Archaeology of the New Testament

[ZenMode]

Tomb of Saint Peter

I provisionally rank the reliability of this archeological evidence as 'more probable than not '.


1) Early Christian tradition places Saint Peter's burial location beneath the basilica of Saint Peter's cathedral in Rome. It is specifically the reason the basilica was built on this location by Constantine.

2) 20th century excavation found a first to second century shrine under the basilica.

3) Human bones found associated with the shrine are from a male, age 60 to 70, who lived in the first century.

4) The type of fabric wrapped around the bones indicate a person of high status, someone held in reverence.

5) Ancient Christian inscriptions carved on a wall next to the tomb read: 'Peter is in here'.

Christians liked to put their dead in tombs, which is likely why Jesus was alleged to have been put into a tomb after he was crucified.

The problem is that the Romansz when they killed someone by nailing them to a "cross", were known to leave them hanging for a long time to allow the body to decay, be picked apart by birds/animals, etc.

That's why the story of Jesus resurrection is unlikely to have ever happened.

 

[Cypress]

The problem is that the Romansz when they killed someone by nailing them to a "cross", were known to leave them hanging for a long time to allow the body to decay, be picked apart by birds/animals, etc.

That's why the story of Jesus resurrection is unlikely to have ever happened.

The gospel of Mark states that Jesus died after six hours on the cross and Joseph of Arimethea received permission from Pontius Pilate to take to body down and place it in their family tomb.

 

[ZenMode]

The gospel of Mark states that Jesus died after six hours on the cross and Joseph of Arimethea received permission from Pontius Pilate to take to body down and place it in their family tomb.

Ok. The Bible says a lot of things, many of which don't make sense or, in this case, go against what is known to be true.

Jesus wasn't anything special when he was killed. He wasn't the son of god.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Christians liked to put their dead in tombs, which is likely why Jesus was alleged to have been put into a tomb after he was crucified.

The problem is that the Romansz when they killed someone by nailing them to a "cross", were known to leave them hanging for a long time to allow the body to decay, be picked apart by birds/animals, etc.

That's why the story of Jesus resurrection is unlikely to have ever happened.

the golden rule is an excellent moral teaching for all mankind, nonetheless.

 

[Cypress]

Ok. The Bible says a lot of things, many of which don't make sense or, in this case, go against what is known to be true.

Jesus wasn't anything special when he was killed. He wasn't the son of god.

Nothing can be proven. All the intelligent person can do is decide which way the evidence points to.

There was no Bible in the first century when the accounts were being written. You had different accounts being written in different communities either by eyewitnesses, or by people who knew and interviewed the eyewitnesses.

You had at least five different independent accounts of Jesus being taken off the cross and buried. There are no alternative accounts contesting this. The tomb and Joseph of Aramethea are attested in all accounts. Being a member of the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Aramethea was a high ranking Jew who could have had some influence with Pontius Pilate and the Roman occupation authority.

Our surviving accounts of Roman crucifixion are fragmentary, and it's difficult to say what would have been 'normal'.

On balance, the manuscript evidence and attestations point to Jesus being taken off the cross by a high ranking Jew who was sympathetic to the Jesus movement, and Jesus being laid out in a rock tomb.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Nothing can be proven. All the intelligent person can do is decide which way the evidence points to.

wrong.

the more intelligent person asseses religions on which is best for society.

Jesus's extremely rational golden rule inevitably leads to a high trust society.

you do what a stupid person does.

 

[ZenMode]

You had at least five different independent accounts of Jesus being taken off the cross and buried.

Well, you had the gospels, which are known to have copied each other, word for word in some cases. And, the gospels were written by people who never met Jesus, years after he died.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Nothing can be proven. All the intelligent person can do is decide which way the evidence points to.

There was no Bible in the first century when the accounts were being written. You had different accounts being written in different communities either by eyewitnesses, or by people who knew and interviewed the eyewitnesses.

You had at least five different independent accounts of Jesus being taken off the cross and buried. There are no alternative accounts contesting this. The tomb and Joseph of Aramethea are attested in all accounts. Being a member of the Sanhedrin, Joseph of Aramethea was a high ranking Jew who could have had some influence with Pontius Pilate and the Roman occupation authority.

Our surviving accounts of Roman crucifixion are fragmentary, and it's difficult to say what would have been 'normal'.

On balance, the manuscript evidence and attestations point to Jesus being taken off the cross by a high ranking Jew who was sympathetic to the Jesus movement, and Jesus being laid out in a rock tomb.

if nothing can be proven why do waste your time on all this misguided religious factualism?

