Which is Right? The Church of the Holy Sepulcher or the Garden Tomb

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

This video has been getting a lot of attention and views lately. Thank you for watching. If you would like a much more indepth discussion of that day, what really happened historically, details that we miss due to the passage of time and changes of culture, and a detailed look at both locations and their merits or lack of them, you will likely love the book The Weekend that Changed the World (They Mystery of Jerusalem's Empty Tomb) by Peter Walker. Fantastic book

[@asherstribe5695]

It’s laughable that anyone would think the garden tomb is authentic. The sepluchre was built upon for centuries. It was covered up to try to snuff out Christianity. Then Constantine built a church to adorn the location. It’s pretty clear that location was indeed cavalry.

[@javiersilva5409]

You are incorrect. It's neither. Do your research.

[@cheatcoddes]

​@@javiersilva5409It's the holy sepulchre. The tomb in the holy sepulchre is from Jesus's time

[@wwinnjr]

​@@javiersilva5409 where then?

[@Wacholderwald]

Dear Brothers and Sisters in Christ, I want to tell you, with the greatest love and respect, that this Garden Tomb is not the burial place of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. It is a symbolic remembrance designated in the 19th century by Evangelical Christians. The Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is the location of the original tomb. This was the recognized location of his tomb since the First Century, and has always been recognized as such. A church was erected over the tomb in order to protect it, hallow it, and preserve it as the holiest place in Christendom, being the center of the world's conflicts. Every year at Pascha, Easter, the Holy Spirit comes down with flames (which do not burn), just as in Pentecost, inside the tomb. This has been happening since the time of Christ. This your birthright as a believer in Christ: this is your heritage: this is Christ's gift to the world.

[@javiersilva5409]

You are incorrect. It's neither. Do your research.

[@wwinnjr]

Where then?​@@javiersilva5409

[@willettej7988]

During the time of Christ, the tomb was outside the city. The city was expanded and ,the walls then enclosed Christ’s tomb. When Jerusalem was destroyed, the Roman ruler insisted that they build a statue of the god Jupiter on the site of Christ’s tomb. That’s how you know it It was excavated under the church of the holy sepulcher

[@artvandelay19]

Exactly. The locations of Golgotha and Jesus' Tomb were never lost.

[@artvandelay19]

Great video. I just want to say there is no legitimate question as to where Jesus died and then rose from the dead. The sites were never lost and then found again. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre wasn't built where they thought their "best guess" was, or anything like that. The earliest followers of Jesus - whether you would call them Jews or Christians - venerated those sites, praying and worshipping at them, from the day he died until the year 133. Those sites were sacred to them, just like they are now. Those sites would have been visited daily, just like they are now. In the year 133, Emperor Hadrian, who hated Christians, didn't like the fact that those were holy sites to them. He had those sites filled in and built a temple over them in honor of Aphrodite. The temple was not directly over the sites of Golgotha and the tomb. Those sites were just outside of the temple. He put a statue of Jupiter over the tomb and a statue of Venus over Golgotha. So, it was the temple and two statues just outside of it (it's been a little while, so it's possible that I could be getting these false gods mixed up). The temple stood for about 200 years, but the people didn't forget where the sites were. That kind of thing gets passed down. They knew exactly where they were. In the year 326(?), Emperor Constantine, who legalized Christianity, had the temple torn down. They began excavation of those sites right when the temple was torn down because they knew right where Golgotha and the tomb were, and they found them exactly where they knew where they would be. The sites were never lost. The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was then built over / around the sites. Some people like to say Constantine's mother, Helena, "found the sites." It's simply spin. Gordon (I don't remember his full name) wandered in, saw the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was inside the city walls and declared that it couldn't be in the right location. He didn't know that the location WAS outside of the city walls during Jesus' time. He was clueless. He picked a place that could be Golgotha, but we don't even know what that spot looked like in Jesus' time. They were working on it when this video was made because some rocks have fallen away. How do we know how many rocks fell away between Jesus' crucifixion and Gordon's arrival in the city? It's ridiculous. There's no way to know what that looked like back then. The locations of Jesus' death and resurrection were never lost. There is no legitimate question as to the locations of the sites. I complete agree with the video. Go to the Garden Tomb to get a sense of what a tomb around that time was like, but go to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to see where Jesus' death and resurrection actually happened.

