Gary & Rhinestone's Thread on Burial and Resurrection of Christ

[DesertBerean]

Back to the topic of the thread: the Empty Tomb is most likely not historical.

...and the greatest piece of evidence for this claim is that Christians forgot the location of the most important event ever to occur on planet earth until the mother of Emperor Constantine "found it" in the fourth century. I'm not sure how she found it, but I can tell you how she found the actual cross of Jesus: several crosses were waved over a dead corpse. The "true" cross caused the dead corpse to revive...

Very scientific...

Anywho... here is what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the alleged site of Jesus' tomb, found by Constantine's mother, whose location Catholics and Orthodox believe had been known to "the locals" ever since the date of the crucifixion of Jesus in circa 33 AD...but without evidence to prove this claim:

"This site has been continuously recognized since the 4th century as the place where Jesus died, was buried, and rose from the dead. Whether it is the actual place, however, has been hotly debated. It cannot be determined that Christians during the first three centuries could or did preserve an authentic tradition as to where these events occurred. Members of the Christian church in Jerusalem fled to Pella about ad 66, and Jerusalem was destroyed in ad 70. Wars, destruction, and confusion during the following centuries possibly prevented preservation of exact information."

Source: http://www.britannica.com/topic/Holy-Sepulchre

Gary: Even if every single Christian abandoned the city for Pella in 66 AD, if the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus were accompanied by all the incredible miraculous (magical) events that the Gospels claim, every Jew in Jerusalem would have known the location of this place...but alas... everyone forgot about it within decades...

NOT believable.

Since we've discussed the various aspects of your criticisms of the empty tomb, there's nothing more to say.

[One Bad Pig]

Never mind skolers. We got da Encycopedia Britannica to tell us what to believe!

[Gary]

Never mind skolers. We got da Encycopedia Britannica to tell us what to believe!

Yes, never mind Catholic and Orthodox scholars who wouldn't dare state that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a fourth century fraud!

[JonathanL]

Boxing Pythagoras is a heathen, but yeah.

Actually, if I recall correctly, BP is an atheist who is attracted to the ideology/philosophy of heathenry, rather than being someone who believe in pagan gods. Give me a second and I'll dig up a pertinent quote:

Personally, I identify with Heathenry mostly on the basis of ideology, ethics, and certain aspects of metaphysics. Even given many of the problems which you correctly cite, there is a good bit about the beliefs of Germanic peoples which can be faithfully reconstructed from the evidence which we have. Furthermore, regardless of whether or not they represent the religion of these earlier groups with perfect accuracy, the commonalities of Heathenry as it is generally practiced today accord with my personal beliefs. I'm fairly certain, for example, that Egil Skallagrimsson's understanding of the specifics of Wyrd and Orlog would have been vastly different from my own; however, this does not trouble me any more than Christians are troubled by the fact that a mustard seed is not the smallest of all seeds.

I will note that, given my atheism, I tend to intentionally avoid self-identifying as an 'Asatruar' or referring to my religion as 'Asatru,' since that word explicitly means "true/loyal/faithful to the Aesir/gods." That's why I prefer the term "Heathen."

[JonathanL]

Yes, never mind Catholic and Orthodox scholars who wouldn't dare state that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a fourth century fraud!

Except we don't know if it is a fraud.

[Gary]

Actually, if I recall correctly, BP is an atheist who is attracted to the ideology/philosophy of heathenry, rather than being someone who believe in pagan gods. Give me a second and I'll dig up a pertinent quote:

Has he ever commented on the supernatural claims of Christianity, in particular the Resurrection? If so, could you direct me to his statements?

[JonathanL]

Has he ever commented on the supernatural claims of Christianity, in particular the Resurrection? If so, could you direct me to his statements?

I can't recall, sorry.

[Gary]

Except we don't know if it is a fraud.

"In their determination to fit fable and fabrication into verifiable history, Christian apologists have to maintain that the hill of Calvary (Golgotha) was outside of a wall "but only just". But such a configuration would make nonsense of any defensive wall by providing the enemy with a ready-made siege ramp. A ditch, not a hill, would normally augment a wall. The wall in question has never been found. For that matter, nowhere in the New Testament does it say Golgotha was a hill. Piety added that detail. The anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux in 333 AD is this first to refer to Golgotha as a "small hill"."

Source: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sepulchre.html

Gary: If you read the history of Constantine, his mother, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, it is rife with silliness and superstition. There is zero evidence that Emperor Hadrian built a pagan temple on the known location of the Empty Tomb. What did happen is that Constantine ordered the Greek temples razed to build churches and while razing these pagan temples they "found" the tomb of Jesus in the foundation. And the finding of Jesus' tomb was not by chance. Constantine had promised Christians a very large sum of money to build three churches in the "holy land", one for the birthplace of Jesus (the Church of the Nativity), one for the site of Jesus death and burial (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre), and one for the site of his ascension (The Church of the Ascension). With that much money at their disposal, do you really believe that the Christian bishops were going to send a note to Constantine with this statement: "Sorry, Emperor. We couldn't find the actual sites of these events...so here's your money back!"

