Metacrock

Meta => yes, they are mentioned on my page, and must be on the New Advent article cause that's where I got them. But I didn't say above that that we have the accounts, they have written their own because they lived before Eusebius (o but of course he's a liar that made everything up, but he must made up that they wrote them, how else could he pretend to have them?) what I said was:

I"m not sure if it does come through Eusebius. These pilgrims did write their own accounts, and it names who they were. go read it again.




Meta => who just pulled it out of thin air right?


Meta =>Yea we'll see.

"History is documents," you say. So where are the documents from these second century pilgrims to the holy sepulchre? Name them. Quote them.

Meta =>yea, yea throw my own words back at me!

WEll see.

Peter Kirby

Name them. Quote them.

best,
Peter Kirby

Metacrock

I did Pete. I don' t think you are being fair about the web page you saw either. But before we do that, let me say this:

Do you think this thread is about this documenting that they venerated a tomb in the first century? Cause I said at the outset this not what I want this thread to be about. I wasn't trying to base any of my arguments on this. I wasn't even the one who brought it up.

But about the page, it's fine for you to demand of me the same things I demand of others. But I think there is huge difference in Isasion saying glib stuff like "there's evidence at all" and "No one ever mentions the resurrection or histrical Jesus" ect ect. And me saying there's a tradition of venerating the tomb.

that's all I'm saying, there as an early tradition that the tomb was venerated from the late second century, and that the CHS is that tomb. That's all I'm saying. And to prove that I have a impressive array of sources, given the difficult nature of the task. Think about what that's trying to do. Where else can we ever prove something like this? But scholars and historians have based dogma on a lot less. The place of the bow tree that Sidhartha sat under is suppossdly known in India and it has a lot less support then this does.

1) more than one quoate said alsomost scholars agree that they vinerated the tomb.

2) two archaeolgoical excvations provide a hgigh degree of confidence. The Corbo excavation found an artifact indicating vineration, a ring shaped like the aedicule.

3) Cornfled, who is an Israeli and several others agreeing with it.

But ok fair enough. WE don't actually possess the documents the pilgrims wrote. that was over a year ago that i wote that page, and I did say I wasn't sure and would have to look again Read it up there, that's what I said.


Evne without that I think there is enough evidence here to claim that we can have a fair degree of confidence that they did vinerate it from an early day ceritainly more confidence than would justify the flat out deniel that they ever did in that dogmatic tone that is always used (around here).


Now look at what it does say.


Ok first it does appear to be coming from Eusebuis, and that's just as good as calling it a lie. But I don't think so. I don't think just being form him makes it a lie.

Now:


"It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where "these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly announced and carried out".


--He was a pilgrim. He lived in second century, so he must have written an account, or E. made one up for him. We don't have it, but E. Calimed to have had it. btw he is named. WE do know his name.




"As he died in 180, his visit was made at a time when he could receive the tradition from the children of those who had returned from Pella."

--he did go there and he did talk to people who claimed to have known, whose ancesstors vinerated it.




After this it is related that Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) went to Jerusalem "for the sake of prayer and the investigation of the places", and that Origen (d. 253) "visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples". By the beginning of the fourth century the custom of visiting Jerusalem for the sake of information and devotion had become so frequent that Eusebius wrote, that Christians "flocked together from all parts of the earth".



--so you have a continuing tradition. He can still find people in 251 who claim to know the score.




It is at this period that history begins to present written records of the location of the Holy Sepulchre. The earliest authorities are the Greek Fathers, Eusebius (c.260-340), Socrates (b.379), Sozomen (375-450), the monk Alexander (sixth century), and the Latin Fathers, Rufinus (375-410), St. Jerome (346-420), Paulinus of Nola (353-431), and Sulpitius Severus" (363-420).



--now there's your argument, it doesn't start in history until the fourth century. And that's true, but the thing that is starting is the claim of the memory of the ealry vineration. So it enters history in the fourth century, although it was recorded by the pilgrim in the second century. But what is enerting history is the fact that an oral tradition did exist and that the tradtion of veneration existed. then the authorities of the fourth century are named.


Now here's the deal. You look at that and say "O that's crap that doesnt' prove anything, so it was never venerated." I don't think the stament "it never was" is anywhere near justified. You guys always want to make everyting black and white. either its totally proven or it's just not ture and it's a lie and we can forget it. I don't see historians acting that way. I see them taking things at different levels of confidence. They dont' just go "Ok that's out so never mention it again."

