Sunday, May 27, 2007

Have Tomb, Will Argue: but not very well

My argument has been challenged. The challenger, doubling himself "Loyal Opposition" (LO for short) has admitted that we have Constantine's church, but what can't be proven is that is the right site, the real tomb of Christ.

Well if we read that first part of Have Tomb, Will Argue, I admit up front that we can't prove it. There's a strong likelihood, but its not conclusive. I said that. What is the basis of the likelihood?

I said the major evidence was from Melito of Sardis but that I left it out. LO says "no you didn't leave it out." But I did. I mentioned him but I didn't quote the quotes I had taken from the article on New Advent. I find the New Advent article no longer contains those quotes.It also listed other pilgrims who spoke to Christians and got the location.

I can't prove this and because the original material isn't there it doesn't mean anything to say that. That's Lo doesn't understand, there was an article now there is no. I did hound them to show me evidence they never responded but perhaps they changed it for that reason. So that's a blow to the thesis because Melito can't be used, nor can the other pilgrims. Apparently their link was only speculative.

What is documented by Eusebius is that Helena conducted a search for the tomb and other monuments. We don't know exactly what prompted her. I have seen the argument that the Bishop of Jerusalem told her of the depredated sites and how they were covered over with Roman monuments. Be that as it may, for whatever reason, the sites was located apparently by Helena by sending an agent to make inquiries. The agent learned the location thorough local populace. The information that a Roman tomb covered the site was thus passed To Constantine.

In his haste to make skeptical, LO forgets to think logically about the evidence. that passage just mentioned is in the article on my site and it is quoting Eusebius. He unquestionably and without doubt says Helena learned the location from locals after making inqurrires.

The evidence.

(1) The topography of he site agrees with descriptions given in the gospels of the location of Galgotha.

(2) The Bible says Joseph of Arimethia put Jesus in his new tomb which was being prepared. The tomb under the CHS was a new tomb We know this because only one bench was carved out of the wall and the tomb was in an unfinished state.

(3) The Neighborhood was Galgotha, the name stuck into Eusebius time and in fact nito the 20th century.

I think it's worth noting who believes the tradition. Ben Behat an Israeli archaeologist and Gayliaah Cornfeld who was a gifted amateur archaeologist and writer. Cornfeld was respected by professional and was given expert status. Both men were jews and Isralies they were not Christians and they have no motive for their findings.

(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.

(5) artifacts discovered by Carbo indicate that the site was venerated from an early period.

Why were they digging under a temple of Venus anyway? Unless someone told them there was something important under the temple why did under it? There was a layer of filll dirt that had to be moved. If all they wanted was to destory a pagan temple they could have just done that. They had to actually dig up the layer under it How did they know to do that?

While its not conclusive there is a strong probability that it is the right spot.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

>>In his haste to make skeptical, LO forgets to think logically about the evidence. that passage just mentioned is in the article on my site and it is quoting Eusebius. He unquestionably and without doubt says Helena learned the location from locals after making inqurrires.<<

Would you please cite and quote the passage just so we can be sure which passage you're talking about?

LO

J.L. Hinman said...

It's from the current new advent article. The actual quoet is from taht rticle and fn to Eusebius from the same passage we have been reeapting endlessly.

Eusebius.

[Ibid]
Of these the most explicit and of the greatest importance is Eusebius, who writes of the Tomb as an eyewitness, or as one having received his information from eyewitnesses. The testimonies of all having been compared and analysed may be presented briefly as follows: Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine, conceived the design of securing the Cross of Christ, the sign of which had led her son to victory. Constantine himself, having long had at heart a desire to honour "the place of the Lord's Resurrection", "to erect a church at Jerusalem near the place that is called Calvary", encouraged her design, and giving her imperial authority, sent her with letters and money to Macarius, the Bishop of Jerusalem. Helena and Macarius, having made fruitless inquiries as to the existence of the Cross, turned their attention to the place of the Passion and Resurrection, which was known to be occupied by a temple of Venus erected by the Romans in the time of Hadrian, or later. The temple was torn down, the ruins were removed to a distance, the earth beneath, as having been contaminated, was dug up and borne far away. Then, "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth" (Eusebius, "Life of Constantine", III, xxviii). Near it were found three crosses, a few nails, and an inscription such as Pilate ordered to be placed on the Cross of Christ. The accounts of the finding of the Holy Sepulchre thus summarized have been rejected by some on the ground that they have an air of improbability, especially in the attribution of the discovery to "an inspiration of the Saviour", to "Divine admonitions and counsels", and in the assertions that, although the Tomb had been covered by a temple of Venus for upwards of two centuries, its place was yet known."

