counter Who Moved The Stone: 2017 Edition (Christian Classics Book 5) - Free Download Books
Hot Best Seller

Who Moved The Stone: 2017 Edition (Christian Classics Book 5)

Availability: Ready to download

This is a 2017 edition of the 1930s classic, with small, but important clarifying amendments. This is not the edition which a reviewer describes as having numerous typos. The author, Frank Morison, set out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, by analysing the scriptures and historical sources. He aimed to dispel what he believed was a myth and present it in a short paper This is a 2017 edition of the 1930s classic, with small, but important clarifying amendments. This is not the edition which a reviewer describes as having numerous typos. The author, Frank Morison, set out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, by analysing the scriptures and historical sources. He aimed to dispel what he believed was a myth and present it in a short paper entitled Jesus – the Last Phase. However, the findings of his research changed his life and the lives of many others. He became a firm believer in the resurrection of Christ and presented his meticulous research in this classic book. It is almost 90 years old, but it is for all time. Since then, language has changed, The 2017 edition has some small amendments which add clarity, but which are true the original. Some words that have gone out of use are replaced by more understandable equivalents. Obscure Latin words used by Morison now have a translation in square brackets. A reference to the 90s made by Morison could be construed to mean the 1990s, when in fact he meant the 1890s This is clarified. This is a classic book is testament to the truth of the Gospel.


Compare

This is a 2017 edition of the 1930s classic, with small, but important clarifying amendments. This is not the edition which a reviewer describes as having numerous typos. The author, Frank Morison, set out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, by analysing the scriptures and historical sources. He aimed to dispel what he believed was a myth and present it in a short paper This is a 2017 edition of the 1930s classic, with small, but important clarifying amendments. This is not the edition which a reviewer describes as having numerous typos. The author, Frank Morison, set out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus, by analysing the scriptures and historical sources. He aimed to dispel what he believed was a myth and present it in a short paper entitled Jesus – the Last Phase. However, the findings of his research changed his life and the lives of many others. He became a firm believer in the resurrection of Christ and presented his meticulous research in this classic book. It is almost 90 years old, but it is for all time. Since then, language has changed, The 2017 edition has some small amendments which add clarity, but which are true the original. Some words that have gone out of use are replaced by more understandable equivalents. Obscure Latin words used by Morison now have a translation in square brackets. A reference to the 90s made by Morison could be construed to mean the 1990s, when in fact he meant the 1890s This is clarified. This is a classic book is testament to the truth of the Gospel.

30 review for Who Moved The Stone: 2017 Edition (Christian Classics Book 5)

  1. 5 out of 5

    Werner

    While the Bible records many instances of miracles, in most cases Christian faith doesn't depend for its existence on belief in, or literal interpretation of any one of them, and they don't play a significant role in Christian consciousness; for instance, whether or not Jonah endured three days in the belly of a whale makes no difference in how I live my life. Christianity stands or falls, however, on the claim of one central miracle: that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the While the Bible records many instances of miracles, in most cases Christian faith doesn't depend for its existence on belief in, or literal interpretation of any one of them, and they don't play a significant role in Christian consciousness; for instance, whether or not Jonah endured three days in the belly of a whale makes no difference in how I live my life. Christianity stands or falls, however, on the claim of one central miracle: that the crucified Jesus of Nazareth literally rose from the dead by the act of God, attesting to the truth of his message and the meaning of his death as a sacrifice for human sin, and inaugurating an ultimate redemption of the world from sin and death. If that can be successfully dismissed as a fraud or a mistake on the part of the disciples, then we're free to dismiss Jesus as a lunatic (as one of my college teachers maintained) or a charlatan in the mold of Jim Jones. But if it can't successfully be dismissed....? British journalist Morison, convinced that supernatural religion was a myth, but respectful of the "historical Jesus" of turn-of-century (and modern) liberalism, set out to write a book about the real human drama of this "great teacher's" last days, stripped of the superstitious legends. In the course of his research, he ran squarely into the reality of which another of my college teachers, an atheist who taught the Heritage of the Bible class (not an unusual situation, in a state university!) spoke to a surprised class: while the idea of a miraculous resurrection appears to be a scientific impossibility --at least, if you define miracles as impossible-- all the purported natural explanations for the historical data also appear to be psychological, physical or historical impossibilities; yet something happened. Morison's intellectually honest research --not starting from the assumption that the Gospel accounts are inerrant Divine revelation, but rather treating them as human documents subject to historical analysis and verification-- forced him to the conclusion that the literal resurrection of Jesus from the dead is a fact, which the Gospel writers correctly report and interpret. That fact does not, in itself, validate the theology or lifestyles of any particular Christian group; it does not in fact validate any teaching except Jesus' own. But --if it be admitted-- then it does mean that his life and teaching has to become the central starting point for our understanding of ourselves and our world. This book is clearly written, lucidly argued, and would be a fairly quick read for most people. But the relatively short time invested in it might well pay great rewards spiritually and intellectually. It's a good resource for Christians who want to know more about the evidence for our faith; but I think it would be an even better read for any atheist or skeptic who values critical thinking and honest inquiry into the questions of ultimate meaning that concern all of us.

