Jesus' Tomb Is Finally Getting the Restoration after 200 year delay

Cabaal

Jesus' Tomb Is Finally Getting the Restoration That Bickering Monks Delayed for 200 Years

http://gizmodo.com/jesus-tomb-is-finally-getting-the-restoration-it-didnt-1780893575?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

The Church of the Holy Sepulcher, located in the Old City of Jerusalem, is considered to be one of the holiest for Christians. The 4th century church is run by three separate religious groups—Roman Catholic, Greek Orthodox, and Armenian Orthodox—which each manages its own interpretive experience within the site. Any major construction work has to be agreed upon by all factions. Which they failed to agree upon—for 200 years.

“In 2008, an argument between Greek Orthodox and Armenian monks escalated into a brawl,” according to BBC News. (Which is absolutely true, and this was apparently not the first fistfight over Jesus’ tomb.) But the groups were suddenly inspired to cooperate when Israeli police threatened to close the church, declaring it structurally unsafe.

Shame they couldn't come to an agreement without being forced into it by the police, I was curious about the bickering and it seems it got pretty out of hand in the past! :eek:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcMBjiILTRk

uck51js9zml2yt

There is actually an alternate tomb which is managed by a voluntary society and nearer Golgotha which is more credible as a location.

Whatever the case, He's not in it which has more importance for Christians (or should be) than its location or redecoration.

ScumLord

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

There is actually an alternate tomb which is managed by a voluntary society and nearer Golgotha which is more credible as a location.

I think there are a few sites and that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is as valid as other sites. There may be some confusion because the site has been rebuilt, built on top of and had 100 of years of repairs, so there's all sorts of conflicting evidence when it comes to dating the original burial tomb which can't actually be seen as far as I know.

uck51js9zml2yt

ScumLord wrote: »

I think there are a few sites and that the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is as valid as other sites. There may be some confusion because the site has been rebuilt, built on top of and had 100 of years of repairs, so there's all sorts of conflicting evidence when it comes to dating the original burial tomb which can't actually be seen as far as I know.

As I said in the second half of my post, the location is of no importance. That He's not in it is.

That there was no veneration of it mentioned in the new testament is also relevant. I reckon if it had of been considered important it would have been mentioned as we were still in the very early days of the Church.

Manach

Good to see this important historical site will be renovated as it is an important part of both historical Christain heritage and a measure of hope for Arab Christains who have gone through such difficult times.

Nick Park

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

There is actually an alternate tomb which is managed by a voluntary society and nearer Golgotha which is more credible as a location.

Whatever the case, He's not in it which has more importance for Christians (or should be) than its location or redecoration.

That would be the Garden Tomb. I certainly found it much more inspiring to visit. It has much less of the smells and bells and nobody clobbers each other over it!

As to whether it is the actual site or not, who knows? (And, as you said, it doesn't really matter since the tomb is empty).

ScumLord

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

As I said in the second half of my post, the location is of no importance. That He's not in it is.

Well, we're told he's not in it. Nobody actually knows. What if they did find a body in there? It could mean that it's just not the tomb Jesus was in, or that the resurrection never happened.

That there was no veneration of it mentioned in the new testament is also relevant. I reckon if it had of been considered important it would have been mentioned as we were still in the very early days of the Church.

Possibly. But the bible was written after the fact by people in a different part of the world wasn't it? Maybe they just didn't know the precise location, maybe they wanted to keep the location secret at the time?

It is more than likely just a spot people picked out to take advantage of tourists. That's a long established tactic of religious organisations throughout history.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

It is more than likely just a spot people picked out to take advantage of tourists. That's a long established tactic of religious organisations throughout history.

I'd be mildly interested in your providing some examples to back up these latest assertions that you insist on making.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

I'd be mildly interested in your providing some examples to back up these latest assertions that you insist on making.

The ancient greeks used to build elaborate machines to impress the faithful, automatic doors and all sorts.

This continued into medieval times with monks creating relics like the nails from the cross to attract tourists. It was one of accusations made by the protestant movement at the time.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

The ancient greeks used to build elaborate machines to impress the faithful, automatic doors and all sorts. .

Ancient Greeks didn't hold to Christianity.

I assumed that you had examples in Christianity.

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

Ancient Greeks didn't hold to Christianity.

I assumed that you had examples in Christianity.

Does a Catholic pilgrimage site in around 2012 count? :pac:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears

When water started trickling down a statue of Jesus Christ at a Catholic church in Mumbai earlier this year, locals were quick to declare a miracle. Some began collecting the holy water and the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni began to promote it as a site of pilgrimage.

