Post Reply
Page 23 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Why Not Preserve the Tomb Site?
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 9:25AM #221
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,927

Jun 20, 2012 -- 8:06AM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Ed.W wrote:

...


If I was biased, nothing would alarm me; I'd just creatively interpret it.




Like that. 


Right.




Would somebody let me in on the joke? I feel like you and Ed are snickering behind my back.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 9:28AM #222
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,927

Jun 20, 2012 -- 8:04AM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 11:16AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 9:15AM, jonny42 wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 8:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:

But I do think that Biblical scholarship and trying to understand scripture relative to historicity, authorship, and textual meaning not only falls to impartial Biblical scholars but is best handled when done by them.



Jesus taught that his authority was over all people.  Nobody is "impartial" when it comes to understanding Scripture.  In fact, it is those would want to dismiss its claims (especially that we are sinners under God's judgment) that would be most impartial, by far.






I respectfully disagree.  There ought to be a certain striving for impartiality at least. We all have biases and they condition our interpretations but this doesn't mean we can't do our best to apply a reasonable hermeneutics.  As I was trying to point out we do well when we apply both faith and reason to our texts. Theology is different from prayer, and scholarship is different from both theology and prayer. Multiple narratives, multiple modes of interpretation.




The Protestant Reformers wouldn't have agreed with that.


One of the things we need to do as in with any kind of writing is understand authorial intent.


And one of the ways we check that we're understanding correctly is by confirming it with the Church.







Yes, the Church is very important. But it's not magic.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 9:29AM #223
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Jun 20, 2012 -- 9:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 20, 2012 -- 8:06AM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Ed.W wrote:

...


If I was biased, nothing would alarm me; I'd just creatively interpret it.




Like that. 


Right.




Would somebody let me in on the joke? I feel like you and Ed are snickering behind my back.




LOL!


No mystery.  Scripture just isn't "of private interpretation."

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 3:30PM #224
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,927

Jun 20, 2012 -- 9:29AM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 20, 2012 -- 9:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 20, 2012 -- 8:06AM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Ed.W wrote:

...


If I was biased, nothing would alarm me; I'd just creatively interpret it.




Like that. 


Right.




Would somebody let me in on the joke? I feel like you and Ed are snickering behind my back.




LOL!


No mystery.  Scripture just isn't "of private interpretation."




Glad you find it amusing. Care to address my arguments about the empty tomb?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 6:16PM #225
Adelphe
Posts: 28,707

Jun 20, 2012 -- 3:30PM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 20, 2012 -- 9:29AM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 20, 2012 -- 9:25AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


Jun 20, 2012 -- 8:06AM, Adelphe wrote:


Jun 17, 2012 -- 12:33PM, Ed.W wrote:

...


If I was biased, nothing would alarm me; I'd just creatively interpret it.




Like that. 


Right.




Would somebody let me in on the joke? I feel like you and Ed are snickering behind my back.




LOL!


No mystery.  Scripture just isn't "of private interpretation."




Glad you find it amusing. Care to address my arguments about the empty tomb?




This one back from a couple of days ago?  Sure, if you like.

Jun 18, 2012 -- 9:00AM, bigbear6161 wrote:


I think if there was an actual empty tomb out of which an historical Jesus rose, then this would have been remembered and pointed to regularly.  I don't think it would have been forgotten until the 4th century "discovery" of it.  I think the empty tomb is an image that Mark used to show that Jesus is risen.  The end of the gospel is hard to figure cause it ends so abruptly with the women being scared out of their wits.




Why are you limiting your analysis to Mark?

Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason, my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, for to go against conscience would be neither right nor safe.  Here I stand.  I can do no other.  God help me.  Amen.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2012 - 7:25PM #226
bigbear6161
Posts: 3,927
Because that is the first reference to the empty tomb. Paul doesn't mention this image. The other gospels come later still. But I did in another post discuss the Pauline tradition including Luke. John is a good deal later and by then there is a strong desire by the author to stress a corporeal resurrection, but it seems a late development.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 5:58AM #227
Brainscramble
Posts: 9,226

Jun 13, 2012 -- 7:12AM, koolpoi wrote:

The resurrection was the consumate miracle,perhaps the founding event of Christianity.Why didn't Christians preserve the site of the tomb as a holy place for veneration?




They have.  After all is said and done, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem contains the site of the tomb.  Only trouble is......it is so far under the church that nobody has seen it.  The actual tomb has not been broken into.  They haven't allowed anybody to dig into it, I guess, for whatever reason. I wish somebody would.

I am interested in your thoughts.


Pam

Christian Witness of Jehovah, the God and Father of Christ and of us all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 6:01AM #228
Brainscramble
Posts: 9,226

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:23AM, Ed.W wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:01AM, davelaw40 wrote:


the Romans were in charge


they destroyed Jerusalem


the site was a temple to Aphrodite, built by Hadrian




Does not the Church of the Holy Sepulcher enclose the tomb now?  How much more preserved would  you want it?





Yeah, you got it.  I should've read further & seen your post.

I am interested in your thoughts.


Pam

Christian Witness of Jehovah, the God and Father of Christ and of us all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Jun 22, 2012 - 9:54AM #229
koolpoi
Posts: 6,478

Jun 22, 2012 -- 5:58AM, Brainscramble wrote:


Jun 13, 2012 -- 7:12AM, koolpoi wrote:

The resurrection was the consumate miracle,perhaps the founding event of Christianity.Why didn't Christians preserve the site of the tomb as a holy place for veneration?




They have.  After all is said and done, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem contains the site of the tomb.  Only trouble is......it is so far under the church that nobody has seen it.  The actual tomb has not been broken into.  They haven't allowed anybody to dig into it, I guess, for whatever reason. I wish somebody would.




Is there any mention of this site in 1st and 2nd cen. Christian records or writings?If not,why is that?

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  Oct 27, 2012 - 2:34PM #230
Brainscramble
Posts: 9,226

I apologize for not seeing this post for 5 months!  I've been unbelievably side-tracked by various things.


This is what I could find about first and second century mentions of the site as Christ's tomb:


According to "Sacred Destinations" on the internet, the only writings that have been found regarding Christ's tomb are Eusebius' in the 4th century and Socrates Scholasticus who also wrote later on.  They indicated that "the Christian community of Jerusalem held worship services at the site until 66 AD" when, as you know, the city was taken by the Romans.  The area was brought within the city walls in 41-43 AD.  It is interesting that "the local tradition of the community would have been scrutinized carefully when Constantine set out to build a church at the site in 326 AD, because he wanted to preserve the site of Christ's tomb where it indeed was, even though that site was "inconvenient and expensive."  It's an interesting subject and merits more research.












 


 


 

I am interested in your thoughts.


Pam

Christian Witness of Jehovah, the God and Father of Christ and of us all.
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 23 of 24  •  Prev 1 ... 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook