The taditional arguments for the existence of God, having supposedly been dashed by Kant and Hume, were ignored for almost two centuries. Since the 1960s, however, a whole new breed of intrepid philosophers (the "back to God movement") has been working steadily to revive the arguments. This revitalization of God talk presents a whole new dynamic with which the atheist must deal. Some of these arguments, and more besides, are presented in the following pages. Below I present my own view of God, which is greatly influenced by the work of Theologian Paul Tillich.It was theologian Karl Barth, who kicked off the back to God movment when realized that Anselm actually had several more versions of his famous argument, whith which Hume, Kant, and Russell never dealt.
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the
same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers
because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most
illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and
all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain.""Reid
pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we
correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may
receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that
are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in
the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind
of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially
plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further
evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of
it.""According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in
accepting that things are the way they appear, when
* it does appear to one that
they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone
wrong.[Ibid]
"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated."
Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible.""For Reid, our beliefs about
physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a
product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects.
Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and
have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's
predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs
about physical objects is a mental state such as:
* looking like something is
red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in
believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is
something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an
appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima
facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the
other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things
appear."
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Introduction to God Arguments
The taditional arguments for the existence of God, having supposedly been dashed by Kant and Hume, were ignored for almost two centuries. Since the 1960s, however, a whole new breed of intrepid philosophers (the "back to God movement") has been working steadily to revive the arguments. This revitalization of God talk presents a whole new dynamic with which the atheist must deal. Some of these arguments, and more besides, are presented in the following pages. Below I present my own view of God, which is greatly influenced by the work of Theologian Paul Tillich.It was theologian Karl Barth, who kicked off the back to God movment when realized that Anselm actually had several more versions of his famous argument, whith which Hume, Kant, and Russell never dealt.
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the
same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers
because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most
illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and
all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain.""Reid
pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we
correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may
receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that
are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in
the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind
of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially
plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further
evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of
it.""According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in
accepting that things are the way they appear, when
* it does appear to one that
they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone
wrong.[Ibid]
"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated."
Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible.""For Reid, our beliefs about
physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a
product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects.
Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and
have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's
predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs
about physical objects is a mental state such as:
* looking like something is
red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in
believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is
something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an
appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima
facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the
other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things
appear."
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
It Norman Malcom who first realized that Barth's work could revive the arguments, and he soon shocked the philosophical world in the 1960s.He took up Barth's observatoins on Anslem and presented them as serious philosphical arguments.That a philosopher of Malchom's status would revive the ontolgoical argument, lent prestige to the cause, and he was soon joined by the late Charles Hartshorne..They argue for a rational warrant for belief in a creator who is necessary to the existence of the universe and all that is. But to demonstrate which particular religious tradition we should follow is another argument (see page on Gospel). Nor do they offer absolute proof of a creator, but they do offer rational warrant for belief which is strong enough to offer a prmia facie Justification.
Moreover, one concept in particular is important to understand in order to understand these arguments. That is the idea that God is not just a big man on a throne. The great theologians of Christian faith, the Orthodox Church, and theologians such as Paul Tillich, John Mcquarry, believe, as Timothy Ware (The Orthodox Church , New York: Pelican, 1963) quoting St. John of Damascus says, "God does not belong to the class of 'existing' things; not that he has no existence but that he is above existing things, even abvoe existence itself..." McQuarry says that God is Being itself, while Tillich says God is "The ground of being." These are actually the same concepts. The important thing to remember is that God is not along side other beings in creation, is not a being at all, but is on the order of being itself.
God is the overarching principle that defines and predicates the universe and in fact of being as a whole. If you consider what it was like before God created anything. There would be nothing else but God. God, therefore, would be the same as being because all being would be defined as God. The only being that ever came to be flowed out of the will and the energies of God, therefore, God is beyond the chain of cause and effect, God is on a par with being itself.Foolish demandsMany skeptics, including Christian Sketpics, are skeptical about the very possibility of proving the existence of God. In fact, Paul Tillich thought that it was degrading to the notion of God to try and prove his existence at all.
Others think that only empirical knolwedge can be trusted. While I always ask them, can even empirical knowledge be trusted? I also feel that the real crux of the issue is not "absolute proof," but the nature of the assumptions that should bemade. If these arguments do not offer the sort of proof to which any rational thinking person must give asscent, they at least offer a rational warrant for belief, and they indicate that the assumptions we should be making are those that we can make in the most logical fashion. Belief meets the prima facie burden when it offers a rational warrant, it than becomes the skeptic's job to show that the burden has not been met. It is hoped that these arguments will provide the reader with information that will provoke thought about God, if not actual belief.
Foolish Demands
It is foolish of atheists to make the demand that we "prove the existence of God." First, because the idea of God existing is a philosophical violation of what the Christian faith actually affirms about God, at least what major theologians such as Tillich affirmed, and about the nature of reality itself.
Secondly, God transcends the contignet level, we should not expect to be able to prove God as though God is some sort of 'thing' along side other things in creation.My View of God What is my view of God? I beleive that God is ultimate reality, and the ultiamte mystery. I agree with the Greek Orthodox theologians who said that God cannot be described directly, but must be spoken apophatically (we can't say what God is, we can only say what God is not). We can have direct experience of God, but this must come through mystical experince and cannot be put into words (Timothy Ware, The Orthodox Chruch. To speak of these expeirnces one must speak through analogy, which contians both a like and not-like dimesion. God is like a father, but in some ways not like a father. God is like a king, but in some ways not like a King. On the other hand, logical argument is made possible by a direct understanding of the affects of God upon the world, which come to us through the energies of God, which are working in the world. The energies of God are God, they are emmenations, or extentions of God's power, God's thoughts so to speak.So for me God is a mystery which transcends the threashold of human understanding.
All we can have is a hint, but through experience and logic we can have some pretty good hints. Yet, God himself blows away all our pre-concieved notions and our nice little formulas about what can be and what is. To that extent then, God is above and beyond any sort of empirical proof and this is why we can't expect some sort of incontrovertable proof. The best we do is to offer rational reasons to beleive, but we cannot expect these to do that much. Basically all they can do is to open the skeptic to the possibilities, that is all we can ask. They might also bolster the faith of the beleiver, but both things are wastes of time if they are not followed up with prayer and contempalation and seeking through the heart for the trace of God in the universe.
The Prima Facie Standard
Mattey (Thomas Reid Project):
"Far from concluding that our senses are "fallacious," Reid placed them on the
same footing as memory and reason, though they are "undervalued" by philosophers
because "the informations of sense are common to the philosopher and to the most
illiterate. . . . Nature likewise forces our belief in those informations, and
all the attempts of philosophy to weaken it are fruitless and in vain.""Reid
pointed out that when we fall into error regarding the objects of sense, we
correct our errors "by more accurate attention to the informations we may
receive by our senses themselves." So the "original and natural judgments" that
are made on the basis of our constitution lose their original justification in
the presence of additional information. Contemporary philosophers call this kind
of justification "prima facie," a term from law which describes an initially
plausible case that could prove to be entirely implausible given further
evidence. A belief of common sense, then, is justified "on the face of
it.""According to the doctrine of prima facie justification, one is justified in
accepting that things are the way they appear, when
* it does appear to one that
they are that way, and
* there is no reason to think that something has gone
wrong.[Ibid]
"But if there is such a reason, one's justification is "defeated."
Thus prima facie justification is "defeasible.""For Reid, our beliefs about
physical objects are justified by sense-experience, which he took to be a
product of the interaction between the senses and physical objects.
Twentieth-century philosophers have been somewhat more cautious, however, and
have followed more closely the account of perceptual knowledge given by Reid's
predecessors such as Descartes, Locke and Hume: that what justifies our beliefs
about physical objects is a mental state such as:
* looking like something is
red
* a sensation of red
* seeing red-ly"
"For example, what justifies a person in
believing that he sees something red is that it looks to him as though there is
something red. The mental state of that person is one in which there is an
appearance of red, and just being in this mental state is enough to give prima
facie justification to the belief that he really sees something red. On the
other hand, what confers justification might be a belief about how things
appear."
Why not argue for the Christian God?
Certainly I believe in the God of the Christian tradition. But I also believe that God is an a priori concept. In other words, God is ultimate reality, known treuly though mystical concsciousness. Religion is a cultural construct created by the necessity of filtering mystical experinces though shared symbols that we understand. This is the only way to speak of a reality that is beyond words. Thus, it is the same "ultiate relaity" that inspired all religions. The only difference is, that one tradition is an outgrowth of the teachings of Jesus Christ, who was this ultiamte reality come in the flesh to communicate directly about his nature. But to prove that, or to argue for that tradition one must assume the existence of God. Thus I first prove God, than I show which tradition best mediates the ultimate transformative expreince. That is what the rest of the Website is for.Two more crucial concepts must be discussed before the arguments can be understood correctly. Note: If you do not read these next ttwo pages you will miss crucial concepts which will enable you to understand the arguments, and you will not understand the assumptions they make.:
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Atheist Truth Regeime
My brother and I got together with an atheist friend form the CARM board. We found out that this guy lives in Dallas, so we started talking on the phone, then got together at a restaurant to discuss the existence of God. It was daunting because not being on a message board meant I had to listen to him steak. No, I'm Kidding. It was great because we got a lot further into the discussion than we would have had it been on a board.