 

[Cypress]

Well, you had the gospels, which are known to have copied each other, word for word in some cases. And, the gospels were written by people who never met Jesus, years after he died.

But that has nothing to do with the original claim you made, which is that Jesus' dead body would have just been left on the cross for the crows to eat, or whatever.

If the gospe!s were just word for word copies of each other then you wouldn't have atheists continuously complaining that the gospels contradict each other.

Matthew and Luke had access to Mark's gospel, but it's universally understood by all reputable scholars that they were using other sources too. John seems to be a completely independent account.

Paul was aware Jesus had been buried, and he never read any of the gospels. There was obviously a wide ranging understanding of the earliest Christians that Jesus had been taken off the cross and the body buried in a tomb.

 

[Cypress]

if nothing can be proven why do waste your time?!!

You don't live your life based on proof. Otherwise you would bring a chemistry kit to the pharmacy to prove to yourself the pharmacist didn't fuck up your Rx or put cyanide in it.

You base your life on evidence and intuition, not on proof.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

You don't live your life based on proof. Otherwise you would bring a chemistry kit to the pharmacy to prove to yourself the pharmacist didn't fuck up your Rx or put cyanide in it.

You base your life on evidence and intuition, not on proof.

you're the one looking for proof, fucking imbecile.

holy Jesus,...(note irony).....you're stupid.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

I'm looking for evidence, not proof!

m

 

[Cypress]

you're the one looking for proof, fucking imbecile!!!

Nope, exactly the opposite.

Nothing can be proven. All the intelligent person can do is decide which way the evidence points to.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Nope, exactly the opposite.

idiotic.

you're an idiot.

 

[Cypress]

Doesn't confirm one way of the other if these are the remains of Saint Paul, but as circumstantial evidence it makes it more probable than not.

Tomb of Saint Paul​

According to tradition, Paul of Tarsus was buried about 2 miles from his martyrdom site, after which his remains were moved to the location of the current Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.

In 2002 Archaeologists have identified a white marble sarcophagus, located 1.37 meters below the papal altar of the Basilica.

In 2009 a small probe hole revealed traces of fine purple linen, gold sequins, red incense, and small bone fragments in the sarcophagus.

Inscriptions on the tomb read: "PAULO APOSTOLO MART" (Paul Apostle Martyr).

Radiocarbon testing confirmed the bone fragments date from the first or second century, aligning with the traditional timeline of Saint Paul's martyrdom.


-AI summary.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Doesn't confirm one way of the other if these are the remains of Saint Paul, but as circumstantial evidence it makes it more probable than not.

Tomb of Saint Paul​

According to tradition, Paul of Tarsus was buried about 2 miles from his martyrdom site, after which his remains were moved to the location of the current Basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls.

In 2002 Archaeologists have identified a white marble sarcophagus, located 1.37 meters below the papal altar of the Basilica.

In 2009 a small probe hole revealed traces of fine purple linen, gold sequins, red incense, and small bone fragments in the sarcophagus.

Inscriptions on the tomb read: "PAULO APOSTOLO MART" (Paul Apostle Martyr).

Radiocarbon testing confirmed the bone fragments date from the first or second century, aligning with the traditional timeline of Saint Paul's martyrdom.


-AI summary.

this is looking for proof.

 

[Cypress]

this is looking for proof evidence!!!

correct.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Explain to the board why my interest in archeology and history causes you to descend into anger and insanity.

"What is mental illness, Alex?"

Fredo is clearly unbalanced. It's one reason DTM sought him out as a patsy for his Threeper terrorist cell. Mentally ill people can be groomed to become suicide bombers or simply set up as a patsy for an assassination.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

christianity has nothing to do with archaeology.

all you peope are misguided fools.

Fredo keeps proving he is irrational. It's why the militias thought he'd make a good patsy.
The only thing that saved him from prison or being shot down by police was 1/6. I Irony

Archaeology and manuscript evidence are the only way to test historical claims made by ancient authors.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

The gospel of Mark states that Jesus died after six hours on the cross and Joseph of Arimethea received permission from Pontius Pilate to take to body down and place it in their family tomb.

As a lapsed Catholic, I am still dumbfounded as to why so many Catholics wear gold crosses on chains around their necks
or have crucifixes on their home walls.

If Jesus lived in more recent times, can you imagine somebody wearing a gold electric chair, gallows platform, firing squad wall, gas chamber, or lethal injection table around his or her neck?

How would it be any different?