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]

We might consider Christ's "Seamless Tunic" as being a legitimate artifact. However, today, this tunic can be found existing in several different locations around the globe! LOL.

Obviously they can't all be authentic. The one which is considered to be the "real" tunic worn by Jesus was originally discovered by....wait for it...




Helena. Yep. The same Helena who miraculously procured the sliver of wood from Jesus' Cross.

The sliver of wood which was found to be a fake using carbon 14 dating!

[tfvespasianus]

In short, I don't see the import of a lack of artifacts to Jesus' existence.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable to hold that it is nothing startling that we lack direct archaeological evidence for the historical person of Jesus. Statistically, we lack direct evidence of the personal existence of almost everyone who lived during that time period. Such is the state of affairs. What I do think is import is that there a great many fake relics that purport to be holy objects from the period. That is, places have been unconvincingly identified as significant sites and personal effects of leading biblical figures have been manufactured. It is the case that we know these to be false now, but many were accepted at face value sometimes for very extended periods of time. To me, the sheer preponderance of such things answers the questions that come up in related discussions regarding religion. These questions are things like ‘why would anybody make something like that up?’ or ‘nobody could pass something like that off because they wouldn’t be believed!’ The cottage industry of relics/holy sites hints that people do act in ‘bad faith’ for various reasons/motivations.

Take care,
TFV

[PghPanther]

There must be some tangible evidence that Jesus existed.

Written records remain the main source of establishing whether individuals existed or not, especially "commoners" (as was the case of Jesus). There exist four independently written biblical records of Jesus existence (as well as some non-biblical references to Jesus as a historical figure);

JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

Written records that are composed by believers for the purpose not of historical documentation but for the purpose of proselytizing and further developed into a canon of manuscripts claimed as a holy word of God by other believers is not a pathway to reliable information exchange. In fact it is more closer to the process of UFO conspiracy theories than to anything else.

In fact it is more similar to that information process that most realize. One that is ripe for embellished claims from confirmation bias of prior oral information exchange......particularly when the writing comes as a result from story telling that started in another land and language decades before being written down.........not to mention the attempt to translate those ancient accounts into modern language.

Your particular view of Christ is a perfect example of the Biblical translations that differ so much from a Protestant or Catholic that the doctrine you hold towards their views is heretical and the doctrine they hold towards your is heretical and the doctrine each of you hold towards each other can never be resolved...............

There are no artifacts when a claim of absolute theological truth has a plurality of those claims all in conflict with each other trying to grab the same piece of evidence as theirs...............or else the artifact is so flawed and ineffective in what people are trying to use it for that in the final analysis it is worthless for establishing anything.

Christian artifact claims are more like alien abduction account claims than historical ones.................its just that we poo poo the latter and give credence to the former simply because it is composed of a larger amount of society over a longer period of time.

I can't imagine if someone really did walk on water, feed thousands with a few loaves and fishes and have barrels of food left over that it would have gone unnoticed to the secular world in any time...............but would flourish due to embellishment in oral stories by the zealous and desperate believers of that prescientific culture.

[The Nice Centurion]

To date, all we have are fakes and forgeries.

There must be some tangible evidence that Jesus existed.

Throw me a bone... Anyone...

Shroud of Turin?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

We might consider Christ's "Seamless Tunic" as being a legitimate artifact. However, today, this tunic can be found existing in several different locations around the globe! LOL.

Obviously they can't all be authentic. The one which is considered to be the "real" tunic worn by Jesus was originally discovered by....wait for it...




Helena. Yep. The same Helena who miraculously procured the sliver of wood from Jesus' Cross.

The sliver of wood which was found to be a fake using carbon 14 dating!

He was Christ man. He had the money to own several tunics.

He couldnt really choose which one to wear for the resurrection.

He didnt know which one would look best on his new incorruptible body, and that could well be the reason why he allowed no witnessed for the actual resurrection.

The tombgirls found one folded tunic in the empty tomb.

The resurrected saviour meanwhile wore another one, or maybe he wore several over each other like the baker in Lewis Carrols "Hunting for the Snark".

The man wore seven coats and three pairs of boots at once.

[TRANSPONDER]

Constantine's Mum brought back one of the nails of the crucifixion. Whatever it is (looks like the top of an iron railing) a Roman crucifixion nail is not what it is. She was either sold a fake or had it faked. Just as the Tomb cannot be Arimathea's tomb, and she was either fooled or she knew it wasn't and didn't care.

I can't throw a bone, piece of crucifix or manger or a spike from the realo trulo crown of thorns. Nor do the fishooks found in Capernaum prove anything (the disciples supposedly used nets) nor does the Synagogue (it was built after Jesus' time).

And don't get me started on the bits of wood from the Ark. The NAMI flurry, so wildly fought for by the Genesis literalists turned out to be a huge scam. And Durupinar is also a total non -thing, a rock outcrop that is nothing to do with the Ark other than for the Turkish tourist trade. And the same goes for the Jebl Laws Moses campsite.

So the only Artefact is the Shroud (forget about the Mandylion which if it is real, means the Shroud can't be or it would have no face). That originally looked such a good case - exhibit that it was called the Fifth Gospel. But even then IF it was really the shroud of the Crucified Christ, it didn't mean that he rose from the dead. Only that the body was wrapped and someone unwrapped Jesus. And John's body bandages require some explaining away.

But it became clear to me that there is no way this can actually be a wrap around shroud. Even before the C 14 date (disputed) it was clear that we had a flat image, painted or camera obscura (and i can make up explanatory stories along with the best Bible apologist ) whatever it is, it isn't Jesus' burial shroud.

So, nothing. Not even reliable historical record. The fellow might as well not have existed.