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

[Gary]

You'd make a terrible historian, Gary.

And you should start admitting that your supernatural belief system is based on faith...not good evidence.

[Gary]

Tomorrow, I will continue my review of Murphy-O'Connor's article on the authenticity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. As I have shown so far there is ZERO evidence that early Christians venerated or even knew about the location of an Empty Tomb until...in 326 AD, the bishop of Jerusalem, in a clever ploy to induce Emperor Constantine to build a lavish church in his city, announced to the world that the Tomb of Christ lie beneath a pagan temple, which had been built on top of a rock quarry by Emperor Hadrian in 135 AD. (Quarries were frequently used as cemeteries in that era.) The bishop promised Constantine that at the bottom of that particular quarry he would find the tomb of Jesus. Even his boss, the Bishop of Palestine, Eusebius, was dubious of this claim. However, Constantine bought the story and the excavations began. Within a short time, a tomb was discovered which "matched" perfectly with the very brief, very vague description of Jesus' tomb as described in the Gospels.

And this site has been venerated by Roman Catholic and Orthodox Christians as the Tomb of Jesus Christ ever since.

However...the overwhelming majority of Protestant Christianity rejects this location as the true tomb of Jesus, and has instead, chosen to honor his burial at another location...because...the evidence for the authenticity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is so pathetically poor. I challenge every Christian reading this thread to read Murphy-O'Connor's article and see if you don't agree.

Is it because Gary would make a terrible historian, as OBP states, or, is it because of Gary's Protestant background, that he, like most Protestants, rejects silly catholic/orthodox relic and holy site superstitions?

[Juice]

And you should start admitting that your supernatural belief system is based on faith...not good evidence.

Easy statement to make in a vacuum. What is good historical evidence then? Provide an example of an event from around the time of Jesus you think is supported by good historical evidence. That way we have a frame of reference for what constitutes good historical evidence. This allows us a way to evaluate the merits of your statement above.

[Meh Gerbil]

Is it because Gary would make a terrible historian, as OBP states, or, is it because of Gary's Protestant background, that he, like most Protestants, rejects silly catholic/orthodox relic and holy site superstitions?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cDAqrywsHE

[One Bad Pig]

And you should start admitting that your supernatural belief system is based on faith...not good evidence.

Non sequitur. Why should I admit to a false statement?

[Gary]

Easy statement to make in a vacuum. What is good historical evidence then? Provide an example of an event from around the time of Jesus you think is supported by good historical evidence. That way we have a frame of reference for what constitutes good historical evidence. This allows us a way to evaluate the merits of your statement above.

Well, let's see: I will go with any event in Antiquity listed as an actual historical event in any public university world history text book. So take your pick.

[Gary]

Non sequitur. Why should I admit to a false statement?

Why don't you address specific points in my review of Murphy-O'Connor's article with which you disagree...and provide evidence supporting your position instead of frantic hand waving.

So far, the most damning evidence AGAINST the authenticity of the tomb within the Church of the Holy Sepulchre are the statements from Origen...or more accurately...his silence on that particular subject. Note in the quotes from Origen which I listed above, he goes on and on about his visit to the (alleged) site of Jesus' baptism and his visit to the cave in which Jesus had (allegedly) been born, including seeing the original manger in which Jesus had been laid by his mother...but no mention of any kind regarding the Empty Tomb. Now, it is true that at the time of Origen, a pagan temple sat on the site of the alleged Empty Tomb, however, I find it odd that Origen would not have listed his disappointment at not having access to visit the greatest of all holy sites in Palestine: the site of the greatest supernatural event (miracle) in all of history: The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the foundation of the Christian religion.

But nope, no mention of a known Empty Tomb.

What does the evidence tells us, folks?: Answer: The Empty Tomb was a legend, most likely invented by the author of the Gospel of Mark.

[RhinestoneCowboy]

Here's what most likely happened guys. Jesus was left up to rot on the cross with a big sign over his head that said "King of the Jews."
He was left up on display to serve as a warning to those passing by - "This is what happens when you mess with Rome" type of thing.
His remains would have been thrown into a common grave or pit. No one knew where his body was. This explains why there's no evidence
of veneration or even the location of Jesus' tomb in the early Christian record. We would certainly expect that if the actual location where a
resurrection by God happened was known. The later author of the empty tomb, either Mark or Mark's source, had to create a story because
heroes in the ancient world could not be depicted as receiving a dishonorable burial. That's why the story gets increasingly more noble over
time and omits certain elements from Mark. The original author or compilers used the Old Testament psalms and Isaiah 53 to make
a midrash story. The empty tomb is fiction.

[Gary]

Here's what most likely happened guys. Jesus was left up to rot on the cross with a big sign over his head that said "King of the Jews."
He was left up on display to serve as a warning to those passing by - "This is what happens when you mess with Rome" type of thing.
His remains would have been thrown into a common grave or pit. No one knew where his body was. This explains why there's no evidence
of veneration or even the location of Jesus' tomb in the early Christian record. We would certainly expect that if the actual location where a
resurrection by God happened was known. The later author of the empty tomb, either Mark or Mark's source, had to create a story because
heroes in the ancient world could not be depicted as receiving a dishonorable burial. That's why the story gets increasingly more noble over
time and omits certain elements from Mark. The original author or compilers used the Old Testament psalms and Isaiah 53 to make
a midrash story. The empty tomb is fiction.

Exactly, and the fact that the Bishop of Palestine (Eusebius) did not initially believe Marcarius' tale of the Empty Tomb lying under the pagan temple is also very telling. If this site had long been revered as the site of the Resurrection of God, Eusebius would not have questioned its authenticity.

It was a tall tale.

