Yellum Notnef

That seems rather odd and this is not the first time I've looked for these murals. Someone mentioned them last year (maybe you) and I went around in circles that time as well trying to find photos with no luck.

Is this mural painted on a wall or is it carved? And what would you say it's dimensions are?
I'm asking because I've found several random pictures of the temple and the mural might actually be in one of them,but I have no idea what it is I'm looking for.

Thanks.

Radorth

And here I thought you never read Peck's books.

Thanks for the high compliment though.

Rad

Radorth

I see. So we just assume they couldn't have written them, even though there isn't a shred of proof they did anything else, and then come up with a "most likely explanation." Would you like to hear my critical analysis of that approach?

Rad

the_cave

Alright, if you are saying what I think you are saying, I will sort of agree with you.

If you are saying that tour guides (even representatives of the Catholic Church) are claiming that pagan art found in the catacombs is Christian art, I'll agree that this is clearly incorrect. And what is more, it is strange and un-Christian. Sure. I agree.

(I can't help but add that it is now a Christian attitude that paganism is certainly a false religion, but it contains elements of the truth. But I will also admit that this is indeed very different than claiming pagan art and religion is actually Christian art and Christianity, which is surely strange.)

Amos

But how can any religion be a false religion if religion is only a means to the end? The end of Catholicism is Christian-ity so if Catholicism is able to overshadow pagan religions why can the same archetypal images that are painted by pagans not be used as expressions of Catholic images?

All, yes all, religions that are true to their mythology are comparable with each other because the mythology describes the non-rational event we call metamorphosis and this is the same for every human being. Based on this are the same the forces at work in all true religions and these forces, or powers, that accomplish this are depicted in religious art.

Biff the unclean

The problem is deeper than if the church has their facts wrong and the art isn't painted by Christians. According to the church the rules changed in 325 CE and Catholics were allowed to paint the actual Jesus and not the metaphoric Christ and that is why there aren't any paintings of Jesus that predate this time. Exactly what Amos said earlier. But if the Hellenist paintings weren't painted by Christians where were the Christians. The oldest church building yet found (it's in Syria) has this same date (They found dated coins on the site) even all the oldest bibles that have dates come from this time. All the earlier stuff is missing. All the writings of the early church fathers we have are copies from after this time and make out the early Christians to be good Catholics. The Acts of the Apostels makes them out to be thugs. How are we supposed to know that present day Prods pattern themselves after the original Christians if there is no way to know what the early Christians were like? If the earliest (post 324 CE) books we have say they behaved like Catholics?

Fiach

It was some years ago when I was there. The murals are painted, but they are now 4,000 years old. Time, CO2, moisture even in desert and our breaths have made the images very faint, some outlines indistinct, and chips miss in some places. The archaeologist showing me the lines was the only way I could really understand his expanation of them. Muslim fundamentalist are constantly theatening to destroy the Pagan evil. Only Mubarak's troops are keeping them intact for now. If Mubarak is displaced by an extremist, the murals may be doomed, like the Buddha giant statues in Afghanistan. I will not go tere now. I look too much like an American. Maybe I could wear a kilt and tartan with a tartan tam, but they might know know what a Scot is. They may think I am just a British transvestite :-)

Fiach

Radorth

We have plenty of evidence from the Roman accounts and the early fathers as well as Acts. Of course anybody who says the latter makes them out to be thugs based on one or two verses wouldn't be interested.

BTW you said Peter just wanted their money and misquoted the story. He specifically told them the money was theirs to do with as they wished. The problem was that they pretended they were doing something they weren't. It was an INTEGRITY issue. And I suppose Peter knifed them or something? Lord knows what else you read into the story without a shred of evidence.

Get real.

Rad

Biff the unclean

We have plenty of evidence from the Roman accounts and the early fathers as well as Acts.
I can only assume that you have not read the Roman accounts nor the "early" church fathers. Because if you had you would know that they portray the early Christians as Catholic.
Nice bluff though.

Of course anybody who says the latter makes them out to be thugs based on one or two verses wouldn't be interested.
A pattern in your thinking emerges. If part of the bible agrees with your thinking you claim you are following it. The parts that don't agree with you, you dismiss. So you don't follow the bible at all. You force the bible instead to follow you.
AoA shows the Apostles extorting their followers; it shows a double homicide, a blinding and a book burning. If that isn't the work of thugs then what is it?

