Is there archaeological evidence for Jesus & his Church?

[Leucius Charinus]

New Testament archaeology is a tautology.

You ..... use the tautology charge?

The ridiculous assertion that there isn't a vast array of Christian souvenirs from the ancient ruins of a decayed and dead Roman Empire to "prove" that Jesus existed doesn't pass the Is it sensible? test.

Christian life was never competing with other religions until the Romans grabbed hold of it for political and social purposes. And that wasn't for decades and decades after the Disciples of Jesus were just bones in boxes or the dust.

Is it true that we have "genuine" archaeological evidence in the form of "Ossuary Boxes" for Jesus or the so-called disciples that have not been exposed as modern forgeries?

Is it true that there is a "vast array" of "Christian archaeology" able to be cited in support of the contention that an "Early Christian Church" existed prior to its political appearance in the 4th century? If so, please provide this evidence for examination and discussion.

If there is archaeological evidence for Jesus or his "[early] Church", what is it?

[cnorman18]

You know, "I" get this charge that I am arrogant, boastful and rude to others, but who is more famous than I here at this website? (My little castles of OP's built as such is rather impressive is it not?)

Or infamous if you want?

All hail the mighty 99percentatheism the creator of threads!!!

In the teachings of the Christian religion, pride is a SIN; the corresponding VIRTUE is humility.

I observe once again that, in the content and approach of your posts, you not only ignore, but positively and proudly FLOUT, the most basic standards and teachings of the very religion which you claim to love, serve and represent.

No further comment is necessary, since I doubt very much that there'll be any defense of this practice, just as there has been no defense of similar practices on (many) other occasions.

Carry on with the arrogance, rudeness and boasting that you think so "impressive." They speak much louder than your words.

[Zzyzx]

And now you have proven in addition that you do have a sense of humor.

In real life I have what has been described as a wicked sense of humor but that does not carry well in this venue, so I only occasionally let it slip in (even after several previews).

Earlier today I was teasing one of the ladies at the church (yes, church, see my comments to Dianaiad in post #17 of http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 14b4c1139c)

The nice lady (and a friendly acquaintance) was sweeping the sidewalk and I cautioned her about over stressing her broom (as though serious) -- then told her doing so would affect its flying characteristics and she might run into a telephone pole. She laughed and laughed, then made further fun of the issue later. Next week I may take her a streamlined "sports car model" broom, attach a "steering wheel" of some sort and a bow, and give it to her at the table with many others around. That group is starting to get used to me -- but it usually takes about a year (and slow learners two years -- or maybe never).

For once I agree with you.

Watch out with that agreement stuff. Those who agree more than three times are thought to be doomed.

I never find myself in agreement with 99. Maybe that proves I am not a Christian after all?

It seems unclear who is authorized to call themselves a Christian and who is authorized (by god?, by preachers?, by self-appointment?) to decide who is a REAL Christian.

Apparently there are as many views of what constitutes Christianity as there are Christians. As some say, "Opinions on any matter are like belly buttons"

If you did agree with 99 on much of anything, many might question your judgment (irrespective of belief system).

[Leucius Charinus]

It is someone who died in the 1st or second century, and was buried at a church... with the name attributed to a church leader. We must forget all that.

Those are the claims to be investigated. But you missed the point that no Christian church (or for that matter Christian "Church-House" has been discovered by the archaeologists dated before the 4th century, and Constantine's basilica building program. We do not know that the body was "buried at a church" - that is the claim.

Why, yes, yes we do know those bones were buried there.

That is the claim of the Pope and his diggers.
I am deeply suspicious that the claim is legitimate.
Who coordinated the dig?

They are excavated in 2008 from beneath the church. So, you are being obstinate.

No. I don't trust the Pope or his church.

While the church was to have been built over the tomb of Saint Paul, the fact of the matter is that the tomb was of the right age.

Tombs go back to the deep BCE. So what?

As far as I am concerned material published by the Pope is called propaganda not history, and I certainly reject the Pope's "Tomb of Paul" as unambiguous evidence for Jesus and his church.

[Student]

Why, yes, yes we do know those bones were buried there. They are excavated in 2008 from beneath the church. So, you are being obstinate. While the church was to have been built over the tomb of Saint Paul, the fact of the matter is that the tomb was of the right age.

Perhaps I’m growing more sceptical in my old age, but there are, in my opinion, a number of factors that cause me to be suspicious of the veracity of the discovery, for example:

Who conducted the excavation; from which institutions?
According to Ulderico Santamaria, director of the diagnostic laboratory for conservation and restoration at the Vatican Museums, they were “Vatican technicians�.

When did the excavation take place; was it subject to independent verification i.e were there independent scientific observers?
According to Santamaria, the excavation took place on May 12, 2007, at 1:15 a.m., “an hour when the basilica would have been empty so that technicians could work freely and not be seen�.

Which laboratories conducted the carbon dating?
According Santamaria, "within the network of the Vatican Museums. …………………Technicians did not know the origin of the material they were testing�.

Call me old fashioned but it’s far too incestuous; there has been absolutely no independent verification / vallidation of finds or of the subsequent carbon dating. Why haven’t the results been published in any scientific journal; and why, if the bones were discovered in 2007, why did the Vatican wait 2 years before making it known in the popular press?

Finally, if the inscription on the marble slab discovered above the tomb is in Latin, then the inscription would have to be dated to the third century CE at the very earliest. The Roman Church was a Greek speaking church until roughly the mid third century [hence the preponderance of “IHS� on Papal regalia].

[Goat]

Why, yes, yes we do know those bones were buried there. They are excavated in 2008 from beneath the church. So, you are being obstinate. While the church was to have been built over the tomb of Saint Paul, the fact of the matter is that the tomb was of the right age.

Perhaps I’m growing more sceptical in my old age, but there are, in my opinion, a number of factors that cause me to be suspicious of the veracity of the discovery, for example:

Who conducted the excavation; from which institutions?
According to Ulderico Santamaria, director of the diagnostic laboratory for conservation and restoration at the Vatican Museums, they were “Vatican technicians�.

When did the excavation take place; was it subject to independent verification i.e were there independent scientific observers?
According to Santamaria, the excavation took place on May 12, 2007, at 1:15 a.m., “an hour when the basilica would have been empty so that technicians could work freely and not be seen�.

Which laboratories conducted the carbon dating?
According Santamaria, "within the network of the Vatican Museums. …………………Technicians did not know the origin of the material they were testing�.

Call me old fashioned but it’s far too incestuous; there has been absolutely no independent verification / vallidation of finds or of the subsequent carbon dating. Why haven’t the results been published in any scientific journal; and why, if the bones were discovered in 2007, why did the Vatican wait 2 years before making it known in the popular press?

Finally, if the inscription on the marble slab discovered above the tomb is in Latin, then the inscription would have to be dated to the third century CE at the very earliest. The Roman Church was a Greek speaking church until roughly the mid third century [hence the preponderance of “IHS� on Papal regalia].

those criticisms are valid. ... I accept that we do not have the actual analysis from teh independent sources.

[Leucius Charinus]

Are There Any Statues of Jesus In The First Three Centuries?

http://historum.com/ancient-history/697 ... uries.html