Now I admit this is not the strongest case, it's not the weakest either. It's too good to just dismiss with that blanket stament "It was never vinerated." There is decent evidence, archaeological and textal that it was. and I'm not trying that claim that much from that fact either.


I think you guys are way unrealistically causious when it comes to conclusions you don't like, and just horribly loose with the assumptions based on nothing but speculation when it's something you do like. This evidence I have is much stronger than the sheer speculation that goes into Doherty's arguments form silence. I never said "this is aboslute proof."

Vorkosigan

Peter:

:notworthy

Metacrock:



Vorkosigan

keyser_soze

Meta, if I make 1 major unsupported assertion, and two minor ones that I use to support my major one.... and my logic behind the two minor ones is obviously flawed....my evidence totally missing for it...Then what credence would you give to my major assertion?

Prosecution
"I claim that Joe murdered Sarah."
"My evidence is that joe was alone with sarah"
"My other evidence is that joe has a handgun"


defense
"Joe was in New york, a thousand miles away atested by the entire nation who watched him on tv"
"Joe is anti-gun, and marches monthly for the cause of removing firearms, and has never had a gun registered to him, or any record of him purchasing one"


Now, you may say..."too much evidence". Let's change the scenario then,

defense: "Where is your evidence that joe was with her?"
pros: "Well, bob said it, but we haven't seen or heard from him, and he didn't file any reports or make any recorded statements"
defense: "What evidence do you have that joe has a gun"
pros: "Well, bob said it, but he filed no statement, and there are no reciepts or evidence that he purchased or owned a handgun"
pros: "well what about the evidence that she died from a knife wound?"....well you see where it's going. If the evidence is poor, and contradicts itself, and is found only from a single source, and that source is hearsay, and not evidenced by other supporting claims...You have to see it from our perspective. supernatural claims and supernatural evidence as it were.

Now, what credence do we give to the prosecutions assertion that joe killed sarah? The assertions have no basis, no corroborating support whatsoever, basically coming down to "I think this is so". And that doesn't take into account that the entire prosecuting team all feel a different way about it. If your own team can't agree, what chance do you have to convince anyone else?

When you can figure out the analogy, you will have a good understanding not only into the way we SEE EVIDENCE, but also into why we see your arguments as groundless.

keyser_soze

Now, to further complicate the scenario, add in that bob's statement was made to one man, who verbally gave it to another..who then typed it out. That report of the hearsay conversation was then lost, and reconstructed from memory, only to be edited by another officer to "fit" better with the prosecutions belief that joe killed sarah. It might have originally said that bob was said he saw sarah with tom, but it might have been joe...and that joe then levitated himself into the air. Now, apparently this happened in a crowded mall, but you just can't find anyone who saw it other than a short statement, twice removed from the officer who originally wrote it out, from something that bob told another guy in the first place. Is it sinking in yet?

Gooch's dad

Thank you, Peter, for helping to state my case so clearly (and with far more patience than I would have exhibited by that point).

-Kelly

Metacrock

http://www.geocities.com/meta_crock/...Res2_page2.htm


So everyone can see the page we are talking about:



Sketpics have often argued taht no tomb was ever venerated in the first centuries, or any time before the middle ages. They love to believe that the Chruch of the Holy Seplechur, the oldest traditional site, was just made up to show to Constantine, or even that it was moved in the middle ages. None of this is true. While it cannot be proven conclusively that the CHS is the actual tomb site, there is a good chance and there is good evidence to suggest it. The tradition can be traced back to the first century. Thus a tomb was venerated in the first century.



A. Scholars Generally Agree.

http://www.bib-arch.org/barso99/roll2.html

Bib Arch. Review
Amos Kloner
Did a Rolling STone Close Jesus' Tomb?


"Scholars generally agree that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church marks the location of Jesus' burial.*** But the aedicule (shrine) inside the church, which marks the traditional burial site, bears no signs of a first-century burial. The burial shelf in the aedicule is covered with a later slab, which does not appear to be part of the local bedrock and was probably imported into the cave.(15) Until recently, only the bench on the right side of the aedicule was thought to have been original. (The aedicule itself dates to the beginnning of the 19th century.) Recent studies at the site, however, have not shed light on the relationship between the rock, the foundations and the aedicule as they exist today and the original burial cave.(16) The only indication that the spot where the aedicule now stands might once have been a tomb is the presence of a burial cave with loculi a few yards away.(17)


One of the major means of identification is through the relation to the city wall. They know where the tomb was suppossed to be in relation to the wall and that gives a vector in which to begin searching. Than there are two other peices of crucial evidence, the description by Eusebius and artifacts which link the site with the tomb.

