Giant Marble Cross Found in N. Pakistan Hints of Christianity’s Early Presence There

[Cow Poke]

Aside from just being your typical snotty self, why would you think that the poker of bovines would suggest they're Protestant?

I hadn't actually thought about it, but the fact that it's an "empty cross" as opposed to a crucifix....

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

And today I received the following by Bodel

Genii loci ed i mercati di Roma - 2008

And?

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Volume 3 page 508 from a version that included notes from someone named Milman in an edition published in the second half of the 19th cent.

I think you will find on closer examination that the short passage you cited appears in volume four and not volume three; unless you have access to a somewhat unusual printing of those six volumes.

When I was younger and got bored on a rainy day I was the sort of kid who would pull out a volume from one of the sets of encyclopedias we had (Britannica, Colliers and Compton's) and start reading.

Very commendable but what precisely do your boyhood reading experiences contribute to this exchange?

Being a natural speed reader I could easily read a 200+ page book in an evening.

Well of course no one would expect anything less from such a prodigy.

Really what was the point of your remark? It appears to be nothing more than bragging.

Finally, I'm not writing something for publication

No but you are writing to impress your “base” aren’t you?

Nor did I request bibliographies. However, when the work of others is used mentioning that fact shows probity.

A brief search of your following comments suggests that most of it has been cut and pasted from posts made by a variety of contributors to an American Q&A site called Quora.

Christians were in India well before the Fall of Rome.

Which fall of Rome? The Gauls in the fourth century BCE? The Goths in the fifth century CE? Or the Fall of Byzantium/Constantinople in 1453? The Byzantines considered themselves to be Romans even though they spoke Greek.

We have many reasons to believe that this is so.

Would you kindly cite some of those “reasons” to support your statement? Such emphatic remarks require evidence to substantiate them.

[*]the apocryphal Acts of Thomas, written in the 3rd century A.D. testifies about Christianity being there at that time

I would not recommend citing the various Christian apocrypha as attested historical evidence.

As noted by Aubrey Rusell Vine [died 1973] in his The Nestorian Churches, although some consider Thomas the Apostle to have visited India most ancient references should be be read with a degree of caution. The evidence is not only somewhat dubious but in the ancient world the word “India” was applied rather loosely. It is possible that Thomas Cananeus/Cannaneo did visit parts of SW India in the fourth century and that he later became confused with the alleged apostle.

the historian Eusebius Pamphili (more commonly known as Eusebius of Caesarea), records that Pantaenus (died c. 200 A.D.), who was Clement of Alexandria's (c. 150 A.D.--c. 215 A.D.) teacher, journeyed to India in the 2nd cent. A.D.

This is little more than Patristic polemics. Nor is Eusebius of Caesarea an altogether reliable historian when he is recounting events from previous centuries and certainly not in a polemical work of this nature.

[*]Arnobius of Sicca (died c. 330 A.D.), in the second book of his Adversus Gentes ("Against the Nations" or Heathen), c. 303 A.D.,wrote about about the various lands that Christianity had spread to "For the deeds can be reckoned up and numbered which have been done in India..."

This is once again, merely more early Christian polemics.

More on this later.

Is this your way of announcing “Now Read On”?

the Christian community in Kerala, South India, almost certainly stretches back to the 1st cent. A.D., especially among Jewish settlers who were already there.

Where is the attested historical evidence? Once again, you need to substantiate these comments.

As for China, according to a 9' tall tall limestone stela discovered in the early 1600s, and written by a Chinese Christian monk named Jingjing in 781 A.D. Christianity arrived in there when a Nestorian monk named Aluoben entered the ancient capital of Chang’an (modern-day Xi'an or Shian, capital of Shaanxi Province) in central China, and received recognition by the second emperor of the Tang dynasty in 635 A.D.

This is Nestorian Christianity! The Nestorians' beliefs were hardly those of the “true” Nicene Christianity that you accept.

But again, there is strong evidence that Christians had already been in China well before then[*]a century earlier, in the early 550's A.D., a pair of monks from Persia, with the support of the Byzantine emperor Justinian I, smuggled silkworm eggs out of China in bamboo staves back to the Byzantine Empire^[1], which led to the establishment of an indigenous Byzantine silk industry in Constantinople, Antioch, Beirut, Tyre, and Thebes

Once again it would appear that these were most probably Nestorian Christian monks.

the aforementioned Arnobius of Sicca, while referring to the spread of Christianity into distant lands mentions that it had spread "among the Seres, Persians, and Medes." Seres (a.k.a., Serica, which meant silk in Latin) was an old Roman name for northern China, and known to both Greek and Roman cartographers.

As previously noted, Arnobius of Sicca is hardly a reliable source.

