Tomb Exploration Reveals First Archaeological Evidence of Christianity from the Time of Jesus - Predates Gospels - Apparently

Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Tomb Exploration Reveals First Archaeological Evidence of Christianity from the Time of Jesus - Predates Gospels - Apparently

 

Researchers have found something curious - a tomb dated prior to 70 CE, when ossuary use in Jerusalem ceased due to the Roman destruction of the city, with markings that if Christian as the scholars involved believe, represent the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found. According to a SciDaily report, the engravings were most likely made by some of Jesus' earliest followers, within decades of his death. Together, an inscription and a Jonah image testify to early Christian faith in resurrection. The tomb record thus predates the writing of the gospels.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120228102137.htm

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Researchers have found something curious - a tomb dated prior to 70 CE, when ossuary use in Jerusalem ceased due to the Roman destruction of the city, with markings that if Christian as the scholars involved believe, represent the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found. According to a SciDaily report, the engravings were most likely made by some of Jesus' earliest followers, within decades of his death. Together, an inscription and a Jonah image testify to early Christian faith in resurrection. The tomb record thus predates the writing of the gospels.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120228102137.htm

 

 

So what, it is obvious there was something there prior to the writing of the bible otherwise they wouldn't have had anything to draw from.

SOMETHING and someone WAS in influence to the writers. So what? It still doesn't make godsperm real or zombie gods real, or any god for that matter.

Any human organization, be it a business, or religion or political party has to start from something prior. But it doesn't make gods real or magic real or invisible friends real. All this would prove is where the cult started. It would be like if 2.000 years from now archeologists found Ray Croc's grave discovering the grave of McDonalds founder. It would not make the Hamburgler real.

And again if this character were such a threat to the Romans during his alleged life there would have been tons of evidence outside the bible, so one etching on a tomb is hardly evidence, all it means is that a human being's grave was uncovered. Nothing more.

And seriously, even outside this "scientific" "evidence" why the fuck should humanity want such a doomsday cult to be real? It is really selfish for the fans of all the Abrahmic gods to use a planet of 7 billion for a giant game of capture the flag with a final act of mass genocide for what? Bragging rights? Do these gang minions give one fuck that others might not want to be part of this?

I have said constantly that it would not matter to me if a man named Jesus did exist. First that name in any case back then was as common as Smith and Jones. And on top of that the idea of a "kristos" or "Christ" meaning "chosen one" was a motif wide spread in all cultures back then. But as I said before, ultimately, discovering the tomb of a religious leader ANY RELIGION doesnt make the god's or their superstition valid.

When we discovered Tut's tomb no one went around saying "this proves the sun is a god".

When is this retrofitting going to stop. This is only "science" in the archeology sense. It is not science at all to use such discovery to prop up a tribal myth simply because we found a grave. Otherwise every religion could use the same argument for their gods.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 3203
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:So what, it is

Brian37 wrote:
So what, it is obvious there was something there prior to the writing of the bible otherwise they wouldn't have had anything to draw from.

SOMETHING and someone WAS in influence to the writers. So what? It still doesn't make godsperm real or zombie gods real, or any god for that matter.

Any human organization, be it a business, or religion or political party has to start from something prior. But it doesn't make gods real or magic real or invisible friends real. All this would prove is where the cult started. It would be like if 2.000 years from now archeologists found Ray Croc's grave discovering the grave of McDonalds founder. It would not make the Hamburgler real.

And again if this character were such a threat to the Romans during his alleged life there would have been tons of evidence outside the bible, so one etching on a tomb is hardly evidence, all it means is that a human being's grave was uncovered. Nothing more.

And seriously, even outside this "scientific" "evidence" why the fuck should humanity want such a doomsday cult to be real? It is really selfish for the fans of all the Abrahmic gods to use a planet of 7 billion for a giant game of capture the flag with a final act of mass genocide for what? Bragging rights? Do these gang minions give one fuck that others might not want to be part of this?

I have said constantly that it would not matter to me if a man named Jesus did exist. First that name in any case back then was as common as Smith and Jones. And on top of that the idea of a "kristos" or "Christ" meaning "chosen one" was a motif wide spread in all cultures back then. But as I said before, ultimately, discovering the tomb of a religious leader ANY RELIGION doesnt make the god's or their superstition valid.

When we discovered Tut's tomb no one went around saying "this proves the sun is a god".