The fact that there is ZERO mention of any Christian venerating this site prior to or after Hadrian's construction of the pagan temple is damning evidence for the Christian claim of the historicity of the Empty Tomb. All evidence points to it being a legend.

[Gary]

Ok, so the remaining issue in regards to RCC priest and Christian scholar Jerome Murphy-O'Connor's article on the authenticity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is this: Why did Eusebius change his mind? Why did Eusebius, Bishop of Palestine at the time of Emperor Constantine's conversion in the fourth century, a man who had previously been skeptical regarding Macarius' claim that the Empty Tomb of Jesus lie under Hadrian's pagan temple, decide that Macarius had been right all along?

Here is what Murphy-O'Connor says on page 79 of his article:

"The Christians of Jerusalem knew where Jesus had been buried. Their memory was stimulated by bitterness and by the questions of visitors. Their presence in the city was continuous. Thus Macarius knew precisely where to dig. If the hypothesis of graffiti in the tomb is correct, the conviction of the sceptical Eusebius that they were in the right place is understandable."

Wow! What audacity! What unmitigated gall!

Assumption, on top of assumption, on top of assumption!

Murphy-O'Connor has not presented one solid piece of evidence for any of these audacious claims!

[Gary]

So now that Murphy-O'Connor (MC) has assumed that an Empty Tomb existed, and assumed that Macarius was correct in stating that Christians had always known that it lay underneath the pagan temple of Hadrian, all that is left for MC to do is to prove that the quarry upon which Hadrian built his pagan temple, and under which lies the Empty Tomb, is in a location that fits with the Gospels' meager details about this place. Here is what MC states prior to his discussion of this topic:

p. 80

Sounds promising, doesn't it?

So where is "Golgotha"? Does anyone know for sure?

Murphy-O'Connor continues:

p. 81

Boy. Our distinguished 21st century Christian scholar is debating first century historian Josephus as to the lay out of the city of Jerusalem in the first century. Sounds like a great start to authenticating this one tomb found in an ancient quarry, (quarries were often used for burial sites), as the tomb of the Resurrected Jesus Christ, God of the Universe.

[Juice]

Well, let's see: I will go with any event in Antiquity listed as an actual historical event in any public university world history text book. So take your pick.

Okay then. How about Pliny the Elder's death in the eruption of Vesuvius? Would you agree his death is supported by good historical evidence?

[psstein]

Josephus is known to be inaccurate in some areas, so Murphy-O'Connor's criticisms of Josephus are not necessarily unfounded. Murphy-O'Connor was also a specialist on archeology, so I'd take what he says about pre-70 Jerusalem fairly seriously.

Just as you can't use the gospels uncritically, you can't use Josephus uncritically.

[Gary]

Ok, now we get to the nitty gritty of the authenticity of the Tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre: What changed the mind of the Bishop of Palestine, Eusebius, to believe that this tomb was the true Empty Tomb of Jesus?

Murphy-O'Connor:

"What data do we have regarding the tomb discovered by Macarius? The reports of two eyewitnesses of its discovery are complemented by meagre archaeological data p.83

Gary: Now how would Eusebius know that ANY body had been in this tomb...since it was allegedly empty when Macarius' diggers found it??? And how does this statement jive with the Gospel of John's account that Arimathea had buried Jesus in his personal, family tomb? Would a "family tomb" only have one "cavern" for only one body???

Something's fishy in Den...I mean...Jerusalem, folks.



Gary: Here, the author confirms that abandoned quarries near the walls of Jerusalem were frequently used for burial grounds. So should anyone be surprised that the quarry over which Hadrian built the pagan temple contained graves?? Lest you think that Macarius and Constantine only found ONE tomb underneath the pagan temple, check this out:


Gary: Catch that, folks? "Popularly identified" is synonymous with "tradition". So we have a "tradition" about the location of the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea himself, buried in another tomb in the same quarry as Jesus. Wow! And I'm sure that this "tradition" came about because Eusebius saw graffiti on his tomb too...

Good grief!

Come on, folks! How obvious does it have to be for you to see that the Empty Tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is just another silly, superstitious claim of catholic/orthodox Christians???

Murphy-O'Connor ends his article by describing the near destruction of the Empty Tomb by the Muslims. He ends the article with this sentence:

"It is one of the ironies of history that the original rock-cut vestibule of the tomb of Christ evolved over the centuries into an artificially constructed one."

Gary: That's not the only irony in the story of this Christian holy site. It is ironic that finding one empty tomb in a quarry containing other tombs can be assumed to be the Empty Tomb of Jesus.

The
Empty
Tomb
is
a
tall
tale.

So we are never told why Eusebius changed his mind, but my guess would be that after Constantine had spent massive quantities of money and time tearing down Hadrian's pagan temple and excavating the foundation and dirt filling of the underlying quarry, and the fact that the Emperor's mother had come to view the site, the political pressure was too much for Eusebius to say..."Naa. I don't think that's it."

[One Bad Pig]

Here's what I wish happened guys. Jesus was left up to rot on the cross with a big sign over his head that said "King of the Jews."
He was left up on display to serve as a warning to those passing by - "This is what happens when you mess with Rome" type of thing.
His remains would have been thrown into a common grave or pit. No one knew where his body was. This explains why there's no evidence
of veneration or even the location of Jesus' tomb in the early Christian record. We would certainly expect that if the actual location where a
resurrection by God happened was known. The later author of the empty tomb, either Mark or Mark's source, had to create a story because
heroes in the ancient world could not be depicted as receiving a dishonorable burial. That's why the story gets increasingly more noble over
time and omits certain elements from Mark. The original author or compilers used the Old Testament psalms and Isaiah 53 to make
a midrash story. The empty tomb is fiction.

Fixed that for you.