  2. 4 out of 5

    David Sarkies

    Discovering the evidence supporting the resurrection 8 October 2010 The original idea behind this book was to demonstrate that the stories of Jesus Christ in the Bible (and in fact the whole Bible) were unreliable and that Christ's resurrection never happened. However the agnostic author, Frank Morison, discovered that it was not possible to actually write that book because he discovered, after a lot of pain staking research, that his original premise simply wasn't true. So, into the draw went hi Discovering the evidence supporting the resurrection 8 October 2010 The original idea behind this book was to demonstrate that the stories of Jesus Christ in the Bible (and in fact the whole Bible) were unreliable and that Christ's resurrection never happened. However the agnostic author, Frank Morison, discovered that it was not possible to actually write that book because he discovered, after a lot of pain staking research, that his original premise simply wasn't true. So, into the draw went his original concept and instead he wrote the book that has since become a world wide best seller. Who Moved The Stone is not a theological text, and does not pretend to answer the question of who Jesus is and what his death and resurrection represent. It seems that these questions have been left for the reader to consider themselves. Instead, Morison digs through the material that we have to paint a very clear picture on what happened on that weekend over two thousand years ago, and his research and methodology is very impressive. Unfortunately, having a biased view towards these events I cannot honestly say that I have been convinced, but rather I can say that his argument and his exploration of the evidence that we have is excellent. Many people have gone out to write a book that Morison has attempted to write and some of these books have also been published, however the difference is that Morison went into his project with an open mind. Many of the other writers (who will not be named) have not done this. They already have a direction they wish to head, and will simply make point of fact statements (such as the gospels being unreliable) without actually digging much deeper to provide supporting evidence as to why they believe that the gospels are unreliable. Even though Morison focuses mostly on the gospels as the source, he applies logic and background information to clearly paint the picture that has been painted in this book. Further, he raises some interesting points that tradition has determined otherwise. The first is the man that was at the tomb when the women arrived that Sunday morning. Tradition says that the man was an angel, however Morison believes that this man was the writer of the gospel, Mark. Secondly tradition has it that the guards at the tomb were Roman soldiers, however Morison, from the text, demonstrates that they could not have been Roman soldiers, but rather the Temple Guards (no Roman soldier would ever have admitted to falling asleep on his post, that was punishable by death). However, there are other events that seem to slip his mind, such as Peter and John (as outlined in the Gospel of John) being told by the women that the tomb was empty, and then going to the tomb themselves to see that what the woman had said was true. The main point that Morison seems to focus on, though, is the unprecedented rise of Christianity over the first fifty years of its life. He indicates that a group of scared fisherman become powerful speakers of an unbelievable message, and further people heard and flocked to the message. This, he suggests, could not have happened if Christ had not risen from the dead (and that the body was produced). In the end, though, his main question (which is not answered in the book) is, who moved the stone?

  3. 4 out of 5

    Marsha Stokes

    I was really impressed with this book. The author is a former journalist who really knows how to do his homework. As the story goes, originally this man was a skeptic about the divinity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He started out his research attempting to disprove the theory. However, after trying to unbiasedly look at all the evidence, he eventually changed his beliefs. Starting with the night Christ was arrested, this book mainly looks at those events surrounding the arrest and the eve I was really impressed with this book. The author is a former journalist who really knows how to do his homework. As the story goes, originally this man was a skeptic about the divinity of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He started out his research attempting to disprove the theory. However, after trying to unbiasedly look at all the evidence, he eventually changed his beliefs. Starting with the night Christ was arrested, this book mainly looks at those events surrounding the arrest and the events following the resurrection. I not only appreciated how slowly this man tried to uncover the facts, but how he also incorporated the historical and cultural settings of the time, and the psychology of the people involved. Those two things shed much light on the events surrounding the resurrection, giving me access to an insight I would never be able to have on my own without several history and cultural lessons! The only reason I gave the book one star short from a perfect score, is that it could be a little difficult to read at times (the author lived almost 100 years ago and uses some pretty BIG words) and I never could figure out conclusively who the author thought "moved the stone." I could be wrong, but I gathered from the concluding chapter that the author insinuates that Christ opened the tomb himself, but he never directly affirms that insinuation. Of course, it probably is something that can never be conclusively proved anyway, but I was at least hoping to come away knowing what the author assumed happened.

