Skip to comments.Christian Designs Found In Tomb Stones Of Eastern Han Dynasty
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]
I would imagine that the word "Jew" is a reasonable corrupted form of "Judah", but I don't find any reference to "Jews" in Genesis or Exodus, which follows it. All I see are references to "Israelites" Did I miss that reference? It's certainly possible I did. Go ahead and post a cite.
When the Babylonians captured the House of Judah, they would call these aggregate people something, and probably not "Judah" because that House contained Benjamin and the detachment of Levite priests and teachers as well. Paul refers to himself as a "Jew" even though he was of the tribe of Benjamin.
Where do you get your information? It doesn't seem to be Biblically supported.
Yes, it is very interesting. Even just getting the basics of who-is-who and where and the times involved correct changes your whole outlook on a lot of collateral history, as well as making the entire Old Testament come alive. It also gives the New Testament new and important meaning.
Lots of luck on learning much about the Celts and The Lost Tribes of Israel in traditional religion history classes. As Americans we are quite ignorant of much history other than our own. I received the bulk of my knowledge on the subject as a Post-Doctoral student at Oxford University studying Biblical Archeology. Did additional post-doc at Trinity College in Dublin studying the early Celts. They were experts on these subjects long before we were a nation, but somehow that didn't make it across the pond into either our seminaries or universities. (And there are others who think it is important the Lost Tribes remain "lost" or "assimilated" or otherwise not "found".)
It's also important to spend time in Europe at the great Celtic sites of Hallstadt in Austria and Le Tennes in Switzerland. The continental europeans have an important broader perspective which the English miss. Some Brits belive the Lost Tribes are the Celts alright, but are only found in Cornwall, Wales, Brittany and Ireland. This narrow (little island) perspective manifests itself in English language book after book, each one copying the other, and most getting the big picture all wrong. Continentals see the dispersion picture more clearly.
For an excellent jump-start on the subject, the little book at my LostTribe Profile site discussing the Assyrian Tablets in the British Museum is the best I've found so far. Those 20,000+ clay tablets from Assyria blow the old myths and superstitions apart!
My guess is, if he showed up for the discussions, we would be the uncomforable ones...
The Hebrew language is a very crude and imprecise language. Talk to scholars who deal daily with both Hebrew and Greek as I have and you will see their frustration at trying to "fill in" the gaps in ordinary Hebrew language manuscripts and second guess what the writers had in mind. To suggest the Hebew language is precise, as compared to Greek doesn't make any sense. That it would suggest (as you say) that Jews came into existence with the brith of Judah is a good example that it is also the source of cultural silliness totally out of touch with real history.
Not to mention the Internet.
I did not say "not being descended from Noah." Just the opposite. "Goyim" (gentiles) are the nations descended from Noah, as listed in Genesis 10. The word literally means nation. It is used by Jews to refer to other nations, ie. nations other than Israel.
Another way of saying gentile in Hebrew is "ben noach" (son of Noah).
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. From a Jewish perspective, they are part of Israel.
Where did I say the Hebrew language was precise?
I merely said that applying a (relatively modern) English word "Jew" to a certain period of time but not another is silly because the original language makes no such distinction.
I think I see your point. It's a subtle one, but tell me if I have it right.
Lost Tribe said:
...: 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....:
You are objecting because that you think the House of Israel are not gentiles but Jews? (Am I right so far?)
If that is so, how can you claim they were Jews if there weren't any Jews when the Israelites (not Jews) split into different Kingdoms? The would have to be brother Isrealites. Right???
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?
Ruy sez-- ..new age, mormon nonsense
Is that all there is to this "extra-Biblical evidence", that it's a Mormon thing?
A tip of the hat to my Jewish brothers and sisters from a (hopefully) nice goy.....
Does it make it false? (PS I am NOT a Mormon.)
I don't think you've spent 10 minutes looking for evidence that Jesus may have been doing something besides whittling for 20 years while waiting for the Big Time.
That's interesting. Can you post some sources? I'm more than a little ignorant about the topic.
No, that was Al Gore.
No, it's just focused on earthy and tangible content. It looks imprecise if you are needing to make abstract distinctions, which Greek is more suited for.
The correct polarity is not precise/imprecise, but tangible/abstract.