# Notre Dame



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2019)

Not sure how to word this question but...….
Are the Christian artifacts said to be held in the cathedral more of a "Catholic thing" or widespread belief across all Christian denominations?
Mainly -



> what is believed to be the





> * Crown of Thorns*, a fragment of the *True Cross and one of the Holy Nails.*


And I realize only a few Christians participate here so will probably only get a few opinions...


----------



## gemcgrew (Apr 15, 2019)

I wouldn't give a nickel for all three of them.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 15, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> I wouldn't give a nickel for all three of them.


Meaning you think its an intentional "scam" or wishful thinking or...… ?


----------



## Israel (Apr 16, 2019)

ya ever hear of Nehushtan?


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 16, 2019)

Israel said:


> ya ever hear of Nehushtan?


Me?
Had heard of it but had to go back and review. 
Reason I asked the generic OP question was I have seen reactions from Christians ranging from indifference to utter devastation.
So I wondered why.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 16, 2019)

Artifacts?  I'm totally ignorant to this.  Have no idea.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 16, 2019)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Artifacts?  I'm totally ignorant to this.  Have no idea.


Well, claimed by the Church to be artifacts.
However there are also religious paintings etc.
I think this is boiling down to denominational differences but regardless, there is a lot of what is considered "Christian history" stored there.
Check it out.


----------



## Madman (Apr 16, 2019)

The catholic church, (the Latin Church in Rome, the Coptic Church in Egypt, the Orthodox Church in Asia, the Anglican Church in England, Ireland, and Scotland) in other words the vast majority of Christendom, have always seen artifacts, relics, stained glass, artwork, icons, etc. as items that direct the believer to God.


----------



## GeorgiaBob (Apr 16, 2019)

A Roman Emperor sent his mom off on a "treasure hunt" and started an entire industry of "Christian Artifact" production. Constantine, the Emperor of Rome who moved the capital to Constantinople, shipped his Mother, Empress Helana, to the middle east to find evidence of the Christian God. She, of course, found the "True Cross" and hundreds of other artifacts. After Helana, thousands of other relics were "discovered." Is it possible that some of the "Holy Relics" are real? - SURE, it is possible. It is even likely that a few of the "knuckle bone of St. Whosit" relics are real. Are they "magic"? - No.

What these relics truly represent are centuries of faith and hopeful belief in the Creator God AND a focus for the worship of a living God who once walked among us.  The relics do not heal injury or disease, but many people, over many centuries, have found relief from their ailment, relief from their pain, when they prayed to God in the presence of one of these objects.

I honestly believe that miracles have happened, that people have received God's blessing, throughout history. Sometimes, an old bone, a circlet of thorns, a piece of wood, or an old piece of cloth were nearby when faithful believers in a healing God were touched with grace. That is enough to make those old bones, fragments of wood, or fragile remains of a Legionaire's spear worth keeping around. God doesn't need bones, pieces of wood or iron, or even dice, to work miracles. But weak, timid, broken people need all the help we can get, and a crutch made of time, faith, old stuff, and hope doesn't hurt anyone!


----------



## Artfuldodger (Apr 16, 2019)

Madman said:


> The catholic church, (the Latin Church in Rome, the Coptic Church in Egypt, the Orthodox Church in Asia, the Anglican Church in England, Ireland, and Scotland) in other words the vast majority of Christendom, have always seen artifacts, relics, stained glass, artwork, icons, etc. as items that direct the believer to God.



Is it scriptural? Did Jesus use tangible objects or leave tangible objects as proof the he existed? I wonder why God didn't leave the tomb available?

I have been in Catholic Churches. It did feel holy. The incense, the stained glass windows, the foreign priest that no one could understand.

Then on the flip side, sitting in the woods next to a river feels holy. Picking up a beautiful rock from that river feels holy. Even the sunshine.

I'm still not convinced that all of those artifacts are what God left behind. I think part of what God wants or requires is a belief from faith. So in the reality, artifacts or the river rocks aren't what I think they are.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 16, 2019)

If that "Crown of Thorns" was autographed, it would be worth some money.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 16, 2019)

I think it's a catholic thing.

