The Question They WILL not Answer.

[The Atheist]

Why? Christianity wasn't big at the time. It was only later that they got a big following.

How do you know that the small group of Jesus' followers didn't worship the ground from day one? Is it possible that it simply got lost over time?

I can cover both of those and probably most of the others in one.

Just imagine that you were one of the faithful at the feeding of the 20,000. You have just witnessed a miracle. Don't you think you might remember where it was? Take your kids there for a picnic? Tell your grandchilren about it? Yet nobody ever seemed to do anything at the time. My point is exactly that all the stuff written about the Jesus was once he was dead.

Possibly got lost over time? Again, for Jesus of Nazareth, sure. For Jesus, son of god, not likely.

Have a think about Lourdes. between two and five MILLION people travel there every year. For what? Because someone had a vision of Mary there? Can you imagine what it would be like if they found the rocks on which Jesus' dead, battered and bleeding body had lain? You don't think christians would see that as just about the holiest place on earth?

It could also be that they have looked at tombs and found a likely candidate.

It isn't something that would convince me, and probably not you either, but that doesn't mean that some don't claim to have found it.

They claim lots of things. One claim even has it that the Mad Monk of Azaruddin (or some such BS title) enters the tomb every Easter, whereupon a miracle occurs and his candle is lighted by god.

Other than a tiny number of strangely-sected christianity, none of them seriously believe they know where Jesus was buried.

Who claims any kind of certainty, then?

Nobody can tell where the Norse gods are buried either. So?

I don't believe any of them were supposed to be human and walk among us, were they? Interesting point, though. Do you have real places where they were supposedly buried, or is it like King Arthur, with a mythical Avalon?

Where do you have this from? Clearly, from slingblade's link, there are Christians who do want to debate it.

Well, she's quoted one of the tiny minorities who make a claim.

I did find one christian who tried to debate it - the one with the ghostly candle-lighter, but very few will even try.

 

[SezMe]

Atheist, you're making a fundamentalist mistake in that you are reading the bible literally. You scoff at those who do this and point out the problems that arise. But then you read the bible literally and want to find the actual tomb. Seems like a pot/kettle/black situation to me.

 

[The Atheist]

Atheist, you're making a fundamentalist mistake in that you are reading the bible literally. You scoff at those who do this and point out the problems that arise. But then you read the bible literally and want to find the actual tomb. Seems like a pot/kettle/black situation to me.

No, it's not like that at all - it's all about the holy places.

The one bit of the bible pretty much all christianity agrees on is the divinity, life and resurrection of Jesus.

The problem is, they only decided he was a god after the event of his life and that doesn't gel with the idea of a god. I think people would have been more impressed - or maybe miracles were more common then; Baal one week, Jesus the next, Satan the next...

The bible doesn't even really come into it, other than describing the tomb being empty, and if he was resurrected, of course the tomb would be empty.

 

[clarsct]

Nobody can tell where the Norse gods are buried either. So?

Pish and Tosh, my Nordic friend. We all know the Norse gods are alive and well until the Twilight comes, when the Gods will struggle with the Giants in Ragnarok, and die winning. Then Baldyr will rise from the dead to lead the remnants, the heroes of the heroes, into the strange and reborn new world.


Unless you were talking about Baldyr, in which case you ought to know he is one GOD, not Gods.



To think I must teach Norse mythology to a Dane....

 

[CFLarsen]

I can cover both of those and probably most of the others in one.

Just imagine that you were one of the faithful at the feeding of the 20,000.

What 20,000? It was 5,000. Not counting women and children, so perhaps you are right, but the point is, why take that part literally? If you accept that as a fact, why don't you also accept it as a fact that Jesus died and was ressurrected?

You have just witnessed a miracle. Don't you think you might remember where it was? Take your kids there for a picnic? Tell your grandchilren about it? Yet nobody ever seemed to do anything at the time. My point is exactly that all the stuff written about the Jesus was once he was dead.

Yeah, but it wasn't written down at the time right after Jesus supposedly died. That took place many decades after.

Possibly got lost over time? Again, for Jesus of Nazareth, sure. For Jesus, son of god, not likely.

Have a think about Lourdes. between two and five MILLION people travel there every year. For what? Because someone had a vision of Mary there? Can you imagine what it would be like if they found the rocks on which Jesus' dead, battered and bleeding body had lain? You don't think christians would see that as just about the holiest place on earth?