I'm sure they were not making any financial gain from promoting it as a pilgrimage site, right?

Still, they got awful upset when it was pointed out the site was not real "miracle".

So when Sanal Edamaruku arrived and established that this was not holy water so much as holey plumbing, the backlash was severe. The renowned rationalist was accused of blasphemy, charged with offences that carry a three-year prison sentence and eventually, after receiving death threats, had to seek exile in Finland.

Its all about making money at these sites at the end of the day, otherwise the whole thing would be free and they wouldn't be selling anything.

uck51js9zml2yt

ScumLord wrote: »

Well, we're told he's not in it. Nobody actually knows. What if they did find a body in there? It could mean that it's just not the tomb Jesus was in, or that the resurrection never happened.

Possibly. But the bible was written after the fact by people in a different part of the world wasn't it? Maybe they just didn't know the precise location, maybe they wanted to keep the location secret at the time?

It is more than likely just a spot people picked out to take advantage of tourists. That's a long established tactic of religious organisations throughout history.

As a Christian I accept that the resurrection happened.
If the body was stolen, the guards would have been executed. They weren't, it was covered up - I'll leave you to read the account. It also would have been used to contradict events as they unfolded. It didn't happen.
If it was a fraud, then it's the biggest fraud in history and managed to effect the known world within a very short period of time and still effects the world 2000 years on.
These Christians were accused of "turning the world upside down" That was some fraud for men who were in fear of their lives after the crucifixion and died horrible deaths as they maintained the truth of this fraudulent event.

As for the authors, 3 of them were present as the events of the crucifixion / resurrection occurred.
Luke , the doctor and a gentile was the only one not there but it's accepted that he was given a first hand account and wrote his letter to give an account of events. He also wrote Acts.

hinault

Cabaal wrote: »

Does a Catholic pilgrimage site in around 2012 count? :pac:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears

Its all about making money at these sites at the end of the day, otherwise the whole thing would be free and they wouldn't be selling anything.

:rolleyes:

I thought you were going to supply us with a pilgrimage site and tourists and religious organisations (which was the original assertion that was made).

Instead you list an article that mentions a location that isn't a pilgrimage site and an article which contains no mention of tourists or stuff being flogged to tourists.
Well done.:rolleyes:

antiskeptic

I think it's safe to say folk will be trying to make money out of anything they think they can make money out of. Isn't Lourdes awash with plastic Mary's?

Jesus / whip / temple .. anyone.

It's simply human nature

-

And there will be folk who see significance in those places which rises somewhat above money making.

The place that impressed me the most was sitting in the middle of the sea of Galilee in a boat. The topography is the one thing that has remained authentic from the day.. it would be as it was then.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

... the location is of no importance. That He's not in it is.

'ah shur that's only a piece of wood, he's not hanging on it any more like...'

Cabaal wrote: »

Does a Catholic pilgrimage site in around 2012 count? :pac:

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/nov/23/india-blasphemy-jesus-tears
.

Reminds me of Del boy in Only Fools and Horses. :pac:

uck51js9zml2yt

Second Toughest in_the Freshers wrote: »

'ah shur that's only a piece of wood, he's not hanging on it any more like...'




Reminds me of Del boy in Only Fools and Horses. :pac:

Have you a point to make ?

pauldla

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

As a Christian I accept that the resurrection happened.
If the body was stolen, the guards would have been executed. They weren't, it was covered up - I'll leave you to read the account. It also would have been used to contradict events as they unfolded. It didn't happen.
If it was a fraud, then it's the biggest fraud in history and managed to effect the known world within a very short period of time and still effects the world 2000 years on.
These Christians were accused of "turning the world upside down" That was some fraud for men who were in fear of their lives after the crucifixion and died horrible deaths as they maintained the truth of this fraudulent event.

Can I suggest that it might be more accurate to say 'As a Christian, I believe the resurrection happened'?

If the body had been removed from the cross, the guards would have been in trouble, and the people doing the removing would certainly have faced capital punishment. The whole idea of Roman crucifixion was to make an example of the victim, and those who perished on the cross were left there to rot (most notably after the revolt of Spartacus, when it is said that 5000 were crucified on the Appian Way). It would have been highly unusual for the Romans to allow a body to be removed (there is only one known discovery of a crucifixion victim from this period).

As for the authors, 3 of them were present as the events of the crucifixion / resurrection occurred.
Luke , the doctor and a gentile was the only one not there but it's accepted that he was given a first hand account and wrote his letter to give an account of events. He also wrote Acts.

