Things Fall Through the Cracks: The Religous a priori

Discussion on CARM over the weekend revealed some interesting developments. I feel that the way one echange worked out it more or less confrims one of the first God arguments I ever made on the net. This is my religious apriori argument:

The point is that things fall through the cracks. Scientific induction seeks to create a probabilistic average and then establish a regularity of observation based upon the probability. On that basis miracles and supernature are ruled out. Since things do fall through the cracks, there's no basis for asserting miracles don't happen. The regularity of description can't be taken as solid as long as observation is not 100% accurate.

Argument:


(1) Scientific reductionism loses phenomena by re-defining the nature of sense data and quailia. (premise)

(2)There are other ways of Knowing than scientific induction
(premise)

(3) Religious truth is apprehended phenomenologically, thus religion is not a scientific issue and cannot be subjected to a materialist critique
(inference)

(4) Religion is not derived from other disciplines or endeavors but is a approach to understanding in its own right
(inference from 3)


Therefore, religious belief is justified on its own terms and not according to the dictates or other disciplines (conclusion)


In my dealings with atheist in debate and dialogue I find that they are often very committed to an empiricist view point. Over and over again I hear the refrain "you can't show one single unequivocal demonstration of scientific data that proves a God exists." This is not a criticism. It's perfectly understandable; science has become the umpire of reality. It is to scientific demonstration that we appear for a large swath of questions concerning the nature of reality. The problem is that the reliance upon empiricism has led to forgetfulness about the basis of other types of questions. We have forgotten that essentially science is metaphysics, as such it is just one of many approach that can be derived from analytical reasoning, empiricism, rationalism, phenomenology and other approaches.


Problem with Empiricism


Is empirical evidence the best or only true form of knowledge? This is an apologetics question because it bears upon the arguments for the existence of God.

Is lack of empirical evidence, if there is a lack, a draw back for God arguments?
I deny that there is a lack, but it has to be put in the proper context. That will come in future threads, for this one I will bracket that answer and just assume there no really good empirical evidence (even though I think there is).

I will ague that empiricism is not true source of knowledge by itself and logic is more important.

True empirical evidence in a philosophical sense means exact first hand observation. In science it doesn't really mean that, it implies a more truncated process. Consider this, we drop two balls of different size from a tower. Do they fall the same rate or the bigger one falls faster? They are supposed to fall at the same rate, right? To say we have empirical proof, in the literal sense of the term we would have to observe every single time two balls are dropped for as long as the tower exists. We would have to sit for thousands of years and observe millions of drops and then we couldn't say it was truly empirical because we might have missed one.

That's impractical for science so we cheat with inductive reasoning. We make assumptions of probability. We say we observed this 40,000 times, that's a tight correlation, so we will assume there is a regularity in the universe that causes it to work this way every time. We make a statistical correlation. Like the surgeon general saying that smoking causes cancer. The tobacco companies were really right, they read their Hume, there was no observation of cause and effect, because we never observe cause and effect. But the correlation was so tight we assume cause and effect.

The ultimate example is Hume's billiard balls. Hume says we do not see the cause of the ball being made to move, we only really see one ball stop and the other start. But this happens every time we watch, so we assume that the tight correlation gives us causality.

The naturalistic metaphysician assumes that all of nature works this way. A tight correlation is as good as a cause. So when we observe only naturalistic causes we can assume there is nothing beyond naturalism. The problem is many phenomena can fall between the cracks. One might go one's whole life never seeing a miraculous event, but that doesn't mean someone else doesn't observe such things. All the atheist can say is "I have never seen this" but I can say "I have." Yet the atheist lives in a construct that is made up of his assumptions about naturalistic c/e and excluding anything that challenges it. That is just like Kuhn's paradigm shift. The challenges are absorbed into the paradigm until there are so many the paradigm has to shift. This may never happen in naturalism.

So this constructed view of the world that is made out of assumption and probabilities misses a lot of experience that people do have that contradicts the paradigm of naturalism. The thing is, to make that construct they must use logic. After all what they are doing in making the correlation is merely inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning has to play off of deductive reasoning to even make sense.

Ultimately then, "empiricism" as construed by naturalist (inductive probabilistic assumptions building constructs to form a world view) is inadequate because it is merely a construct and rules out a priori much that contradicts

In this exchange that was part of another thread HRG basically admits to my suspicions about the circular nature of naturalistic assumption.


http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthrea...to-be-believed

post 27

Originally Posted by Metacrock View Post

hey I didn't say the universe doesn't work in a regular fashion. I said there can be things that fall through the cracks. you ant got no crack catcher if we know what I mean.


HRG:

There could be, but are they the best explanation for data ? My catcher catches less likely explanations.

you fail to offer one for my data.

Meta:
Uuntil you prove your descriptive power is 100% you have no right not accept miracle claims as merely further observations that are beyond your observational powers.

HRG:

I have a perfect right not to accept the miracle claims as genuine, and not based on a measurement error. That they are genuine is not the most likely explanation.

no you don't. the evidence has met a reasonable prima facie burden.

Meta:
nope. you don't. statistics don't help there because they are supposed to be rare. besides your stats in error since the rule out those things that your ideology lead you to ban form reality.

HRG:

The statistics are based on the number of observed deaths without a resurrection (10 billion observations) vs. claims of resurrections (a few).

sure but the number is inaccurate because you are ruling out the instances of resurrection in the past. like Duffin's archival research in the Vatican of 1,400 miracles. Many of them were resurrections.

And it's your ideology that wants us to accept the less likely explanations. All your arguments in favor of an actual resurrection are based on alleged regularities which are much less well confirmed as the regularity that dead bodies stay dead.

