openlyatheist

Last night I was channel surfing and I came across a Christian show on public access. This guy was shooting a documentary style show in some old city alley way talking about Jesus and how distraught his disciples must have been during the 3 days of Jesus' entombment.

Then he walked directly into a cell that had iron bars and obviously had been around for awhile. He claimed that he was standing directly in the tomb from which Jesus rose from the dead.

It turned out this guy's name is Zola Levitt, you can easily find him on the web.

What confused me was that according to what I've learned poking around these parts is that there is no particular reason to believe there was any such tomb, (for us Jesus Mythicists), or even if there was a tomb there is no evidence anyone knows precisely where it was or if it still exists.

Could this guy and his camera crew really have been standing in the confirmed tomb of Jesus, or was he totally off base to claim such a thing?

Toto

There is undoubted a tomb that is shown to tourists in Isreal, but I don't know of any serious scholar who thinks that the tomb can be identified. In fact, historicists go through a fair amount of mental gymnastics trying to explain why the Christian movement did not preserve any memory of the location of the tomb.

Zola Levitt ministries specializes in ministry to the Jews and tours of Israel.

His TV show

What he says about the empty tomb:
His profile on Rapture Ready

Doug Shaver

There are two, actually. http://www.ccds.charlotte.nc.us/Hist...t/05/cummings/

Steven Carr

Why? Jesus told them he would be killed and would rise from the dead.

Supposedly they had just witnessed Jesus prophecies about betryal, capture and being killed come true.

Are many Christians distraught when a prophecy comes true?

Matthew 10:7 As you go, preach this message: 'The kingdom of heaven is near.' 8 Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse those who have leprosy, drive out demons.

The disciples had already had had a bit of a go at trying to raise dead people. Perhaps it would have occurred to one of them to have a bash at trying to raise Jesus from the dead. It was worth a try, surely?

That assumes, of course, that the Bible is true and Jesus really had given the disciples the power to raise the dead.

I'm sure the documentary would have assumed that the disciples had not been given any power to raise any dead people.

fromdownunder

What three days can he possibly be talking about. According to all the Gospels, Jesus was crucified on Friday, and taken from the cross, just before the commencement of the Sabbath (ie, dusk on Friday)

When (whoever, depending on which Gospel you happen to read) arrived at the tomb at dawn on Sunday he was already gone.

Now I 'aint no Einstein, but dusk Friday until dawn Sunday is two nights and one day, at the most about 36 hours.

Norm

Chris Weimer

Perhaps you're unfamiliar with inclusive counting? Many ancient cultures did this, and some modern today. It's an essential (and often forgetful) thing to learn in studying Latin or Roman culture.

So we get Friday-Saturday-Sunday - three days.

PhilosopherJay

Hi Chris,

Good point that we should remember inclusive counting, where the day of an event is counted as day number one.

In the gospel of John, we read th de mia twn sabbatwn. The Young's Literal translation Bible gives this reading: And on the first of the sabbaths.

Jesus rose on the first Sabbath, Saturday, and appeared to Mary, and appeared to the disciples eight days later, the second Saturday, the second of the Sabbaths.


Mark has kai diagenomenou tou sabbatou, Young's Literal translation is "And the sabbath having past" The Sabbath would have past at Sundown Saturday, which would mean that Mary went to the tomb Saturday night. this would directly contradict John by having Jesus and Mary meet Saturday Night rather than Saturday morning. It is quite possible that Mark contained this contradiction, but more likely that the word "night" was erased from the original manuscript. If the original reading was "And the Sabbath night having past" then John and Mark would have been in perfect agreement that Mary went to the tomb Saturday morning.

The Gospel of Peter also gives us "Early on the Lord's day, Mary of Magdala,..." In Judea at the time of the writing of this text (100-150), the Lord's day is clearly Saturday.

The fact that there is no material describing what happens on Saturday is another clue that in the original tale, Jesus rose the morning after the crucifixion, Saturday morning.

In the original story, Jesus dies around 3 o'clock P.M. on Friday and rises sometimes before early morning on Saturday. He is actually dead or presumed dead for about 12 hours.

It is doubtful that this part of the story was changed and the Sunday rising added before 150 C.E. as all the pre-150 gospels we have John, Mark, and Phillip appear to agree with it.

It was only with gnostic Christianity that the eighth day, the second Saturday in the original story, was transformed into Sunday. The rising of Jesus on Sunday reflects a gnostic (a deliberately anti-Jewish tradition), twist on the story. It was only in the second century with Gnostic Christianity that the story was changed, and the 3-day material added.

It is important to understand this because in the original gospel story, we are not necessarily meant to believe that Jesus actually died on the cross. In fact, we are probably meant to believe that he did not really die on the cross. It was not until probably the last half of the second century that Jesus "death" on the cross became an article of faith in Christian circles. It divided old Ebionite believers from gnostic newer ones.

I explain this in my "The Evolution of Christs and Christianities" (available at Barnes and Nobles) Since we have the evidence of the earliest two canonical gospels and an early non-canonical gospel in support of this proposition, I hope it will be universally ageed, at least among scholars, that in the original story, Jesus "appeared" dead for only around 12 hours. This is an important point in understanding the actual beginnings of Christianity and its subsequent developments.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Julian

Apparently, counting the days rubbed some ancient scribes the wrong way so in some manuscripts we see 'on the third day' changed to 'after three days.' I don't have my references here so I can't give specific manuscript information.

Julian

punk77

On a related note I have read of an apologist saying that part of the Bible used the Jewish way of counting (a day was sunset to sunset) and other parts of the Bible used a Roman way of counting (midnight to midnight). Did Romans actually measure time like that in those days or is this just made-up?

punk77

Ignore the first part of the above question:blush: - used a different search engine and got the information that I was wanting.

But is the second part true? That parts of the Bible use the Jewish way of reckoning days and parts use the Roman way? Sorry if I can't be more specific but the apologist didn't specify what parts of the Bible he had been on about.