You need to read a bit about the early history of Christianity. It was just another sect, not particularly popular. It took centuries, before Christianity had grown to something more than a sect.

They claim lots of things. One claim even has it that the Mad Monk of Azaruddin (or some such BS title) enters the tomb every Easter, whereupon a miracle occurs and his candle is lighted by god.

Other than a tiny number of strangely-sected christianity, none of them seriously believe they know where Jesus was buried.

That may be, but why do you blame Christians in general for not being able to know where Jesus was buried, then?

I don't believe any of them were supposed to be human and walk among us, were they? Interesting point, though. Do you have real places where they were supposedly buried, or is it like King Arthur, with a mythical Avalon?

No, but I don't claim to know, either.

Well, she's quoted one of the tiny minorities who make a claim.

I did find one christian who tried to debate it - the one with the ghostly candle-lighter, but very few will even try.

Since the vast majority doesn't claim to know, I don't see how you can chastise Christians for this.

Atheist, you're making a fundamentalist mistake in that you are reading the bible literally. You scoff at those who do this and point out the problems that arise. But then you read the bible literally and want to find the actual tomb. Seems like a pot/kettle/black situation to me.

Precisely.

No, it's not like that at all - it's all about the holy places.

The one bit of the bible pretty much all christianity agrees on is the divinity, life and resurrection of Jesus.

The problem is, they only decided he was a god after the event of his life and that doesn't gel with the idea of a god. I think people would have been more impressed - or maybe miracles were more common then; Baal one week, Jesus the next, Satan the next...

The bible doesn't even really come into it, other than describing the tomb being empty, and if he was resurrected, of course the tomb would be empty.

But what contemporary sources, other than the Bible, have Christians used since then to point to where the miracles have happened?

You are blaming Christians for not being able to do what they don't claim to be able to do in the first place.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

What 20,000? It was 5,000. Not counting women and children, so perhaps you are right, but the point is, why take that part literally? If you accept that as a fact, why don't you also accept it as a fact that Jesus died and was ressurrected?

Just to butt in.......his point seems to be that it makes no sense to take that miracle literally because if it happened as recorded the place should have been remembered. This is a criticism of literal interpretation.

Yeah, but it wasn't written down at the time right after Jesus supposedly died. That took place many decades after.

That misses the whole point. The mythological aspects of the dream time were not written down as they occurred. They were remembered by a small group of people orally. Writing, not writing, it doesn't matter.

You need to read a bit about the early history of Christianity. It was just another sect, not particularly popular. It took centuries, before Christianity had grown to something more than a sect.

Again, this is inconsequential. The world is not over-run by aboriginal sects screaming about the dream time. The size of the group doesn't matter. The point is that it would appear that Jesus was not considered a god initially. This is well-represented in the texts themselves. In the gospel of Mark Jesus is presented as a man. His mother and brothers seem to think he is nuts for preaching as he does (very different from the portrait of his relationships in John's gospel); and one very early version has the spirit descend after the baptism and God invoke the typical formulation for adoption -- he isn't a god, but a human that God adopts to perform a particular task, as with all prophets. He calls himself "Son of Man" which is a way of saying "human being" and also allowing the gospel writer to invoke apocalyptic imagery from Daniel. The early Jesus movement, using this gospel as a guide, was clearly apocalyptic and believed in the imminent institution of God's Kingdom on earth - typical apocalyptic stuff.

But what contemporary sources, other than the Bible, have Christians used since then to point to where the miracles have happened?

You are blaming Christians for not being able to do what they don't claim to be able to do in the first place.

But the point the Atheist seems to be making is that fundamentalists, who claim that everything presented in the gospels happened just so, don't make much sense. If Jesus was really thought to be god (clearly in Mark's gospel again he is not -- the message is that no one, even the disciples but only the demons and God, knew who he was) that someone should know and have kept a memory of where these all important activities occurred. I think the argument is fairly sound. It cannot be used to disprove the existence of Jesus, but I don't really think that is his point (if it is, then I apologize since that argument holds no water). The argument speaks only to the evolution of beliefs about Jesus. We seem to have a record of a man who led a group of people and was executed. His followers clearly scattered after his execution. Then they came to believe that he had been resurrected from the dead. The idea that he was god was arrived at later, most likely. The absence of a clear burial place might indicate that he was never buried -- which probably doesn't matter for some views of resurrection, though, for others, this is vitally important since the resurrection was a resurrection of his previous body with nail holes and spear jabs and all. A body consumed by dogs on a trash heap wouldn't make for much of a resurrection.

