1. Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Holy Sepulchre and Garden Tomb can not possibly be where Christ was buried!

Discussion in 'Religious Debates' started by dan, Jun 13, 2006.

  1. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    Why don't you look through the Bible and tell me how many gardens are mentioned and what constitutes them? Today's idea of a garden doesn't have anything to do with the gardens of two thousand years ago. Gardens were usually made up of olive trees.


    You know what? I was gonna go through the rest of your post, but it's all speculation on your part. I'm not gonna waste my time with that because you won't listen anyway, and your problem with the author of that article (whom I happen to know) is an incredible archeologist, and your problem seems to lie mainly with the fact that you don't like his conclusions. You've looked for ways to poke holes in the argument only because the evidence doesn't support what you happen to believe. Your conclusions are dictating how you view his evidence. He could have a freaking video tape of the burial and fifty signed affidavits telling us that the tomb was elsewhere and you'd be smirking and waiving your hand sanctimoniously.

    One of the strongest indications of that is your failure to address the fact that it was illegal, under Jewish law, for someone to be buried west of the city during Jesus' life. You've glossed completely over it by flippantly dismissing the rest of the evidence, knowing good and well that the strongest case lies with that evidence. You can throw out the other evidence for all I care (it's clear your going to make false inferences untill the end of time) as long as you just address that one glaring discrepancy. Until you do so you appear to just be cherry-picking your arguments.
     
  2. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,252
    Do you have any basis for that statement? And do you have any basis for asserting that there's no way that enough soil could have been brought in to support olive trees?

    On the contrary, I don't like his methodology. His conclusions about the Garden Tomb, both his former conclusions and his present ones, are ludicrous, but it's his faulty methodology that's the problem.

    I don't "believe" the Holy Sepulchre is the tomb of Jesus; I really don't care whether it is or not. (For my idea of a holy site, see Andalusia.) But the Holy Sepulchre is certainly a more plausible location than the Garden Tomb, as any serious scholar could tell you. It's the truth that matters, and if through some miracle -- and would take a miracle -- evidence came to light that proved that the Holy Sepulchre wasn't Jesus' tomb, and the Garden Tomb was, that would be great. Follow the facts wherever they lead. However, even that wouldn't validate Chadwick's indefensibly tendentious "scholarship."

    Most archaeologists have concluded that -- whether or not Jesus was ever buried there -- the site of the Holy Sepulchre was indeed a cemetery during the first century. Chadwick tells us it cannot have been so, but the evidence seems to be that it was. It's Chadwick's failure to address the evidence that ought to concern you.

    As for Jewish Law, I wonder whether Chadwick is willing to use Jewish Law to "prove" that the Nephites could not have had a priesthood or temples. ;)
     
  3. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    You allude to other evidence but provide none. Every archeologist on the planet could think one thing and be completely wrong. It's happened a dozen times. Why don't you present this evidence and we'll see what we can do.

    Maybe you need to read your history books again. There was a temple in Elephantine that had to aprobation of all Jerusalem to be built. There's nothing to say the Nephites couldn't have one.

    Priesthood is another thread altogether, but I doubt your understanding is incredibly deep. You don't know what Jewish law was concerning temples or why it was the way it was, so why would you understand priesthood?

    I know it's fun to go to an anti-Momron website and find all this fun stuff to try to prove Mormons wrong. Everyone here loves to do it. I don't go to anybody's websites except my own and I don't believe what someone tells me about a rival group they're trying to debunk. You wouldn't ask Coke about what Pepsi believes about making soda if you wanted the truth, would you?
     
  4. Smoke

    Smoke Done here.

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2005
    Messages:
    19,892
    Ratings:
    +3,252
    No time now; I'm going to the Harley shop. Maybe later I can rummage around for some articles about it.

    Jewish Law says they couldn't, and that the temple at Elephantine couldn't have existed, either. That's my point. Chadwick's argument about what must have been true, according to Jewish Law, is prone to error from the outset.

    I understand various religions' concepts of priesthood better than you seem to think I do, but think what you like about me -- it's not related to the subject at hand.

    To be perfectly frank about it, I think a belief in Mormonism is about as plausible as a belief in flying purple pig fairies, and it seems like a complete waste of time to bother debunking it. If people want to believe in flying purple pig fairies, it's no skin off my back. Lots of Mormons are nice people, and their beliefs, though they seem ridiculous to me, are no more ridiculous than those of, say, the Presbyterians. I have learned a fair bit about Mormonism over the years, though, and almost entirely -- contrary to your preconceptions about what must be true -- from Mormon sources.

    That may be part of the problem. The idea that information is primarily to be found on websites may be another part.
     
  5. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    We had no understanding of a law strictly prohibiting burying people west of the city until we had the question - why do we not find any tombs created during a certain time period west of the city? After digging around we find the rules laid down by the second century rabbis. It's not a law that we have an exception for, it's no exceptions leading us to believe there was a law. It's completely different. The Temple in Elephantine (which did exist and was fine with Jerusalem) is an example of finding evidence that points to excepting an already known law. The tombs in Jerusalem are an example of finding evidence to make us search for an unidentified law to explain the lack of exceptions.

    Chadwick concluded that it must have been true because all the evidence says it was, not because there was a law there that he assumed went unbroken. He found the law because there were no exceptions.
     
  6. dan

    dan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    1,464
    Ratings:
    +96
    This is why most people find it frustrating argue with me. They ask for sources and I give them five pages of books. They don't want to do any legwork. I just happened to find this article online after having read through the journal.
     
  7. Barrackubus

    Barrackubus Residential Occultist

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2012
    Messages:
    194
    Ratings:
    +10
    Religion:
    Thelema
    It was Jesus and HIS family....Christianity is DEAD..
     
Loading...