The thing is this guy still did the same atheist trick I describe in the post bellow; trying to barrow the area of science as truth finding technique and pretend that it rubs off on atheism via the atheist admiration or science. Everything I would say would be met by "that's not meaningful because you have to assume God to begin with." But of cooers I am assuming God, as the foundation of my belief system, in the expression of any belief that I want to disclose. I can't begin with the cogit and work my way out to God there in causal conversation. I might just as well issue a 1000 page book "how to converse with Metacrock," it could begin with the material in the Russell's Whistehaead's Pinckipa, (which establishes the basis in logic for doing the math problem 1 + 1--said to be the most complex book ever written) and then Wittenstine's Tractatus, which establishes the basis of logic in language, and finally wind up with Descartre's Discourse on the Method which demonstrates how to go from "I think, therefore, I am to the proving the rest of the world. There just might be some who would find it a daunting task to read all these things just to hold a converstaion with me.
In fact the atheist is still doing what I accuse him of doing; setting up a truth regime based upon the presentness ha this world is established because he hitchhikes off the credibility of science. The he accuses me of arguing from incredulity by saying things "that can't be verified." Of course when pressed to verify his own position he resets to his own from of incredulity; dyeing that he has any need to verify the reality of the world or other minds or the meaning of life on the basis that it's not a meaningful question to question these because no one else does. Of course the fact that the majority, the vast majority of world pop accept God as a valid starting point for knowledge isn't enough in his mind to justify assumptions about the divine, but it's far more established because of the larger community that takes these questions seriously.
He would not admit that finding may own experiences significant was enough of a reason to doubt them so, but did admit that a community of believers can't be dismissed merely on the basis of their belief, because they do create a context in which belief is taken seriously. Well, so? Isn't this the same principles? There's nothing to privilege a position on if everything has to have a community of speakers to make meaningful satinets to, then why is my community any worse off than his?
He couldn't answer that that's the way we left it.
The thing is this guy still did the same atheist trick I describe in the post bellow; trying to barrow the area of science as truth finding technique and pretend that it rubs off on atheism via the atheist admiration or science. Everything I would say would be met by "that's not meaningful because you have to assume God to begin with." But of cooers I am assuming God, as the foundation of my belief system, in the expression of any belief that I want to disclose. I can't begin with the cogit and work my way out to God there in causal conversation. I might just as well issue a 1000 page book "how to converse with Metacrock," it could begin with the material in the Russell's Whistehaead's Pinckipa, (which establishes the basis in logic for doing the math problem 1 + 1--said to be the most complex book ever written) and then Wittenstine's Tractatus, which establishes the basis of logic in language, and finally wind up with Descartre's Discourse on the Method which demonstrates how to go from "I think, therefore, I am to the proving the rest of the world. There just might be some who would find it a daunting task to read all these things just to hold a converstaion with me.
In fact the atheist is still doing what I accuse him of doing; setting up a truth regime based upon the presentness ha this world is established because he hitchhikes off the credibility of science. The he accuses me of arguing from incredulity by saying things "that can't be verified." Of course when pressed to verify his own position he resets to his own from of incredulity; dyeing that he has any need to verify the reality of the world or other minds or the meaning of life on the basis that it's not a meaningful question to question these because no one else does. Of course the fact that the majority, the vast majority of world pop accept God as a valid starting point for knowledge isn't enough in his mind to justify assumptions about the divine, but it's far more established because of the larger community that takes these questions seriously.
He would not admit that finding may own experiences significant was enough of a reason to doubt them so, but did admit that a community of believers can't be dismissed merely on the basis of their belief, because they do create a context in which belief is taken seriously. Well, so? Isn't this the same principles? There's nothing to privilege a position on if everything has to have a community of speakers to make meaningful satinets to, then why is my community any worse off than his?
He couldn't answer that that's the way we left it.
Wednesday, June 06, 2007
Poor raguments
That anynomous guy is still sending in comments trying to prove that I"m so stupid I dont' know anything and I never went to school. I never owned a book and I don't know how to read. He is clealry in the dark about the nature of dyslexia i suggest he do some basic research.
I already amitted I was wrong. I got lazy and trusted a secondary source, which led me astray. That is an unscholarly thing to do. I guess all this time out of class has dulled my schoarly habits. But what else does he want me to say? Why is he still harping on the "Metacrock is wrong" Hpothesis?
His argument that the Christians were just a small unknown cult in 135 AD (Bar Kaba rebellion) doesn't wash. They were not an unnkown cult at that time. They probably almost outnumbered Jews at that time. The real point is they were Jews. Jewish Christiaans so the Romans would have percieved them as sect of Judausm. That's what they would cover the tomb site and all venerted Chrsitian sites.
That they did cover sites with Roman things and changed the name of the city and destroyed the temple and put Roman icons on the site of the temple is beyond dispute.
That guy needs a new hobby. Hating Metacrock is not nearly as healthy as coin collecting
I already amitted I was wrong. I got lazy and trusted a secondary source, which led me astray. That is an unscholarly thing to do. I guess all this time out of class has dulled my schoarly habits. But what else does he want me to say? Why is he still harping on the "Metacrock is wrong" Hpothesis?
His argument that the Christians were just a small unknown cult in 135 AD (Bar Kaba rebellion) doesn't wash. They were not an unnkown cult at that time. They probably almost outnumbered Jews at that time. The real point is they were Jews. Jewish Christiaans so the Romans would have percieved them as sect of Judausm. That's what they would cover the tomb site and all venerted Chrsitian sites.
That they did cover sites with Roman things and changed the name of the city and destroyed the temple and put Roman icons on the site of the temple is beyond dispute.
That guy needs a new hobby. Hating Metacrock is not nearly as healthy as coin collecting
Extraordinary Proof
Extraordinary Claims require Extraordinary proof: Or do they?
Examining the dictim, often used as a hedge against any sort of justification argument for belief, the phrase is half baked at best. The following four precepts form the basis for my argument:
(1) "extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder
(2) One would epxect the extraordinary to be a break with norms, such that we cannot think of the usual run of the mill daily concerns as extraordinary claims.
(3) One would think that any concept which holds presumption would pass teh test as an ordinary claim
(4) any view has presumpumption when it prestends a premia facie case.
Taking these four precepts, we can make two arguments such that the atheist hedge of the extraordinary claim is a half baked peice of "spin doctoring" rather than a sound philosphical prnicipel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (1): Religious belief is Normative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef is the norm for humanity:not only is this so but it is also the upshot of our body chemestry.
The vast majority of humans who ever lived have been religious. This is not only so today, when 90% of the world pop is religiouis, but it has always been the case as far back as we can recognize our distant cousins's ancestors (Neanderthal) as being human; human-like people have always been predominately religious.
Moreover, it is part of our make up to be religious:
(a) the "God pod" means that the concept of God is wried into our brains.
(b) psychological archetypes show up the world over on all psychoanalytical tests, indicating that the same symbolism world over is universal to humanity--including religious symbols.
(c) mental and physical health is much bettr for religious participants.
What all this means is that it is normative for humans to be religious. Thus it cannot be an extraordinary claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (2) Presumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef meets PF case
Empirical studies of RE estabish a PM case since they show us that the same affects are foud in all religioins the world over. This means that, while particular religiosu traditions are cultural constructs, the basic core idea of religion itself is part and pacell of human experine, is the norm and normative for human beings, and seems to indicate a co-dermeinate of God belif.
That frees the believer from any need to prove, because belief is prima facie. It is the job of the skeptic to now show that the evidence is inadequate and that the case has not been established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:That means it is the atheist who must get past the extraordinary claim problem. With 90% of huamnity beileving in some form of God it is an extraordinary calim to suggest that there is nothing beyond human experince that we might label "divine."
Examining the dictim, often used as a hedge against any sort of justification argument for belief, the phrase is half baked at best. The following four precepts form the basis for my argument:
(1) "extraordinary" is in the eye of the beholder
(2) One would epxect the extraordinary to be a break with norms, such that we cannot think of the usual run of the mill daily concerns as extraordinary claims.
(3) One would think that any concept which holds presumption would pass teh test as an ordinary claim
(4) any view has presumpumption when it prestends a premia facie case.
Taking these four precepts, we can make two arguments such that the atheist hedge of the extraordinary claim is a half baked peice of "spin doctoring" rather than a sound philosphical prnicipel.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (1): Religious belief is Normative.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef is the norm for humanity:not only is this so but it is also the upshot of our body chemestry.
The vast majority of humans who ever lived have been religious. This is not only so today, when 90% of the world pop is religiouis, but it has always been the case as far back as we can recognize our distant cousins's ancestors (Neanderthal) as being human; human-like people have always been predominately religious.
Moreover, it is part of our make up to be religious:
(a) the "God pod" means that the concept of God is wried into our brains.
(b) psychological archetypes show up the world over on all psychoanalytical tests, indicating that the same symbolism world over is universal to humanity--including religious symbols.
(c) mental and physical health is much bettr for religious participants.
What all this means is that it is normative for humans to be religious. Thus it cannot be an extraordinary claim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Argument (2) Presumption
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religious beilef meets PF case
Empirical studies of RE estabish a PM case since they show us that the same affects are foud in all religioins the world over. This means that, while particular religiosu traditions are cultural constructs, the basic core idea of religion itself is part and pacell of human experine, is the norm and normative for human beings, and seems to indicate a co-dermeinate of God belif.