New Advent
Catholic Encyclopeida
Holy Seplechur

A.L. MCMAHON
Transcribed by Robert B. Olson

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07425a.htm


"But nearly all scholars maintain that the knowledge of the place was handed down by oral tradition, and that the correctness of this knowledge was proved by the investigations caused to be made in 326 by the Emperor Constantine, who then marked the site for future ages by erecting over the Tomb of Christ a basilica, in the place of which, according to an unbroken written tradition, now stands the church of the Holy Sepulchre."



B. Excavations Link CHS to original site.


1) Corbo Excavation.


a.Identifies site from Discription by Esuebius.


Chruch of The Holy Seplechur--Government of Israel site, visited 6/7/01

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00v10


"This courtyard, outside the present-day Church of the Holy Sepulcher, is partly supported by a large, vaulted cistern. The northern wall of this cistern is very impressive, consisting of large blocks with dressed margins, still standing several meters high. It has been suggested that this early wall served as the retaining wall of the second century Hadrianic raised platform (podium). This appears to support Eusebius' statement that the Temple of Venus, which Hadrian erected on the site of Jesus' tomb, stood here before the original church was built."

"The Basilica: Early masonry below the catholicon of the Crusader period was exposed during the excavations. This made possible the reconstruction of the original design of the 4th century basilica. The position of the two central rows of columns in the basilica (out of the four rows) may be determined by the remains of their foundations, which can be seen along the northern and southern sides of the chapel of St. Helena. In a small underground space north of this chapel, a massive foundation wall of the early basilica was exposed. On a large, smoothed stone which was incorporated in this wall, a pilgrim to the original church left a drawing of a merchant ship and the Latin inscription: "O Lord, we shall go." Beneath the apse of the present-day catholicon, part of the apse that marked the western end of the original church was exposed. Eusebius described this apse as being surrounded by twelve columns, symbolizing the twelve apostles."

"The Rotunda and SepulcherThe most important element of the complex is the rotunda which contains the sepulcher itself. The sepulcher stands in an elaborate structure within the rotunda, surrounded by columns supporting an ornamented, domed roof.Some masonry remains were revealed below the floor and around the perimeter of the rotunda. Wherever bedrock was exposed, there were indications of stone-quarrying in earlier periods. The quarrying operation lowered the surface level around the sepulcher, which thus stood well above its surroundings. An architectural survey of the outer wall of the rotunda - 35 m. in diameter and in some sections preserved to a height of 10 m. - shows that it maintains its original 4th century shape. The sepulcher itself is surrounded by a circle of twelve columns - groups of three columns between four pairs of square piers. It is possible that the columns for the 4th century rotunda were removed from their original location on the facade of the Roman temple. Renovation of the piers exposed evidence that the columns had originally been much higher and that the Crusaders cut them in half for use in the 12th century rotunda.The renovation of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is still in progress, but after generations of neglect, the building has already regained most of its former beauty.

"The survey and excavations were conducted by V. Corbo, Ch. Coüasnon, M. Broshi and others, on behalf of the Christian communities which control most of the Holy Sepulcher: the Roman Catholic; the Greek Orthodox; and the Armenian Orthodox."




b.Corbo Found crucial artifact.

The Corbo excavation not only recognized the site from its discription by Esuebius but also from artifacts.

Archaeology cannot yet identify with certainty the tomb of Christ, but here is strong evidence supporting the Church of the Holy Seplicur as the original site. The site does date back to the fourth century when it was shown to Constantine. Bruce attests to the evidential support.(FF Bruch, New Testament Documents) . More important confirmation comes from Gaalyah Cornfeld in Archaeology of The Bible Book By Book. (1976). Cornfeld tells us that from early times Christians reverenced the site, but it was desecrated when the Romans put up a statue of one of their gods. Jewish-Christians could no longer worship at the site for that reason, but they continued the knowledge of it until the time of Constantine when they were able to point him to it as the original site of the resurrection. Constantine put up a basilica over the original shrine, the Anastasis. Excavations by V. Corbo found a gold ring with the representation of the dome of the original shrine Anastasis. This indicates that this site was venerated by Christians in ancient times as the site of the resurrection. (and there is an empty tomb underneither it). (See Archaeology of The Bible: Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, 271-2).