 

[meg]

I found a link today which (I think) is pretty interesting, which discusses the differences between the accounts of the resurrection, and the disagreements between biblical scholars as to what it all means, or what really happened.


http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article14.html

 

[cj.23]

There are two known claimants to the burial site: you may have forgotten the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the subsequent political and religious changes. Anyway two reports - the first one here is on the cave in the garden - http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-pro...lume=3d12&Issue=3d2&ArticleID=3d2&UserID=3d0&

and if you click on footnote a and follow links you can read the report on the search for the tomb in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre too. Hope this helps.

cj x

 

[CFLarsen]

Just to butt in.......his point seems to be that it makes no sense to take that miracle literally because if it happened as recorded the place should have been remembered. This is a criticism of literal interpretation.

Oh, no. TheAtheist makes it clear that he takes the 20,000 (well, 5,000) number literally. That means that he has to take every single thing in the Bible literally - unless he wants to explain on what basis he distinguishes between what we should take seriously, and what we should not.

In which case, good luck.

That misses the whole point. The mythological aspects of the dream time were not written down as they occurred. They were remembered by a small group of people orally. Writing, not writing, it doesn't matter.

No, no, no. TheAtheist is talking about real events here, in real places, and why they weren't immediately and continuously revered.

Again, this is inconsequential. The world is not over-run by aboriginal sects screaming about the dream time. The size of the group doesn't matter. The point is that it would appear that Jesus was not considered a god initially. This is well-represented in the texts themselves. In the gospel of Mark Jesus is presented as a man. His mother and brothers seem to think he is nuts for preaching as he does (very different from the portrait of his relationships in John's gospel); and one very early version has the spirit descend after the baptism and God invoke the typical formulation for adoption -- he isn't a god, but a human that God adopts to perform a particular task, as with all prophets. He calls himself "Son of Man" which is a way of saying "human being" and also allowing the gospel writer to invoke apocalyptic imagery from Daniel. The early Jesus movement, using this gospel as a guide, was clearly apocalyptic and believed in the imminent institution of God's Kingdom on earth - typical apocalyptic stuff.

Thank you for making my point for me. That's exactly what I am saying, and what destroys TheAtheist's argument: We don't have contemporary sources, we don't have any evidence what happened during the life and times of Jesus.

But the point the Atheist seems to be making is that fundamentalists, who claim that everything presented in the gospels happened just so, don't make much sense. If Jesus was really thought to be god (clearly in Mark's gospel again he is not -- the message is that no one, even the disciples but only the demons and God, knew who he was) that someone should know and have kept a memory of where these all important activities occurred. I think the argument is fairly sound. It cannot be used to disprove the existence of Jesus, but I don't really think that is his point (if it is, then I apologize since that argument holds no water). The argument speaks only to the evolution of beliefs about Jesus. We seem to have a record of a man who led a group of people and was executed. His followers clearly scattered after his execution. Then they came to believe that he had been resurrected from the dead. The idea that he was god was arrived at later, most likely. The absence of a clear burial place might indicate that he was never buried -- which probably doesn't matter for some views of resurrection, though, for others, this is vitally important since the resurrection was a resurrection of his previous body with nail holes and spear jabs and all. A body consumed by dogs on a trash heap wouldn't make for much of a resurrection.

TheAtheist makes it very clear: He criticizes Christians for not being able to point out where the grave of Jesus is. His problem is that very few claim to know where this is.

His whole argument is a strawman.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

Oh, no. TheAtheist makes it clear that he takes the 20,000 (well, 5,000) number literally.

But wait a second. Is he not arguing this from the perspective of -- this is why biblical literalism is incorrect? I took his whole message to mean that literalism should be considered a sham in part because the early Jesus movement did not preserve knowledge of these supposed holy sites.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

There are two known claimants to the burial site: you may have forgotten the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70, and the subsequent political and religious changes. Anyway two reports - the first one here is on the cave in the garden - http://members.bib-arch.org/nph-prox...d2&UserID=3d0&

Again, I think this misses The Athiest's main point. He (or she) didn't claim that there is no proposed burial site, but that there is distinct uncertainty, which would be highly unusual for those who were preserving a memory of a god's site of resurrection.

As for the sites....the church of the holy sepulchre's nomination dates from the time of Constantine, some 300 years after the event. The garden tomb has less of an authentic hold, even if it actually is the place. The original point was that the site was not revered and held holy from the beginning, which does appear to be the case. This is not a knock down argument, but it is very telling.

The destruction of the Temple is inconsequential in this matter. We know that Jesus communities persisted within Jerusalem after the destruction of the Temple, so knowledge of the site should have been maintained if it was considered highly significant. It could be that no one in the community considered the site significant, however, since the focus of the religion rapidly shifted from the message of Jesus to the message about Jesus' resurrection.

 

[The Atheist]

Just to butt in.......

Mate, if you're going to make that much sense, feel free to butt in at any time.

I wouldn't change a word of your post. Marvellous.

 

[MickinEngland]

Where was Jesus buried? Which "tomb" was he resurrected from?

He was put in a sort of "burial cave" which was the norm in those days, and two roman soldiers were put on guard to make sure his mates didn't steal his body to pretend he'd been 'resurrected'.
However his body did vanish and nobody knew how..
Later he reappeared a few times to his pals, they were freaked at first but he said "touch me and see I'm real, not a ghost"..
Remember, we are not our bodies.
Jesus said "The spirit within gives life,the flesh alone is worthless" (John 6:63 )
A body is simply a "spacesuit" which our souls put on in order to get around on this material planet.
Jesus's body (spacesuit) died on the cross and was put in a tomb, but his soul flew to heaven.
God also whipped his body (spacesuit) up there too from out of the tomb so that Jesus could put it back on in order to come back and re-appear to his disciples.
Finally, Jesus went back to heaven, spacesuit and all, but before he went he said "I'll be back" (Matt 24:30) on Judgment Day..
The dead bodies of Mohammed and assorted gurus and mystics are all in boxes and graves somewhere, but Jesus's body is not, spot the difference?

 

[The Atheist]

Again, I think this misses The Athiest's main point. He (most definitely)...snip...

I'm just going to sit and let you take this over - you're doing it so much better than me.

Cheers.

 

[The Atheist]

To think I must teach Norse mythology to a Dane....

Good on ya, mate.

I knew someone would be smart enough to tell me about them. My knowledge of Norse gods is around the same level as those of Mongolia, but then again, I bet most people here don't know a lot about Maori ones either.

Cheers. I'll remember to direct Norse questions to you!

 

[The Atheist]

I found a link today which (I think) is pretty interesting, which discusses the differences between the accounts of the resurrection, and the disagreements between biblical scholars as to what it all means, or what really happened.


http://www.johnhick.org.uk/article14.html

Thanks, excellent link.

Never mind the lack of consensus, because it isn't important. I think part of the problem is that my approach (often described as a bull at a gate, or similar) hasn't lent itself well to the subtlety of the point. Fortunately, Ichneumonwasp has taken up the reins brilliantly.

Whether you're a literalist or take the bible as total allegory doesn't matter too much, either. Some of it must be true, or what is there to bang on about? Faith is fine, but faith in what? And if faith is so important, why does every church use the bible at every occasion? In terms of things which could be described as "evidence" (seeing as unter's involved) there is only the bible. That's it. All the written information available is bound up in one volume and christians can wriggle and cry all they like, but it is ALL they have.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh, no. TheAtheist makes it clear that he takes the 20,000 (well, 5,000) number literally. That means that he has to take every single thing in the Bible literally - unless he wants to explain on what basis he distinguishes between what we should take seriously, and what we should not.

Unter, as usual, you're blowing through your trumpet and getting only hot air out the other end. I am not going to bother qualifying a statement about the sermon on the mount by stating, "a large number of people, described in the bible as 10,000 [or 5000] men and all their families, such numbers being open to interpretation and generally held to mean, "a large number"".

I just use the number out of the bible and entrust that people reading it don't need to argue tedious points like that.

Whatever the number was, it was an immense crowd.

