Biblical clue found on ancient shrine

CNN ^ | Friday, November 21, 2003 | AP

[yonif]

JERUSALEM (AP) -- A barely legible clue -- the name "Simon" carved in Greek letters -- beckoned from high up on the weather-beaten facade of an ancient burial monument.

Their curiosity piqued, two Jerusalem scholars uncovered six previously invisible lines of inscription: a Gospel verse -- Luke 2:25.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

THAT JESUS NAME IS NOT JESUS IT IS YAHWEH

Don't be stupid. Iesous in Greek is directly from Eashoa/Yeshua in Aramaic/Hebrew, masculinzed with an "s". You can see the name in any Septuagint in numerous places, such as the book of "Jesus" (Joshua), the book of the Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach (Ecclesiasticus/Sirach), and in Chapter of the book of Zechariah, which disucusses "Jesus" the High Priest.

Yeshua is is from the word Ehyeh in Exodus 3.14, not "Yahweh".

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Christianity was undergoing massive flux by then, having to change from a non-heirarchial religion based on faith to a institutionalized religion with heavy backing from the Roman Empire.

What utter crap. Obviously you've never read any Christian and secular writings from before AD 313. One need only mention, for example, the seven Epistles of Ignatius, or the Letter of Clement to the Corinthians, or the writings of St. Cyprian of Carthage, all of which recognize the ecclesiastical heirarchy. In fact, the same heirarchy is clearly seen in Acts 20.28 - "appointed you Bishops to rule the Church of God".

One supposes that if some completely new structure was being imposed on the Church, there would be some record of impassioned protests, of which there are none.

Constantine may have had doubts about One G-d, but he was hard over about One Faith- hoping to use it to secure his One Empire.

You've got it completely backwards. Constantine was a worshipper of One God under the image of the the victorious Sun since his youth. He gradually came to realize the One God he worshipped could be none other than God Christ worshipped by his mother Helena, and thus became a Christian, especially after the vision of Milvian Bridge. However, all he did was legalize the Christian Faith and donate govenrment money to the Church to rebuild after the Diocletian persecutions (essentially a form of restitution for the injustice perpetrated). He did not outlaw paganism.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

No, it was not Yahweh, which is one of the ways of pronouncing the tetragramatron, the Hebrew spelling of the name of God. The four Hebrew letters of God's name were Yod Hey Vav Hey (in English alphabetic transliteration YHWH).

Josephus (Jewish Wars 5.5.7) said the Tetragrammaton was more properly transliterated as four vowels - i.e. as IEUE.

Take one shin and call me in the morning when you figure out Who is being refered to.

[donmeaker]

You wrote: "Constantine was a worshipper of One God under the image of the the victorious Sun since his youth. He gradually came to realize the One God he worshipped could be none other than God Christ worshipped by his mother Helena, and thus became a Christian."

I submit that the colossal question about One God is "Which One?". The strength and the failing of the later Roman Empire is that they tried to enforce monotheism, which drove away the West (whose more plural heritage is echoed in the Trinity) and offended the Coptics, without winning converts among Islam. It should be recognized that the victorious Christians put in place oppressions that dwarfed the so called persecutions of Julian.

Recent studies have unearthed (literally finding them in buried pots) writings long surpressed by the orthodox (small o) church which show that the early church was much less united than they wish to let on. At one time, spirituality mattered more to some than heiarchy, and revelation mattered more than authority. It was not forordained that the heiarchy would win over the spiritual, much though they would like to give that impression.

The Gnostic chuch would have all who entered draw pot shards, and those who drew the marked shards would serve that morning as priest, as reader, ect.

The orthodox surpressed all dissention. They laid the foundation for the early triumphs of Islam. The early victories in Jerusalem were victories for religious freedom, permitting the oppressed to worship as dimmis. The spirit of the oppressive orthodox church is
"Neco es omnes, Dios se agnoscet."

[scotsman1]

Call me mr cynic,but the recent 'ossuary of jesus' has now been proven a fake,so..................

[Hermann the Cherusker]

You boys interested in this one?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The strength and the failing of the later Roman Empire is that they tried to enforce monotheism, which drove away the West (whose more plural heritage is echoed in the Trinity)

East and West share a common faith in the Trinity - one essence, three hypostases. There isn't a hint of "three Gods" or any such nonesense.

offended the Coptics

The Copts were not offended by Monotheism, but by the perception of slighting St. Cyril at Chalcedon. The Copts still thought of themselves as part of the One Church.

without winning converts among Islam

Islam has mostly never presented the opportunity for winning converts, since the conquest of Islam put it up top and made conversions from Islam illegal, and the western subjugation was carried out mostly by Masonic Britain, which has never favored the idea of Catholic/Orthodox religious re-expansion. However, it is noteworthy that where France was in charge, in Algeria, Lebanon, and Syria, there is/was a much greater oppenness to Christianity. Similarly, in Orthodox countries like Bulgaria and Romania, a number of Turks are Christian converts called "Gauguz". And even in Egypt, where conversions are illegal, thousands per year join the Coptic Church.