[@harrynikken]

National Geographic a few years ago made some detailed drawings of how the site changed over the years. That makes our understanding much more clear.

[@Fmandan77]

Thank you for making this video. I visited The Church of the Holy Sepulcher in 2011 and was confused by what I saw. I've often wondered which location might be accurate. I'm planning another visit this summer and as you suggest, I think I may go see both locations. God bless.

[@luonajgarroutte212]

Thank you for this wonderful video. It must have been amazing to be there.

[@Bellthorian]

The Garden Tomb was carved in the Iron Age, about 600 years before Jesus lived so biblically it has a ZERO percent chance of being Jesus tomb. The garden is from the time of the crusades, the cistern, from the time of the crusades. I will mention one small bit of scripture everyone seems to forget. In the books of Luke and John when they went to the tomb of Jesus it SPECIFICALLY says they had to stoop down to look inside the tomb. Look at the entrance to the Garden Tomb, it CLEARLY isn't the tomb mentioned in the gospels. The Garden Tomb is literally a tourist trap for gullible people.

[@harrynikken]

It's not a tourist trap. Even the custodians of the Garden Tomb don't say it is The Tomb. They are even happy it's not to be proven. Because it would start to look again like the Holy Sepulcher and that would ruin the quiet spiritual experience that the Garden Tomb is.

[@glorygracek.1841]

I have done some studying on it, and actually, it was developed by protostants (I am one, so I can say this without bias) as a bit of a bratty child against it's parents move, because the catholic, Greek Orthodox and 2 others that my brain just turned off their names that "own" it in unison pretty much since it was found and created.....because obviously they were first and the protostants left them. Since they are the ones that do, it's open to the public of course, but to hold a service is not allowed. Especially the body and blood, the Eucharist, because they treat it actually a WHOLE lot more reverently and with more meaning, then the protostants. So essentially they stomped their foot and said "fine, you won't let us do what we want, so we will go find a really old tomb that the area looks like it could be and tell and raise our children that this is the real one, and not the other and that will from then on the truth" not realizing of course that there would be someday a way to call out the truth. That actually makes me mad that we all have been lied to for so long. Honoring a place that isn't true, because we didn't know better. What those people did is actually blasphemy and to worship and honor, there almost feels like it's in the realm of like worshipping a false something or other. Extremely sad that that has been done to us to the point many will always refuse to believe. Since the research was led by Discovery, an almost anti God organization they will never come out and say it is 100% his tomb (the one that's not the garden tomb) but they DID say it was very likely, which for them is saying it is. That documentary they did was surprisingly good.

[@SecretsOfScripture]

My heart goes out to all those navigating tough times. May the currents of financial struggles give way to the river of abundance, may health bloom with vitality, and may divine blessings illuminate the path for every soul. 🌷🌈🌟

[@vernonsheldon-witter1225]

St Helena, Mother of the Emperor Constantine went on pilgrimage to Jerusalem circa 325 CE as a representative of her son. The Christians of Jerusalem knew where to take her to see the site of the Crucifixion and Tomb of Christ- The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was built by Constantine in that place.

[@fionaburton4786]

Hi thank you for sharing this with us I think you did a amazing job you did it with great sensitivity and I think if you are visiting the holy land then it would be worth visiting both places as you said to experience that more visual reality that you get from the garden tomb many thanks again 😊

[@TD402dd]

You can thank Ron Wyatt for cleaning in and around the Garden Tomb to make it what it is today. The city added all of the niceties outside, and boarded the area where Ron's team found the Arc of the Covenant.

[@SirWillow]

The Garden Tomb Association of Jerusalem states the following, in a letter issued to visitors on request: The Council of the Garden Tomb Association (London) totally refutes the claim of Wyatt to have discovered the original Ark of the Covenant or any other biblical artifacts within the boundaries of the area known as the Garden Tomb Jerusalem. Though Wyatt was allowed to dig within this privately owned garden on a number of occasions (the last occasion being the summer of 1991) staff members of the Association observed his progress and entered his excavated shaft. As far as we are aware nothing was ever discovered to support his claims nor have we seen any evidence of biblical artifacts or temple treasures.[7]

[@mrs6968]

Thank you for covering all of this

[@RhondaYoung-tz2ju]

I would say you have to go off what you feel and what your heart tells you. I know what I felt when I was there.