I don't think so...

[JonathanL]

They are not interested. That's my question. Why is no one even interested in whether there are eyewitness records about Jesus?
This issue was last addressed (far as I know and I have posted on this factum many times) by Canon Dennis Nineham in the 1950's. He gave a tentative negative that everyone else has blindly accepted.

Have you read Bauckham's Jesus and the Eyewitnesses and if so, how does your conclusions differ from Bauckham's?

[psstein]

It doesn't. It has to do with an earlier comment you made regarding Hell in the OT. If "Sheol" is Hell, Jacob expected to die and go there where he would meet his son Joseph. The father of the nation of Israel is in a place of eternal punishment?? I don't think so.

Sheol is more or less thought to be some sort of underworld, where the dead are stuck until the bodily resurrection.

[JonathanL]

"In their determination to fit fable and fabrication into verifiable history, Christian apologists have to maintain that the hill of Calvary (Golgotha) was outside of a wall "but only just". But such a configuration would make nonsense of any defensive wall by providing the enemy with a ready-made siege ramp. A ditch, not a hill, would normally augment a wall. The wall in question has never been found. For that matter, nowhere in the New Testament does it say Golgotha was a hill. Piety added that detail. The anonymous Pilgrim of Bordeaux in 333 AD is this first to refer to Golgotha as a "small hill"."

Source: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/sepulchre.html

Gary: If you read the history of Constantine, his mother, and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, it is rife with silliness and superstition. There is zero evidence that Emperor Hadrian built a pagan temple on the known location of the Empty Tomb. What did happen is that Constantine ordered the Greek temples razed to build churches and while razing these pagan temples they "found" the tomb of Jesus in the foundation. And the finding of Jesus' tomb was not by chance. Constantine had promised Christians a very large sum of money to build three churches in the "holy land", one for the birthplace of Jesus (the Church of the Nativity), one for the site of Jesus death and burial (the Church of the Holy Sepulchre), and one for the site of his ascension (The Church of the Ascension). With that much money at their disposal, do you really believe that the Christian bishops were going to send a note to Constantine with this statement: "Sorry, Emperor. We couldn't find the actual sites of these events...so here's your money back!"

I don't think so...

Even if the Holy Sepulchre isn't the actual tomb of Jesus (and it doesn't bother me one bit if it isn't), this reads more as fallacious conspiracy theory reasoning, rather as a legitimate reason to reject the claim.

ETA: As far as I can see, you're committing an appeal to motive here. You're essentially saying that bishops couldn't possibly have found the real tomb of Jesus, because (allegedly) money was their main incentive, rather than a genuine interest in where Jesus' resting place was. But that doesn't mean that the tomb they found wasn't the genuine tomb where Jesus was laid to rest after the crucifixion. It simply means that their reasons for searching for the grave were self-serving.

[Adam]

Good question.
Even before I had formally stated my Thesis, I read reviews of Bauckham's 2006 book. I was unimpressed, because he merely argues that eyewitnesses were at least consulted in all the gospel writings. He never argued that eyewitnesses had themselves written or dictated the sources of the gospels. His theory comes up with gospels written within fewer decades of the Jesus. Mine comes up even with some eyewitnesses writing while Jesus was still preaching. Four others wrote within two or three decades of Jesus.
His is a more rigorous Oral History theory, like Gerhardsson. Mine denounces the Oral History theory and asserts all sources were written early. (The actual finishing of the various four gospels takes decades, however.)

[Gary]

Sheol is more or less thought to be some sort of underworld, where the dead are stuck until the bodily resurrection.

When do you believe that this concept first developed in Judaism?

[Gary]

Even if the Holy Sepulchre isn't the actual tomb of Jesus (and it doesn't bother me one bit if it isn't), this reads more as fallacious conspiracy theory reasoning, rather as a legitimate reason to reject the claim.

ETA: As far as I can see, you're committing an appeal to motive here. You're essentially saying that bishops couldn't possibly have found the real tomb of Jesus, because (allegedly) money was their main incentive, rather than a genuine interest in where Jesus' resting place was. But that doesn't mean that the tomb they found wasn't the genuine tomb where Jesus was laid to rest after the crucifixion. It simply means that their reasons for searching for the grave were self-serving.

You are correct. Just because there was a monetary motive to find "the tomb" regardless of its veracity, doesn't mean they didn't find the real tomb. But the bigger issue is this: is there any evidence that any Christian in the second or third centuries knew the location of the Empty Tomb?

[DesertBerean]

You are correct. Just because there was a monetary motive to find "the tomb" regardless of its veracity, doesn't mean they didn't find the real tomb. But the bigger issue is this: is there any evidence that any Christian in the second or third centuries knew the location of the Empty Tomb?

*sound of goalposts being moved*