4.03.2012

Trayvon Martin Shooting Death Propaganda Machine

This piece was originally presented at Hudson Valley Forums and is used by permission of the author.

I happen to be the sort who is always up for a good debate on just about any subject. I consider myself to be a pretty logical person and adept at cutting through the proverbial BS, especially when it comes to the garbage the mainstream media cranks out. So it's no surprise to those that know me, that I might jump into a conversation or two regarding the case and media story of the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida.

Shooting of Trayvon Martin

What I find most shocking though, downright alarming even, is that I have now lost SIX friends over this story. For my simply daring to question the media version, and suggesting that perhaps, just perhaps, the EVIDENCE in the case should be considered before jumping on the lynch-mob bandwagon for vigilante justice against the shooter.

The perverse hold that the propaganda machine has over America is apparent, more and more each day as we see stories like this sow division between friends. Now keep in mind here, that I have nothing to gain personally from discussing the case, and to my knowledge none of my friends have any direct relation to the case either. So basically, I have lost 6 friends simply because they were deluded by a media frenzy.

In a more logical world, friends are able to debate any issue, even with great zeal and passion, but still remain friends no matter what the outcome of the debate. After all, how boring would friendships be if we were all drones who knew all of the same things, and agreed on everything. Examining different points of view is how each of us learns new things, to broaden our horizons, but to tell a friend that you will or will not be friends with them based upon their opinion of a shooting that happened on the other side of the country is absolutely ridiculous.

No, it's worse than that. It is symptomatic of the death grip that the media and the-powers-that-be have over the thought processes of society at large, and how easily manipulated the people truly are in order to sell out their friendships for media propaganda and falsehoods. If they will sell out their friends to be "politically correct" they will have no problem selling out our rights either. And that, I believe, is what really rests at the center of this case, just like the Casey/Caylee Anthony case, just like the debate surrounding drug testing of welfare recipients. These issues are in the news and spread across social media in order to soften up society, and leave the masses DEMANDING that the government take away our rights.

So what really is my opinion about this case anyway? Perhaps you are reading this, wondering if my friends might have been justified to turn their back on me. Maybe I am ignorant, or a bigot, unfit to share their company or a spot on their Facebook wall. Well, I'll go ahead and add this supplemental here to articulate what my thoughts on the matter really are.


TRAYVON MARTIN SHOOTING STORY, SORTING FACT FROM FICTION

One of the first thoughts that crossed my mind when I first heard of the Trayvon Martin shooting, was to question why this particular case was suddenly garnering national attention. Skimming the backwaters of niche-blogs and alternative news sources I see horrendous injustices committed each and every day, but society is generally content to rabble along blissfully unaware of how bad things have really gotten in this country. Whether it be issues of poverty, violence, corruption, the systematic dismantling of the last vestiges of our precious Constitution, society at large is too busy watching American Idol to be bothered. So why now, why this case, and not cases like the BART shooting where the officer got off with a slap on the wrist?

Why not any of these cases...

Injustice Everywhere

...or the untold number of cases that are routinely swept under the rug every single day in this country? There is an agenda being carried out here, that has little to do with the death of a young black man on a street in Florida. Whatever the agenda actually is, we may not see yet for some time, or until after it is too late judging by how easily manipulated people have been by this story.

So let's look at the case itself now. A sanctioned neighborhood watchman (George Zimmerman) reports what he believes to be a suspicious person (Treyvon Martin) to police. The watchman has been credited by the homeowner association with catching a thief on one occasion, in this same gated community where police get roughly 400 calls per year, a substantial portion of those reports coming from watchman Zimmerman. In the year before this incident, the neighborhood had seen eight burglaries, nine thefts and one other shooting.

This is the audio recording of the conversation between Zimmerman and police, which details his observations...

Zimmerman call to police

It is important to note here, that Martin had every right to be in the neighborhood visiting his father. He also had every right to walk slowly in the rain if he so chose to, and to peer at other houses in the neighborhood as he is said to have been doing, returning from the local store with a bag of Skittles and an Arizona iced-tea. Equally important to recognize though, is Zimmerman's right, and even his responsibility as neighborhood watch captain, to report anything out of the ordinary and to observe the activities of suspicious persons. At that point, Zimmerman had no way of knowing that Martin had a legitimate reason to be in the neighborhood, which is of course why he called police to investigate further.