[@asherstribe5695]

Truth is not in your heart. The holy sepluchre is clearly the original site of cavalry. Archeology 101 tells us any site that is built upon over and over again with purpose has significance. If you know the history of that site and it was once covered by a pagan temple and then destroyed and rebuilt by Constantine by way of his mother, then destroyed by the Muslims and then built again by the crusades. It is in fact a holy site. Meanwhile the garden temple was proclaimed by some Protestant because it felt nice.

[@tomklock568]

Fascinating. There are many arguments on both sides. It’s worth further investigation.

[@malcolmstockbridge2569]

There is a 3rd side of course.....both are complete fabrication.

[@iainsmith6366]

Instead of debating were christ was buried and argueing wy not just have the spirit of Christ in your heart and believe in the lord amen 🙏❤️ love one another

[@Kudus-r5x]

Thank you for this video it is my dream to see the place

[@Scott767300]

I have visited both sites. The question that always comes up for me is one that Cornuke points out: the centurion at the cross “saw all these things”. Not only does the Bible say that, it specifically includes the torn veil(s). He would have had to have been very close to due east……neither of the above 2 sites have even the remotest possibility of seeing the veils. Would the centurion abandon his post and walk all the way over to the temple? Was he even allowed in it? If not he would had to cross the valley and go up the other side to see the torn veil(s). And then return. I highly doubt he would have left his post to do that….not to mention the time constraint. Then there is the issue of orthodox/catholic worship of relics and objects. God knows this type of idol worship is a problem with humans. Just watch what happens at the church of the holy sepulchre. It speaks for itself. God has an interest in hiding a thing and letting kings search it out as well. Its possible that Cornuke might be playing a role in that. Anyway, I haven’t seen an refute of the centurion issue so it stands solidly in opposition to the garden tomb and the church of the holy sepulchre that Helena chose.

[@SirWillow]

The Centurian "issue" is a very simple one when you remember that the Bible wasn't written in English. It was written in Greek, but the thoughts and expressions behind it are Hebrew. So you're essentially reading a translation of a translation. They simple key is- what would that phrase have meant to the original writer and listener? And then its obvious. The word translated as "saw" does not mean "able to be seen with his eyes" as we think in English, but it's a Hebrew idiom for understanding, comprehending, and realizing. The Centurian didn't "see" with his eyes, he "saw" with his mind and comprehension, put the pieces together, and then understood what he was actually experiencing. He "saw" the bigger picture if you will. The idea that someone actually saw the veils torn, and had to physically see it, would limit the number to just a small handful of priests who were allowed to operate in the Holy Place refilling the menorah or refilling the table of showbread. No one else would have been able to physically see it, as the doors were otherwise kept closed to the outside. So they would have heard about the veil, but the idea that a gentile centurian would even be in a place he could see the temple courts isn't realistic in any way at all.

[@Scott767300]

