Religion
Related: About this forumArchaeologists discover shrine to Apostle Peter in Israel's Galilee
Excavations in Israel's Galilee have uncovered remains of an ancient church said to mark the home of the apostles Peter and Andrew, the dig's archaeological director said Friday. Mordechai Aviam of Kinneret Academic College, on the shore of the Sea of Galilee in northern Israel, said this season's dig at nearby El-Araj confirmed it as the site of Bethsaida, a fishing village where Peter and his brother Andrew were born according to the Gospel of John.
The Byzantine church was found near remnants of a Roman-era settlement, matching the location of Bethsaida as described by the first century AD Roman historian Flavius Josephus, Aviam said.
The newly-discovered church, Aviam added, fitted the account of Willibald, the Bavarian bishop of Eichstaett who visited the area around 725 AD and reported that a church at Bethsaida had been built on the site of Peter and Andrew's home. "Between Capernaum and Kursi there is only one place where a church is described by the visitor in the eighth century and we discovered it, so this is the one," Aviam said.
Christians recognize Saint Peter, originally a fisherman, as one of the first followers of Jesus and the leader of the early Church following the ascension. The Catholic Church also venerates him as its first pope.
https://www.dailysabah.com/history/2019/07/19/archaeologists-discover-shrine-to-apostle-peter-in-israels-galilee
Cartoonist
(7,552 posts)Funny how there is seemingly credible evidence about Paul, but none about Jesus.
MineralMan
(147,843 posts)So, that means it can't really have existed before 300 AD, at the earliest.
I can't see how that proves anything about Peter or Andrew. That was many generations after they were supposed to have lived.
Was it built on the site of Peter and Andrews home? Who knows. We have only some Bishop's word on that from around 725 AD.
Evidence of nothing, actually.
More argle-garble from the faithful, based on guesswork and old stories with questionable provenance. It's like a "George Washington Slept Here" sign on an 18th century building in New England that has been converted into a bed and breakfast, with the sign hung by the owner. It might be true, but most likely it's not.
We can't be sure of many things from three centuries ago, especially when they involve people who might have been somewhere that no longer exists.
No doubt they have found a Byzantine-period church. The rest is speculation and wishful thinking, almost certainly.
Next they'll dig up an 2000-year-old sandal in Jerusalem and claim Jesus lost it on the way to the cross. It is a sandal, and can be dated to that time, but there's no viable connection to any individual, any more than the flip-flop I lost in Santa Barbara in 1965 is the one someone dug up on Black's Beach last month. It's possible, but there's no way to prove it.
Proof of Jesus? Let him descend from the heavens on a cloud in the center of Jerusalem. Hundreds of cell phone cameras will capture video of that.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)The Bible says there will always be 'doubters' and 'naysayers'.
I find it a bit funny how some get so upset over religion being 'false'.
Take it or leave it, I say.
MineralMan
(147,843 posts)With science, everything used as evidence has to be true and verifiable. With religion, you just have to believe things are true, evidence or not. Science is hard; religion is easy.
See how that works?
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Religion.
Take it or leave it.
MineralMan
(147,843 posts)I still talk about it, though, here and elsewhere. I can do that, you see, if I wish to.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Says he quit smoking 10 years ago. Still uses the Nicotine patches daily.
MineralMan
(147,843 posts)Mariana
(15,174 posts)If he doesn't smoke, then he has quit smoking, by definition.
Mariana
(15,174 posts)All opinions about religion and religious topics are welcome here. If that kind of conversation about religion isn't to your liking, there are several Groups that strictly prohibit any disagreement or questions about the veracity of religious claims.
left-of-center2012
(34,195 posts)Please don't put words in my 'mouth'.
Mariana
(15,174 posts)I said, "IF" it isn't to your liking...
Please don't put words in my 'mouth'.
Voltaire2
(14,796 posts)Archeology is science not religion. You want to stay in your faith lane, fine, but dont wander over into the science lane and then get all huffy when people start honking their horns.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Strange how some get so desperate to try and create real world "evidence" of their religion, isn't it?
NeoGreen
(4,033 posts)...listed through-out the bible' are the 'evidence' that is supposed to convince the veracity of the magic-sky-god claim.
The 'gotta-believe-through-faith-alone' falls to the wayside when they present the big lie upfront, as in "here and here are small examples of it's majesty, and therefore the whole story is real'.
Even their method is BS.