Meta:

you can't use a regularity that you wont accept as law. your notion of it is totally one of observation and the counter observations change the game. you drag in the idea of "I have my record dead people stay dead," not always. in at least 100 cases they did not. you can't decide those are nixed becuase the other cases are not.

you want laws of physics when they suit you and you wont suspend them when they don't suit you. They don't suit you when they imply mind. a mind greater than yours.

(at some juncture he argues that UFO's and Bigfoot could be allowed in history and turned into fact by accepting miracles. "You have no way to prevent that."

Meta:
sure I do. I don't have any reason to ague for them. you are making anther bad appeal to analogy. The idea that If we allow X into your thinking we might to allow this other case that very similar to X. So there can't be miracles because wee don't want UFO's. that's not logical.

HRG:

Please cease your misdescription of my stance. I never said that I can logically exclude miracles (or UFOs). But miracles (or UFOs) are not the most likely explanation of our data.

Meta:

they don't' have to be. You want to reduce natural law to observations. The observe rations you want to take as law are not complete. you want to erase those that don't suit your world view. This is absolute you can't have it both ways.

you want to create a law out of statistics but things fall through the cracks. that is exactly what my argument from religious a pirori says. you just confirmed one of my God arguments.

HRG

Get it ? Miracles are not the most likely explanation. Not an impossibility.

Meta:
can't you see what a fallacy that is. It's an actual fallacy. it's in lgoic books even.

they don't have to be, when the evidence is empirical then the observations of the past font' apply. You cant' assert that the observations of the past have been 100% accurate.

how many times has this song and dance been done? every single time there's a miracle claim it's ruled out on the bias of others like it being ruled for the bogus reason that "it's more likely that it wont be."

on that basis women never get pregnant. on that basis lost children will never be found. On that basis armaments of space debris will never hit houses. All of thse we know do happen from time to time.

HRG

BTW, there are more eye-witness claims for UFO abductions than for the resurrection.

,
Meta:

Once we introduce the concept of quality over quantity, quality of observation that goes way down.

It's not like we don't have any prima facie evidence to back up miracles. See my stuff Lourdes.

Have Tomb, Will Argue

In response to the empty tomb book published by the ensomble of internet infidels.My arguments are found in several pages that disprove any assertion of a late developing tomb myth.


http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/Resurrection/Tomb_yes.html


I have two major argments both of which demonstrate the historicity of an early claim of an existing empty tomb.

(1) The per Markan redactions includes story of empty tomb as early as AD 50

(2) archaeoloigcal evidence indicates the tomb is under the chruch of the Holy Seplechur.

this is the second argument:

One of the major Skeptical arguments against the Resurrection of Christ states that no tomb was ever venerated as the stie of the Resurrection until Constantine arbitrarily chose one in the foruth century;that the Chruch of the Holy Seplechur, the oldest traditional site, was just a fabrication. None of this is true. While it cannot be proven conclusively that the CHS is the actual tomb site, there is a strong probablity that it is, and there is good evidence to suggest this. The tradition can be traced back to the first century. Thus a tomb was venerated in the first century.

The Church of the Holy Seplechur is owned jointly by three major Christian denominations: The Roman Catholics, the Orthodox, and the Arminian Orthodox. The site was chosen and "discovered" to be the orignal tomb of Christ by Constantine in 336 AD when he accompanied his mother to the Holy Land in search of the true cross and other artifacts.


My Argument is not that we can prove that the CHS is the tomb, but that the strong probablity that it was venertaed as the tomb in the frist century, destorys the skeptical claim in books such as The Empty Tomb.The skeptics contributing to that book must disprove the possiblity of the CHS before they can dismiss historicity of the empty tomb.


My arguments will be presented in three major areas:

I. The modern site of CHS is the site Constantine chose; its place in the sourrounding city is an exact fit for the physical and social envoriment of the tomb.


II. Oral tradition guided Constantine's choice, passed down from the Jewish Christian community to the Gentile Chrsitians.

III. Modern archeaology verifies the claims of this tradition.



I. The modern site of CHS is the site Constantine chose; its place in the sourrounding city is an exact fit for the physical and social envoriment of the tomb.



A.Validation of Constantine's site two sources:



(1) The Description of the site itself


The Descriptions given by Eusebius, and by Crusaders in the Middle ages, match the actual site.

Carbo Excavation.


Chruch of The Holy Seplechur--Government of Israel site, visited 6/7/01

http://www.israel-mfa.gov.il/mfa/go.asp?MFAH00v10


"This courtyard, outside the present-day Church of the Holy Sepulcher, is partly supported by a large, vaulted cistern. The northern wall of this cistern is very impressive, consisting of large blocks with dressed margins, still standing several meters high. It has been suggested that this early wall served as the retaining wall of the second century Hadrianic raised platform (podium). This appears to support Eusebius' statement that the Temple of Venus, which Hadrian erected on the site of Jesus' tomb, stood here before the original church was built."

"The Basilica: Early masonry below the catholicon of the Crusader period was exposed during the excavations. This made possible the reconstruction of the original design of the 4th century basilica. The position of the two central rows of columns in the basilica (out of the four rows) may be determined by the remains of their foundations, which can be seen along the northern and southern sides of the chapel of St. Helena. In a small underground space north of this chapel, a massive foundation wall of the early basilica was exposed. On a large, smoothed stone which was incorporated in this wall, a pilgrim to the original church left a drawing of a merchant ship and the Latin inscription: "O Lord, we shall go." Beneath the apse of the present-day catholicon, part of the apse that marked the western end of the original church was exposed. Eusebius described this apse as being surrounded by twelve columns, symbolizing the twelve apostles."

