Han Stone Reliefs
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]
Han Stone Reliefs
It takes on special significance in suggesting that Jesus did not spend 20 years of his life pounding nails. There is no Biblical reason to believe that after age 12 he ran the local arts and craft shoppe. Indeed, there is lots of extra-Biblical evidence to suggest he traveled very widely outside the region, including to France and England. Other evidence suggests he traveled to India. Did he also travel to South America???
I've seen articles that say he was in America too but, I'm not about to post those articles.
HaHaHa! That's funny, considering some of the other areas you lead us into! You are the internet equivalent of Art Bell! ---ggg---.
But the subject of Jesus visiting South America is not a new one at all. Dr. Barry Feld would be quite comfortable discussing it, I believe.
Well that doesn't make it true.
Concensus is neither truth nor reality.
Concensus neither creates nor identifies truth.
I know. This violates everything "Liberals" believe and hold dear, including--horror or horrors!--the significance of New York Times's being the newspaper of record! They think that if something is "globally accepted" it is therefore true.
If there is no mention of Jesus on these stones, how does he know the designs are Christian? They could be Jewish.
And he would not be comfortable discussing it in THIS plane, at least, for he died suddenly several years ago now, about late 1994.
You are of course correct. His passing was a serious loss to all open-minded thinkers.
Do you see a specifically Christian fish symbol in the carving? I don't see it.
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.
Let me ask the question this way: Do you see anything in the article or the photograph that indicate that the carvings are based on Christianity rather than some other culture that had the stories of the Old Testament, such as the Jews.
Thanks it was interesting.
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..
I found that study interesting also. (I am still suspicious of DNA studies though)
There were no Jews ~3200 years ago. Another attempt to co-opt history?
(For a much needed history lesson, please take 3 minutes and study the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my LostTribe Profile. At least it will help you get some dates and definitions straight.)
There were several long and interesting threads here on FR last year (before you joined us) regarding the apparent fraud which was an integral part of several such DNA "studies". The techniques, objectivity and alleged "results" were roundly denounced by world-class DNA scientists.
The common thread which seemed to hlld these "studies" together was the consistant "proving" of what the financial sponsors set out to prove, without regard to scientific integrity.
The Mormons have been around longer than the Jews in your world?
(I have nothing against Mormons, just idiots)
OK, lets do the math. Since Mormonism began ~1830AD or so (I'm told), 1830AD minus 3000 years equals ~1170BC or so (ignoring any numbering probems involved in crossing the year of our Lord 0.) So you must be referring to the year 1,170 BC. (Check my numbers, please. It's getting late.)
Then I said: There were no Jews ~3200 years ago. Another attempt to co-opt history?
In the year 1170 Before Christ the Israelites had returned from vacation in Egypt and were back "home" having a good time disobeying God. They were not Jewish of course. There were no Jews in Egypt either, only Israelites. Moses was not a Jew, but an Israelite.
In 1170 BC the Kingdom of David was still ~170 years away. David was of course not a Jew. There were no Jews in 1,000BC, only Israelites.
After Davids Israelite Kingdom collapsed ~922BC, with nary a Jew in sight, these fueding Israelites split the sheets and formed separate Northern and Southern Kingdoms. No mixture of people would be identified as "Jews" for another 400 years, after the remnant of the Southern Kingdom returned from Babylon.
Well, I could go on with the story, but it's all in the 3-MINUTE HISTORY at my LostTribe Profile, so why don't you mosey on over there and get the rest of story.
Bottom line, (and I won't call you a liar like as you earlier implied about me), you have simply confused the arithmetic. I'm sure it was not another attempt on your part to co-opt history.
Then you sweetly said:
>The Mormons have been around longer than the Jews in your world?
which seems to add nothing but confusion.
>(I have nothing against Mormons, just idiots)
Oh, well. For a good look at a self-made one, check your mirror.
Love and Kisses,
-LT
Very interesting. Thanks for the heads up.
Thank God I can still trust my Glock.
Ha! I hear you.
You figure that Jews were in China at that time? 
Where are you seeing the 500 pieces of Han carvings? I clicked on the article source and only saw one. Could the other 499 have such symbols?
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.