@@SirWillow Thanks for the detailed response and I understand your reasoning. However, in my opinion there are some problems with it. I think the context of the passages in Matthew, Mark and Luke are highly suggestive of physically seeing. The Matthew passage is very explicit in this: “when the centurion and they that were with him, watching Jesus saw the earthquake and those things that were done…..” This implies they were at the cross and physically saw. Its written as a single event. Not a later understanding. No problem that understanding/belief happened as the sentence continues and basically says that. If you remove sight from the equation you also have to erase “watching” and then impose some type of divine forced understanding. I don’t think this works on multiple levels. And then note the order: Jesus dies and then the veil is torn….thats veil #1. The Mark passage isn’t as detailed but its interesting because the only things mentioned are Jesus dying and the veil being torn. Jesus dies first and veil #1 is torn just like Matthew’s account. And the centurion is in place at the cross when he physically sees this. Calling this “understanding” only likewise doesn’t fit the context in my opinion. Then over in Luke its even more explicit that the centurion is seeing physically: “…when the centurion saw what was done…” Here only 2 things are mentioned: the sun darkened and the veil #2 is rent. Why a second veil? Because look at the order. This veil is rent prior to Jesus giving up the ghost. How does one only “understand” the veil being torn and the sun being darkened for 3 hours? Understanding the sun being dark doesn’t make sense. Seeing the sun darkened does. This is occurring on Passover as well. I have done some reading on the priestly protocols on that day and from what I have read, the High Priest was located due east of the temple outside the gate and was actually required to look into the temple during the passover activities. This implies the ability to do so obviously. Ergo, the centurion would have also been able to do the same along with they that were at the cross. And finally, during my reading on this topic there are references to 2 veils which would collaborate what might appear to be a chronological contradiction between the MATT/MARK and Luke accounts but really isn’t. Anyway, I enjoy Biblical archeology among other things, and this issue has always been super interesting to me! Thanks for suggesting an answer.

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

​@Scott767300 Again, you are thinking of it from a 21st century American reading in English. It was not written in the 21st century, nor was it written in English. It was written in the first century, in a Hebrew culture with Hebrew idioms. If you want to understand the passage, you have to look at the meaning of the Hebrew idioms. And what is translated as "saw" in English did not mean with your eyes in first century Hebrew. As long as you stick with the twenty first century understanding, you will completely miss much of what is being said in the Scriptures.

[@Scott767300]

@@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash I understand the concept of Hebrew idioms. But there are 2 obvious problems. The first is context. And in my opinion the context is clearly physical sight. The second is that it’s written in Greek. “Saw” in Greek is strong’s G3708-horao. Its primary meaning is “to see with the eyes”. It can also mean to see with the mind, to perceive, know. This is sorted out via context. It’s why context is so important. And to reiterate, the centurion “understanding the sun was darkened” doesn’t make sense. The context is physically seeing the sun darkened. Ergo the primary meaning of horao stands as physically sight. And over in Matthew it’s “they” that were “watching” and “saw”. The context again is really clear. It’s physical sight. There is a whole other discussion to be had concerning the authenticity of English as being the primary language of Biblical understanding today. That is not to say or imply that Greek and Hebrew as appropriate aren’t beneficial to aid in understanding.

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

Let me hit the second first, then come back. This is going to be long, and my last words on this. It may be written in Greek, but it's not a Greek book. It's Jewish. The spoke, wrote and thought Hebrew. They used Hebrew phrases and idioms and styles. in fact, if you look at the writings of the church fathers it's very likely that Matthew was written in Hebrew first, then rewritten in Greek, which is the version we have now. They never stopped being Jewish, which means they still wrote and talked like Jews, then translated that into Greek for wider distribution. The New Testament is absolutely filled with Hebrew idioms that in Greek (and English) make no sense. (e.g. the "good eye vs bad eye" which are Hebrew idioms for generosity, the "green tree" in Luke 23:31 which is a Hebrew idiom and reference to the Messiah, which our translators completely misunderstood, and many many more). If you want to understand what is being said in meant, then you must go back to the original intent of the authors, which means Hebrew language and thought and Jewish culture. Not Greek. if you refuse to do that, then you're simply not going to understand, and no matter how sincere you are, using English context and grammar, attempting to stop at the Greek even, is going to leave you short or just plain misunderstanding some things. It's also going to leave you confused when the context in our translations may seem to imply one thing, but when you really dig into the original the context then comes out very differently. So now lets deal with that part. The actual words, and the context. There are 7 (seven!) words translated at "saw" just in the Gospels. That alone should indicate that there is something else going on with them other than just "physical sight" as there aren't that many ways to say that. Many of those are idiomatic meanings, phrases that actually mean something else other than what it directly says. (e.g I exploded in anger. I didn't actually explode, so a literal reading of that expression would lead astray) You point to Matt 27: 54, "When the Centurion saw the earthquake and all that had happened..." The word translated "saw" there is eldo, which according to Strong's (to use the most popular concordance) means "to see (lit or fig); by implication to know; be aware, behold, consider, (have) know (-ledge), perceive, see, be sure, tell, understand. In context, it is referring to after all of the events of Jesus' arrest, trials, beatings, crucifixion and death (time connotation and verb tenses are very different in Greek and in Hebrew thought) It means that he is taking into account all that has happened- what he's seen, experienced, and been told about. If you have to think in English, it's "when he saw the full picture"- or when he realized how everything was connected. It's very clearly not physical sight- it's comprehension and understanding. And then again I point to the fact that a gentile soldier is not going to have any sort of access to the Temple courts, especially not the inner courts where the doors of the Temple were (which were kept closed), and absolutely not inside the Holy Place, where only priests directly serving were allowed and where the veil was. There is absolutely no physical way he could have seen inside. And if you've been there, even attempting to come up with a way to stand outside of the Temple and look in, you would have to stand on top of the Mount of Olives, in the absolute perfect spot and manage an angle to look over a wall, through a portico, through closed doors, inside a building a half mile away and somehow see the veil. Oh, and manage to do all that from a location where they didn't crucify people nor bury people nor matches the Biblical descriptions in any way at all. Thanks but I'll stick with the Biblical and historical context, historical accuracy, ancient testimonies of the locations, and cultural language contexts over a modern day treasure hunter. I've enjoyed some of Bob Cornuke's writings and travels. But when it comes to Jerusalem he, and those that he references, are just completely off base and really have to get creative to find "new discoveries" that really don't hold up in the face of examination. There are reasons that they aren't given any credibility among those who actually work in any of the relevant fields there.

