The Shroud of Turin

[BillySunday1935]

Did you know that if you could gather all the pieces of wood in the world that have been blessed by various priests and bishops, and have been claimed to be a part of the cross that Christ was crucified on, you could build a mansion? It is a matter of credibility. Not every Catholic can have a piece of the cross that Christ was crucified on.

I would like to correct this misconception. In 1870, Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the relics of the True Cross – this included relics that were said to have existed but were lost. He measured the existing relics, estimated the volume of the missing ones, added up the numbers, and discovered that the fragments if put back together, would not have made up more than one-third of a cross. So the scandal (if there is one) is not that there is too much wood, but that there isn’t enough.

Just FYI...

 

[lori4dogs]

1. It is a matter of valid scientific proof--there is none.
2. It is a matter of credibility--the RCC has next to zero.

Did you know that if you could gather all the pieces of wood in the world that have been blessed by various priests and bishops, and have been claimed to be a part of the cross that Christ was crucified on, you could build a mansion? It is a matter of credibility. Not every Catholic can have a piece of the cross that Christ was crucified on.

Actually, I think it was Calvin who claimed that you could build a ship with them, not a mansion. However, as BillySunday has pointed out, this has been de-bunked.

 

[DHK]

I would like to correct this misconception. In 1870, Rohault de Fleury, catalogued all the relics of the True Cross – this included relics that were said to have existed but were lost. He measured the existing relics, estimated the volume of the missing ones, added up the numbers, and discovered that the fragments if put back together, would not have made up more than one-third of a cross. So the scandal (if there is one) is not that there is too much wood, but that there isn’t enough.

Just FYI...

You can't prove that, neither can he. It is impossible. It is impossible to prove a universal negative.
1. How many fragments are there? Do you know? How does he know?
2. How many Catholics world-wide (out of one billion) claim to have one? How could he find that out. Did he knock on every door of every Catholic in the world and search to see if each and every Catholic have a fragment of the cross or claim to have a fragment of a cross. Not unless this research is done can his work be proven true.
3. Are there are other fragments that are either held by others that are not Catholic, or that are (as archeological finds), not yet found yet? Has he accounted for that? In other words has he searched every square inch of this world, in the oceans, seas, islands, and all continents to make sure that he has found all the fragments of the cross?
4. How does he recognize a fragment of the cross of Jesus when he comes across one?

I know a little bit about scientific investigation Billy. A science teacher is part of my resume.

 

[DHK]

Actually, I think it was Calvin who claimed that you could build a ship with them, not a mansion. However, as BillySunday has pointed out, this has been de-bunked.

I challenge you to de-bunk it. Prove it false. Prove it false with scientific evidence.

 

[lori4dogs]

You can't prove that, neither can he. It is impossible. It is impossible to prove a universal negative.
1. How many fragments are there? Do you know? How does he know?
2. How many Catholics world-wide (out of one billion) claim to have one? How could he find that out. Did he knock on every door of every Catholic in the world and search to see if each and every Catholic have a fragment of the cross or claim to have a fragment of a cross. Not unless this research is done can his work be proven true.
3. Are there are other fragments that are either held by others that are not Catholic, or that are (as archeological finds), not yet found yet? Has he accounted for that? In other words has he searched every square inch of this world, in the oceans, seas, islands, and all continents to make sure that he has found all the fragments of the cross?
4. How does he recognize a fragment of the cross of Jesus when he comes across one?

I know a little bit about scientific investigation Billy. A science teacher is part of my resume.

I believe his study concentrated on the documented relics of The True Cross (wax sealed and threads) that are in existence.

 

[lori4dogs]

I challenge you to de-bunk it. Prove it false. Prove it false with scientific evidence.

Calvin sure didn't use 'scientific evidence' to make his claim, did he?
Actually, I believe he claimed that if all the relics of the True Cross were put together you could 'fill a ship' not build one.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Correct me if I am wrong - and I probably am - but isn't the idea of THE cross that Jesus hung on being holy almost idolatry?

Weren't the horizontal pieces that criminal's hands were nailed to used over and over again? And weren't the vertical pieces perpetually stuck in the ground to be used over and over?

Just like guillotines, electric chairs, gas chambers, and beds to lie on for lethal injections are used over and over - weren't the two pieces of the cross used over and over until they weren't usable?

I can't imagine claiming to have a splinter of wood and claiming it was from THE cross when probably lots and lots of people were crucified on the same pieces of wood as Jesus was crucified on. I cannot imagine that someone made a brand new cross just for Jesus and made a special vertical piece, never before used, just for Him and then when His body was taken down, someone took the horizontal piece, dug up the vertical, and hid them for posterity's sake.

I've never thought of the actual piece of wood that Jesus died on as being holy. He is holy and His sacrifice was in holy obedience to the Father. I appreciate the cross and have a few of them as pieces of jewelry. I wear them with reverence. A cross hangs in our baptistry in my church. But to think that someone, somewhere, claims to have pieces of the actual cross that Jesus died on and viewing them as a holy relic is absurd to me.