  4. 5 out of 5

    Jonathan Turner

    I originally bought this book after reading several of Lee Strobel's books. He stated that Frank Morison's book was one that he really found useful and had a hand in his own journey of coming to believe the Gospel claims of Jesus' resurrection. I did not enjoy it as much as Strobel did evidently. I found Morison's arguments to be too lengthy. I guess that is a strength when trying to prove something, but to read about it...makes it difficult at times...at least for me. I felt like at times I wan I originally bought this book after reading several of Lee Strobel's books. He stated that Frank Morison's book was one that he really found useful and had a hand in his own journey of coming to believe the Gospel claims of Jesus' resurrection. I did not enjoy it as much as Strobel did evidently. I found Morison's arguments to be too lengthy. I guess that is a strength when trying to prove something, but to read about it...makes it difficult at times...at least for me. I felt like at times I wanted to scream..."just say it already!". I also have an issue with Morison's reliance at times on so-called "apocryphal gospels" like the gospel of Hebrews. I also have an issue with Morison's questioning, it seems, of the reliance of the gospel accounts of Matthew, Luke, and John. However, I do love the fact that Morison, like many others, set out to disprove the resurrection and and instead came believe that the tomb of Jesus was empty because Jesus, after being killed, really did rise from the grave.

  5. 4 out of 5

    David

    This is one of my favorite Christian books. Since discovering it five decades ago, I have read it through several times. It is non-fiction and is the personal story of newsman who sets out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead of achiving his goal, he finds the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting the historicity of the resurrection. Eventually, he becomes a follower of Christ. This is good reading and a great story. Christ's resurrection is the key to Christianity. If it di This is one of my favorite Christian books. Since discovering it five decades ago, I have read it through several times. It is non-fiction and is the personal story of newsman who sets out to disprove the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Instead of achiving his goal, he finds the overwhelming weight of evidence supporting the historicity of the resurrection. Eventually, he becomes a follower of Christ. This is good reading and a great story. Christ's resurrection is the key to Christianity. If it did not happen, our faith is meaningless. If it did happen, it validates everything else about Christianity.

  6. 4 out of 5

    Joshua

    Ok. Morison does not believe in the historicity of all the gospels, nor in the preservation of scripture. His attempt to explain the resurrection therefore treats the texts as historical documents and not God's Word (as they claim to be). In fact, Morison ends up sounding a little like "The Moon Pool," by attempting to explain everything materialistically, barring of course the actual resurrection. Needless to say, such a take is not particularly convincing to Christians, although it might be a Ok. Morison does not believe in the historicity of all the gospels, nor in the preservation of scripture. His attempt to explain the resurrection therefore treats the texts as historical documents and not God's Word (as they claim to be). In fact, Morison ends up sounding a little like "The Moon Pool," by attempting to explain everything materialistically, barring of course the actual resurrection. Needless to say, such a take is not particularly convincing to Christians, although it might be a useful introduction to a casual skeptic.

  7. 5 out of 5

    Julie Davis

    In attempting to unravel the tangled skein of passions, prejudices, and political intrigues with which the last days of Jesus are interwoven, it has always seemed to me a sound principle to go straight to the heart of the mystery by studying closely the nature of the charge brought against Him. 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 shou In attempting to unravel the tangled skein of passions, prejudices, and political intrigues with which the last days of Jesus are interwoven, it has always seemed to me a sound principle to go straight to the heart of the mystery by studying closely the nature of the charge brought against Him. 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. I didn't agree with every conclusion Morison made such as the identity of the young man at the tomb. Nor did I approve of every reference that was used, such as the Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Hebrews, although he did use many reliable sources such as the works of Josephus, the Jewish Historian and the few historical writings on the character of Pontius Pilate. However, those quibbles aside, this is a classic apologetics work and one well worth seeking out. You definitely will examine the facts surrounding Jesus' death with a more analytical eye.

  8. 4 out of 5

    Drikus

    Page 129: "Personally, I am convinced that no body of men or women could persistently and successfully have preached in Jerusalem a doctrine involving the vacancy of that tomb, without the grave itself being physically vacant. The facts were too recent; the tomb too close to that seething center of oriental life. Not all the make-believe in the world. could have purchased the utter silence of antiquity or given to the records their impressive unanimity. Only the truth itself, in all its unavoida Page 129: "Personally, I am convinced that no body of men or women could persistently and successfully have preached in Jerusalem a doctrine involving the vacancy of that tomb, without the grave itself being physically vacant. The facts were too recent; the tomb too close to that seething center of oriental life. Not all the make-believe in the world. could have purchased the utter silence of antiquity or given to the records their impressive unanimity. Only the truth itself, in all its unavoidable simplicity, could have achieved that."

  9. 4 out of 5

    Scott Petty

    While this book provides much for thoughtful consideration I found it frustrating. A book that is an apologetic for the physical resurrection of our Lord should surely contain more thought of the working of God. The author's logic and argument are helpful and interesting. His lack of belief in the preservation and authority of scripture, references to scriptural corruption, and human error and manipulation in their transmission are not. He also dismisses much of the supernatural in the resurrect While this book provides much for thoughtful consideration I found it frustrating. A book that is an apologetic for the physical resurrection of our Lord should surely contain more thought of the working of God. The author's logic and argument are helpful and interesting. His lack of belief in the preservation and authority of scripture, references to scriptural corruption, and human error and manipulation in their transmission are not. He also dismisses much of the supernatural in the resurrection accounts and fixates on the women at the tomb and the man they encountered.

