Christian Arqueology

Do you mean archeology?

Cheers,

Jim

 

Archaeology?

 

I consider Catholic mythology to be purely bogus and fit for the superstition of the dark ages.

They have many more times the volume of the cross in "cross bits" that they are claiming AND we have NO REASON to suppose that the Romans handed the cross of Christ over to Christians to put in their wood-chipper and pass out to the world!

The RC myths and holy relics, magic spells, magic powers etc never had any more substance to them than "schemes for making money".

But I DO think that finding relics of the ACTUAL temple of Solomon or the temple in the dessert or the ark would be SOLID artifacts that we COULD expect to have survived in some form over time!

Malarky about the "holy grail" is unlikely to be true since the disciples had "other problems" following the resurrection that went far beyond "finding that cup we used at Passover 10 weeks ago!"

In Christ,

Bob

 

The Empty Tomb and Birthplace of Christ those are the two major ones for me.

 

I don't need archaeology to prove anything to me from the Bible.

We walk by faith, not by sight.
An evil and adulterous generation seeks after a sign.

 

It's sort of a sticky point for me.

As SFiC said, we are to walk by faith. So, if you have faith, there is no need to find it, but it is interesting to find it. (So, no conundrum one way or the other.)

However, for those who need proof, it could be a stumbling block or a stepping stone. (Sort of a conundrum.)

However, I think we could find the birthplace of Jesus, with a photo album and videos of him performing miracles, and the masses would still reject him as being true.

 

I first thought the word was argueology, a word I may start using .

 

hmmm....'argueology'--a great coined word there! Is there a thread for that kind of thing already on the BB?

In a more serious response to the OP, I would say that I personally find it absolutely UNnecessary to have anything "material" to back up my faith. HOWEVER, every time there is a new discovery that "verifies" biblical accounts (stories, people, places, etc.), I do cartwheels (in my mind only, coz I'm WAY too old to do them literally) and think "alright all you atheists, take THAT!" (Yeah, I know it's silly!)

 

They are important to those who do not have the testimony in their own mind, no spiritual witness in their heart.

If Jesus died of gunshot wounds, we may have to carry guns even in Canada, or hang a gun on the wall for us to remember the gunshot on that day, right?

 

If Israel/Jerusalem was nuked would you all quit believing?

 

if all of israel was destroyed - yah. i would quit believing - because then we would be believing in vain things.

 

So are you saying that when Israel didn't exist for hundreds there should not have been any Christians?

 

You don't, but Peter said we should be prepared to give a defense of our faith. Just because we become Christians does not mean we have to leave our brains at the door. Christianity is defensible historically and scientifically, but faith does not come from those things.

If things in the Bible could irrefutably be proven to be false historically, then I think we would have a legitimate reason not to believe. Just like we can prove parts of Mormonism aren't true by genetics.

The Scripture in which you are referencing is talking about miraculous signs, not historical, physical, artifacts.

But in response to the OP, I think when it comes to those things we need to be very careful. Look at the Shroud of Turin, for instance, and what a mockery it has made out of Christians.
And I don't just mean Catholics either.

I think it is probably better not to have "Sacred Artifacts" because then one's faith becomes closely connected to/with the legitimacy of said artifacts. And people would (and do) hold onto those things so much as a part of there faith that their faith would crumble if they were discredited, or they would simply refuse to believe any contrary view to be true.

The message of the cross IS foolishness to those who are perishing....
but there are factual,non-faith required, things in the Bible that can withstand scrutiny,and we ought not to be afraid of it.

 

gtbuzzarp said "So are you saying that when Israel didn't exist for hundreds there should not have been any Christians?"

when did they not exist?
the only time they did not exist is before abraham. no?

 

Someone might consider it a matter of semantics but there was not an official nation of Israel from the time the Romans destroyed Jerusalem in ca. 70AD until 1948. Someone else can do a better job than I further clarifying this.

 

Once again you prove your extreme stupidity and lack of common sense when replying to anothers post. I never said that I consider the Birthplace of Christ essential to my faith or that of the empty tomb. Even if the two places didn't exist that I mentioned I would still believe the Bible but regardless those two places are significant. I also do not need archeology to prove the Bible but in fact Archeology does back the Bible up.

 

Is it critical that Archaeology "find the exact manger" or will a reference "to the town" do?