outhouse

No, I dont blame him for not waisting time dealing with conspiracy minded people who try and make there own hobby horse shine.

Theres a few people trying to learn here, and these inane post just sidetrack knowledge.


Theres no doubt about this house being from 235 AD


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dura-Europos_church

Sheshbazzar

Women at The Tomb.
Wonder whether this snapshot was taken was before of after that 'great stone was rolled away'?
Matt 2:27:60, 28:2 ~ Mk 15:46, 16:3-4 ~ Lk 23:53

In Matthew, Mark, and Luke that big stone is certainly by far the most prominent feature of the Tomb.

And apparently by the Gospels description the sepulcher itself wasn't a stone box box but a substantial cave carved out the solid rock of a hillside. Matt 28:6 ~ Mk 16:5 ~ Lk 24:3-4, 42:12

In Luke 24:3-5 all the women enter inside of the Tomb where they are apparently joined by 'two men stood by them in shining garments:'

And in 24:10 'It was Mary Magdalene, and Joanna, and Mary [the mother] of James, and other [women that were] with them, which told these things unto the apostles.'
Making five or more who were inside of that Tomb at the same time. Grand Central Station.

Painting looks like they didn't hear quite the same version of this story as we have.
IF that is really what is being depicted.

The resurrection event being the most important event of the entire tale, you would think they would make some effort to portray it accurately.


.

mountainman

So scepticism is to be regarded as vain noise?


Nobody doubts the house was constructed in the 3rd century. The doubt is whether the house was used as a Christian church, on the basis of the discovery and the ARTISTIC APPRECIATION of most ancient "Christian paintings". Are they in fact "Christian" as claimed?



Here are the two most ancient artistic exhibits CLAIMED to feature Jesus Christ.

CAPTIONS were provided by the Yale Divinity exhibit:

(1) "Healing of the Paralytic" - featuring Jesus Christ



(2) "Jesus Christ and the Apostle Peter walking on the water"





Are people permitted to be sceptical of these claims?

outhouse

Not if they want to retain any credibility.


:deadhorse:

Toto

Pete- you are misusing the term skepticism. Skepticism requires some methodological examination of the evidence. You can't just take some evidence that you don't like and say that you doubt it is true, and call yourself a skeptic.

There was a protestor who used to set up a booth outside the Skeptics Society meetings, with all sorts of pictures casting doubt on the reality of the moon landing. He was perturbed that Michael Shermer, a professional skeptic, refused to take his arguments seriously and still believed that Americans landed on the moon!!

I don't think you are any more of a skeptic than that gentleman.

mountainman

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

I have provided reasons and in some case alternative explanations why the claims made regarding these artistic renditions of Jesus Christ at Dura Europos may not be in fact represent historical reality.

In regard to the historicity and dating of the Dura Parchment 24 I have asked the question ... Don't you think it is curious that the text twice agrees with Codex Vaticanus and Bohairic against everything else?

I reject the notion that I am misusing the term scepticism.

mountainman

People come and go. The claims often remain for centuries. It is therefore expedient to assess the credibility of the original claims.

If you are not condoning the blind acceptance of claims from authority figures (but perhaps you are) then it is obvious that a process of sceptical questioning is required and is in many cases beneficial for the pursuit of knowledge in many fields, not just ancient history.

Sheshbazzar

I look at it this way, these Jebus myths had to have began sometime and somewhere, and we have Justin Martyr's account in his 'First Apology' of a Christian religion that differs in several significant details from what we know became the accepted version of the 4th century CE, (jebus in second place to god, HS in third place, no evidence of any knowledge of 'Paul', the 'Pauline Epistles', nor the form of gospel 'which is according to Paul', or the content of 'The Book of Acts') all point to Justin's First Apology being early and authentically dating to circa 150 CE.

So it is not too difficult for me to accept that these 'house church' murals are authentic 235 CE artifacts.
That only indicates the story had been around for some time, and confirms Justin's writings, but it does not confirm that Jebus/christ and the gospels are anything more than elaborate religious myths.

As I pointed out in my previous post, that the burial/entombment in the Dura mural depicts the women approaching a box-like sarcophagus or mausoleum, rather than being depicted as an excavated tomb/cave sealed with the traditional Christian large rolling stone that is mentioned in all four of the Gospels, is a clear indication that the resurrection tale is mythical, and that it was still evolving in its details as late as 235 CE.

Whoever painted that mural of 'the women visiting the Tomb' had never heard of any huge rolling stone covering an excavated hillside tomb. A stone rolled into place would be inconsistent with a large carefully constructed mausoleum.
If the box/mausoleum depicted was supposed to be an ossery, again it is not at all consistent to the Tomb tale as it has came down to us.
-the corpse being wrapped in linen and laid out and visible- in a excavated tomb large enough that several people could enter and occupy at a time.

What we have in this Dura Europus mural is a veritable snapshot of the time, and evidence that the details of the accounts of the resurrection as given in MARK, Matthew and Luke were manufactured after 235 CE.

It is quite inconceivable that Christians familiar with the resurrection tale as we now have it in our Gospels would have ever depicted a conventional box like tomb. Such a depiction inconsistent with what is described in the 'received ' Christian Gospels.
Thus even the gospel of Mark we have must not have read as it now does, before circa 235 CE.



.

Toto

Actually, you have provided rationalizations for clinging to your prior beliefs. Your reasons have been discussed and have not been persuasive.

I don't see how this is suggestive of anything. If you take a lot of ancient manuscripts which were copied from each other, you find a variety of agreements and disagreements. What conclusion would you draw from this?

Tenorikuma

What's going on in that boat? It looks like one of the sailors is putting out a fire. Or is it two sailors carrying something?