The Missing Physical Evidence for Jesus

[Jagella]

Like any other historical person, Jesus would have had his "stuff." Objects associated with him would have possibly included his house, tools he used in his work, structures he built, weapons he carried, and his clothing not to mention the cross he was crucified on and the tomb he was laid in.

None of these things have survived to the present day as far as we know.

Now, at least as far back as the reign of Constantine, many Christians have obsessed over presumed sacred relics. There have been more fragments of the "true cross" passed around than any single cross could have been made of. We also have the Shroud of Turn which has been dated to the middle ages yet is still seen by many Christians as the genuine burial cloth of Christ.

So it seems odd to me that the early Christians never bothered to preserve any physical evidence for Jesus while going berserk for relics centuries later. No doubt Christians would have flocked to the site of Jesus' execution and to his tomb if anybody would have made the effort to mark their locations.

Question for Debate: Whatever happened to the physical evidence for Jesus? If none of the early Christians cared to preserve it, then why did Christians change so radically later on obsessing over sacred relics?

[Jagella]

"Do not store up for yourselves treasure on earth, where moth and rust destroy, where thieves break in and steal."


Perhaps his followers did not care about things/possessions because Christ taught them not to care about them. Because there is simply no reason to place importance upon them. Relics represent walking by sight, not faith. Spiritual matters are what matter; the gifts of holy spirit, and the fruits and gifts that come with. Not relics; not possessions; not objects of (or used in) worship.

"But store up for yourself treasure in heaven, where moth and rust do not destroy, and thieves do not break in and steal."


So the question is not really an issue of what the earliest Christians did. Those things did not hold power, certainly not power greater than holy spirit (and the spiritual gifts and fruit that come with). It is the importance that later people placed upon such things - which is not about faith, but rather more about sight - that is the issue.

Relics are not treasure in the normal sense of the word as it is used in Matthew 6:19-20, as you quoted above in your post. Relics are not valued for their intrinsic worth but as objects of remembering an important person or event. Jesus is quoted as commanding his followers to remember him and what he did. For example, Luke 22:19 tells us:

Then he took a loaf of bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.�

So contrary to what some of the Christians on this thread have posted, the gospel tale does quote Jesus as commanding rites to recall him and what he did. Since Jesus reputedly placed a lot of emphasis on remembrance, it is probable that his followers would try to preserve relics and the locations of places associated with him.

So why didn't the early Christians preserve those relics and note where Jesus held the Lord's Supper, lived, died, and rose again? Such amnesia is strange if the gospel tale is true but makes good sense if it's a work of fiction.

[Jagella]

Sorry, by the standards which you personally advocated in one of your multitude of other sermons threads, you are not allowed to use 2 Peter as evidence unless you accept every assertion therein; namely that both the power and coming of the Lord Jesus Christ were historical facts attested by eyewitnesses of his majesty.

In my many other threads I have quoted the Bible many times to discuss what it says. Obviously, somebody was addressing the issue of the existence of Jesus when that person wrote 2 Peter 1:16.

Your reading comprehension might be improved if instead of trying to prove wrong those who disagree with you you'd place more emphasis on what they really said.