It is almost certain that none of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses, and we cannot even be sure of who the authors were. Bart Ehrman has argued that the tradition of referring to them as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John dates to the writing of Irenaeus in late second century.

uck51js9zml2yt

pauldla wrote: »

Can I suggest that it might be more accurate to say 'As a Christian, I believe the resurrection happened'?

If the body had been removed from the cross, the guards would have been in trouble, and the people doing the removing would certainly have faced capital punishment. The whole idea of Roman crucifixion was to make an example of the victim, and those who perished on the cross were left there to rot (most notably after the revolt of Spartacus, when it is said that 5000 were crucified on the Appian Way). It would have been highly unusual for the Romans to allow a body to be removed (there is only one known discovery of a crucifixion victim from this period).



It is almost certain that none of the Gospels were written by eye-witnesses, and we cannot even be sure of who the authors were. Bart Ehrman has argued that the tradition of referring to them as Matthew, Mark, Luke and John dates to the writing of Irenaeus in late second century.

You may suggest all you like but I don't have to accept your suggestion

pauldla

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

You may suggest all you like but I don't have to accept your suggestion

Indeed, hence my use of the verb.

ScumLord

hinault wrote: »

I assumed that you had examples in Christianity.

All you have to do is look into catholic relics. Churches and monasteries manufacturing relics, stealing them, many seemed to have the exact same relics somehow.

Then there's the likes of crying statues which are really an extension of the ancient greeks devices to convince people they're in the presence of a god.

Heres a book on it. Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures But I'm sure you're fully aware of people taking advantage of other believe to get money out of them. The members of the church have been just as likely to be the ones taking advantage in the past. They can't get away with it in this day and age so unsurprisingly miracles seemed to have pretty much disappeared.

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

These Christians were accused of "turning the world upside down" That was some fraud for men who were in fear of their lives after the crucifixion and died horrible deaths as they maintained the truth of this fraudulent event.

The only people saying the christians were "turning the world upside down" are the christians. Despite going up against the one of the best record keepers in the ancient world (the Romans) there's no record of Jesus, the biggest rebel the region has ever seen, according to Christians. I think Jesus was probably a real guy that influenced a lot of people at the time. I think he's followers took that story and ran with it after Jesus died. They linked it up to ancient religious symbolism that had been around for millennia to entrench him in the religious dogma that most people knew and understood, to ensure his message (which they saw as vital to the world) could go head to head with all the other words of gods around at the time.

uck51js9zml2yt

ScumLord wrote: »

All you have to do is look into catholic relics. Churches and monasteries manufacturing relics, stealing them, many seemed to have the exact same relics somehow.

Then there's the likes of crying statues which are really an extension of the ancient greeks devices to convince people they're in the presence of a god.

Heres a book on it. Looking for a Miracle: Weeping Icons, Relics, Stigmata, Visions & Healing Cures But I'm sure you're fully aware of people taking advantage of other believe to get money out of them. The members of the church have been just as likely to be the ones taking advantage in the past. They can't get away with it in this day and age so unsurprisingly miracles seemed to have pretty much disappeared.

The only people saying the christians were "turning the world upside down" are the christians. Despite going up against the one of the best record keepers in the ancient world (the Romans) there's no record of Jesus, the biggest rebel the region has ever seen, according to Christians. I think Jesus was probably a real guy that influenced a lot of people at the time. I think he's followers took that story and ran with it after Jesus died. They linked it up to ancient religious symbolism that had been around for millennia to entrench him in the religious dogma that most people knew and understood, to ensure his message (which they saw as vital to the world) could go head to head with all the other words of gods around at the time.

And for this delusion they died and still do, and we're still talking about this delusion 2000 years on.
I know which if us is delusional...( it's not me )

ScumLord

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

And for this delusion they died and still do, and we're still talking about this delusion 2000 years on.
I know which if us is delusional...( it's not me )

I never said delusional. I didn't describe people being delusional. I described an initial conspiracy to promote an ideal, and I don't think that kind of conspiracy would have been all that uncommon back then.

People have died for all sorts of causes. Communism was made up pretty recently and people died for that. People have died for their nation. Just because someone is willing to die for an ideal doesn't validate that ideal. In WW2 a lot of Germans died for Fascism. In ancient Rome people died to protect a slave trading empire, hell, in America not so long ago they died to protect slavery.

uck51js9zml2yt

ScumLord wrote: »

I never said delusional. I didn't describe people being delusional. I described an initial conspiracy to promote an ideal, and I don't think that kind of conspiracy would have been all that uncommon back then.