I'm not a believer but I was really saddened to see it burn. I hope it wasn't arson. Such a shame.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 16, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Well, claimed by the Church to be artifacts.
> However there are also religious paintings etc.
> I think this is boiling down to denominational differences but regardless, there is a lot of what is considered "Christian history" stored there.
> Check it out.



Will do.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 16, 2019)

Well the obvious question, to me at least, is “Did the hunchback make it out?”, because that’s all I have to relate to it.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 16, 2019)

I would very seriously doubt if that crown of thorns, the piece of the cross, or the nail are actually authentic artifacts that were connected to Jesus in real life.
That would about be the same probablity as someone 2,000 years from now actually having the bullet that killed Lincoln, or a lock of David Koresh's hair, or Jim Jones's koolaid pitcher. 

 I guess their value is not so much in their authenticity, but what they represent to those who believe in them.


----------



## rosewood (Apr 16, 2019)

I do know Notre Dame means "our lady".  And the design of the building is supposedly symbolic of Mother Mary covering the church with a cloak or something like that.  Yeah, they taught that in one of those elective classes in college.  History of art and architecture IIRC.

That is one of the things I diverge on the Catholics on.  They put a lot of value on Mary when it should all be on Jesus.

Rosewood


----------



## Madman (Apr 16, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it scriptural? Did Jesus use tangible objects or leave tangible objects as proof the he existed? I wonder why God didn't leave the tomb available?
> 
> I have been in Catholic Churches. It did feel holy. The incense, the stained glass windows, the foreign priest that no one could understand.
> 
> ...


God instructed Joshua to stack 12 stones so that the fathers could tell the children about 40 years in the desert.

Why does it matter if it is in the Bible?  You just said some churches bring about awe and reverence.  Go back and read how the Tabernacle was to be constructed, or the temple.

All these things do is direct us to the awesomeness of God.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 16, 2019)

Madman said:


> God instructed Joshua to stack 12 stones so that the fathers could tell the children about 40 years in the desert.
> 
> Why does it matter if it is in the Bible?  You just said some churches bring about awe and reverence.  Go back and read how the Tabernacle was to be constructed, or the temple.
> 
> All these things do is direct us to the awesomeness of God.


With such evidence that the Exodus and 40 years of wandering the desert as told in the Bible never happened, and even with Jewish Rabbis saying that it was all storied symbolism,  it makes me wonder why a God would instruct someone to stack stones in order to tell their children about something that didn't happen when there are so many other things that could be truthful go unused.


----------



## Madman (Apr 16, 2019)

Artfuldodger said:


> Is it scriptural? Did Jesus use tangible objects or leave tangible objects as proof the he existed? I wonder why God didn't leave the tomb available?
> 
> I have been in Catholic Churches. It did feel holy. The incense, the stained glass windows, the foreign priest that no one could understand.
> 
> ...


The Bible is full of commandments to place markers, 1 Samuel 7:12.  Did Christ leave the shroud? Was his cross and crown left on earth or did he take it with him?  People knew where Christ was buried and have venerated the tomb for centuries.  The church has always recognized artifacts, and relics If they are of no interest to some, so be it.


----------



## Israel (Apr 17, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> I would very seriously doubt if that crown of thorns, the piece of the cross, or the nail are actually authentic artifacts that were connected to Jesus in real life.
> 
> That would about be the same probablity as someone 2,000 years from now actually having the bullet that killed Lincoln, or a lock of David Koresh's hair, or Jim Jones's koolaid pitcher.
> 
> I guess their value is not so much in their authenticity, but what they represent to those who believe in them.




For the believer I see the question as _why_ esteem any of them?

The matter of being



> connected to Jesus in real life



is far more important to a complete negation of the other in consideration; eclipsing to such measure that material things hold in relation to what is truly bequeathed to the believer in Jesus' name, that being the Holy Spirit.

But I myself am new in such considerations and your post has helped me to reconsider such. How a man is tempted to hold to what is passing away that can never (and actually runs quite in opposition to the) supply of what is to him, that _real life._


----------



## rosewood (Apr 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> With such evidence that the Exodus and 40 years of wandering the desert as told in the Bible never happened, and even with Jewish Rabbis saying that it was all storied symbolism,  it makes me wonder why a God would instruct someone to stack stones in order to tell their children about something that didn't happen when there are so many other things that could be truthful go unused.



