World's first Church unearthed in Jordan.

ghoulslime wrote

We already read this garbage, dumb shit!

Infinite repetition will not change its fallacy! “Believe” is the operational word in this statement. Not “proof”!

You are verging on trollism, cuckoo bird!

It seems it needs to be repeated. THIS CHURCH IS FROM 33 A.D TO 70 A.D. SAINT GEORGEOUS IS FROM THE 3RD CENTURY! This newly disovered Church was underneath St. Georgeous!

my goodness you're clueless!

[Mog]

YHWH wrote

The 70 were Disciples of Jesus Christ. What do you mean there was no mention of jesus' name??

Secondly, This is interesting that Christians existed in 30 A.D. The same time frame the Bible tells us that Jesus existed. The first Gospel was written in 55 A.D. This Church existed before the writings of the four Gospels. Doesn't this debunk the atheists when they say the Gospels are not reliable sources about Jesus Christ in the first century? Now to back up the Gospels. A church is unearthed. How much more evidence do you want?

Actually we don't know that they were Christians. Like I said, "70 beloved by God and the Divine" does not specify Jesus at all. You could choose to connect 70 with a biblical verse, but there is quite a bit of similar numerology in common between Christianity and other messianic religions of that time period. Even if it was Christianity, it may not be anything like the Christianity you know. The Jesus-as-myth hypothesis states that Jesus Christ may have been worshiped as a spirit and the claim that he walked the earth in corporeal form came later.

And no, it doesn't debunk us when we say the Gospels are not reliable sources, because we don't have any evidence that this church was in any way connected to the gospels. Maybe when we read about what that mosaic says in its entirety we'll have a better clue.

Come to think of it, how do we know that the Church is from 33 to 70 AD? For all we know the church may have been from even earlier. The date given is with the assumption that the Christian religion is true. If we have enough clues to state that it was from 200 BC, we'll have proven it false, right?

ghoulslime wrote

Definitely 1 hamster worth of stupid!

Clearly, you have a grudge with hamsters.

[a different tim]

It seems to me that all it proves - maybe - is that there were Christians before the gospels were written.

Which is something of a given, since the gospels were presumably written by Christians.

Archeologically it's pretty interesting though.

a different tim wrote

It seems to me that all it proves - maybe - is that there were Christians before the gospels were written.

Which is something of a given, since the gospels were presumably written by Christians.

Archeologically it's pretty interesting though.

I think this new discovery shows that people worshipped the living Christ among eyewitnesses that could have easily reported this Church as a fraud. This is an amazing find!

[ubs]

skribb wrote

Clearly, you have a grudge with hamsters.

I noticed that too. Some kind of hamster issue.

ubs wrote

I noticed that too. Some kind of hamster issue.

Anything to avoid seeing the truth. Atheism has been blind-sided by this major discovery!

[ubs]

YHWH, is there anything that could convince you that the Bible wasn't true?

ubs wrote

YHWH, is there anything that could convince you that the Bible wasn't true?

No, because the Bible is true, and it's error free.

[ubs]

YHWH wrote

No, because the Bible is true, and it's error free.

So why do you care about "archaeological evidence?" What possible difference does it make? Why is it exciting to you?

[Eva]

that somebody found a temple for the worship of jesus (or christ, whatever) does not mean either one is real. just that they were worshipped, at least enough so that structures were built for such purpose.

say it ain't so, yoohoo.

[Smellyoldgit]

YHWH wrote

No, because the Bible is true, and it's error free.

Not that I needed much convincing - but that little gem confirms you to be nothing more than a stupid, trolling fuckwit - not worthy of any further engagement by most of the sane troops on this forum.

I'll make an application to have "YHWH and Fuckwit" added to a range of dictionaries.

Tosser

[Eva]

to the synonyms dictionary, git?

Smellyoldgit wrote

Not that I needed much convincing - but that little gem confirms you to be nothing more than a stupid, trolling fuckwit - not worthy of any further engagement by most of the sane troops on this forum.

I'll make an application to have "YHWH and Fuckwit" added to a range of dictionaries.

Tosser

I have proven Jesus Christ exists. Now, You can either serve him or reject him. I have come to bring you the truth. Name calling and slanderous childish remarks do not phase me coming from someone who thinks God is a fairy tale character.

What do you call someone that does not believe in God, but talks about him on a daily basis? Do you consider that to be sane?

[Irreligious]

YHWH wrote

Anything to avoid seeing the truth. Atheism has been blind-sided by this major discovery!

And this story was on the front pages of how many newspapers around the world?

As ADT said, it's a significant archaelogical find, but it's a long ways off from proving the folks who worshipped in this cave were personally acquainted with a then living Christ or the alleged Christ figure you refer to as Jesus.