[@kathygoodman6159]

I think it's sad that they changed it from the original. They built a gaudy church and put those gaudy decorations around (sorry if that offends anyone) something holy that should have been left alone. I'm just not into all of those "trappings" of some religions. That money could be used for good instead of all of the silver and gold and the fancy buildings. It's just not necessary to worship God in my opinion. I'm so glad that you went to both places. Everything you said makes sense. It's a shame we don't know the exact place for sure, but seeing the garden tomb is like seeing the Bible come alive. How I wish I could see it myself. I got chills seeing it through your eyes, thank you so much for showing it to us.

[@JimStream939]

Ignorance can never offend. If you consider traditions of early Christian Church, continued to the present day in Orthodoxy, Armenian Apostolic, Coptic and Ethiopian Malkara "GAUDY", then it's about you. Not about near 2000 years of historic, based Christianity. Jesus Christ was neither a German Protestant reformer, nor an Anglican or Calvinist priests. And the least of all was he a Born Again pastor.

[@benevenuto9794]

Christians never forgot the place of the Lord’s resurrection. How could they… it is the church of the holy sepluchre.

[@artvandelay19]

@@benevenuto9794 100%. The thought of Christians losing the location and it needing to be found again in the 19th century is ridiculous.

[@richardstanley7661]

Things like the garden tomb are what annoy me about my own evangelical based faith. It’s so American (I am American and I love my country) to say “I don’t like this site so it’s probably fake, I found the real one! Without any evidence

[@ivastewart7106]

GREAT VIDEO THANK YOU, AND GOD BLESS YOU. 🕊🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯🕯🕊

[@Nebias498]

Church of the Holy Sepulcher is the true burial place of The Lord Jesus Christ✝️❤️

[@enterprise3845]

It is not. But thanks for chiming in.

[@daisyq2501]

Although it is nice to think it is the rock that held the Cross, how to they even know that? Was there carbon dating? Is there old blood markings?

[@gulanhem9495]

Guesses lol

[@barbrovaage7309]

Myself I think it is in the garden tomb.

[@cheatcoddes]

Well ur wrong

[@SavageVoyageur]

I’ve been to both of them, you need to see both of them.

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

I agree

[@scottrussell7659]

I think the Golgotha above the bus depot is probably the right one.

[@artvandelay19]

Then you need to learn the history of the area.

[@guylarcher6005]

This issue was the beginning of my deconstruction from christianity. I lived in Israel for a year. I learned enough to have to undo a lot of misinformation.