"The Rotunda and Sepulcher:The most important element of the complex is the rotunda which contains the sepulcher itself. The sepulcher stands in an elaborate structure within the rotunda, surrounded by columns supporting an ornamented, domed roof.Some masonry remains were revealed below the floor and around the perimeter of the rotunda. Wherever bedrock was exposed, there were indications of stone-quarrying in earlier periods. The quarrying operation lowered the surface level around the sepulcher, which thus stood well above its surroundings. An architectural survey of the outer wall of the rotunda - 35 m. in diameter and in some sections preserved to a height of 10 m. - shows that it maintains its original 4th century shape. The sepulcher itself is surrounded by a circle of twelve columns - groups of three columns between four pairs of square piers. It is possible that the columns for the 4th century rotunda were removed from their original location on the facade of the Roman temple. Renovation of the piers exposed evidence that the columns had originally been much higher and that the Crusaders cut them in half for use in the 12th century rotunda.The renovation of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher is still in progress, but after generations of neglect, the building has already regained most of its former beauty.

"The survey and excavations were conducted by V. Corbo, Ch. Coüasnon, M. Broshi and others, on behalf of the Christian communities which control most of the Holy Sepulcher: the Roman Catholic; the Greek Orthodox; and the Armenian Orthodox."




(2) Description of the Edicule.


The Edicule is the little house put over the tomb to protect it, before the basillica was built. Constantine is known to have put up the first one, and it has been described and documented in many ways. Biddle Traces this developement and finds:


The History of the Edicule

ad communications.org.


"From the time of Constantine to the present day historians have been blessed with the archaeological evidence discovered showing the Edicule in its original form. The following list is only a fraction of what has been retrieved and the approximate dates of their origination.

Appearances of the Edicule (325-1009 ad)

1) 440 a.d.: on ivory casket side carving.
2) a Narbonne marble model (5th century).
3) Casket lid (6-7th century).
4) Pewter flask (6-7th century).
5) Pewter Medallion.
6) Glass Flasks.
7) Pottery Pilgrim Flask (shows Edicule and Golgotha).
8) Gold ring with the 3D Edicule on top.
9) Mosiac in the Church of St. Stephen in Jordan.
10) Bronze Censer casts (1009 a.d.)

Appearances of the Edicule (11th Century -1555)

1) Paintings.
2) Drawings.
3) Crusader Coins/Seals.
4) Models.

Appearances of the Edicule (1555-1808 ad)

1) Stone scale models.
2) Wooden models of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre with Edicule model inside.
3) Engravings.
4) Pottery.



Martin Biddle


Tomb of Chist

Israel Review of Arts and Letters

Wesite belonging to:Israel Ministry Foreign Affairs

visited 1/8/05


Biddle:Constantines edicule, the first of the four "little houses" which have covered and protected the remains of the tomb since its discovery in 325-6, was destroyed in 1009 and no fragment of it has been seen since. How then do we know what it looked like? The best evidence is provided by a replica standing about a metre high, cut in a block of Pyrennean marble, found at Narbonne in south-west France, and dating from the fifth or sixth century CE. Being cut in local marble it cannot be a direct copy of the edicule in Jerusalem, but must be based on some intermediate copy, probably itself a model rather than a set of drawings. Its evidence is therefore second-hand, but there are sufficient other sources to show that it is likely to be in architectural terms a close representation of the Jerusalem original. The other fifth to seventh-century sources are pictures in mosaic, moulded pewter flasks and medallions, the painted lid of a box of relics (found in the Lateran in Rome), images on pottery and glass, and the written records of pilgrims. All these sources present their own problems of date and interpretation, but it is a remarkable range of evidence in different media, more evidence perhaps than for any other vanished building of late antiquity. But the picture is confused by the parallel existence of completely fanciful representations, some of the highest artistic quality, in the form of ivory panels carved in Alexandria and Italy. These show idealized edicules, bearing no relation to reality, but they have confused generations of scholars. Only the objects made in Palestine, mostly probably in Jerusalem, for the pilgrim trade, or copying such local products, like the Narbonne marble, tell us what the edicule built by Constantine was really like.

Constantines edicule survived for 600 years until it was deliberately destroyed in 1009 by order of the Fatimid Caliph of Egypt, al-Hakim, in an insane and short-lived attack on the holy sites of Christianity. Within three or four years al-Hakim had relented, urged on by his mother, Maria, a Christian whose brother Orestes had been Patriarch of Jerusalem. By 1012 rebuilding had begun, and by 1014, Maria had "began to rebuild with well-dressed squared stones the Temple of Christ destroyed by her sons order."

The destruction had been very thorough: Constantines great church of the Martyrion was cut down and never rebuilt, but al-Hakims agents admitted that they could not entirely root out the tomb, and they left parts of the rotunda surrounding the tomb standing to a height of about 11 metres, as one can still see today. By the millennium of Christs crucifixion in 1030 or thereabouts, when thousands of pilgrims were again travelling to the Holy Land, the edicule and the rotunda had been put back into sufficient order for pilgrims to take part in the Easter liturgies and to observe the ceremony of the Descent of the Holy Fire.

William of Tyre, the great Crusader historian, who wrote in the 1160s and 1170s, says that the restoration was completed by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine IX Monomachos in 1048. William is our only evidence for this, and his indications of date are inconsistent. No Byzantine chronicler believed this. John Skylitzes, writing in the mid-11th century, a strictly contemporary witness, noted that the Emperor Romanos III (1028-34) "strove eagerly to take the rebuilding in hand; but his death intervened and his successor completed the work." This was the Emperor Michael IV, the Paphlagonian, who reigned from 1036-41.



Biddle traces the full history in the article (see link).


The shapes and appearances have been correlated by the Biddle excavation using advanced thechnology wihch enable the archaeologist to see inside to the orignal layer. The Ediclues was repaced many times wiht scuceeding layers, until it became onionlike, hiding an original core of Constantine's Dome, which has now been penitrated by Biddle using the most advanced technology. There is virtually no doubt that the CHS is the site Constantine chose.


