for the authors to include in the stories the little details which point to the reality of the resurrection. In courtroom drama terms, we don’t have an eye-witness, so the forensic evidence from the scene becomes very important.

One of the other things we notice is an emphasis - not just in the resurrection stories but in the subsequent appearance-of-Christ stories - on the physicality of the resurrection. The risen Jesus is not a purely spiritual being, and encounters with him are not visions or impressions. So he eats fish, for example, and has Thomas finger his wounds.

In the resurrection stories, this physicality is emphasised with details like the empty tomb, the folded winding-sheet still left in the tomb and, yes, the moved stone. The moved stone signals that Jesus has not merely “dematerialised”, or been assumed into heaven, or whatever; he has risen from the tomb and passed bodily out into the world. The risen Jesus didn’t need to move the stone, any more than he needed to eat the fish, but his having done both of those things tells us something about the nature of his resurrection.

It is indeed a very interesting story. It seems that Jesus, after the resurrection, was sometimes human and sometimes spirit. Obviously, if he was assumed into Heaven, it was in a spiritual form, because a human body made up of flesh and blood, could not exist in a spiritual world, which we assume Heaven to be. He was alone during the resurrection, so why would he have needed to pull the stone away?

Peregrinus

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

It is indeed a very interesting story. It seems that Jesus, after the resurrection, was sometimes human and sometimes spirit.

Bzzt! False dichotomy infringement!

Humans are seen as both material and spiritual creatures. A pure spirit is not human, or not fully human; neither is a purely material creature.

The risen Jesus was perfected, meaning that he was perfect both in his spiritual aspect and in his material aspect. He was the perfect human, in other words, and at all times he had (and indeed still has) a perfected human material dimension.

The point about his perfected material being, though, is that it doesn't appear to have been subject to the constraints of our imperfect materiality. He could, e.g,, pass into a locked room. But he was still a material being.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Obviously, if he was assumed into Heaven, it was in a spiritual form, because a human body made up of flesh and blood, could not exist in a spiritual world, which we assume Heaven to be.

We don't assume heaven to be (just) a spiritual world. Heaven is probably better thought of as a state of existence rather than a place (or the spiritual analogue of a place, whatever that is). Since it's the state of existence we will enjoy when we ourselves are risen, it must have both a material and a spiritual aspect. Both are, however, unimaginable to us.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

He was alone during the resurrection, so why would he have needed to pull the stone away?

He didn't need to pull the stone away. If he could pass into a locked room, he could presumably pass out of a sealed tomb. We needed the stone pulled away to help us to imagine and understand the physical nature of his resurrection.

georgieporgy

I think the stone was rolled back so people could go in and see that the body was no longer there. The stone was put there to keep people out. There was also an armed guard set up.
The stone rolling back and Jesus walking out must have had an effect on the guards to make them flee the scene. We don't know what happened exactly but they do seem to have abandoned their post.

Peregrinus

georgieporgy wrote: »

I think the stone was rolled back so people could go in and see that the body was no longer there . . .

I dunno. Remember, people were going to do that anyway. Remember, the women turned up on Easter Sunday morning to complete the anointing, etc, of the body that had been cut short by the onset of the Sabbath. If the stone hadn't been rolled back, they were planning on getting someone to roll it back for them.

totus tuus

It was an Angel that rolled away the stone. Perhaps to allow the women and the Apostles to enter! (Matt 28:1-10)

The Concrete Doctor

Peregrinus wrote: »

I dunno. Remember, people were going to do that anyway. Remember, the women turned up on Easter Sunday morning to complete the anointing, etc, of the body that had been cut short by the onset of the Sabbath. If the stone hadn't been rolled back, they were planning on getting someone to roll it back for them.

I don't really know if you can be sure of that but I can presume that would have happened. Now can you imagine the impact if they had got somebody to move it and found the tomb empty, especially if a guard had been posted outside?

Peregrinus

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

I don't really know if you can be sure of that but I can presume that would have happened.

Mark has three named women, Mary Magdalene among them, coming to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, bringing spices so that they might anoint the corpse. As they travel they wonder who will roll away the stone for them but when they get there they find it already rolled away. Luke has "the women who had come with him from Galilee" coming to the tomb with spices, and find the stone already rolled away. Matthew has "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" coming to the tomb for an unstated purpose and, with a flourish typical of Matthew, an angel descends, rolls away the stone and tells the women that Jesus is risen. And John has Mary Magdalen coming for an unstated purpose, and finding the stone rolled away.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Now can you imagine the impact if they had got somebody to move it and found the tomb empty, especially if a guard had been posted outside?

Well, that would be consistent with a number of explanations, the most obvious being that Jesus had never been laid in the tomb at all. It would also be consistent with Jesus "returning to the father" or being assumed into heaven or simply dematerialising, none of which is quite the same as resurrection. The point about the tomb being opened is that it underlines that Jesus has come out of the tomb, back into the world of the living; he hasn't just disappeared.

The Concrete Doctor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Mark has three named women, Mary Magdalene among them, coming to the tomb on Easter Sunday morning, bringing spices so that they might anoint the corpse. As they travel they wonder who will roll away the stone for them but when they get there they find it already rolled away. Luke has "the women who had come with him from Galilee" coming to the tomb with spices, and find the stone already rolled away. Matthew has "Mary Magdalene and the other Mary" coming to the tomb for an unstated purpose and, with a flourish typical of Matthew, an angel descends, rolls away the stone and tells the women that Jesus is risen. And John has Mary Magdalen coming for an unstated purpose, and finding the stone rolled away.


