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?

[Leucius Charinus]

I will argue that there is no archaeological evidence by commencing with a REVIEW of -
Ante Pacem: archaeological evidence of church life before Constantine -- by Graydon F. Snyder

http://www.mountainman.com.au/essenes/A ... Review.htm

"The real founders of the science of early Christian archaeology came in the 19th century:
Giuseppe Marchi (1795-1860) and Giovanni de Rossi (1822-1894)...[the latter] published
between 1857 and 1861 the first volume of "Inscriptiones christianae urbis Romae". Pope
Pius IX moved beyond collecting by appointing in 1852 a commission - "Commissione de
archaelogia sacra" - that would be responsible for all early Christian remains."

Moreover the Papal archaeologist Giovanni de Rossi forged a number of "relics".

[Zzyzx]

Moreover the Papal archaeologist Giovanni de Rossi forged a number of "relics".

The relic problem is far more widespread. From the Museum of Hoaxes:

The Medieval Relic Trade

Throughout the Middle Ages, Europe hosted a thriving trade in holy relics. But many of the relics, if not almost all of them, were fake.

The relics collected and worshipped by medieval Europeans ranged from the mundane to the truly bizarre. Bones or body parts of saints and martyrs were always in high demand. One church proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter until the relic was accidentally moved and revealed to be a piece of pumice stone.

Relics of Christ or the Virgin Mary were considered to be extremely valuable and included items such as the milk of the Virgin Mary, the teeth, hair, and blood of Christ, pieces of the Cross, and samples of the linen Christ was wrapped in as an infant. Numerous churches even claimed to possess Christ's foreskin, cut off during his circumcision. The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the funeral shroud in which Christ was buried, is perhaps the most famous medieval relic of all.

The biggest clue that the relics were fake was that there was often more than one... many more than one... of the same relic. The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/arch ... lic_trade/

[Ooberman]

Moreover the Papal archaeologist Giovanni de Rossi forged a number of "relics".

The relic problem is far more widespread. From the Museum of Hoaxes:

The Medieval Relic Trade

Throughout the Middle Ages, Europe hosted a thriving trade in holy relics. But many of the relics, if not almost all of them, were fake.

The relics collected and worshipped by medieval Europeans ranged from the mundane to the truly bizarre. Bones or body parts of saints and martyrs were always in high demand. One church proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter until the relic was accidentally moved and revealed to be a piece of pumice stone.

Relics of Christ or the Virgin Mary were considered to be extremely valuable and included items such as the milk of the Virgin Mary, the teeth, hair, and blood of Christ, pieces of the Cross, and samples of the linen Christ was wrapped in as an infant. Numerous churches even claimed to possess Christ's foreskin, cut off during his circumcision. The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the funeral shroud in which Christ was buried, is perhaps the most famous medieval relic of all.

The biggest clue that the relics were fake was that there was often more than one... many more than one... of the same relic. The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/arch ... lic_trade/

The uncomfortable fact is this proves how much Religion attracts scammers. I've heard that if one rounded up all the pieces of the Cross Jesus was hung from, there would be enough wood to build a Church.

[Leucius Charinus]

Moreover the Papal archaeologist Giovanni de Rossi forged a number of "relics".

The relic problem is far more widespread. From the Museum of Hoaxes:

The Medieval Relic Trade

Throughout the Middle Ages, Europe hosted a thriving trade in holy relics. But many of the relics, if not almost all of them, were fake.

The relics collected and worshipped by medieval Europeans ranged from the mundane to the truly bizarre. Bones or body parts of saints and martyrs were always in high demand. One church proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter until the relic was accidentally moved and revealed to be a piece of pumice stone.

Relics of Christ or the Virgin Mary were considered to be extremely valuable and included items such as the milk of the Virgin Mary, the teeth, hair, and blood of Christ, pieces of the Cross, and samples of the linen Christ was wrapped in as an infant. Numerous churches even claimed to possess Christ's foreskin, cut off during his circumcision. The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the funeral shroud in which Christ was buried, is perhaps the most famous medieval relic of all.

The biggest clue that the relics were fake was that there was often more than one... many more than one... of the same relic. The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/arch ... lic_trade/

The uncomfortable fact is this proves how much Religion attracts scammers. I've heard that if one rounded up all the pieces of the Cross Jesus was hung from, there would be enough wood to build a Church.

YES.


My studies in ancient history have found that the trade in Christian relics and the bones and possessions of either Jesus, the Apostles, the Christian Saints and the Martyrs does not appear until the later 4th century. One of the prime movers was Damasus, Bishop of Rome, who started the "PETER WAS HERE" church business in Rome, and who RENOVATED some of the catacombs.

Prior to this, ancient historians place the invention of "Christian Hagiography" (i.e.the lives of the christian Saints etc) c.360 CE with the writing of Athanasius's "Life of Anthony".


