Former director general of the Jordanian Department of Antiquities calls the “oldest church in the world” claim “ridiculous”. According to him, the guy who found the cave is something of a fabulist, and there is no evidence to support the sensationalism.

Israeli archaeologist Stephen Pfann isn’t quite so blunt, but he too thinks the cave=church theory is shaky at best.

“It sounds rather anachronistic,” he said, adding that during the first century, the term “church” or “ekklesia” was used for the assembled body of believers—not the building or catacombs where they were assembling.

“If they are talking about a cave, it could have been a hiding place. In time—if there were martyrs there or something significant that took place there or a well-known individual who was among the disciples of Jesus—then you would have had reason to commemorate the site, which could later be used by the church’s monks.”

“But the cave that’s there is one that doesn’t necessarily commemorate anything … I don’t know how you can take an underground cave and say it could present itself as a first-century church.”

Ainorite?! I love it when supersmart people agree with me and they lay out the case in a thoughtful manner I can just quote as if I’d done the work. :boogie: