Duvduv

Mountainman, has any ever done a refutation of the Church claims about these assorted carvings? When I was looking some over I wondered whether they were really what the church claimed them to be.

mountainman

The Vatican collection of archaeological evidence was primarily assembled in the 19th century. Here is how Graydon Snyder summarises it:


In the 19th century some of de Rossis inscriptions were removed from the register of his inscriptions as forgeries.

FWIW I repeat that we are dealing with pre-4th century pagan inscriptions, that have been coopted in the service of the historical jesus story. This glittering web of delusion permeates "Christian archaeology".

I am not aware of any work denouncing the vatican material as a whole. For those who assume the existence of an HJ and the pre-Nicaean christian church, these images are not a problem, and I cant see a reason why these people would really question them.

For example see The Basilides Inscription, Ostia, Rome usually dated about 250 CE (CIL XIV 1876). The inscription is categorised as Christian based on the phrase "he sleeps"(hic dormit). This inscription is cited by truckloads of articles and books, and accepted to be authentic. It's just bullshit.


If you do not assume the existence of an HJ and/or the prenicaean church, these images become emminently questionable, and their precise chronology becomes very important. As it should be.

Duvduv

I still don't understand what proof exists that the carvings could not have been made after the Arian Goths took over Rome EVEN if some carvings were Christian. But again, I have questions about them anyway.