[_ Old Earth _] Archeological Evidence Confirming Bible

[reznwerks]

evidence

Not using your bible can you show evidence of the historical reality of Jesus? Any evidence you use cannot be referenced to the bible in any way.

Hi there!

:D

I have found that the best evidences of Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ, the Son of God, and also being the Lord God Almighty are the inscriptions at the location known as Peter's house in Capernaum. .

Apparantly others don't share your enthusiasm. Remember last year or so when they found that ossuary that was supposed to belong to James which was later proved bogus? Well here is a quote from that article.

"If it could be verified, this coffin, more correctly called a bone box or an ossuary, would form a direct archaeological link to Jesus Christ. Such archaeological evidence for Jesus and his historical existence has never before been found and would have important ramifications for Christianity".
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm
That was from Biblical Archeology Review. How come they said plain and simple there is not evidence to confirm an historical Jesus?

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

Serapha
All you have is evidence for Christianity. There are shrines devoted to Zeus does this mean he is real?
===========================

"He found several osssuaries with the sign of the cross, Greek inscriptions, and a coin minted in A.D. 41 for King Herod Agrippa I. This would seem to indicate that the tomb was sealed no later than at least A.D. 42. " Quote from Seraphas post
Why would you think that the tomb was sealed no later than A.D. 42 if the coin was minted A.D.41 What this means is that the tomb was sealed no EARLIER than A.D 41. It could have been sealed one or two hundred years later.

Please read the article, and you won't have any questions concerning the accurate dating of the ossuary box.

===================================
As to the rest of your post you use those who weren't there and/or could be considered biased in their view. You have no first hand evidence of the existance of Jesus. Outside of the bible no one wrote about Jesus and Jesus himself wrote nothing down. Here is the list of historians that lived within Christs supposed liftetime and wrote nothing down.
Apollonius Persius
Appian Petronius
Arrian Phaedrus
Aulus Gellius Philo-Judaeus
Columella Phlegon
Damis Pliny the Elder
Dio Chrysostom Pliny the Younger
Dion Pruseus Plutarch
Epictetus Pompon Mela
Favorinus Ptolemy
Florus Lucius Quintilian
Hermogones Quintius Curtius
Josephus Seneca
Justus of Tiberius Silius Italicus
Juvenal Statius
Lucanus Suetonius
Lucian Tacitus
Lysias Theon of Smyran
Martial Valerius Flaccus
Paterculus Valerius Maximus
Pausanias

Yet, aside from two FORGED passages in the works of a Jewish writer mentioned above, and two disputed passages in the works of Roman writers, there isn't ANY mention of Jesus Christ. At all. Consider:
"Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ's miraculous birth and the Herodian massacred occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness, and resurrection of the dead took place -- when Christ himself rose from the dead, and in the rpesence of many witnesses ascended into heaven.
"These marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, we unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.

"Justus of Tiberius was a native of Christ's own country, Galilee. He wrote a history covering this time of Christ's reputed existence. This work has perished, but Photius, a Christian scholar and critic of the ninth century, who was acquainted with it, says: 'He (Justus) makes not the least mention of the appearances of Christ, of what things happened to him, or of the wonderful works that he did' (Photius' Bibliotheca, code 33).

"Josephus: Late in the first century, Josephus wrote his celebrated work, _The_Antiquities_of_the_Jews_, giving a history of his race from the earliest ages down to his own time. Modern versions of this work contain the following passage:

"'Now there was about this time, Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was (the) Christ; and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him; and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. (Book XVIII, Chapter iii, Section 3).'
"For nearly sixteen hundred years Christians have been citing this passage as a testimonial, not merely to the historical existence, but to the divine character of Jesus Christ. And yet a ranker forgery was never penned.
"Its language is Christian. Every line proclaims it the work of a Christian writer. 'If it be lawful to call him a man.' 'He was the Christ.' 'He appeared to them alive again the third day, as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.'

"These are the words of a Christian, a believer in the divinity of Christ. Josephus was a Jew, a devout believer in the Jewish faith -- the last man in the world to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. The inconsistency of this evidence was early recognized, and Abrose, writing in the generation succeeding its first appearance (360 A.D.), offers the following explanation, which only a theologican could frame:

"'If the Jews do not believe us, let them, at least, believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner; and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer as to what he himself said; but thus he spake, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart, and his perfidious intentiion.'
"Its brevity disproves its authenticity. Josephus' work is voluminous and exhaustive. It comprises twenty books. Whole pages are devoted to petty robbers and obscure seditious leaders. Nearly fourty chapters are devoted to the life of a single king. Yet this remarkable being, the greatest product of his race, a being of whom the prophets foretold ten thousand wonderful things, a being greater than any earthly king, is dismissed with a dozen lines."
-- The Christ, by John E. Remsburg, reprinted by Prometheus Books, New York, 1994, pages 171-3.



http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm

[/quote]


And the best you can do is refer to an athiest site... unable to address the information without a cut-n-paste that has been refuted on the internet.

Let's see... do you actually want me to cut-n-paste a response (rebuttal) back to you.


I really like original thought... got any?


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

Not using your bible can you show evidence of the historical reality of Jesus? Any evidence you use cannot be referenced to the bible in any way.

Hi there!