When is this retrofitting going to stop. This is only "science" in the archeology sense. It is not science at all to use such discovery to prop up a tribal myth simply because we found a grave. Otherwise every religion could use the same argument for their gods.

I'm assuming that this article was posted for informational purposes only. I didn't see any thing in the article which said god/jesus existed. I think they are only assuming that the symbol used might be related to an early believer of the resurrection.

This discovery is no different than finding a mummy in Peru who was buried with a sling shot. The scientists believe that the mummy either really liked the sling shot/was very good at it/who was a crafter. When they died, those who loved them wanted to bury them with an item which represented them in this life. I'm assuming the same with the "fish symbol" on this box.

 

 

Free will is an illusion. People always choose the perceived path of greatest pleasure.

-Scott Adams


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
digitalbeachbum

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
So what, it is obvious there was something there prior to the writing of the bible otherwise they wouldn't have had anything to draw from.

SOMETHING and someone WAS in influence to the writers. So what? It still doesn't make godsperm real or zombie gods real, or any god for that matter.

Any human organization, be it a business, or religion or political party has to start from something prior. But it doesn't make gods real or magic real or invisible friends real. All this would prove is where the cult started. It would be like if 2.000 years from now archeologists found Ray Croc's grave discovering the grave of McDonalds founder. It would not make the Hamburgler real.

And again if this character were such a threat to the Romans during his alleged life there would have been tons of evidence outside the bible, so one etching on a tomb is hardly evidence, all it means is that a human being's grave was uncovered. Nothing more.

And seriously, even outside this "scientific" "evidence" why the fuck should humanity want such a doomsday cult to be real? It is really selfish for the fans of all the Abrahmic gods to use a planet of 7 billion for a giant game of capture the flag with a final act of mass genocide for what? Bragging rights? Do these gang minions give one fuck that others might not want to be part of this?

I have said constantly that it would not matter to me if a man named Jesus did exist. First that name in any case back then was as common as Smith and Jones. And on top of that the idea of a "kristos" or "Christ" meaning "chosen one" was a motif wide spread in all cultures back then. But as I said before, ultimately, discovering the tomb of a religious leader ANY RELIGION doesnt make the god's or their superstition valid.

When we discovered Tut's tomb no one went around saying "this proves the sun is a god".

When is this retrofitting going to stop. This is only "science" in the archeology sense. It is not science at all to use such discovery to prop up a tribal myth simply because we found a grave. Otherwise every religion could use the same argument for their gods.

I'm assuming that this article was posted for informational purposes only. I didn't see any thing in the article which said god/jesus existed. I think they are only assuming that the symbol used might be related to an early believer of the resurrection.

This discovery is no different than finding a mummy in Peru who was buried with a sling shot. The scientists believe that the mummy either really liked the sling shot/was very good at it/who was a crafter. When they died, those who loved them wanted to bury them with an item which represented them in this life. I'm assuming the same with the "fish symbol" on this box.

 

 

That wasn't lost on me. This was just merely a pre strike against the "Dumb and Dumber" apologists  who might use this and say "So you're saying there's a chance".

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
interesting. BUT!!!!

                  Why would Jonah and the whale be a christian symbol? its from the old testament II Kings.   That some devout Jews had a desire for reincarnation in spite of their doctrine would make them human not christian. Showing a fish symbol WITHOUT Jonah would be christian. The fish symbol WITH Jonah would indicate the dead person was a teenager or younger and their favorite story was Jonah and the great fish.                 The writer of the article and the on site archaeologists seem to have a clear belief that Jesus was a real person,  with no clear facts to back it up.                Try the last 8 minutes of this video for a better understanding of early christians.  At 47:04 is a chart of early christian symbols, 2 are fish; none are Jonah.                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE   

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13668
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Jeffrick

Jeffrick wrote:

                  Why would Jonah and the whale be a christian symbol? its from the old testament II Kings.   That some devout Jews had a desire for reincarnation in spite of their doctrine would make them human not christian. Showing a fish symbol WITHOUT Jonah would be christian. The fish symbol WITH Jonah would indicate the dead person was a teenager or younger and their favorite story was Jonah and the great fish.                 The writer of the article and the on site archaeologists seem to have a clear belief that Jesus was a real person,  with no clear facts to back it up.                Try the last 8 minutes of this video for a better understanding of early christians.  At 47:04 is a chart of early christian symbols, 2 are fish; none are Jonah.                    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MvleOBYTrDE   

