Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

archaeologymag.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 310 posts

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#161

Post by joshuamcginnis »

andrepd wrote: post #20
bdcravens wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My wife is Messianic Jewish, where the primary intent is to restore Jewish traditions and beliefs while still believing in Jesus/Yeshua ("Jesus" being essentially a mispronunciation; the westernized version of the name would more accurately be "Joshua"). Personally my beliefs lie elsewhere, but it's still unfortunate that "denomination" is still such a tiny minority, given its desire to be a purer form of the religio…

Every religion thinks they're the "purer" form of religion though, don't they? x)

Every religion makes truth claims. Many of those truth claims contradict each other. It's incumbent upon us to do the research, put the claims to the test and come to the most reasonable conclusion as to what is true.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#162

Post by xdennis »

kamikazeturtles wrote: post #61
Hilift wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the more interesting developments occurred after the fall of the western Roman empire. The eastern empire (Constantinople) had frequent arguments and disputes with the west over nearly everything, including Christianity. The eastern Orthodox church refers to itself as the "Catholic Church" in internal documents. After the west fell in 476, they continued to present themselves as "the" Catholic church, which w…

Did the fact that Christians from Western Europe looted Constantinople in 1200 play a role in the Eastern Roman Empire's decision to stop identifying themselves as part of the Catholic Church, or were there already deep theological and political divides?

> a role in the Eastern Roman Empire's decision to stop identifying themselves as part of the Catholic Church

From their point of view, the West abandoned the true (i.e. orthodox) faith.

Also, it's hard to argue that the Eastern Christians changed more than Western ones. For example, since the 12th century the pope has forbidden priest marriage. There is some debate in the Catholic Church about allowing this again. If that is implemented, it would simply be a reversion to what the Orthodox Church has always done.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#163

Post by ARandomerDude »

marky1991 wrote: post #114
NemoNobody wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exodus was as far from Christ as we are. The Old Testament can't be used to counter Jesus - Jesus is the counter to the Old Testament. He is the reason it's "Old" - humility, loving all without conditions, forgivenes, turning the other cheek - The Greatest Commandment, none of them are ignored or "misinterpreted" in any justified way, even if that way is quoting scripture from Exodus.

That's a very unusual context for me, in my tradition (reformed Presbyterian) we definitely don't view things that we way in general, the God of the old testament is the God of the new and Jesus didn't wholesale make the old testament invalid, only the parts of the law that he had already satisfied. (Eg no need for more animal sacrifices, we've already sacrificed enough via Jesus) (Notably, the moral law and parts of…

Agreed except for this comment.

> parts of the ceremonial law are still valid

Westminster Confession 19.3:

“All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated, under the new testament.”

The reason the ceremonial law is abrogated is because it pointed forward to Christ who was to come. But since Christ has come, retaining the ceremonial law is tantamount to denying Christ (see full text of WCF 19.3 and book of Hebrews).

If you were thinking of the link between baptism and circumcision, remember that God gave the covenant promise and sign to Abraham 430 years before Moses (Gen 17, Gal 3:17), so circumcision predates the law.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#164

Post by alexjm »

ilamont wrote: post #152

The article mentions "18-line Latin text" but I was unable to recognize any word on the scroll (took Latin in high school) even something obvious like deus . Was this some sort of Latin shorthand?

Some of the letter shapes look like Latin/Roman cursive, but even then I'm not sure I recognize any words either.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#165

Post by abrenuntio »

wslh wrote: post #156
mensetmanusman wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Didache predates Josephus.

I understand that the Didache doesn't mention Jesus itself.

Read it here:

https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0714.htm

(E.g. when discussing the Eucharist.)

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#166

Post by mistrial9 »

jajko wrote: post #125
christopher8827 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think that's in line with Jesus' teachings of humility and helping the poor etc, especially not given how much money goes and went around in the church. Hmm, but in the Exodus, the ark of the covenant was glided in gold with cherubs on the four corners. Same with the Jewish Temple, it was probably decked out in marble. Unlike Protestants, Catholicism have arts, choral music and statues and architecture not…

As somebody outside of religions (thank you both parents, probably the greatest gift one can give to one's kids - freedom of faith and self determination, something almost impossible as adult if indoctrinated young), these kind of discussions are funny to me. Why? They are present in every corner of the world, every religion. And all you need is to take few steps back and stop taking everything literally, trying to f…

that's all brave and probably well intentioned, but there is another side to it. The Bible was specifically "a single agreed upon text" so that groups of people in real life could stop fighting about theology points, big and small. It still exists today. "The Bible is the Truth" end of statement. It is not because you personally cannot find new meaning in non-Bible things.. it is specifically to get groups of people "on the same page" .. that phrase is used today. The written nature of it also tends toward stability.

