Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: magisterium; blam; Resolute Conservative
""It would have been a "local church" where Christians gathered, nothing more. ""

From the article: "We have evidence to believe this church sheltered the early Christians -- the 70 disciples of Jesus Christ,"

If the seventy disciples were there this would be more than just a 'local' church.

I am not going to get into the argument of primacy, but you might note that the seventy are all considered clergy in the ecclesiastical hierchy of the RCC and are only below that of the eleven apostles and the One (Jesus). I use eleven apostles because Matthias was one of the seventy and later became an apostle.

Viewed from the perspective that this church housed the earliest clergy of the Church I would think that Catholics would be less inclined to trivalize this find.

16 posted on 06/10/2008 9:43:20 AM PDT by Between the Lines (I am very cognizant of my fallibility, sinfulness, and other limitations.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: Between the Lines
I'm not trivializing this find at all. If the evidence they cite (which is not explained in the article, BTW) does, in fact, point to this building's use by The Seventy, it would be a major archaeological find! But, its possible use by The Seventy notwithstanding, that in itself would not provide any evidence that this particular building would "trump" Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem, or any other Particular Church known to have been established by one or another of the Apostles. Your original post seemed to strongly imply that you thought this find would trump those Particular Churches. It does nothing of the kind.

And remember, the article gives a date range of AD 33 to AD 70. This means that, if the actual date of the church building is closer to AD 70, it would have nothing to do with The Seventy, as their travails would be close to 40 years earlier. Also, a date this late into the First Century would clearly remove it from "oldest church" status. By AD 70, there were hundreds of houses and other buildings that had ongoing use as churches. In that set of circumstances, this church might be the oldest one uncovered to date - and therefore quite important historically - but it is hardly the oldest one in absolute terms.

Finally, it is important to remember that the discoverers haven't disclosed their evidence to back up their claim yet. As an one-time archaeology major myself, I can tell you that 2000 year-old buildings have much to their makeup that is explained only by conjecture. Depending on what they actually found, layout-wise, the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate clearly that it was used as a church building. They have a much harder burden of proof demonstrating that the building was specifically used by The Seventy. Don't forget that major archaeological expeditions in the Holy land and environs are very competitive, have major funding sources behind them, and are very "results oriented." The motivation, under these circumstances, to (at least initially) overstate one's case is palpable. Witness the recent fiasco involving the alleged ossuary of "James, the brother of Jesus." Indeed, look at almost anything that Simcha Jacobovici has involved himself in; you'll see the temptation to embellish (at a minimum) the facts is often very strong.

18 posted on 06/10/2008 10:32:39 AM PDT by magisterium
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson