Priceless Christian relics found in Jordanian cave

[administrator]

They could be the earliest Christian writing in existence, surviving almost 2,000 years in a Jordanian cave. They could, just possibly, change our understanding of how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and how Christianity was born
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12888421

[AndyHB]

They could, just possibly, change our understanding of how Jesus was crucified and resurrected, and how Christianity was born

Whilst they might give a more detailed picture of what the early church 'looked' like. The problem in a way is that the link on the BBC site is purely pictorial.  There doesn't seem to be a great deal of 'knowledge' information from these items yet.

Just discovered that the link I had used directly from the BBC homepage - before seeing this thread - leads to the pics, whereas Mike's link above is to the written report.

[Martin]

I expect that whatever is found won't change people's opinions. Suppose something was found that said that Jesus wasn't the Son of God or that he led a violent resistance or.. oh I dunno anything that challenged Christian teaching, then it would be dismissed as a fake by Christians, or the ravings of a non-Christian sect.

I can't bring myself to feel that excited by finds like this.

[pow wow]

If they are indeed the earliest Christian writings so far discovered, I'm quite confident that they will be in agreement with with what I read in my Bible about the life of Christ.  I want to know who wrote them and when. What was happening in the area during this time? We also have heretical writings popping up in good condition. Good condition because they were heretical and nobody used them, thus some were found in old garbage heaps.

[AndyHB]

I expect that whatever is found won't change people's opinions. Suppose something was found that said that Jesus wasn't the Son of God or that he led a violent resistance or.. oh I dunno anything that challenged Christian teaching, then it would be dismissed as a fake by Christians, or the ravings of a non-Christian sect.

I can't bring myself to feel that excited by finds like this.

I suspect that we will get this kind of reaction from anyone whose beliefs are challenged by anything  they say!!   

[Boudi]

There HAS been stuff that doesn't comply with, or that challenges the 'orthodox', and the church has simply chosen to bury or ignore it.  Look at the whole body of work that was left out, or cut out of the Bible in the first plcae.  We will hear from some that it wasn't 'true' enough, but it's the same old story that the line is agreed on by those in power, and the stories that match up to it are kept in.

The dead sea scrolls have been viewed with interest, but there's been no suggestion that the bible should be added to, or challenged by them.

[ecuworrier]

i must be feelin well and trooluy friv... i read that really important statement and then saw what looked like an antique bowls bag....   but i guess there must be something more!


i think the Christian world views stuff with as much trepidation as excitement whenever there is a new discovery


GOD BLESS!

Peace and Love,

[Martin]

Is there any reason why this topic has been pinned or is it just a slip of the fingers?

[administrator]

Is there any reason why this topic has been pinned or is it just a slip of the fingers?

That was indeed a slip of the fingers Martin, as I posted using my iPod whilst at work.

Unstuck!

[AndyHB]

There HAS been stuff that doesn't comply with, or that challenges the 'orthodox', and the church has simply chosen to bury or ignore it.

Boudi, take a book like Ehrman's 'Lost Christianities': very early on it gives a timeline of the various documents it refers to.  Of the 16 'gospels' he refers to only 1 has a probable date earlier than 100 AD - and even that is questionable, with 3 dates being given - 58 AD, 1758 and 1958!!  Of the 6 'Acts' referred to, none is earlier than the middle of the 2nd century (around 150 AD).  Of the 13 'epistles and related literature' three have probable dates earlier than mid-2nd century - circa 96, circa 100 and circa 135.  Like the 'Acts', the earliest of the 9 'apocalypses and related literature' is mid-2nd century.

The latest of the 44 documents Ehrman refers to dates from the 5th century.

As I am sure you are aware, of the 27 canonical New Testament books, the only one that is possibly post 100AD is the final book - John's Book of Revelation.  There are parts of the book that indicate that it was written soon after the reign of the Emperor Nero (54 - 68AD), whilst there are other parts that suggests it was written after the time of the Emperor Domitian (81 - 96AD).

In large part, the reason such challenges were ignored or dismissed is because they were based on documentation that is far later in date than the already existing books.

At the same time, there are one or two bits of documentation that effectively pre-date Christ - much Gnostic teaching, for instance, dates from the mid-1st century BC.

[Boudi]

Is, or is thought to be?