It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Jerusalem Burial Cave Reveals:Names, Testimonies of First Christians

page: 2
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Deaf Alien

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
The skeptics will find 200 + reasons to still claim Jesus Christ didn't exist.


What are you talking about? This is the kind of substantial evidence the skeptics want that shows that Jesus as a man may have existed. All christians have done is provide second-hand accounts of Jesus which are not credible or reliable. Finally, there is something we can debate on.


None of you doubt the existence of Alexander the Great even though nothing was written about him until 400 years after his death.

No one seems to care that his "proof" is from second hand sources.

Oh, I get it.. it's because he never claimed to be a God.

Oh, wait, he did claim to be a God.



Because of something called archeological evidence. Can you say the same about Jesus?




posted on Sep, 12 2008 @ 11:53 PM
link   
Copyright © 1998 Jerusalem Christian Review. All rights reserved.
This article was reprinted with permission from the Jerusalem Christian Review, Volume 9, Internet Edition, Issue 2.


why is this 10 year old? You'd think in 10 years they would have a great deal more information, interesting, no doubt, but with stone, you cannot carbon date it, I wonder what the patina study reveled, I noticed the article didn't mention it. I'm certain that after 10 years one was done.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject

A "head stone", found near the entrance to the first century catacomb, is inscribed with the sign of the cross.


crosses have been used long before christianity pawned that symbolism as their own. what part of christianity really wasn't borrowed from the ancient religions or pagan traditions?



"From its simplicity of form, the cross has been used both as a religious symbol and as an ornament, from the dawn of man's civilization. Various objects, dating from periods long anterior to the Christian era, have been found, marked with crosses of different designs, in almost every part of the old world." The cross symbol was found in:

  1. Scandinavia - The Tau cross symbolized the hammer of the God Thor
  2. Babylon - the cross with a crescent moon was the symbol of their moon deity
  3. Assyria - the corners of the cross represented the four directions in which the sun shines.
  4. India - In Hinduism, the vertical shaft represents the higher, celestial states of being; the horizontal bar represents the lower, earthly states.
  5. Egypt - The ankh cross (a Tau cross topped by an inverted tear shape) is associated with Maat, their Goddess of Truth. It also represents the sexual union of Isis and Osiris
  6. Europe - The use of a human effigy on a cross in the form of a scarecrow has been used from ancient times. In prehistoric times, a human would be sacrificed and hung on a cross. The sacrifice would later be chopped to pieces; his blood and pieces of flesh were widely distributed and buried to encourage the crop fertility.


www.religioustolerance.org...

*Edited for format

[edit on 13-9-2008 by banyan]

[edit on 13-9-2008 by banyan]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by banyan
crosses have been used long before christianity pawned that symbolism as their own. what part of christianity really wasn't borrowed from the ancient religions or pagan traditions?

Your point being?

What the heck, I'll take a stab at it as I feel led by the Holy Spirit.

Yes I'm very much aware of that about the cross & similar themes or stories but it doesn't take away from the Gospel. Here's why:

All the rest are counterfeits by the enemy. The enemy knows something of God's mind. The enemy co-opted the symbolism, story, themes, & even the name (e.g. krishna) in an attempt marginalize the genuine article and to deceive.

But, to those of us who understand, all the enemy's efforts only served as a foreshadowing or indirect prophecies of God's plan edifying us in the process.

fwiw:

Matthew 13:24-30

Another parable set he before them, saying, The kingdom of heaven is likened unto a man that sowed good seed in his field: (25) but while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares also among the wheat, and went away. (26) But when the blade sprang up, and brought forth fruit, then appeared the tares also. (27) And the servants of the householder came and said unto him, Sir, didst thou not sow good seed in thy field? whence then hath it tares? (28) And he said unto them, An enemy hath done this. And the servants say unto him, Wilt thou then that we go and gather them up? (29) But he saith, Nay; lest haply while ye gather up the tares, ye root up the wheat with them. (30) Let both grow together until the harvest: and in the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, Gather up first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them: but gather the wheat into my barn.
Let me thank you for bringing up that matter as I'd like to once & for all put it to rest.

But this thread's aim was to prove Jesus Christ of Nazareth walked the earth during the 1st century; which it did. Your comment, though interesting, neither added nor took away from it and was more of an aside.

So let's get back to topic


[edit on 13-9-2008 by reject]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 12:57 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


i did not think i would have to spell my previous post out, but i will since you deemed it a deterrent from your OP.

one of your claims of proof for jesus was that stone was found with a cross on it dating back to the early ADs, no? the cross was one of your points of 'proof' that jesus existed. my post was merely meant to illustrate that a cross found on a tomb does not conclusively mean christianity was the only possible explanation or meaning, especially since crosses were widely used before jesus was ever supposedly born.

if christianity was the only religion that ever used that symbol in history, you would have a case for the cross, but since you have various older traditions using it, you cannot claim exclusive explanatory proof.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:07 AM
link   
reply to post by banyan

Originally posted by banyan
reply to post by reject
 


i did not think i would have to spell my previous post out, but i will since you deemed it a deterrent from your OP.

... my post was merely meant to illustrate that a cross found on a tomb does not conclusively mean christianity was the only possible explanation or meaning, especially since crosses were widely used before jesus was ever supposedly born...

if christianity was the only religion that ever used that symbol in history, you would have a case for the cross, but since you have various older traditions using it, you cannot claim exclusive explanatory proof.

 
good grief...the cross plus yeshua plus helper/redeemer plus the date plus the location

You're still not sure its a christian site? yeah, right




[edit on 13-9-2008 by reject]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:16 AM
link   
The cross is NOT original. Even if you found crosses in tombs, it just shows how widespread the symbol is all over the world.

