Freethought & Rationalism Archive

xunzian · 03-06-2008, 09:24 AM

Which tomb? It is also worth noting that I'm not asserting anything, I'm merely agreeing with experts who know more than I do about the subject.

Toto · 03-06-2008, 09:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

In my mind, any new theory needs to accomplish two things: 1) Be a consistent, supported theory and 2) have sufficient evidence so that it can replace the previous theory.

I think the Joseph of Arimathaea's tomb burial is sorta the ID of atheists. The location where Jesus was/is buried has been known for around 2000 years, and I don't think that some vague writings on a wall constitute sufficient evidence to challenge that position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Been a sacred place for Christians since the Cruxifiction. [sic] Check it out. This page cites some of the sources.

I am trying to figure out if this is serious or sarcasm.

What is the current theory? What theory is analogous to ID? What are the "vague writings on a wall?" Is the spelling of "Crucifiction" a clue?

The location of Jesus' burial was identified when the Empress Helena traveled to Jerusalem to view the holy sites that she read about in the gospels. There is no evidence that the site of Jesus' burial had been sacred to Christians up to that time - indeed, Christians were reputed to have fled from Jerusalem around 70 CE.

Joseph of Arimathea cannot be pegged as a historical figure. There is no other evidence of him, there is no identified city of Arimathea. He's just part of the story line in a historically improbable tale of the Sanhedrin meeting at night to condemn Jesus, Jesus dying after a mere 3 hours on the cross, and Pilate releasing the body.

There is no evidence any of this happened.

Amaleq13 · 03-06-2008, 10:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

The location where Jesus was/is buried has been known for around 2000 years, and I don't think that some vague writings on a wall constitute sufficient evidence to challenge that position...Been a sacred place for Christians since the Cruxifiction.

Your source is correct when it states:

"The Church of the Holy Sepulchre has been an important pilgrimage destination since the 4th century..." (emphasis mine)

The list of "supporting evidence" for an earlier date is laughable. Father Murphy-O'Connor's opinion is as compelling as it is unexpected.

There simply is no credible evidence for prior veneration of this site.

xunzian · 03-06-2008, 10:05 AM

Take that up with Oxford. Scholars there believe Christians held worship there until around 66 CE, around which time they were kicked out of Jerusalem. There are references of it being a Christian site well before Empress Helena, if you can find citations that argue otherwise please do, but you haven't provided anything beyond assertion whereas I've given a link that cites one of the foremost academic institutions in the world. You'll forgive me if I side with Oxford.

Let's go through your questions:

What is the current theory?

That Jesus was buried where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands.

What theory is analogous to ID?

That Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

What are the "vague writings on a wall?"

The list of names in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

Is the spelling of "Crucifiction" a clue?

Pointing out spelling errors is the refuge of the idiot. And it's an ad hom to boot. Is that the best you can do?

Toto · 03-06-2008, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

Take that up with Oxford. Scholars there believe Christians held worship there until around 66 CE, around which time they were kicked out of Jerusalem.

Correction - Eusebius claimed that Christians worshipped there until 66 CE. Can you cite a modern critical scholar who agrees?

Quote:

There are references of it being a Christian site well before Empress Helena, if you can find citations that argue otherwise please do, but you haven't provided anything beyond assertion whereas I've given a link that cites one of the foremost academic institutions in the world. You'll forgive me if I side with Oxford.

Your cite is a tourist site (hint - some financial motivations) that links to The Holy Land: An Oxford Archaeological Guide from Earliest Times to 1700 (or via: amazon.co.uk) by Father Jerome Murphy-O'Connor (hint - ideological motivations.) It is published by Oxford as a useful guide to tourists.

Quote:

This book is an excellent choice for visitors to the Holy Land who want to take an in-depth look at the area's historical sites. Among this Oxford guide's special features are 150 site plans, maps, diagrams, and photographs; routes through the Old City of Jerusalem; a brief historical outline; and a glossary of essential terms. Oxford Archeological Guides: The Holy Land is also a useful source of practical advice on museum hours, suggested dress, travel and lodging contacts, as well as information on visiting desert locations such as the Judaean Desert and the hills of Elat.