2) Biddle Excavation.

Drawing upon work done in the 1980s in relation to accessing damages for repair, one of the most prominate British Archaeologists, Martin Biddle, with his wife, excavated the site and found that it may well be the actual tomb.

Link

"The study by Professor Martin Biddle, Professor of Medieval Archaeology, and his wife, the Danish archaeologist, Birthe Kjobye-Biddle, shows how a tomb found in AD 325–6 under a Roman temple, has a good claim to be the tomb in which the body of Christ was laid on the evening of the crucifixion in AD 30 or 33. It also explores how it has fared over the centuries."

Biddle's data is distilled into a book entitaled The Tomb of Christ

C. Tradition linked to First Century.

Several issues that skeptics will raise include: 1)the tradition only began in the foruth century, 2) That Helena just chose the site arbitrarily, 3) that the site was moved in the middle ages, 4) that legonds and "traditions" are worthless. But all of these are false. The tradition can be linked to the first century..

New Advent
Catholic Encyclopeida
Holy Seplechur

A.L. MCMAHON

Transcribed by Robert B. Olson


1) Site remembered by Jewish Christian Community after departure from Jerusalem in 60.


"These scholars contend that the original members of the nascent Christian Church in Jerusalem visited the Holy Sepulchre soon, if not immediately, after the Resurrection of the Saviour. Following the custom of their people, those who were converts from Judaism venerated, and taught their children to venerate, the Tomb in which had lain the Foundation of their new faith, from which had risen the Source of their eternal hope; and which was therefore more sacred and of greater significance to them than had been the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, which they had hitherto venerated, as their forefathers had for centuries. Nor would Gentile converts have failed to unite with them in this practice, which was by no means foreign to their own former customs.



2) Christian Community Re-established in Second Century.

"The Christians who were in Jerusalem when Titus laid siege to the city in the year 70 fled, it is true, across the Jordan to Pella; but, as the city was not totally destroyed, and as there was no law prohibiting their return, it was possible for them to take up their abode there again in the year 73, about which time, according to Dr. Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, Oxford, 1903), they really did re-establish themselves. But, granting that the return was not fully made until 122, one of the latest dates proposed, there can be no doubt that in the restored community there were many who knew the location of the Tomb, and who led to it their children, who would point it out during the next fifty years. The Roman prohibition which kept Jews from Jerusalem for about two hundred years, after Hadrian had suppressed the revolt of the Jews under Barcochebas (132-35), may have included Jewish converts to Christianity; but it is possible that it did not. It certainly did not include Gentile converts."



3) Tradition past from Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem to Gentile Christians.


"The list of Bishops of Jerusalem given by Eusebius in the fourth century shows that there was a continuity of episcopal succession, and that in 135 a Jewish line was followed by a Gentile. The tradition of the local community was undoubtedly strengthened from the beginning by strangers who, having heard from the Apostles and their followers, or read in the Gospels, the story of Christ's Burial and Resurrection, visited Jerusalem and asked about the Tomb that He had rendered glorious."



D.Trial of Witnesses from Second Century to Contantine.


1)Pilgrims.

[Ibid]

"It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where "these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly announced and carried out". As he died in 180, his visit was made at a time when he could receive the tradition from the children of those who had returned from Pella. After this it is related that Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) went to Jerusalem "for the sake of prayer and the investigation of the places", and that Origen (d. 253) "visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples". By the beginning of the fourth century the custom of visiting Jerusalem for the sake of information and devotion had become so frequent that Eusebius wrote, that Christians "flocked together from all parts of the earth". It is at this period that history begins to present written records of the location of the Holy Sepulchre. The earliest authorities are the Greek Fathers, Eusebius (c.260-340), Socrates (b.379), Sozomen (375-450), the monk Alexander (sixth century), and the Latin Fathers, Rufinus (375-410), St. Jerome (346-420), Paulinus of Nola (353-431), and Sulpitius Severus" (363-420).



2) Eusebius.

