5,000-Year-Old Nativity Scene Found in Egypt

On a ceiling of a small cavity in the Egyptian Sahara Desert there is a 5,000 year old rock art that shows the east star and a new born between parents and two animals.

www.seeker.com...
Italian researchers have discovered what might be the oldest nativity scene ever found — 5,000-year-old rock art that depicts a star in the east, a newborn between parents and two animals.

The scene, painted in reddish-brown ochre, was found on the ceiling of a small cavity in the Egyptian Sahara desert, during an expedition to sites between the Nile valley and the Gilf Kebir Plateau.

It is a scene that resembles the Christian nativity but is 3,000 years older. It was found in 2005 but it was decided to release the find now. Of course there is several implications to the find.

It's a very evocative scene which indeed resembles the Christmas nativity. But it predates it by some 3,000 years," geologist Marco Morelli, director of the Museum of Planetary Sciences in Prato, near Florence, Italy, told Seeker.

Morelli found the cave drawing in 2005, but only now his team has decided to reveal the amazing find.

"The discovery has several implications as it raises new questions on the iconography of one of the more powerful Christian symbols," Morelli said.

a reply to: seasonal

You can trace the stories to a much earlier Sumerian belief system.

All religions have done this, it was standard practice for the Christians to take other special days and make it their own.

P

Sounds like an Umberto Eco novel! Wow!

Yeah, that's clearly a Christmas nativity, even has a reindeer and Santa delivering toys

I can see it

I'm gonna call fake.

Ok I got ahold of fake. He said yup this story is his.

a reply to: seasonal

Not evidence of any link to christian tradition at all, not even evidence of a link to Egyptian religion such as Horus birth and just a nice painting that someone wanted to release a story about to try to undermine Christian spirit this Christmas once again.

Pheonix you are actually wrong, there has always been a christian tradition of celebrating Christ's birth at least from the early 2nd century onward, what the STATE church did though much later was move it over to take over date's important to Pagan tradition's, whether this was done maliciously or not is irrelevant and was more likely a case of taking an existing festive season and superimposing another one over it to prevent christian's from going from the christian festival to the pagan one in the name of a good party - yes they had them back then too, indeed Christ's birth may have been month's away from the christ-mass day we celebrate today, note that (CHRIST MASS - going to celebrate the sacrement - the body of christ and his birth at church not unpacking pagan odin toy's beneath your old Nordic pine forest.

Also your statement about Christianity taking over day's misses out an important part, ever hear of Glastonbury tor over here in Britain, it is a site often associated with the mythical Avalon and may be an artifical mound but was definitely important to pre-christian pagan Britain and these pre-christian religion's were seen as putting the soul's of there followers in bondage and damnation by the early christian church so they did much the same at this site and around the christian world, they took over the site and built a religious establishment over it, this was NOT done maliciously but to banish evil spirit's/demon's and to sanctify these site's through prayer and faith.

Ah prayer and Faith something both Atheist's and indeed ANTI christian's have little of, muhammad did not walk on water, raise the dead, heal the blind, cure the infirm, caste out devil's again and again so I shall leave fanatical adherant's to that aside as they have faith but in my opinion the wrong type.

So another christmas and another raft of Secularist and Atheist inspired attack's on the true meaning behind it (which is not presents or holiday TV show's and putting your feet up though let's be fair we all love that).

a reply to: seasonal

The problems with the article as in poor reporting?

One, no statement on how the dating was conducted.

Two, I would say the figures look more like mythical beings. More like something on ancient aliens.

Three, the beings are not in a manger and surrounded by mythical creatures with no context. Was the star and animals added as separate works over the years. Cave drawings are usually a collection of work over generations.


The facts are given in a ambiguous fashion to only cause controversy and publicity.

Ignored quotes from article

www.seeker.com...

"It could have been interpreted as a normal depiction of a family, with the baby between the parents, but other details make this drawing unique," Morelli said.

