Metacrock

Meta =>that's just an elaborate straw man argument, because it' not what we are talking about and it's not analogus.



Those links aren't there. It doesn't say that the story was passed form one person to another until Eusebius got it, it says those other writters confirm Euseibus' account of Milito's account. Milito was the eye witness.


Here is a sketch of the sources:


"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.

that's an eye witness account.


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".



that's a second indpendent coroboration. Our report from Milito doesn't depend upon Alexander. So that's two independent sources.

that goes directly to Eusebius from Milito, the original eye witness.


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).


those guys are all indepdent coroboration, Eusebius does not depend upon them, they write after he did. The supply the link to the CHS. That's marking the modern site.


So that is far being "evidence totally missing." and it's far from being joe told same to told pete who typed it up and sharon edited it.









I have several historical writters, reporting on first hand evidence of pilgrim, and coroboration form two excavations. That's a lot more than "evidence totally missing."

add to that no counter evidence! You have no evidence at all, you try even try to.


why are mere questions evidence when mythers ask them, and actual first hand accounts aren't evidence at all just because they are reported on by another wirtter?

Metacrock

OK now watch this, this is crucial. Here's the crucial link.


the New Advent article:


Ok what that says is, that Helena's excavation found the temple of venus over the site, which the Romans put up in the early second century to defile it, and under that was the "monument to the Lord's resurrection."

what that means is that was the orignal aedicule. That's a little house that Jews sometimes put over or near tombs to mark them. It's a fancy monument on a tomb, a fancy tomb stone. If you have ever seen pictures of tombs form the era, fancy ones, it looks like a little house with a sort of steep pyromidal roof.

The three crosses they calim to have found, that I can well imagine is embellishment. So I wont worry about that. But finding the original aeducule under the temple of Venus, that's important because that links the site as vinerated by christian jews before the temple of venus was there. Now that's what Biddle proves. He finds the orignal Aedicule. Since there is no temple of venus, becuase Helena stupidly had it removed, we can't prove the link all the way back. But they can prove that there is an orignal structure there marking a tomb and it pre-dates the one Constatine put up. How do we know this?

because all of them are described. There's a constrant stream of pilgrim reports about these aedicules and they are mentioned in the new advent article. Biddle used them to trace the different strata of aedicules. They are all there.


So what is absolutely proven is that the site was vinerated before Constatine found it.

Indications of the Temple of Venus



from the Israeli website

Now that's not absolute proof of course.

It's a damn site better than none at all.

Dr Rick

It's not very good evidence, however; Eusebius's accounts are hearsay second hand reports. They carry the same weight has claiming that there is "evidence" of an ark near Mt Arrat because you read that somebody wrote about someone else seeing one. Technically, that is evidence, but it's not good evidence.

Rick

Metacrock

Bullshit! first, the unreasoning hatred of Eusebius on the part of sketpics is totally unjustifed and was strated by 18th century historian Gibbon (Rise and Fall of Roman Empire) who didn't do his homework on Eusebius and was very biased skeptic himself. Notoriously so. He's been dismissed for that reason.


Eusebius wasn't always exacting but he can be defended:


http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/index.htm


Moreover, the thing you have to get in touch with on this topic:

Eusebius was an eye witness to excavation of the venus temple under the CHS site. He was there! He saw the ruins

Now when he says he has the writting of M of S which recoreds his journey, why should we not believe him? Read the link now, don't answer until you read the link.


finally, as I said above, the claim is coroborated by the Corbo excavation which shows that the tomb was vinerated before Constrtine.

and Eusebius [b]the eyewitness[/i] shows that there was a monument under the Venus temple. Biddle traces the edicules back to Constantines time, which is fiarly good coroboration for the site as vinerated since before Constatine.

Toto

Roger Pearse attempts to defend Eusebius against the charge of dishonesty (unsuccessfully IMHO but that's another matter), but still does not pretend that he is a reliable historical source. He includes in his web page comments from Lightfoot:

So Eusebius saw the excavation of the temple to Venus. What is this supposed to prove? Every religious movement in the area stole holy sites from each other, even if they had to invent a reason to venerate them. Christians appropriated pagan holy sites often enough. (It's still going on. Christians and Muslims are fighting over sites from Jerusalem to India.)

