Heck no; this thread is a fascinating look into the religious psyche. Plus, I have learned more from many of the responders than I have in months of independant study.
One thing I'd like to mention, I know the discussion is not on this point anymore, is that the whole "Empty Tomb" thing, which is often used as the biggest "evidence" for the resurection is entirely ludacris (hey WLC and Lee Strobel: quit portraying yoursleves as skeptics and scholars; you're not fooling anyone but fools). There are, of course, many reasons for an empty tomb that are actually possible (no zombies), but the main thing that is wrong with it is that the empty tomb is just a part of the story that is being doubted. It's like saying, "Well, if Frog & Toad weren's real, then who planted that little garden in front of Frog's house!?" It's absurd; no Jeebus, no Toom. Of course, the only people that have ever been convinced by apologetics are people who already believe, and little kids.
Last night, I watched this week's South Park; I had to laugh when the people would throw up after reading the book the boys wrote. It kind of reminded me of this thread; there have been a few points were I almost threw up on my keyboard.
DOC Quote: (in other words, DOC knows how to copypasta, and has done so here, holus-bolus, but hasn't actually researched anything himself)
Most archaeologists believe Jesus' 1st century tomb is most probably directly under the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
Well, that's just a lie. It's such an obvious one that I'm not even going to bother with it.
From the article: "Church of the Holy Sepulchre, Jerusalem"
Written by Holly Hayes with reference to the following sources:
1. Jerome Murray O'Connor, Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land (1998), p. 47. Dan Bahat (1986). "Does the Holy Sepulchre church mark the burial of Jesus?"Biblical Archaeology Review 12 (1986), 26–45.
"Unlike many historical sacred sites, which often turn out to be based more on pious tradition than historical fact, most historians and archaeologists say the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is likely to be located over the actual tomb of Christ. The most important supporting evidence is as follows: [1]
Aten knows who's quoting whom there. What a frakking mess.
Anyway here comes the 'evidence', at last . . .
1. In the early 1st century AD the site was a disused quarry outside the city walls. Tombs dated to the 1st centuries BC and AD had been cut into the vertical west wall left by the quarrymen.
The dating of the tombs is based on the fact that they are in the
kokh style, which was common in the first century; however, this style of tomb was also common in the first to third centuries BC.
Rachel Hachlili, (2005) Jewish Funerary Customs, Practices and Rites in the Second Temple Period
The likelihood of a first century tomb being built to the west of the city is brought further into question by the words of the late first century Rabbinic leader, Akiba ben Joseph (quoted in the
Mishnah) that tombs should not built to the west of the city, as the wind in Jerusalem generally blows from the west, and would blow the smell of the corpses and their impurity over the city and the Temple Mount.
Bava Batra
Further still, the tomb would be quite close to the city even if it had been built adjacent to the West wall; yet Akiba remarks that Jewish law insists that tombs should not be built within 50 cubits of a city.
2. The topographical elements of the church's site are compatible with the Gospel descriptions, which say that Jesus was crucified on rock that looked like a skull outside the city (John 19:17) and there was a grave nearby (John 19:41-2). Windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains would have created the green covering on the rock that John calls a "garden."
Let's just have a little lookie at what John actually says, shall we?
John 19:17 (King James Version)
17 And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha.
Compatible topograhical elements? Really?
John 19:42-42 (King James Version)
41 Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
42 There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.
Gardens created by windblown earth and seeds watered by winter rains? Apparently deserts worked differently in the old days.
All-in-all, I'm tempted to suggest that the 'Gospel descriptions' could be used to locate this alleged tomb to within maybe one or two planets of its actual location, but no closer than that without gobs of imagination.
3. The Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD (according to historians Eusebius and Socrates Scholasticus).
Eusebius claims, in his
Life of Constantine, that the site of the Church had originally been a Christian place of veneration, but that Hadrian had deliberately covered it with earth, and built his own temple on top in 135 CE, due to his alleged hatred for Christianity.
What the proto-xtians were doing here, if anything at all, is unclear, but the stuff about Hadrian is just made-up sour grapes.
Hadrian's temple had actually been located there simply because it was the junction of the main north-south road with one of the two main east-west roads and directly adjacent to the forum. The forum itself had been placed, as is traditional in Roman towns, at the junction of the main north-south road with the other main east-west road. The temple and forum together took up the entire space between the two main east-west roads.
Given that the story Eusebius tells us about nasty old Hadrian is pretty much bollocks, one might be tempted to take with a grain of salt the rest of his yarn as well.
4. Even when the area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD it was not built over by the local inhabitants.
It was a bloody disused quarry/graveyard when Herod Agrippa moved the Western wall and extended the City. Perhaps the 'local inhabitants' decided on a better place to build their new condos and stuff, given that pretty much anywhere would have been better.
Apart from that, it's no more than sheer speculation what might have been there. The whole shebang was destroyed once in the Jewish Revolt of 70 CE and again during Bar Kokhba's revolt of 132–135 CE.
The only record one way or the other of anything being built there is after 135 CE when Hadrian and the engineers arrived. Anything before that is just part of the fairytale.
5. The Roman Emperor Hadrian built a Temple of Venus over the site in 135 AD, which could be an indication that the site was regarded as holy by Christians and Hadrian wished to claim the site for traditional Roman religion.
This sounds suspiciously like Point 3. again. More Eusebian sour grapes. Completely made-up, in other words.
The idea must have worked for DOC's sources though, since they wanted to use it twice.
6. The local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build his church in 326 AD, because the chosen site was inconvenient and expensive. Substantial buildings had to be torn down, most notably the temple built over the site by Hadrian. Just to the south was a spot that would have been otherwise perfect - the open space of Hadrian's forum.
What??? The 'local tradition of the community' was that of a Roman city. You'd think Constantine, as Emperor, would have had a fair handle on that already. In any case, it was his Mum, the legendary woo-queen Helena that built the thing, not Constantine, and her reasons for doing anything were pretty much with an eye to the tourist trade. She's the one, you may recall, who discovered the True Cross™ during the excavations for the new building.
Gosh! Wasn't that lucky?
I'd be just as inclined to believe that Disneyland was sited for its sacredness as I would for anything that Helena built. Maybe more.
7. The eyewitness historian Eusebius claimed that in the course of the excavations, the original memorial was discovered. (Life of Constantine 3:28)
Let's have a look at at how this 'eye-witness historian', Eusebius, does his thing by looking at an event from Constantine's life which occurred in 312 CE.
Lactantius, whom Constantine appointed tutor of his son Crispus and who therefore must have been close to the imperial family, reports that during the night before the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, Constantine was commanded in a dream to place the sign of Christ on the shields of his soldiers.
Twenty-five years later Eusebius gives us this account in his
Life of Constantine.
When Constantine and his army were on their march toward Rome - neither the time nor the location is specified - they observed in broad daylight a strange phenomenon in the sky: a cross of light and the words "by this sign you will be victor" (
hoc signo victor eris or). During the next night, so Eusebius' account continues, Christ appeared to Constantine and instructed him to place the heavenly sign on the battle standards of his army. The new battle standard became known as the
labarum.
Eye-witness historian, or first-century Steven Spielberg? I know how I'd call it.
Based on the above factors, the Oxford Archaeological Guide to the Holy Land concludes: "Is this the place where Christ died and was buried? Very probably, Yes."
http://www.sacred-destinations.com/i...-sepulchre.htm
Well, I guess they would, wouldn't they, since they were the ones who created 'the factors'?
I find myself singularly unconvinced. You?
