Pretty much all of them come from over 1,000 years after Jesus was born. If we could somehow place these relics at near the time of Christ, at the very least, they would not be dismissed out of hand.Does that mean that every holy relic has to automatically follow suit?
Not anyone else. But those who speak wrongly of that which is Christian clearly shows that they are not Christian or they wouldn't be doing that. And if they are not Christian but simply want to belittle the things that are Christian then I don't see how it can come any closer to being heathen. As for you, I felt you could have used a lot more caution in your posting so that you would not appear to be trampling on that which is Christian or a Christian belief yet you were making fun of it with your comparison.You're a Christian and anyone else is a heathen? Weren't you just all over me for not respecting Christians?
I believe that has to do more with inadequate equipment that isn't able to more carefully and accurately calibrate the actual time period. That should however, not detract from the authenticity of the object itself.Pretty much all of them come from over 1,000 years after Jesus was born. If we could somehow place these relics at near the time of Christ, at the very least, they would not be dismissed out of hand.
But it's not the shroud Jesus was buried in, so it's not "real". Which makes it fake.Depends on what you mean by "fake."
There's no way the Shroud of Turin existed two thousand years ago, so as the "burial shroud of Jesus Christ," then I suppose it's "a fake." However, it's not something that was made recently either. Several radiocarbon dating tests all suggest that the shroud dates back to the 1300s, making it a genuine high middle-age Christian relic.
If it was proven that the shroud was made in 1952 using linen from a New Jersey fabric store, then I'd be more comfortable in calling it a "fake" from any perspective.
You're misinterpreting my post if you think I'm acknowledging that this wood is really from Jesus' crib. That's obviously ludicrous. The Church's relics (including all of John the Baptist's skulls) were acquired over the course of the Middle Ages. They have no more connection to any historical Jesus figure than the various bits of Buddha strewn across southern and eastern Asia have to any historical Gautama.Of course it has been! But I had to use a special "trigger word" to have people acknowledge that it is real. I thank you for being one of the first.
Once in Germany, my husband and I went driving around one night and wound up visiting some ruins that were 1000 years old (there was a plaque) and the vibes from really old stuff like that is quite cool. I don't see the need to worship these things, but I do appreciate them being preserved.So we are supposed to believe that Mary had Jesus and saved his crib and then someone took the crib and saved it for 2000 years along with a certificate of authenticity...do we have similar wooden objects from famous people of the day whose legacies were more thoroughly preserved? For instance, do we have Augustus's wooden relics? Perhaps a wooden throne from Cleopatra?
Walking around the old Forum in Rome is amazing. Looking at the remains of these structures from two thousand years ago and trying to figure out when you're standing in the same spot where Julius Caesar was assassinated (or whatever your favourite historical anecdote is) is oddly awe-inspiring.Once in Germany, my husband and I went driving around one night and wound up visiting some ruins that were 1000 years old (there was a plaque) and the vibes from really old stuff like that is quite cool. I don't see the need to worship these things, but I do appreciate them being preserved.