Christian Designs Found In Tomb Stones Of Eastern Han Dynasty

CL2000.com ^ | 8-2-2002

[blam]

Christian Designs Found in Tomb Stones of Eastern Han Dynasty

[2002-08-02] Studies show that as early as 86 A.D., or the third year under the reign of "Yuanhe" of Eastern Han, Dynasty Christianity entered into China, 550 years earlier than the world accepted time.

When studying a batch of stone carvings of Eastern Han Dynasty (25-220 A.D.) stored and exhibited in the Museum of Xuzhou Han Stone Carvings, Christian theology professor Wang Weifan was greatly surprised by some stone engravings demonstrating the Bible stories and designs of early Christian times.

Further studies showed that some of these engravings were made in 86 A.D., or the third year under the reign of "Yuanhe" of Eastern Han Dynasty, 550 years earlier than the world accepted time of Christianity's entrance into China.

The 74-year-old professor, who is also a standing member of the China Christian Council, showed reporter a pile of photos of Han stone carvings and bronze basins taken by him. He also compared the designs on them with that of the Bible, composed of fish, birds, and animals demonstrating how God created the earth.

Designs on these ancient stones displayed the artistic style of early Christian times found in Iraq and Middle East area while bearing the characteristics of China's Eastern Han times.

The stone carvings, being important funeral objects, are mainly found in four cities, and Xuzhou is one of them. It is reported that by now more than 20 intact Han tombs have been found, from which nearly 500 pieces of engraved stones were discovered.

It is globally accepted that Christianity was first carried into China by a Syrian missionary Alopen in 635 A.D. the ninth year under the reign of "Zhenguan" of the Tang Dynasty (618-907 A.D.).

Some experts once raised doubts that Christianity may have entered China in an early time as the Eastern Han, but lack evidence. Nevertheless, professor Wang's discovery serves to strongly back up the theory and the earlier works of his own. By PD Online Staff Member Li Heng [From: CL2000.com]

[PaulKersey]

The correct polarity is not precise/imprecise, but tangible/abstract.

Thank you for clarifying that distinction.

[William Terrell]

I was responding to your statement, "The word Jews use that is translated as gentile is "goy," which refers to the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis." Shem was the son of Noah, too.

The word Jews use that is translated as gentile is "goy," which refers to the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis.

So, "goy" means non-Jewish? Well, that would support the notion that the other tribes of the Northern Kingdom, which were not of Judah (You said the word "Jew" comes from Judah), could be refered to as gentiles.

I think we're getting confused through imprecision, which seems support Kersey's statement that Hebrew is imprecise. I think you and losttribe are engaging in the very frustrating practice of trying to to nail a drop of water to the wall.

Getting back to the point, the contention that the lost tribes of Israel, if they could be found, would be gentile from a Jewish perspective is false.

That is your opinion. Since the word "gentile" as used in the New Testament traces back to the word "whelp" in Hebrew and "nation" in Greek, and all who were in the area at the time of Jesus were Jews, you don't seem to have a reference for that opinion.

What is important is the strong evidence that Jesus would have his disciples seek out the lost tribes of Israel to bring the gospel to them. That certainly makes more sense than labored interpretaions that seem to be designed only to circumvent that notion.

[tracer]

Sorry. I was just making a dumb joke. I am not well-versed in Chinese history and don't really know whether the "Jews" actually did enter into China, although they might have, given their talent in trade, mercantilism, and banking. All the best........

[rwfromkansas]

True, but it makes it suspect at best.

[William Terrell]

Oh, sorry. The nature of the topic and discussion on these kinds of threads makes it difficult to sniff out humor. I suspect we could all benefit from exposure to an air conditioner.

[PaulKersey]

True, but it makes it suspect at best.

That goes beyond all reason and actually smacks of anti-mormon bigotry, IMHO.

[rwfromkansas]

How is it bigotry when the scientists of the world say the tablets are fake?

[Inyokern]

You are objecting because that you think the House of Israel are not gentiles but Jews? (Am I right so far?)

No, you are wrong. They would not be gentiles and they would not be Jews. They would be "yisrael".

A gentile is someone who is not of one of the twelve tribes of Israel, therefore the lost tribes are not gentile.

