Jonathan Pearce wrote about question of why Jesus' tomb was not venerated. Any other ad hoc (Christian) rationalisation is simply not good enough - it doesn't answer the question well enough, the question "Why was the tomb of Jesus, God incarnate, not venerated?
Let us even use the the same definition for veneration he uses.
By veneration, I mean the worship or religious and spiritual respect given to (dead) people or places deemed as important to the religion or cult. In Catholic traditions, veneration of Saints has been a long-held tradition.
If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead why would worship at the place where he was buried. He is not there! On top of that there is the first commandment that would mean it is a bad idea to worship anything else or anyone else other than God.
Definitely this is a failed argument!
Debunking Christianity: Why was Jesus' tomb not venerated?
If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead why would (you) [sic] worship at the place where he was buried.
ReplyDeleteHere, try this. If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead why wouldn’t you worship at the place where he rose from the dead?
On top of that there is the first commandment that would mean it is a bad idea to worship anything else or anyone else other than God
First, veneration doesn’t necessarily mean worship in the way you are using it here, you even posted the definition to that affect. But second, Jonathon addresses this point and argues why we would expect the tomb to be venerated, which you haven’t addressed in the least.
Here, try this. If you believe that Jesus rose from the dead why wouldn’t you worship at the place where he rose from the dead?
ReplyDeleteThe Bible does not really encourage veneration of many things. Why would I want to go worship at the place where Jesus was buried? It's like visiting someone's house and they are not there. Waste of time considering that I can worship Jesus anywhere at anytime! And He has given me commandments to do.
21 “Woman,” Jesus replied, “believe me, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in the Spirit and in truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth.” - John 4: 21-24
First, veneration doesn’t necessarily mean worship in the way you are using it here, you even posted the definition to that affect. But second, Jonathon addresses this point and argues why we would expect the tomb to be venerated, which you haven’t addressed in the least.
Simply put: I think he's wrong. I think the first generations of Christians were more concerned with getting Jesus' message out and dealing with persecution than visiting a tomb where they know He isn't anymore. I do however think that skeptics and unbelievers visited and found it empty. If Sanhedrin could have ended Christianity by producing Jesus' corpse or by forcing the apostles to produce the body, they would have. I find Jonathan's arguments really weak but I'm not surprised you fall for them.
Why would I want to go worship at the place where Jesus was buried?
ReplyDeleteI have no idea. But are you denying that historically Jews and Christians have venerated people and places? Because that's the point...
I think the first generations of Christians were more concerned with getting Jesus' message out and dealing with persecution than visiting a tomb where they know He isn't anymore.
Granting this for the sake of argument, it's still incredibly unlikely that the location of such a tomb would not be passed on and other, later, less "Marcusly pure" christians would then venerate.
I do however think that skeptics and unbelievers visited and found it empty.
Evidence please....
If Sanhedrin could have ended Christianity by producing Jesus' corpse or by forcing the apostles to produce the body, they would have.
As you know, they didn't even know they needed to do such a thing until about 50 days after his death making the whole production of a body moot.
I have no idea. But are you denying that historically Jews and Christians have venerated people and places? Because that's the point...
ReplyDeleteNo, but if you can prove that this was the case during the first century, you might have a point. But alas you can't.
it's still incredibly unlikely that the location of such a tomb would not be passed on and other, later, less "Marcusly pure" christians would then venerate.
Who says the tomb location wasn't passed on to other later generation more influenced by paganism (like you) rather than by the Holy Spirit such that they had to go about venerating everything leading whole sale lies and fabrications like two of the "spear of destiny" and body parts of saints, and supposed pieces of the original cross Jesus was crucified on.
Evidence please....
Where is yours?
As you know, they didn't even know they needed to do such a thing until about 50 days after his death making the whole production of a body moot.
Really? So why did they put guards in front of the tomb if they did not think the apostles were going to steal the body and claim a miracle? They thought there was a reason to be concerned and if they were that concerned, they would have been able to produce a rotting corpse from the same tomb where they all knew he had been buried. That's not moot at all but a failed dodge on your end
As Ryan has rightly said, your points fit into the ad hoc reasoning that I was laying out.
