Archaeologists believe they've found cross of Jesus of Nazareth

[hrmjustin]

Archaeologists working at an ancient church in Turkey think they've unearthed a piece of the world's most famous cross, the one used to crucify Jesus.

They found a stone chest during excavation at a 1,350-year-old church, and the chest had a number of relics inside believed to be associated with the crucifixion, a historian at Turkey's Mimar Sinan University of Fine Arts tells the Hurriyet Daily News.

"We have found a holy thing in a chest," she says. "It is a piece of a cross," and they think it's from the cross.

The entire chest is now undergoing lab tests, reports NBC News. Researchers aren't sure who owned the chest, but it was probably a religious person of some importance, and that person apparently believed the cross relic was the real deal.


http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2013/08/02/newser-jesus-cross-archaeologists/2611357/

Video from NBC: http://www.today.com/video/today/52651272#52651272

Cross posting from GD with OP's permission.

Would be something if it were true.

[Squinch]

1. How could they possibly come to that conclusion?

No matter what tests they do, there is no way for them to say who died on the cross they found.

And there is no true historical evidence for the existence of Jesus, so what can their conclusions be based on?

[Squinch]

3. I'm not saying that faith is misplaced. I am stating the fact that there is no physical evidence

to run against any physical find in order to prove the wood to be part of the cross.

[hrmjustin]

4. Ok fair point. I tend to think it is not the real thing myself but it would be something if it was.

But you are right that it is nest to impossible to prove if it is genuine.

I will self delete my post above and sorry if I misinterpreted you remark.

[Squinch]

5. No worries.

[hrmjustin]

7. Thank you. I hate acting like a hall monitor at times.

[okasha]

15. Two points:

1. How could they possibly know if it were Jesus' cross or not? It's not as if someone could--or would--carry off a piece of it as a souvenir, and these things were used and re-used over and over again. "Jesus's cross" would also be the cross of any number of other anti-Roman resisters who were executed by the occupation governor.

2. There are two mentions of Jesus in Josephus that, unlike the Testemonium passage, are generally accepted by actual scholars. Now that Oded Golan has been found not guilty of forging the "James son of Josephy brother of Jesus" on the James ossuary and its antiquity has been established, it is very likely that we do in fact have artifactual as well as textual evidence of his existence.

[kentauros]

6. Thank you for posting this here.

Because that GD thread was a typical train wreck. I know it gets more exposure there, but it also brings out the worst DU has to offer.

I have no stake in this, so to speak, but am glad for those that do believe to see a find of this order

[hrmjustin]

8. Your welcome. My opinion is that you really can not prove either way if it is genuine.

[kentauros]

9. Well, as Squinch pointed out,

there nothing by which to compare. I think you mentioned on the GD thread that they only have carbon dating to use in determining authenticity. Although, they may also unearth records about it. I haven't read the article yet, so I don't know the extent to their excavations.

[hrmjustin]

10. That was the OP that said that. I want to go back in there but I know they

will give me a bit of hell.

[kentauros]

11. Okay, thanks for the correction.

And I wouldn't go back in there even if I was a paid board-poster!

Good luck, if you do go back

[hrmjustin]

12. Thanks.

[NRaleighLiberal]

13. Interesting isn't it that the whole point of faith is belief when there is no proof.

Personally, I take no stand or make no judgement on these types of things (the tomb that was discovered some years ago, the Shroud of Turin). They are all interesting, speculating about them is interesting....but proof? Not possible, nor should it be.

Thanks for posting the article....interesting indeed.

[hrmjustin]

14. Your welcome!

[okasha]

16. Just out of curiosity--

why should proof not be possible?

[NRaleighLiberal]

17. because then it would not require faith, in principle...without stating my belief or lack thereof

Because I am still on a lifelong journey and haven't reached any personal conclusions!

[okasha]

18. Sorry, still puzzled.

Why should faith be necessary where certainty is possible? There are plenty of things for which it isn't, at least not past the realm of personal experience.

I don't think anyone ever quite gets to the end of the journey; there's always something just up ahead. Good wayfaring to you!

[NRaleighLiberal]

19. One state of mind tells me that if proof were possible, it would be too easy -

and that by having it be "faith" - thus each person has to decide - it is a better test of true character, or something like that!

I really love ambiguity - so am perfectly comfortable that finally knowing what does or doesn't happen when we die is, in essence, our last great unknown/adventure - either it is something or nothing - either way, fine with me!

[jeepnstein]

20. Probably not.

I seriously doubt the 1st Century Jews who were Jesus' Disciples would have wanted anything to do with a piece of a Roman cross that someone had died on. A physical piece of the cross is totally irrelevant to Christianity. We don't need idols or relics. Christianity was designed to be highly portable.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

21. There are enough pieces of "the true cross" to build a ship

What we have here is a piece of wood with no actual provenance.

[goldent]

22. It will be interesting to see what results come out of the dating processs

Even if it is the right time frame, it doesn't prove much, although it would still be a VERY interesting artifact.