-----------------------------
From between the 4th and 5th centuries...
Published on August 10, 2005 By ----- In Religion
CAIRO, Egypt (Reuters) -- Renovators working in an ancient Egyptian monastery have unearthed the oldest example of a building housing Christian monks, a member of the restoration project near the country's Red Sea coast told Reuters on Monday.

The cell, a building that served as the living quarters for monks, dates from between the fourth and fifth centuries and will help shed light on the early days of monastic life, said Father Maximous, a monk working at the site.

"It is the oldest physical evidence of a cell from that age ... It's the oldest in the Christian world," said Maximous, who works on restoring Coptic monuments.

The renovators had been repairing paintings inside a fifteenth century church on the site of St. Anthony's Monastery, founded in the mid-fourth century by disciples of one of Christianity's most influential hermits.

St. Anthony, who lived between the third and fourth centuries, is credited with developing regulated monastic life. Before him, individual hermits lived solitary lives dedicated to prayer and contemplation.

The renovators also found an eighth century church on the same site.

Historical texts make mention of the early monks living at the site but no archeological evidence had previously been found from before the sixth century, Maximous said.

The cell is a collection of rooms with private living areas and a central communal room, where the team found cooking implements, he said.

St. Anthony's Monastery, 155 km (100 miles) south west of Cairo, is one of the Christian world's oldest monasteries.

Copyright 2005 Reuters. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.


Source: Link


--- IMO, this is a a huge discovery. Theologists and various religious oriented scholoars (both christian, and of other denominations(right word?) ) have searched relentlessly for physical evidence of christianity's earlier history. With the number of fraudulent "christian" items circulating the globe, this has given sustenance to the history of christianity. This has helped scholars move away from claiming that the bible (or any other religous book) has the facts. (in reference to the credibility of the bible; fact vs. Fiction) Once more data comes through, no scientist (not saying it won't happen) can dispute with physical scientific evidence, to do so, IMO, would be hypocritical.

--Thats all i can thik of, what do you think? Do you think this will "beef up" the backing of the history of christianity? Will this alienate it?




Comments
on Aug 10, 2005
Was the history of Christianity in question? I mean, Christ is pretty much credited with the beginning of Christianity, or shall we say credited with being the catalyst of it.

Granted, after that it gets dodgy as to who is following the "true" Christian ways. There are more brands of Christ than there are breakfast cereals. But you don't seem to be talking about denominations (even though you used the word, and no I don't think in that context "denomination" is what you meant. Maybe I'm wrong.)

What exactly is it that you want this discovery to make a case for? To me it only makes a case that someone was practicing Christianity between the 4th and 5th centuries. So?
on Aug 10, 2005

This hasn't really given 'sustenance' to the history of Christianity...because it was really never in question.  It's not going to prove anything that wasn't already well known.

It's a cool find, yeah...but it's no Holy Grail.

on Aug 11, 2005
Was the history of Christianity in question? I mean, Christ is pretty much credited with the beginning of Christianity, or shall we say credited with being the catalyst of it.Granted, after that it gets dodgy as to who is following the "true" Christian ways. There are more brands of Christ than there are breakfast cereals. But you don't seem to be talking about denominations (even though you used the word, and no I don't think in that context "denomination" is what you meant. Maybe I'm wrong.)What exactly is it that you want this discovery to make a case for? To me it only makes a case that someone was practicing Christianity between the 4th and 5th centuries. So?


--From what i read it was; because some scientists dismissed the evidence given; 'it wasn't credible', then lo and behold, you hear about the fake tablets, etc... and it dampens it even more...true he is credited, but is he 'real', science still hasn't proven it as rock solid...of him being alive...so for all we know...he could have been a fanatical cult leader who sacrificed his followers...IMO this proves that 'christianity' did exist back that far, and we don't have to rely on only 'biblical' and other 'questioned' things....true, his could easily be dismissed, but, what ever is found in it, and have it tested...could leave no doubt...it could help solidify the foundation of a 'christianity' then, which, could lead to other discoveries and ultimatly to the discovery of 'christ' really existing...(I'm not christian btw...)


This hasn't really given 'sustenance' to the history of Christianity...because it was really never in question. It's not going to prove anything that wasn't already well known.It's a cool find, yeah...but it's no Holy Grail.


--But yet it was questioned, i mean, the majority of the evidence for christianity can be easily dismisssed, i mean look at the supposed tomb of christs brother...it turned out to be fake...


--Thinking about this know i am not sure exactly what i am making the case for, perhaps it is (my case) what i've said...not sure...

on Aug 11, 2005

--But yet it was questioned, i mean, the majority of the evidence for christianity can be easily dismisssed, i mean look at the supposed tomb of christs brother...it turned out to be fake...

Yeah, but that's biblical matters of which there is NO evidence.

You're trying to say that the finding of an ancient monastary helps prove that christ was real and that christianity is based on fact rather than fiction.  All this find shows is that there were monks who cloistered themselves as early as the mid fourth century.  We KNOW that people converted to christianity, that's never been in question. 

You can't use this to prove that christ was real and that things biblical actually happened.

on Aug 11, 2005
You're trying to say that the finding of an ancient monastary helps prove that christ was real and that christianity is based on fact rather than fiction. All this find shows is that there were monks who cloistered themselves as early as the mid fourth century. We KNOW that people converted to christianity, that's never been in question. You can't use this to prove that christ was real and that things biblical actually happened.


--I see where you're coming from....hmmm, will have to re-examin(sp) this...take a different approach perhaps...