dog-on

"A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."


During my return flight from my bi-annual visit to Israel, I thought about the issue regarding a lack of credible evidence for Jerusalem as being the birth-place of Christianity.

So, I would like to know, if in fact, there is any physical evidence that would undermine the possibility that Christianity could have been a completely Roman product and that first century Jerusalem may have simply been, "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away...".

Thanks.

Minimalist

Here's a discussion of Aelia Capitolina, Hadrian's successor city to Jerusalem that you may find of some interest.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/aelia.htm

Toto

How could there possibly be? In 70 CE, the Romans destroyed the Temple, and in 132 or so completely leveled the city. When Constantine converted to Christianity, his mother, Helena, visited Jerusalem to find the landmarks of the faith, and the locals helpfully provided holy relics, etc., which skeptics, in the tradition of Mark Twain, love to sneer at.

All of which does not prevent Christians from continuing to flock to the Holy Lands, and archeologists to keep on digging.

Minimalist

Okay, Toto, so would YOU want to be the poor aedile who had to tell the Emperor's MOTHER that her 'holy places' didn't exist??????

Seems like a poor career choice!

mountainman

I can understand the former, but at some stage
the lack of evidence for "Early Christianity" is going
to discourage the archaeologists, and perhaps in
fact suggest to ancient historians a revision of
their thinking may be required.

Best wishes,


Pete Brown

QUOTE for the DAY:


He went to Samaria,
thence to Caesarea,
and to the harbour
and found a ship waiting
for a wind.

Asked to take
Philip to Carthage,
the captain said:

Do not annoy me,
we have waited twenty days:
fetch your baggage
and perhaps we shall get a wind,
for you look like a servant of God.

Philip: I have none;
tell the passengers
to come on board . . . .
Let us pray for a fair wind.

Turning to the west
he commanded the angel of peace
who has charm of fair winds
to send a wind to take him
to Carthage in a single day.

On board was a Jew, Ananias,
who blasphemed (sotto voce, it seems)
and said:

May Adonai recompense thee,
and the Christ on whom thou callest,
who is become dust and lies in Jerusalem,
while thou livest
and leadest ignorant men astray
by his name.

A wind came and filled the sail.
The Jew rose to help to hoist the sail,
and an angel bound him by the great toes
and hung him head down on the top of the sail.

etc
etc


--- The narrative of
--- the Acts of Philip
--- preserved in Syriac.


This has got to be a joke.
Dont annoy me says the Capt.
The wind appears after Annias' words.
(Not Philip's).

Someone is writing a parody
of christianity - C14 = 348 CE

youngalexander

Why is there no Christian Archeology prior to 180 C.E.

dog-on

Would a simpler answer be that Christianity really did originate in Rome, or other parts of the empire and not, as per tradition, in Palestine?

It simply appears to be the case that Palestine was somewhat unaware of the savior, or any of his followers in the first couple centuries after Jesus did his cameo.

Now, what should this information tell us regarding the alleged Jerusalem group, in Paul's 'Galatians'?

Thanks...

youngalexander

There is no archeological evidence of Christianity in Palestine before 200 CE.

The first fifty years of Roman archeology (200 - 250 CE) indicates that Roman Christians were insufficiantly motivated by the NT savior to include him in their funerary decorations. Prior to that there is no evidence whatsoever.

Minimalist

Certainly not in Rome. Pliny's letter to Trajan indicates, if nothing else, that he did not discover Christians until getting to his province of Asia Minor. The whole thrust of his letter is "Your majesty, this is how I propose to deal with these fellows. Is this okay with you?" Trajan's reply is even milder in tone.
Pliny wrote in the early second century. So how could there have been multitudes of Christians burning down Rome, as the allegation in Tacitus, in the middle of the first century?

Something does not compute.

youngalexander

There were no 'multitudes of Christians' anywhere in the middle of the first century. 'So how come ...'

Possibly for the same reason that there were sufficient numbers in 113CE at ... to disrupt commerce by their lack of sacrifices, which Pliny put to rights by killing a number of them! Not too sure how that works either?
Eusebius?