Posted on 08/01/2013 9:26:53 AM PDT by Sopater
Archeologists conducting excavations at the site of a church in Turkey have unearthed a stone chest containing a relic that may be part of the cross on which Jesus was crucified.
The items were discovered during a large-scale excavation at the Balatlar Church, which was built in A.D. 660 near the Black Sea, Today's Zaman reported.
Professor Gülgün Köroğlu, an associate professor at Turkey's Mimar Sinan Fine Arts University and excavation leader, told the newspaper the artifacts are linked to Jesus' crucifixion.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I have a really REALLY REALLY neat penny with Lincoln AND Kennedy’s face engraved on it. I think it was found back in 1974 by a man at a gift shop on an Indian Reservation.
De Fleury rigorously concluded that if all the surviving relics of the True Cross were somehow reassembled there would be AT MOST enough wood to make 1/5 of a cross.
Thanks. There is a reference to St. Helen and the church I mentioned above at this link.
Next they will be saying they found a letter for Jesus from after the Resurrection.
This is such crap.
Yes. Comedians are really not known for their theological study or knowledge.
Mark Twain had a lot to say about religious relics. He claimed to have seen enough nails from the cross to fill a keg!
Wooden artefacts - such as the Schöningen spears - can survive at least 300,000 years in the right conditions.
The cross on which Christ died was a real object. There’s no particular reason why pieces of it can’t survive a mere 2000 years.
I have George Washington's hatchet, the one he chopped down the cherry tree with.
The blade has been replaced 7 times and the handle 14 times but it is his hatchet.
Gotta say - even if it were true, it wouldn’t have any effect at all on my faith. When you know that you know that you know, additional evidence is unnecessary.
However, at what point in history do you suppose that the followers of Christ started to seek out relics from the “True Cross”? Were crosses reused by the Roman gov’t? If not, were they stored with a name and date on them as to who was crucified and when? If not, was a running tally kept on the back?
I’m skeptical of claims that there are any actual relics of the True Cross. It doesn’t mean that I don’t believe that there was indeed a “True Cross”, in fact I’m absolutely convinced that there was.
Why wouldn't his followers and admirers cut a piece from it on Good Friday? Or the day after?
It was covered with Christ's sanctifying blood and every sliver would have been precious.
Would the Romans (or the Jewish leadership) having just executed the leader of what they thought was a dangerous cult, have given followers/supporters of that leader the access to the instrument of His death, let alone the opportunity to take pieces of it with them?
Iirc, at the end of the Civil War, Conferate regiments were ordered under the term of surrender to give up their flags/standards. Lest they be retained (or displayed) for symbolically subversive purposes.
Given that there’s no contemporary record (in the Gospels) of the disposition of The Cross, I’d guess that the Romans destroyed it quickly following the execution. Unless Pilate, or a Roman military unit decided to keep it as a momento/conversation piece.
I think it would be addressed, Jesus H. Christ. At least according to what my dad said to me all those years.
No doubt, wood can survive.
But if no one really saw Jesus after the resurrection for a few days, who would have thought to go get the pieces.
While his execution was a big deal to us, was it really big enough for people to chop up the cross for relics?
I am not trying to sound like I am making fun of it, but the common sense aspects of it befuddle me.
* Thrown away
or
* Put back in the pile for the next load of crucifixions
or
* My preferred theory - it was proudly displayed by Pontius Pilate at the crossroads for a week to display his anti-Sanhedrin message about the King of the Jews.
The Romans could barely be persuaded to put a guard on Christs body - why would they guard the Cross? The Cross wasn't a battle-standard. It was many long years before it became a symbol of Christianity.
There's no evidence - as in none whatsoever - that the Cross was destroyed. It's certainly possible that pieces of it exist and have been preserved to this day
Yep. I pulled a piece out of my wood pile just a week or so ago that may have come from the same cross.
If there are pieces which really exist - why not do DNA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.