Given the title you chose for this thread I was initially tempted to enquire if there was a “one-eyed yellow idol” close by this “marble cross” and was this cross discovered “below the town”?

However, I suspected you might not understand the reference!

[rogue06]

I think you will find on closer examination that the short passage you cited appears in volume four and not volume three; unless you have access to a somewhat unusual printing of those six volumes.

I provided the page number from which it is on and noted that it was from the version containing notes by H.H. Milman. Or did that somehow escape your jaundiced eye?

Very commendable but what precisely do your boyhood reading experiences contribute to this exchange?

Simply background. I was a voracious reader. You made snide insinuations that someone who doesn't go by the screen name of Hypatia_Alexandria couldn't possibly read things like the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. I read a great deal more than that (although as noted I never did finish all of it)

Well of course no one would expect anything less from such a prodigy.

Really what was the point of your remark? It appears to be nothing more than bragging.

Again, background and something for you to keep in mind the next time you wish to suggest that anyone other than someone who goes by the screen name of Hypatia_Alexandria couldn't possibly have read things like the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.

No but you are writing to impress your “base” aren’t you?

Unlike you, I'm not trying to impress anyone but rather, if possible, to inform. JH brought up Christian missionaries traveling to India and China but his additional comment about what they found was "far more sophisticated and literate than those to be found in Europe after the fall of Rome" appears to suggest that such travel was only done much later. I sought to correct that misperception.

Nor did I request bibliographies. However, when the work of others is used mentioning that fact shows probity.

How often did you cite sources to support your contentions in the threads about crucifixion and Rome's use of slave labor while I provided source after source? Oh wait. Almost never. Instead you effectively kept going "uh-uh" because you really couldn't back up your assertions and your fragile ego never permits you to admit to a mistake because that might affect the view of yourself as being the smartest person in whatever room you happen to occupy. That's why you end up playing the various games that so many have noted (and are again engaging in here). Anything but say that you might be mistaken about any thing you pontificate upon.

A brief search of your following comments suggests that most of it has been cut and pasted from posts made by a variety of contributors to an American Q&A site called Quora.

If that's the case then please post them alongside what I wrote and let's compare them.

Which fall of Rome? The Gauls in the fourth century BCE? The Goths in the fifth century CE? Or the Fall of Byzantium/Constantinople in 1453? The Byzantines considered themselves to be Romans even though they spoke Greek.

You'll have to ask JH what he meant. Traditionally, the date is 395 A.D., although as that is fairly arbitrary and some historians have wryly remarked that the people at the time certainly wouldn't have been aware of any "fall."

In any case, all of those dates are much later than when Christians had already traveled to India and China which was my point. I'm surprised that such a genius as yourself has had so much difficulty figuring that out.

Would you kindly cite some of those “reasons” to support your statement? Such emphatic remarks require evidence to substantiate them.

Wow, you really are as thick as a brick. I immediately listed several of them

I would not recommend citing the various Christian apocrypha as attested historical evidence.

Oh, so you did see the evidence I provided after all. Then why the deliberately baseless allegation that I hadn't provided any?

The very fact that it was written in the 3rd cent., well before any "Fall" of Rome, mentions matter-of-factly about Thomas the Apostle having traveled there can not be summarily hand waved off. This cannot be dismissed as later tradition given the time it was written.

As noted by Aubrey Rusell Vine [died 1973] in his The Nestorian Churches, although some consider Thomas the Apostle to have visited India most ancient references should be be read with a degree of caution. The evidence is not only somewhat dubious but in the ancient world the word “India” was applied rather loosely. It is possible that Thomas Cananeus/Cannaneo did visit parts of SW India in the fourth century and that he later became confused with the alleged apostle.

Is this where I'm supposed to insinuate that you never read Vine's book and instead got your information by perusing Google? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and all that.

And it wasn't just the apocryphal Acts of Thomas tells of his traveling to India. We also have several early Church Fathers remarking on it including hymns by St. Ephraim of Edessa (died c.373 A.D.). While some of the traditions associated with Thomas' time in India (as well as accounts of further travels) may well be latter interpolations, the fact he went to India is pretty well established.

Oh, and I add the dates for some of these people to demonstrate that they are early sources and not from traditions arising after the "Fall" of the Roman Empire, as opposed to your condescending and impertinent inclusion of Vine's date of death.

This is little more than Patristic polemics. Nor is Eusebius of Caesarea an altogether reliable historian when he is recounting events from previous centuries and certainly not in a polemical work of this nature.

He really would have no reason to make that up since it wouldn't serve any purpose to do so.

This is once again, merely more early Christian polemics.

Do you ever gain any altitude with your frenzied hand waving?

Is this your way of announcing “Now Read On”?