Try again.

Watch this video.  Then explain to me how Hebrew writing was found in Saudi Arabia if they were never there.  The evidence is there, there are just so many out there that are hiding it from us.






This is an awesome video especially if you love the history of the Bible.

Rosewood


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 17, 2019)

Israel said:


> For the believer I see the question as _why_ esteem any of them?
> 
> The matter of being
> 
> ...


I think it is just human nature to revere talismans and symbolic mystical objects. People have had sacred objects probably as long as there have been people. Kind of the same deal as the Hebrews toting around the Ark of the Covenant for ages. The contents represented the relationship they had with their deity.


----------



## Israel (Apr 17, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> I think it is just human nature to revere talismans and symbolic mystical objects. People have had sacred objects probably as long as there have been people. Kind of the same deal as the Hebrews toting around the Ark of the Covenant for ages. The contents represented the relationship they had with their deity.




This is so spot on.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 17, 2019)

rosewood said:


> Try again.
> 
> Watch this video.  Then explain to me how Hebrew writing was found in Saudi Arabia if they were never there.  The evidence is there, there are just so many out there that are hiding it from us.
> 
> ...


From this site.
http://sinaiinarabia.com/about-sinai-arabia/

"In addition, the lack of consensus and the apparent lack of compelling evidence for the historicity of the Exodus account has caused a mainstream dismissal of the story’s credibility."

Now, the Israelites were nomadic and I have no doubt they traveled through most of the middle east, BUT, not in any numbers or as "freed slaves" as described in the Bible's Exodus.


https://www.beliefnet.com/faiths/judaism/2004/12/did-the-exodus-really-happen.aspx


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I think it's a catholic thing.
> 
> I'm not a believer but I was really saddened to see it burn. I hope it wasn't arson. Such a shame.


Wow a voice from the past.
Good to see you Atlas, hope all is well with you.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2019)

Just an observation -
It seems to be acceptable, even among the Christians who have participated so far, that these type of items, are in general, _representations _of faith/beliefs etc.
So Im left with the question exactly how are these "representations" being separated out from what is believed to be fact?
In other words..... take the Bible for example.
Why doesn't that fall under the "representation of beliefs"?
Why doesn't the entire "story" fall under representation of beliefs?
Just strikes me that there is some "selective reasoning" going on?

And a separate point -
Are these artifacts presented to Christians/Catholics as being _representative _of beliefs or are they being represented as the actual Crown of Thorns or Holy Nails etc?
(as a recovering Catholic I know how they were represented to me).


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> Wow a voice from the past.
> Good to see you Atlas, hope all is well with you.



Hey Walt. Doing great. How are you?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

bullethead said:


> From this site.
> http://sinaiinarabia.com/about-sinai-arabia/
> 
> "In addition, the lack of consensus and the apparent lack of compelling evidence for the historicity of the Exodus account has caused a mainstream dismissal of the story’s credibility."
> ...




http://www.biblearchaeology.org/~/p...OT-Jebel-al-Lawz-in-Saudi-Arabia.aspx#Article


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

rosewood said:


> Try again.
> 
> Watch this video.  Then explain to me how Hebrew writing was found in Saudi Arabia if they were never there.  The evidence is there, there are just so many out there that are hiding it from us.
> 
> ...



@3:18
"Researchers disagree as to whether the blackened rocks are actual evidence of god descending on the mountain as a fire like the bible says. Or whether it's natural volcanic rock."

Yeah I bet they do!


----------



## Madman (Apr 17, 2019)

gemcgrew said:


> I wouldn't give a nickel for all three of them.





WaltL1 said:


> Just an observation -
> It seems to be acceptable, even among the Christians who have participated so far, that these type of items, are in general, _representations _of faith/beliefs etc.
> So Im left with the question exactly how are these "representations" being separated out from what is believed to be fact?
> In other words..... take the Bible for example.
> ...