:D

I have found that the best evidences of Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ, the Son of God, and also being the Lord God Almighty are the inscriptions at the location known as Peter's house in Capernaum. .

Apparantly others don't share your enthusiasm. Remember last year or so when they found that ossuary that was supposed to belong to James which was later proved bogus? Well here is a quote from that article.

"If it could be verified, this coffin, more correctly called a bone box or an ossuary, would form a direct archaeological link to Jesus Christ. Such archaeological evidence for Jesus and his historical existence has never before been found and would have important ramifications for Christianity".
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm
That was from Biblical Archeology Review. How come they said plain and simple there is not evidence to confirm an historical Jesus?

Hi there!

Did I cite that ossuary box? NO, I didn't

Did I cite that the dating on the patina on the "james" ossuary box was verified by carbon-14 dating, not once, but twice to belong to the first century. But the dating was in error, not once, but twice. The same carbon-14 dating system that is used in science as "evidence" against early creationism.

Now. Do you want to address the ossuary boxes that WERE cited?


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Which evidences have not been discredited

Now, what evidences have yet to be proven as unsatisfactory evidences of the historical Jesus.



1. I have found that the best evidences of Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ, the Son of God, and also being the Lord God Almighty are the inscriptions at the location known as Peter's house in Capernaum. The plaster in the walls where the inscriptions were found can be dated by the chips of pottery that were used in the plaster, making them some of the oldest archaeological evidences.


2. A second, excellent location of inscriptions that are verifiable are the inscriptions under the Vatican on the "red wall" of Peter's tomb. Now, I am not an advocate that the bones found in the repository were those of the apostle Peter, but I don't question that the tomb (location) did belong to Peter... The inscriptions are a good source of historical evidence for Jesus as the Lord God Almighty.


3. And, maybe the biggest evidence, by historical standard is the sign of the cross... and making the sign of the cross as an exchange between believers... and, of course, the written records of such activities (historical evidences), the mosaics containing the cross (archaeological evidence), the early reliefs (archaeological evidence), the early jewelry that is found in Christian tombs (archaeological evidences). (BTW Jews aren't buried with jewelry) (BTW... I am searching for the critical text on the use of crosses on "Christian" lamps in the first century.... so hold on )


4. The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology. (This is still a good reference. There are evidences of these two witnesses outside the Bible)


5. I would add there are ossuary boxes which date to a very limited time frame of first century jerusalem which carry the symbol of the cross for Christians being buried in the boxes. There are probably 100+ of such ossuary boxes with crosses dating from 35 AD to 70 AD.


http://home.pe.net/~mjagee/procon977.html


6.
http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf ... 038_494445

http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-01/anf ... 028_492018



As well as any of the historical evidences (written word) of the early church fathers.



~serapha~

 

[Asimov]

Serapha....did you just berate reznwerks for a cut and paste job?

 

[serapha]

Serapha....did you just berate reznwerks for a cut and paste job?

HI there!

I believe you are right. And I apologize for "berating" your fellow athiest/agnostic for using a standard cut-n-paste "pat answer" index response.

In reviewing the past responses here, I see one cut-n-paste response and a red herring in an attempt to derail the thread from that same member.


Perhaps we should just keep the topic on subject and not attempt to derail threads. What do you think?

So... what was the purpose of this member's previous posting?

Not using your bible can you show evidence of the historical reality of Jesus? Any evidence you use cannot be referenced to the bible in any way.

The purpose was to narrow down the responses so that the only response would be.... the standard response of Josephus, etc... so that certain members could "berate" Christianity because certain members won't accept the Bible as a historical reference.


I can keep posting "archaeological evidences" all day.... so don't try the "historical Jesus" arguments with me.

Now... let's really get the thread back on track... and put the Bible back in as a historical document as it should have been before the attempt to narrow the field to such a point that the scales of debate are not balanced.


As a member here, you would like the scales to be level in discussions, wouldn't you? and not one-sided.

Now, getting the thread back on track, care to address the six statements I posted? and that would be without using red herring to derail the thread.


~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evidence

[


Hi there!

Did I cite that ossuary box? NO, I didn't
I didn't say you did. I put a quote in there from a source that I think everyone would consider far more credible than you or I. I thought you might want to question the souce so I left a link to it. You claim fact yet apparantly no one else accepts you claim to proof.

Did I cite that the dating on the patina on the "james" ossuary box was verified by carbon-14 dating, not once, but twice to belong to the first century. But the dating was in error, not once, but twice. The same carbon-14 dating system that is used in science as "evidence" against early creationism.
I'm not an expert on Carbon -14 but isn't that only used for things that were alive? Could you cite your source for the claim?

Now. Do you want to address the ossuary boxes that WERE cited?
No. As I said their appears to be source with far more credibility that don't share your claims for proof of Jesus. All we have in your sources are bone boxes with the name of Jesus. The name Jesus was very popular and shared by Barabbas as well. You can make all the assumptions you like.


~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Which evidences have not been discredited

Now, what evidences have yet to be proven as unsatisfactory evidences of the historical Jesus.

1. I have found that the best evidences of Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ, the Son of God, and also being the Lord God Almighty are the inscriptions at the location known as Peter's house in Capernaum. The plaster in the walls where the inscriptions were found can be dated by the chips of pottery that were used in the plaster, making them some of the oldest archaeological evidences.

Inscriptions can be made by anyone at anytime. It is very hard to date plaster to within several hundred years. As I said , if you refer to the lin I posted which discussed the most resent ossuary found last year they said no historical real evidence is to exist of Jesus. You make a claim of fact in 1945 which is not accepted even by those who are experts in the field.


2. A second, excellent location of inscriptions that are verifiable are the inscriptions under the Vatican on the "red wall" of Peter's tomb. Now, I am not an advocate that the bones found in the repository were those of the apostle Peter, but I don't question that the tomb (location) did belong to Peter... The inscriptions are a good source of historical evidence for Jesus as the Lord God Almighty.

No one can make a positive confirmation on the claims. These are local legends and put forth by biased sources.


3. And, maybe the biggest evidence, by historical standard is the sign of the cross... and making the sign of the cross as an exchange between believers... and, of course, the written records of such activities (historical evidences), the mosaics containing the cross (archaeological evidence), the early reliefs (archaeological evidence), the early jewelry that is found in Christian tombs (archaeological evidences). (BTW Jews aren't buried with jewelry) (BTW... I am searching for the critical text on the use of crosses on "Christian" lamps in the first century.... so hold on )
Making the sign of the cross is not evidence of Jesus it is evidence of Christianity. Traditions and symbols exist all over the world for their local Gods which doesn't make them true.


4. The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology. (This is still a good reference. There are evidences of these two witnesses outside the Bible)
Can't find Peter or Paul outside of the bible. Nothing here is proven. Find unbiased sources for the claim outside of the bible.If you notice all we have about Paul is the writings in the bible and the same for Peter. We don't know for sure who these people were or if there was more than one writing under the same name as was popular to do then.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/m2lec1a.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETER.htm


5. I would add there are ossuary boxes which date to a very limited time frame of first century jerusalem which carry the symbol of the cross for Christians being buried in the boxes. There are probably 100+ of such ossuary boxes with crosses dating from 35 AD to 70 AD.
Ossuary boxes with crosses are not evidence of Jesus they are evidence of Christianity.


As well as any of the historical evidences (written word) of the early church fathers.
The early church fathers did not witness Jesus in the flesh.Again , their testimony is not unbiased. There is a motive for lying when you are starting a new religion.
"The Pastorals, (I & II Timothy and Titus) are recognized forgeries written in the mid-second century long after Paul's death. In spite of this widely accepted historical fact most versions of the Bible present them as epistles of Paul. So, let us treat them as such."
http://home.inu.net/skeptic/usedcar.html

~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

response

HI there!


Perhaps we should just keep the topic on subject and not attempt to derail threads. What do you think?
I don't think I've strayed on topic as this is about archeological evidence proving the bible and Jesus is in the bible.

So... what was the purpose of this member's previous posting?

[quote:c205c]Not using your bible can you show evidence of the historical reality of Jesus? Any evidence you use cannot be referenced to the bible in any way.

The purpose was to narrow down the responses so that the only response would be.... the standard response of Josephus, etc... so that certain members could "berate" Christianity because certain members won't accept the Bible as a historical reference.


I can keep posting "archaeological evidences" all day.... so don't try the "historical Jesus" arguments with me.
I think it's important as "archeological evidence" and "historical Jesus" should be in the same bowl and compliment each other. They don't. No one of any authority accepts as "proof" the examples you use to prove the existance of Jesus. You want to deny that the fact that history is silent about Jesus outside of the bible.

Now... let's really get the thread back on track... and put the Bible back in as a historical document as it should have been before the attempt to narrow the field to such a point that the scales of debate are not balanced.
That the point. The bible is not a historical book. Stories and claims should able to be verified independently from other reliable sources. All we have for Jesus is one book written by authors with who knows what motivations. If all these claims were true then others would have written about them . They didn't.

Now, getting the thread back on track, care to address the six statements I posted? and that would be without using red herring to derail the thread.
I answered them with sources that would be sympathetic to your case if you had one.


~serapha~

[/quote:c205c]

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evidence

[
Why would you think that the tomb was sealed no later than A.D. 42 if the coin was minted A.D.41 What this means is that the tomb was sealed no EARLIER than A.D 41. It could have been sealed one or two hundred years later.

Please read the article, and you won't have any questions concerning the accurate dating of the ossuary box.
Your link is dead but I found it elsewhere and read it. It still doesn't answer the question as to why you would assume the vault was sealed no later than A.D.42. If divers find a car at the bottom of the lake and they find a penny dated 1931 that doesn't mean the car has been down there since 1931 or that the car is that old.


[/b]

http://www.holysmoke.org/sdhok/jesus5.htm[/quote][/quote]


And the best you can do is refer to an athiest site... unable to address the information without a cut-n-paste that has been refuted on the internet.

Let's see... do you actually want me to cut-n-paste a response (rebuttal) back to you.


I really like original thought... got any?
Do you have any evidence....anything? If you think what I posted was in error go to your library and confirm it. Don't blame the message on the messenger. Your response is typical of Christians when stumped and that is to change the subject or attack.


~serapha~[/quote]

 

[Adams son]

Re: proof

I notice the Bible talks about the sun rising in the east and that there are some stars in the sky.

