Jesus' Tomb Opened for First Time in Centuries

[loverofhumanity]

Sorry, there seems to be a disconnect. Jesus was buried in a cave, right? Jesus dies before Constantine, right? Show that a man named Jesus was buried at this location.

Ok. I found an article which begins like this and goes some way to answering your question. The link is at the bottom and you will have to scroll down that page to see the rest of this article about proof that it might be the burial place of Jesus.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/10/jesus-christ-tomb-burial-church-holy-sepulchre/

WAS THIS REALLY THE TOMB OF CHRIST?
While it is archaeologically impossible to say that the tomb recently uncovered in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the burial site of an individual Jew known as Jesus of Nazareth, there is indirect evidence to suggest that the identification of the site by representatives of the Roman emperor Constantine some 300 years later may be a reasonable one.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Isn't it somewhat disrespectful to exhume this person? They clearly went to great lengths to make sure their corpse wouldn't be disturbed.

 

[columbus]

Isn't it somewhat disrespectful to exhume this person? They clearly went to great lengths to make sure their corpse wouldn't be disturbed.

I presume that they checked in the 4th century. Wouldn't do to find the skeleton of a 30ish male crucifixion victim, now would it?
Tom

 

[roger1440]

Constantine wanted a unified empire and a unified religion. The very word catholic means universal or unified. Constantine and his mother went to Jerusalem to find relics pertaining to Jesus. Having physical evidence would provide proof of Jesus and therefore authenticate this new religion. If he and his mother found nothing he would have been seen as a fool going back to Rome empty handed. Stupid he wasn’t.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I presume that they checked in the 4th century. Wouldn't do to find the skeleton of a 30ish male crucifixion victim, now would it?
Tom

Clearly the point of the dig is to demonstrate that Helena was just making things up and that she never found the True Cross etc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Church_of_the_Holy_Sepulchre

 

[james bond]

Thanks very much for this link. Personally, only my own view, is that Christ never bodily resurrected and that His sarcophagus is under the Holy Sepulchre. His Body was hidden.

Whether the church knows, they should, but would they come out openly about it as their entire religion is built on the resurrection?

His spiritual authority, His Teachings are sufficient proof of His Station. When we go into miracles and things like that it's lowering God to our level.

Any circus performer or magician can perform all sorts of feats but only Christ could change hearts and transform wickedness into goodness.

What evidence do you have for you own view that Christ never bodily resurrected? I presented post #7 for mine.

 

[james bond]

Provide the evidence that this is a tomb that the supposed Jesus was in. How can you do this? Are you just accepting hearsay? I think so.

Hearsay and different eyewitness accounts are not the same. Circumstantial evidence is enough to find the truth. If you want physical evidence, then how was the stone moved (post #7)? Also, look up the Shroud of Turin as further evidence.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What evidence do you have for you own view that Christ never bodily resurrected? I presented post #7 for mine.

Luke 9:60

Jesus said unto him, Let the dead bury their dead: but go thou and preach the kingdom of God.

When speaking of things like death and resurrection the Bible is speaking not always literally but at times symbolically. Like 9:60 is a typical example of how the Bible uses this language to convey a deeper spiritual truth.

Dead people cant bury dead people but spiritually dead people can.

Again Mount Tabor? Are you familiar with the transfiguration of Christ? Moses, Elias and God were there yet there were other people on that Mount and didn't see it and Christ said to them regarding what they saw:

Matthew

17:9

9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man,

These things are clearly spiritual visions that been interpreted literally and have evolved into ingrained superstitions based on what was originally only an inner vision. We dream. When we dream we meet people, speak, laugh, cry, grieve and even touch.

There are ample references in the Bible such as Tabor and the dead burying the dead to clearly show this is just a superstition built on sand. Even the Bible refutes these things and calls them visions.

I hope you will try and see the inner meanings, the deep spiritual truths of the Bible and not be trapped like most in the web of literal interpretation.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Circumstantial evidence is enough to find the truth.

Fortunately, circumstantial evidence tends to not hold up well in a court of law.