There is historical, tradition and geographical evidence to support much of the Bible, artifacts are based primarily on tradition.  I left off archaeological evidence also.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2019)

Madman said:


> There is historical, tradition and geographical evidence to support much of the Bible, artifacts are based primarily on tradition.


I think "much of the Bible" is stretching it?
And while certainly SOME places/people/events factually existed, there existence doesn't prove the rest of the story.
There is in fact a crown of thorns, a shard of wood and a nail at Notre Dame yet we don't seem to have a problem explaining them as items that represent faith/belief.
Selective reasoning/belief as none of them can be proven to be what they claim they are, yet...….


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Hey Walt. Doing great. How are you?


I'm still breathing so no complaints


----------



## NCHillbilly (Apr 17, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> I think "much of the Bible" is stretching it?
> And while certainly SOME places/people/events factually existed, there existence doesn't prove the rest of the story.
> There is in fact a crown of thorns, a shard of wood and a nail at Notre Dame yet we don't seem to have a problem explaining them as items that represent faith/belief.
> Selective reasoning/belief as none of them can be proven to be what they claim they are, yet...….


If the crucifixion of Jesus actually happened as related in the Bible, then there is a faint possibility that those artifacts could indeed be the very crown of thorns, fragment of the cross, and nail described therein. 

But, Occam's pesky ol' razor. I'd say it is much more likely that those items are not the original ones, and have achieved their status as holy relics through symbolism and faith.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2019)

NCHillbilly said:


> If the crucifixion of Jesus actually happened as related in the Bible, then there is a faint possibility that those artifacts could indeed be the very crown of thorns, fragment of the cross, and nail described therein.
> 
> But, Occam's pesky ol' razor. I'd say it is much more likely that those items are not the original ones, and have achieved their status as holy relics through symbolism and faith.


I would agree. It also appears the Christians that have participated could agree or at least are not opposed to that.
Now.... ask the question if that could also apply to the Bible and see what the response is.


----------



## Madman (Apr 17, 2019)

Just in.


https://babylonbee.com/news/archaeo...c2Yo68Ph1jMBxVsxWz3ytKwepw_aaNcttUxQjDBcW26jg


----------



## rosewood (Apr 17, 2019)

Going to have to rewrite history, plastic was invented much earlier than any of us realized.


----------



## 660griz (Apr 17, 2019)

Just a matter of time...."*Woman claims she could see ‘silhouette of Jesus’ in Notre Dame fire"*

Wouldn't the devil have been more appropriate.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

Madman said:


> There is historical, tradition and geographical evidence to support much of the Bible, artifacts are based primarily on tradition.  I left off archaeological evidence also.



Do you let the evidence speak for itself or do you only go with the evidence when it doesn't conflict with your presuppositions?


----------



## Madman (Apr 17, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> Do you let the evidence speak for itself or do you only go with the evidence when it doesn't conflict with your presuppositions?


I like to think I follow the evidence, that is what got me here.  How about you?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

Madman said:


> I like to think I follow the evidence, that is what got me here.  How about you?



I'd say the same. So how does the evidence square with the biblical account of creation, the great flood, the origin of species including our own, the origin of human languages, the ability of stars to fall to the earth, etc?


----------



## Madman (Apr 17, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> I'd say the same. So how does the evidence square with the biblical account of creation, the great flood, the origin of species including our own, the origin of human languages, the ability of stars to fall to the earth, etc?


Just fine.  I read the letters in the literary sense that they were written.  Historical, poetry, etc.  All of Scripture is not historical.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 17, 2019)

660griz said:


> Just a matter of time...."*Woman claims she could see ‘silhouette of Jesus’ in Notre Dame fire"*
> 
> Wouldn't the devil have been more appropriate.


Well Notre Dame is built on top of what was once a Pagan temple site so maybe...….
Oh and its not a matter of time, its already in todays news.

EDIT -
Oh sorry didn't see that was a link to a headline. Ooops.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

Madman said:


> Just fine.  I read the letters in the literary sense that they were written.  Historical, poetry, etc.  All of Scripture is not historical.



