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

[RhinestoneCowboy]

What, from Paul, prevents me from concluding that he was asserting all the appearances were the same? And how can you conclude "raised from the dead" means a physical bodily resurrection without reading the later appearance reports into it? You're assuming a priori it means physical resurrection but what other contemporary source uses the phrase "raised from the dead" the same way as Paul uses it for Jesus? Most apologists assert that Jesus' resurrection was a unique event unlike any other! I'm surprised you would assume being "raised from the dead" like Jesus had other analogous precedents in the ancient world!

[RhinestoneCowboy]

That's why I attempted to show from Jewish sources that predate Paul, being "aroused from the sleep of death" or "recalling the dead to life" need not necessarily imply a physical embodied existence that involved the resuscitation of the earthly corpse. Instead, there are plenty of sources that emphasize the continued existence of souls as opposed to the resurrection of the physical body. Therefore, merely being "raised" is a non-sequitur considering the wide range of views regarding afterlife and resurrection.

[One Bad Pig]

Are you saying that during the siege of Jerusalem during the late 60's no Jews were buried inside the city?

Um, Gary? The tomb was empty.

And people under seige don't tend to do labor-intensive stuff like making rock-cut tombs (and per Josephus, during the seige many bodies were left to rot in the streets).

But, let's say that all your claims are true: The location under the pagan temple, now the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, meets the requirement of being outside the walls, and, the tomb was newly hewn. How does this prove that the tomb identified by Macarius is really the tomb of Jesus? There was more than just one tomb found under the pagan temple. And there were several quarries outside the city walls at the time of Jesus, often used for tombs after the stones had been removed. So how do we know that this particular quarry contained Jesus' tomb. We have no proof that the pagan temple really had been the "traditional site" of the Empty Tomb prior to 135 AD during the second and third centuries. We only learn of this tradition from Macarius in the fourth century. Are we to really believe that Christians had maintained and venerated the location of the Tomb of Jesus continually since the 30's AD and several prominent Church Fathers had visited the "holy sites" in Palestine during the second and third century...but in the fourth century, Eusebius doubts the tradition??

Sure sounds like Macarius "invented" this "tradition".

What convinced Eusebius to change his mind is anyone's guess. He nor anyone else ever says.

We've been over this already. And as Adrift attests, scholars generally accept the site as where Jesus was buried. Why don't you accept the scholarly majority, Gary? That used to mean something to you.

[Gary]

Um, Gary? The tomb was empty.

And people under seige don't tend to do labor-intensive stuff like making rock-cut tombs (and per Josephus, during the seige many bodies were left to rot in the streets).

We've been over this already. And as Adrift attests, scholars generally accept the site as where Jesus was buried. Why don't you accept the scholarly majority, Gary? That used to mean something to you.

Ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of the Protestant Christian world rejects your based-on-zero-archeological-evidence, catholic/orthodox tomb.

[DesertBerean]

Ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of the Protestant Christian world rejects your based-on-zero-archeological-evidence, catholic/orthodox tomb.

Throw a lot of mud pies lately?

[Adrift]

Which is a pretty bad excuse.

Mmm. I don't think so.

How many other tombs could lay claim to where a resurrection by God happened?

Jews venerated tombs in honor of the dead patriarch or prophet inside the tomb. (see Robert Gundry's commentary on Mark pg. 1002, citing J. Jeremias, Heiligengraber, and The Cult of the Saints by Peter Brown, pg. 3).

Why did the Church of the Holy Sepulchre come to be venerated without Jesus' body? Obviously, his remains were not a requirement for veneration.

I'm not sure what you're taking issue with at this point, that the tomb of Jesus was venerated, or that it wasn't? That knowledge of the site of the tomb was passed down as living memory (per Dale Alison Jr.) does not imply that it was necessarily venerated from the start.

http://www.jacksonsnyder.com/yah/man...l_of_jesus.pdf

Not exactly sure what your point is in citing the rest of the paragraph. To be sure, Kloner does believe that the Holy Selpuchre is the location of Jesus' tomb (see his article "Reconstruction of the Tomb in the Rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre According to Archaeological finds and Jewish Burial Customs of the First Century CE", or minute 29:41 of this video). He's only remarking that the tomb was added onto in later times. Since you seem to have access to BAR magazine articles, check out Dan Bahat's "Does the Holy Sepulchre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus?" Where he addresses the archaeological work being done to the Holy Sepulchre, and where he summarizes, "We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus' burial, but we certainly have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site."