Well, that would be consistent with a number of explanations, the most obvious being that Jesus had never been laid in the tomb at all. It would also be consistent with Jesus "returning to the father" or being assumed into heaven or simply dematerialising, none of which is quite the same as resurrection. The point about the tomb being opened is that it underlines that Jesus has come out of the tomb, back into the world of the living; he hasn't just disappeared.

There are loads of things that it could indicate. You are right of course, it could also indicate that he had never been in the tomb at all, or more likely that somebody else moved him. One explanation which has been put forward is that he was not, in fact, dead. It has been speculated that he was taken down before he died, treated for his wounds and moved when he was strong enough.
Whatever way you look at it, these explanations are more likely than him being dead and coming alive again after three days in the tomb. Unfortunately, in the Christian world, suggesting such a thing is seen as a kind of heresy.

Peregrinus

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

There are loads of things that it could indicate. You are right of course, it could also indicate that he had never been in the tomb at all, or more likely that somebody else moved him. One explanation which has been put forward is that he was not, in fact, dead. It has been speculated that he was taken down before he died, treated for his wounds and moved when he was strong enough.

Yes, all these things have been speculated. But if you ask why details like, e.g., the moved boulder are included in the gospel stories, any honest answer has to include the reality that they were included because the evangelists thought they pointed towards, and illustrated the nature of, the resurrection.

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Whatever way you look at it, these explanations are more likely than him being dead and coming alive again after three days in the tomb. Unfortunately, in the Christian world, suggesting such a thing is seen as a kind of heresy.

Well, yes, and yes. These explanations are more likely because common experience teaches us that resurrection is impossible. But they're a heresy because the faith in, and hope of, the resurrection is at the centre of the Christian faith.

So I agree with both of your statements. I just wouldn't put the word "unfortunately" between them!

The Concrete Doctor

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, all these things have been speculated. But if you ask why details like, e.g., the moved boulder are included in the gospel stories, any honest answer has to include the reality that they were included because the evangelists thought they pointed towards, and illustrated the nature of, the resurrection.


Well, yes, and yes. These explanations are more likely because common experience teaches us that resurrection is impossible. But they're a heresy because the faith in, and hope of, the resurrection is at the centre of the Christian faith.

So I agree with both of your statements. I just wouldn't put the word "unfortunately" between them!

Yes, I know loads of people who would never watch a science fiction movie, because they are just not believable, but they have no problem with Jesus rising from the dead, or performing miracles, like turning water into wine. One person actually said it was very far fetched for me to suggest that Jesus was not actually dead & did not rise from the dead. I suggest that these people are brainwashed from birth. But their beliefs do help them through life, which is good.

J C

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

Yes, I know loads of people who would never watch a science fiction movie, because they are just not believable, but they have no problem with Jesus rising from the dead, or performing miracles, like turning water into wine. One person actually said it was very far fetched for me to suggest that Jesus was not actually dead & did not rise from the dead. I suggest that these people are brainwashed from birth. But their beliefs do help them through life, which is good.

Christians believe that Jesus Christ was God through Faith ... but it is a well-suipported faith. His miracles and ressurrection were witnessed by hundreds of people and are recorded in the Bible.
We can know definitively through repeatably observable phenomena (i.e. scientifically) that an intelligence of Divine proportions created life and this provides further practical support for our faith in Jesus Christ.

Many Christians are Saved and come to faith in Jesus Christ as adults ... thereby ruling out any 'brainwashing from birth' for these people. Equally, some people who are born into Christian families become apostate as adults ... thereby ruling out any 'brainwashing from birth' for these people as well.
... and in general, the other people who remain Christian do so for both faith and objectively verifiable reasons.
... so I guess you can rule out brainwashing as an issue for the vast majority of Christians.

Doc Farrell

If one makes a conscious choice not to believe in any of the thousands of miracles that have alledged to have occurred in the last few thousand years then no subject termed religious will have any meaning; the resurrection, angels, heaven, none of these will exist.
If one really wants to investigate the subject of the miraculous then it takes old fashioned work. I recommend reading the reports given by doctors in the initial examination of reported recent medical miracles. Taking a position either way, without having examined the written evidence is the easy life (and no harm in that some days).
Surely it's better to make up one's mind having worked hard to investigate a subject rather than simply take on the views of another, pro or con?

Peregrinus

The Concrete Doctor wrote: »

. . . One person actually said it was very far fetched for me to suggest that Jesus was not actually dead & did not rise from the dead. I suggest that these people are brainwashed from birth . . .

Careful now, Doc. This one cuts both ways!

It is far-fetched to suggest that Jesus was not actually dead, but was mistakenly taken to be so. The reason it’s far-fetched is that it involves accepting, and attaching weight to, those passages of scripture dealing with the passion, the crucifixion, the burial, etc which are consistent with a naturalistic explanation, while disregarding and attaching no weight to those which are not. In other words, the evidence is being assessed against a pre-assumed conclusion, embraced if it fits that conclusion but dismissed if it doesn’t. And that’s pretty much how brainwashed people deal with evidence, isn’t it?

The problem is this; if we don’t accept the evidential value of the gospels, we really have little reason to think that Jesus lived at all, much less that he was crucified, died or was buried. Some people do take that stance, of course, but they are then faced with the problem of how the justify dismissing the evidence relating to Jesus, while accepting the much, much thinner evidence relating to, say, Alexander the Great.

So, most historians and historiographers accept the historical value of the gospel texts, and therefore accept the historicity of Jesus. And that brings us to the dilemma you raise, which is how to assess those parts of the texts which seem, from a naturalistic perspective, frankly improbable?

This isn’t an easy problem to solve, but I don’t think it’s adequately solved by simply assuming a naturalistic explanation and then dismissing the inconvenient parts of the textual evidence.