Keep in mind here too, that suspicion has nothing to do with guilt. Which is why we don't allow lynch-mob justice in America in the first place. Anything out of the ordinary can be cause for further inquiry, but that does not necessarily mean that there is in fact any sort of criminal activity happening. Hundreds of thousands of times each day on the streets of America, police stop random people demanding I.D., demanding to know where the citizen is going or coming from, and so forth. This instance is hardly any different, except for the fact that in a private community such a stop would be even more justified legally. Whereas Americans enjoy the right to walk down any street they so choose to, that right does not extend to within the gates of private communities or other private property. On such property a person can be stopped and questioned at any time to verify that they have not trespassed, and have legitimate business within the secured area.

If police had arrived before the confrontation occurred, they would have verified that Martin was in the neighborhood as a legitimate resident, or by the invitation of a resident, and that would have been the end of the story. Sadly of course, that was not the end of the story though, this time. Zimmerman is "accused" of following Martin, thereby "provoking" the confrontation and being left with the blame. This "following" seems to be the major sticking point in discussions on the matter, so let's take the time to look very closely at it.

As watch captain Zimmerman had every right and indeed a duty to observe suspicious persons. He also has every right, as a citizen and resident of the private community, to move about freely on those streets as he so chooses. The same right that Martin had to walk in the rain wearing a hoodie and eating Skittles. There are some who contend that somehow Zimmerman no longer had the right to perform his duty, or to move about freely in his own neighborhood, simply because the police told him not to. The truth is though, that the police did not make any such order, and he would not have been obligated to obey such an unlawful order if they had.

Nonetheless, we can also discern from the Zimmerman cellphone call to police, that this "following" of Martin was not so clear cut as some, even the media, might lead us to believe. To begin with, we hear that it was actually Martin who first approached Zimmermann, making what could be construed as a threatening gesture, reaching into his waistband. (For the layman reading this, such a gesture is a sign that the person is armed and considering shooting someone.) He also did not appear afraid, as he chose to talk on his phone with his girlfriend, rather than call police to report that someone was following him, according to her statement.

When Martin took off running, Zimmerman did pursue him momentarily, until police told him, "We don't need you to do that," at which point he broke off his pursuit and told the dispatcher that he had lost sight of Martin. So even though police could not legally order him to stop, he did in fact obey the suggestion before the phone call comes to an end. What happened after that is questionable, but there is some evidence nonetheless.

In the Wikipedia article there are multiple audio recordings of 911 calls. On one of those recordings we can clearly hear a struggle, someone screaming for help, and a single gunshot at which point the hollering ceases. It is not immediately discernible who was actually screaming for help, though I expect that a forensic sound investigation might be able to rule out Zimmerman if it was not him, as he has claimed it is. We also have an eyewitness who supports that claim, and also states that Martin was on top of Zimmerman overpowering him and pummeling him.

Other witness statements have been made as well, but could be considered unreliable. One teen eyewitness who supported Zimmerman's account, his mother has since claimed that police coerced her son to give certain details. Other witnesses only heard the events. And still other witnesses made statements that are dis-proven by the audio recordings, but which are still broadcast in the media as truthful.


Quote:Witness Mary Cutcher and her roommate appeared on AC 360 and stated that she believes "there was no punching, no hitting going on at the time, no wrestling" just prior to the shooting...

Clearly, that is disproved by listening to the struggle ensue on the recordings, along with other witness statements. With the exception of the one eyewitness, the rest of the statements are a wash for the most part, and don't really tell us much about what actually happened. There is some physical evidence too though. The injuries that Zimmerman suffered, as documented by doctors, were consistent with his account and that of the only reliable witness.

So all in all, we see that there is some practical evidence here to support Zimmerman's contention that he is the one who was actually attacked, and that ultimately he shot Martin in self-defense for fear of his own life. The evidence certainly does not prove that of course, but it doesn't have to either. Let's not forget that it is not up to someone to prove their innocence, it is up to the police and "the people" to prove a person guilty of a crime. Presumption of innocence is the bedrock of liberty and our entire justice system. We see here, that while we have some evidence to support Zimmerman's account that he acted in self-defense, we have no reliable evidence at all to refute his claim or to support a criminal charge in relation to the homicide. No one is disputing who killed Martin, but there is no substantial evidence to show that he was killed in a criminal manner. Homicide does not always equal murder, or even manslaughter.