That frees the believer from any need to prove, because belief is prima facie. It is the job of the skeptic to now show that the evidence is inadequate and that the case has not been established.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary:That means it is the atheist who must get past the extraordinary claim problem. With 90% of huamnity beileving in some form of God it is an extraordinary calim to suggest that there is nothing beyond human experince that we might label "divine."
Sunday, May 27, 2007
Let's look at who doesn't read the material
"Loyal Opposition" keeps saying that I miss the fact that the stament about Helena is ousdie the quotes. What he doesn't seem to get is I put the quotes there. The New Advent article didn't have quotes around either one. I didn't get the quote from Eusebius from New Advant. I got the quote saing Helena was sent to find the locatin fo the sties from New Advant. LO assumes it must have been Eusbius, as though he's the only one who ever wrote about it. But two paragraphs down it says this:
"Paulinus is quoted as saying that 'Helena was guided by Divine counsel, as the result of her investigations show'."
I pkut all of those quotation marks there too.
So he didn't read the material. It's not even Eusebius who said it. So his little lecture about what a lousy scholar I am is wasted because he's not even dealing with the right soruces and he clearly did't read the entire New Advent Article.
I admit I should not have trusted secondary soruces. But think at the time I put up the page I knew that Polinus made the quote. But it's been five years since I wrote that and did the original reserach. it took a bit to remember what I'm dealing with.
Lot of water under the bridge.
I do owe a retraction, however, because I did exercise poor scholarly judgemnt. I put that quotation under a label that said "Eusebius" giving the impression that Eusebius said it. In reality, New Advent did confusse me they way they laid it out. In the middle of a long paragrpah talkinga bout how Helnea found the site they say
So the quote Eusebius as though he sait it. Actually htey were quoting him because he said "beyond the hopes of all, the mkost holy monument of our Lord's Resurrection shone forth." But it makes it appear that he said the whole thing. In reality it was another writer who documents Helena's find and I have no idea how he knew that.
So so who reads all the material? apparently none of us do.
BTW the title "have tomb will argue, but not very well" was an admition that I had goofed. So LO's chiding is uncalled for. But I say it openly. I blew it. I wasn't careful enough on this one.
I will change the pages on Doxa accordingly.
"Paulinus is quoted as saying that 'Helena was guided by Divine counsel, as the result of her investigations show'."
I pkut all of those quotation marks there too.
So he didn't read the material. It's not even Eusebius who said it. So his little lecture about what a lousy scholar I am is wasted because he's not even dealing with the right soruces and he clearly did't read the entire New Advent Article.
I admit I should not have trusted secondary soruces. But think at the time I put up the page I knew that Polinus made the quote. But it's been five years since I wrote that and did the original reserach. it took a bit to remember what I'm dealing with.
Lot of water under the bridge.
I do owe a retraction, however, because I did exercise poor scholarly judgemnt. I put that quotation under a label that said "Eusebius" giving the impression that Eusebius said it. In reality, New Advent did confusse me they way they laid it out. In the middle of a long paragrpah talkinga bout how Helnea found the site they say
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).
So the quote Eusebius as though he sait it. Actually htey were quoting him because he said "beyond the hopes of all, the mkost holy monument of our Lord's Resurrection shone forth." But it makes it appear that he said the whole thing. In reality it was another writer who documents Helena's find and I have no idea how he knew that.
So so who reads all the material? apparently none of us do.
BTW the title "have tomb will argue, but not very well" was an admition that I had goofed. So LO's chiding is uncalled for. But I say it openly. I blew it. I wasn't careful enough on this one.
I will change the pages on Doxa accordingly.
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.
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.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Have Tomb, Will Argue, part 3: Dare We Trust Eusebius The "Liar?"
Most of the early evidence for the CHS site comes fro Eusebius. For this reason,I'm sure we can expect this statment, "Dare we trust Eusebius the 'liar'" as the first and major argument of sketpics. Skeptics on the internet, those who fequent organized atheist sites such as Secular Web, have a special hate for Eusebius. This is probably because he's such a lynch pin of early chruch history, but their arguments are based upon a total pack of lies which have been refuted easily by Roger Preice. Be that as it may, I urge the reader to read that page. But let's go on with Eusebius' track record on the CHS and the tomb site, we will see that he was an honest and fine historian.
C. Confirmations of Eusebius
(1) Eusebius knew the contemporary site.
Of course the major recourse of the skeptic will be to just assume that Eusebius made it all up.But what did he make up exactly? Well, the major evidence for the oral tradition of the tomb location comes from a Pilgrim named Melito of Sardis. We do have writtings by him, but we do not have those writtings where he speaks of the Jerusalem elder's revealing to him the traditional locale of the site. If those writtings exist today, I cannot find them. But that doesn't mean Eusebius made them up out of whole cloth. I'm sure teh sketpics will say it does, but why would he?
Why use a writter whose writtings exited in his own day, and then just fabricate that he wrote soemthing? He had no idea that we in this age would not have those writtings. He had no way of knowing that the information couldn't be checked out. Why not just say the Jerusalem elders told him the tradition orally, instead of attributing it to a writter who might otherwise be verified?
Moreover, the descriptions he gives of the stie in his day reflect the kind of work that we know would have been in progress at the time.
Franciscan Cybrespot
The Churches of Jerusale
by Asher Ovadiah
viisted 5/21/2007
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was investigated for the first time by trial soundings during 1933/34 and has been re-examined from 1960 onwards by various scholars. It is a huge and sophisticated architectural complex consisting of four units: an outer atrium, a basilica (or Martyrium) an inner atrium and a rotunda (around the Anastasis), a circular domed structure separated from the basilica by an second, inner atrium. This latter structure solved the problem of linking the Martyrium (the basilica) to the church complex. (13)
The basilica (martyrium) and the domed structure above the tomb constituted two separate architectural features with the second, inner atrium between them as the connecting feature. On the Madaba Map the entire complex is shown: a propylaeum begins west of the colonnaded street (the cardo maximus), and behind it there is a basilica with three entrances and a domed structure (the Anastasis). (14)
Eusebius' brief description of the rotunda contrasts with his long and detailed description of the basilica (Martyrium), which at that time was already completed. Eusebius' fragmentary description of the rotunda appears to be due to the fact that during his visit to Jerusalem the rotunda was still under construction and surrounded by scaffolding. (15)
I understand that the author is actaully saying that Eusebius account contradicts the nature of the site. But read carefully, he actaully says that due to construction the nature of the site would have appeared this way to Ebusebius at the time. Had he just made it all up, and gotten a general description of the lay out from someone else, chances are he would not have been consistant with the construction going on but would have reflected the pre-construction condition.
Thus, in the time of Constantine the basilica was built and construction of the Anastasis (rotunda) was begun, but this was not completed until the end of the fourth century. It is possible that this is why Eusebius does not mention the structure of the Anastasis. On the other hand, Aetheria-Egeria, who visited the site at the end of the century (395), does give a description, which obliges us to conclude that a structure already stood there. (16) It is plausible to consider that if a straight wall around the aedicula, according to Couasnon's isometric plan, (17) did exist on its south, west and north sides, at sometime during the building of the rotunda, it was almost certainly meant to isolate the ongoing construction of the rotunda and the peripheral wall, to prevent pilgrims or visitors from being injured. This may be another reason for Eusebius' brief description of the rotunda. It would seem that Modestus' building projects after the Persian conquest were limited to repairs and restoration only, and did not include the construction of new buildings. Thus the structure which Arculfus saw in 670 was actually the fourth-century structure, which still stands today in large part.
We may conclude, therefore, that the rotunda with its two rings, the inner ring of columns, the dome, (18) and the outer ring (which is three quarters of a circle) with the three semi-circular niches, belong to the period of Constantinian construction. These conclusions are based on scholarly opinions, the schematic description of the church complex on the Madaba Mosaic Map, (19) and the absence of references in literary sources to changes and/or repairs and restorations of the rotunda between the reigns of Constantine and of Justinian, as well as recent archaeological discoveries. This form was adopted by the Patriarch Modestus in the third and fourth decades of the seventh century, when he restored and repaired the complex after the damage wrought by the Persians. Perhaps the twelve columns, mentioned by Eusebius as symbolizing the twelve Apostles, are those which form the inner ring of the rotunda and supported the hemisphere or the dome. (20
What this all means is that Eusebius either went to the site personally, or he consulted someone who did, and took such amazing notes that he could describe the site so well that it truely reflects the kind of work that would have been done on the site at the time. Chances are, he was an eye witness to the site, and to the discovery of the tomb. That also means he had ample opportunity to research the claims of the oral tradition first hand.
Another example of Eusebius' first hand knowledge of the site is the fill dirt over the tomb and the vestage of the pagan temple; including the fac that it was a temple of Venus.
franciscan cybrespot, the basillica
Christian literary sources recount how the Garden of Golgotha was filled up to level off the area for the construction of the new Roman temple. Here is how Eusebius of Caesarea (265-340 AD), a native of Palestine, describes these events in his Life of Constantine:
"This sacred cave, then, certain impious and godless persons had thought to remove entirely from the eyes of men, supposing in their folly that thus they should be able to effectively obscure the truth. Accordingly, they brought a quantity of dirt from a distance with much labor, and covered the entire spot; then, having raised this to a moderate height, they paved it with stone, concealing the holy cave beneath this massive mound. Then, as though their purpose had been effectively accomplished, they prepared on this foundation a truly dreadful sepulchre of souls, by building a gloomy shrine of lifeless idols to the impure spirit whom they call Venus, and offering detestable oblations therein on profane and accursed altars. For they supposed that their object could not otherwise be fully attained, than by thus burying the sacred cave beneath these foul pollutions." (III, XXVI - see also the account by Eusebius about the Holy Sepulchre)
compare with modern archaeology:
J.Randall Price
Th.M. DTS, Ph.D. Middle Eastern Studies Univ. Texas.