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

You have me curious how that worked out and what conclusions you came to. As well as what you thought of mine. I'd love to know more. Either here or if you prefer you can email me. As someone who was not raised as a Christian I find those that "deconstruct" and the process very interesting- and how many of them emerge with a stronger faith (though not all)

[@hoppscraft]

And He appeared to Mother Mary like a gardener

[@papertherapywithamy4153]

To Mary Magdalene.

[@paulkruger1945]

The Garden Tomb - I have visited both!

[@artvandelay19]

It's the Church orf the Holy Sepulchre. Christians have always been there and have always known the locations of Golgotha and the Tomb. Respectfully, the thought of Jesus' Tomb being lost and needing to be found again in the 19th century is ridiculous. Experts have said the Garden Tomb isn't even from the right century.

[@paulkruger1945]

@artvandelay19 Quite frankly, what the Catholics have done to the site at the Holy Sepulcher is dreadful, so I will stick to the Garden tomb site & by the way Roman Catholism is NOT Christian!

[@enterprise3845]

@@artvandelay19 Respectfully, the writings of Alexander of Cyprus dismiss everything you just said. According to Alexander, the bishops of Jerusalem didn't know where the Holy Sepulcher or Golgotha was and were terrified when Helena showed up with a command from Constantine to find the Sepulcher. So Bishop Marcarius had everyone pray, and then Bishop Markarius claimed to have received a vision that Helena to tear down the statue of Venus. Helena obeyed and the rest is "history". According to Eusebius' own writings, everyone was surprised when the statue was torn down and the Sepulcher was underneath. So much for the Sepulcher's location already being a loved spot that always known to believers.

[@ronwilliams1094]

I wholeheartedly believe it's the Garden Tomb. Go watch videos about Ron Wyatt's archaeological discoveries which include Jeremiah's Grotto, Golgotha, Ark of the Covenant, the Red Sea crossing as well as Mount Sinai. VERY compelling evidence.

[@shawncovert751]

The ONLY one who knows the TRUE location, is God himself!

[@TD402dd]

The Church is no different than the monastery in the Sinai peninsula that is suppose to be where the Jews found the Holy Mountain, WRONG!! The Holy Mountain of Sinai is in Saudi Arabia where the split rock where the water miracle is. I'm sorry for the many people who have been tricked by the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, but the burial site was the Garden Tomb which is outside the city where all burials happen. I wouldn't believe any pagan from Rome to choose the site of Jesus' burial, who also chose the Sinai Peninsula for the Mt. Sinai.

[@artvandelay19]

You are clueless about the history of the area. In Jesus's time, the location of The Church of the Holy Sepulchre WAS outside the gates of the city . It's the Church orf the Holy Sepulchre. Christians have always been there and have always known the locations of Golgotha and the Tomb. The thought of Jesus' Tomb being lost and needing to be found again in the 19th century is ridiculous. Experts have said the Garden Tomb isn't even from the right century - it's likely from about 700 years before Jesus - but that doesn't matter to Protestants. They rejected the site because it "belonged" to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches. They said The Church of the Holy Sepulchre can't be the right spot because it's inside the city, not knowing that it was outside the city in Jesus's time because, you know, Protestants don't know history. They picked a tomb that looked close enough and declared it to be Jesus' Tomb. It's not the Garden Tomb. The locations of Golgotha and Jesus' tomb were never lost. Learn some history.

[@cheatcoddes]

What a clueless conclusion. The evidences say that the Garden tomb can never be Jesus's burial place bc their dates aren't from Jesus's time. The tomb from the holy sepulchre is proven to be from Jesus's time.

[@kbklein28]

Neither site is correct. When the centurion was in front of the crucifixion😮😅 of Jesus he saw an earthquake. Then he saw the curtain in front of the temple door tear in half. He could not have seen it from the Church of holy sepulcher which was north nor the garden tomb area which was north . The centurion could only have seen these things from east at foot of Mt Of Olives.

[@SirWillow]

I think you misunderstand. The Scriptures say that at that moment the veil of the Temple was torn, but not that the Centurion saw it. Just that he was quoted at the same time as the other event happened. Because of the large wall around the Temple, there wasn't any location where a gentile would have been able to see inside the Holy of Holies where that veil was.

