Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:21AM, Ebon 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?

Dave's on the right lines on this one. Remember that, at the time of Jesus's death, Christians were a tiny minority of maybe fifty people, most of whom were poor, led by a rabble-rouser that the Romans had just executed. Even if they had wanted to, they didn't have the numbers or the political power to preserve the site.

But they could have kept records of the exact site.Why would the Romans have bothered with a site only important to a small cult?

Oh, I know it's just like all the other "biblical tourist traps".

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:52AM, koolpoi wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:53AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

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

Yeah, that's my thought:  isn't that what this is?  I mean, Muslims had to keep the keys to it IIRC because Christians kept trying to kill each other over who gets dibs.  That's kinda sad, really.

Actually I believe the site of this church was "discovered" centuries after Jesus' death.

Why do you "believe" that?  Have you started another thread before doing your research?

In the early 2nd century, the site of the present Church had been a temple of Aphrodite; several ancient writers alternatively describe it as a temple to Venus, the Roman equivalent to Aphrodite. Eusebius claims writes, in his Life of Constantine,^[4] that the site of the Church had originally been a Christian place of veneration, but that Hadrian had deliberately covered these Christian sites with earth, and built his own temple on top, due to his hatred for Christianity.^[5]

wiki

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:09AM, Ed.W wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 9:52AM, koolpoi wrote:

Jun 13, 2012 -- 8:53AM, Iwantamotto wrote:

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

Yeah, that's my thought:  isn't that what this is?  I mean, Muslims had to keep the keys to it IIRC because Christians kept trying to kill each other over who gets dibs.  That's kinda sad, really.

Actually I believe the site of this church was "discovered" centuries after Jesus' death.

Why do you "believe" that?  Have you started another thread before doing your research?

In the early 2nd century, the site of the present Church had been a temple of Aphrodite; several ancient writers alternatively describe it as a temple to Venus, the Roman equivalent to Aphrodite. Eusebius claims writes, in his Life of Constantine,^[4] that the site of the Church had originally been a Christian place of veneration, but that Hadrian had deliberately covered these Christian sites with earth, and built his own temple on top, due to his hatred for Christianity.^[5]

wiki

A site of veneration,perhaps,but the clear claim that it was The Tomb seems to date only from the time of Constantine.If there was any place that Christians kept clear records of, that should have been it.

Jun 13, 2012 -- 10:29AM, Ed.W wrote:

Christianity was not legal until 325.  Priests lost their heads before that time.  People worshipped in caves and cemetaries and broke bread on top of coffins.  And you think they would openly have a shrine from 30-325?

A couple of Christians died (because they refused to sacrifice to the Cesar), yes. Big deal. Christianity got its revenge later on.