 

If I remember correctly the "fish" symbol was ripped off prior polytheists. It was a vagina as a fertility symbol before Christians adapted it to be a fish. I heard that on an Infidel Guy show, but maybe someone could provide a history of that particular symbol.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2398
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
OK

                From  "The Continuum Encyclopedia of SYMBOLS";                                       Fish;    Closely related symbolicly to WATER, its life element.  As a symbol of life and fertility among meny peoples; it is also a widely common TALISMAN.    ------- In Egypt ,  most species of fish in a particular area or at a particular time were considered to be sacred, yet often threatening and uncanny as well.  ------- The FISH is one of the oldest secret symbols for christ, at first probably due primerily to its relation to baptisim by water. Later the Greek term for fish (ichthys) was interpreted as being an acrostic of the words Jesous Christos Theou (H)Yios Soter {jesus christ, son of god, saviour}.  Baptised christians thought themselves to be fish newly born in the water of baptisim.  The fishes, or Pisces, are the twelfth and last sign of the zodiac, corresponding to the third month of winter. The sun passes the sign between Feb. 18 and March 20. Venus is ascending in Pisces; it is the house of Jupiter (Neptune). Since the time of  Hellenic astrology, Saaturn, Jupiter and Mars have been in decans; in Indian astrology, Jupitere, the moon and Mars are  decans.  The triplicity of Pisces is water: Pisces is feminine, negative (passive) and a movable sign. Its depiction and name can be traced back to Babylonian sources, in which a link between the two elements is particularly noted.

 

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Personally

 

 

I think the pictogram portrays the time one hot summer day when Ahab went body surfing on lake Galilee and was taken by a gigantic cod. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Atheistextremist wrote:
Researchers have found something curious - a tomb dated prior to 70 CE, when ossuary use in Jerusalem ceased due to the Roman destruction of the city, with markings that if Christian as the scholars involved believe, represent the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found. According to a SciDaily report, the engravings were most likely made by some of Jesus' earliest followers, within decades of his death. Together, an inscription and a Jonah image testify to early Christian faith in resurrection. The tomb record thus predates the writing of the gospels.


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120228102137.htm

Frankly I enjoy it when believers shoot themselves in the foot and continue on as though nothing had happened. So the fish iconography originally meant resurrect. So all that fisher of men and the fishermen is unrelated to the original meaning but is later invention. Sound trivial? It negates the entire claim of conversion and spreading the word and saving souls does it not?

OTOH: It could be just the interred favorite bible story. It hangs on believing "raising up" means resurrection from the dead instead of raising up from the deep and spit out as was Jonah. That is the simplest interpretation.

In all of these glib explanations there is always the problem with the obvious omission of the one clincher we would all expect, the name Jesus or Yeshua in any spelling.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Researchers have found something curious - a tomb dated prior to 70 CE, when ossuary use in Jerusalem ceased due to the Roman destruction of the city, with markings that if Christian as the scholars involved believe, represent the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found. According to a SciDaily report, the engravings were most likely made by some of Jesus' earliest followers, within decades of his death. Together, an inscription and a Jonah image testify to early Christian faith in resurrection. The tomb record thus predates the writing of the gospels.

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/02/120228102137.htm

 

 

So what, it is obvious there was something there prior to the writing of the bible otherwise they wouldn't have had anything to draw from.

SOMETHING and someone WAS in influence to the writers. So what? It still doesn't make godsperm real or zombie gods real, or any god for that matter.

Any human organization, be it a business, or religion or political party has to start from something prior. But it doesn't make gods real or magic real or invisible friends real. All this would prove is where the cult started. It would be like if 2.000 years from now archeologists found Ray Croc's grave discovering the grave of McDonalds founder. It would not make the Hamburgler real.

It invalidates portions of the "myth" viewpoint... again, the timeline is pretty consistent with "proselytizing Jews"  existing loooonnngg before Paul of Tarsus wrote any sort of 'letter' about the new religion. Any need to go into some sort of denial about that?

That is, of course, assuming that the new archaeological finds have some sort of validity regarding religion, and what not. Eye-wink

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Personally, I'd like to

Personally, I'd like to start a "Jimmy Wales Mythicist Campaign" to counteract the cult of personality he has set up for himself amongst the "Encyclopedia anyone can edit!", but... oh... how rarely do I get to have my cake and eat it too.

Eye-wink

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)