Secrets of the Dead (PBS)



In addition to the traditional methods used by archeologists to study buildings, including taking comprehensive and detailed photographs and studying ancient documents and drawings, archeologists Martin and Birthe Biddle and their colleagues employed a number of sophisticated scientific techniques to examine the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the edicule that purportedly houses the Tomb of Christ.

The primary technology used in their survey of the site was photogrammetry, which allows researchers to create two or three-dimensional images of a structure from any vantage point. The data from which the images are constructed comes from conventional or digital photographs. Not just any photographs, however; they have to include small, reflective "targets" stuck on walls or other surfaces with adhesive. The targets have cross-hairs, which allow their exact location to be measured with a surveying tool called a theodolite. From the location of the targets, an imaginary coordinate grid is constructed in and around the entire site -- within the edicule of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, for example. "When you take your photographs you have, preferably, four of these targets in each one," says Martin Biddle. The photographs are taken in "stereopairs," overlapping images that, when viewed in a certain way, form a three dimensional image of an object. "The stereopairs are set up in a photogrammetric plotter with the coordinate values you know from your survey. Thereafter, you can plot any point in the stereo image in terms of that coordinate grid. You know the x and y and z axes -- up and down and sideways," Biddle explains. "Once you have that data in, you can instruct the machine to print out a view looking up from underneath, or down from above -- whatever way you want."



http://www.bib-arch.org/barso99/roll2.html

B. Site's Physical and Social Fit in the Jerusalem Environment



(1)Site location is right in Relation to City Wall

One of the major means of identification is through the relation to the city wall. They know where the tomb was suppossed to be in relation to the wall and that gives a vector in which to begin searching. Than there are two other peices of crucial evidence, the description by Eusebius and artifacts which link the site with the tomb.

ad communications.org

The Tomb of Jesus, where is it?


"In 1963 Archaeologist Kathleen Kenyon while digging near the Church of the Holy Sepulcher proved that at the time of the Crucificion, the Church location was outside the walls of the Old City, during a dig a 49 ft. trench revealed a quarry which was in used between the 7th century b.c. and the first century. Additional support comes from the middle 1960's where repairs were given to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre (floor) as well as a nearby Lutheran Church where quarrying evidence and pottery was uncovered. In addition to these discoveries the 1976 excavation by Dr. Christos Katsambinis revealed a cone-shaped grey rock with an incline (35 ft. high) probably the famed Golgotha which had two small caves that from a distance looked like a large skull (E.B. Blaiklock and R.K. Harrison)."




(2) Site was a Cemetary with Garden


Martin Biddle

Tomb of Chist

Israel Review of Arts and Letters

Israel Ministry Foreign Affairs


"It is not as if it was the only tomb there. Some eight rock-cut tombs have so far been found below the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Some have kokhim (Heb.), the deep niches at right-angles to the wall into which a body could be inserted as into the drawers of a modern mortuary. At least one of these tombs (now below the Coptic Patriarchate) seems to be very like the tomb whose remains are still today covered by the edicule. Perhaps Eusebius identified the tomb now preserved within the edicule as the Tomb of Christ because it was near to Golgotha. This is suggested in St. Johns Gospel when it says that there was a "garden" at the place of Crucifixion, and that in that garden there was a tomb. But it may also have been because of the features of the tomb then discovered: a movable rolling stone, a low entrance through which it was necessary to bend down to look in or enter, and a bench on the right-hand side where Christs body could have lain and the "angel" could have sat, matched those described in the Gospel."




(3) Name Galgotha Stuck to the Site.



"Some points are crucial to note. First, the site was outside the city walls at the date of the Crucifixion in 30 or 33 CE. Second, the tomb was in an existing Jewish cemetery of rock-cut tombs typical of the Jerusalem area in the Second Temple period. Third, the place-name Golgotha seems to have lived on in local memory, despite the vast changes in the area brought about by Hadrians foundation of Aelia Capitolina in 132 CE. Before the end of the third century, Eusebius wrote in his Onomastikon, the "Place-Names of Palestine," that: "... Golgotha, place of a skull, where the Christ was crucified ... which is pointed out in Aelia to the north of Mt. Sion."

"It is only in recent years that study of Eusebius text has shown that the writing of his Onomastikon should be dated to the late third century, perhaps to the 290s, long before Constantines workers cleared the Rock of Golgotha and uncovered the tomb.

There was thus a landmark to guide Constantines workmen. They removed the Roman temple covering the site and the masses of earth and rubble forming the platform on which it stood, cleared the Rock of Golgotha and then, to their surprise, found a tomb which fitted the Gospel descriptions. The position is best put by the Israeli scholar Dan Bahat, former City Archaeologist of Jerusalem:

"We may not be absolutely certain that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church is the site of Jesus burial, but we certainly have no other site that can lay a claim nearly as weighty, and we really have no reason to reject the authenticity of the site."




II. Site Location Handed on by Oral Tradition.


No one really knows how Contantine chose the site. Biddle thinks it was by graffiti found on the walls. Most historians beileve that the Jewish-Christian community passed on an orgal tradition telling their Genitle counterparts how to find the location.



A. Location Handed Down From First Century Jewish Christians, To Gentile Christians, to Eusebius.


New Advent
Catholic Encyclopeida
Holy Seplechur

A.L. MCMAHON
Transcribed by Robert B. Olson

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


"But nearly all scholars maintain that the knowledge of the place was handed down by oral tradition, and that the correctness of this knowledge was proved by the investigations caused to be made in 326 by the Emperor Constantine, who then marked the site for future ages by erecting over the Tomb of Christ a basilica, in the place of which, according to an unbroken written tradition, now stands the church of the Holy Sepulchre."



The oral tradition makes the most sense because it would give the clearest marker. Of course it is true that Constantine could have just chosen the site at random, or for some other reason. But oral tradition is alluded to by Eusebius, and it is validated by modern archaeology. Before getting into that, let's explore the tradition itself.