You say:
As Peter Kirby pointed out, this is seond hand information and does not say that Melito found the tomb being venerated, nor does it give a location. And I do not understand the reference to the Old Testament.

The idea that he could have received the tradition from the descendents of original witnesses is pure speculation. It is another example of reading what is currently assumed about a historical Jesus back into earlier documents.

Excuse me for fixing your spelling. You really are doing much better, but I have my own compulsions.

There is still no confirmation of Christian veneration of the Tomb of Jesus from the first century. You find evidence of things from the era of Constantine, which was a prime period for manufacturing pious forgeries; I don't see how you can imply anything else from that.

In particular, you say in another post:

Oh please. Does this not scream "recently constructed fraud" to you? Was the excavator an ancestor of Lemair? Jesus was allegedly crucified, the Romans destroyed the city several times, centuries passed, and pious Christians looking for the tomb find three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription? How convenient.

How likely is it that these items would have survived, versus the likelihood that an enterprising citizen helped the Christians out by selling them what they wanted to find?

Metacrock

Meta =>WEll you know, I'm not claiming that he found the Holy Grail. I'm saying that the blanket dogma that no one ever venerated a tomb is not justified. I mean you have no evidence that they didn't. That's sheer wishful thinking on Doherty's part. AT least I have some evidence that the may have, even if ony anecdotal.

You say:



Meta =>If you saw an article in the newspaper saying "this reporter interviwed the eye witness to a robery..." you would not say "well that's just second hand. Get the witness to write the artcle." Or if you saw an academic journal article saying "I have read all of John Dewy's references to Hegel, and these are them:..." you would not say "well that's second hand, get Dewy to write the article."

It's not second hand if he had the guy's book.





NO it is not! It's what the guy claimed. he went there, he talked to the people. Alexander calimed the same thing

btw the reference to the OT is that near that site is some site abut the OT.



Excuse me for fixing your spelling. You really are doing much better, but I have my own compulsions.


Meta =>Yea, for all the difference it makes.






There is still no confirmation of Christian veneration of the Tomb of Jesus from the first century.


Meta =>Nothing except the guy who made the journy, the fact that they found the monument under the temple of venus, the ring that the carbo expidition found, the fact that the biship helped Helena find the site; aside from that there isn't one single scarp. and since those count agaisnt your rock solid speculation, they just don't count. What counts is that you and Doherty can assert without even having as much as an anecdote to indicate that they did not! That proves it!

of course, why didn't I see that before. Any timea sketpic asserts someting without any kind of proof that's just rock solid proof. Everyone knows the best evidence is no evidence at all!







Meta =>text book circular reasoning.


1) Constantine was from the period where people made up holy relics.

2) We know this because Constatine made up holy relics.

3) we know he did that because he's from that period.

and we know that all supernatual claims are made up becasue they are supernatural, and since they have to be made up, then this must be made up. The fact that this made up proves that all supernatural claims are made up.




In particular, you say in another post:




Meta =>I said I was discounting that part of it. man you guys can't read. I can't spell but you can't read.


You also miss the most improtant proof of all. The letter that Biddle found when he made it through to the final tomb chamber. It was a note, small, about the size of a post it note, right inside the tomb that would have been Jesus' tomb. It was stuck to the metel part of the wall with a magnet. It read:

"gone to have lunch with my Dad. Back in 2000 years,

Love

JC"

Metacrock

Some of your quotes within quotes didn't come out so I'm answering them here.






Meta =>Such profound ability to miss the point. That's just a blow off, you aren't even listening. Try to listen this time ok? I'm not doing this out of bordom I have other things I need to do (doing it out of obsession).

the point of that is, he saw the monument below the temple of Venus. NO don't try to blow it of this junk about "all religions have monuments." How many of the Jewish grave stones would be under a teomple to Venus? Why is it that that just happens to coincide with what they were told by the populace about the marker? That's how the christians marked the site after 135. That's a pretty big coincidence.