Anyway, Roman monotheism was fully fleshed out in words at Nicea in AD 325. Islam started 300 years later. There simply isn't a connection.

At one time, spirituality mattered more to some than heiarchy

How does this differ from some today?

and revelation mattered more than authority.

I assume you are equating revelation with written texts instead of with the Faith.

The Gnostic chuch would have all who entered draw pot shards, and those who drew the marked shards would serve that morning as priest, as reader, ect.

The Gnostic Church is a joke. All one needs to do is read some of their esoteric writings.

The early victories in Jerusalem were victories for religious freedom, permitting the oppressed to worship as dimmis.

Are you an apologist for Islam? Being a dimmi is not "freedom". Nor is the Jannissary Law.

Who are you referring to as oppressed here, anyway? Romans in the Roman Empire?

[Destro]

Hermann, you did a good job taking apart donmeaker's argument.

donmeaker, just because writtings about Christ existed with some claiming to be Gospels does not mean they were "authentic" and by authentic I mean authored by the Apostles or the designated successors of the Apostles.

Those that were not designated by the Apostles were outside of the true Church even though they claimed they were Christians. Some were in the Church and were in error because of poor communications between the churches so that meanings drifted over time and distance.

Islam is probably an offshoot of Gnostic Christianity or heavily influenced by it.

[Ciexyz]

Yes, the ossuary of Jesus' brother has been declared a fake. This one would be nice, if it holds up to scrutiny.

[FormerLib]

Something from CNN? Let's say that alone leaves me doubtful!

[FormerLib]

Hermann, this guy is spouting some of the hotest left-wing anti-Christian drivel on the psuedo-academic market in a rapid-fire fashion! Bless you for trying but you are wasting your time with this one.

[cookcounty]

if it was the from the time of Jesus, it would be unlikely to be in Greek.

[donmeaker]

I refer you to the Gnostic Gospels, a recent work looking at an archeological find from the 6th century.

I was in fact refering to personal revelation, as opposed to textual interpretation. A common problem with religion is it recounts jam from yesterday, and promises jam tomorrow, but never jam today. And tomorrow never comes. The Gnostic tradition asserts that we are infact the "sons of G-d" able to prophesy and to reveal His word with the same authority as the long ago authors of gospels who falsified their names to add authority to what were otherwise ex post facto hacneyed works.

[donmeaker]

I figure that Islam was also invented by committee, after the death of Mohammed. Before his death, what ever he needed to do he had a revelation. Poof, instant justification.

There were many people who's needs were not met my Judaism, nor by Christianity as promulgated by the Eastern Roman Empire. In particular, pagan religions had a strong sense of Place, with shrines at Ephesus and many local dieties, or local modifications of deities who had been syncretized into the Greco-Roman pantheon.

Islam became a Judaism=lite, with shariah in place of Torah, less complete ritual genital mutilation for men, and stronger emphasis on monotheism than christianity. (It is not meet for G-d to have a son.) It should be observed that the dieing practice of pagan tourism was revived and expanded with the Islamic Haj. Roman Empire asked for soldiers, but the Pope invented the Crusades, changing Christianity from a "pie in the sky by and by" religion to having a strong emphasis on place, and reviving the christian pilgrimage. It also created a thriving business in religions fakes like the shroud of Turin, or the scull of St Anne. ( I refer you to Innocents Abroad by Mark Twain.)

As for being an apologist for Islam, don't make me laugh. I am an ordained minister, I work as an engineer, and enjoy history. All three are an organic whole for me.



This was the 6th century equivalent to the Blair-Clinton third way for the democrats to pursue socialism.

[donmeaker]

The early victories in Jerusalem were victories for religious freedom, permitting the oppressed to worship as dimmis.

You wrote: "Are you an apologist for Islam? Being a dimmi is not "freedom". Nor is the Jannissary Law. "

My response: There was religious oppression in the Christian Roman empire. The lot of the early dimmis was actually better than under the Romans. There were strong reasons for the diminishment of the medieval eastern Roman Empire, many of which had to do with the color factions, iconoclasts, and other religions nutcases.

