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

[JonathanL]

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?

Your initial claim was that the Holy Sepulchre is a fourth century fraud. That's a far stronger claim than there being no evidence that the Sepulchre is the genuine tomb where Jesus was laid to rest. The first claim requires far more evidence and support than what you've provided so far, while the latter position requires a much smaller evidential burden because it simply entails being unconviced by the case for the genuiness of the tomb. If your position is the latter, rather than the former I'm not going to argue with you.

[Gary]

*sound of goalposts being moved*

You are correct. I said that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre "is" a fraud. I should have said "very likely is a fraud". Thank you for the correction.

[JonathanL]

You are correct. I said that the Church of the Holy Sepulchre "is" a fraud. I should have said "very likely is a fraud". Thank you for the correction.

Changing it from your initial claim that "the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a fraud" to "the Church of the Holy Sepulchre very likely is a fraud" doesn't make your arguments and reasoning in support of that position any less fallacious.

[JonathanL]

*sound of goalposts being moved*

Jump to 15 seconds.

[JonathanL]

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.)

Just to clarify, my amen is not to be taken as an endorsement of your theory/thesis over Bauckham's, but rather as appreciation of you taking your time to answer my question.

[Gary]

Changing it from your initial claim that "the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is a fraud" to "the Church of the Holy Sepulchre very likely is a fraud" doesn't make your arguments and reasoning in support of that position any less fallacious.

I'm sure you and other Christians see it that way, but most skeptics would agree with me: Based on the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the second or third century mentions knowing the location of the Empty Tomb, the current RCC/EOC Empty Tomb is very likely a fraud. However, if it will make you feel any better, the Protestant Empty Tomb is even more likely to be a fraud. I wouldn't pay a wooden nickel to see the Protestant one, but I would pay two wooden nickels to see the RCC/EOC site just because of the history surrounding it.

(I hope that helps the Pigster hate me just a little bit less!)

[JonathanL]

I'm sure you and other Christians see it that way, but most skeptics would agree with me: Based on the complete lack of evidence that anyone in the second or third century mentions knowing the location of the Empty Tomb, the current RCC/EOC Empty Tomb is very likely a fraud.

Lack of evidence simply gives you basis to not believe the claim that there are sufficient grounds to assert that the Holy Sepulchre is the actual tomb of Jesus, it does not provide you with a strong enough case for the position that it is "very likely a fraud".

However, if it will make you feel any better, the Protestant Empty Tomb is even more likely to be a fraud. I wouldn't pay a wooden nickel to see the Protestant one, but I would pay two wooden nickels to see the RCC/EOC site just because of the history surrounding it.

I'm a protestant myself, but AFAICT the Garden Tomb is not any more likely to be the tomb of Jesus than the Holy Sepulchre.

[DesertBerean]

My, SUCH a suspicious mind. No chance it might all be a well-intended mistake or misplaced hope?

Never mind.

As I pointed out, it's entirely probable the 1st and 2nd century Christians were more interested in surviving persecution and fighting off heresies....(and, you know, spreading the faith while doing all that). And OBP did mention that attitudes about veneration of sacred things changed over the centuries.

Remember we're discussing probabilities.

[Adrift]

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:

Hahaha. I misread DesertBeran's post and amen'd her cause I thought she wrote that BP was heaven.

[DesertBerean]

Hahaha. I misread DesertBeran's post and amen'd her cause I thought she wrote that BP was heaven.

ETA: You mispelled my name too...

[Gary]

Lack of evidence simply gives you basis to not believe the claim that there are sufficient grounds to assert that the Holy Sepulchre is the actual tomb of Jesus, it does not provide you with a strong enough case for the position that it is "very likely a fraud".




I'm a protestant myself, but AFAICT the Garden Tomb is not any more likely to be the tomb of Jesus than the Holy Sepulchre.

Read the history of how the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was selected. You will see it is most likely a fraud.

[Gary]

My, SUCH a suspicious mind. No chance it might all be a well-intended mistake or misplaced hope?

Never mind.

As I pointed out, it's entirely probable the 1st and 2nd century Christians were more interested in surviving persecution and fighting off heresies....(and, you know, spreading the faith while doing all that). And OBP did mention that attitudes about veneration of sacred things changed over the centuries.

Remember we're discussing probabilities.

There's always a "harmonization", isn't there?

[DesertBerean]

There's always a "harmonization", isn't there?

Isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for here....seeking to make sense of the evidence?

Or do you think there was no persecution? Or what?

[Gary]

Isn't that what we're supposed to be striving for here....seeking to make sense of the evidence?

Or do you think there was no persecution? Or what?

Yes. Let's make sense of the evidence, not invent it. There is no evidence that any Christian knew the location of an Empty Tomb prior to Constantine's mother's "discovery" of it in the foundation of a Greek temple in the fourth century.

The four gospels have significant discrepancies in the Empty Tomb stories.
Paul never mentions an Empty Tomb.

All evidence points to the Empty Tomb being an invention of the author of Mark.

[DesertBerean]

Read the history of how the site of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was selected. You will see it is most likely a fraud.

Which history should we peruse? Can we consider that those who believed that was the correct location was too happy to have it preserved once and for all simply let the powers that be do just that?

Speaking as one who knows very little about the history of the edifice.