"Excavations conducted in the late 1970's at the site revealed further evidence for this being the place where the original Easter drama was performed. In the lower sections of the Church were discovered the foundations of the Roman emperor Hadrian's "Forum," in which his Temple of Aphrodite had been erected around A.D.135. Hadrian followed Roman custom in building pagan temples and shrines to supercede earlier religious structures. This was done at the site of the Jewish Temple, located not far from the Holy Sepulchre Church, and the fourth century church historian and Bishop of Caesarea Eseubius confirms that it was also done in this case: "Hadrian built a huge rectangular platform over this quarry, concealing the holy cave beneath this massive mound." If the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the actual site venerated by Christians as the tomb of Jesus, it would explain this location for the Roman building."
This shows that Eusebius was right about the fill dirt, the nature of the pagan temple, as well as the platform and other matters.
(2)The Nature of the Claims
(a) The description of the sites and its' place in the community.
Martin Biddle
Tomb of Chist
Israel Review of Arts and Letters
Wesite belonging to:Israel Ministry Foreign Affairs
visited 1/8/05
Biddle:"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."
"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.
What we can say is this: if the events of Jesus arrest, trial and execution in Jerusalem are to be taken as historical fact, then there is no other site which has any significant claim to be the place of his execution and burial.
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."
In other words, the site of he CHS fits the site descriptions we have in relation to Eusebius site and it fits what we would expect of the tomb location, including the name Galgotha which has been associated with that place for a very long time. But this is not the best evidence. New evidence has come to light throuh Dr. Biddle
(b) New Evidence that Oral Tradition was Indepdent of Euebius
Ibid
"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."
What happened to the tomb thus discovered? Constantines engineers dug away the living rock leaving the block in which the tomb was cut standing as an isolated monolith in the middle of a broad flat area. They cut away the partly covered forecourt in front of the tomb a feature typical of Jewish tombs of the Second Temple period in the Jerusalem area and surrounded the rock with marble columns to form a small rotunda covered by a facetted conical roof, and in front of it, in the place of the forecourt, erected a pedimented portico.
In other words, Eusebius could not have made up the site and then fit the evidence to the facts, because it was already called "Galgotha" and thus thought to be the place, before any work was done and before Contantine's men even went to the Holy Land. This means that Eusebius was working from a prior tradition. We may now have no reason to doubt his word about the sources from which he derives the oral tradition, or that the Christians of Jerusalem always knew the location of the tomb by the temple of Venus above it.
(c) Eusebius had Multiple Sources
There was certainly no need for Eusebius to make up the information that M of S had provided the oral tradition about the site from pilgrims and Jews (and Jewish Christians) when he also had the Mayer of Jerusalem and others to guide him into the tradition. All he had to do was to say that his sources were not written and they would not need to be confirmed (nor could they disproven to exist).
The mayor of Jerusalem had to have access to this tradition, otherwise, would have dared to ask Constatine to clear the city of pagan cites which were over sacred Christian sites? Doesn't it just stand to reason that if he asked the emperor to do this, he would have a way of providing him with information to the cites? If it was just a matter of making things up, why go thorugh the pretense of asking? Clearly there are multiple sources here with each its own roote into that oral tradition of saved sacred sites.
Franciscan Cybrespot
Unearthing the Garden of Galgatha
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:
"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)
The claims of Eusebius are verified by modern archaeology.
That proves he didn't make it up. It can't be proven that there was a resurrection, it can't be proven that there was a tomb, not absolutely, but he odds are strong since the facts stack up with the claims made, and the oral tradition is coming from a veriety of sources (see pervious page).
D. CHS fits the consensus on Holy Sites
Archaeology, New Testament, and Early Christianity
Alviero Niccacci, O.F.M
.
Tomado de la página del "Estudio BÃblico Franciscano"
"In the fourth century emperor Constantine dismantled the Capitolium and erected a splendid mausoleum on the tomb of Jesus, or Anastasis (resurrection), a basilica called Martyrium (testimony), while the rock of the Calvary remained on open air, having a cross on its top. Around the Calvary Christian legends flourished, especially two of them called “The cave of the treasures” and “The combat of Adam and Eve”. These legends have a strong Jewish background. Theologically they aim to link the first Adam to the second, sin to redemption for all humanity. This first group of holy places is authentic beyond reasonable doubt because we witness a large convergence of data - biblical, archaeological and literary both of ancient authors (such as apocrypha) and of pilgrims during the centuries (different itineraries to the Holy Land)."
Bib Arch. Review
Amos Kloner
Did a Rolling STone Close Jesus' Tomb?
"Scholars generally agree that the site of the Holy Sepulchre Church marks the location of Jesus' burial.*** But the aedicule (shrine) inside the church, which marks the traditional burial site, bears no signs of a first-century burial. The burial shelf in the aedicule is covered with a later slab, which does not appear to be part of the local bedrock and was probably imported into the cave.(15) Until recently, only the bench on the right side of the aedicule was thought to have been original. (The aedicule itself dates to the beginnning of the 19th century.) Recent studies at the site, however, have not shed light on the relationship between the rock, the foundations and the aedicule as they exist today and the original burial cave.(16) The only indication that the spot where the aedicule now stands might once have been a tomb is the presence of a burial cave with loculi a few yards away.(17)
It is worth noting that the profanation of the site by Emperor Hadrian targeted an existing place of worship of the Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem both at the tomb and on Calvary. This early worship lies at the roots of the apocryphal writings of this primitive Judeo-Christian community of Jerusalem (these writings are known as the Adam and Eve cycle comprising "The Cave of Treasures" and "The combat of Adam").
It has long been an old saw on the net among atheists to calim that Eusbius said it's fine to lie for one's faith. Euebius never said that, and as a historian he was careful with his sources. Atheists are not. The statment itself was a lie started by Gibbon a famous atheist historian of he 18th century Here is a web page by a freind, Rober Pearse. He's an amature, but a talented one and I would bet he is one of the top experts on Eusebius.
Eusebius the Liar?
Saturday, May 19, 2007
see my boards
check out my boards:Sense of the Numinous. After a long time away I've finally resolved the problem with EZB and re-opened the old boards. Trying to build traffic back. Please pay a visit and and help get it going again.
Wednesday, May 16, 2007
Myther Lies Told Offen Enouch
someone calling himself "heyduke" resopnds to the article on the tomb:
Evidence for the historical Jesus Is so abundant that I can't briefly summarize it all. But follow the link and you will see there's a ton of it. Just to mention a couple of things:
Papias knew several eye witnesses
Plycarp knew John
Celsus documents Talmudic references to Jesus written in first century. This last one might answer your question in fact.
Good eye wintess evidence in John and Luke (Luke was not an eye witness but he consulted with them)
1 Clement connects the link from Peter to Pual and Clement himself who knew both Peter and Paul
1 John claims to be eye witness
1 Peter claims to be eye witness
45 lost Gsopels many of the from frist century protray Jesus as flesh and blood man in history
Joephus' info was first century
No contemporary accounts of Julius Ceasar. Almost all ancient wirtings are a couple hundred years after the event. They didn't have the 6:00 news, they didn't have on the spot reporting. Historians are suppossed to write about the past. it's idiotic to say "no historians mentions Jesus from a contemproary persective" because that's not what histoirans do.
Helmutt Koester shows that the gap for the easliest writting circulating with the passsaion narrative and the empty tomb is from around AD 50. That's 18 year gap. Paul also documents much of the Gsopel story before the tradiational date for any of the Gospels.
What is the evidence for the historic Jesus? What contemporary writer wrote of seeing Jesus, of seeing the crowds who worhipped at his feet, who witnessed the crucifixion?
Evidence for the historical Jesus Is so abundant that I can't briefly summarize it all. But follow the link and you will see there's a ton of it. Just to mention a couple of things:
Papias knew several eye witnesses
Plycarp knew John
Celsus documents Talmudic references to Jesus written in first century. This last one might answer your question in fact.
Good eye wintess evidence in John and Luke (Luke was not an eye witness but he consulted with them)
1 Clement connects the link from Peter to Pual and Clement himself who knew both Peter and Paul
1 John claims to be eye witness
1 Peter claims to be eye witness
45 lost Gsopels many of the from frist century protray Jesus as flesh and blood man in history
Joephus' info was first century
There are no contemporary descriptions, only those written hundreds of years later, based on already exisiting myths of a savior.
No contemporary accounts of Julius Ceasar. Almost all ancient wirtings are a couple hundred years after the event. They didn't have the 6:00 news, they didn't have on the spot reporting. Historians are suppossed to write about the past. it's idiotic to say "no historians mentions Jesus from a contemproary persective" because that's not what histoirans do.
Yes, archaeology does verify things written in the present version of the Bible, things that were written about long after the supposed historic Jesus.
