Posted on 08/02/2013 8:47:28 AM PDT by Daffynition
>>>We should worship the true God of the Bible and not some old piece of driftwood.>>>
Please don’t use the word “worship” so loosely. Christians do NOT worship a piece of wood, nor do they worship a statue. Such things are merely reminders of the event or person involved. Thanks.
Among many, many other things, it was the Orthodox Church that was the Church of Constantinople, had possession of the True Cross, and celebrated the Feasts of the Cross on Aug 1 and Sept 14, at which the True Cross was venerated!!!!
Even if ten times as many pieces had been lost, burnt by Saracens etc - that takes the tally to 1/5 of a cross.
That's ... a pretty small forest. And that's all that the historical record actually tells us. Anything else is unfounded conjecture.
It’s a big mistake to underestimate the extent of human folly. I’d easily believe several whole crosses were sold and thousands of fragments sold, resold, donated to kings to curry favor etc. A fool who parted with his money stupidly may try to discreetly dispose of the evidence.
Whatever we might or might not 'easily believe' - the only data points that we actually have are that the known splinters of the true cross would easily fit into a shoebox
It's going-home time here. Hope you all have a glorious weekend.
You and I are both conjecturing. You found a metric to support identified items with no word on the methodology. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Believing the worst of humanity rarely involves disappointment.
Didn’t Pilate re-purpose the cross for a scarecrow for his cornfields on the outskirts of Jerusalem?
Except in this case, the show is on the other foot. The absence is your provision of proof that there are so many forests of pieces of the true cross.
Deception can go both ways. Logically, that is also possibility. Therefore, there is no proof to the opposite as well.
**(op. cit., 97-179). Here is the calculation of this savant[Rohault de Fleury]: Supposing the Cross to have been of pine-wood, as is believed by the savants who have made a special study of the subject, and giving it a weight of about seventy-five kilograms, we find that the volume of this Cross was 178,000,000 cubic millimetres. Now the total known volume of the True Cross, according to the finding of M. Rohault de Fleury, amounts to above 4,000,000 cubic millimetres, allowing the missing part to be as big as we will, the lost parts or the parts the existence of which has been overlooked, we still find ourselves far short of 178,000,000 cubic millimetres, which should make up the True Cross.**
http://www.johnsanidopoulos.com/2011/09/distribution-of-pieces-of-true-cross.html
http://colonialwarsct.org/1687.htm
I need to prove nothing to you. You haven”t proved anything to me by citing a 19th century hack and his crumb counting. No one will ever know what his biases were, what pieces he rejected or what his travel budget limited in the way of his search. Sorry but there are 8 or 9 skulls of John the Baptist out there as well as all kinds of bones, teeth, clothing etc purportedly belonging to saints. The business was huge.
Guess away and believe what you will. Clearly, the credibility of the human is undiminished since at least the middle ages.
This is like saying that if I went out and counted every surviving Roman coin I would know how many coins were minted. Sorry, but that doesn’t pass the smell test.
The True Cross (Separating Myth From History)
Biblical Archaeology | 7-16-2003 | Jan Willem Drijvers
Posted on 07/16/2003 11:52:04 AM PDT by blam
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/947300/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