There are those in the media and among the rabble who cry foul when it comes to the investigation itself, claiming that there isn't enough evidence because it was not properly investigated, but there is really no evidence of that either. They claim that Zimmerman was never arrested and essentially that the death was not investigated. The facts do not support those claims though. Zimmerman was in fact arrested on the night of the shooting, and interrogated. Without sufficient evidence to hold him or charge him, police were forced to release him. The police went to the state attorney seeking a warrant to re-arrest and charge Zimmerman, but the state attorney found insufficient evidence to support the recommended charge.

Did George Zimmerman kill Trayvon Martin in cold-blood or through criminal negligence? We may never know, but one thing we do know is that in a free country, where citizens enjoy rights and due-process, a person has to be proved guilty of a crime, no matter what the tide of public opinion and a vigilante mob may be. After all, anything less would actually justify Zimmerman himself acting as a vigilante as his detractors contend.

Which now brings us to the insanity of the Trayvon Martin supporters. Here they are seeking vigilante justice, looking to literally murder Zimmerman in many instances, for allegedly doing precisely what they clearly state they fully intend to do to him now. We also have the media, other organizations, and even celebrities fanning the flames of racism and literally putting the lives of innocent people at risk in a quest for misplaced vengeance. There are numerous examples of media bias, from the photos of Zimmerman and Martin, to this excerpt is taken from the Wikipedia article on the matter:

Quote:NBC was accused of selectively editing Zimmerman's 911 call to make it appear as if Zimmerman was racist. NBC played a recording of Zimmerman saying, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good. He looks black." However, in the original 911 tape, Zimmerman said, "This guy looks like he’s up to no good, or he’s on drugs or something. It’s raining and he’s just walking around, looking about." Then the 911 operator asked, "Okay. And this guy, is he white black or Hispanic?" Then Zimmerman answered, "He looks black." Sean Hannity said of this editing, "They forgot the dispatcher’s question! How could NBC, in good conscience, do that?" Brent Bozell said, "This isn’t bias, this isn’t distortion, this is an all-out falsehood by NBC News."

Quite obviously a deliberate attempt to smear Zimmerman as a racist.

Then we see things like this:

Photobucket

Trayvon Martin's family is said to hold the trademark to that design as well as several other designs and slogans of support for "justice" in the case. I wonder how well it would go over if someone trademarked a shirt that said "FA*GOT @SS N*GGER" with a picture of, I dunno, OJ Simpson maybe?

The race-baiting is sickening, and really I didn't even want to talk about it, but sadly it has become a serious element of this story now, despite the fact that Zimmerman is Latino. Somehow the white community as a whole is being blamed for the death of a young man who might very well have been killed for attacking another man, in a situation that had nothing to do with racism from the start, until the vigilante movement got behind this story. Any teenager in a hoodie, wandering around in the rain and acting oddly might be considered suspicious no matter what their race. In fact, Zimmermann wasn't even entirely sure that Martin was black when he first called police, as we heard in the recording.




Now we have the New Black Panther party putting out a bounty on Zimmerman's head for a million dollars. Frankly, I don't even understand how this statement isn't considered criminal in and of itself. What do they plan to do with him if they were to "capture" him? If the KKK came out on national news declaring a million-dollar reward for the capture of someone, they would be shut down as a terrorist organization bent on circumventing the government, sanctioning kidnapping, and inciting murder, or something along those lines, and rightly so. At the very least, even single person who donates money to the Panthers at this point should be considered to be facilitating a criminal terrorist enterprise. Check it out:




The spokesman there seems to conveniently forget that more than 90% of blacks murdered, are killed by other blacks. This is the sort of ignorance that seems to be fueling the outrage over this shooting. So if anyone really wants to go there about what race is more violent, there ya go. Now don't get me wrong, I don't really believe that race has anything to do with it, but I am not the one claiming that race has anything to do with what happened out there that night either.

Outside of blatant racism by Trayvon Martin supporters and the media inciting racial tensions, we also have the dangerous ignorance of would-be vigilante's such as black filmmaker Spike Lee to contend with. Lee Tweeted an address he believed to be Zimmerman's, but turned out to actually be that of an elderly couple with a son who has a similar name but is of no relation to the shooter. The couple were forced to flee their home after being inundated with threats, hate mail, and unwanted visits to their home. Lee subsequently apologized, signing off a new tweet with "justice in court" but clearly this was not what he had in mind when he first put that address out there to millions of fans. This sort of thing could have easily gotten innocent people hurt or killed given the volatility of the issue now.