  10. 5 out of 5

    Marsali Taylor

    This isn't a new book, so I'd love to read something on the same topic which takes account of the latest Biblical scholarship. However it's a beautifully lucid introduction to Biblical criticism. I'll try to reduce the argument - but you need to read the book for the subtle reasoning. Basically 1: Jesus was a historical figure who died as told in the Gospels. (I think there's nobody who seriously argues with that one). 2: something changed His disciples from 'scattered sheep' to men who preached This isn't a new book, so I'd love to read something on the same topic which takes account of the latest Biblical scholarship. However it's a beautifully lucid introduction to Biblical criticism. I'll try to reduce the argument - but you need to read the book for the subtle reasoning. Basically 1: Jesus was a historical figure who died as told in the Gospels. (I think there's nobody who seriously argues with that one). 2: something changed His disciples from 'scattered sheep' to men who preached His conquering of death, from the earliest period (again, generally agreed) and were willing to die for that belief (historical record) 3: that preaching began in Jerusalem, where Jesus' tomb was, within weeks of his death (generally agreed) - therefore 4: that tomb must have been known to be empty to everyone in Jerusalem, backing up the belief in Jesus risen in the body. Too simplistic - I recommend reading this one for yourselves. Try not to get too annoyed at the sentences beginning 'Personally ..' or any generalisations about 'women' eg prone to delays on joint excursions. When he was writing we hadn't got the vote yet. A really worthwhile pre-Easter reading, especially if you missed out on church as a child, and aren't sure what the fuss is about.

  11. 4 out of 5

    kris

    It was an excelent read for the most part. The author used logic to prove that something out of the ordanary happened between Christ's arrest and the discovery of the empty tomb. Using the gospels and other sources from the 1st century to destroy the theory's that ranged from Christ's body being stolen, to passing out on the cross only to revive later. Also dismantling the idea that there was no trial and exicution. This book points to the only possible explanination that Christ was reserctied a It was an excelent read for the most part. The author used logic to prove that something out of the ordanary happened between Christ's arrest and the discovery of the empty tomb. Using the gospels and other sources from the 1st century to destroy the theory's that ranged from Christ's body being stolen, to passing out on the cross only to revive later. Also dismantling the idea that there was no trial and exicution. This book points to the only possible explanination that Christ was reserctied and appeared to His followers. Dispite how extrodanary this claim is, it is the only one that can account for the change of the apostles from cowards who ran away and denighed Christ; to boldly proclaiming the Word even when it lead to their own grizzly deaths. Special consideration is made for Saul/Paul who went from bitter advisary to greatest spokesman for the new faith.

  12. 4 out of 5

    Ron Westrup

    The information contained within this book is potentially exciting and revealing, however, sadly the author's style of writing does little to help the reader and has served to make the facts unclear and confused. I found the book hard work and was conscious throughout that it need not have been so if the style of writing had been less of a disquisition. The information contained within this book is potentially exciting and revealing, however, sadly the author's style of writing does little to help the reader and has served to make the facts unclear and confused. I found the book hard work and was conscious throughout that it need not have been so if the style of writing had been less of a disquisition.

  13. 4 out of 5

    Mark

    This book was written by a man who setout to prove the resurrection of Jesus was a hoax. In the end, he convinced himself that it had to be true. This book details the few days of events following the death and burial of Jesus.

  14. 4 out of 5

    Paul Creasy

    Great book Highly readable and very compelling. A good book to add to any person interested in apologetics' library. Highly recommended without reservation. Great book Highly readable and very compelling. A good book to add to any person interested in apologetics' library. Highly recommended without reservation.