[Gary]

Mmm. I don't think so.



Jews venerated tombs in honor of the dead patriarch or prophet inside the tomb. (see Robert Gundry's commentary on Mark pg. 1002, citing J. Jeremias, Heiligengraber, and The Cult of the Saints by Peter Brown, pg. 3).



I'm not sure what you're taking issue with at this point, that the tomb of Jesus was venerated, or that it wasn't? That knowledge of the site of the tomb was passed down as living memory (per Dale Alison Jr.) does not imply that it was necessarily venerated from the start.



Not exactly sure what your point is in citing the rest of the paragraph. To be sure, Kloner does believe that the Holy Selpuchre is the location of Jesus' tomb (see his article "Reconstruction of the Tomb in the Rotunda of the Holy Sepulchre According to Archaeological finds and Jewish Burial Customs of the First Century CE", or minute 29:41 of this video). He's only remarking that the tomb was added onto in later times. Since you seem to have access to BAR magazine articles, check out Dan Bahat's "Does the Holy Sepulchre Church Mark the Burial of Jesus?" Where he addresses the archaeological work being done to the Holy Sepulchre, and where he summarizes, "We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus' burial, but we certainly have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site."

Even if the tomb under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is outside the city walls of 30 AD...
And even if this tomb was a newly hewn tomb...
And even if it was empty...

None of this proves that the tomb under the church was the tomb of Jesus!!!

There were many tombs found in the excavation of the foundation of the pagan temple, which had been built over a quarry; a quarry which had been used as a "cemetery" at some time in the past. Unless there were identifying features in one particular tomb that marked it as the tomb of Jesus, the fact that it was empty and newly hewn does NOT prove it was the tomb of Jesus.

What we need is evidence that the earliest Christians had venerated this site, continually, ever since Jesus' death. Nothing in Murphy-O'Connor's article substantiates this tradition. He simply assumes the tomb existed and then assumes because it existed, Christians would have remembered and venerated it.

That's it!

Please provide better evidence for the authenticity of the location of the greatest event to have ever (allegedly) occurred on planet earth!

[Adrift]

Ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of the Protestant Christian world rejects your based-on-zero-archeological-evidence, catholic/orthodox tomb.

Where do you keep getting these ideas from? You don't read scholars, so you have to be pulling them out of your butt.

Archaeologist, Professor Thomas Davis of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary tells readers in his book Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology that, "Today, most scholars, even conservative Protestants (McRay 1991), accept the identification of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the place where Jesus was buried (Barkay 1986; Biddle 1999; Wilkinson 1978)".

[One Bad Pig]

Throw a lot of mud pies lately?

Even if he'd read Rhinestone Cowboy's link (on a post which he plonked an "Amen"), he'd know better than to make such a ridiculous statement.

[Gary]

Where do you keep getting these ideas from? You don't read scholars, so you have to be pulling them out of your butt.

Archaeologist, Professor Thomas Davis of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary tells readers in his book Shifting Sands: The Rise and Fall of Biblical Archaeology that, "Today, most scholars, even conservative Protestants (McRay 1991), accept the identification of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the place where Jesus was buried (Barkay 1986; Biddle 1999; Wilkinson 1978)".

Read this scholar, writing in a nationally recognized and respected journal, not writing books for a biased Christian audience:

"But few scholars today would defend the Gospels as history."

"Despite all of the much-touted and soon forgotten "stupendous" finds, the historical Jesus and his disciples remain elusive to scholars: The archaeological evidence for Jesus's life just isn't there. Chancey says, "It's very hard to locate one individual, particularly one from the masses. Nobody doubts that Jesus existed, but finding evidence in the archaeological record is really an impossibility."

