Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Kosh · 01-09-2002, 11:31 AM

Anybody seen this article? Any inputs on it's
validity or accuracy? Seems a little too
convenient, if'n ya ask me.

<a href="http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html</a>

missus_gumby · 01-09-2002, 11:55 AM

Even if everything in the article were true (and ignoring all the non-sequiturs), all it tells us is that christianity existed in that part of the world in the latter part of the first century CE.

Martin

Toto · 01-09-2002, 12:35 PM

The symbol of the cross was a common pagan symbol. (I have read that early Chistians did not use the cross as a symbol in art until about the 5th century, and the first crucifix dates to the 7th century. See <a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/facts.htm#anchor237925" target="_blank">this page.</a>) The Chi-Rho symbol was also used by the cult of Sol Invictus and Mithraism, so the mere fact that it is on a tomb is not proof of Christianity.

The author makes a lot of the inscription "[Here are the] bones of the younger Judah, a proselyte [to Christianity] from Tyre." But notice that the editor has inserted the reference to Christianity, and later talks about converts to Judaism and Christianity - pagans converted to Judaism during this time, as well as other mystery religions and cults.

livius drusus · 01-09-2002, 12:58 PM

It's pretty confused about the people reputedly buried in the ossuaries. Early in the article they imply this Simon bar Jonah is Peter, but Peter died in Rome. Are we to believe someone carted his corpse to Jerusalem? The Catholic Church might just beg to differ.

Towards the end of the article, an archaeologist points out that it is not possible to confirm the actual identity of the Simon character (or anyone else interred there, for that matter). As Martin pointed out, all it means is that Xians died in Jerusalem in the 1st century. Not big news really.

jess · 01-09-2002, 01:30 PM

um, Mary and Martha weren't names at that point in time. It would have been Miriam and (at best) Marta.

What was the name on the coffin, if they explained what Lazarus was?

Crosses were/are common to inscribe on/by/in graves by superstitious people--- it is a way to 'hold' the deceased down in the grave.

That is why suicides and werewolves were buried at crossroads... and why good Blues singers sell their souls at them...

Kosh · 01-09-2002, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by jess:
<strong>crossroads... and why good Blues singers sell their souls at them...</strong>

Ahh. And hence the beginnings of the Soggy
Bottom Boys...

Hex · 01-09-2002, 02:48 PM

Well ... That thing looks to have all the earmarks of two classical archaeological pitfalls.

1) Seeing what you want to see in the artifacts.

Time and again archaeologists have been known to not exactly lie, but to ... misinterpret. This is generally due to some deep-seated personal bias or need to find data that supports some specific theory.
A great example of this is Von Daneken (sp?) and his aliens.

2) Religious (and others) hoaxes perpetrated by others.

This bit of the ossuary could have been tampered with by 'believers' who were rather Machiavellian. The ends of their tampering (reinforcing the belief of other 'faithful') justified the vandalizing of archaeological items. This is not as uncommon as it seems and is one of the reasons archaeologists _hate_ to give advance statements to the press about what they've found. Sometimes the hoaxes aren't found out until years after the data has been collected, although most that I'm aware of were realized in the field or in the early stages of the lab.

I wouldn't put too much 'faith' in this.

01-09-2002, 11:31 AM	#1
Kosh Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Orions Belt Posts: 3,911	Archeological Confirmation Anybody seen this article? Any inputs on it's validity or accuracy? Seems a little too convenient, if'n ya ask me. <a href="http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html" target="_blank">http://www.leaderu.com/theology/burialcave.html</a>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2002, 11:55 AM	#2
missus_gumby Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: UK Posts: 1,898	Even if everything in the article were true (and ignoring all the non-sequiturs), all it tells us is that christianity existed in that part of the world in the latter part of the first century CE. Martin

01-09-2002, 12:35 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	The symbol of the cross was a common pagan symbol. (I have read that early Chistians did not use the cross as a symbol in art until about the 5th century, and the first crucifix dates to the 7th century. See <a href="http://www.nobeliefs.com/facts.htm#anchor237925" target="_blank">this page.</a>) The Chi-Rho symbol was also used by the cult of Sol Invictus and Mithraism, so the mere fact that it is on a tomb is not proof of Christianity. The author makes a lot of the inscription "[Here are the] bones of the younger Judah, a proselyte [to Christianity] from Tyre." But notice that the editor has inserted the reference to Christianity, and later talks about converts to Judaism and Christianity - pagans converted to Judaism during this time, as well as other mystery religions and cults.

01-09-2002, 12:58 PM	#4
livius drusus Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Selva Oscura Posts: 4,120	It's pretty confused about the people reputedly buried in the ossuaries. Early in the article they imply this Simon bar Jonah is Peter, but Peter died in Rome. Are we to believe someone carted his corpse to Jerusalem? The Catholic Church might just beg to differ. Towards the end of the article, an archaeologist points out that it is not possible to confirm the actual identity of the Simon character (or anyone else interred there, for that matter). As Martin pointed out, all it means is that Xians died in Jerusalem in the 1st century. Not big news really.

01-09-2002, 01:30 PM	#5
jess Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: rationalpagans.com Posts: 7,400	um, Mary and Martha weren't names at that point in time. It would have been Miriam and (at best) Marta. What was the name on the coffin, if they explained what Lazarus was? Crosses were/are common to inscribe on/by/in graves by superstitious people--- it is a way to 'hold' the deceased down in the grave. That is why suicides and werewolves were buried at crossroads... and why good Blues singers sell their souls at them...

01-09-2002, 02:48 PM	#7
Hex Regular Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: www.rationalpagans.com Posts: 445	Well ... That thing looks to have all the earmarks of two classical archaeological pitfalls. 1) Seeing what you want to see in the artifacts. Time and again archaeologists have been known to not exactly lie, but to ... misinterpret. This is generally due to some deep-seated personal bias or need to find data that supports some specific theory. A great example of this is Von Daneken (sp?) and his aliens. 2) Religious (and others) hoaxes perpetrated by others. This bit of the ossuary could have been tampered with by 'believers' who were rather Machiavellian. The ends of their tampering (reinforcing the belief of other 'faithful') justified the vandalizing of archaeological items. This is not as uncommon as it seems and is one of the reasons archaeologists _hate_ to give advance statements to the press about what they've found. Sometimes the hoaxes aren't found out until years after the data has been collected, although most that I'm aware of were realized in the field or in the early stages of the lab. I wouldn't put too much 'faith' in this.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.