Helmutt Koester shows that the gap for the easliest writting circulating with the passsaion narrative and the empty tomb is from around AD 50. That's 18 year gap. Paul also documents much of the Gsopel story before the tradiational date for any of the Gospels.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Last Days of Outmoded Atheism
Atheism is over because it depends upon the assumptions of modernism. Atheists believe in truth. They believe that religion is false because there is no God, and that means it is not true and therefore false. But we are now in the postmodern era where there is no truth. That is both good and bad for Christianity but it si really bad for atheism.
Good for Christianity because in the Postmodern community all ideas are equal. Christianity is just another idea, it is not special and it's not true, but it can't be rejected for the reasons that atheists reject it. its' can't be called stupid or untrue or contrary to the facts because all of these conditions are subject to the relative nature of the social construct. All constructs are equal, none are sanctioned and all receive equal acceptance.
Atheism can't accept a place in the spectrum alongside other ideas because it has to destroy religion. It has to be base itself upon the outmoded concept that one idea is true and its contrary is false. Now Christianity believe this too. As I say, it's both good and bad for Christianity. But Christianity can survive in a version that liberalizes itself enough to be part of the mix. It has its' special qualities that others don't have and that's its appeal but it can also allow others to have their views. Atheism can't allow any idea but one, hate religion. Atheism depends upon the myth of a golden progress into the shining Godless future where science has prevailed and destroyed religion, leaving it behind as a failed adaptation. That myth is over. That myth is the myth of modernism and has been left behind in the dust.
Of course fundamentalism will have to go. That may be on the rise now the new atheist fundamentalists are an attempt to join the ranks of the postmodern fundies, but it wont succeed because it's major myth is oppossed to the paradigm of the world today. Atheism has to destroy religion, it has to disevolve it, it has to undermine it or it can't exist. The existence of atheism as anything other just a lack of belief, which is far from all it is, is predicated upon hatred of religion and the need to demonstrate one's supiriority over religious people. This is not an age for that. This is the age of tolerance, diversity, of equality among all ideas. The Irelish gave up their passion for a nationalistic Northern Ireland because they realized they would rather go shopping than blow things up. A liberalized Christianity can fit into the diversified mixture of a postmodern social construct, but atheism can't by its nature and its definition.
Atheism has several contradictions at the heart of its major myth and those have caused the ground under it to be stripped already. Atheism is groundless and pointless and predicated upon contradictions:
(1) The God pod is the result of scientific empirical data. The reason for rejecting evolution as a blind factor in producing the god pod is that it requires innate ideas. Innate ideas are part of the past, they come from a basically spiritual domain. But the atheist has to support innate ideas, which contradict atheism at its core concepts, in order to argue that the God pod is just a blind product of evolution. Thus atheism can't assault one of the major arguments for God nor can it access one of its major weapons without shooting itself in the foot.
(2) Atheism as a modern materialistic school was founded upon cause and effect as the means to explain the natural world. God was kicked out of his own creation based upon this concept. Now atheists abandon it in order to escape the Cosmological argument; saying that QM particals prove that the universe doesn't need a cause. Thus they cut the ground out from under themselves.
(3) One of atheism's most amusing self inflicted wounds is the way it clings to it's myth of progress. It is the evolutionary turn of events bringing us out of the dark night of supersition breaking off the chains of religion and freeing us for a bright future as number crunching Dhaleks and cybremen. But the same logic upon which atheists have predicated their victory now threatens to destroy their position. Just as they pretend that religion is metaphysics and metaphysics is outmoded and done away, so their view is based upon a former paradigm which has shifted with the shifting sands of history. Atheism is metaphysics as is science. By the same logic they use,they have to go. We can never get away form metaphysics. That is just a given and is required to have coherent thought. There is a reason why Zen mediation is silent. The only way to escape metaphysics is to shut up and stop talking and stop thinking and just be. Atheists are too fond of venting their spleens against religion to ever shut up!
(4) We know God will not go away because of the God pod. We all have it, although for some it's not well developed. As long as we have it, the majority will probably believe in some notion of God or other. There is no lack of a Godpod, I mean there is no pod for the lack of a God. Atheism, groundless and pointless will recieed into the distance after it get's through making it's death ratttle.
Good for Christianity because in the Postmodern community all ideas are equal. Christianity is just another idea, it is not special and it's not true, but it can't be rejected for the reasons that atheists reject it. its' can't be called stupid or untrue or contrary to the facts because all of these conditions are subject to the relative nature of the social construct. All constructs are equal, none are sanctioned and all receive equal acceptance.
Atheism can't accept a place in the spectrum alongside other ideas because it has to destroy religion. It has to be base itself upon the outmoded concept that one idea is true and its contrary is false. Now Christianity believe this too. As I say, it's both good and bad for Christianity. But Christianity can survive in a version that liberalizes itself enough to be part of the mix. It has its' special qualities that others don't have and that's its appeal but it can also allow others to have their views. Atheism can't allow any idea but one, hate religion. Atheism depends upon the myth of a golden progress into the shining Godless future where science has prevailed and destroyed religion, leaving it behind as a failed adaptation. That myth is over. That myth is the myth of modernism and has been left behind in the dust.
Of course fundamentalism will have to go. That may be on the rise now the new atheist fundamentalists are an attempt to join the ranks of the postmodern fundies, but it wont succeed because it's major myth is oppossed to the paradigm of the world today. Atheism has to destroy religion, it has to disevolve it, it has to undermine it or it can't exist. The existence of atheism as anything other just a lack of belief, which is far from all it is, is predicated upon hatred of religion and the need to demonstrate one's supiriority over religious people. This is not an age for that. This is the age of tolerance, diversity, of equality among all ideas. The Irelish gave up their passion for a nationalistic Northern Ireland because they realized they would rather go shopping than blow things up. A liberalized Christianity can fit into the diversified mixture of a postmodern social construct, but atheism can't by its nature and its definition.
Atheism has several contradictions at the heart of its major myth and those have caused the ground under it to be stripped already. Atheism is groundless and pointless and predicated upon contradictions:
(1) The God pod is the result of scientific empirical data. The reason for rejecting evolution as a blind factor in producing the god pod is that it requires innate ideas. Innate ideas are part of the past, they come from a basically spiritual domain. But the atheist has to support innate ideas, which contradict atheism at its core concepts, in order to argue that the God pod is just a blind product of evolution. Thus atheism can't assault one of the major arguments for God nor can it access one of its major weapons without shooting itself in the foot.
(2) Atheism as a modern materialistic school was founded upon cause and effect as the means to explain the natural world. God was kicked out of his own creation based upon this concept. Now atheists abandon it in order to escape the Cosmological argument; saying that QM particals prove that the universe doesn't need a cause. Thus they cut the ground out from under themselves.
(3) One of atheism's most amusing self inflicted wounds is the way it clings to it's myth of progress. It is the evolutionary turn of events bringing us out of the dark night of supersition breaking off the chains of religion and freeing us for a bright future as number crunching Dhaleks and cybremen. But the same logic upon which atheists have predicated their victory now threatens to destroy their position. Just as they pretend that religion is metaphysics and metaphysics is outmoded and done away, so their view is based upon a former paradigm which has shifted with the shifting sands of history. Atheism is metaphysics as is science. By the same logic they use,they have to go. We can never get away form metaphysics. That is just a given and is required to have coherent thought. There is a reason why Zen mediation is silent. The only way to escape metaphysics is to shut up and stop talking and stop thinking and just be. Atheists are too fond of venting their spleens against religion to ever shut up!
(4) We know God will not go away because of the God pod. We all have it, although for some it's not well developed. As long as we have it, the majority will probably believe in some notion of God or other. There is no lack of a Godpod, I mean there is no pod for the lack of a God. Atheism, groundless and pointless will recieed into the distance after it get's through making it's death ratttle.
Sunday, May 13, 2007
Response to Critic on Atheist Contradiction
You're conflating seevral concets here and disorting them to create a conundrum that does not exist.
First you assume that the "Big Bang" created something from nothing. We don't understand the Big Bang as yet becasue so little information escapes through the singularity to describe what happened before the Big Bang. So we don't know that there was nothing before there was something. It could very well have been every bit as much something as there is now.
>>>While it is true we don't know what cause the BB, it is also true scientits do not theorize that the energy in the BB was eteranlly sitting around wating to pop out, or that it was made from a previous universe. Thsoe are both theories have been discoreded. I am not a an expert, but I've read a lot of experts. Sten Odenwalk, NASA astronomer says that the energy in the BB was Created in the BB. The concensus in science is yes,it did create soemthing from nothing, or someting similar to that process.
The problem arises from the attempt to hammer Quantum physics into the words and experiences of Cartesian physics in everyday perception.
>>>> no the problem comes from atheist poropaganda, because they know something form nothing is an untenabel position.
Unfortunately, the physics of the Big Bang is not the same physics as an apple falling from a tree. Time, space, matter and energy are different in quantum terms, and the Big Bnag must be explained using the mathematics of quantum physics.
>>>all the more reason to assume the energy was created in the BB. Because conservation of energy doesnt' apply in QM sitaution.
Different is not the same..
So, claiming that physics cannot explain the origin of the all that is, therefore it must have been created by a supernatural being, is lazy cosmology
>>>Lazy is when you don't listen and don't read what the person is saying and just assume its the same old stuff because you are too lazy to think new thoughts. You need the old athist progagnada form the sec web to tell you how to respond.
this as very little to do with my post.I wasnt' even making the cosmologial argument;a nd my cos arguemnt does not turn on "wee need God to expalin it." that just comes from assuming I'm stupid because because I'm a Christian
christians stupid so I must be stupid.