ReplyDeletePrimarily, though, you miss the main gist: It is not about whether one should or should not venerate a tomb, but whether (historically) one did, and why, then, the tomb was not venerated. There is an incredible amount of evidence for both veneration and simple pilgrimage. However, there is absolutely no evidence for such activity with regards to the tomb.
Moreover, there IS evidence that the early (and modern) Christians didn't / don't know where the tomb is.
Your post has literally nothing to say other than to say "Why would you venerate the tomb?" when we know of countless other LESS religiously significant places that were and are venerated.
Really? So why did they put guards in front of the tomb if they did not think the apostles were going to steal the body and claim a miracle? They thought there was a reason to be concerned and if they were that concerned, they would have been able to produce a rotting corpse from the same tomb where they all knew he had been buried. That's not moot at all but a failed dodge on your end
ReplyDeleteI suggest you read the post on how the guards at the tomb were a fictional riposte (see DC post).
ReplyDeleteMoreover, there IS evidence that the early (and modern) Christians didn't / don't know where the tomb is.
And just how would you go about proving that the Apostles and Christians in Acts did not know where the Tomb was? After they spread out and left Jerusalem I would not have expected them to give the new Christians a map to the tomb. Why would you? And you can go visit three possible locations for the tomb today and they are venerated. You know you can't prove that anyone of them is or is not the actual site. So you assume neither are the right place. I think its disingenuous to claim that have no idea where the tomb is which you are pretending is the case. Why would Paul, Peter, John or any of the first Christians would venerate a tomb of a man they knew to be alive and had told them to get busy doing evangelism? The message they preached was one of a risen, live savior not a empty tomb.
I suggest you read the post on how the guards at the tomb were a fictional riposte (see DC post).
I read it and I wasn't impressed and not deemed worthy of response. Better folks have already ripped such arguments to shreds, It's been 2000 years do you really think that none of those ideas have been trotted out or answered before? Really? They still don't work. Thanks for joining Ryan on his dodge.
"ripped to shreds"? By who?
ReplyDeletePlease don't tell me you refer to Craig who all but admits agnosticism in his article, and this is the article which is used to defend this position by so many other apologists!
Why would Paul, Peter, John or any of the first Christians would venerate a tomb of a man they knew to be alive and had told them to get busy doing evangelism?
One would assume that all the Apostles would have known the whereabouts, as well as the various Marys and Salomes and others who the various Gospels disagree as visiting. The fact that the evidence points towards Joseph of Arimathea being fictional should lead one to conclude that his tomb most probably is too, especially given the utterly improbable scenario of sentencing a man to death and then asking the people who sentenced him to death for the worst possible crime to release his body for an honourable burial! A tomb to which women seemed to know, visit but have NO WAY of being able to roll away the stone, and no forethought to find a way, but HEY, luckily angels are on hand to help. A tomb to which they are travelling to anoint an already anointed body. A tomb at which guards are incredibly unlikely to be posted, who contrive to be bribed (a fate worthy of execution) to deny the most incredible thing they ever would have seen (and yet not be converted by). Around which an earthquake unattested by any other source takes place. And during which, according to Matthew again, a parade of resurrected dead Saints swan around a municipal city without anyone else noticing or reporting it.
And so, this tomb, the most holy place on earth (for if that happened now, given that Graceland, without bones, is venerated; and given that other such places, with no body or bones, are venerated such as Međugorje; Basilica of the Shrine of Our Lady of Aparecida; Lourdes; Shrine of the Three Kings; Mount Tabor; House of Peter; Mount Carmel; Nazareth; Bethany (resurrection of Lazarus)!!!; the Jesus Trail; Galilee etc etc), is forgotten for 300 odd years. And this is not odd to you. This, with all the other odd information, half of which I have not mentioned, is not odd? You are exhibiting an extraordinary amount of cognitive dissonance here. Wow!
That said, nothing I say will ever convince you as a dyed-in-the-wool, head-in-the-sand sort of person.
I just find it sad that people such as yourself spend so much time accepting possible over probable so that your belief-system is a tapestry of possibilities absent of any kind of strong plausibility.
So much error. Need more space.
ReplyDeletehttp://mmcelhaney.blogspot.com/2012/06/second-responding-post-to-jonathan.html