Where Are Some REAL Christian Artifacts?

[SkyChief]

Helena, mother of Constantine, traveled to the holy land around 327 a.d. and discovered remnants of three crosses which were used to crucify Jesus and 2 thieves [Dismas and Gestas].

In a miraculous revelation, the "True Cross" was revealed to Helena. She then took a splinter of the cross which Jesus was crucified on.

In 2002, this "True Cross" splinter was carbon-14 dated which proved that it was a fake. The splinter of wood was found to have been made between 980 and 1146 AD.

The Shroud of Turin, another coveted Christian artifact, was also found to be fake. Carbon-14 dating conducted in 1988 proved the shroud cloth was created during the 13th or 14th centuries AD. Its a forgery, too.

My question is, are there any real Christian artifacts?

It would be nice to have some documentation of Jesus' existence during the time that he was alive. Sadly, there is none.

The only accounts we have of Jesus were written decades after his death, and nearly half of these "gospels" are considered forgeries, as well.

To date, all we have are fakes and forgeries.

There must be some tangible evidence that Jesus existed.

Throw me a bone... Anyone...

[SkyChief]

My question is, are there any real Christian artifacts?



There must be some tangible evidence that Jesus existed.

It occurred to me that this statement is wrong. There really doesn't need to be any tangible evidence that Jesus existed.

A religion based on faith does not need any artifacts or factual documents to be accepted by the believers of that faith.

Faith, after all, is believing something to be factual or true without any supporting evidence.

That is the essence of faith.

My question still stands, though. Its not a challenge, really.

We've discussed Helena's True Cross Splinter, the Turin Shroud and the writings of Paul.

The splinter and shroud have been properly debunked, the writings of Paul require faith to be regarded as a valid evidence that Jesus existed. So, to one doesn't have faith, these gospels cant be really be used as evidence.

Is there any other evidence other than these 3 things that might hint that Jesus actually existed?

[marco]

The Shroud of Turin, another coveted Christian artifact, was also found to be fake. Carbon-14 dating conducted in 1988 proved the shroud cloth was created during the 13th or 14th centuries AD. Its a forgery, too

The sample taken for testing was possibly from a repair that was done which would explain the dating. So I am told.

One of the complaints during the Reformation was that multiple copies were found of relics that purported to be unique; and phials of blood were possibly not human blood at all. Coupled with the sale of indulgences, the picture looked bleak for Christian authenticity.

Protestants who rushed off to found churches based on Zwingli or Calvin or Luther or Knox or Uncle Tom made a few repairs here and there and ended up with a bleaker message. There's nothing to beat old Latin masses, sung with ethereal charm and age-old carols in praise of straw beds. It matters not a bit if it's true - Don Quixote isn't either.

[PghPanther]

[Replying to SkyChief]

If there was a this person who actually claimed they would raise from the dead after three days of physical deterioration in a newly formed physical body and appeared to many which validate the belief in who this persons claim there would have been significant establishment of where this person's tomb was and every week, month year or whatever the early Christians would gather around this tomb to acknowledge this claim and celebrate it.......

You can go to the Biblical lands and the church will show you the claimed tomb of Christ but it is a fabrication /legend of early church tradition of this particular location...........200 years or so after Christ died they come along and decide a location where Christ rose from the dead..........

For 200 years don't you think the early Christians who claimed they saw or knew someone who claimed they saw this resurrected Christ would have preserved and cherished the site of his burial?

Yet nothing until after a couple of centuries does the church decide ............oh here it is over here......

Not only do they not have any artifacts but they are despite to create them from stories, rumors and legendary traditions as well..................

[Zzyzx]

.

My question is, are there any real Christian artifacts?

A large number of “relics� said to be associated with Jesus have circulated within Christendom and displayed in churches.