[@kbklein28]

Your comment makes no sense. If you stand at the upward slope of the mount of Olives you would see down into the temple environs. But you view the temple as though it was up on the Temple Mount which it wasn’t. The temple was built on the city of David.

[@SirWillow]

I would also encourage a look for many of the videos of the City of David (I really need to do a video about my visits there as well) and you'll see why that was not where the Temple was (it's next door to the Mount, down the hill a bit, and not anywhere near enough room for the Temple) I'm not sure what your sources are, but there is definitely some misunderstanding of locations and layout there.@@kbklein28

[@kbklein28]

So then, if the only water supply into Jerusalem at that time was the Gihon spring and the priesthood needed water and lots of water for cleansing you mean to tell me they Carrie water all the way from the Gihon up to the Temple Mount?

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

www.cryforjerusalem.com/post/water-herods-temple www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-jerusalem-temple-mount-threshing-floor-aqueduct.htm

[@Kudus-r5x]

Both

[@leechjim8023]

Whaaatz wit da mask!?🤔😳☹️

[@CAM-wk3dj]

Jesus Christ, he ain’t in no building…,,

[@nickma71]

That is made up. However, what is not is the Holy Bible. The Temple, the sacrifices if Abraham having his son substituted by a ram are on Mount Moriah. The so-called church of the holy sepulcher is not on Mount Moriah. It is exempt.

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

I think you have things a little confused. first, Golgotha is where Jesus died, not Moriah. different locations, different events. When Jesus was crucified there was a giant Temple sitting on Moriah at thr time- what we now call the Temple Mount. He most definitely was not crucified there as it would have profane the Temple in their eyes. the other thing is that people love to mix in tradition and then assume that the Bible says things that it actually doesn't. So, for example, it does not say that Jesus was born in December. But we assume he was because of traditions. He was likely born in Spring. So don't let tradition about Bible stories get you confused about what the Bible actually says. or a lack of knowledge of history and what the area was like at the time Jesus lived and died.

[@nickma71]

@@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash The place of the skull is right by the tomb. And God foreshadows just about everything in the “Old Testament”. 13 Then Abraham lifted his eyes and looked, and there behind him was a ram caught in a thicket by its horns. So Abraham went and took the ram, and offered it up for a burnt offering instead of his son. 14 And Abraham called the name of the place, The-Lord-Will-Provide; as it is said to this day, “In the Mount of the Lord it shall be provided.” David was later instructed to purchase the land of the threshing floor which is also on Mount Moriah. The Temple was built there.

[@SirWillow]

@@nickma71 right- the Temple was built there. and was sitting on top of Mount Moriah when Jesus was alive and crucified. They did not crucify people on the temple mount. That would have caused a riot. Golgotha and Moriah are NOT the same place. Golgotha was a place outside of the walls of the city (see John 19: 16-18, which makes this very clear) and the Temple was inside of the walls. They did not overlap in any way at all and shouldn't be confused together anymore than, say, New York and Washington DC should be.

[@CounterAgenda1]

The Bible say its the garden

[@Bellthorian]

LOL No it doesn't. The Garden Tomb was carved in the Iron Age, about 600 years before Jesus lived so biblically it has a ZERO percent chance of being Jesus tomb. The garden is from the time of the crusades, the cistern, from the time of the crusades. The Garden Tomb is literally a tourist trap for gullible people.

[@CounterAgenda1]

Oh do you have the construction schedule and building permit date@@Bellthorian

[@CounterAgenda1]

John 19: 41 describes the garden tomb exactly. The book of John was available for Helena to access prior to her so called discovery of the Catholic site. So, it means this if a garden was part of the tomb she would have kept the garden safe as it was part of the text: she did not. There is only one place that has both a tomb and a garden with ancient olive trees. @@Bellthorian

[@stevenmanriquez8030]

Just because the garden tomb fits the description in the Bible doesn’t mean it was always there. The Bible said that the tomb was new. Completely impossible for the garden tomb. The Bible says it was outside the walls of Jerusalem. The holy sepulchre is currently inside the walls built by the ottomans but during the time of Jesus it was outside the city walls. The holy sepulchre tomb was recently dated from the 1st century. It was common knowledge shortly after Jesus Christ resurrected that people used the empty tomb for worship. When the Romans took over Jerusalem it was common knowledge that they built a pagan temple over the tomb. Evidence proves that before the holy sepulchre there was a pagan temple. Also let’s not forget that the holy sepulchre was destroyed and rebuilt many times.