So all in all, we can see that much of what the public believes about this case, is rooted in ignorance and lies. The end result? Another resounding success for the-powers-that-be to sow division and hatred among the people, so that we are powerless to stand against the real corruption in this country. Ignorance is perpetuated and public consciousness molded like the mind of a child, as we suffer a mass Stockholm Syndrome. We are now likely to see more oppressive knee-jerk reactionary legislation enacted with which to strip away our rights no matter what our skin tone is, as a result of the all of this, while society shuffles along blissfully unaware of how they have just been duped again and left wondering why this country is so screwed up.

3.30.2012

Indiana Governor Signs Law Allowing Residents to Resist Illegal Police Searches

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. ~4th Amendment, Constitution for the United States of America


Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels signs bill on residents resisting police

INDIANAPOLIS — Gov. Mitch Daniels has signed into law a bill laying out when Indiana residents might be legally justified in using force against police officers.


The governor’s office says that Daniels signed the bill aimed at giving people the right to defend their homes against illegal entry by police Tuesday evening.

The bill that was a response to a public uproar over a state Supreme Court ruling last year that residents couldn’t resist officers even during an illegal entry.

Supporters say the proposal strengthens the legal rights of people against government agents improperly entering their homes. But police groups worry about the measure giving people justification for attacking officers.

Daniels says in a statement he concluded the bill narrowed the legal conditions under which anyone could use force against police.

http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20120321/NEWS02/303210055/Indiana-Governor-Mitch-Daniels-signs-bill-residents-resisting-police

Wow, what a completely novel idea. To pass a law that grants you the right to protect yourself in your own home. Who wouldda thunk such a thing would be possible in a country founded on liberty and restricting government control of the people?

Yes, that was sarcasm. The scary part is that even needs to be introduced as a "new" law in the first place. When did we LOSE the right to protect ourselves in our own homes? Sadly, in practice, we can see that it was quite some time ago now. As a result, we have seen many innocent people gunned down by police in their own homes, with no one being held accountable. Indeed in some cases, police were actually decorated with medals for raiding the and shooting up the wrong home!



I commend the governor for taking a stand against tyranny. It is so rare these days. What I find alarming now, is that I can only find negative commentary about the new law. Well, I am here to put the smackdown on the dumbsh*t. This is a fantastic law which reaffirms our Constitutional rights, and the ideals on which this nation was founded. If you are not free to protect yourself from harm and death in your own home, at the very least, then you are not free at all.

This really is a no-brainer that shouldn't require any further discussion or debate as to why we need to protect ourselves from government intrusion in the first place. It just goes to show how far we have strayed that we have to make up a new law to give us a piece of our Constitution back. Then we have folks like the guy in this video below who use flawed reasoning to justify the police-state and the oppression, even the murder of innocent citizens.

Watch the video and then read below as I tear him apart, pint by point.



Right off the bat he puts the police on a pedestal, as if they know everything and that citizens know nothing. Moreover, that citizens can't possibly know anything. Well I got some news for you sunshine. Cops aren't lawyers. They aren't exactly known for their superior intelligence either. In many departments, applicants are turned down for being too intelligent. The average intelligence of a police officer is lower than many other working-class professions. Now granted, with the number of laws out there it is impossible for anyone to keep up, no matter who you are. Cop, lawyer, judge, or average citizen. That is actually another whole problem in and of itself which is symptomatic of a tyrannical police-state regime. This still doesn't mean that police are somehow "better" than citizens though, or that our rights are granted simply at the discretion of the police officer standing in our living room. Police have no more right to come barging into my house and shoot at my family than the local gangbangers do. This law reaffirms right right to protect my home from invasion, whether it be gangbangers or the Gestapo.

6 Completely Legal Ways the Cops can Screw You

Next this YouTuber assumes that we citizens are all uneducated about the law, are completely lacking in common sense on top of that, and will now suddenly be inclined to freely shoot a police officer. Now I do reserve the RIGHT to protect my home from any invader, but that doesn't mean that I am going to go shooting every cop that show up at my door, or that I would even shoot at a cop who came into my home necessarily. Obviously if he comes bearing a warrant, he has a right to be there. This law in no way empowers me to shoot a police officer who enters my home legally. Even if I found an officer in my home illegally, I would not necessarily shoot him. I would still have to feel that my life was in immediate danger before I would respond with deadly force. Again, the same would go for any intruder. I reserve the right to protect myself in my own home, but that does not mean that I am necessarily going to shoot anyone who enters my home, even uninvited. On a few occasions I have even had people come into my home by accident. This happens sometimes living in apartments especially, and once it was a quite humorous drunk who was lost. Not once did I shoot any such person.