B. Tradition linked to First Century.

Several issues that skeptics will raise include: 1)the tradition only began in the foruth century, 2) That Helena just chose the site arbitrarily, 3) that the site was moved in the middle ages, 4) that legonds and "traditions" are worthless. But all of these are false. The tradition can be linked to the first century..

New Advent
Catholic Encyclopeida
Holy Seplechur

A.L. MCMAHON

Transcribed by Robert B. Olson


1) Site remembered by Jewish Christian Community after departure from Jerusalem in 60.


"These scholars contend that the original members of the nascent Christian Church in Jerusalem visited the Holy Sepulchre soon, if not immediately, after the Resurrection of the Saviour. Following the custom of their people, those who were converts from Judaism venerated, and taught their children to venerate, the Tomb in which had lain the Foundation of their new faith, from which had risen the Source of their eternal hope; and which was therefore more sacred and of greater significance to them than had been the tombs of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and David, which they had hitherto venerated, as their forefathers had for centuries. Nor would Gentile converts have failed to unite with them in this practice, which was by no means foreign to their own former customs.



2) Christian Community Re-established in Second Century.

"The Christians who were in Jerusalem when Titus laid siege to the city in the year 70 fled, it is true, across the Jordan to Pella; but, as the city was not totally destroyed, and as there was no law prohibiting their return, it was possible for them to take up their abode there again in the year 73, about which time, according to Dr. Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, Oxford, 1903), they really did re-establish themselves. But, granting that the return was not fully made until 122, one of the latest dates proposed, there can be no doubt that in the restored community there were many who knew the location of the Tomb, and who led to it their children, who would point it out during the next fifty years. The Roman prohibition which kept Jews from Jerusalem for about two hundred years, after Hadrian had suppressed the revolt of the Jews under Barcochebas (132-35), may have included Jewish converts to Christianity; but it is possible that it did not. It certainly did not include Gentile converts."



3) Tradition past from Jewish Christian community in Jerusalem to Gentile Christians.


"The list of Bishops of Jerusalem given by Eusebius in the fourth century shows that there was a continuity of episcopal succession, and that in 135 a Jewish line was followed by a Gentile. The tradition of the local community was undoubtedly strengthened from the beginning by strangers who, having heard from the Apostles and their followers, or read in the Gospels, the story of Christ's Burial and Resurrection, visited Jerusalem and asked about the Tomb that He had rendered glorious."



C.Trial of Witnesses from Second Century to Contantine.


1)Pilgrims.

[Ibid]

"It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where "these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly announced and carried out". As he died in 180, his visit was made at a time when he could receive the tradition from the children of those who had returned from Pella. After this it is related that Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) went to Jerusalem "for the sake of prayer and the investigation of the places", and that Origen (d. 253) "visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples". By the beginning of the fourth century the custom of visiting Jerusalem for the sake of information and devotion had become so frequent that Eusebius wrote, that Christians "flocked together from all parts of the earth". It is at this period that history begins to present written records of the location of the Holy Sepulchre. The earliest authorities are the Greek Fathers, Eusebius (c.260-340), Socrates (b.379), Sozomen (375-450), the monk Alexander (sixth century), and the Latin Fathers, Rufinus (375-410), St. Jerome (346-420), Paulinus of Nola (353-431), and Sulpitius Severus" (363-420).



2) 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."


Of course, Corfeld says that these pagan monuments, intended to defile the site and make it unfit for veneration, only served to mark the location, so that Christains could remember where it was by marking the pagan monument.There are more serious considerations which I do not have time to address here. I suggest that the reader click on the link above and read the entire article. But the point here is that, unlike many skeptics try to claim, the situation is not that no one ever heard of the site before Contantine; he did not pull it out of think air. There is a traceable tradition going back to the fist century.


D. Site not questioned until 18th century.

[Ibid]
"It was not until the eighteenth century that the authenticity of this tomb was seriously doubted. The tradition in its favour was first formally rejected by Korte in his "Reise nach dem gelobten Lande" (Altona, 1741). In the nineteenth century he had many followers, some of whom were content with simply denying that it is the Holy Sepulchre, because it lies within the city walls, while others went further and proposed sites outside the walls. No one, however, has pointed out any other tomb that has a shred of tradition in its favour."

Have Tomb, Will Argue

Professor Biddle (The Tomb of Christ) proves the site of the current Church of the Holy Sepulcher (CHS) is the very sight selected by Constantine for his chapel because he believed it to be site of the tomb of Jesus, the one that turned up empty, and the near the cross of Golgotha. It's only a few yards from the site of the crucifixion (so some believe). In the past atheists have become very angry over this point and gone to great lengths of deception and hostility to avoid the obvious conclusions. Nevertheless, their obfuscations is not impressive, even though their persistence is tiresome. The real question is what made Constantine choose this site? The atheists would do anything to divert belief form the historical claims that the site site was always known to local Christians, they marked it, keep up with it, and told it to the incoming gentile Christians. Some atheists who used to harass this blog will do anything to have you believe otherwise. While they are basically right there is no final proof that is beyond question, there is very good reason to assume that the legend is true.

In their fomentation two in particular, "anonymous" ( aka, "Goliath"--"go lie" as I call him) and "loyal opposition" (LP) tried to convence the reader that only they understood the sources that the only the only sources that mattered were Eusebius and Constantine through Eusebius. Even Eusebius himself they ignored completely because he offered evidence that contradicted their view. They only accepted one quote of Constantine that came through Eusebius that they asserted ruled out any of the other stories and reports no matter who handed them on (see comment section this blog May 21, 2007). There is no hard evidence. They right about that. That does not mean there is reason to accept that site as valid. The likelihood is good. Atheists can't understand likelihood unless it's in their favor. There are sources that need to be considered. Scripture tells us that Jesus' body was laid in a new tomb lent by Josephus of Aremathia. There are a few scant details mentioned all the Gospels. (Matthew 27:60; Mark 15:46; Luke 23:53).John 19:17 no details of tomb but mentions Calvary. John 19:41 says the place of the tomb was near the place of the crucifixion.