Just try to suspend your disbelief for a sec and think about this:

You're sitting there in the park with your kids and see an honest to god miracle performed by some bloke you've heard about but never seen in the flesh. You have just witnessed GOD at work. Unquestionably, in your mind, you have no further questions - god exists.

Don't you think that you might treat that place as a little bit special and try to impress it upon your family and friends. See, knowing the type of uber-skeptic you are, if you came in here in all honesty and told us all that you had seen a miracle without rational explantion, I wouldn't doubt you and I'd be inspired to find out more. If unter's convinced, I'd be interested and keenly so.

And, mate, don't be trying to tell people what I think. First off, as far as I know, you aren't psychic. Secondly, you're usually wrong. And thirdly, of all the people here who have difficulty interpreting what I say, you'd be close to top of the list.

No, no, no. TheAtheist is talking about real events here, in real places, and why they weren't immediately and continuously revered.

See above.

Thank you for making my point for me. That's exactly what I am saying, and what destroys TheAtheist's argument: We don't have contemporary sources, we don't have any evidence what happened during the life and times of Jesus.

Which is actually what I've been saying all along. Not sure which argument it destroys, though - reinforces seems much more appropriate.

TheAtheist makes it very clear: He criticizes Christians for not being able to point out where the grave of Jesus is. His problem is that very few claim to know where this is.

See above

His whole argument is a strawman.

So, nobody believes in the bible any more? Must've missed that.

 

[Fizzer]

Look, I'm sure I'm not the first to figure this out, but in future, I have only one question for christians:

Where was Jesus buried? Which "tomb" was he resurrected from?

I state that I will publicly go down on my knees and pray to him, if I can just be shown WHERE JESUS CHRIST WAS BURIED. You know, their god-bloke.

Why would it matter where he was burried and resurrected? There would be nothing mystical or magical about that spot. Yet if it was known for certain where it was, that's certainly what would happen. People would flock there seeking some sort of mircale dirt or something equally silly. After all, that happens today with other so-called holy locations where miracles supposedly occurred. That behavior is totally counter to how God wants his people to worship him, therefore knowing 100% where the location is could conceivably lead people into a form of false worship (and I include those churches who claim to be on that site or know where the site is). It becomes a form of idolatry.

Look at the case of Moses. The Bible states that know one knows where he was burried (Deut 34:5-6). If it was important for us to know where Moses was burried or where Jesus was burried and resurrected, then God would have made sure we knew.

 

[The Atheist]

Why would it matter where he was burried and resurrected? There would be nothing mystical or magical about that spot. Yet if it was known for certain where it was, that's certainly what would happen. People would flock there seeking some sort of mircale dirt or something equally silly. After all, that happens today with other so-called holy locations where miracles supposedly occurred. That behavior is totally counter to how God wants his people to worship him, therefore knowing 100% where the location is could conceivably lead people into a form of false worship (and I include those churches who claim to be on that site or know where the site is). It becomes a form of idolatry.

Look at the case of Moses. The Bible states that know one knows where he was burried (Deut 34:5-6). If it was important for us to know where Moses was burried or where Jesus was burried and resurrected, then God would have made sure we knew.

Good stuff. That's a nice, liberal christian answer and the type of thing I expect.

You've made the comment that I have myself about sacred places - Lourdes is the best one. According to you then, all those millions who visit Lourdes are worshipping a false, idolatric site, in fact.

As long as you carry that attitude consistently, I'd accept your point as an argument. I'm not going to believe it, but it at least attempts to answer the OP. I will, however, pull you up if you stray from that path!

 

[Fizzer]

Good stuff. That's a nice, liberal christian answer and the type of thing I expect.

Actually, I'm a Jehovah's Witness - and while I doubt many would put us under the "liberal christian" umbrella, many of our beliefs are different than traditional, mainstream Christianity.

You've made the comment that I have myself about sacred places - Lourdes is the best one. According to you then, all those millions who visit Lourdes are worshipping a false, idolatric site, in fact.

Yes, that would accurately describe my beliefs about Lourdes and similar sites.

As long as you carry that attitude consistently, I'd accept your point as an argument. I'm not going to believe it, but it at least attempts to answer the OP. I will, however, pull you up if you stray from that path!

Fair enough. Obviously I can't force you to believe one way or another. The Bible is full of admonishments against worshipping a person (other than God obviously), a place, or a thing, so it should be no surprise that that particular site is not known with 100% certainty.