Anonymous said...

Once again you are pulling material off web sites, not reading it carefully, and not checking it against the text of Eusebius. This comes from a Catholic Encyclopedia article that can be found here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07425a.htm

The citation to Life Of Constantine 3.28 is for the part within the quotation mark only: "beyond the hopes of all, the most holy monument of Our Lord's Resurrection shone forth." The rest of the material is not a quotation of Eusebius. The author of the article plainly says he is presenting an analysis drawing from various sources, which he lists at the beginning of the paragraph but you cut off. Here, once again, is the address for the text of Eusebius, which you seem to have made a policy of not checking:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm

Eusebius does not associate Helena with the founding of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher at all. This is a well known fact among Eusebian scholars (who actually read his text) and a subject of much discussion among them. In the critical notes to their translation of Eusebius’ Life of Constantine (1999), Averil Cameron and Stuart Hall write:

“There is no mention of the later and ubiquitous legend of Helena as the finder of the True Cross. Nor is she connected with the building or the excavation of the Holy Sepulchre, which are wholly attributed to the initiative of Constantine himself’ (p. 296).

You claim to have spent a lot of time researching this stuff, and that may be so. But it sure doesn’t show in what you write. The fact remains that you keep citing secondary sources (mostly Catholic Encyclopedia articles from c. 1910) as though they were the text of Eusebius. If you want to quote *Eusebius*, look in the text of *Eusebius*, not Catholic Encyclopedia articles. You have the address for the text. Do you have some mental block that keeps you from looking at it?

LO

J.L. Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J.L. Hinman said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J.L. Hinman said...

First, your childish little gloating comment about "you are just pulling things off sites and not reading them" merely shows me that you have not read part 1. that is on part 1 it's been on part 1 for years. I read it several times when I got it and I read it four times yesterday. I knew when I put it on there it didn't quote Eusebius directly. I've seen at least four articles by people with scholarly credentials who back up that idea. I've seen numerous references to Israeli and other scholars accepting the premise that the Jewish Christians venerated the tomb and knew where it was and all Constantine had to do was ask.

I trusted New Advent. I don't time to read all of Eusebius, no. I'm sure you do and I'm sure you are a world famous scholar. I'm sure you are so well known in scholarly circles they wouldn't dare mention the names of amateur hacks like Kenyon or Albright in your presence. Right?


Secondly, why don't you email the New Advent guys and tell them what lying shmucks they are?. Because they are the bozos I was quoting. Id don't have to time to read all of Eusebius you are right. I am not a professional scholar. Of course I know you are a world authority on everything. I am sure you have Ph.D. in the field of expert genius mastermind.


finally, I have been through bloody mother fucking hell. I lost everything I ever had. I lost who I am. I am dead. I am jut waiting for the corps to lay down. I have been totally smashed and I've been attacked brutally by little illiterate thugs (they call themselves atheists) and I have promised myself I will not allow anyone to speak to me this way again

You will not treat me or speak to me like an idiot or a school boy being scholded. If you can't come on here and give your arguments and allow the logic and truth of what you say to speak for you then you can not come here.

You are a pontificating little creep who thinks he knows it all. I would rather be just a bad scholar than a jerk like you.

Anonymous said...

Let's look at some of the other arguments you've made:

Metacrock: >>(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.<<

What evidence do you have for your claim that during the time of Constantine the tomb contained graffiti that read “Christ save us,” or any other graffiti that would help identify it as Christ’s tomb?

Metacrock: >>(5) artifacts discovered by Carbo indicate that the site was venerated from an early period.<<

What artifacts are these and how early was the period from which they come? Do these artifacts show that the site was venerated *before* Constantine built a church on it?

LO

J.L. Hinman said...

Let's look at some of the other arguments you've made:

Metacrock: >>(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.<<

What evidence do you have for your claim that during the time of Constantine the tomb contained graffiti that read “Christ save us,” or any other graffiti that would help identify it as Christ’s tomb?\


>>Eusebius says they saw it there.

Anonymous said...

Let's look at some of the other arguments you've made:

Metacrock: >>(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.<<

What evidence do you have for your claim that during the time of Constantine the tomb contained graffiti that read “Christ save us,” or any other graffiti that would help identify it as Christ’s tomb?\


>>Eusebius says they saw it there.