  15. 5 out of 5

    Robert Foster

    The author poses the important question about the empty tomb of the crucified Christ which is well worth meditating about. He draws the reader into a fascinating exploration of the historical facts which surround the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been brutally tortured and killed on Friday, the eve of the Jewish Sabbath, and whose corpse was laid, wrapped in a burial shroud in the Jewish custom, and then sealed in the newly hewn out tomb which Joseph of Aramithea had commissioned fo The author poses the important question about the empty tomb of the crucified Christ which is well worth meditating about. He draws the reader into a fascinating exploration of the historical facts which surround the Resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, who had been brutally tortured and killed on Friday, the eve of the Jewish Sabbath, and whose corpse was laid, wrapped in a burial shroud in the Jewish custom, and then sealed in the newly hewn out tomb which Joseph of Aramithea had commissioned for his own use (when the time came). The brutalized, beaten and bloodied corpse, pierced through both hands and both feet by the large iron nails the Romans to nail, support and fix the weight of the victim vertically on a crucifix and, furthermore which had also suffered a Roman lance thrust into it through the side of the ribcage and into the heart as a powerful and final confirmation that Christ really was dead (confirmation as requested by Pontius Pilate), this disfigured corpse was never found by the authorities after the tomb was discovered to have been un-sealed when Mary of Magdala visited it in the very early hours of Sunday morning. Jesus' body was never ever found by the Roman or Jewish authorities, even though the Jewish High Priest had requested and been granted permission by the Roman Procurator, Pilate, to post a round the clock guard on the tomb to insure that this badly wounded crucified corpse could not be stolen away and it's absence used by Jesus's followers as propaganda in support of Jesus' claim that if they, the Jewish religious hierarchy, would destroy this temple (meaning Jesus's body) he would raise it in three days. The fact the Jewish authorities posted a guard on the tomb of the dead Christ is evidence that they knew exactly what Jesus had meant about destroying of 'this temple' and that he would raise it in three days. I personally think that the most likely explanation of the stone being rolled back is that the guards did it themselves; possibly to make sure the corpse was still dead, or perhaps they wrongly surmised there must be money or valuables buried with the corpse or why else would they be guarding it(?), and that the reason Mary of Magdala found them lying 'like dead men' themselves is precisely because they were in a catatonic state of shock and terror when the glorified Christ risen from the dead emerged from the in-sealed entrance in the semi-darkness of those very early dawn hours of Sunday morning. We know that Jesus himself did not need the stone rolled away in order to exit the tomb after he had risen from the dead because his body was now glorified and he appeared and disappeared at will without the need for the unlocking of doors e.g. when he appeared in the midst of the ten disciples and 'doubting' Thomas was not present. A week later when Thomas was with them Jesus appeared to them all again and showed Thomas his pierced hands and his side. So walls and locked rooms were no barrier at all to Jesus after he had resurrected from the dead. We know Jesus was not a phantom or ghost because the Gospels recount that he ate with his disciples, he was a real physically present human person (but now glorified). In summary, Jesus didn't need to move the stone, Mary of Magdala physically couldn't have moved the stone, the disciples had all run away like the weak cowards that they were at the time of Christ's Passion, arrest, kangaroo court trials and Crucifixion so psychologically there is no way to rationally conclude that they had the stomache or resolve commit a sacrilegious theft of Jesus's mortal remains from the tomb, therefore I personally believe it was the guards curiosity that brought it about. They, and the world, got more than they bargained for!

  16. 5 out of 5

    Pastor Greg

    This is another (older) work that was the conclusion of an attorney who set out to disprove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but ended up concluding that the Gospel accounts are true. Others include Simon Greenleaf, Josh McDowell, and then there is the journalist Lee Strobel, etc. However, the author reaches his positive conclusion in spite of some very wrong premises accepted by the author about the information and the Bible itself. I am glad that Frank came to believe in the resurrected Jesus. This is another (older) work that was the conclusion of an attorney who set out to disprove the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, but ended up concluding that the Gospel accounts are true. Others include Simon Greenleaf, Josh McDowell, and then there is the journalist Lee Strobel, etc. However, the author reaches his positive conclusion in spite of some very wrong premises accepted by the author about the information and the Bible itself. I am glad that Frank came to believe in the resurrected Jesus. But I found this book hard to enjoy much of the time. For starters, he would concede things like the idea that the last twelve verse of Mark were not written by Mark (debunked by Dean John W. Burgon in the 1880's and even confirmed as authentic text by textual critics like the late Bruce Metzger). He also concedes that verse 8 was not the final word from Mark. So, what does Frank believe? That the ending of Mark was LOST! The idea that God LOST whole portions of His Book is something only a modern Laodicean would be spiritually dumbed-down enough to believe. And don't even attempt to correct me by saying He simply "allowed" it to be lost. It's His word. God PROMISED to keep it. See Psalm 12:6-7, Matthew 24:35, etc. This is just one of several examples of this sort of short-sighted and very wrong thinking in this book. It bears repeating that we are thrilled when someone comes to believe that the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ were true, historical events. Now, they should REPENT and BELIEVE on that Gospel for eternal salvation. 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 answer to "Who moved the stone?" is found in Matthew 28:2 (KJV) "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it."

  17. 4 out of 5

    David Mitchell

    I appreciate that this book details the author’s exploration of the death and resurrection of Christ - a study that uses the four Gospels and some limited Gentile material. I recognise it as a profound bibliographical account. That, however, is where the book stops. There is far too much supposition for the book to be of use. The Gospel does not demand us to know every detail in minutiae. Instead, the Gospel is balanced so as to give us sufficient detail that we believe. Bothersome early in the b I appreciate that this book details the author’s exploration of the death and resurrection of Christ - a study that uses the four Gospels and some limited Gentile material. I recognise it as a profound bibliographical account. That, however, is where the book stops. There is far too much supposition for the book to be of use. The Gospel does not demand us to know every detail in minutiae. Instead, the Gospel is balanced so as to give us sufficient detail that we believe. Bothersome early in the book is that the author limits his analysis of the trial process. You could be mistaken for thinking there to be only two stages in the trial (before the church and before Roman authority) whereas there were other stages (e.g. before Herod). There are some questions that are open – the book has illiminated these. I may look to shed light on these in the course of my own study: 1. 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)? 2. Why was Mary, mother of Jesus, in Jerusalem at time of her son’s death? 3. What was the journey of the nine Apostles who scattered from the Garden (Peter and John having followed the arrest party back into Jerusalem)?