You say:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



As Peter Kirby pointed out, this is seond hand information and does not say that Melito found the tomb being venerated, nor does it give a location. And I do not understand the reference to the Old Testament.

The idea that he could have received the tradition from the descendents of original witnesses is pure speculation. It is another example of reading what is currently assumed about a historical Jesus back into earlier documents.



Meta =>Not sepculation because he said he talked to them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

finally, as I said above, the claim is coroborated by the Corbo excavation which shows that the tomb was venerated before Constantine.

and Eusebius the eyewitness shows that there was a monument under the Venus temple. Biddle traces the edicules back to Constantines time, which is fairly good coroboration for the site as venerated since before Constantine.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Excuse me for fixing your spelling. You really are doing much better, but I have my own compulsions.

There is still no confirmation of Christian veneration of the Tomb of Jesus from the first century. You find evidence of things from the era of Constantine, which was a prime period for manufacturing pious forgeries; I don't see how you can imply anything else from that.




Meta =>Your not paying attention to the evidence.

In particular, you say in another post:


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK now watch this, this is crucial. Here's the crucial link.


the New Advent article:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Meta => I quoted that for the bit in red. Because he's saying that there was a monument under the temple to Venus, a jewish christian moment. So that's not very likely, but it is what they were suppossed to look for to mak the spot.

Toto

Can you quote the actual words of Melito of Sardis, or what Eusebius attributes to him?

I have done some searching. Peter Kirby has a section on Melito on his site. I have not read all of it, but a search for the word 'tomb' comes up empty.

I located this site Groundless Claims which appears to be a non-standard Christian site. It casts doubt on the location of the tomb, but I don't know how accurate it is.

One other source claims that Melito traveled out of curiosity, but never venerated any Christian sites. The Earliest Phase of Christian Pilgrimage in the Near East (before the 7th Century) by PIERRE MARAVAL. Maraval attempts to explain the early Christian lack of interest in holy sites as a theological stance:

But this does not explain why there was a sudden rise in interest in the 4th century.

Toto

*bump*

Meta - have you shown something in this thread?

You have one mid-2nd century Christian pilgrim, Melito of Sardis, who may have visited Jerusalem, but there is no indication that he venerated the tomb. You have not provided the words that Eusebius quoted, and I have not located them.

You have a claim that Eusebius saw something that may have been a prior monument under the site that later Christians claimed was the tomb of Jesus, but why should we assume that it was marking the tomb? It could have been a pagan monument or some other monument.

I have produced scholarly work saying the tomb was not venerated in the first or second centuries, that Christians deliberately did not venerate holy places.

If you could actually show that Christians venerated the tomb of Jesus (as opposed to someone claiming that someone remembered the place) from an early date, it would cast some doubt on Doherty's ahistorical thesis. But I don't think you have.

Metacrock

I admitted up front I couldn't prove it! I admitted it was based upon Eusebius, and since around here's the same as saying "it's a lie" then that's nothing at all. But in fact I don't think Eusebius lied about everything. And Lightfoot did say he was honest, go look it up!

what more do you want? It's partially corroborated by excavations, but not proven. It's all going to come down to what you are willing to believe about Eusebius. So that that rate it's not worth arguing about.

We do have that pilgrim's writtings btw, he was a major guy. But we don't have all of them, including that one. (Of course, that would be too easy).

my point was not to prove the Res through that account but that you cannot assert boldly, as you do, "no tomb was ever vinerated in the first century. Because I accept the evidence that it was, and your only reason for doubting it is a distrust of Euebius, and I don't distrust him. So you can't make that assertion cause you don't know. You have no evdience against the vineration in first century. The best you can say is I doubt that it was.


You say "have you showen something in this thread?"

Yea I think I've proven conclusively that you can't assert "no tomb was ever vinerated in the 1st century (for Christ)". I haven't proven that it was, but I've proven that there is some evidence for it, and against your total lack of evidence against vineration, you can't be so dogmatic.