Where archaeology fears--or is unable--to tread, however, Hollywood has always displayed a willingness to rush in and, despite the lack of evidence relating to Jesus's life and ministry, his story will continue to capture the imaginations of filmmakers. And tourists to the Holy Land will continue to be guided to places where the events of the Bible "actually" took place, because, as Chancey says, that way "everybody wins--the pilgrims get to walk where Jesus walked, and the tourism industry gets the money."

Source: http://archive.archaeology.org/0403/etc/letter.html

[One Bad Pig]

Read this scholar, writing in a nationally recognized and respected journal, not writing books for a biased Christian audience:

"But few scholars today would defend the Gospels as history."

"Despite all of the much-touted and soon forgotten "stupendous" finds, the historical Jesus and his disciples remain elusive to scholars: The archaeological evidence for Jesus's life just isn't there. Chancey says, "It's very hard to locate one individual, particularly one from the masses. Nobody doubts that Jesus existed, but finding evidence in the archaeological record is really an impossibility."

Where archaeology fears--or is unable--to tread, however, Hollywood has always displayed a willingness to rush in and, despite the lack of evidence relating to Jesus's life and ministry, his story will continue to capture the imaginations of filmmakers. And tourists to the Holy Land will continue to be guided to places where the events of the Bible "actually" took place, because, as Chancey says, that way "everybody wins--the pilgrims get to walk where Jesus walked, and the tourism industry gets the money."

Source: http://archive.archaeology.org/0403/etc/letter.html

And Gary's response? A movie review.

[DesertBerean]

Read this scholar, writing in a nationally recognized and respected journal, not writing books for a biased Christian audience:

"But few scholars today would defend the Gospels as history."

"Despite all of the much-touted and soon forgotten "stupendous" finds, the historical Jesus and his disciples remain elusive to scholars: The archaeological evidence for Jesus's life just isn't there. Chancey says, "It's very hard to locate one individual, particularly one from the masses. Nobody doubts that Jesus existed, but finding evidence in the archaeological record is really an impossibility."

Where archaeology fears--or is unable--to tread, however, Hollywood has always displayed a willingness to rush in and, despite the lack of evidence relating to Jesus's life and ministry, his story will continue to capture the imaginations of filmmakers. And tourists to the Holy Land will continue to be guided to places where the events of the Bible "actually" took place, because, as Chancey says, that way "everybody wins--the pilgrims get to walk where Jesus walked, and the tourism industry gets the money."

Source: http://archive.archaeology.org/0403/etc/letter.html

Geez, Gary, do better than that.

[Gary]

And Gary's response? A movie review.

Keep laughing.

Yes, the highly respected archeologist is commenting on the historical accuracy of Mel Gibson's "Passion" but she also states the current position of scholarship regarding the historicity of the Gospels:

Not
reliable!

That laughing you hear is secular scholarship snickering at your first century superstitions.

[Adrift]

And Gary's response? A movie review.

I mean, should we expect anything better from the guy who previously cited the conspiracy nut homepage of "The Scientific Committee to Evaluate PseudoSkeptical Criticism of the Paranormal"?

[Gary]

I mean, should we expect anything better from the guy who previously cited the conspiracy nut homepage of "The Scientific Committee to Evaluate PseudoSkeptical Criticism of the Paranormal"?

There was no empty tomb, folks. Jews venerate the burial sites of important people. First century Jewish Christians still considered themselves to be Jewish. Therefore it there had been an Empty Tomb of Jesus, they would have venerated it and Eusebius would have known about this and would have never doubted Macarius' "tradition" of a tomb under Hadrian's pagan temple.

But Eusebius did doubt it.

None of the Church Fathers who visited Jerusalem in the second and third centuries ever once mention an "Empty Tomb". In fact there is ZERO mention of an empty tomb in the second, third and fourth centuries in the historical record until Macarius, the bishop of Jerusalem, brought it up to Constantine at the Council of Nicea...after Constantine had announced he wanted to build three great churches in Palestine.

Go figure...

Did Macarius really know about a tradition, or did he just want a new church building that would put his city back on the world map???