  18. 5 out of 5

    Gene

    I did enjoy this book and some of the insights provided by it, especially with regard to the charges brought against Jesus in His trials. The evidence for the empty tomb IS overwhelming, and any explanations besides a literal resurrection are historically very difficult to sustain. 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 I did enjoy this book and some of the insights provided by it, especially with regard to the charges brought against Jesus in His trials. The evidence for the empty tomb IS overwhelming, and any explanations besides a literal resurrection are historically very difficult to sustain. 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. The older writing style strikes me as more literary and less analytical than what moderns are accustomed to in topics such as this. But the book did have the power to convince both J.W. Montgomery and Josh McDowell that Jesus truly rose from the dead on the third day. That's powerful stuff for critical minds.

  19. 5 out of 5

    Stephen Gallup

    "Usually, when one is trying to reconstruct a scene, after an interval of centuries, and, as in this case, with records which are admittedly brief, one has to rely upon the cumulative effect of small details to discover the key facts of the situation." The author's observation above points to what may be the greatest challenge for modern readers of the Bible. It's entirely possible for us to absorb the basic thrust of a story without feeling particularly moved, because of a sense of skating on th "Usually, when one is trying to reconstruct a scene, after an interval of centuries, and, as in this case, with records which are admittedly brief, one has to rely upon the cumulative effect of small details to discover the key facts of the situation." The author's observation above points to what may be the greatest challenge for modern readers of the Bible. It's entirely possible for us to absorb the basic thrust of a story without feeling particularly moved, because of a sense of skating on the surface. The accounts are "admittedly brief." (For that reason, the sermons that mean most to me are those that dig into a passage, bring it to life, and expand on its significance.) Who Moved the Stone is a classic attempt to get behind the scenes of the Crucifixion story, beginning with evidence of what must have been happening among the people who decided late Thursday evening that Jesus would have to be arrested and executed before sundown the next day, and continuing in the same manner through all the subsequent events, with special emphasis on the arrival at the tomb of the women on Sunday morning. Did all of it occur as reported, especially the Resurrection? Morison says his original purpose in scrutinizing the details was to show that part at least did not occur, but the cumulative effect of all those details convinced him otherwise. The presentation is somewhat dry in its step-by-step logic as applied to the implications of every bit of information provided. I was reminded of the way a courtroom attorney constructs an argument, sometimes at the risk of getting deeper into the weeds than his jury can bear to go, emerging from time to time with a conclusion that refutes the opposing point of view. Patience is required to stay with him, but that is the path to understanding and, hopefully, accepting his point of view. One example of the methodology at work here is the examination of all conceivable alternative explanations for the women's discovery that the tomb was open: Had someone gotten there ahead of them and removed the body? Conceivably, that could have been done by the disciples, or by the Jewish or Roman authorities, or even by the tomb's owner, Joseph of Arimathea (who might have intended it only as a temporary holding place). Morison carefully assembles what is known and can be inferred about the disciples' whereabouts and state of mind, about Pilate's expressed attitude toward all this, and the window of time in which such a deed could have occurred, and then asks, even if it did, whether it could have remained a secret in view of what followed. Is it at all possible that Jesus had not died? Did he simply regain consciousness and leave under his own power? This explanation is included and examined "for the sake of completeness," but it's the least likely in view of the injuries he had sustained. Alternatively, did the women mistakenly go to the wrong tomb? If so, perhaps the person who told them "He is not here" was simply trying to correct their error. Yes, that much is plausible, but surely any such confusion would have been resolved in short order when people started saying he had risen. Finally, could it be that the women never even went to the tomb that day? Maybe this part of the story was invented much later. No mention is made of the women's early-morning visit in subsequent proclamations, e.g., in Acts, but Morison suggests that could be due to the fact that by then the empty tomb, just 2000 yards away, was common knowledge. "The condition of the grave itself would become the final arbiter in the matter." Another reason to avoid saying they'd been there would be to avoid feeding the suspicion that Jesus' followers had stolen the body. Ultimately, two facts narrow down the options. First, there was no body and no occupied grave that anyone could point to in rebutting the claim that he had risen. Surely, a lot of people would have had motivation to do so if they could. "Think of the highly placed Sadducees who were prepared to go to almost any length to discredit and overthrow the cause." Secondly, there is no likely scenario in which anyone removed the body and kept quiet about having done so. Finally, there is the utter transformation in the behavior of the disciples. At the time of the Crucifixion they were scattered, frightened, disillusioned. Shortly thereafter they were loudly and fearlessly proclaiming the Resurrection. Morison dispenses with arguments that it was a mistake or a hoax. Despite a somewhat plodding delivery, he plausibly discusses motivations and fills in gaps in the story, and brings it to life in a way more compelling than any film rendition I've ever seen. (Indeed, I'm tempted to try my own hand at writing a screenplay based on this.) Several readers have complained that this book does not answer the question of its title. And yet it does put forth an interesting hypothesis. Matthew 27:64-65 states that on Saturday the Jewish leaders asked Pilate to set a guard at the tomb to prevent anyone from taking the body, and that Pilate (being thoroughly disgusted with the whole affair) told them to post their own guards. Presumably they did. If so, while the Temple Guards were there, perhaps before dawn Sunday morning, something unexpected happened. Perhaps it was they who moved the stone, upon hearing a sound within. Their story is not recorded in Scripture, but they could have made an abrupt and perhaps noisy departure. In Mark's version of the story, when the women arrived shortly thereafter, they found a young man, who told them, "He goeth before you into Galilee." Morison reminds us that Jesus had used the same words Thursday night when leading the eleven disciples to Gethsemane, and says there was also an unnamed young man present (Mark 14:51-52). "If St. Mark withheld his name it must have been for very good and sufficient reason," but maybe this person had been attracted by the guards' departure. Well, it warrants some thought.

