Posted on 04/30/2024 5:51:47 PM PDT by Roman_War_Criminal
If you’ve ever visited Jerusalem, you may have noticed that two different locations are identified as Golgotha. And since the tomb of Jesus was right next to Golgotha (according to John 19:41-42), there are also two different tombs.
Which one is real, and which one isn’t?
And does it matter?
The first site of Golgotha is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. Originally built in the 4th century, it’s situated within the current walls of the Old City, and at the heart of the Christian Quarter. It’s the end station of the Via Dolorosa pilgrimage road and has been venerated as the original Golgotha and Tomb of Jesus for many centuries. It was built and managed by the Eastern Roman Byzantine (Greek Orthodox) church, but since the Crusades, it has been shared with the Catholics, as well. Today, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre is managed by the Greek Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Armenian, Coptic, Syriac and Ethiopian churches under a complicated status-quo agreement from 1757. It is considered a very “high church,” with an abundance of incense, candles and statues, with everything under one roof.
The second site identified as Golgotha is the Garden Tomb in Jerusalem. Established in the late 19th century, this site is located outside the Old City and is managed by a British non-denominational charitable trust that is a member of the World Evangelical Alliance.
(Excerpt) Read more at allisrael.com ...
The sites established in the fourth century are usually more correct, In find.
Although, Ronald Wyatt did find a site that looked like a skull.
I’m going to speculate that the already complicated politics of the original site didn’t leave much room for the Protestant pilgrims so they eventually just found their own alternate site :)
Joel Kramer has a great exploration of this topic on youtube. Expedition Bible is his channel.
If you read the entire piece, the author states he believes the original site is more than likely the real deal.
I also think that is correct.
I also think the Shroud of Turin is real.
I am very skeptical of the “true cross” however - but anything is possible.
I spent time at both having 10 days
,0n foot in the Old City of Jerusalem.
November 1996 IIRC.
THIS article is Spot on.
Because one is real, and the other is fake. Thank you for asking.
One of the parts of my visit that gave me chills knowing I was in The Place was when we got out on a boat in the middle of the Sea of Galilea (more like a lake where I come from LOL). I stood on that boat and did a 360 looking at the shore line in every direction, knowing I was looking at areas that Jesus did probably half of His ministry at. Some of the exact locations of lakefront villages mentioned in the New Testament aren't known today, except that they touched that lake somewhere within my field of vision. And Jesus was there doing His ministry at different beaches on that lake.
There’s a corridor in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher that descends to one of the deepest and oldest chapels in the building. The walls of the corridor have innumerable little crosses and chi-rhos scratched into them ... put there by Crusaders, 800 years ago.
The Garden Tomb has been investigated by archeologists. Geologic dating eliminates it as the tomb for Jesus along with the wild implausibility factor. The Church of the Holy Sepulcher has also been investigated. It’s the tomb.
Most of the venerated Christian holy sites were “discovered” by an elderly Roman woman on a single visit to Jerusalem. She went to the Holy land to discover the artifacts and key locations of Jesus’ life, and like a Joe Biden story, sunofabitch she found em all right away.
Grave? Check. Manger? Check. True cross? 300 year old nails? 300 year old burial shroud? Check, check, and check! Even found the burning bush on her journey.
Maybe Helena was divinely inspired, maybe she was just locals selling her gift shop trinkets, it’s impossible to know. It is without question that Christianity would not be what it is without her efforts though. The rest is a matter of faith.
Yuppers...
Good call.
I had to quick look her up. If you are talking just about her efforts to locate the holy sites I would say you are wrong. If you are talking about her efforts in giving birth and raising her boy that later became Emperor Constantine - I would agree. Perhaps she did much more to make Christianity what it is today as well.
The church in Jerusalem had a functioning and continuous memory that is not to be discounted. Helena didn’t do it on her own.
From the article
“For the first few decades after Jesus’ resurrection, the existence of the empty tomb must have been instrumental in spreading the Gospel. If the tomb held a dead body, or if its location was unknown, people would not likely have believed the Gospel was true in the first place. I’ve personally heard secular historians say there is no way to explain the quick spread of Christianity unless there was an actual empty tomb they could point to.
This might also explain why, in 135 A.D., the Roman Emperor Hadrian quickly filled the tomb with soil and built a pagan temple on top of Golgotha. Why in 135? Because at that time, Hadrian had recently destroyed Jerusalem after the Bar-Kochba Revolt and expelled all the Jews and Christians. He built a pagan city, Aelia Capitolina, on its ruins. He erected pagan temples on top of both the Temple Mount and Golgotha. But this deliberate desecration of holy places had an unexpected effect – his actions helped preserve the knowledge of the tomb’s location. He also extended the walls around Aelia Capitolina to include this temple, which, during the time of Jesus, had been outside the city walls.
...Protestants raised doubts about the authenticity of the site almost from the start of the Reformation. Questioning old belief systems in light of the scriptures was their thing, and casting doubt on this claim was no different. We see a number of criticisms in the 17th century, but they began to proliferate even more in the 19th century when more and more Protestants came to see the holy site.”
Local Christians led St. Helena to the traditional sites, she didn’t just pick places because she liked them. The reason that so many of the instruments of the Passion were in the tomb was because they were buried with him. Ancient Jewish tradition decreed that one who died a violent death had to have all of the blood shed at the site of violence collected and buried with the victim in preparation for the Final Judgement.
Here's another image
The traditional explanation for "Place of the Skull" is that it's where Adam was buried. That's why some pictures of the crucifixion will show a skull and bones at the base of the Cross. Those aren't the bones of Average Joe; they represent the bones of Adam.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.