Posted on 08/04/2002 3:00:50 PM PDT by 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]
No, I'm making the broader point that it may not require a museum sign with a pointing arrow in order to possibly be understood.
>If there is no mention of Jesus on these stones, how does he know the designs are Christian? They could be Jewish.
I really haven't had a chance to examine the stones under laboratory conditions (nor have you) so cannot give the definitive answer you apparently and argumentatively seek. (You have to be loads of fun to be around.) Furthur, I am not qualified to make definitive judgements (nor are you) about what is or is not a Christian symbol of that time.
In that absence, I will either (1) accept theology professor Wang Weifans premise, based on his presumed authority, that some stone engravings demonstrate Bible stories and designs of early Christian times: or (2) assume a default position that they may be Old Testament stories of the Israelites, either Northern Kingdom or Southern Kingdom.
I would like to read an authoritative book which discusses travel in ancient times. We now know the amount of travel around the Med in Jesus time was very heavy. The Romans went to Britain so frequently upper class business men and military officers could have 2nd homes there in the region of Bath and elsewhere. There was already a major Roman highway running from the west of England to todays London, passing right by Bath. If you had the status and the money, you could travel.
It would seem to me that, if these were Christian from that time, they would show more of the central story of Christianity, ie. Jesus on the Cross, Jesus and the apostles, the nativity, etc. If they show Old Testament stories, it would seem to me that they would more likely be Jewish (or lost tribe).
Recognizing that "Gentile" simply means "not quite like us" Mormons call non-Mormons "Gentiles" and Jews call non-Jews "Gentiles". But outside a specific context the word Gentile does not stand on it's own .
For Example: The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel are a unique sub-set of Gentiles who are Israelites, but not Jews. From a Jewish perspective they are Gentiles, but from an Israelite perspective they are not. So when we read:
Matthew 10:5-6 These twelve Jesus sent out and commanded them, saying: "Do not go into the way of the Gentiles , and do not enter a city of the Samaritans . But go rather to the Lost Sheep of The House of Israel."
we need to remember that the Title House of Israel was assigned to the Northern Kingdom when the Davidic Kingdom split. Its members were never Jewish, therefore Jesus command to go first to the Lost Sheep of The House of Israel was NOT a command to go first to lost Jews.
Jesus was both an Israelite and a Jew and what He said here was "do not go to the Israelite Gentiles." (A common misinterpretation has Him talking about Jewish Gentiles .)
The House of Israel later became The Lost Tribes of Israel which won their freedom from the Assyrians ~610 BC. These 5 MILLION Israelites spread quickly to the West and North where they became known to history as The CELTS and later as The Europeans and Americans. It was to these non-Jewish ISRAELITE CELTIC GENTILES in Galatia , etc. that Jesus sent his 12 apostles.
These Northern Kingdom Israelites were not Jews, thus were Gentiles in the Jewish sense. But they were not Gentiles in the Israelite sense because they WERE Israelites. This huge nation of Israelites was simply called the The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel .
These ISRAELITE CELTIC GENTILES made up the bulk of the early Christians, and all the promises they received as Israelites were, and are, still good today. Gods inheritance has no statute of limitations.
That is absolutely false. The lost tribes, if they could be found, would NOT be considered gentiles ("goyim" in Hebrew) according to Jewish law. No descendant of Jacob is a goy. The Ethiopean Jews have been declared (whimsically, perhaps) to be the tribe of Dan and are, therefore, not gentile.
Recognizing that "Gentile" simply means "not quite like us"
I do not know the etymology of the word gentile, but the word Jesus would have actually used would have been "goy," which means any descendant of Noah other than the house of Jacob.
Jesus was both an Israelite and a Jew
I do not understand what you mean by that, other than that all Jews are also Israelites. According the geneologies of Jesus in the New Testament, he was clearly of the house of Judah.
>That is absolutely false ... according to Jewish law.
But Jewish Law and Tradition are not worth a bucket of warm "spit" when it comes to ascertaining historic truths. Most "tradition" is really "damnable tradition". By our traditions we make void the word of God!
>No descendant of Jacob is a goy.
Goy, schmoy. The Biblical and historic record are crystal clear as to who are Jacobs descendents. Please read the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my FR LostTribe profile below to view the historic record.
>The Ethiopean Jews have been declared (whimsically, perhaps) to be the tribe of Dan and are , therefore, not gentile.
That the problem with so much of history. Too much of it "have been declared (whimsically, perhaps)". It's not about culturally "declaring" anything, it's about actual history.
>>Jesus was both an Israelite and a Jew
>I do not understand what you mean by that, other than that all Jews are also Israelites.
There is nothing difficult about that. Jesus was an Israelite, being descended from Israel/Jacob. He was also a Jew, being descended from a tribe which was part of the Southern Kingdom returned from Babylon. Jews are not defined as being from Judah. They come from Judea, and include Levites and some Benjamites as well as Judahites.
All Jews are Israelites, but most Israelites are not Jews.
We are not necessarily talking about historical truths; We are merely talking about the definition of a word. The word "gentile" is used in the Bible as a translation for goy. A goy is someone who is not a descendant of Jacob. Therefore, the lost tribes of Israel, if they could be found, would NOT be considered gentile, contrary to what you claimed.
I really think you make up a lot of things in your head.
No, but maybe you've spent too much time living near dead lakes and dead trees to think new thoughts not part of your culture. --ggg--.
I am only interested in historic truths. The 3-MINUTE HISTORY (at my Profile) is only 8 paragraphs long. Starting with the first paragraph, where do you find the first historic error?
Thanks. I thought so too. People around here can come up with some really far out and amusing implications behind the smallest bit of information. I thought I would give it a try...
Anthropological DNA studies will uncover the truh behind this. There have some very interesting results from tracing the DNA of the Jewish Cohan family name and the profession of Rabbi.
You may claim you are interested in the truth, but you have expressed at least two provable untruths in this thread.
There is a difference between "thinking new thoughts" and making up things that are not true.
I think you mean the priests, not the rabbis. A rabbi is just a guy who goes to rabbinical school. Priests are hereditary. The Hebrew word for priest is Cohen.
There have indeed been DNA studies showing that Cohens all around the world are descended from the same man. Theoretically, that man should be Aaron.
That is my contention, as stated and clearly explained in post #29. And that explanation is supported in the brief 3-MINUTE HISTORY found at my LostTribe Profile. Your disagreeing does not make it false.
> You said gentile means "not quite like us." That is also clearly false.
Tell that to the Mormons who use the word GENTILE properly, as a word which is meaningless without context. Just because Jews have "co-opted" the word Gentile over time does not alter its usage-dependence. Jews do not have a corner on the word GENTILE any more than on the word HOLOCAUST, ongoing efforts notwithstanding..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.