  20. 5 out of 5

    Lorraine Shelstad

    This is a classic book - Frank Morison was a British writer who died in the 1950s. He is Protestant but he started out to disprove the story of Jesus and then became a believer through his research. He has some interesting insights but I wouldn't agree with them all. He seems to focus more on "Who is the man that the women meet in the tomb?" rather than "Who moved the stone?". In fact, I'm really not sure what he concluded about who moved the stone. Perhaps it was to underline the question that This is a classic book - Frank Morison was a British writer who died in the 1950s. He is Protestant but he started out to disprove the story of Jesus and then became a believer through his research. He has some interesting insights but I wouldn't agree with them all. He seems to focus more on "Who is the man that the women meet in the tomb?" rather than "Who moved the stone?". In fact, I'm really not sure what he concluded about who moved the stone. Perhaps it was to underline the question that 'If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then who moved the stone?" Anyway the book was interesting to read but the real problem was that the ebook published in a new edition by CrossReadh Publications had so many errors (typos? spelling errors?) that it was very difficult to overlook them and finish the book in spite of them. I contacted the Publishers and told them about the typos so I hope they corrected them and put out a new edition.

  21. 4 out of 5

    Rolan Dolivier

    I don’t think that those who are truly born again will enjoy this book. What could have been said in 50-60 pages, Morison labours through 230 pages to state. And in the final chapters of this book, he falls headlong into the absurd theory that the young man in a long white robe in the tomb (Mark’s Gospel) was not an angel, but an actual young man. What a half-baked idea! Spoils the whole trend of this wearisome book. Can Morison be so blind as to state that the young man was not an angel? I am co I don’t think that those who are truly born again will enjoy this book. What could have been said in 50-60 pages, Morison labours through 230 pages to state. And in the final chapters of this book, he falls headlong into the absurd theory that the young man in a long white robe in the tomb (Mark’s Gospel) was not an angel, but an actual young man. What a half-baked idea! Spoils the whole trend of this wearisome book. Can Morison be so blind as to state that the young man was not an angel? I am convinced that Morison is simply a journalist with a flair for writing, but lacking in investigative and legal skills, and lacking a true understanding of God’s Word. My sincere advice is ‘Don’t waste your time reading this book!’. I would rather recommend Val Grieve’s Your Verdict On The Empty Tomb! That’s the book to read on The Empty Tomb. And it’s much shorter!

  22. 5 out of 5

    Pug

    I love apologetics. This book started good, offering solid proof and plausible explanations for events surrounding the Crucifixion. And from angles I'd never heard of before. I even enjoyed the flowery and antiquated language (it's fun once in a while!) But as I turned the last page, it dawned on me that he never answered the central question: WHO moved the stone!? And I found it preposterous that he seemed to imply that the "young man in white" who was sitting inside the tomb was maybe a garden I love apologetics. This book started good, offering solid proof and plausible explanations for events surrounding the Crucifixion. And from angles I'd never heard of before. I even enjoyed the flowery and antiquated language (it's fun once in a while!) But as I turned the last page, it dawned on me that he never answered the central question: WHO moved the stone!? And I found it preposterous that he seemed to imply that the "young man in white" who was sitting inside the tomb was maybe a gardener? Or temple guard? (At least I think that's what he said, as the old fashioned and wordy writing was starting to wear thin by that point.) I mean really, could it have been anything other than an angel??