New Advent, Holy Sepulcher

No further mention of the place of the Holy Sepulchre is found until the beginning of the fourth century. But nearly all scholars maintain that the knowledge of the place was handed down by oral tradition, and that the correctness of this knowledge was proved by the investigations caused to be made in 326 by the Emperor Constantine, who then marked the site for future ages by erecting over the Tomb of Christ a basilica, in the place of which, according to an unbroken written tradition, now stands the church of the Holy Sepulchre.

The Christians fled the city with the fall of the temple in 70. Some came back and re-established their community. There are Jewish Christians there at the time of the expulsion of Jews after the barkaba revolt in 135.

The Christians who were in Jerusalem when Titus laid siege to the city in the year 70 fled, it is true, across the Jordan to Pella; but, as the city was not totally destroyed, and as there was no law prohibiting their return, it was possible for them to take up their abode there again in the year 73, about which time, according to Dr. Sanday (Sacred Sites of the Gospels, Oxford, 1903), they really did re-establish themselves. But, granting that the return was not fully made until 122, one of the latest dates proposed, there can be no doubt that in the restored community there were many who knew the location of the Tomb, and who led to it their children, who would point it out during the next fifty years .(Ibid)

We don't have many real mentions of the site by many writers of the era. Those are named usually are quoting Eusebius. Some of those not connected to Eusebius are mentioned but their works are not on the internet and very hard to get. Such are the works of Melito of Sardis.

It is recorded that Melito of Sardis visited the place where "these things [of the Old Testament] were formerly announced and carried out". As he died in 180, his visit was made at a time when he could receive the tradition from the children of those who had returned from Pella. After this it is related that Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) went to Jerusalem "for the sake of prayer and the investigation of the places", and that Origen (d. 253) "visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples". By the beginning of the fourth century the custom of visiting Jerusalem for the sake of information and devotion had become so frequent that Eusebius wrote, that Christians "flocked together from all parts of the earth".(Ibid)

Alexander of Jerusalem (d. 251) made a trip to the holy lands to investigate the sacred places, and Origen (d. 253) "visited the places for the investigation of the footsteps of Jesus and of His disciples". "By the beginning of the fourth century the custom of visiting Jerusalem for the sake of information and devotion had become so frequent that Eusebius wrote, that Christians "flocked together from all parts of the earth" (Ibid, same New Advent article). Because I don't have a quote by Eusebius that wsay "I read Malito of Sardis and he talks about the tomb" those atheist asserted that he does not. Becasue I can't obtain the original easily this is was certain proof to them that it's a lie. There is of course, no reason to assume such a drastic bit of casuistry. The Scholarship speaks of it, this is documentation enough they provide a better documented source saying it's not true. Dcoumented debate is like dueling sources. You don't need best to support highly probable idea that is basically common knowledge. New Advent documents that "all scholars" (almost) agree with it. The great Biblical Archaeologist Corbo made clear in Archaeology of the Bible book by book (1976) that accepted the tradition as a valid and likely theory.

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. (Ibid)

There's a great book on the subject of early holy places in Christianity and especially concerned with the Holy Sepulcher: The Sepulcher of Christ and the Medieval West, by Colin Moris (Oxford U. Press). Moris Makes several arguments. Tombs were venerated and were important. The lack of mention of place names but the rapid grouping of many such names around Bethany and Bethphage and Gologthy in Mark indicated that the readers knew the places. Hegesippus tells us that they knew the tomb of James, even in his own day which a century latter. Would they continue to remember the tomb of James and play no attention and forget that of Christ! (G. Schille, ‘Das Leiden des Herrn: die evangelische Passionstraditionund ihr Sitz im Leben’, Zs. für Theologie und Kirche, 52 (1955), 161–162,
and E. Trocmé, The Passion as Liturgy: A Study in the Origin of the
Passion Narrative in the Four Gospels (London, )) (see also Morris,8).

He quotes certain early writers that who relate pretty clearly the tradition that the Temple of Venus was built on top of the site of Jesus' tomb. "Several writers comment that 'the place was hard to find, the persecutors of hold having placed a statue of Venus on it, so that, if any Christian should presume to worship Christ in that place he would seem to worship Venus. Thus the place had fallen into oblivion.'" this quotation he attributes to the Ecclesiastical History of Gelasius (Borgehammar, 54). He continues:

This suggests that there was still a tradition of where Golgotha was However difficult it was of access. The balance of probability is that the site of Golgotha like certain other Biblical sites remained known to the Palestinian Christians during the first three centuries.(14).

It is possible to get the book and investigate further. Just because we don't have Eusebius saying it doesn't mean there's no evidence for the tradition. Go-lie and OP were desperate to disprove anything they could and to divert attention of the the fact that historical probability indicates the tomb was venerated. One of the major arguments they made by quoting a long passage from Euebius that is suppossed to demonstae that Contantine did not have a prior traditon tht he followed for the site but just made it up, pretending it was "form the Lord:"

"He judged it incumbent on him to render the blessed locality of our Saviour's resurrection an object of attraction and veneration to all. He issued immediate injunctions, therefore, for the erection in that spot of a house of prayer: and this he did, not on the mere natural impulse of his own mind, but being moved in spirit by the Saviour himself.....but calling on the divine aid, gave orders that the place should be thoroughly purified, thinking that the parts which had been most polluted by the enemy ought to receive special tokens, through his means, of the greatness of the divine favor. As soon, then, as his commands were issued, these engines of deceit were cast down from their proud eminence to the very ground, and the dwelling-places of error, with the statues and the evil spirits which they represented, were overthrown and utterly destroyed.....Nor did the emperor's zeal stop here; but he gave further orders that the materials of what was thus destroyed, both stone and timber, should be removed and thrown as far from the spot as possible; and this command also was speedily executed. The emperor, however, was not satisfied with having proceeded thus far: once more, fired with holy ardor, he directed that the ground itself should be dug up to a considerable depth, and the soil which had been polluted by the foul impurities of demon worship transported to a far distant place".(III, XXV-XXVII)