Quote:

Let's go through your questions:

What is the current theory?

That Jesus was buried where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands

OK - that is the Christian theory.

Quote:

What theory is analogous to ID?

That Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

That is also the Christian theory. :huh:

Quote:

What are the "vague writings on a wall?"

The list of names in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea.

The tomb has never been discovered, and there are no writings on the wall.

Quote:

Is the spelling of "Crucifiction" a clue?

Pointing out spelling errors is the refuge of the idiot. And it's an ad hom to boot. Is that the best you can do?

How was I to know that it was a spelling error? Lots of skeptics use the term "crucifiction" to indicate their opinion of the story.

I think there is some massive confusion going on here. Can you clarify?

xunzian · 03-06-2008, 10:25 AM

Both Dan Bahat and Martin Biddle think the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the most likely site. While Biddle has an ideological ax to grind, Dan Bahat is a pretty neutral and highly authoritative source.

As for the tomb, my mistake. I though they were talking about The Jesus Family Tomb.

Johnny Skeptic · 03-06-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

Which tomb? It is also worth noting that I'm not asserting anything, I'm merely agreeing with experts who know more than I do about the subject.

You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by xunzian

The location where Jesus was/is buried has been known for around 2,000 years.

Which location do you mean?

Toto · 03-06-2008, 10:37 AM

It would help if you listed your sources .

Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre quotes Barhat:

Quote:

To quote the Israeli scholar Dan Bahat, former City Archaeologist of Jerusalem:

"We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus' burial, but we 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." (Bahat, 1986)

Hardly a ringing endorsement. And given the amount of tourist dollars that Isreal gets from Christian tourists, there is a big motivation to validate traditional sites that Christians want to visit.

stuart shepherd · 03-06-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

Isaiah 53,9 (New American Standard)
His grave was assigned with wicked men,
No.... he was buried in a rich man's tomb, not a wicked man's tomb.

Yet He was with a rich man in His death,
No..he died with wicked men, not with a rich man.

.

Open your eyes to see the mendacity.

Stuart Shepherd

xunzian · 03-06-2008, 10:57 AM

Is a ringing endorsement necessary? There are a lot of unknowns in this, but given the lack of suitable alternatives I think the most reasonable course is to accept the general consensus.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-06-2008, 09:24 AM	#11
xunzian Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,691	Which tomb? It is also worth noting that I'm not asserting anything, I'm merely agreeing with experts who know more than I do about the subject.

03-06-2008, 10:05 AM	#14
xunzian Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,691	Take that up with Oxford. Scholars there believe Christians held worship there until around 66 CE, around which time they were kicked out of Jerusalem. There are references of it being a Christian site well before Empress Helena, if you can find citations that argue otherwise please do, but you haven't provided anything beyond assertion whereas I've given a link that cites one of the foremost academic institutions in the world. You'll forgive me if I side with Oxford. Let's go through your questions: What is the current theory? That Jesus was buried where the Church of the Holy Sepulchre now stands. What theory is analogous to ID? That Jesus was buried in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. What are the "vague writings on a wall?" The list of names in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. Is the spelling of "Crucifiction" a clue? Pointing out spelling errors is the refuge of the idiot. And it's an ad hom to boot. Is that the best you can do?

03-06-2008, 10:25 AM	#16
xunzian Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,691	Both Dan Bahat and Martin Biddle think the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the most likely site. While Biddle has an ideological ax to grind, Dan Bahat is a pretty neutral and highly authoritative source. As for the tomb, my mistake. I though they were talking about The Jesus Family Tomb.

03-06-2008, 10:57 AM	#20
xunzian Veteran Member Join Date: May 2007 Location: Indianapolis Posts: 2,691	Is a ringing endorsement necessary? There are a lot of unknowns in this, but given the lack of suitable alternatives I think the most reasonable course is to accept the general consensus.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.