[@leechjim8023]

I sense too much Malarky here!☹️

[@Fox8ball.]

Neither is right they're both decoys

[@gregkennedy5505]

I’m pretty sure where the garden tomb is, is where Jesus was buried because it shows the skull on the mountain side 😊

[@MathieuLLF]

The Holy Sepulchre is the real place.

[@cheatcoddes]

Which didn't exist during Jesus's time.

[@kevinray5636]

The fact that they destroyed the tomb tells me it’s not the place. I’m going with the garden tomb.

[@javiersilva5409]

It's neither. Jesus was crucified on the mt of olives and buried there also. Read Norma robertsons work and videos.

[@cheatcoddes]

The Holy sepulchre is the right place. The tomb from the Holy sepulchre is from Jesus time unlike the Garden tomb which predates Jesus by If I can remember right around 600 yrs. And the Garden being from the crusaders time. Thinking that the Garden tomb is the real site is laughable.

[@edwardtranfaglia8397]

Both are right....they moved his body a few times...so no one can steal his body...

[@javiersilva5409]

For all of you that think one of these is the tomb of christ, I got news for you. It's neither. If you do your research, using the Bible and archeology, you will realize that Jesus was crucified on the Mt of Olives. He was buried there, on a Thursday, his body was moved to another tomb close by before Friday sunup. I would suggest all of you read the history of the red heifer, it's location(golgotha, on the mt of olives), it's relevance to Jesus and location of his return, and above all, Norma Robertson s work.

[@hoppscraft]

It is the garden tomb that is the right place due too the carved bed rock ,1 left unfinished

[@MathieuLLF]

Nope. It doesn't even date to the proper time period.

[@Fox8ball.]

You said probably and would be too much I think you know you're lying!

[@SirWillow]

wow, such class. to accuse someone you don't know of lying just because you don't like what they say? smh That attitude is part of the problem, not the solution.

[@SirWillow]

furthermore, what would possibly be gained by lying about anything in this video? What would the purpose and the goal be? This channel isn't monetized, so there isn't any money being made.

[@m.d.f3797]

Both are utterly wrong. No real archeological evidence. Just 100% conjecture and blind faith. But I guess that is the foundation of Christianity anyway. So I guess considering that, it means both are true. Maybe you guys should find another tomb somewhere to complete the Holy Trinity. One tomb for the Father. One for the Holy Ghost and one for the Son.

[@norton2757]

NEITHER…… The Talpiot tomb is the tomb of Jesus of Nazareth.

[@petergianakopoulos4926]

Please stop the garden tomb is utterly ridiculous.

[@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash]

So did you watch all the way through to reach the conclusion?

[@petergianakopoulos4926]

Yes@@TheBurningBushbyGeorgeBurnash

[@petergianakopoulos4926]

now its your turn.. garden tomb is RIDICULOUS

[@SirWillow]

@@petergianakopoulos4926 My turn? My turn was the video, which talked about both, including the evidence or lack of behind each. as I said in the video- if you want the actual site of where it happened, then that's the Holy Sepulcher. But it looks and feels nothing like it did back then. If you want to have an idea of what it was like when Jesus died, then that's what the Garden Tomb is good for. Each has it's place. Personally I think it's a bit, ahem, ridiculous to be put off by an actual discussion of each. We used to be a society that enjoyed talking about things and hashing them out, not writing off and insulting anyone that had a different view. And especially if you're a believer then we should be better than that towards other people.

[@thrassthrak9091]

Garden tomb. Matches the sentence that mary see someone and thinks he is a gardener

[@cheatcoddes]

That's till u realize that the Garden is from the middle ages

[@virgil81nz]

The remains of Yehoshua are still lying in a Jewish tomb somewhere in Jerusalem. He was a mortal being and the tomb containing his remains are still there. The discovery of his remains will destroy the very foundation stone of Christianity.