I checked this out very carefully. The sun does indeed rise in the east and astronomers say that there are indeed some stars in the sky.

So I guess the Bible is indeed "confirmed."

Right?

Maybe someday we will catch on that what needs validation is not the places in the Bible or even the characters, but the EVENTS.

 

[ThinkerMan]

serepha...

You asked for my reference on the cross not being used by 1st Century Christians.

First off, I thought this was fairly common knowledge, but here are a few sources on it...

During the first three centuries of Christianity, the cross was rare in Christian iconography, although descriptions of it are found in Christian writings from the early 2nd century onwards. The Ichthys was a symbol used by early covert Christians to identify each other. The Chi-Rho monogram, which was adopted by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century as his banner called the labarum, was an Early Christian symbol of wider use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

Since people don't like Wikipedia (which, by the way, you can edit the articles yourself if you think they are wrong)....

What is the origin of the Christian fish symbol that we see on car bumper stickers?

Christian History magazine replies:

The Greek word for fish is "ichthys." As early as the first century, Christians made an acrostic from this word: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter, i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior. The fish has plenty of other theological overtones as well, for Christ fed the 5,000 with 2 fishes and 5 loaves (a meal recapitulated in Christian love-feasts) and called his disciples "fishers of men." Water baptism, practiced by immersion in the early church, created a parallel between fish and converts. Second-century theologian Tertullian put it this way: "we, little fishes, after the image of our Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water."

Greeks, Romans, and many other pagans used the fish symbol before Christians. Hence the fish, unlike, say, the cross, attracted little suspicion, making it a perfect secret symbol for persecuted believers. When threatened by Romans in the first centuries after Christ, Christians used the fish mark meeting places and tombs, or to distinguish friends from foes. According to one ancient story, when a Christian met a stranger in the road, the Christian sometimes drew one arc of the simple fish outline in the dirt. If the stranger drew the other arc, both believers knew they were in good company. Current bumper-sticker and business-card us
es of the fish hearken back to this practice.

Critics of the fish symbol either decry it as tacky tokenism or point out that the fish still carries baggage from the days when pagans used it to represent fertility or, more specifically, the female reproductive organs. Though I agree that ichthys symbols in phone-book ads seem to commercialize faith, I don't find the pagan argument compelling. No symbol means the same thing to all people at all times. That early Christians succeeded in transforming an already powerful symbol proves their interpretive creativity, not their ignorance or a tendency to syncretism.

From http://www.fbchealdton.com/hottopic.htm

I'm sure a few google searches will find more....

 

[serapha]

How do you know when the clay tablets were written? And all this proves is that this village existed, not any of the story attributed to it.

Hi there!

now we have reply #4... a sincere criticism and a statement concerning the OP... but the question has remained unanswered. Well, here's the answer.


"Clay tablets in Ebla's archives lie where they fell when their shelving collapsed in a fire some 40 centuries ago. An archaeological treasure trove, the tablets found at Ebla number more than four times all others unearthed from this period" (TIME).


Now there are a number of items noteworthy to biblical scholars concerning the Ebla tablets.

Now this site.... which I randomly found on a google seems to relate the relevance of Ebla tablets to the Bible.


http://www.mazzaroth.com/ChapterFour/Ebla.htm

The importance of the Ebla tablets is language, customs, and the correlations of texts from the biblical accounts, particularly in relation to Abraham.


Now, does that answer your questions?

~serapha~

 

[serapha]

serapha, how can u be mad that sommone "cut and pasted' from a site today, where as you are trying to quote a book that is thousands of years old, and that has been rewritten so many diffrent times and way sthat christians themselves cant agree on what is right or wrong about it.


also

archeology

n : the branch of anthropology that studies prehistoric people and their cultures [syn: archaeology]

http://www.dictionary.com

[quote:bbfac]fos·sil Audio pronunciation of "Fossil" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fsl)
n.

1. A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust.

http://www.dictionary.com

so unless u want to tell me that the mast prehistoric people didnt leave skeletons, then i think that you are wrong

Also, i agree that a guy named jesus lived aroudn the time of the christian jesus (abotu 6 of them named jesus) and i do believe that the bible exists (der i can fo buy one) i just dont believe the content.


about the whole tomb thing.

the tomb could have been sealed at any point before 41 ad also, and then just grave robbed.. that happened all the time.[/quote:bbfac]

Hi there!

Just to be specific... I believe I apologized for my comment, but since an apology was not sufficient, I'll address your posting. It's useless to think that anyone would address the opening thread when they can post personally instead.

serapha, how can u be mad that sommone "cut and pasted' from a site today, where as you are trying to quote a book that is thousands of years old, and that has been rewritten so many diffrent times and way sthat christians themselves cant agree on what is right or wrong about it.

I believe your question pertains to the infallibility of the Bible, and therefore, it isn't relative to a discussion on biblical archaeology. Perhaps, to get the best answer to your question, you should post a new thread concerning your statement,

"you are trying to quote a book that is thousands of years old, and that has been rewritten so many different times and ways that christians themselves can't agree on what is right or wrong about it".

Should you decide to open a new thread, I believe you will benefit in hearing from many qualified members of this forum.