BTW you said Peter just wanted their money and misquoted the story. He specifically told them the money was theirs to do with as they wished.
I've gone all through this story and cannot find him doing that.
Let's look at it together shall we?
This should dispel any contention that Prods behave just like AoA Christians. They would lable any group that behaved like that a "cult."

Okay that's the introduction to the story. Everybody is giving every penny they own to the Apostles. Now for the double homicide.

So they are giving Peter money; they just aren't giving him every cent they had. The Greek text of this verse uses the word for dowry… the money Sapphira's father would have given her as a sort of insurance policy, in case anything happened to Ananias.
The first murder.

Ananias' body is dumped. The early Christian rites for the dead took three days. Ananias gets no ceremony, no prayers, no sympathy, his next of kin isn't even notified as we read in the next verse.

Saint Peter's first concern when the widow arrives…where's the money.

And now, just like in The Godfather, the extortion.

No kidding great fear would have come over them. They must have been crapping in their togas.

The problem was that they pretended they were doing something they weren't. It was an INTEGRITY issue.
You must be joking.

And I suppose Peter knifed them or something? Lord knows what else you read into the story without a shred of evidence.
True the story doesn't go into details about how the crimes were committed. My favorite AM radio proselytizers always say that when you can't understand a bible verse to look at the rest of the bible, so let's try that.
I've heard some say that God struck Mr & Mrs Ananias down, like Zeus used to do. But if that were so it would completely negate Jesus death and resurrection for the forgiveness of sin, so God is out as a suspect.
Which leaves us with Saint Peter. What does the bible tell us about him?
First, his name isn't Peter. That's an alias he assumed.
Second, he was a rough and tough fisherman. Fishermen habitually carry large knives.
Third, Jesus complains bitterly that Simon a.k.a. Peter "lives by the sword"(not just "owns a" sword, he "lives by" it) and warns him against knife play. Tells him that he'll meet a bad end if he keeps it up.
Fourth, Peter threatens Sapphira an instant before she is killed. "behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out."
So, yeah, it sounds just like he knifed them. He'd sliced off a guy's ear earlier in the story. He was shaking everyone down for money. He was arguing with both victims over money when it happened. He got rid of the bodies. The bible couldn't make it clearer, the guy is a thug.

Get real.
That's a funny thing for a fan of the big pixie in the sky to say. Are we supposed to think that they were "Holy Ghosted" to death? Or is murdering people the Protestant way you were talking about? 'Cause I don't know any who would behave like that. In fact every Prod I know would dial 911 if the Ananias and Sapphira incident happened in their church.

Radorth

Really? I could swear they called them Christians and never once referred to them as the "one true" church. But do expand on this extraordinary assertion. There was no Catholic or Protestant in the beginning. Criminy, Luther sounded more like Augustine than anp Pope in the 6th to 14th century.

Blah blah blah. Give me the scriptures you are talking about. Of course if burning your own books makes you a thug, you might have a point. The rest is garbage.

So would just about everybody, so this is a pretty inane way of countering to my assertions. (Not that you didn't ignore half of them). That would depend on the apostles and the signs and wonders which followed them. Of course you said they were talking about Catholics in Acts, so I guess Catholicism is a cult then?

No, it's whether they sold the land and agreed to keep part of it and say they gave it all. Tha't why Peter said "in your power" to do as they felt was right. This is obvious to anyone but a cynic, and you are comitting nothing short of slander. You cannot prove otherwise, and of course the law specifically places the burden on the slanderer to prove the truth of his assertions.

No problems with lying to the Holy Spirit and his apostles ever since, far as I know.

Well I'm glad we've established that, finally.

Well know, he did not say Peter personally lived by the sword any more than anyone else might, but made a general statement. Of course Peter wasn't even converted at that point, and still thought the kingdom might come by force.

That's funny, after Pentacost he goes around telling us we shouldn't even argue with "those who slander you." (The main reason I quit defending myself to the Gang of Four that tenet, laid down by Peter). Sounds like he knifed them? Let's see. So you're accusing someone (who didn't exist apparently), who isn't here to tell us his side of the story, or present any witnesses, of knifing people although you haven't any proof except what you gleaned by reading between the lines. Come to think of it, Petr would probably not defend himself at all, and let you shame yourself through your own hypocrisy and cynicism.

And what was that you were saying about fitting the scripture to what we choose to believe? You don't try fit it. You torture it.

I take it you're another 25-year-old Jesus-myther. Right?

Rad

Behold the goodness and severity of God.