He doesn't, but I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

Anonymous said...

Here’s what Martin Biddle says:

“But is this indeed the Tomb of Christ? All we can say with absolutely certainty is that this is the tomb which has been recognized as such since 325-6. Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea, was surprised by its discovery. It was "beyond all expectation," and he hailed it, apparently without any doubt, as the place where Christ had risen from the dead. Why did he do this? What was the evidence? Eusebius, using the Greek word antron, says only that it was a cave. Perhaps, like the tomb of St. Peter in Rome, found below the papal high altar in the 1940s, the rock-cut tomb in Jerusalem bore inscriptions or graffiti: "Jesus, save us!", or "He is risen!" Eusebius does not say and we do not know.”

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchive/1990_1999/1999/9/The%20Tomb%20of%20Christ

J.L. Hinman said...

Let's look at some of the other arguments you've made:

Metacrock: >>(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.<<

What evidence do you have for your claim that during the time of Constantine the tomb contained graffiti that read “Christ save us,” or any other graffiti that would help identify it as Christ’s tomb?\


>>Eusebius says they saw it there.


He doesn't, but I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

4:17 AM

I did not say one thing that would contradict that. I began the argument by saying that we cannot prove anything beyond a good likeihood. I still say there's a good likelihood. It's not as good as I thought it was.

J.L. Hinman said...

look at some of the other arguments you've made:

Metacrock: >>(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.<<

What evidence do you have for your claim that during the time of Constantine the tomb contained graffiti that read “Christ save us,” or any other graffiti that would help identify it as Christ’s tomb?\


>>Eusebius says they saw it there.


He doesn't, but I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.

4:17 AM

Yes he does. In the passage where he talks about finding the tmmple of Venus under the sight. read it again

J.L. Hinman said...

Let's look at some of the other arguments you've made:

Metacrock: >>(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.<<

What evidence do you have for your claim that during the time of Constantine the tomb contained graffiti that read “Christ save us,” or any other graffiti that would help identify it as Christ’s tomb?

Metacrock: >>(5) artifacts discovered by Carbo indicate that the site was venerated from an early period.<<

What artifacts are these and how early was the period from which they come? Do these artifacts show that the site was venerated *before* Constantine built a church on it?

so If I was wrong once I must always be wrong. yea, very loigcal. take a class

Anonymous said...

Metacrock: >>(4) Another reason Constantine had for assuming the site was the tomb of Chrsit was the graffitti found marking it so. "Christ save us" was one phrase.<<

LoyalOp: >>What evidence do you have for your claim that during the time of Constantine the tomb contained graffiti that read “Christ save us,” or any other graffiti that would help identify it as Christ’s tomb?<<

Metacrock: >>Eusebius says they saw it there.

LoyalOp: >>He doesn't, but I can't tell if you were being sarcastic or not.<<

Metacrock: >>Yes he does. In the passage where he talks about finding the tmmple of Venus under the sight. read it again<<

No, Eusebius says nothing about any graffiti identifying the tomb found under the temple of Aphrodite as being Christian. I think you are probably misremembering the passage from Martin Biddle, which I quoted previously, in which Biddle *speculates* that there may have been such graffiti, but he plainly says he is speculating and that Eusebius says nothing about any such graffiti.

Here, once again, is the link to the passage about Constantine having the temple of Aphrodite demolished to build a church where it stood from Eusebius, Life of Constantine, Book III, sections 26 to 28:

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/25023.htm

There is nothing about an inscription reading “Chist save us.” Could you please *quote* from the text of *Eusebius* and *cite* to the text of *Eusebius* the passage that you think contains this information?

Loyal Opposition

J.L. Hinman said...

"This also was accomplished without delay. But as soon as the original surface of the ground, beneath the covering of earth, appeared, immediately, and contrary to all expectation, the venerable and hollowed monument of our Saviour's resurrection was discovered. Then indeed did this most holy cave present a faithful similitude of his return to life, in that, after lying buried in darkness, it again emerged to light, and afforded to all who came to witness the sight, a clear and visible proof of the wonders of which that spot had once been the scene, a testimony to the resurrection of the Saviour clearer than any voice could give."

book 3; v 27

did he think it was proof "clearer than anyother" just because they dug a whole? why look there anyway if they did not have a tradtion about the temple of Venus?

Your arguments do not make sense, they had to have some reason for thinking it was so clear.