[quote:bbfac]archeology

n : the branch of anthropology that studies prehistoric people and their cultures [syn: archaeology]

http://www.dictionary.com

fos·sil Audio pronunciation of "Fossil" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fsl)
n.

1. A remnant or trace of an organism of a past geologic age, such as a skeleton or leaf imprint, embedded and preserved in the earth's crust.

http://www.dictionary.com

so unless u want to tell me that the mast prehistoric people didnt leave skeletons, then i think that you are wrong[/quote:bbfac]


Specifically, to answer your question...palaeontology is not archaeology.

Also, i agree that a guy named jesus lived aroudn the time of the christian jesus (abotu 6 of them named jesus) and i do believe that the bible exists (der i can fo buy one) i just dont believe the content.


about the whole tomb thing.

the tomb could have been sealed at any point before 41 ad also, and then just grave robbed.. that happened all the time

I would ask you to "hold on" while I address to in a reply to another posting.



~serapha~

 

[serapha]

serepha...

You asked for my reference on the cross not being used by 1st Century Christians.

First off, I thought this was fairly common knowledge, but here are a few sources on it...

[quote:15b51]During the first three centuries of Christianity, the cross was rare in Christian iconography, although descriptions of it are found in Christian writings from the early 2nd century onwards. The Ichthys was a symbol used by early covert Christians to identify each other. The Chi-Rho monogram, which was adopted by the emperor Constantine in the fourth century as his banner called the labarum, was an Early Christian symbol of wider use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_cross

Since people don't like Wikipedia (which, by the way, you can edit the articles yourself if you think they are wrong)....

HI there!


There are a number of symbolisms that were used by early christians....


http://home.rochester.rr.com/gocek/images/christn/

But I disagree that the use of the "cross" is rare.... because of the historical references to the cross, the archaeological evidences of the cross, and one of the biggies... the initiation of the habit of crossing the heart as a sign of the trinitarian God... you know "Father, Son, and Holy Ghost"

FYI, the chi-rho was not the only Greek symbolism used in Christianity. In the Vatican excavations, it was a combination of the Greek chi-rho latinized with the epsilon, a chi-rho-epsilon symbolism of both Christ and Peter. For the early church, the chi-rho would be drawn in the ground as a symbolism of Christianity, and when one extended the two lines of the chi-rho, then it became "the one who is to come"... look at the Greek word for "the one coming" in Revelation 8:1 for an example of this symbolism.


Both of these examples can be dated well before Constantine....

[quote:15b51]What is the origin of the Christian fish symbol that we see on car bumper stickers?

Christian History magazine replies:

The Greek word for fish is "ichthys." As early as the first century, Christians made an acrostic from this word: Iesous Christos Theou Yios Soter, i.e. Jesus Christ, Son of God, Savior. The fish has plenty of other theological overtones as well, for Christ fed the 5,000 with 2 fishes and 5 loaves (a meal recapitulated in Christian love-feasts) and called his disciples "fishers of men." Water baptism, practiced by immersion in the early church, created a parallel between fish and converts. Second-century theologian Tertullian put it this way: "we, little fishes, after the image of our Ichthys, Jesus Christ, are born in the water."

Greeks, Romans, and many other pagans used the fish symbol before Christians. Hence the fish, unlike, say, the cross, attracted little suspicion, making it a perfect secret symbol for persecuted believers. When threatened by Romans in the first centuries after Christ, Christians used the fish mark meeting places and tombs, or to distinguish friends from foes. According to one ancient story, when a Christian met a stranger in the road, the Christian sometimes drew one arc of the simple fish outline in the dirt. If the stranger drew the other arc, both believers knew they were in good company. Current bumper-sticker and business-card us
es of the fish hearken back to this practice.

Critics of the fish symbol either decry it as tacky tokenism or point out that the fish still carries baggage from the days when pagans used it to represent fertility or, more specifically, the female reproductive organs. Though I agree that ichthys symbols in phone-book ads seem to commercialize faith, I don't find the pagan argument compelling. No symbol means the same thing to all people at all times. That early Christians succeeded in transforming an already powerful symbol proves their interpretive creativity, not their ignorance or a tendency to syncretism.

From http://www.fbchealdton.com/hottopic.htm

I'm sure a few google searches will find more....[/quote:15b51][/quote:15b51]


I'm going to quote from the Vatican excavation notes concerning the chi-rho-epsilon inscription.... relating to Christ and to Peter.


"it could be found scratched on ancient monuments, inked onto old
documents of all kinds, worked subtly into wall mosaics, incised on
the margins of public signs, roughly stamped on medals, coins, rings,
statuettes, pots, and similar household wares, even painted on gaming
boards."

The sign of the fish is not the only first-century symbolism that relates to Christianity.


~serapha~

 

[serapha]

Re: evidence

Why would you think that the tomb was sealed no later than A.D. 42 if the coin was minted A.D.41 What this means is that the tomb was sealed no EARLIER than A.D 41. It could have been sealed one or two hundred years later.

Please read the article, and you won't have any questions concerning the accurate dating of the ossuary box.
Your link is dead but I found it elsewhere and read it. It still doesn't answer the question as to why you would assume the vault was sealed no later than A.D.42. If divers find a car at the bottom of the lake and they find a penny dated 1931 that doesn't mean the car has been down there since 1931 or that the car is that old.