Next, this self proclaimed "masterofmanythings1" reinforces the bit that says the law allows people to use deadly force if they "think" police are in the home illegally. That is not actually what the law says, but for the sake of argument we will mention here the dangers of so called no-knock warrants, which should not even be considered to be Constitutional anyway. Police often contend that they must execute a warrant unannounced in order to preserve evidence or to otherwise surprise the suspect. Even if you could get me to agree that under the strictest of circumstances no-knock warrants should be allowed, perhaps in a case of a kidnapping victim being held in a home or something like that, you will never convince me that this type of warrant is not being regularly abused by law-enforcement. Even if you are suspected of having drugs in the house, there is no need to break into someone's home in the middle of the night without announcing who you are and that you have a warrant. The problems with no-knock warrants really deserves another whole article of its own, so I will just drop a few links here to cases of no-knock warrants or poorly announced raids, and how they can go terribly wrong, like in the video above where the police got the wrong address and shot at an innocent family.

Tracy Ingle: Another Drug War Outrage

Cops Murder Innocent Man in Drug Raid

After two tours in Iraq, Marine murdered at home by SWAT in front of family

Bronx Boy Killed After Warrantless Search for Small Bag of Weed

Cops Munch Pot Brownies After Warrantless Search

The YouTuber then quotes from an outside article that mentions how this law will keep police safe. I have to give him a little credit here. I don't see how this law is meant to keep police safe, but I also don't see why that should even be considered as the purpose here. The law is meant to keep citizens safe from police officers, not the other way around. Now if this law causes police to think twice, to gather more intelligence, to plan operations better before entering someone's home, that's great. So in that sense, maybe it will keep police officers safer, by doing their job to the standard we would rightly expect of them in the first place, while cutting down on frivolous and unnecessary raids.

Then our video-commenter goes right back off the rails again though, with a red-herring argument about the mentality of the bully cop. I really don't care what a bully cop has on his mind, or if this law will or will not deter him from breaking the law and violating my rights. The simple fact of the matter is that I don't have to be a victim of such a rogue, and this law reaffirms that right for folks in Indiana. A dirty cop is more loathsome and dangerous than any gang-banger you will ever come across on the street, so why should I not be allowed to defend myself against someone like that?

Police misconduct report from Injustice Everywhere

He then "stress(es) that people not act on this law." Well that's a very dangerous precedent mister "masterofmanythings1" is setting there by telling people to not defend themselves in their own homes. A home invasion, someone trying to break into your house in the middle of the night, a stranger knocking down your door, more often than not that is not the police. Keep in mind here, that this law is not necessarily intended to protect residents who knowingly shoot at a police officer. It is also there to protect residents who defend themselves against an intruder, not knowing until after the fact that the intruder was a police officer, which happens all too often where police fail to properly identify themselves or otherwise act in accordance with the law. He tells us to not risk flipping the justice coin in front of the jury, but instead expects us to gamble with our lives that he is right. "It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by six." That quote is more than just a clever NRA slogan, it is a reality of life in America.

Now our YouTuber gets into the issue of what is known as "probable cause" which is a legal precedent in which police may enter your home without a warrant in hand. It basically gives the police the right to enter a building or residence upon reasonable suspicion that a crime is taking place. Traditionally, that standard could be expected to be enough probable cause that a judge would issue a warrant but can't because of the time-sensitive nature of the events and/or evidence, and will instead issue that warrant retroactively based on the observations and testimony of the officer, in good faith. But as with all expanded police powers, this too has become a practice abused to the point of ridiculousness, as in the case of the pot-brownie munching cops linked above.

He goes on to give us an anecdote about a hypothetical woman-beater who decides this law will suddenly empower him to shoot police when they enter the home, after the girlfriend has called for help. In such a case, the police do in fact have probable cause to enter the home, and this law in no way gives the woman-beater the right to shoot cops entering his home. Masterofmanythings1 rants about this example character's psychotic state of mind, forgetting his own example from just a minute earlier of the bully cop. Neither one of them could care less about the law. A psychotic woman beater with a grudge against cops is just as likely to take a shot at cops with or without this law, as the bully cop is likely to still enter someone's home illegally. After all, as he started out saying, citizens are too stupid to keep up with the law anyway.