People have died for all sorts of causes. Communism was made up pretty recently and people died for that. People have died for their nation. Just because someone is willing to die for an ideal doesn't validate that ideal. In WW2 a lot of Germans died for Fascism. In ancient Rome people died to protect a slave trading empire, hell, in America not so long ago they died to protect slavery.

I'd also call communists and nazi soldiers deluded as well.

LeinsterDub

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

As for the authors, 3 of them were present as the events of the crucifixion / resurrection occurred.
Luke , the doctor and a gentile was the only one not there but it's accepted that he was given a first hand account and wrote his letter to give an account of events. He also wrote Acts.

None of the books where written by Matthew, Mark, Luke or John. This is a generally accepted and acknowledged fact by academia

Cabaal

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

And for this delusion they died and still do, and we're still talking about this delusion 2000 years on.

We still talk about lots of stuff from thousands of years, myths, legends etc. It doesn't make them anymore real.

People in Iceland strongly believe in fairy folk, so much so they've stopped road developments from taking place. That however does not make fairy folk real.

People in Ireland believed it was bad luck to destroy a fairy fort (ringfort), bad things often happened to those that did so. Again it doesn't make fairy's real.

But yet the belief of them remains even today,

uck51js9zml2yt

Cabaal wrote: »

We still talk about lots of stuff from thousands of years, myths, legends etc. It doesn't make them anymore real.

People in Iceland strongly believe in fairy folk, so much so they've stopped road developments from taking place. That however does not make fairy folk real.

People in Ireland believed it was bad luck to destroy a fairy fort (ringfort), bad things often happened to those that did so. Again it doesn't make fairy's real.

But yet the belief of them remains even today,

And yet christianity and indeed Judaism shaped most of the world.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers

And Islam

Cabaal

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

And yet christianity and indeed Judaism shaped most of the world.

Lots of things have "shaped" the world both bad and good,
Christianity is very very far from unique in that regard, for example we all use words every day that honor gods that you don't even believe in....isn't that strange that you do that

Additionally we use Islamic cultural influences/inventions in everyday life too, lots of faith and non-faiths have shaped our world but I certainly wouldn't hold up Christianity as some shining light as much of that shaping involved forced conversion and an awful lot of death.

ScumLord

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

And yet christianity and indeed Judaism shaped most of the world.

I'd say if anything Europe reshaped Christianity to be more relevant to the European way of Kingdoms and empires. Not long after Christianity gets into Europe the Kings take over and suddenly Jesus is supporting them in battle, he becomes the source of judgement, and ends up dripping in gold and bling in every image.

I wouldn't be surprised if all the "kingdom of god" terminology came from that transition into Europe. I don't really think the Christianity we ended up leaving the middle ages with in Europe had a whole lot in common with the original message of Jesus Christians initially left Jerusalem with.

hinault

ScumLord wrote: »

All you have to do is look into catholic relics. Churches and monasteries manufacturing relics, stealing them, many seemed to have the exact same relics somehow.

Catholic relics? I don't know what this meant to refer to.
Can you explain to me what you're referring to specifically?

Cabaal

hinault wrote: »

Catholic relics? I don't know what this meant to refer to.

Perhaps this might assist you

https://www.google.ie/search?q=relic&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gws_rd=cr&ei=1XBhV-biN4fGgAajnq6wBQ

homer911

Not unrelated...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/video_and_audio/headlines/36591434

Thinkingaboutit

Elianna Tangy Marine wrote: »

There is actually an alternate tomb which is managed by a voluntary society and nearer Golgotha which is more credible as a location.

Whatever the case, He's not in it which has more importance for Christians (or should be) than its location or redecoration.

No it isn't. Gordon's Calvary is not the site Jesus was crucified and buried. It's a Late Roman fragment of the water system of Aelia Capitolina (alternatively Professor Barkay suggested the site is part seventh century BC tomb later repurposed as water cistern for the capital of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in the eleventh century, with lining appropriate to that period and its purpose), a water cistern almost certainly. The very location of the actual tomb in an area which was originally a quarry and burial outside the city, and soon after (40s AD) covered by the expanding city, and then later made the site of a temple to Venus (as a means of desecrating a revered site), supports its authenticity. The authenticity of the Holy Sepulchre is supported by Coptic, Ethiopian, Syriac, Armenian, Orthodox and Catholic Tradition and scholarship against which the efforts of some Protestants from the eighteenth century onwards, don't count for much.