Hi there!

First of all,

as to why you would assume the vault was sealed no later than A.D.42.

That was not "MY" assumption, but the understanding of the lead archaeologist in the study.

"About seven hundred metres behind Talpiot a tomb was excavated in 1945 and several ossuaries containing human bodies were found. Inscriptions and coins proved that the burial in the tomb took place in the years 41-42. Two ossuaries were found marked with the word "Jesus," and some others have so far been undeciphered. It has therefore been assumed that followers of Jesus had been buried in this tomb. If this assumption proves correct, this tomb would show the earliest historical evidence known about the followers of Jesus." [Official Guide To Israel (Tel-Aviv: 1950) 247.]...



"In 1945, many more found with crosses, 2 inscribed with name of Jesus, and one had a coin minted in A.D. 41 for King Herod Agrippa I, indicating it was sealed by A.D. 42."



Another found with inscribed crosses and the name "Shappira". This unusual female name hasn't been found in Jewish literature of that era, except for the book of Acts...

Another one from the first century, described in the "American Journal of Archaeology" The text reads: "After the name 'Jesus,' the exclamation or dedication read "y'ho," meaning "Jehova" or "the Lord". The full inscription on the ossuary reads, "[To] Jesus, "the Lord," In light of the A.D.42 date for the sealing of this tomb, the presence of this dedication to "Jesus, the Lord" attests to the Christians' acceptance of Jesus Christ as God within ten years of the death and resurrection of Jesus in A.D."

For a number of decades, it was a custom to bury a new coin with the dead. The tomb was sealed.

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/tombVoice.htm



The renowned archaeologist suggested that these crosses may be a “pictorial expression†for “He was crucified†(p. 365). While it once was claimed that the “cross†did not appear as a symbol of Christianity until the late second century A.D., further discovery has shown that the timeframe for this symbol now must be pushed back into the first century (Sukenik, p. 365).

 

[serapha]

Re: Which evidences have not been discredited

Now, what evidences have yet to be proven as unsatisfactory evidences of the historical Jesus.

1. I have found that the best evidences of Jesus of Nazareth being the Christ, the Son of God, and also being the Lord God Almighty are the inscriptions at the location known as Peter's house in Capernaum. The plaster in the walls where the inscriptions were found can be dated by the chips of pottery that were used in the plaster, making them some of the oldest archaeological evidences.

Inscriptions can be made by anyone at anytime. It is very hard to date plaster to within several hundred years. As I said , if you refer to the lin I posted which discussed the most resent ossuary found last year they said no historical real evidence is to exist of Jesus. You make a claim of fact in 1945 which is not accepted even by those who are experts in the field.


However, you are mistaken in the Capernaum inscriptions which can be dated by the chips of pottery in the plaster. As for the "James ossuary"... it was not "found" last year, and I want a source on the statement, "which is not accepted even by those who are experts in the field" pertaining to the the 1945 finding.

2. A second, excellent location of inscriptions that are verifiable are the inscriptions under the Vatican on the "red wall" of Peter's tomb. Now, I am not an advocate that the bones found in the repository were those of the apostle Peter, but I don't question that the tomb (location) did belong to Peter... The inscriptions are a good source of historical evidence for Jesus as the Lord God Almighty.

No one can make a positive confirmation on the claims. These are local legends and put forth by biased sources.

au contraire, you are mistaken, and the inscriptions are verifiable... one thing for certain, if there was a controlled area, it was the sealed tomb under the altar at the Vatican. Sealing that tomb certainly lends credibilty in dating the wall.

3. And, maybe the biggest evidence, by historical standard is the sign of the cross... and making the sign of the cross as an exchange between believers... and, of course, the written records of such activities (historical evidences), the mosaics containing the cross (archaeological evidence), the early reliefs (archaeological evidence), the early jewelry that is found in Christian tombs (archaeological evidences). (BTW Jews aren't buried with jewelry) (BTW... I am searching for the critical text on the use of crosses on "Christian" lamps in the first century.... so hold on )
Making the sign of the cross is not evidence of Jesus it is evidence of Christianity. Traditions and symbols exist all over the world for their local Gods which doesn't make them true.


I believe the difference is that the sign of the cross as an inscription adjoined with the name of Jesus refutes your statement. It isn't "just the sign of the cross" nor is it "just the name of Jesus"... but the combination which lends credibilty.


4. The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology. (This is still a good reference. There are evidences of these two witnesses outside the Bible)


Can't find Peter or Paul outside of the bible. Nothing here is proven. Find unbiased sources for the claim outside of the bible.If you notice all we have about Paul is the writings in the bible and the same for Peter. We don't know for sure who these people were or if there was more than one writing under the same name as was popular to do then.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/m2lec1a.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETER.htm

I don't have to find "unbiased" sources in archaeology. In theology, possibly, but in archaeology... it is up to the critic to prove "bias" in criticial text published as the result of excavations. Critical texts from excavations state the findings, not the opinions of archaeologists. A great example of that is the excavations at the Wadi El-Kharrar where a muslim is the lead archaeologist on the excavations of the baptimal area and associated Christian churches of John the Baptist. If "bias" was involved in that archaeological critical text, then why would a muslim be reporting information that supports the biblical text?