Member "Lost Tribe" said that, "from a Jewish perspective," the lost tribes would be gentile. This is false. "Lost Tribe" knows nothing about what the Jewish perspective is. He knows nothing about Jewish law on this subject, nor does he care to hear about it.

[Inyokern]

You are basing your ENTIRE fine-grain picky-picky argument on the precision and accuracy of Hebrew. Don't you see how absolutely silly that appears now that you are backing away from it's precision?

No, I was merely saying that placing the designation of "Jew" on people only after the Babylonian captivity and not before is completely arbritrary and has no basis in the original language. One could make an equally good argument either way.

[Inyokern]

So, "goy" means non-Jewish?

No, "goy" means non-Israelite. The lost tribes, if they could be found, would not be goyim.

[Inyokern]

Since the word "gentile" as used in the New Testament traces back to the word "whelp" in Hebrew and "nation" in Greek

I do not believe Jesus would have called people "whelps." In this case, Strong's definition makes no sense.

[Khurkris]

sure....looking for good take out...

[DensaMensa]

Congratulations on the finest explanation of the meaning of the word GENTILE I have ever heard, in your message #29. Your explanation takes it a step at a time like dialing in the numbers on a big bank safe and hearing those big tumblers drop into place one by one. I will never view GENTILE the same way again.

Keep up your good work! You are opening up the Bible and making it understandable.

[PaulKersey]

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

I keep looking for the "beef" in your argument and finally found a few crumbs from a stale hamburger.

Member "Lost Tribe" said that, "from a Jewish perspective," the lost tribes would be gentile.

Well, that just means they would "not quite like Jews", because he defined it that way.  No other definition, yours or anyone elses is applicable.

You are comparing apples and oranges.  If you read his post about "gentiles" carefully you'll see he is not claiming to be a Jew or think like a Jew or have some unique "Jewish perspective" or sensitivities, real or imaginary.  He might have worded it better, but he defines what he means by the phrase before he uses it, and that definition is different from yours.

Lost Tribe says, Gentile means "not quite like us". That has nothing to do with theology or even being Jewish.  It just means "not quite like us".  So he uses gentile from a "Mormon perspective" (or reference point) as an example; Mormon gentiles are not quite like Mormons.

Then he uses gentile from a "Jewish perspective" (or reference point)  as an example; Jewish gentiles are not quite like Jews.  This has nothing to do with what you keep squawking about!

The conclusion is, THERE IS NO CAUSE FOR YOUR BEEF.  Forgettaboutit.

[William Terrell]

And opinions do vary in a medium of uncertainty.

[William Terrell]

In this case, Strong's definition makes no sense.

Well, that's true, unless the Hebrew definition of "whelp" is like ours (likely, since that's the English word chosen for translation):

1. A young offspring of a mammal, such as a dog or wolf.
2. a A child; a youth. b An impudent young fellow.

But the point was that the reference material didn't say "goy" meaning not descended from Noah through Shem. I figure that whatever else Strong's reference system is, it's been well researched by a lot of people and more than one linguist.

[William Terrell]

What, with the ruebin they'd want chinese?

[LostTribe]

>Keep up your good work! You are opening up the Bible and making it understandable.

Thank You very much! I appreciate that.

[Inyokern]

Member "Lost Tribe" said that, "from a Jewish perspective," the lost tribes would be gentile.

Well, that just means they would "not quite like Jews", because he defined it that way. No other definition, yours or anyone elses is applicable.

WHERE'S THE BEEF?

The beef is that Lost Tribe doesn't know what he is talking about. The Jewish religion does not make any distinction between the various tribes of Israel. The fact that the Jews are the only tribe known today does not mean that another Hebrew tribe, if one were ever found, would be gentile. It most certainly would not.

The other tribes would not be gentile from a Jewish perspective because the Jews would not consider them gentile. How many ways can that be said?

I object when uninformed people like Lost Tribe make cavalier statements about my religion based on no knowledge.

[PaulKersey]

I get the picture:

Strong's definition makes no sense (Strongs Concordance)

Lost Tribe doesn't know what he is talking about.

Placing the designation of "Jew" ... after the Babylonian captivity ... is completely arbritrary

You're the kind of guy who has to play marbles alone because you change the rules in the middle of the game to suit where your marbles lay.  Bet you even have trouble with the definition of IS.

Forgettaboutit!