A number of relics associated with Jesus have been claimed and displayed throughout the history of Christianity. Some people believe in the authenticity of some relics; others doubt the authenticity of various items. For instance, the sixteenth-century Catholic theologian Erasmus wrote sarcastically about the proliferation of relics, and the number of buildings that could have been constructed from the wood claimed to be from the cross used in the Crucifixion of Jesus.[1] Similarly, while experts debate whether Christ was crucified with three or with four nails, at least thirty Holy Nails continue to be venerated as relics across Europe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relics_as ... with_Jesus

And

The cross Jesus died on is a powerful symbol for Christians, so it makes sense that the actual cross would be an object of great veneration. According to accounts by fourth-century church historian Socrates Scholasticus, the Roman emperor Constantine's mother demanded that the church built on Christ's supposed crucifixion site be demolished, uncovering three crosses below. True or not, hundreds of scraps of wood venerated as pieces of the True Cross spread across Europe. French theologian John Calvin of Protestant Reformation fame once dryly noted the sheer volume of these relics. "In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load," Calvin wrote. "Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it."

Another famous piece of cloth, the Veil of Veronica is supposed to bear an image of Jesus' face. The legend goes that as Jesus carried the cross before the crucifixion, Saint Veronica wiped sweat from his brow with her veil. Miraculously, Christ's face appeared on the fabric.
The problem is that this legend doesn't show up in writing until the Middle Ages. There was certainly a veil with Jesus' face hanging in Rome by the 13th century that was said to be the Veil, but the history of that cloth is spotty. Copies of the Veil were made until the 1600s, when the Pope forbade further copying and ordered all existing copies destroyed. Today, St. Peter's Basilica holds a veil said to be the one displayed in the Middle Ages, but it is not on public display.

Biblical accounts state that Roman soldiers mocked Jesus by placing a crown of thorns on his head before his death. Today, this very crown is allegedly housed at the Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. According to Notre Dame officials, the crown cannot be authenticated, but it is still revered. Today, the crown is kept bundled in gold thread and is presented to believers for veneration on the first Friday of each month and every Friday during the pre-Easter period of Lent.

At the Cathedral of San Salvador in Spain rests a bloody cloth said to have been wrapped around the head of Jesus after he died. Put on public display only three times a year, the Sudarium has been posited to be a matching set with the Shroud of Turin, though its authenticity is just as debated.

Believers debate whether three or four nails were used to crucify Jesus, but according to the Catholic Encyclopedia, no fewer than 30 nails have been venerated as relics of Christ's death. Early Christian Theodoret wrote that Constantine's mother made her son a gift of a "portion of the nails" to insert into his helmet and into the bridle of his horse to protect him from harm. The Iron Crown of Lombardy, an ancient circlet kept in a cathedral outside Milan, is rumored to be made of one of the original "Holy Nails."

The subject of both a Monty Python and an Indiana Jones movie, the Holy Grail is supposed to be a chalice used by Jesus at the Last Supper before his death. Traces of the Grail legend can be found in Celtic myth, which occasionally featured miraculous cauldrons. The first written legend of the Grail dates from the 1100s as an incomplete poem that tells the story of a knight named Perceval who saw the sacred object at a mystical feast. The Grail inspires inventive storytelling even today: In Dan Brown's "The Da Vinci Code," the Grail is (spoiler alert!) the remains of Mary Magdalene, buried beneath the Louvre in Paris.

Perhaps the strangest holy relic is the Holy Prepuce, otherwise known as the Holy Foreskin. Jewish tradition would have called for Jesus to be circumcised, and the apocryphal text the Arabic Infancy Gospel holds that the foreskin was saved in an alabaster box. In the Middle Ages, foreskin "relics" multiplied like rabbits, with as many as 18 circulating in Europe at the same time. Clearly sick of controversy, the Catholic Church declared in 1900 that anyone even talking about the Holy Prepuce would be excommunicated. As far as anyone knows, there are no more Holy Foreskins in existence.

Radiocarbon dating suggests that this piece of cloth that allegedly wrapped the body of a crucified Jesus Christ is nothing more than a medieval forgery, created to scam 14th-century believers. If it was a scam, it was a good one: Centuries later, debate still rages about the authenticity of the Shroud of Turin. The cloth is currently kept in the chapel of the Cathedral of Saint John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.
http://www.livescience.com/19520-allege ... jesus.html

Bold added

Why all the fakes?

[H.sapiens]

Why all the fakes?

The usual reasons, money and influence, both of with can be transmuted into power.

[marco]

Why all the fakes?

The usual reasons, money and influence, both of with can be transmuted into power.

That's half the story. The production of fakes would be pointless if there were no buyers. People are desperate to believe. If they have heard that someone touching the garment of Christ was healed, then what would one pay for a few threads of that garment?
This same desperation is in evidence when, confronted with absurdities and contradictions, people spin out nonsensical explanations. Under religious skies humanity is still in its infancy.

