Skull Hill or Holy Sepulchre
- Thread starter Clete
- Start date
Right Divider
Body part
Just wait until you're 70Over 40 sucks!
Over 40 sucks!
I'm not THAT old!
I think this is the most dramatic. The valley to the east is filled in, and that is the location of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. And it isn't possible. But if you continue on Mount Moriah northwest, that is the where the garden tomb is and skull hill.
This is the cistern which held water used for the garden. It is under the Garden Tomb. And that is why it is called the garden tomb.
Wikipedia says this, so you know the opposite is true.
Also, the Garden Tomb is unfinished. It was a new tomb, and has not been used since. And as pointed out many times, Helena's location is not on Mount Moriah, and not possible. It is over the valley which is filled in now.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
I didn't know Glenn Beck was a cradle Catholic.
His argument from Hadrian is pretty strong.
Mormon, from what I read.
Definitely, hard core, prepper style Mormon!
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
That's what I thought too, but in the video he said he was raised Catholic. Maybe it was like he went to Catholic school but was from a Mormon family? idk. That doesn't sound right. I'll see what Wikipedia says, for grins:
“ Beck was raised as a Roman Catholic and attended Immaculate Conception Catholic School in Mount Vernon. ”
Glenn Beck - Wikipedia
Huh. Well anyway like you guys did, I just thought he was Mormon. Learn something every day.
He is definitely a Mormon. I don't care where he went to school.That's what I thought too, but in the video he said he was raised Catholic. Maybe it was like he went to Catholic school but was from a Mormon family? idk. That doesn't sound right. I'll see what Wikipedia says, for grins:
“ Beck was raised as a Roman Catholic and attended Immaculate Conception Catholic School in Mount Vernon. ”
Glenn Beck - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Huh. Well anyway like you guys did, I just thought he was Mormon. Learn something every day.
I appreciate his disdain for that homo Barrack Obama.
Idolater
"Matthew 16:18-19" Dispensationalist (Catholic) χρ
The reason I find the Hadrian argument persuasive is because if it is true that Hadrian not only destroyed Jerusalem even harder than Titus did in AD 70, but also exiled the lot of them (rather than put every last one of them to death, which is the only other option when you're dealing with people who can't help themselves), then it's even more important an event in history confirming the Bible.
What does it mean when the land prophesied about in the Old Testament, once called Judea, is desolate of Judeans? That's what Hadrian did. Dr. Johnston said Hadrian is the one who renamed the place Palestine. Turns out Wikipedia agrees. I'm not using Wikipedia as a primary source, I'm using it to confirm what an authentic expert on the matter claims.
That's the only reason we call it Palestine today rather than Judea. Judeans were driven out of Judea by Hadrian, because those folks could not help themselves, and he didn't want to put every last one of them, man, woman and child to the sword, because hopefully he didn't have to be so brutal. So instead he just seized all the farmland in and around Jerusalem ... and then everybody just left because it's not like you can go for very long without a steady food source, and if Rome occupied all the farmland in the area, there was no way to get steady food anymore. It was just a practical thing to all leave. So everybody left. Now Jerusalem and the surrounding area was desolate.
The temple was already leveled (the temple mount like today was desolate). And then all the Judeans left Jerusalem high and dry (it was desolate of people).
The Hadrian argument is that Hadrian's army found out that the place where Christ was crucified and buried was a shrine of sorts, and he didn't discriminate much between the Judeans who practiced Old Covenant rabbinical Judaism versus Christianity, neither of them having a temple like all the other people had temples to their deities, these Judeans did not have a temple—Christians or non-Christians, but they did have this shrine type thing going on where Jesus was crucified and buried. So he knocked down whatever was there, and built over it, to make sure that nobody came back, with temples to pagan gods.
These temples stood, and why wouldn't they, until Constantine's mother learned the (true) legend (meaning oral tradition that is accurate as opposed to a fable) that these temples were built on Christian shrine sites. It was like they were markers, X marks the spot. They were just permanent labels that they were the sites of the crucifixion and the empty tomb.
So Constantine's army knocked over these pagan temples, and dug down to recover whatever was left of the original sites before Hadrian's army demolished them. And that's the church of the Holy Sepulcher.
That's a persuasive argument. You need a defeater that can stand up to scrutiny, unlike that for example, the church is inside the city rather than outside, because it's shown that it WAS outside the city of Jerusalem in c. AD 33, it became inside the city later. That's a defeated defeater, and as far as I know, all proposed defeaters of the Hadrian argument are defeated also. Which means unless an invincible defeater exists, that we don't know about, it stands to reason that it must be true.
obv it might be false, and I and Dr. Johnston might be wrong, I just find it to be a strong argument.
What does it mean when the land prophesied about in the Old Testament, once called Judea, is desolate of Judeans? That's what Hadrian did. Dr. Johnston said Hadrian is the one who renamed the place Palestine. Turns out Wikipedia agrees. I'm not using Wikipedia as a primary source, I'm using it to confirm what an authentic expert on the matter claims.
That's the only reason we call it Palestine today rather than Judea. Judeans were driven out of Judea by Hadrian, because those folks could not help themselves, and he didn't want to put every last one of them, man, woman and child to the sword, because hopefully he didn't have to be so brutal. So instead he just seized all the farmland in and around Jerusalem ... and then everybody just left because it's not like you can go for very long without a steady food source, and if Rome occupied all the farmland in the area, there was no way to get steady food anymore. It was just a practical thing to all leave. So everybody left. Now Jerusalem and the surrounding area was desolate.
The temple was already leveled (the temple mount like today was desolate). And then all the Judeans left Jerusalem high and dry (it was desolate of people).
The Hadrian argument is that Hadrian's army found out that the place where Christ was crucified and buried was a shrine of sorts, and he didn't discriminate much between the Judeans who practiced Old Covenant rabbinical Judaism versus Christianity, neither of them having a temple like all the other people had temples to their deities, these Judeans did not have a temple—Christians or non-Christians, but they did have this shrine type thing going on where Jesus was crucified and buried. So he knocked down whatever was there, and built over it, to make sure that nobody came back, with temples to pagan gods.
These temples stood, and why wouldn't they, until Constantine's mother learned the (true) legend (meaning oral tradition that is accurate as opposed to a fable) that these temples were built on Christian shrine sites. It was like they were markers, X marks the spot. They were just permanent labels that they were the sites of the crucifixion and the empty tomb.
So Constantine's army knocked over these pagan temples, and dug down to recover whatever was left of the original sites before Hadrian's army demolished them. And that's the church of the Holy Sepulcher.
That's a persuasive argument. You need a defeater that can stand up to scrutiny, unlike that for example, the church is inside the city rather than outside, because it's shown that it WAS outside the city of Jerusalem in c. AD 33, it became inside the city later. That's a defeated defeater, and as far as I know, all proposed defeaters of the Hadrian argument are defeated also. Which means unless an invincible defeater exists, that we don't know about, it stands to reason that it must be true.
obv it might be false, and I and Dr. Johnston might be wrong, I just find it to be a strong argument.
TL;DR: You're saying the site of Jesus' death, burial, and resurrection is some other site than the Garden Tomb?