5. I would add there are ossuary boxes which date to a very limited time frame of first century jerusalem which carry the symbol of the cross for Christians being buried in the boxes. There are probably 100+ of such ossuary boxes with crosses dating from 35 AD to 70 AD.
Ossuary boxes with crosses are not evidence of Jesus they are evidence of Christianity.


If the inscriptions reads "Jesus" then the evidence supports "Jesus"... that you reject it does not negate the fact that within a decade of the death and resurrection of Christ, tombs reflect the death of Christians and their claim to Christ.


As well as any of the historical evidences (written word) of the early church fathers.
The early church fathers did not witness Jesus in the flesh.Again , their testimony is not unbiased. There is a motive for lying when you are starting a new religion.
"The Pastorals, (I & II Timothy and Titus) are recognized forgeries written in the mid-second century long after Paul's death. In spite of this widely accepted historical fact most versions of the Bible present them as epistles of Paul. So, let us treat them as such."

Where do you get your information? "The early church fathers did not witness Jesus in the flesh"... The apostle John was an eyewitness and and early church father.

There is a motive for lying when you are starting a new religion.

And your motive in posting that statement is? Are you implying that ALL of the early church fathers were lying? Surely, you jest?

[quote:9761c]"The Pastorals, (I & II Timothy and Titus) are recognized forgeries written in the mid-second century long after Paul's death.

prove it.




~serapha~

[/quote:9761c]

 

[serapha]

Re: response

HI there!


Perhaps we should just keep the topic on subject and not attempt to derail threads. What do you think?

I don't think I've strayed on topic as this is about archeological evidence proving the bible and Jesus is in the bible.

I disagree. You have attempted to derail the thread many times.

So... what was the purpose of this member's previous posting?

[quote:a7818]Not using your bible can you show evidence of the historical reality of Jesus? Any evidence you use cannot be referenced to the bible in any way.

The purpose was to narrow down the responses so that the only response would be.... the standard response of Josephus, etc... so that certain members could "berate" Christianity because certain members won't accept the Bible as a historical reference.


I can keep posting "archaeological evidences" all day.... so don't try the "historical Jesus" arguments with me.

I think it's important as "archeological evidence" and "historical Jesus" should be in the same bowl and compliment each other. They don't.

And your authority is?



No one of any authority accepts as "proof" the examples you use to prove the existance of Jesus. You want to deny that the fact that history is silent about Jesus outside of the bible.

Again, and your authority is? I would like a listing of "no one of any authority accespts as "proof" the examples you use..."


Now... let's really get the thread back on track... and put the Bible back in as a historical document as it should have been before the attempt to narrow the field to such a point that the scales of debate are not balanced.


That the point. The bible is not a historical book.


That is your opinion. My opinion is that it is a historical book. It is the history of the Jewish people and the history of the birth of Christianity.


Stories and claims should able to be verified independently from other reliable sources. All we have for Jesus is one book written by authors with who knows what motivations. If all these claims were true then others would have written about them . They didn't.


That "others" didn't write about Christ doesn't mean that Christ did not exist. that would be your opinion on why they chose not to write about Christ.

Now, getting the thread back on track, care to address the six statements I posted? and that would be without using red herring to derail the thread.
I answered them with sources that would be sympathetic to your case if you had one.

And I have replied to your postings. Now... let's keep the thread on track and no more red herrings and derailments please.

~serapha~

[/quote:a7818]

 

[serapha]

Re: Which evidences have not been discredited

4. The eyewitness accounts of Peter and Paul. Both Peter and Paul have been proven to have existed by historical evidences and archaeological evidences outside the Bible...,. look for Peter at the Vatican.... look for Paul in Cyprus archaeology. (This is still a good reference. There are evidences of these two witnesses outside the Bible)


Can't find Peter or Paul outside of the bible. Nothing here is proven. Find unbiased sources for the claim outside of the bible.If you notice all we have about Paul is the writings in the bible and the same for Peter. We don't know for sure who these people were or if there was more than one writing under the same name as was popular to do then.
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/m2lec1a.htm
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/PETER.htm

Hi there!



Literary sources and recent archaeological discoveries make the identification of the house of St. Peter in Capernaum virtually certain.

The house was built at the very end of the Hellenistic period (first century B.C.). In the second half of the first century A.D. some peculiar features set apart this building from all the others so far excavated in Capernaum. Here, in fact, the pavements received floors of lime several times. Interesting enough, many pieces of broken lamps were found in the thin layers of lime. ...One hundred and thirty-one inscriptions were found. They were written in four languages, namley: in Greek (110), Aramaic (10), Estrangelo (9), and Latin (2).

The name of Jesus appears several times. He is called Christ, the Lord, and the Most High God. An inscription in Estrangelo mentions the Eucharist.

There are also symbols and monograms, namely: crosses of different forms, a boat, the monogram of Jesus. The name of St. Peter occurs at least twice: his monogram is written in Latin but with Greek letters. In another graffito St. Peter is called the helper of Rome. A third inscription mentions Peter and Berenike. This Peter, however, might be the name of a pilgrim. On several hundred pieces of plaster, decorative motifs appear. the colors employed are: green, blue, yellow, red, brown, white and black. Among the subjects one can distinguish floral crosses, pomegranates, figs, trifolium, stylized flowers and geometric designs such as circles, squares, etc.

