This is an interesting archeological find don't you think? Jordan Cave May Be The Oldest Christian Church Ever Found - dating from AD 33 - 70. They say the cave was next to one of the oldest known churches in the world as well. But this cave shows evidence of even older artifacts and relics.
Most archeological finds are interesting. Merely because this particular find suggests earlier Christian origins than ones hitherto found doesn't make the find especially interesting relative to other archeological discoveries. The article referred to finishes with a suggestion that some caution needs to be taken about the claims being made about thge site. The artifacts found there need to be properly identified and dated. Even if the site can be confirmed to be of the age suggested in the article, it does not of itself validate the myths, legends and fables of Biblical Christianity as being factual.
The myths, legends and fables of Biblical Christianity? Yer not an atheist are you? But you certainly sound like an expert in your narrow field of vision. So you must be right about conclusions that have not been made yet...based upon your objective treatment of the aforementioned myths, legends and fables...et al. Of course they should exercise caution. Of course!
The historical accuracy of the Bible is irrefutable. Only the truly naive, ill informed or virulently biased refuse to admit it. The great Hittite empire was scoffed at for years by academia and so-called enlightened and educated people. Until the day that the archeologists spade began to uncover the irrefutable evidence. This is just one in a vast myriad of examples where science was wrong and scripture proved once again to be unerringly accurate.
It ain't necessarily so Just because acheologists use ancient texts, including the Christian Testaments, as starting points for surveying possible sites for acheological investigation, it does not automatically follow that the theological testimony in the Testaments are necessarily validated by the archeological research.
Chelly, as usual you use a whole lot of verbiage to say absolutely nothing. You state nothing more than your opinion and bias. I can cite an entire treatise of solid archeological evidence to support my assertions. You have none. The typical liberal rules of engagement, when the facts can't be challenged ridicule and demean the message.
Footnote: liberal adj. Marked by generosity. n. ORIGINAL: One who is open-minded or not strict in the observance of orthodox, traditional, or established forms or ways. n. CURRENT: One who seeks to maintain the changes of recent years or limit the erosion thereof. The dictionary definition of “liberal” has meaning independent of the political spectrum, but is now almost exclusively used — incorrectly in my opinion — as to mean someone from the left. In the U.S. this means one of the two dominant parties of the two-party system. The modern meaning of “liberal” has therefore become simply a synonym for a Democrat, i.e. an artificial packaging of political views created to help perpetrate the two party system. As such, “liberal” has undergone an about-face from someone who is open-minded and non-traditional to someone who seeks to maintain the status quo in the face of efforts to undo the program of past liberals. In addition, the word “liberal” has acquired a negative connotation due the sustained and withering attacks of neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives use “liberal” as a pejorative to tar their enemies as spend-thrifts of government money, thus capitalizing on the meaning of the English adjective form of the word. The effort to pejoratize the word is also aided by the lack of defenders of the term “liberal”; non-conservative political movements have historically preferred to call themselves “progressive”. In the 18th and 19th century, “liberal” was associated with disciples of John Locke (thus the authors of the U.S. Constitution would have been liberals), who believed in minimalist government (government as a protector of rights, not an instrument of social policy). The association of “liberal” with a more expansive role for government may have begun with the New Deal, since by then laissez-faire had become orthodoxy that was failing under conditions much evolved from those of Locke and the U.S. founders (the corporate age).
I think my brain is hurting from all this erudite postulation. I am glad we can have an adult discussion on differing opinions, thoughts and beliefs without having to revert to the lowest common denominator of explicatives and threats of violence that are so prevalent in this day and age when it comes to Religion and such. I mean really, How many peoples have been massacred in the name of religion and here we have an example of not a single casualty. Just think if we could all discuss things rationally, without malice or intending to slight one another, we could all hang out and drink a rum (or shirley temple)
Pretty much agree that the use is incorrect. The trouble with labels is how quickly they become corrupt with misuse. "Liberal" and "conservative" have both lost their meanings in general use, and incidentally become pejorative. One simply can't paint a person's ideas in general based on either a pro or con on any particular given issue. About the only label that continues to have a meaning worth using is "independent." Too bad the language is so easily corrupted. Back to the thrust of the thread, then ---. Is this chamber the earliest Christian church? I do NOT know, the study of ancient civilizations is far beyond my area of expertise. The more discoveries by archeologists, the more support for theologians acceptance of biblical exactitude there seems to be. But to me (and YMMV, uv cuss) it's still theoretical, and the evidence (so far) simply supports an unproven hypothesis. I'd be interested in seeing what other hypotheses there are explaining the findings rather than a flat statement that it ain't credible. Even Einstein's theories remain hypotheses, even with the preponderance of evidence pointing toward the theories being facts and are accepted as such nearly universally. Another example is how Egyptian history is revised every time a new structure is found every time Hawi Zawas turns over a shovel of dirt along the Nile. I personally prefer a liberal application of butter to my conservative bread recipe.
O Originally Posted by Minuteman Chelly, as usual you use a whole lot of verbiage to say absolutely nothing. That sacred texts contain myths, legends and fables is uncontroversial these days. I've asked for your proof of this absurd statement. You have submitted none. You state nothing more than your opinion and bias.You are entitled to your opinion and bias that the myths and legends are factually true, and I am entitled to the contrary position. Unlike you I cite fact not opinion. I can cite an entire treatise of solid archeological evidence to support my assertions. I am sure that if we both went to the effort we could quote mine references that would support our relative positions, whether there would be agreement as to the acceptability of the references cited may be another matter. Again I am not seeking references or opinions but facts. There is no need to take anything for granted. It's either true or it's not. You have none. How do you know this? You are rather cavalier with the assumptions that you make. I know it because you haven't shown any! The typical liberal rules of engagement, Whenever I see this kind of statement, I generally sense that the user has little to add to a polemic other than to descend to name calling. (Refer to the footnote below) when the facts can't be challenged You presuppose that the medium (aka the sacred texts) is factual and accurate when that is not necessarily the case. It is the case, that is my argument. An argument that I support with uncontroversial facts. Becuase I say you use the tactics of a group you assume that I am calling you names? You know what happens when we ASSume things? ridicule and demean the message. Chelly you come in the "Faith and Religion" forum to add nothing to the OP only for the oppurtunity to spout your biased opinion and when I challenge you on it you simply continue to vomit more words and still say absolutely nothing. I make the assertion that the scriptures have been repeatedly proven to be historically accurate. I cite the example, fact not speculation or opinion, of the Hittite empire. You cite nothing. Here's more; The advanced and learned city of Ur and the land of the Chaldees was thought to be myth or at the least an insignificant village. But in the 1920's (IIRC) the great city was unearthed and found to contain vast libraries and even universities. The story of the taking of the city Jericho was scoffed at and dismissed. It's very existence was not accepted, until the day that it's crumbled walls were unearthed. The first men to drill for oil in the Middle East did so because they had read in the scripture of Noah using pitch (oil) to seal the ark. So I cite factual, documented evidence, not unsupported biased opinion. Again I state, scripture has proven itself time and again to be inherently accurate and reliable. And only those whose bias and naivete' cloud there reasoning are blind to that fact. However, neither my factual statements or your opinion based ones have any bearing whatsoever on the OP in this thread so I refuse to derail it further. I have stated my case, backed up with facts. If you wish , or can, do the same then go ahead but I am through.
Their opinions and yours vary greatly; as they are Israeli archeologists researching biblical events I am prone to take theirs.
