You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Jesus trial site 'found': Herod's Palace remains discovered near Tower of David in Jerusalem
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Brandon_Cal
Guest
The Independent article offered none of these alleged evidences for this being the site of Jesus’ trial except for "The trial is described as having happened “near a gate and on a bumpy stone pavement”, which is so incredibly vague as to be entirely useless.
I checked the WP article cited in the Independent, and no other evidence was offered except that unnamed unanimous scholars and historians agree that these are the ruins of King Herod’s palace, but that there is no consensus that Jesus was in fact tried at this palace.
I checked the WP article cited in the Independent, and no other evidence was offered except that unnamed unanimous scholars and historians agree that these are the ruins of King Herod’s palace, but that there is no consensus that Jesus was in fact tried at this palace.
H
Holly3278
Guest
Here is an article by the Huffington Post which Google says is highly cited. I didn’t read it but perhaps it is better:
huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/jesus-trial-jerusalem-_n_6418582.html
huffingtonpost.com/2015/01/05/jesus-trial-jerusalem-_n_6418582.html
L
Lion_IRC
Guest
Do you believe the historicity of Jesus being taken before Herod as part of His trial? (Luke 23.)The Independent article offered none of these alleged evidences for this being the site of Jesus’ trial except for "The trial is described as having happened “near a gate and on a bumpy stone pavement”, which is so incredibly vague as to be entirely useless.
I checked the WP article cited in the Independent, and no other evidence was offered except that unnamed unanimous scholars and historians agree that these are the ruins of King Herod’s palace, but that there is no consensus that Jesus was in fact tried at this palace.
Where else would Pilate have sent Jesus if not Herod’s palace?
F
Faith1960
Guest
In another article about this, archeologist Jodi Magness was quoted. I’ve emailed her a number of times with questions about the historical Jesus and archeology and she’s very knowledgeable and reputable.The Independent article offered none of these alleged evidences for this being the site of Jesus’ trial except for "The trial is described as having happened “near a gate and on a bumpy stone pavement”, which is so incredibly vague as to be entirely useless.
I checked the WP article cited in the Independent, and no other evidence was offered except that unnamed unanimous scholars and historians agree that these are the ruins of King Herod’s palace, but that there is no consensus that Jesus was in fact tried at this palace.
F
Faith1960
Guest
What bothers me is that the Holy Sepulchre might not be where Jesus was entombed. Are Catholics required to believe the Holy Sepulchre is where it happened or are we free to believe it was elsewhere?
H
Holly3278
Guest
What evidence do we have that it is not the place where he was entombed? I personally believe it is the place where he was entombed.What bothers me is that the Holy Sepulchre might not be where Jesus was entombed. Are Catholics required to believe the Holy Sepulchre is where it happened or are we free to believe it was elsewhere?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Just what they said in the article and the possibility it was in that other place, the Garden Tomb or something like that?What evidence do we have that it is not the place where he was entombed? I personally believe it is the place where he was entombed.
F
Faith1960
Guest
The article I was referring to was the one I saw on Facebook. It said that the walk we thought Jesus took led to the Holy Sepulchre but if He took a different route, it might not have led to the Holy Sepulchre.Just what they said in the article and the possibility it was in that other place, the Garden Tomb or something like that?
His walk was supposedly outside the city walls of Jerusalem and the new way is outside where the walls were at that time but the route leading to the Holy Sepulchre is within the city walls.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Anyone?What bothers me is that the Holy Sepulchre might not be where Jesus was entombed. Are Catholics required to believe the Holy Sepulchre is where it happened or are we free to believe it was elsewhere?
D
Digitonomy
Guest
Yes, it’s definitely not a very thorough article. I’m trying to remember where in scripture this " bumpy stone pavement" is described. And do they mean pavement in the sense of a paved area, or pavement in the British sense, I.e. sidewalk?The Independent article offered none of these alleged evidences for this being the site of Jesus’ trial except for "The trial is described as having happened “near a gate and on a bumpy stone pavement”, which is so incredibly vague as to be entirely useless.
F
Faith1960
Guest
Are Catholics allowed to believe the new find is where Jesus walked or are we required to believe He walked the old way?Yes, it’s definitely not a very thorough article. I’m trying to remember where in scripture this " bumpy stone pavement" is described. And do they mean pavement in the sense of a paved area, or pavement in the British sense, I.e. sidewalk?
Z
zz912
Guest
Catholics are free to believe or not the believe the sites that are believed to be the locations for the events described in the NT. The actual locations are not part of the Deposit of Faith. We ARE required to believe that Jesus and others were real people, and the events really happened.Are Catholics allowed to believe the new find is where Jesus walked or are we required to believe He walked the old way?
Personally I see no reason for discounting the locations we know about so far.
F
Faith1960
Guest
So it’s not dogma that we believe those were the steps Jesus took?Catholics are free to believe or not the believe the sites that are believed to be the locations for the events described in the NT. The actual locations are not part of the Deposit of Faith. We ARE required to believe that Jesus and others were real people, and the events really happened.
Personally I see no reason for discounting the locations we know about so far.
O
oldcelt
Guest
Fascinating stuff, but far from conclusive. Discoveries like this often take decades to truly verify…or not.
John
John
Z
zz912
Guest
We have to believe that He did take steps, that He walked with His cross through Jerusalem up to Golgotha. We don’t have to believe a particular pathway was the correct one.So it’s not dogma that we believe those were the steps Jesus took?
We are not required to beleive that the Via Dolorosa that is marked out today is the actual path Jesus took, but we ARE required to believe that He did walk a path. The required part of belief is that Jesus was a real man, He lived in a particular time, in a particular place. That He was tortured and killed. The actual sites that we believe are the sites is not required belief.
See the difference?
F
Faith1960
Guest
Yeah, thanks!We have to believe that He did take steps, that He walked with His cross through Jerusalem up to Golgotha. We don’t have to believe a particular pathway was the correct one.
We are not required to beleive that the Via Dolorosa that is marked out today is the actual path Jesus took, but we ARE required to believe that He did walk a path. The required part of belief is that Jesus was a real man, He lived in a particular time, in a particular place. That He was tortured and killed. The actual sites that we believe are the sites is not required belief.
See the difference?
P
PeterK
Guest
Regarding which site is the actual site where a particular episode in the life of Jesus occurred, definitive conclusive proof does not exist. Episodes involving a larger scene like the trial before Pilate in contention with the Jews benefit from scale, but more intimate episodes escape the siene of material historical preservation. This, of course, is no argument that these episodes did not occur. They were too insignificant at the time they occurred to be preserved in a manner beyond personal recollection. Jesus and his followers were a bunch of nobodies, a minor annoyance quickly disposed of… or so his persecutors thought.
So which site is the site for a given moment becomes a matter of deductive research and tradition pedigree. Most of what I’ve read or heard is convincing enough for a high probability of fact, in my very non-expert opinion. I’m grateful for the Holyland shrines we have and I pray for the Christian stewards of these sites especially amid the current increased regional tensions.
Peterk
So which site is the site for a given moment becomes a matter of deductive research and tradition pedigree. Most of what I’ve read or heard is convincing enough for a high probability of fact, in my very non-expert opinion. I’m grateful for the Holyland shrines we have and I pray for the Christian stewards of these sites especially amid the current increased regional tensions.
Peterk
- Status
- Not open for further replies.