Posted: Oct 25, 2016 3:46 am
All the popular Christian archaeology can offer is:
"This is possibly where Jesus walked."
" This could be the site of the crucifixion."
" This ossuary is where James was possibly buried."
"Here is where Paul may have been blinded."
It's so utterly pathetic. There is no first century Christian archaeology....
They could at least try something like "Here is where the Christians of Corinth read the letters of Paul," or "this inscription seems to corroborate that Peter was a fisherman."
But they can't and never will have any archaeological facts because no Jesus, Paul or Peter existed in the first century. Period.
"This is possibly where Jesus walked."
" This could be the site of the crucifixion."
" This ossuary is where James was possibly buried."
"Here is where Paul may have been blinded."
It's so utterly pathetic. There is no first century Christian archaeology....
They could at least try something like "Here is where the Christians of Corinth read the letters of Paul," or "this inscription seems to corroborate that Peter was a fisherman."
But they can't and never will have any archaeological facts because no Jesus, Paul or Peter existed in the first century. Period.