What am I missing here?

 

[DHK]

Calvin sure didn't use 'scientific evidence' to make his claim, did he?

Calvin made a statement. It doesn't matter whether it is true or false. What matters is whether you believe it is true or false.
If YOU believe it is false, the prove it to be false.
Where is your evidence that Calvin made a false statement?

 

[annsni]

Calvin's quote:

"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poictiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it."
— Calvin, Traité Des Reliques.

(I admit - I got it from Wiki *hanging my head in shame*)

 

[DHK]

Calvin's quote:

"There is no abbey so poor as not to have a specimen. In some places there are large fragments, as at the Holy Chapel in Paris, at Poictiers, and at Rome, where a good-sized crucifix is said to have been made of it. In brief, if all the pieces that could be found were collected together, they would make a big ship-load. Yet the Gospel testifies that a single man was able to carry it."
— Calvin, Traité Des Reliques.

(I admit - I got it from Wiki *hanging my head in shame*)

Calvin's ship-load would probably use up more wood than my "mansion"

 

[Trotter]

I can't imagine claiming to have a splinter of wood and claiming it was from THE cross when probably lots and lots of people were crucified on the same pieces of wood as Jesus was crucified on. I cannot imagine that someone made a brand new cross just for Jesus and made a special vertical piece, never before used, just for Him and then when His body was taken down, someone took the horizontal piece, dug up the vertical, and hid them for posterity's sake.

I've never thought of the actual piece of wood that Jesus died on as being holy. He is holy and His sacrifice was in holy obedience to the Father. I appreciate the cross and have a few of them as pieces of jewelry. I wear them with reverence. A cross hangs in our baptistry in my church. But to think that someone, somewhere, claims to have pieces of the actual cross that Jesus died on and viewing them as a holy relic is absurd to me.

What am I missing here?

You are missing Catholicism's love of idols, that's all.

 

[lori4dogs]

You are missing Catholicism's love of idols, that's all.

So, now these relics are 'idol's' to be worshiped?

 

[Trotter]

Close enough for government work, Lori. We are to use no images or idols in our worship. The cross is not worshiped, but people do worship what they think is a piece of the cross that help Jesus. I have seen this with my own eyes and was told that they were praying to the blood within the wood.

Anything that comes between God and us is an idol. Anything means anything. Icons, relics, whatever. there is so much stuff within the Catholic church that is set up between man and God... priests, "saints", rituals, baptism, confession, the pope. Every one of those are wrong and detract from that which we are to have with our Heavenly Father. I just wish you could see that.

 

[DHK]

So, now these relics are 'idol's' to be worshiped?

They always have been, as have crucifixes (when people bow down before them in the church), the stations of the cross, and almost anything that a priest or bishop would give his "special blessing" on. Catholicism is one of the most superstitious religions in the world, if not one of the most idolatrous.

 

[annsni]

When one goes to a piece of wood, bows down before it and KISSES it, I'd say that sounds a lot like worship, doesn't it?

 

[BillySunday1935]

They always have been, as have crucifixes (when people bow down before them in the church), the stations of the cross, and almost anything that a priest or bishop would give his "special blessing" on. Catholicism is one of the most superstitious religions in the world, if not one of the most idolatrous.

Well, I've gotton down on my knees while praying with my Bible open in front of me. Was I worshiping my Bible as an idol? No - God knows my heart as he knows the heart of everyone.

 

[BillySunday1935]

When one goes to a piece of wood, bows down before it and KISSES it, I'd say that sounds a lot like worship, doesn't it?

If I go before my elderly mother, bow down and kiss her, does that sound like worship? Well, it might to someone who doesn't understand my relationship to my her.

 

[BillySunday1935]

You can't prove that, neither can he. It is impossible. It is impossible to prove a universal negative.
1. How many fragments are there? Do you know? How does he know?
2. How many Catholics world-wide (out of one billion) claim to have one? How could he find that out. Did he knock on every door of every Catholic in the world and search to see if each and every Catholic have a fragment of the cross or claim to have a fragment of a cross. Not unless this research is done can his work be proven true.
3. Are there are other fragments that are either held by others that are not Catholic, or that are (as archeological finds), not yet found yet? Has he accounted for that? In other words has he searched every square inch of this world, in the oceans, seas, islands, and all continents to make sure that he has found all the fragments of the cross?
4. How does he recognize a fragment of the cross of Jesus when he comes across one?

I know a little bit about scientific investigation Billy. A science teacher is part of my resume.

Then you should know that your statement regarding building a mansion from all of the wood in relics from the cross is simply your (or someones) opinion. As a science teacher, would you care to provide us with the scientific data that will validate that thesis?

 

[BillySunday1935]

I wouldn't care if the Southern Baptist Church endorsed it - I still do not believe it to be true.

Which one?

 

[BillySunday1935]

1. It is a matter of valid scientific proof--there is none.

Prove that God exists via the scientific method. There is no valid scientific proof that God exists, yet you believe in Him.