This smells strongly of a hoax to me. Even if you accept all the mythology
surrounding Jesus Christ, how could it ever be proven that this particular piece
of wood came from the cross used to crucify Christ, rather than any other
person. It reminds me of the P.T.Barnum phrase, "There's a sucker born
every minute." (excuse my paraphrase, I didn't bother to look up the
Very cool. I understand there are enough fragments of the True Cross floating
around to constitute an entire forest.
Please don't surround us with relics and historical evidence that Jesus
lived and that Christianity existed. Instead, let's live in such a way
that we'll all know that Jesus lives and that Christianity will never be
With my own eyes, I saw a splinter from the actual cross Jesus was crucified on.
It was kept in the Catholic Church where I was baptized. The splinter was laying
on a pillow of silk encased in a small round gold container with a glass cover
through which the splinter could be viewed. I believed without questioning. It
never occurred to me that it might not be from the actual cross. I was seven
How in the world is there any way to know that what they found is a piece of the
cross used to crucify Jesus? It's complete speculation. Carbon dating
might put it in the same time frame as Christ's existence, but to assert
that it's part of THE cross is far-fetched in my opinion.
Ditto to all the above.There is more to the finding; it wasn't
They are speculating. But that is OK. The reason you know it wasn't just
any other is because, if you are smart enough to read the whole story, the
artifacts included are no the type of items that would be included for an
"average Joe". If it is not Jesus, then it is someone else whom the
people of that time thought important. They are still investigating their
theory. I suggest you wait for the results before you jump at your conclusions.
I guess that this might be news but....The real 'news' is
that there is another witness for Christ in the testimonies of the Prophets
found within the pages of the Book of Mormon. If you for some
reason saw the Broadway play, be sure to read the book.
@iron&clay-If I saw the play, why should I read the book, which
is another/different tale about a humanly-procreated man-evolved-god-Son, who
was plurally-married (per early LDS authorities), who made extensive post-mortum
extra-continental visits...which thus far, have no archeological
substantive evidence either?Either be consistent in what you accept
as imperical evidence, or admit it's just personal preference to which
shell game you choose.
@ FiloThe tangible imperical evidence is the Book of Mormon, which
you can purchase at your local bookstore.You can hold it in your
hand. You can turn the pages as you read. It is very real, very tangible, and
can be perceived by all your senses even by your spirit that is temporarily
inhabiting your body, that is, until your body wears out or gets run over by a
@iron- In my hands now I'm holding Alice in Wonderland, Lord
of the Rings, Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, The Temple in Cosmos, and
View of the Hebrews...Based on your logic, it's my pick.
They're all valid representations because they exist in book-form. Now if
I can just get some artifacts on e-Bay, we're good. Where are my Indi
The point being, be consistent in what sacred artifacts you malign. I have a
closet full of Hill Cumorah Pagent photos and paraphernalia. Just no interested
non-LDS academics... Ditto for the imperical, hand-held book thd pagent
re-enactment is based on.
I don't think Imperical means what you think it means.
@Stenar LOL!I think he ate a peanut!
FYI: the proper spelling of the word is "empirical." One of its
definitions is "relying on experience or observation alone often without due
regard for system and theory." That "without due regard" phrase
seems to put limits on empirical data. If the "system", i.e., the
observation or experiment does not control or account for all circumstances or
characteristics of the "system", the conclusion can be faulty.
That's why we say the tangible Book of Mormon needs to be read, studied,
analyzed, and then the possibility that it could be true accepted on faith and
asking the Lord for confirmation. It does no good to approach the entire
prospect with skepticism.As to the cross relic, a great deal of skepticism
is warranted. Unless it can be shown that it has something to do with my
salvation, I'm looking at it--like the Shroud of Turin--as nothing more
than an archaic curiosity.
Puleeeze. Even if they found a cross from that time period, even if it had
blood on it...there were 10's of thousands executed by the Romans in that
area of the world and I don't think we have a known sample of Jesus'
DNA do we? And G L W8 rational empirical observation and theoretical testing
should start from a skeptical view. If you eventually rely on faith and some
kind of a spiritual "confirmation" you can just as easy err because
faith can be misplaced and spiritual confirmation might come from some force or
place other than the master of the universe. See JS discussion on the
legitimacy of "revelation". Some revelations are of God, some of man and
some of the devil...or words to that effect as I recall.