  23. 4 out of 5

    Chase

    A view of the Gospels from an exceptionally unbiased perspective, lending to it a very unique point of view which is interesting to me being raised a Christian observing my beliefs seriously as a young man. Who Moved the Stone brings light to many obscure instances in the Gospels and is fun to read due to the reader's inclination to try to create theories that can detract credence from the original mailer and yet cannot find any that aren't simply goofy. For example, maybe Joseph of Aramathea mo A view of the Gospels from an exceptionally unbiased perspective, lending to it a very unique point of view which is interesting to me being raised a Christian observing my beliefs seriously as a young man. Who Moved the Stone brings light to many obscure instances in the Gospels and is fun to read due to the reader's inclination to try to create theories that can detract credence from the original mailer and yet cannot find any that aren't simply goofy. For example, maybe Joseph of Aramathea moved Jesus' body, but after you actually think through the necessities of that you realize that all theories other than the historical one are all pretty unlikely.

  24. 4 out of 5

    Patience Jones

    Although occasionally you realise that this book was written in the 30s - generally when the author takes care to debunk theories which are not commonly held today - it remains an excellent summary of the evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ. The author does not start with the position that the Bible is infallible, which may put some Christians off; however, I am not sure how you could write this kind of book if you did start with that position, or at the least it would be a very sho Although occasionally you realise that this book was written in the 30s - generally when the author takes care to debunk theories which are not commonly held today - it remains an excellent summary of the evidence for the physical resurrection of Christ. The author does not start with the position that the Bible is infallible, which may put some Christians off; however, I am not sure how you could write this kind of book if you did start with that position, or at the least it would be a very short book!

  25. 5 out of 5

    Yee

    To be honest, I didn't finish the last few chapters. I was able to read up to Chapter 11. I feel bad of not finishing the book completely because the author is very detailed and analytical. But unfortunately, I was a bit struggling throughout the book and towards the end, I totally lost and I feel it's better that I don't continue reading it. It was not a bad book though, judging by how the author explained the scene and how he analysed each person that involved from Thursday until the Resurrect To be honest, I didn't finish the last few chapters. I was able to read up to Chapter 11. I feel bad of not finishing the book completely because the author is very detailed and analytical. But unfortunately, I was a bit struggling throughout the book and towards the end, I totally lost and I feel it's better that I don't continue reading it. It was not a bad book though, judging by how the author explained the scene and how he analysed each person that involved from Thursday until the Resurrection.

  26. 4 out of 5

    Jim Layman

    Albert Henry Ross ( pen name: Frank Morison) wrote this book from his own investigation into the resurrection of Jesus. His inquiry and evidences are indeed interesting, and his conclusions and speculation are not without controversy. In his own time, those scholars opposing belief in the literal and bodily resurrection perhaps held the day. Morison lays siege to their confidence. The work still has an incomplete feel to it, ably filled-in by later Christian apologists as the 20th century Evang Albert Henry Ross ( pen name: Frank Morison) wrote this book from his own investigation into the resurrection of Jesus. His inquiry and evidences are indeed interesting, and his conclusions and speculation are not without controversy. In his own time, those scholars opposing belief in the literal and bodily resurrection perhaps held the day. Morison lays siege to their confidence. The work still has an incomplete feel to it, ably filled-in by later Christian apologists as the 20th century Evangelical movement yielded much needed scholarship.

  27. 5 out of 5

    Sara K

    Wonderful, deep reconstruction of the last week of Jesus life using the gospels and outside sources to attempt to answer questions dealing with gaps in the narratives and piece it all together like an investigation and presented to reader as though they are a jury needing to reach a verdict on the veracity of each of the sequences in question. Terrific for getting a fresh look at this part of the New Testament for someone who has read it enough to forget it's wonder. Wonderful, deep reconstruction of the last week of Jesus life using the gospels and outside sources to attempt to answer questions dealing with gaps in the narratives and piece it all together like an investigation and presented to reader as though they are a jury needing to reach a verdict on the veracity of each of the sequences in question. Terrific for getting a fresh look at this part of the New Testament for someone who has read it enough to forget it's wonder.

  28. 4 out of 5

    Nahte

    Sherlock Holmes and the curious case of who moved the stone. This is some thoughtful work and following the author's train of thoughts was pleasant. I've never really thought of the case of who moved the weighty stone, and I'm persuaded, although he doesn't explicitly state it, by the author that it was none other than Jesus Christ. I'll probably be going through this book again. Sherlock Holmes and the curious case of who moved the stone. This is some thoughtful work and following the author's train of thoughts was pleasant. I've never really thought of the case of who moved the weighty stone, and I'm persuaded, although he doesn't explicitly state it, by the author that it was none other than Jesus Christ. I'll probably be going through this book again.

  29. 5 out of 5

    Thomas E Martin

    A new perspective I loved the details and psychological view that these witnesses must have been going through. The author really makes you think about the times, the political environment and what the apostles might have been thinking and feeling. Highly recommend it for anyone searching for origin of the Christian faith.

  30. 4 out of 5

    Jeremy

    Started reading this while I was having doubts in San Francisco. Never finished it fully, but read most of it. I believe it’s written by a lawyer who tracks each step by step account in the Gospels in order to find the reliability of the accounts.

Add a review

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Loading...