The argument I'm trying to set up with the contradiction thing is my 3d God arugment "Fire in the Equasions" that argues Physical laws demand housing in some form or other, the only form that makes sense for them would be the mind of a law giver.
One may as well claim there is a unicorn in the center of the sun, since both cannot be disproven.
why would that be the case? I see a logical contradiction in the natrue of atheist/materlist propagnda/doctirne. why is that the same some fairly tale supersition but your viwes are "scientific?" Because you, like all atheists, want to pretend that sicnce is on your side, that own a monoply on science and all christains are ideiots who know nothing bout science. That answer is nothing more than foolish posturing.
In science, we deal with observation and verififcation. That which cannot be observed and verified cannot be studied by scientific methods, and therefore is not a part of our reality.
That's why this i not a science argument, it's a philosphical argument. I know it voiates the canons of science. but that doesnt' matter because sicnce a social consruct. its' not hoy its not from on high. sciece is limted to human thought. So human though is above it and can critique it.
The BIg Bang, however, has been observed and verified, so we know it occurred, even though we may not yet understand the mechanism of its occurance.
Yes we have concrete data from the BB that indicates it probably happened. But we can extrapolate from the data and form logically necessity and rule other ideas as to what cannot be the case. Fro example,it cannot be the case that phsyicals laws are merely descritpive of behavior of nature when and if physical laws are requried to bring a natural world into being. If they are not then we have to chang the naturlstic paradigm because that has been based upon the idea that physical laws expalin everytying so we don't need God. But if phsyucal laws are dexritions of something that doesn't yet exist, they can't describe anything. So there must be some regulatory princple that governs the formation of worlds and planets and spce/time prior to or in lue of a world existing. Theus there must be somethng more tahn mere description.
As to other Universes, who can say. String theory suggests there are an infinite set of universes, each of which has its own set of physical laws, most of which are antithetical to life as we know it on Earth. String theory has yet to be reconsiled with observation, yet it has provided answers to some niggly problems leading to a unified theory of matter and energy. Time, if you'll pardon the expression, will tell.
Atheist try to theorize about other worlds anduse those ideas to answer God argumenst As longas they try that, their specualtions are fair game for our speucations. You do not know if phsyical laws are descritve, or prescritive, no one does. Science cannot tell us.
11:10 AM
Marjor contradictions at the heart of Atheism
On the one hand you tell me that laws of phsyics are just descriptive and they don't determine anything. On the other hand you say that there is natural world that extends beyond our space/time, presumably to anything physical? So you see the dichotomy of nature/spirit as phsyical, tangleable, visable vs "in" and "un" and "non" versions of these, intangeable, invisable, non phsyical.
But how can it be that "nature" extends all over existence beyond the realm of all we know to all other realms anywhere and yet there are no prescriptive physical laws? It seems to be that to be able say that you would have to have a set of laws that delimit what can happen. Otherwise how can you possably know there is not a universe in which all existence is immaterial?
Here are some quotes about Big bang cosmology. They are from major phyicists and some obscure phyicists and the major upshot of them is we have no physics to explian the big bang.
No Physics to explian something from nothing.
John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]
That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift.
*Multiverse is unscientific metaphysics.
Sten Odenwald, Gaddard, Nasa: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11215.html
"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."
John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift. "yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."
Some physicists, such as Oldenwald, are aware of this, but that doesn't stop the the materalists from continuing the assumption. So if it is religious metaphysics its bad, but if its metaphysics the materialist can use it's "ok."
We have no phsyics to explain the bb and yet you want to argue that know what it is and how works and that is material. dilemma
(1) if physical laws are not prescritive then you must expalin how everything can be the same all over all existence
(2) if phsycial laws are not prescritive
.....(a) beilevein miracles there no barrier to them
.....(b) it could be that some worlds are supernatrual. It's only if you have a delimiting set of laws that you can cleary define natural from supernatural (if you go by the degraded concept most of you try to defend)
Second dilemma
(1) if there is a phsyics to expalin bb then it's seems physical laws are prescritive
(2) if there is no physics to exapin it then it doesn't opporate by natural law we can well think of the bb as supernatural. Or even magic.
But how can it be that "nature" extends all over existence beyond the realm of all we know to all other realms anywhere and yet there are no prescriptive physical laws? It seems to be that to be able say that you would have to have a set of laws that delimit what can happen. Otherwise how can you possably know there is not a universe in which all existence is immaterial?
Here are some quotes about Big bang cosmology. They are from major phyicists and some obscure phyicists and the major upshot of them is we have no physics to explian the big bang.
No Physics to explian something from nothing.
John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]
That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift.
*Multiverse is unscientific metaphysics.
Sten Odenwald, Gaddard, Nasa: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/a11215.html
"yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."
John Mather, NASA's principal investigator of the cosmic background radiation's spectral curve with the COBE satellite, stated: "We have equations that describe the transformation of one thing into another, but we have no equations whatever for creating space and time. And the concept doesn't even make sense, in English. So I don't think we have words or concepts to even think about creating something from nothing. And I certainly don't know of any work that seriously would explain it when it can't even state the concept."[John Mather, interview with Fred Heeren on May 11, 1994, cited in his book Show Me God (1998), Wheeling, IL, Searchlight Publications, p. 119-120.]That is describing the excepted theory, that the universe seems to pop up from nothing, yet physicists just accept it and assume that its possible even with no physics to explian it. That is a total paradigm shift. "yes there could be other universes out there, but they would be unobservable no matter how old our universe became...even infinitly old!! So, such universes have no meaning to science because there is no experiment we can perform to detect them."
Some physicists, such as Oldenwald, are aware of this, but that doesn't stop the the materalists from continuing the assumption. So if it is religious metaphysics its bad, but if its metaphysics the materialist can use it's "ok."
We have no phsyics to explain the bb and yet you want to argue that know what it is and how works and that is material. dilemma
(1) if physical laws are not prescritive then you must expalin how everything can be the same all over all existence
(2) if phsycial laws are not prescritive
.....(a) beilevein miracles there no barrier to them
.....(b) it could be that some worlds are supernatrual. It's only if you have a delimiting set of laws that you can cleary define natural from supernatural (if you go by the degraded concept most of you try to defend)
Second dilemma
(1) if there is a phsyics to expalin bb then it's seems physical laws are prescritive
(2) if there is no physics to exapin it then it doesn't opporate by natural law we can well think of the bb as supernatural. Or even magic.
Thursday, May 10, 2007
Mind Transcends Brain
My version of the cosmological argument steers is way around the need to defend direct causality of the universe with the idea that all existing things that we observe have ontologically prior conditions. For example, the universe itself stems from a confluence of space, time, gravitational field, energy. All of this is has an ontologically prior condition in the singularity. I say “ontologically prior” because there is no time beyond event horizon, thus there is no “before” before the big bang. But ontologically prior doesn’t mean that came “before” chronologically. Time begins in the very same increment of nano second with the things that are contingent upon, but they are no less contingent. Take the example of the eternal flute player. As long as the player plays eternally the music is eternal. But if the player were to stop the music would cease. Thus the music is both eternal and contingent. This illustrates the idea that a contingency can be contingent upon a necessity that that does not come before it in time, but the necessity is ontologically prior.
I advance the argument that we have no examples of anything that is not contingent upon an ontologically prior condition. Everything we see in this life. From swizzle sticks to pigs, form dirt to salad cream, from dollars to donuts is contingent. Thus it is the power of inductive reasoning that forces us to accept the concept of a contingent universe, We have no examples, not one, of anything to the contrary. One must fly in the face of all experience of all humans in all of life to argue that we don’t need to assume any sort of ontological priority for naturalistic phenomena. Atheists have, however, turned the tables. They advance the argument that we never observe any form of mind or consciousness apart from brain. Thus, by the same force of inductive evidence that forces us to assume ontologically prior conditions to the universe, we should also assume that minds do not occur without brains. This would mean that God must be the product of a biology, or here cannot be a God possessed of consciousness, will, or volition.
While this seems like a reasonable “turn about is fair play” sort of argument on the surface, rendering Theistic objects as special pleading, it is actually a black-is-white-slide argument on the part of the atheist. This is so because the two cases are really not analogous even though they appear to be at first glance. First, there is nothing to compare to God We can say “we never see anything that is not contingent upon something else in this life, but we cannot say “we never see anything else that is like God, because we never see God, nor can we expect anything to be like God. God is not only unique, but God is beyond any scale of understanding we could produce. There is nothing we can compare to God. Thus, it is not a fair statement “we never see anything like God.” Of course we don’t, God is off scale. That may sound like special pleading but to say otherwise is merely a category mistake. One is trying to hold the absolute necessity the standards of all contingent being. The atheist is merely denying the fact that the two cases, God and naturalistic phenomena are totally different things, they are in different logically categories and one cannot be held in comparison to the to the other.