[Goose]

I am sorry, but there IS plenty of documentation and recording of much less important people than Alexander the Great.

Of course. What is your point here?

Immediately was on time in ancient standards.

Give me examples of six ancient biographies that were written during the life of the subject.

But I am afraid the practices you speak of, are very much the same as they are now.

Are they? Plutarch was the first to write a bio of Julius Caesar around 114 years after Caesar's death. Suetonius is the next around 165 years after. The bios of Alex the Great come down to us from centuries after.

[Goat]

I am sorry, but there IS plenty of documentation and recording of much less important people than Alexander the Great.

Of course. What is your point here?

Immediately was on time in ancient standards.

Give me examples of six ancient biographies that were written during the life of the subject.

But I am afraid the practices you speak of, are very much the same as they are now.

Are they? Plutarch was the first to write a bio of Julius Caesar around 114 years after Caesar's death. Suetonius is the next around 165 years after. The bios of Alex the Great come down to us from centuries after.

While those people were who wrote actual bios, one thing you fail to acknowledge is that people wrote and mentioned Julius Caesar in his life time. There are letters that he is the subject about. For example, we have the letters to and from Cassius that discuss the conspiracy to assassinate Caesar from his lifetime. We have the Gallic Wars, which the first 5 books are actually written by Caesar, For Alexander the great, we have mention of him in the Astronomy Diaries, and have the actual clay tablets that describe him attacking a city, along with astronomy observations of the day, which precisely points to the day that happened.


So, your attempts to deflect from the lack of contemporary evidence for Jesus is just that.. a deflection. A poor attempt of of 'you too' fallacy , that isn't even accurate.

[Goose]

I wouldn't really expect any artifacts, but something... anything tangible that would provide the slightest evidence that Jesus was real.

• The affirmation of the eyewitness Peter as recorded by Luke in in Acts.
  The affirmation of the eyewitness Peter in his first letter.
  The affirmation of the eyewitness (and brother of Jesus) James in his letter.
  The affirmation of the eyewitness John in his bio of Jesus.
  The affirmation of the eyewitness Matthew in his bio of Jesus.
  The affirmation of Paul, who met eyewitnesses, in his letters.
  The affirmation of Paul, who met eyewitnesses, as recorded by Luke in Acts.
  The affirmation of Mark, who met eyewitnesses, in his bio of Jesus.
  The affirmation of Luke, who met eyewitnesses, in his bio of Jesus.
  The affirmation of Ignatius, who met eyewitnesses, in his letters.
  The affirmation of Polycarp, who met eyewitnesses, in his letter.
  The affirmation of Clement, who met eyewitnesses, in his letter.
  The affirmation of Papias, who met eyewitnesses, in his work as recorded by Eusebius in his Church History.
  Tacitus.
  Josephus.
  The Talmud.

If this isn't enough documentation to establish the historicity of Jesus do you realize how many figures from the era must be also rendered not historical since the evidence for their existence is less?

[Goose]

I am sorry, but there IS plenty of documentation and recording of much less important people than Alexander the Great.

Of course. What is your point here?

Immediately was on time in ancient standards.

Give me examples of six ancient biographies that were written during the life of the subject.

But I am afraid the practices you speak of, are very much the same as they are now.

Are they? Plutarch was the first to write a bio of Julius Caesar around 114 years after Caesar's death. Suetonius is the next around 165 years after. The bios of Alex the Great come down to us from centuries after.

While those people were who wrote actual bios, one thing you fail to acknowledge is that people wrote and mentioned Julius Caesar in his life time.

Fair enough, but a Red Herring. The point being argued here is regarding bios.

We have the Gallic Wars, which the first 5 books are actually written by Caesar

Were they? How do you know they were? Let's use your methodology here and apply it the Gospels since this will likely play into the debate as inevitably someone will dispute the traditional authorship of the Gospels.

For Alexander the great, we have mention of him in the Astronomy Diaries, and have the actual clay tablets that describe him attacking a city, along with astronomy observations of the day, which precisely points to the day that happened.

I've seen that bit of evidence. It's very sketchy at best and from what I recall doesn't refer to Alexander the Great directly. You have to infer it.