Masterofmanythings1 then goes on to advocate for the police while telling us he is not a police advocate. He says that we need the police on our side. Well I got some more news for you sunshine, the police are not on your side, and the police are not there to protect you. This isn't about calling open season on cops and killing cops, it is about defending yourself and your home despite the fact that there are cops out there, good or bad. This is about protecting the Constitution despite the trend to veer so far away form the ideals of the Founding Fathers of this nation.

Now he rants about this "illegal Obama regime" and how we are going to need the police to side with us against Obama. Another newsflash Masterofmanythings1... the problems with this country are much bigger than the White House, and have been going on for a lot longer than Obama has been sitting in it. Meanwhile, your buddies in the police have been there every step of the way to enforce the crimes being perpetrated against the people, constantly becoming more militarized while acting against the interests of the people. This is not just about the old good cop bad cop routine. I am sure there were "good" cops in the Gestapo too.

Not shooting anyone unless your life is in danger is a given, and this law doesn't change that. So I will agree with him there, don't shoot anyone if you don't have to. But then he turns right around again and tells you to roll over for the police-state, to take notes, to take them to court, all the while assuming again that you will live to tell the tale when the police raid your home. Not to mention the fact that even when a citizen is murdered in cold blood cops are not held accountable. So really, how much protection or relief from injustice can we expect from the courts for a simple matter of police trespassing into your home?

Wisdom of where to put the gunfire? Downrange to anyone who seeks to harm me and family, cop or not.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. ~Thomas Jefferson

3.28.2012

First Contemporary Evidence of Biblical Jesus

It may be surprising for some to learn that, for most of history, there has been absolutely no archaeological evidence that Jesus the man ever existed. Sure, we have all sorts of written words starting a few hundred years after he was said to have lived, but there was no actual physical evidence other than these stories. No mention of Jesus in the Roman records, no tombs discovered of his contemporary followers, etc.

I always assumed that there was plenty of archaeological evidence. That Jesus the man was a given, that the only question related to his divinity and the religious implications of his existence. When I read the book Jesus in the House of the Pharaohs it blew my mind. Not only to learn that there was absolutely zero evidence that Jesus had ever existed, but also that Christianity might be over a thousand years older than we commonly accept today. In the book linked there, the author makes a very compelling argument that the central figure of Christianity was not a carpenter from Nazareth, but today's most famous pharaoh, Tutankhamen, or King Tut.

The book was a very interesting read, but his premise is now challenged by what may be the first physical evidence of Jesus, in the place and time we would expect...


Tomb exploration reveals first archaeological evidence of Christianity from the time of Jesus

The archaeological examination by robotic camera of an intact first century tomb in Jerusalem has revealed a set of limestone Jewish ossuaries or "bone boxes" that are engraved with a rare Greek inscription and a unique iconographic image that the scholars involved identify as distinctly Christian.

The four-line Greek inscription on one ossuary refers to God "raising up" someone and a carved image found on an adjacent ossuary shows what appears to be a large fish with a human stick figure in its mouth, interpreted by the excavation team to be an image evoking the biblical story of Jonah.

In the earliest gospel materials the "sign of Jonah," as mentioned by Jesus, has been interpreted as a symbol of his resurrection. Jonah images in later "early" Christian art, such as images found in the Roman catacombs, are the most common motif found on tombs as a symbol of Christian resurrection hope. In contrast, the story of Jonah is not depicted in any first century Jewish art and iconographic images on ossuaries are extremely rare, given the prohibition within Judaism of making images of people or animals.

The tomb in question is dated prior to 70 CE, when ossuary use in Jerusalem ceased due to the Roman destruction of the city. Accordingly, if the markings are Christian as the scholars involved believe, the engravings represent – by several centuries - the earliest archaeological record of Christians ever found. The engravings were most likely made by some of Jesus' earliest followers, within decades of his death. Together, the inscription and the Jonah image testify to early Christian faith in resurrection. The tomb record thus predates the writing of the gospels.

More at link: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-02/uonc-ter022712.php

More info at: http://www.bibleinterp.com/

Latest Headlines

Which Mythical Creature Are You?                         Sexy Out of This World Aliens                         Is That a Ghost or Just a Dirty Lens                         Can You Survive the Zombie Apocalypse?                          Do You Know Vampires?                          Preparing for the Zombie Apocalypse                          Ten Amazing Urban Legends That Are Actually True                          Unbelievable UFO Sightings                          Is Your Dealer a Cop?

Search This Blog