I thank the Lord that this old book is still being printed. It is a classic. And it is still necessary for honest, searching, intellectual doubters, like Thomas, who doubt at first the miracle of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ! It leaves no detail uncovered---and we end up as God would have it, by faith in the amazing power of the Creator! The cover picture is mine, which I took in front of the empty tomb in the Garden of Gethsemene. How I wish you could see the original! But I'm pleased that it was used for His glory!
"Who Moved the Stone" is the clearest, most understandable and complete apologetic I have ever read on the Ressurection. It covers every facet of the subject. I couldn't put it down until I read the entire book and now I am sharing it with friends.
This writing is well known for the fact that the author began his investigation into the resurrection of Jesus Christ as an unbeliever, only to be arrested by the facts and led by the Spirit of God into a personal belief in the Risen Lord. Frank Morison takes the reader through the final days of Christ with special emphasis upon the arrest, trial and of course the resurrection. I especially enjoyed his perspective of writing which had an element of Sherlock Holmes: "How did this happen? Why did such-and-such event occur? What is the most logical explanation for the facts?" Throughout it all, he approaches the evidence as a trial-lawyer which makes this especially good reading for any who may reject the physical resurrection of our Lord. He brought forth several aspects of the arrest, trial and resurrection which I've never given much thought. A negative at least in my mind however is that much was said about "the earliest reliable testimony presented by the Marcan fragment." While it is a positive thing the author researched all material, biblical and apocryphal, one often gets the impression he placed Matthew and Luke as inferior compared to the writings of Mark instead of placing all upon equal ground under the inspiration of God. Considering the time at which he wrote (1930) and his own personal background, perhaps such comments and views are inevitable. Perhaps such comments were made to reinforce his argument among those who would indeed deny the inspiration of the scriptures but would accept the testimonies as valid historical evidence alone. But everything considered that is minor and would not prevent me from recommending the work. As a classic apology on the resurrection of Christ, it is a must-have for any library.