He noted the newborn is drawn slightly above, as if raising to the sky. Such position, with the baby not yet between the parents, would have meant a birth or a pregnancy.


On the upper part is a headless lion, a mythical beast which appears in several rock art drawings from the same area, while below in the scene a baboon or an anthropomorphic monkey can be seen

The painting has about as much in common with the Christian nativity screen as a family picture at a zoo.

Just saying?

a reply to: BlueMule

I agree, it seems like a stretch. It seems like a group that needs more grant money/

a reply to: seasonal

Calling THAT a nativity scene is one hell of a stretch. I invite anyone to look at that picture and call that a nativity scene with a straight face.

Its only a nativity scene if one can steal the baby Jesus..

a reply to: infolurker

It is a nativity scene, but not the nativity scene.

a reply to: pheonix358

Is it really a standard practice or is that just something fun to say.

This is fun to say parallelomania

"parallelomania" – a phenomenon where scholars first notice a supposed similarity and then "proceeds to describe source and derivation as if implying a literary connection flowing in an inevitable or predetermined direction" thus exaggerating the importance of trifling resemblances

a reply to: seasonal

If mankind was wiped out, what would future visiting aliens think about graffiti? Would they think the most prevalent graffiti names as our major gods and the graffiti characters our idols?

And the irony primitive man would take great pains to develop spiritual art while modern man is immersed in art of self promotion and corporate advertising?

a reply to: neutronflux

Hard saying, the graffiti is as varied as the people who "draw"it.

originally posted by: infolurker
a reply to: seasonal

Calling THAT a nativity scene is one hell of a stretch. I invite anyone to look at that picture and call that a nativity scene with a straight face.

Do I qualify for a couple hundred grand a a year in research grants if I can pull it off? I will sincerely try!

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: seasonal

You can trace the stories to a much earlier Sumerian belief system.

All religions have done this, it was standard practice for the Christians to take other special days and make it their own.

Yep, exactly this. Christianity is just a mishmash of earlier religions, beliefs, and just plain stories. Much of the content of Christianity can be found in earlier civilizations. The Epic of Gilgamesh (the literary work from which Noah and the Flood was directly stolen), the Garden of Iðunn (a goddess who had a garden with magical fruit that gave eternal life), the various attributes of Jesus (born Dec. 25th of a virgin, 12 disciples, etc etc), Ragnarok (Armageddon), Easter (from the earlier Eostre festival, celebrating the fertility goddess Eostre with rabbits and colored eggs) ... The list goes on. Christianity isn't an actual legitimate religion, it's just a bunch of stolen beliefs and stories and holidays.

originally posted by: LABTECH767
muhammad did not walk on water, raise the dead, heal the blind, cure the infirm, caste out devil's again and again

But, to be fair, at least there is some credible evidence that Mohammad historically existed, Jesus most likely was/is a fiction (along with the (metaphoric) 'magic tricks' that you mention)!

a reply to: namelesss

That's not really a fair comparison though either. Mohammed wasn't supposed to be "God's Beloved Son" either. He was just a guy. Jesus was also just a man, but also God incarnate too.

Not that I'm agreeing with any religion or mythos mind you because I don't. But the fact that Mohammad probably existed isn't a surprise. No more than Joseph Smith actually existed. Or L.Ron Hubbard for that matter.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Mohammed wasn't supposed to be "God's Beloved Son" either.

A flesh and blood person has a more difficult time walking on water, or raising dead people, etc... then a work of literary fiction!

He was just a guy. Jesus was also just a man, but also God incarnate too.

I'm saying that Jesus was NOT "just a man", that he is most likely not historical.

ALL 'incarnation' is 'God incarnate'!
Even fictitious Jesus stories is 'God incarnate'!

But the fact that Mohammad probably existed isn't a surprise. No more than Joseph Smith actually existed. Or L.Ron Hubbard for that matter.

And plenty of fiction written and believed about all...
Difference? They were once alive. That's all.