I quoted that passage a number of times myself, but when he wanted to sweep aside my evidence also from Euesbius of a prior tradition he would say something to sound disgusted such as "Ok here it is again" then quote that very quote. The quote says NOT that there was no prior tradition, not that he chose the site because God showed him where it was but because but that his motivatin for doing finding it came from the Lord. Not the site itself, but the motive. see above highlighted. I had argued before my siting of the passage what Eusebius says that gives a context to Constantin's undertaking of the search:

The Franciscans (their websites) put this in as the context before the quote given above:

In 325, during the first ecumenical council of Nicea, the bishop of Jerusalem, Macarius, invited Emperor Constantine to destroy the pagan temples built atop the Christian holy sites in the Holy City. The Emperor, now Pontifex Maximus of the whole Roman Empire and strong in his position decreed the demolition of the pagan temples built atop the Christian Holy Site. This is how Eusebius describe s the event:

This is an indication that they knew the locations of these sites. Why ask for the pagan temples to be destroyed if they didn't know where the true sites were, or at least if they didn't have an idea where they thought they were.

Where does this leave us? It doesn't resolve the issue or prove that the CHS is the original site of Jesus resurrection. It does give us some interesting ammunition. The atheists at times are given to argue that if Jesus really existed and if he was really crucified and there was an empty tomb why didn't they mark. Don't let them argue this on the premise that we can't prove where the tomb is. We don't have to prove that. We can prove there was a tradition, that ancinet writers claim they marked the site. That's enough to negate their argument. When they say why didn't they mark it, well we have reason to believe they did.

Dialogue on Resurrection Historicity

I advanced the argument I have posted on this blog about eight levels of verification for Gospels. I show that the pre mark redaction puts the story of the empty tomb back to at least a period just 18 years after the original events, and we find it circulating in writing around 50 AD/CE. This, according to Helmutt Koester, Ancient Christian Gospels. The atheists on carm can't distinguish between setting up an argument for the resurrection and other dread "supernaturl" ideas, and the historical nature of the text itself. Since they know the argument for the truth of all Gospels claims starts with the argument for historicity of Jesus, they just start at the beginning to short circuit the whole thing by saying that supernatural claims cancel the historicity. Of cousre they pay no attention to my argument that this is merely ideological swirl and the fear of one arguing for supernatural can't possibly cancel out what can be proved in history. That is not the same as arguing that miracles are historical, that's only setting up the possibility of the argument. This distinction is lost on almost all the atheists on carm!

Of course I don't' think that just demonstrated the historical nature of the narrative automatically argues for miracles. Nor do I think that miracles can be part of history. I understand why historians since the enlightenment have ruled miracles out of hsitory as historical material. that is not the same thing as saying miracles don't happen. They may very well happen, they just can't be called historical facts. They can, however, be personal beliefs, another discrimination the third grade hacks on CARM can't fathom. Of cousre then I don't argue that miracles can be proved as historical facts. I aruge that we do have a ratioanl basis for asscepting miracles as tenets of faith, they are not ruled out by an known principle in history other than that of historiography, the writing of history itself. Belief in miracles can still be rationally warranted, of course it would be historically based evidence that warrants them.

at this point good old DP, (old friend from CARM going back years) comes in and bless his heart, he actually argues agaisnt the historicity of the Gospels based upon the text rather than the ideology of wanting to dump the bible. The little guy is probably unaware that I admire him for that. I'll I have to tell him.



Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

Meta, if the Gospel accounts prove anything, they only prove a resurrection claim - not that an actual resurrection took place.

Meta: that's true, but it's enough for rational warrant.

DP:

You've conceded elsewhere that religious experience doesn't validate any particular tradition so why you've appealed to it again in your OP to defend belief in a particular tradition, I don't know.

Meta:The mystical expedience proper doesn't validate any particular tradition but one can experience Jesus. Its' a subset of mystical experience proper. That's why my experience of the mystical was also my conversion to Christ.

In the sense of the numinous one experiences a personal loving nature not experienced in the undifferentiated unity. then even a subset of that that one can cannot with a particular tradition.

why be afraid of Christianity if you know it's not the Christianity of the fundies?



Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

Even if the Gospels are in some way historically reliable, let us take some key claims into consideration.

DP

1. People were claiming that Jesus was a prophet (Jeremiah, Isaiah, John the Baptist etc) come back from the dead even before he died. These ideas became so widespread that even Herod embraced the idea that Jesus was the resurrected John the Baptist.

Meta:So what? That was popular misconception. I think they did have some reincarnation belief sin Hebrew folklore.

DP

2. Jesus warned his disciples that there would be people pretending to be him after he had gone ... and not to trust them.

Meta

He didn't say they would pretend to be Jesus of Nazareth he said they would pretend to be messiah (Christ).

DP

3. The Pharisees approached Pilate (who had previously and publicly disassociated himself from the death of Jesus) for a guard to protect his dead body because a false resurrection claim would become believed on a widespread scale if it was made. Pilate found this sufficiently convincing (despite his previous disassociation) to provide a guard.

He did provide a guard. the phrase "you have a guard" means "here you go, take one." a guard meant several men not just one. Two independent sources document the guard on the tomb, not just Matt but also Gpete.


DP

4. The body of Jesus went missing on the one night that there was a large group of men at the tomb who later prove to be dishonest (they change their initial resurrection claim in exchange for money) and who made a large sum of money out of the disappearance of the body.