Here's one for instance. An ankh has been found in the tomb of Tutankhamun.





posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
reply to post by banyan
 
good grief...the cross plus yeshua plus the date plus the location

You're still not sure its a christian site? yeah, right


actually, no i am still not sure it is a christian site, but i must be foolish right? not to believe that a guy i should worship may or may not have been buried there?

all the truth i see is that you are making it a christian burial site with your claims, whether or not it truly is. that's the funny thing about finding these bits and pieces of physical history...we have a piece of the story, but we have no idea the context. it's up to us to give it meaning. so who is more wrong...me or you? jumping to conclusions or jumping to none?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:23 AM
link   
ok, banyan & deaf alien. Let me put it this way. There is no archaeologist or historian in their right minds who would say that there is even the remotest possibility the site isn't christian



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:28 AM
link   
common name + common symbol + common date [to any of the millions of people who were living in that time] + needing to be buried somewhere = jesus lord almighty of pure and holy goodness?

maybe? maybe not? i do not think this is enough for me to wager an eternal soul on.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by banyan
common name + common symbol + common date [to any of the millions of people who were living in that time] + needing to be buried somewhere = jesus lord almighty of pure and holy goodness?

maybe? maybe not? i do not think this is enough for me to wager an eternal soul on.
hey, no fair, you left out "helper/redeemer." I edited my post



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject
ok, banyan & deaf alien. Let me put it this way. There is no archaeologist or historian in their right minds who would say that there is even the remotest possibility the site isn't christian


let's concede for a second your thoughts are correct, that is indeed a christian burial site dating back when...i do not see how you can draw any conclusive thoughts about the validity of christianity through it, like others have previously posted. it could be a fake burial site planted by early christians for the ensnarement of future generations to believe in their newly founded religion. it could be the real thing. it could be the nowadays equivalent of David Smith from New York City.

this whole thread reeks of needless conjecture to prove that one's whole life is based on truth and not centuries of lies



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:37 AM
link   
The burial site MAY be christian, and I'm sure it was probably. It MAY give more credence to the existence of Jesus as a man. However, it DOES NOT prove the divinity of Jesus. It DOES NOT prove christianity valid.

What it does show is how widespread the symbol was. The story of Jesus is not unique. Many religions all over have the same story, borrowing from others.

Hypothetical question: if Jesus lived today performing "miracles" and claiming to be son of God and we being first-hand witnesses, what would our reaction be?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:46 AM
link   
Wow. what banter! When will we see the light? I will retreat to my prayer chamber for all the unbelievers here. Don't laugh, it works.!!!


Why is it so hard to believe simple truths? Is it because we have an enemy of our soul? Think about it! Why would satan fight so hard for you....because he wants YOU! and probably has you.

Resist and fight the good fight of faith. You are loved and have been redeemed. Special one!


Each and every one.



[edit on 9/13/2008 by Sweet Paula]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by Sweet Paula
 


i am a very spiritual person. that's fine if you pray for me, for i do like positive energy coming my way. just do not condemn what i do with the positive energy you give me when i in turn do not worship the same christian form of god you do.

your post was meant to tell me you love me and are praying for me and my soul, but all i heard was you telling me what i believe is not good enough and to screw my god or beliefs. since i am not with you, i am against you?



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 01:57 AM
link   
reply to post by reject
 


great find,

thanks for posting this, im going to have a good look. Another notch in the evidence that people will choose to ignor

all the best

david



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by drevill
reply to post by reject
 


thanks for posting this, im going to have a good look. Another notch in the evidence that people will choose to ignor


What's with all this talk about skeptics ignoring evidence? Didn't I say on first page that finally there is something substantial, however tiny, supporting the existence of Jesus as a man. I am listening, and I'm sure some others are, and am very interested in this. This is something we can debate about. We cannot debate with unfounded faith or second-hand, third, or fourth hand accounts of Jesus.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by banyan
...it could be a fake burial site planted by early christians for the ensnarement of future generations to believe in their newly founded religion...
this whole thread reeks of needless conjecture to prove that one's whole life is based on truth and not centuries of lies
Who's grasping at straws here? If that were the case it would've been on display to the public which it was not. Its the real deal.

The ossuaries (stone coffins), untouched for 2,000 years, as they were found by archaeologist P. Bagatti on the Mt. of Olives
No, deaf alien, I only proved that Jesus Christ of Nazareth walked the earth during the 1st century. It takes faith to believe what he taught as those who used this tomb did.



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject

Originally posted by banyan
...it could be a fake burial site planted by early christians for the ensnarement of future generations to believe in their newly founded religion...
this whole thread reeks of needless conjecture to prove that one's whole life is based on truth and not centuries of lies
Who's grasping at straws here?


i'd say we are both equally grasping at straws. which is really the whole point here. really. but i'm the crazy one...?

[edit on 13-9-2008 by banyan]



posted on Sep, 13 2008 @ 02:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by reject

Originally posted by banyan

No, deaf alien, I only proved that Jesus Christ of Nazareth walked the earth during the 1st century.


No, you didn't. It raised the possibility of Jesus existed. But it is not 100% conclusive. However, this is much better than second-hand accounts.



It takes faith to believe what he taught as those who used this tomb did.


See? We cannot debate with this.



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join