 

[metis]

Constantine wanted a unified empire and a unified religion. The very word catholic means universal or unified. Constantine and his mother went to Jerusalem to find relics pertaining to Jesus. Having physical evidence would provide proof of Jesus and therefore authenticate this new religion. If he and his mother found nothing he would have been seen as a fool going back to Rome empty handed. Stupid he wasn’t.

Which "new religion"?

 

[metis]

I've been at the Tomb twice (1991 & 1999), and it's very interesting there and also in the Church in general. For my wife, who's a devout Catholic, it was very emotional for here-- almost overwhelmingly so.

 

[roger1440]

Which "new religion"?

The newness comes from the Roman Empire endorsing it. Good ole mom was probably a closet Christian for years.

 

[metis]

The newness comes from the Roman Empire endorsing it. Good ole mom was probably a closet Christian for years.

I don't know what you mean by the last sentence but let me just say that the main change was more dealing with the political structure of the CC than with religious doctrine per se, but with two major exceptions. One was the movement to create a biblical canon and new creed, and the other was over the issue of war. As you well know, this latter issue really was troublesome because the church had never before found itself as being a state religion, so what to do in regards to war was very contentious and bugged the church for many centuries.

 

[james bond]

Fortunately, circumstantial evidence tends to not hold up well in a court of law.

Not true . For example, Johnny says he read his books and studied. I look at his desk with his books and everything today to compare it to yesterday and see that nothing was touched. I can gather enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

Ha ha. It's like the internet atheists who keep claiming one can't prove a negative.

 

[metis]

Not true . For example, Johnny says he read his books and studied. I look at his desk with his books and everything today to compare it to yesterday and see that nothing was touched. I can gather enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

.

But maybe Johnny was careful to put all his books back in the same position. Or maybe that you forgot yourself what the exact same positions were themselves. Or maybe Johnny is a psychic.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Not true . For example, Johnny says he read his books and studied. I look at his desk with his books and everything today to compare it to yesterday and see that nothing was touched. I can gather enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

Ha ha. It's like the internet atheists who keep claiming one can't prove a negative.

Growing up with my mom, I had to learn how to put stuff back exactly as I found it to get my (and sometimes my friend's) confiscated things. Maybe Johnny was raised to leave things as he found them. You aren't even giving poor Johnny a chance to prove his innocence by quizzing him about the books.

 

[james bond]

Growing up with my mom, I had to learn how to put stuff back exactly as I found it to get my (and sometimes my friend's) confiscated things. Maybe Johnny was raised to leave things as he found them. You aren't even giving poor Johnny a chance to prove his innocence by quizzing him about the books.

With enough circumstantial evidence against Johnny, it can be shown he is guilty. If Johnny did study and then moved things back to where he found them, then he would know answers to some questions regarding what he studied. I'm assuming we are able to question Johnny from your remarks.

Maybe his Mom moved a couple of his things before he claimed he studied. And then we do not have to question Johnny.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With enough circumstantial evidence against Johnny, it can be shown he is guilty. If Johnny did study and then moved things back to where he found them, then he would know answers to some questions regarding what he studied. I'm assuming we are able to question Johnny from your remarks.

From my remarks, you should have gathered I'd prefer to give Johnny a chance to prove his actions before assuming his actions.

 

[james bond]

From my remarks, you should have gathered I'd prefer to give Johnny a chance to prove his actions before assuming his actions.

We were discussing circumstantial evidence. Again, if enough is there, then there is no need for Johnny's testimony. What you're saying is giving the benefit of a doubt to Johnny (based on nothing or being soft?), but the circumstantial evidence would destroy that argument.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We were discussing circumstantial evidence. Again, if enough is there, then there is no need for Johnny's testimony. What you're saying is giving the benefit of a doubt to Johnny (based on nothing or being soft?), but the circumstantial evidence would destroy that argument.

You're still assuming guilt based on evidence that is not definitive, without investigating, and without giving the boy a chance to prove his actions (of either not read the books or having read them). It may just be that to you it appears the books were not even touched, but, in reality, you just remembered wrong how they were on the desk. There are dozens of reasons, really, but not one of them is strong enough to assume guilt until you have more thoroughly investigated.