Meta:

How atheists love to twist things. they were the Roman guard assigned to guard the tomb. they tomb turned up empty they were going to be killed for failing so the Sanhedrin promised to help them if they denied the resurrection.


DP

5. In post resurrection appearances, Jesus often went initially unrecognised by his closest friends and one account (Mark's) makes it clear that he was in a different form during one appearance (see 2). Paul's appearance didn't even involve seeing a person!

Meta:

The epiphanies are form differing sources. they have different agendas it's hard to get a handle on what they were about. Just to assume that his a convent juncture to assert an unsupported atheist theory is us a childish ploy. It's not going to be backed by anything. no reason to accept it.

Meta:

Any suggestion that such objections would be laughed at by a judge is in itself laughable.

That's not even what I said. I said the kind person petty garbage that has put up so far would be laughed at. so you decide to get off your you know what and make some real arguemnts then try to insert them into the quote as though I was talking about the reason arguments one could make. that's so silly. don't you have any integrity?

I know you do I'm just kidding. but come on! stop playing with my rhetorical flourishes! ;-)



Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

So what? It means that "back from death" claims were not that uncommon and resemblance to the original was not an important factor in such claims being embraced. It was claimed (by some) that Jesus was John the baptist back from death. This couldn't have been a reincarnation claim because Jesus was an adult in his early thirties and John had only recently died. Presumably Jesus and John were not identical.

Meta:Jesus didn't claim to be John. Moreover, what if some form of reincarnation is true, not that I believe in it, but is that really worth opposing God over? why deny God's reality just for that?


DP

This is highly questionable ... even to the point of being obviously false.

Meta:

what is?I'm not sure what you are pointing to.


And ...



And ...


DP

In all versions, Jesus predicts that the Disciples will encounter fraudsters who will come and not simply claim to be the Messiah but will also come in his name. IOW, claiming to be his version of the Messiah. Jesus' warning only makes sense if the culture was one in which this type of thing was likely to happen.

Meta:

so you conclude that means he as phony too right? He's the only one that ever had the credentials.

DP

No twisting is taking place - only a consideration of broader context that is often overlooked.

which is?

[broader context! One that just happens to assume the text has to vial some hidden flaw that disproves the itself.]

DP

There are a number of issues that fly in the face of your rationalisation:

[calling rational warrant rationalization]

DP

1. In the Gospel of Peter (which you have appealed to to defend the idea that the guard was there) the guard go to Pilate, explain that the body is gone, that Jesus is risen and they are not punished with the death penalty but only told to keep quiet.

Meta:that doesn't fly in the face of anything. It's almost the same as the canonical gospels. Only difference is the pay and the promise to get hem off.

[I had used the Gospel of Peter to argue for independent verification of the guards on the tomb. He tries to turn Peter against the canonical but they are not in sharp enough contrast to do him any good.]


DP

2. They had to be bribed to change their account. Why would people need to be bribed to save their own lives? That they had to be bribed suggests something else.

Meta:

They were bribed to keep quite about the angles and stuff not "save themselves." they were bribed not to tell the people what happened. The tendency would be to tell their superiors what hapepned and if they were killed go get drunk and tell the world. the were bribed to keep the masses form hearing it.

DP

3. Their altered story was one in which they fell asleep on duty which was still punishable by death so they were hardly guaranteeing their safety!

Meta:

that's why the Sanhedrin promised to intercede for them. Otherwise their only excuse is to claim the miracle.

DP

4. Their new version of events was as watertight as a bucket with no bottom! If they were asleep when the body was taken then how could they claim to know that the disciples took it???

Meta:by surmising.

DP

Luke and Mark were written before Matthew and make no mention of a guard. I see only two possibilities:

Meta:

no only Mark was before Mat. It goes Mark, Mat, Luke, John. that's irrelevant you have to follow the textual criticism. It's easy to establish if you understand how they do it there's more to it than just saying which one was written first. it's about the copies not the original writing.

DP

1. They were unaware of the guard at the tomb in which case it is likely that this was added later.

Meta

that's why it's important that G Pete is independent and early!


DP

2. They were aware but intentionally omitted that detail.

Meta:

More likely; they probalby omitted becasue by the 70s the Jews had stopped talking about it and stopped saying the body was stolen so they didn't need to worry about pointing out the tomb was guarded.

There are aspects of matt that reflect an earlier redaction. Mat uses M source as well which is his independent material that no one else uses.


DP

Either way it doesn't look good. Why omit such an important detail?

no longer important for that community. Answer, because the body of Jesus went missing on the one night that there was a large group of men at the tomb who made a large sum of money out of it's disappearance and who never became Christians!

Meta
why do that? they weren't even expect to rise form the dead. It wasn't fulfilling anything they clearly understood.

[that sort of twisting of facts is really sinking low. why would it ever occur to them that they could get money from the Sanhedrin for keeping quite about a miracle? No one would assume that as a likely outcome. the more likely outcome they would assume is "we are for it, we are going to die." Sanhedrin probably figured, they guys will come clean and spread the story about to protect themselves, even thought it wont save them that's the human thing to do out of fear the only option they have in such a case, so we give them and out they keep quite and we get them off the hook. That's much more logical than assuming the guards say "let's make some money by offering to keep quite. Even if they did that doesn't imply that the body was stolen it would be even stupider to let them steal it on the ridiculously off chance that they could make money by offing to keep silent.]


Originally Posted by Darth Pringle

That's not the point. The only point of interest here is that other people claimed that he was. Ergo, it appears that it was not unusual for people to make false "back from death" claims ... especially given what we read of the mass resurrection claimed by many mentioned at the end of Matthew.

Meta:
I see a huge difference in reincarnation and resurrection. they weren't claiming he rose from they dead in saying he was Elisha. They probably said he was John because they weren't on the scene didn't know what John looked like. Communications were real bad back then. Probably half of them weren't even sure John was killed.