That sounds like an attempt to avoid acknowledging evidence that conflicts with a literal interpretation of scripture. Problematic in the context of a religious tradition that took those very same scriptures to be literal/historical for thousands of years. Also creates theological problems if you do that. If humans evolved as a population and there was no original man as the bible says then how do you get original sin? What criteria do you use to determine if a scripture is intended to be historical or fictional? Did I miss the footnote that said Adam and Eve were fictional characters? And if the creation account was just a poetic story not to be taken as historical then why does the bible trace the genealogy of Jesus to Adam?


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

And what would be significant about figurative stars falling to the earth? Is that really something people should concern themselves with?


----------



## Madman (Apr 17, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> That sounds like an attempt to avoid acknowledging evidence that conflicts with a literal interpretation of scripture. Problematic in the context of a religious tradition that took those very same scriptures to be literal/historical for thousands of years. Also creates theological problems if you do that. If humans evolved as a population and there was no original man as the bible says then how do you get original sin? What criteria do you use to determine if a scripture is intended to be historical or fictional? Did I miss the footnote that said Adam and Eve were fictional characters? And if the creation account was just a poetic story not to be taken as historical then why does the bible trace the genealogy of Jesus to Adam?


You make statements you cannot support the church has always interpreted the Scriptures as I stated.  If I were to write you a doctoral dissertation on the accounts of Christs geneology it would not convince you of anything.  One must first understand the simple answers in order to grasp the more difficult.  Google has everything you need to know.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 17, 2019)

Madman said:


> You make statements you cannot support the church has always interpreted the Scriptures as I stated.  If I were to write you a doctoral dissertation on the accounts of Christs geneology it would not convince you of anything.  One must first understand the simple answers in order to grasp the more difficult.  Google has everything you need to know.


----------



## rosewood (Apr 18, 2019)

atlashunter said:


> And what would be significant about figurative stars falling to the earth? Is that really something people should concern themselves with?


It is called meteors dude.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 18, 2019)

rosewood said:


> It is called meteors dude.


Wouldn't a god know that and relay it to those who write it's book?


----------



## rosewood (Apr 18, 2019)

Sure God knows that.  The writers wrote using words that the people understand.  Also you must understand we are reading it from a translated version, not the originial Hebrew or Greek.  2000+ years ago, people would have thought a meteor was a star falling.  They didn't know stars were larger than our Planet or that the Earth orbits the sun and it is a star also.

Rosewood


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2019)

rosewood said:


> It is called meteors dude.



A meteor isn’t a star and the Bible doesn’t say meteors it says stars.

Matthew 24
29 Immediately after the tribulation of those days shall the sun be darkened, and the moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens shall be shaken:

This isn’t supposed to happen until after the tribulation yet we get meteor showers all the time and the stars are still there in the sky. An omniscient author would know the difference between meteors and stars. A fallible human author living in antiquity not so much.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 18, 2019)

rosewood said:


> Sure God knows that.  The writers wrote using words that the people understand.  Also you must understand we are reading it from a translated version, not the originial Hebrew or Greek.  2000+ years ago, people would have thought a meteor was a star falling.  They didn't know stars were larger than our Planet or that the Earth orbits the sun and it is a star also.
> 
> Rosewood





> The writers wrote using words that the people understand


That one ^ made me giggle.
The Bible was never intended for the "people". Nor did the writers even know they were writing the Bible.
When the people did get it, they immediately started carving themselves up based on their various understandings.


> Also you must understand we are reading it from a translated version, not the originial Hebrew or Greek.


We (A/As) are constantly told "Oh a mistranslated word here or there doesn't change anything". Now you are reminding us that we are reading from a translated version as though it DOES matter.
Wish you guys would make up your mind.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2019)

bullethead said:


> Wouldn't a god know that and relay it to those who write it's book?



Exactly. You don’t get to change terminology thousands of years later in light of new evidence. Not while claiming the work is the inerrant product of an omniscient being.


----------



## atlashunter (Apr 18, 2019)

WaltL1 said:


> That one ^ made me giggle.
> The Bible was never intended for the "people". Nor did the writers even know they were writing the Bible.
> When the people did get it, they immediately started carving themselves up based on their various understandings.
> 
> ...



We have the texts in Greek. You notice he didn’t use them to point out a mistranslation.


----------