...At the beginning of the fifth century, the house of St. Peter was still standing, but it had been previously changed into a church. This we learn from Eteria, a Spanish pilgrim, who wrote in her diary: "In Capernaum, the house of the Prince of the Apostles (=St. Peter) became a church. The walls, however, (of that house) have remained unchanged to the present day."
[Stanislao Loffreda, "Caperaum - Jesus' Own City," Bible and Spade, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Associates for Biblical Research, 1981), pp. 12, 7-8.]


I believe that the excavations of Capernaum are "outside the Bible" as well as the entry by Eteria (the pilgrim).

And the "plaster" is "outside" the Bible.


~serapha~

 

[reznwerks]

Re: evidence

[
Hi there!

First of all,

as to why you would assume the vault was sealed no later than A.D.42.

That was not "MY" assumption, but the understanding of the lead archaeologist in the study.

"About seven hundred metres behind Talpiot a tomb was excavated in 1945 and several ossuaries containing human bodies were found. Inscriptions and coins proved that the burial in the tomb took place in the years 41-42. Two ossuaries were found marked with the word "Jesus," and some others have so far been undeciphered. It has therefore been assumed that followers of Jesus had been buried in this tomb. If this assumption proves correct, this tomb would show the earliest historical evidence known about the followers of Jesus." [Official Guide To Israel (Tel-Aviv: 1950) 247.]...
"ASSUMED" is not proof. Did anyone ever consider FRAUD. It was and is quite common both then and now especially in an attempt to validate the religion.



"In 1945, many more found with crosses, 2 inscribed with name of Jesus, and one had a coin minted in A.D. 41 for King Herod Agrippa I, indicating it was sealed by A.D. 42."
I think this was answered quite nicely by others that pointed out with real evidence that using the cross did not become common until several hundred years after the supposed event.



Another found with inscribed crosses and the name "Shappira". This unusual female name hasn't been found in Jewish literature of that era, except for the book of Acts...
Well Acts was estimated to be written sometime from 50 to 100 years after the supposed event. I don't know how you are trying to link this with Jesus and the name Shappira. If he found the name Shappira in a tomb inscribed with crosses it can only be assumed based on the info we have is that the name Shappira became more popular later on as it can't be together with crosses since they weren't used for several hundred years. The bottom line is the tomb is much younger than the founder let on.

Another one from the first century, described in the "American Journal of Archaeology" The text reads: "After the name 'Jesus,' the exclamation or dedication read "y'ho," meaning "Jehova" or "the Lord". The full inscription on the ossuary reads, "[To] Jesus, "the Lord," In light of the A.D.42 date for the sealing of this tomb, the presence of this dedication to "Jesus, the Lord" attests to the Christians' acceptance of Jesus Christ as God within ten years of the death and resurrection of Jesus in A.D."
If you want us to believe it is authentic then why doesn't anyone else accept it.
" Reviewing Mel Gibson's "Passion" film, committee senior researcher Joe Nickell asserts: "Historically, apart from later Christian sources, there is virtually no evidence for Jesus' crucifixion - or even his very existence."
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:qH ... e%22&hl=en
If it could be verified, this coffin, more correctly called a bone box or an ossuary, would form a direct archaeological link to Jesus Christ. Such archaeological evidence for Jesus and his historical existence has never before been found and would have important ramifications for Christianity.
http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary.htm
The two links above ARE NOT from atheist or skeptic websites but from apologetic Christian websites and more are available. You are trying to use discoveries from 1945 that simply have not been accepted as true for one reason or another.There simply is not any archeological evidence of Jesus in the first century. Was there evidence of Christianity ? Yes

For a number of decades, it was a custom to bury a new coin with the dead. The tomb was sealed.
The evidence is simply not accepted by theological institutions. The tomb could have been sealed by anyone with a coin of that date. Those links I used and the one about the James ossuary were written by experts not more than two years ago. Your evidence is not accepted. I don't know who or where you are getting your info as to this is proof but it is not.

http://www.christiancourier.com/penpoints/tombVoice.htm

The renowned archaeologist suggested that these crosses may be a “pictorial expression†for “He was crucified†(p. 365). While it once was claimed that the “cross†did not appear as a symbol of Christianity until the late second century A.D., further discovery has shown that the timeframe for this symbol now must be pushed back into the first century (Sukenik, p. 365).

I can find a lot of reference to Sukenik with the "Dead Sea Scrolls" but not much with this supposed discovery. The lack of information and the reference to the links I posted should make you think twice about accepting this as such. No one else does. Everything about this "discovery" points to error and fraud whether intentional or not cannot be made.Here is another link which does a fair job of explaining why the discoveries are not that well known and why my assumptions are probably correct.
"The new find would be the first archaeological discovery to corroborate Biblical references to Jesus. " This is in reference to the James ossuary. So no recognizes any real evidence BEFORE 2004 for Jesus outside of the bible.
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20 ... print.html

"While most scholars agree that Jesus existed, no physical evidence from the first century has ever been conclusively tied with his life." It can't be more plain than that.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/scien ... index.html