Moreover, the ontological priority of naturalistic necessities is much more fundamental in our field of experience than is consciousness. While it is true that everything we see in this life, every single physical object and everything we know about, anything and every thing that can be observed or quantified or even theorized based upon its effects upon other physical phenomena, is contingent, we do not know if it is true that minds are only found in connection with brains. That is begging the question, because the argument is made that consciousness is not merely the product of brain chemistry but is actually a basic property of nature, and is produced by the level of complexity in a system. Thus the atheist is imposing functionalistic assumptions based upon a materialist ideology, rather than appealing to any sort of actual observation we really make in the world. We do not know if we only observe consciousness as a product of brain chemistry because if it is a property of nature then we may be seeing it at work in everything. There is a school of thought that says nature is “ground up.” If that is the case it means that rocks and trees have a certain level of consciousness, presumably very low for rocks, because consciousness is a basic property. If this view is true, consciousness is like the electromagnetic spectrum; its in everything, you can’t see it, you can’t compare it to anything. The EM spectrum includes a lot of aspect that we cannot observe directly. Radio waves, microwaves, ultra violet, infa red and others are also aspects of the EM spectrum. So there may be more to consciousness than just brains. I am not suggesting that trees have feelings and are capable of conversation, but if consciousness is a basic property then there’s got to be a lot more to it than we know. To just say no it’s only caused by brain chemistry and is only found in biological organisms is foolish. God is not a biological organism and thus there is no reason to exact that God would conform to the same principles. The real difference in the two cases, is that the prior condition argument and the consciousness argument is that prior conditions are something we can observe and understanding as necessary for the emergence of all physical phenomena, while we do not know the answer to the assumption being made about consciousness and presume we do is merely begging the question.
On the other hand,
there is evidence that mind can appear apart from brain.While this can’t be proven, there are some good indications.
Saturday, May 05, 2007
Part 2 Have Tomb, Will Argue: Modern Archaeology verifes Eusebius' Claims
Dr. Virgilio Canio Corbo
Modern Archaeology Verifies Eusebius Claims.
A. Pagan Sites Over the TombCorbo's excavation not only recognized the site from its discription by Esuebius but also from artifacts.Archaeology cannot yet identify with certainty the tomb of Christ, but here is strong evidence supporting the Church of the Holy Seplicur as the original site. The site does date back to the fourth century when it was shown to Constantine. Bruce attests to the evidential support.(FF Bruch, New Testament Documents) . More important confirmation comes from Gaalyah Cornfeld in Archaeology of The Bible Book By Book. (1976). Cornfeld tells us that from early times Christians reverenced the site, but it was desecrated when the Romans put up a statue of one of their gods. Jewish-Christians could no longer worship at the site for that reason, but they continued the knowledge of it until the time of Constantine when they were able to point him to it as the original site of the resurrection. Constantine put up a basilica over the original shrine, the Anastasis. Excavations by V. Corbo found a gold ring with the representation of the dome of the original shrine Anastasis. This indicates that this site was venerated by Christians in ancient times as the site of the resurrection. (and there is an empty tomb underneither it). (See Archaeology of The Bible: Book by Book, New York: Harper and Row, 1976, 271-2).
Chruch of The Holy Seplechur--Government of Israel site, visited 6/7/01http://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."
Virgilio Canio Corbo ofm (1918 - 1991)
Alviero Niccacci, O.F.M.Archaeology, New Testament, and Early ChristianityTomado de la página del "Estudio BÃblico Franciscano"
"Since 1961 archaeological soundings, excavations and restorations went on in the Basilica of the HOLY SEPULCHRE. The works were done by the three main Communities - the Greeks, the Armenians and the Franciscans. Fr. Virgilio Corbo acted as a supervisor and the archaeologist of the three communities. In 1981-1982 he published a three-volume illustration on the history of the Holy Sepulchre. By combining the Gospel traditions with the archaeological data Fr. Corbo showed that the area of Golgotha was a quarry of malaky stone since the seventh century BC. The quarry was abandoned in the first century BC and all the area was levelled and transformed into a garden. In this garden two kinds of tombs were carved. One is a single burial with an arcosolium arch. It was cut by Joseph of Arimathea, according to the Gospels and eventually became the tomb of Jesus. The other, lying at a small distance, has many burial places, known as kochim. The place remained a garden until 135 AD when, after curbing the second Jewish revolt, emperor Adrian founded a completely new city under the name of Aelia Capitolina. The area of Golgotha was covered under the basement of the Capitolium, a sacred pagan building. In the new layout the Golgotha found itself inside the city while before it was located outside. From Eusebius of Caesarea we learn that Adrian covered with earth the tomb of Christ in order to conceal it. St Jerome tells us that a statue of Jupiter was erected upon the tomb of Jesus and a statue of Venus on the top of the Golgotha. Archaeological excavations revealed sparse remains of these installations. Again, the pagan transformation helped keep the memory of the site."
(1) Venus and Jupiter
J.Randall PriceTh.M. DTS, Ph.D. Middle Eastern Studies Univ. Texas.
"Excavations conducted in the late 1970's at the site revealed further evidence for this being the place where the original Easter drama was performed. In the lower sections of the Church were discovered the foundations of the Roman emperor Hadrian's "Forum," in which his Temple of Aphrodite had been erected around A.D.135. Hadrian followed Roman custom in building pagan temples and shrines to supercede earlier religious structures. This was done at the site of the Jewish Temple, located not far from the Holy Sepulchre Church, and the fourth century church historian and Bishop of Caesarea Eseubius confirms that it was also done in this case: "Hadrian built a huge rectangular platform over this quarry, concealing the holy cave beneath this massive mound." If the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is the actual site venerated by Christians as the tomb of Jesus, it would explain this location for the Roman building."
(2) Was it Really a Roman Temple?
What kind of Temple was it?I'm sure atheists will cloud the issue by probing to find what kind of temple. There appear to be "conflicting traditions as to wheather it was a temple of Venus, or of Jupiter, or even another diety. This obscrues the fact that all archaeologists agree there was a pagan temple there. The evidence points to both, statue of Jupiter, temple of Venus.Basillica of the Anastasis/Resurrection
Franciscan CybrespotChurch of The Holy Seplecure(visited 1/12/05)
"Emperor Hadrian suppressed the revolt in 135 AD and decided to demolish the whole city of Jerusalem in order to erase all sites which could incite another revolt by the Jewish people. The emperor also forbade any Jewish presence in the new city. A Gentile-Christian community continued to live in Jerusalem and they ensured the continuity of identification of the sacred sites (the first bishop of this community was Marcus).A coin minted in Hadrian's Aelia Capitolina - JerusalemHadrian thus prepared a completely new city structured on Hellenistic plans and renamed it "Aelia Capitolina" ("Aelia" in his honour and "Capitolina" because it was to contain a Capitol for the Roman gods).
In this new architectural plan the Garden of Golgotha came to be at the centre of the new city. Some authors maintain that the area on this Garden became the Capitol of the new city with altars for the three main Roman gods - Jupiter at the centre flanked by Juno and Minerva. Others, quoting evidence provided by the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, maintain that the temple was dedicated to Aphrodite. Both schools of thought agree that a pagan temple was erected on this site.
Confirming Biblical HisotryOriginally quotingFrom BreakPoint, May 2, 2002 Copyright © 2002, reprinted with permission of Prison Fellowship, P.O. Box 17500, Washington DC, 20041-7500 www.breakpoint.org
"One of the most powerful evidences for the truth of the Gospels is found underneath an ancient church in Jerusalem. Ironically, in attempting to cover up the evidence, the ancient enemies of Christianity preserved it for later generations.Our story begins in the year 135 AD The Roman emperor Hadrian had just subjugated Judea after the Second Jewish Revolt. Hadrian was determined to impose Roman religion upon the Judeans. After destroying the Jewish synagogues in Jerusalem, he then turned his attention to the Christians. What better way to squelch this upstart religion than to obliterate its holy places? The site of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection was known and venerated by Christians at the time. So Hadrian concealed the site under a massive concrete platform and built a temple to the pagan god Zeus on top of it.Nearly two centuries later the tables turned: The emperor Constantine converted to Christianity. He decided to build a magnificent church in Jerusalem to commemorate Christ's crucifixion and resurrection—and he insisted that the church be built upon the actual site. When Constantine's architects arrived in Palestine, Christians pointed them to Hadrian's temple, which marked the very spot.The builders set to work demolishing the pagan temple. Sure enough, underneath they found the ancient quarry called Golgotha—and nearby, the remains of the tomb of Christ. Today, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem's Old City still marks the actual site of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ. You see, the early Christians knew their faith was rooted in historical events. They built churches throughout the Holy Land for precisely that reason—to mark the actual location.
The pagan temple of Hadrian was built on the east-west axis and was surrounded by a Temenos (a protective wall with its façade on the Cardus Maximus from where you entered into the sacred enclosure). St. Jerome, in a letter to Paulinus in 395 says that: "Since the times of Hadrian up to the empire of Constantine, for almost 180 years, the statue of Jupiter was venerated on the place of the Resurrection and on the rock of the cross a marble statue of Venus placed there by the gentiles. In the intentions of the perpetrators of the persecutions they would have removed our faith in the resurrection in the cross had they profaned the holy sites with idols". From these descriptions, confirmed also by the archaeological research carried out in the area, we know that this pagan temple of Aelia transformed the Judeo-Christian site into a pagan one by placing the cult of Jupiter on the tomb of the Lord and that of Venus on Calvary. This situation continued for about 180 years as is stated by Jerome himself.
B. Biddle Excavation.
Drawing upon work done in the 1980s in relation to accessing damages for repair, one of the most prominate British Archaeologists, Martin Biddle, with his wife, excavated the site and found that it may well be the .actual tomb.