No. It's a very common way of indicating that someone will return to a subject later in due course. It is such a familiar expression that it even has an internet abbreviation, MOTL. Considering the pompous airs that you like to put on, I'm actually surprised that you are unfamiliar with the expression.

Where is the attested historical evidence? Once again, you need to substantiate these comments.

Considering how badly you stuck your foot into it the last time you made this demand it might be a good idea to refrain from it.

This is Nestorian Christianity! The Nestorians' beliefs were hardly those of the “true” Nicene Christianity that you accept.

I was bringing up what many sources list as the arrival of the first Christians in China only to then show that wasn't the case. There are earlier documented visitations.

Once again it would appear that these were most probably Nestorian Christian monks.

It is possible they were Nestorian, and several historians simply assume they were, but we don't know. Even if they were they still count as Christians going to China even if they are from a heterodox or even heretical branch.

As previously noted, Arnobius of Sicca is hardly a reliable source.

Asserted without a scrap of evidence (hand waving isn't evidence) is not the same as demonstrated. You have sought here to summarily dismiss any and all accounts of Christians traveling to China and India. In fact it would be highly unlikely that some didn't given the existence of the Silk Road and Christian's habit of traveling to distant lands to proselytize.

Given the title you chose for this thread I was initially tempted to enquire if there was a “one-eyed yellow idol” close by this “marble cross” and was this cross discovered “below the town”?

However, I suspected you might not understand the reference!
[/QUOTE]
Arrogant conceited pup. Katmandu is probably a thousand miles away from this part of Pakistan. Then again you could be one of those who thinks all Asians look alike or that one place in Asia is essentially just like any other.



Although, I do admit that where I first heard the song (or is it a poem?) was as an important clue to solving a puzzle in an early video game

[rogue06]

And?

When I said that Academia.com floods you with papers when you make a request for one, they really flood you with papers.

[rogue06]

I hadn't actually thought about it, but the fact that it's an "empty cross" as opposed to a crucifix....

I was referring to how H_A doesn't realize that many if not most Baptists don't consider themselves to be Protestant

[Cow Poke]

I was referring to how H_A doesn't realize that many if not most Baptists don't consider themselves to be Protestant

Well, yeah, that, too! I certainly don't.

[mossrose]

I consider myself Protestant. And I'm mostly Baptist.

[Cow Poke]

I consider myself Protestant. And I'm mostly Baptist.

That's one of those things I don't quibble a whole lot about. I don't think we're "protestant" in the sense that we "protested" from the Catholic Church, or were part of the "reformation".

My mom used to get quite upset when the elementary school would send their "first day of class questionnaire" home, and it actually asked for you to state your religion "Catholic, Protestant, Jew or 'other'". She would have a fit --- "we're BAPTISTS, not Protestants or OTHERS".

I've seen this argued back and forth, so I don't bother getting into long debates about it. I don't consider myself a Protestant, but I completely understand that's the category I get placed in by being a non-Catholic Christian.

[Cow Poke]

If indeed this cross is determined to actually be Christian in origin, I am only surprised you are not suggesting that those early Christian settlements were protestant!

The more I think about it, the DUMBER this post appears.

[rogue06]

That's one of those things I don't quibble a whole lot about. I don't think we're "protestant" in the sense that we "protested" from the Catholic Church, or were part of the "reformation".

My mom used to get quite upset when the elementary school would send their "first day of class questionnaire" home, and it actually asked for you to state your religion "Catholic, Protestant, Jew or 'other'". She would have a fit --- "we're BAPTISTS, not Protestants or OTHERS".

I've seen this argued back and forth, so I don't bother getting into long debates about it. I don't consider myself a Protestant, but I completely understand that's the category I get placed in by being a non-Catholic Christian.

Yeah, I'm not really invested in either position. I can understand that for historical reasons that Baptists aren't Protestant and yet if you look at it as a more inclusive term virtually all groups that separated from the RCC can be regarded as protestant.

Maybe it's a capital "P" small "p" thing.

[Cow Poke]

Yeah, I'm not really invested in either position. I can understand that for historical reasons that Baptists aren't Protestant and yet if you look at it as a more inclusive term virtually all groups that separated from the RCC can be regarded as protestant.

Maybe it's a capital "P" small "p" thing.

Hey, I like it! I'm a protestant, not a Protestant!

[rogue06]

The more I think about it, the DUMBER this post appears.

It appears that she's trying to be an agitator but is at a loss at figuring out "how" and is flailing about looking for a way.

[rogue06]

Hey, I like it! I'm a protestant, not a Protestant!

Kind of like I consider myself to be a libertarian rather than a Libertarian

[Cow Poke]

Kind of like I consider myself to be a libertarian rather than a Libertarian

So, you'd be an orthodox protestant libertarian Christian, rather than an Orthodox Protestant Libertarian Christian, but always a Christian as opposed to a christian?