Bobinius

I've often heard the argument brought forth by the priests, or "scientific scholars" dressed in black priestly clothes (presented as some sort of objective speaking heads), that the Cameron tomb is not the actual tomb because we already have the actual tomb, based on "strong" archeological evidence. Of course, they talk about the real tomb in Jerusalem, around which the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built.

Is there anything more than tradition behind this sepulchre?

Is there any evidence?


I don't know how the hell could you identify some tomb as being the real one, in the first place. There is nothing in the Gospels to identify the position of the tomb, and I bet that there is nothing within the tomb identifying it, other than cultural auxiliary pieces.

Steven Avery

Hi Bobinus,

The 'Holy Sepulchre' evidence is weak. The 'Garden Tomb' fits the evidence far better. In fact there are a lot of indicators in the NT about the Tomb (the location, the stone, the style and class, Golgotha, etc). In the 'Cameron Tomb' theory just about anything in the Jerusalem area would be possible as little in the NT would be relevant.

Shalom,
Steven Avery

mountainman

There is the boundless ambition of Constantine, who constructed the
basilica in the fourth century, and in whose regime "the bible" was first
bound together and published, in Greek, c.330 CE.

There is strong evidence to suggest that Constantine abused the
absolute military power which he enjoyed, and that he was, in
today's terminology what may be described as, a malevolent dictator.

It is supremely notable that the literature generated under the rule
of Constantine included not only the bible, but the entire historiography
of citations to earlier purported "ecclesiastical histories", and earlier
authors of antiquity who --- purportedly --- make reference in a number
of diverse ways, shapes and forms, to the existence of "christians"
in the pre-Nicene epoch.

There is no critical evidence citable which can distinguish between the
consistency of a mainstream historical theory of Jesus, and a theory
in which Constantine invents the new Roman religious order "christianity"
in the fourth century. The evidence is literary propaganda all of which
could easily have been generated in the fourth century, and thrust
upon the empire at Nicaea.

Pre-Nicene historical citations to the "existence of christianity" are
able to explained as either questionable dating assessment and/or
essentially "non christian".

Logically, the objective historian is entitled to construct a theory
of the history of antiquity in which the citations to "christianity"
commence with effect from 312 CE, and the rise of Constantine.

It is my observation that such a theory of this history of antiquity
is far more consistent from a historical perspective for a number
of reasons. Particularly, the involvement of the Constantinian
inspired "christian regime" and doctrine and propaganda in the
malevolent persecution of all non-christians with effect from the
Council of Nicaea, and the letter of Constantine.

For details, see Vlasis Rassias, Demolish Them!,
Published in Greek, Athens 1994.

Toto

Check the links in the last thread on this subject, such as Competing Tombs.

The evidence is missing that either one was The Tomb. The evidence is that no one seems to have cared or remembered where the tomb was until the Empress Helena wanted to find a location.

mountainman

Not only the tomb, but also the very very cross of three crosses.
And not only the very very cross did Helena find, but the
very very nails that the Roman empire had forged to execute
the god of the observable cosmos on the very very cross.

It is notable that Constantine used the very very nails to make
a bridle bit for his horse, so the tradition goes.

Doug Shaver

No, nothing at all.

Doug Shaver

What evidence?
Could you be more specific? Please?

What specifically does the NT say about the location? What specifically does it say about the stone, and how is its description of the stone relevant to an identification of the tomb? What specifically does it say about Golgotha that is relevant to an identification of the tomb? And what are the facts about the Garden Tomb that make it, rather than any other tomb that might have existed in or near Jerusalem during the first century CE, likely to be the particular tomb in which Jesus was buried?

RED DAVE

The Garden Tomb
(official website – I kid you not)

http://www.gardentomb.com/information.php

I love the bit about the toilet and the "gift shop with very reasonable prices."

RED DAVE

Steven Avery

Yep, it really is a beautiful spot. The location is East Jerusalem (Arab section) about a block or two from the Jewish side. The East Jerusalem bus terminal is basically on one side.

Folks are kewl, the gift shop is about as low-key as you can imagine.
The whole environs is beautiful and more.

Hard to describe .. plan to visit.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Bobinius

Constantine and his mom seem to have been probably more important for Christianity than Jesus himself.

Was it illegal to be an infidel after Constantine declared Christianity state religion? I mean was there a persecution against other beliefs, or interdictions, prior to those stipulated by Theodosius?

It's no wonder that Christianity "triumphed" being a state religion.

There is no specific clue regarding the identity of the tomb in the Gospels. Only vague and general stuff.

The only specific thing that identifies the tomb of a person is the body/bones of the person itself. If the tomb is empty, we would usually interpret that place as not being the tomb attributed to that person. We are not used to 3 days tombs.

Secondly, if there was a tomb of Jesus, that deductively implies that there was a Jesus. Which is questionable. Some name or inscription only proves that someone named Jesus/Yeshua was buried there, not that it is the same person as the one in the Gospels. Many Jesus-s and Yeshua-s lived in that period, and all of them died. In summa, it is very difficult in principle to prove that some tomb is the specific tomb of Jesus (which would also establish the existence of Jesus). It would be Begging the Question, because
we don't have evidence that Jesus existed in the first place.

What is the better evidence for the Garden Tomb?