[Ibid]
Of these the most explicit and of the greatest importance is Eusebius, who writes of the Tomb as an eyewitness, or as one having received his information from eyewitnesses. The testimonies of all having been compared and analysed may be presented briefly as follows: Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, conceived the design of securing the Cross of Christ, the sign of which had led her son to victory. Constantine himself, having long had at heart a desire to honour "the place of the Lord's Resurrection", "to erect a church at Jerusalem near the place that is called Calvary", encouraged her design, and giving her imperial authority, sent her with letters and money to Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem. Helena and Macarius, having made fruitless inquiries as to the existence of the Cross, turned their attention to the place of the Passion and Resurrection, which was known to be occupied by a temple of Venus erected by the Romans in the time of Hadrian, or later. The temple was torn down, the ruins were removed to a distance, the earth beneath, as having been contaminated, was dug up and borne far away. Then, "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", III, xxviii). Near it were found three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription such as Pilate ordered to be placed on the Cross of Christ. The accounts of the finding of the Holy Sepulchre thus summarized have been rejected by some on the ground that they have an air of improbability, especially in the attribution of the discovery to "an inspiration of the Saviour", to "Divine admonitions and counsels", and in the assertions that, although the Tomb had been covered by a temple of Venus for upwards of two centuries, its place was yet known."


Of course, Corfeld says that these pagan monuments, intended to defile the site and make it unfit for veneration, only served to mark the location, so that Christains could remember where it was by marking the pagan monument.There are more serious considerations which I do not have time to address here. I suggest that the reader click on the link above and read the entire article. But the point here is that, unlike many skeptics try to claim, the situation is not that no one ever heard of the site before Contantine; he did not pull it out of think air. There is a traceable tradition going back to the fist century.


E. Site not questioned until 18th century.

[Ibid]
"It was not until the eighteenth century that the authenticity of this tomb was seriously doubted. The tradition in its favour was first formally rejected by Korte in his "Reise nach dem gelobten Lande" (Altona, 1741). In the nineteenth century he had many followers, some of whom were content with simply denying that it is the Holy Sepulchre, because it lies within the city walls, while others went further and proposed sites outside the walls. No one, however, has pointed out any other tomb that has a shred of tradition in its favour."

Metacrock

Meta => OK, now why do you say my evidence totally missing for it..? Clealry the evidence is not "totally missing" because there is evidence! Why would you think that Eusebius recording that Pilgrim's report is not evidence?

See this is what get's me about the people who post here, you seem to think that nothing is evidence unless you use it. Doherty saying "why didn' t Jesus have a libarry card" is evidence in your mind, but a recorded tradition that calims to be an eyewitness account form the second century interivewing people of the area who cliamed that their grandparents vinerated the tomb, is just not evidence at all! You accept a mere question as evidence and spout "there's no evidence Jesus existed." But historical evidence (document--record of witness's claim) is just not evidence at all!

My stuff comes a lot closer to being evidence than most of what passes for evidence in Jesus Myther land.




Meta =>That's not analogous. It would closer to the sitution to say "Joe mudered Sarah and my evidence is that he told Peter, and Peter told me. That' probably not admissable in court, but it is in history, becasue it's more than just heresay. The guy went to Palestine and asked people. He left a record. Eusebius got the record and wrote about it. That's how most ancient history is recorded (of that kind of nature).

Every read Herodatus (SP) most of his history is like that.





Meta =>No I would say that your side has no counter evidence. You don't quote a single scholar who dogmatically asserts "the tomb was never venerated." All you have is an assertion without knowledge.


Moreover, there are two archaeological excavations that corroborate the testimony. Corbo found artifactual evidence that the tomb was vinerated. Biddle finds evidence from the aediclue that it's the same tomb.




Meta =>The better analogy would be if he says "peter told me that Joe confessed to him." then Bod and Fred come along and say "Yea he told us too." Still probaly not admissable in court, but it's more than just "there's no evidence."





Meta =>You need to gain insight into analogies, take the Miller analogy test maybe. And also into the nature of historical evidence. I know this isn't first rate evidence, but it's better than the phrase "there's no evidence" deserves


Let's leave Joe and Sarah for Perry Mason to sort out, and deal with the real issue.

WE have several historical writters from the fourth century saying that there was this tradition in Plastestine that traced the tomb back to the first centruy. One of them was from second century and he went and interviewed the people. A fourth century wirtter read his report and wrote about it. We have that fourth century guy's writting about the 2nd century guy's reprot. that is evidence! It's not the best, it's better than "none at all."

Gurdur

I would say something, but don't let me be mythunderstood.