Perhaps in an unsatisfying way to an adolescent, the answer is there already, and you personally find your place in the order that is established by your ancestors and lead you life. Mostly the whole exercise is opposite of adolescent exploration. IMHO this is neither bad nor good. It is boring and meant to be boring, to prevent deadly conflict, wasted efforts, petty differences etc.

Based on this boring interpretation, Christians went on to build massive, mighty buildings, large civilized empires and vast written knowledge available to literate citizens. Those things did not have to happen at all. The triumph is that they did happen. In modern times we mostly dont even regard these things, since they are "obvious."

Please note that I am not saying this is the only one True Path at all, just describing things.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#167

Post by sickofparadox »

vintagedave wrote: post #151
3pt14159 wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is dangerously close to a polytheistic practice in its own right. I don't really think so. We're supposed to pray with Mary to God and everyone recognizes that all of creation came through Christ, not Mary or any other saint.

I was taught as a child, and this was Protestant with a clear anti-Catholic bias, that: * Catholics prayed _to_ Mary (eg asking to intercede on your behalf); * This was speaking to the dead, and expecting a response, and thus a sin in some way I am not sure of. I'm guessing you're Catholic from your response; would you mind explaining to this somewhat lost person how Catholics view these two topics please? (I've neve…

>This was speaking to the dead, and expecting a response, and thus a sin in some way I am not sure of.

Catholics believe that people in heaven are not dead, and can hear your prayers for intercession (this is the case with most protestants too). Jesus said, after all, that he is the God of the living not the God of the dead[1], and that those in heaven will be reborn in a new and everlasting life. Catholics further believe that the saints in heaven can pray on your behalf and are, in fact, excited to do so, and possibly better at it than anyone on earth.

[1] https://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%2022%3A32

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#168

Post by abrenuntio »

mannyv wrote: post #130
lucozade wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is scientific consensus that Jesus was a historical figure It's fair to say that there is general consensus amongst Biblical scholars that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Calling it a scientific consensus is a bit of a stretch though. As far as I'm aware there's zero scientific evidence for His existence. Just that the surviving textual evidence makes little sense if He didn't.

There's a ton of textual evidence for the existence of Santa Claus.

Correct, he lived in Turkey around the late third-early fourth century.

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#169

Post by abrenuntio »

MrBuddyCasino wrote: post #68

> dates back to approximately 230-270 CE The nerve to use "Common Era" when specifically talking about the spread of christianity.

"He who testifies to these things says, ``Yes, I am coming soon.'' Amen. Come, Lord Jesus."

Re: Silver amulet is the oldest evidence of Christianity north of the Alps

#170

Post by xdennis »

kibwen wrote: post #86
papandada wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've never heard anyone say the early church wrestled with polytheism. Maybe that's my bias nestled in Christian circles of not using that word, in favour of something more like "the nature of the triune Godhead", etc.

Even today plenty of Christian sects refuse to recognize the council of Nicaea's interpretation of the trinity, including the Mormons and the Jehovah's witnesses: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism (Whether or not any of these flirt with polytheism is up for debate.) Meanwhile, the Catholic church's own profusion of saints whom you are supposed to beseech for specific blessings is dangerously close to a…

As an Atheist (formally Orthodox), I think I can adjudicate this.

The problem with the First Council of Nicaea was that it was decided wrong. The whole "there are three gods, but only one god" is inherently confusing. There's a reason why Arianism keeps recurring over and over again. All the new nations who have been introduced to this aspect of Christianity find it bizarre.

If the decision would have been more along the lines of Islam (i.e. Jesus is super holy, but not God) then it would have been easier to maintain unity. In fact, Islam's adoption of a form of Arianism is one of the reasons it replaced Christianity so quickly in North Africa and the Middle East. (Well, that and the sword.)

Post reply on HN