Is there any evidence for Jesus or his apostles or their church prior to the 4th century? Do we have any legitimate and unambiguous evidence by which Christian origins precedes the 4th century?


NB: I am aware of the palaeographically dated papyri fragments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories ... anuscripts

None of these have been C14 dated.

[JoeyKnothead]

Bones of Jesus? Church relics?

I don't care if you have one or more of either, bones and relics do not a deity make.

[Goat]

Moreover the Papal archaeologist Giovanni de Rossi forged a number of "relics".

The relic problem is far more widespread. From the Museum of Hoaxes:

The Medieval Relic Trade

Throughout the Middle Ages, Europe hosted a thriving trade in holy relics. But many of the relics, if not almost all of them, were fake.

The relics collected and worshipped by medieval Europeans ranged from the mundane to the truly bizarre. Bones or body parts of saints and martyrs were always in high demand. One church proudly displayed the brain of St. Peter until the relic was accidentally moved and revealed to be a piece of pumice stone.

Relics of Christ or the Virgin Mary were considered to be extremely valuable and included items such as the milk of the Virgin Mary, the teeth, hair, and blood of Christ, pieces of the Cross, and samples of the linen Christ was wrapped in as an infant. Numerous churches even claimed to possess Christ's foreskin, cut off during his circumcision. The Shroud of Turin, believed to be the funeral shroud in which Christ was buried, is perhaps the most famous medieval relic of all.

The biggest clue that the relics were fake was that there was often more than one... many more than one... of the same relic. The sixteenth-century protestant reformer John Calvin, who believed the veneration of relics to be a form of false worship, commented that if all the relics were brought together in one place "it would be made manifest that every Apostle has more than four bodies, and every Saint two or three."

http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/arch ... lic_trade/

The uncomfortable fact is this proves how much Religion attracts scammers. I've heard that if one rounded up all the pieces of the Cross Jesus was hung from, there would be enough wood to build a Church.

YES.


My studies in ancient history have found that the trade in Christian relics and the bones and possessions of either Jesus, the Apostles, the Christian Saints and the Martyrs does not appear until the later 4th century. One of the prime movers was Damasus, Bishop of Rome, who started the "PETER WAS HERE" church business in Rome, and who RENOVATED some of the catacombs.

Prior to this, ancient historians place the invention of "Christian Hagiography" (i.e.the lives of the christian Saints etc) c.360 CE with the writing of Athanasius's "Life of Anthony".


Is there any evidence for Jesus or his apostles or their church prior to the 4th century? Do we have any legitimate and unambiguous evidence by which Christian origins precedes the 4th century?


NB: I am aware of the palaeographically dated papyri fragments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories ... anuscripts

None of these have been C14 dated.

Well, in St. Paul's basilica, there was a tomb with the label 'Paul is here', and the bones were carbon dated by labs that did not know their origin. They dated to between the 1st and second century. That is consistent with the stories, although it does not 'prove' the stories.

[Haven]

Well, in St. Paul's basilica, there was a tomb with the label 'Paul is here', and the bones were carbon dated by labs that did not know their origin. They dated to between the 1st and second century. That is consistent with the stories, although it does not 'prove' the stories.

Source?

Also, a lot of people lived during the first and second centuries. The fact that some bones in a church date to that period does not mean they were the bones of Paul.

In addition, Paul's existence is not in dispute by any serious scholars. Essentially everyone in academia accepts he was historical and wrote at least seven of the Biblical writings attributed to him. Jesus' existence, on the other hand, is far less certain.

[Goat]

Well, in St. Paul's basilica, there was a tomb with the label 'Paul is here', and the bones were carbon dated by labs that did not know their origin. They dated to between the 1st and second century. That is consistent with the stories, although it does not 'prove' the stories.

Source?

Also, a lot of people lived during the first and second centuries. The fact that some bones in a church date to that period does not mean they were the bones of Paul.

In addition, Paul's existence is not in dispute by any serious scholars. Essentially everyone in academia accepts he was historical and wrote at least seven of the Biblical writings attributed to him. Jesus' existence, on the other hand, is far less certain.

No, it does not. However.. it shows that the tomb that is attirbuted to Paul contained a body of the proper age. IF Christianity was an invention of the 4th century, then they would have had to dig up a body of the proper age to bury it, and declare it's Paul's. It does not mean that if it WAS Paul the stories he told were true either. It just give credence to the time period which Christianity was developing. And, it is not archeological evidence of Jesus and his Church, but rather Paul and his church.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/31599704/ns/t ... auls-bones

[Leucius Charinus]

Is there any evidence for Jesus or his apostles or their church prior to the 4th century? Do we have any legitimate and unambiguous evidence by which Christian origins precedes the 4th century?

Well, in St. Paul's basilica, there was a tomb with the label 'Paul is here', and the bones were carbon dated by labs that did not know their origin. They dated to between the 1st and second century. That is consistent with the stories, although it does not 'prove' the stories.

Precisely. What I would like to see is some unambiguous evidence.