"The study by Professor Martin Biddle, Professor of Medieval Archaeology, and his wife, the Danish archaeologist, Birthe Kjobye-Biddle, shows how a tomb found in AD 325–6 under a Roman temple, has a good claim to be the tomb in which the body of Christ was laid on the evening of the crucifixion in AD 30 or 33. It also explores how it has fared over the centuries."Biddle's data is distilled into a book entitaled The Tomb of ChristBiddle helps to confrim the authenticity of the site as that of Constantine, he also verifies some of Eusebius' observations. Corbo verifies the site as connected to first century oral tradition and veneration. Thus, the site's authenticity is a high probability. There are no counter arguments and no alternate sites with any real claim to the title.
Tuesday, May 01, 2007
Answer on Charge of Salvery and Bible
from CARM board (atheist)
Originally Posted by Phyrexicaid
Here's the setup: You are eavesdropping on a conversation between two men, Bob and Hank.Bob: So, Hank, I own a couple of slavesHank: Really?Bob: Yup. I was thinking of buying some more too.Hank: Well, if you're thinking of buying more, you should get them from the immigrants in your neighbourhood. If you can, offer to buy their kids.Bob: Cool, never thought of that, I'll give it a shot, thanks! I was wondering what to do with my slaves when I die, maybe I should just set them free?Hank: No! You should treat them as your property, pass them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.Bob: Ok, sounds good to me, no sense in letting them go to waste. But shouldn't I be worrying that my neighbour might enslave my kids?Hank: Don't worry about it, I've already spoken to him, and told him that neighbours don't enslave neighbours, unless they're immigrants of course. But if he does happen to enslave your kids, they'll be set free in the seventh year. Best not let them get married during the six years though.Bob: I'll mention it to them. Listen up, I beat one of my slaves, does that make me a bad person?Hank: Of course not, they're your property! Did he die?Bob: Yeah, he did. But he lingered for about a day before he died.Hank: Well, that's ok then, if he'd died straight away it would be a different story!So, do you think Hank is condoning slavery? Or is he merely providing Bob with "guidelines" on slavery? Surely if this were an actual conversation between two men, the one who is providing "guidelines" is implicitly promoting slavery. He has every opportunity to say, "Hey Bobbo, I don't think owning slaves is a nice thing to do."when Lincolin freed the slaves there were suddenly thouands of unemloyed homeless poor people wondering the roads. Those who feared them,because they had been cruel to them and because they had lost everythnig banded together and created an orgnaiztion to kill and torture them. no provision was made for their education, job triaing or to help them. For a brief period some of them got into governemental power. But when they were turned out of government their presence as rulers had created even more fear and hatred on the part of their enemies.The Hebrews had slaves because no one had ever heard of a society that did not. The idea of masses of people being free was not known to anyone in that day. They had no concept of being individuals. The ideas of doing what you want with your own life was foeign to them as the idea of being loyal to an unrseen reality is to you.God did not say "it good have slaves keep slaves."(1) God in OT sets regulations to protect slaves.(2) God in the NT condmens slave traders and supports the values of freedom,thought he pen of Paul.(3) God in history freed slaves and created an eovltuionary force that led to an ideology of equlaity and justice for all, mainly working through Christians who manned the underground rail roads, fought for aboltion of slavery, stopped the slave trade and eventually started the civil rights movement.
Originally Posted by Phyrexicaid
Here's the setup: You are eavesdropping on a conversation between two men, Bob and Hank.Bob: So, Hank, I own a couple of slavesHank: Really?Bob: Yup. I was thinking of buying some more too.Hank: Well, if you're thinking of buying more, you should get them from the immigrants in your neighbourhood. If you can, offer to buy their kids.Bob: Cool, never thought of that, I'll give it a shot, thanks! I was wondering what to do with my slaves when I die, maybe I should just set them free?Hank: No! You should treat them as your property, pass them on to your children as a permanent inheritance.Bob: Ok, sounds good to me, no sense in letting them go to waste. But shouldn't I be worrying that my neighbour might enslave my kids?Hank: Don't worry about it, I've already spoken to him, and told him that neighbours don't enslave neighbours, unless they're immigrants of course. But if he does happen to enslave your kids, they'll be set free in the seventh year. Best not let them get married during the six years though.Bob: I'll mention it to them. Listen up, I beat one of my slaves, does that make me a bad person?Hank: Of course not, they're your property! Did he die?Bob: Yeah, he did. But he lingered for about a day before he died.Hank: Well, that's ok then, if he'd died straight away it would be a different story!So, do you think Hank is condoning slavery? Or is he merely providing Bob with "guidelines" on slavery? Surely if this were an actual conversation between two men, the one who is providing "guidelines" is implicitly promoting slavery. He has every opportunity to say, "Hey Bobbo, I don't think owning slaves is a nice thing to do."when Lincolin freed the slaves there were suddenly thouands of unemloyed homeless poor people wondering the roads. Those who feared them,because they had been cruel to them and because they had lost everythnig banded together and created an orgnaiztion to kill and torture them. no provision was made for their education, job triaing or to help them. For a brief period some of them got into governemental power. But when they were turned out of government their presence as rulers had created even more fear and hatred on the part of their enemies.The Hebrews had slaves because no one had ever heard of a society that did not. The idea of masses of people being free was not known to anyone in that day. They had no concept of being individuals. The ideas of doing what you want with your own life was foeign to them as the idea of being loyal to an unrseen reality is to you.God did not say "it good have slaves keep slaves."(1) God in OT sets regulations to protect slaves.(2) God in the NT condmens slave traders and supports the values of freedom,thought he pen of Paul.(3) God in history freed slaves and created an eovltuionary force that led to an ideology of equlaity and justice for all, mainly working through Christians who manned the underground rail roads, fought for aboltion of slavery, stopped the slave trade and eventually started the civil rights movement.
Sunday, April 29, 2007
FRitz Von Eric and the Atheists
Fritz Von Eric was a professional westler. His career spanned the 50's to the 70's. i think he retired about mid 70's maybe early 80s. He had a passle of sons, they were all champions and all but one died of drugs or sucide.He had a "brother" (Waldo Von Eric) who was not actually his brother. Anotehr totally unrelated guy also made a career move being Waldo's faek son, so false cousin "Lantz" wrestled in tag team wtih several real Von Eric boys, whose real name was Adkisson.Fristz was master of the "Iron claw" a move whereby he grabs hold of the temples with tung and index finger and squeez for all he's worth. We used to go around doing the iron claw on each other, my brother and I as kids. The thing is Fritz was a good guy in Dallas where he was part park promoter of the events. But in other oplaces he was a bad guy, even using chairs in the wring.The athist deconversion scams remind me of Fritz von Eric because they pretend to be humanists who care about truth. But in pulling thier decon scams nothing matters. they pull otu all th stopds to isprove christainity. Their major method for disproof is to pretend to have a dramatic antipconversion in which they came to "realize" there is no God. this si suppossed to coutner a conversion story because they dont' undersatnd faith anyway so they have no idaea why experinces mean something.all one can do is sign and say O wne will the bein to listen? well they wont until they want to. Pleanty of them wanted to. The iedea that some marginal "bleiever" who never really got born again can "lose" a fatih he never had proves nothing at all.The fact that one's life can change dramatically when that peroson had always been hlepless to cchange before proves a very great deal.In the spirit of subtrafuge which is the heart of th decon scam, probalby motived by the ouije cult, liar have decided that lying doesn't mater so they just pretend to be christians. when you call it them on it spout this half backed and badly misunderstood argument called true scottsman fallacywhich doesn't apply to belief systems anyway.It's really justa matter of wording the charg right. But unblief gives itsefl away in its non understanding of the nature of belief. We can tell who loves and knows God and who doesn't. by the way they talk. Someone whose faith is strong wont say "i deiced to pray god give me a banna split and make it appear before my eyes right now' just as an exercize so I coud believe more and he didn't, so there's no god.I can't think of anything more childiish and idiotic. Do you like being ordered abotu by selfish self aborbed people who don't listen to you to begin with? NO? why then expect God to put up with it?There are othr apspects f the decon scams but what really gets me is just the idea that losing your faith woudl prove something anyway. Obivously not finding God is never a proof that theer is no God, but its cleary how finging hmi would be a proof. ig you don't find something that doesn't mean it didn't exist. if you do find it that proves it does exist.here's my page on he No True scottsman. see what all the atheists get wrong the way they use it.http://www.doxa.ws/Fallacies/Scottsman.html
Wednesday, April 25, 2007
Have Tomb, Will Argue
I was off line on Easter, but PBS ran the show on "Secrets of the Dead" which focuses upon the Biddle's excavation of the Chruch of the Holy Seplechur (CHS) as the tomb of Christ, I thought this would be a good time to re-print this Blog peice. This is four long pages. thus like the Doherty critique I may break it up by other posts in between.
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 6/7/01http://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 Ediculead 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 BiddleTomb of ChistIsrael Review of Arts and LettersWesite belonging to:Israel Ministry Foreign Affairsvisited 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.orgThe 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 BiddleTomb of ChistIsrael Review of Arts and LettersIsrael 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 AdventCatholic EncyclopeidaHoly SeplechurA.L. MCMAHONTranscribed by Robert B. Olsonhttp://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 AdventCatholic EncyclopeidaHoly SeplechurA.L. MCMAHONTranscribed 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."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)