You wrote: "Who are you referring to as oppressed here, anyway? Romans in the Roman Empire?"

Yes, exactly. The tax rate was high, much higher than the 1/40th exacted from the early dimmis. There were programs to oppress various churches, and the perfumed princes from Constantinopolos excited little loyalty. Any church which differed on the substance, or energy, or other esoteric matters from the "one church" was suppressed, either by mobs of different views, or by soldiers. The Jews were particularly suppressed and taxed.

The Eastern Roman Empire was the source of much evil in the world. I will leave it to you to explain why, having the sole legitimate and virtuous religion, they could never provide good government after the time of Julian the Apostate.

Babars found a counter to Christian Fanaticism as practiced in the first Crusade: Islamic Fanatisicm. Faced with defeat at Constantinopolos, Christianity became less place oriented, and more factioned. The one church is now a community of different churches, as united as the Greco Roman pagans. The G-ds of the presbyterians and the Lutherans are as smilar as Mars and Venus in the pagan world. The G-d of Islam today bears little similarity to the tolerant diety which conquered from Spain to the East Indies.

Syncretism. One of the primal forces of human nature. We learn and we adjust.

[donmeaker]

The Simon and Zachariah inscriptions were carved around the 4th century, at a time when Byzantine Christians were searching the Holy Land for sacred sites linked to the Bible and marked them, often relying on local lore, said Puech.


So to me the point is this is an old fake, as opposed to a new fake. Certainly Simon or Zacharian would not have had unclean greek letters on their tombs, but the Byzantines had no such sensibility.

[MissAmericanPie]

Islam is what happens when Satan gets hold of scriptures and a group of people. The result is a twisted mass of lies, deceit, oppression, and violence, counterfiting as worship of the "God of Abraham", while calling Him a liar.

It's a dark cult out of the bowels of hell itself,

[Hermann the Cherusker]

The lot of the early dimmis was actually better than under the Romans.

Utter crap. Explain then, why in Rome no one felt compelled to leave the Church, but under Islam, apostacy was a way of life?

There were strong reasons for the diminishment of the medieval eastern Roman Empire, many of which had to do with the color factions, iconoclasts, and other religions nutcases.

So the clashes of the blues and greens, iconoclasm, etc. caused the diminishment of the Roman Empire 100 years previously? Events in the 8th and 9th centuries caused the territorial shrinkage of the 7th?

Any church which differed on the substance, or energy, or other esoteric matters from the "one church" was suppressed, either by mobs of different views, or by soldiers.

Yes, its called "heresy". A Christian state surpresses damnable heresies. Like Gnosticism.

The Eastern Roman Empire was the source of much evil in the world. I will leave it to you to explain why, having the sole legitimate and virtuous religion, they could never provide good government after the time of Julian the Apostate.

Say what? The accomplishments of the Theodosii in the 5th century, the two Justins and Justiniain in the 6th century, of Heraclius the "pistos in Christos Basileus" in the 7th century, of the Commnenoi in the 11th century were not "good government"? Defeat of invading enemies, peace and prosperity are evil? The liberation of Africa and Italy from the Vandals and Ostrogoths were evil? The Theodosian and Justinian Codes (the foundations of modern law) are evil? The many colonies planted and cities rebuilt are evils? The peaceful evangelization of neighboring nations like Nubia, Armenia, Ethiopia, Georgia, Russia, Bulgaria, etc. are evils?

What wars of agression did East Rome ever fight to aggrandize herself?

[Destro]

Christianity was not promulgated by the Eastern Roman Empire. The Empire gathered all accepted Bishops as appointed to their positions through the device of Apostolic succession. They prayed-debated-argued-VOTED and thus was orthodox Christianity clarified.

[donmeaker]

I am sorry, I really wanted to tweak you a bit. Yes, Justinian did have something with his law code. Bellisarius was a heck of a good general and even managed to be a decent administrator.

I think that the factions began a bit earlier than the 7th century. I agree that it got worse over time. Gibbon's doesnt cover the Eastern Roman Empire in as much depth. That may have been interest, it may have been trouble with sources.

The first crusade was the only one that accomplished anything positive. The third got tourism back as a money making proposition for the Arabs. The 4th (by my count) sacked Constantinopolos.

If Christianity was so popular, and the government of the Romans was so great, why did the Arabs make such great progress? That they made great progress in a short time is, I hope beyond doubt. I think it was the Mongol invasion that saved Constantinopolos, what, the 12th century?