Skip to comments.Film claims discovery of nails from Jesus's cross
Posted on 04/12/2011 10:18:26 AM PDT by OldDeckHand
JERUSALEM (Reuters) Could two of the nails used to crucify Jesus have been discovered in a 2,000-year-old tomb in Jerusalem?
And could they have mysteriously disappeared for 20 years, only to turn up by chance in a Tel Aviv laboratory?
That is the premise of the new documentary film "The Nails of the Cross" by veteran investigator Simcha Jacobovici, which even before its release has prompted debate in the Holy Land.
The film follows three years of research during which Jacobovici presents his assertions -- some based on empirical data, others requiring much imagination and a leap of faith.
He hails the find as historic, but most experts and scholars contacted by Reuters dismissed his case as far-fetched, some calling it a publicity stunt.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
After his trip to the Vatican, Martin Luther commented that he saw enough “nails from the cross” to shoe every horse in Europe.
Folks will come out to Worship the Nails. Mankind is an idol factory - they will worship anything other than the Lord God unless there is a compulsion like Salvation to do so.
That's a lot of nails. Maybe the Romans used extra nails, because Jesus wouldn't stay on the cross?
Very true. And very sad as well. People are always searching for something. It's evident everyday throughout the world.
Thats Arnold after his 7th Mr. Olympia! I’m serious!
...next on Pawn Stars! Will the old man make a deal for the divine nails?
>> After his trip to the Vatican, Martin Luther commented that he saw enough nails from the cross to shoe every horse in Europe. <<
Funny thing is, Luther never discovered that the Vatican wasn’t in Rome. That’s right: It’s across the river from the ancient city of Rome, making “Pilgrim’s Progress” and the phrase “crossing the Tiber” kinda funny.
Luther never went to Rome. He just needed every form of vicious slander Satan could dream up for him.
Now, Erasmus stated similarly that if every relic of the True Cross were really from the Cross, the Jews must’ve cleared every Cedar in the Forests of Lebanon. There are splinters of the cross in literally hundreds of churches. The splinters weigh a fraction of a gram, typically. The cross probably weighed 100 kg, or 100,000 grams. Luther was a slanderer; Erasmus was a fool.
"The Naked Archaeologist" is kind of a fun program to watch occasionally.
Just fact-checking my previous statement, I found this:
“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 Poitiers, 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.
Conflicting with this is the finding of Charles Rohault de Fleury, who, in his Mémoire sur les instruments de la Passion 1870 made a study of the relics in reference to the criticisms of Calvin and Erasmus. He drew up a catalogue of all known relics of the True Cross showing that, in spite of what various authors have claimed, the fragments of the Cross brought together again would not reach one-third that of a cross which has been supposed to have been three or four meters in height, with transverse branch of two meters wide, proportions not at all abnormal. He calculated: supposing the Cross to have been of pine-wood (based on his microscopic analysis of the fragments) and giving it a weight of about seventy-five kilograms, we find the original volume of the cross to be .178 cubic meters. The total known volume of known relics of the True Cross, according to his catalogue, amounts to approximately .004 cubic meters (more specifically 3,942,000 cubic millimeters), leaving a volume of .174 cubic meters lost, destroyed, or otherwise unaccounted for
(For the record, the Rohault wasn’t perfect, either: The splinters that have been found to have been olive, not pine.)
Luther’s battle against popery was a battle against Satan not for him.
massgopguy, this answer isn’t to you, I’m just tacking onto the end of the last post!
The nails aren’t the issue...the man on the cross is. It never ceases to amaze me that people want to worship the relics and not God.
Ya gotta love this stuff. I have the original pistol that Hitler shot himself with. I’d be willing to sell it for the right price, limited 2 per buyer. you must act quickly. For the first 100 buyers we will throw in the original poison capsule used by Eva Braun. (That is what discoveries like these remind me of.)
Simcha is entertaining, but this is no subject for a schlockumentary.
Yeah I needs to get busy making some ancient relics to sell myself.
Nobody is worshiping the relics, the Catholics are in this regard smarter than the holy rollers mocking them.
You don’t have any property in Arizona? Mayhaps with a nice ocean view?
Perhaps Jacobovici should try to sell these nails at the Pawn Stars pawn shop in Vegas. They seem to have experts to verify most everything.
>> Luthers battle against popery was a battle against Satan not for him. <<
Yeah, that’s why he had to invent lies about visiting the Vatican, declare that one of the good things about war is that it helps thin out the peasantry, side with the Muslims until the Muslims were in Bavaria (then, strangely enough, he changed his mind when it was HIS home), preach genocide against the Jews, throw 15 books out of the bible (Protestants put 7 1/2 back in), and advocate deliberately sinning so as to get it out of your system.
And by the way, the reason he hated Catholicism was that he couldn’t stand incense. He was really seeking to rid the world of pot pourri.
No, the real reason is because he was a Christian.
OMG! That was joke! Pot pourri?! Incense? Popery?
Sorry it took you so long to pick up on it - I’ll try to dumb them down in the future.
"For, God has committed to Mary ... all salvation." UBI PRIMAM 1848 Pope Pius IX
So Mary is your Salvation according to this Catholic Website. Can you tell me how she accomplished your Salvation?
No, My comment about pot pourri was a joke. Yours was a retarded bumper-sticker rant.
>> So Mary is your Salvation according to this Catholic Website. Can you tell me how she accomplished your Salvation? <<
The context of that amazingly edited line is the Immaculate Conception. The Pope is making the case that it would be outrageous that Christ would be born to a sinner; Since Christ is the treasury of all good things, and Christ came into the world through her, then to her has been committed He who was treasury of all good things.
No doubt, the full context will make squeamish those who shy away from the church's exaltation of Mary, for the praise heaped upon her is certainly immoderate, but rightfully given the context:
No sooner had We been elevated to the sublime Chair of the Prince of the Apostles and undertook the government of the universal Church (not, indeed, because of Our own worthiness but by the hidden designs of Divine Providence) than We had the great consolation, Venerable Brethren, in recalling that, during the pontificate of Gregory XVI, Our Predecessor of happy memory, there was in the entire Catholic world a most ardent and wondrous revival of the desire that the most holy Mother of Godthe beloved Mother of us all, the immaculate Virgin Marybe finally declared by a solemn definition of the Church to have been conceived without the stain of original sin.
Both to Our Predecessor and to Us this most devout desire was clearly and unmistakably made manifest by the petitions of illustrious bishops, esteemed canonical chapters, and religious congregations, among whom was the renowned Order of Preachers. These appeals vied with one another in the insistent request that official permission be granted for the word Immaculate to be publicly used and be added to the sacred liturgy, particularly in the Preface of the Mass of the Conception of the Blessed Virgin. With the greatest delight, both Our Predecessor and We acceded to these requests.
3. Moreover, Venerable Brethren, many of you have sent letters to Our Predecessor and to Us begging, with repeated insistence and redoubled enthusiasm, that We define as a dogma of the Catholic Church that the most blessed Virgin Mary was conceived immaculate and free in every way of all taint of original sin.
1) Mary said, in the Magnificat, "My soul rejoices in GOD MY SAVIOR". Only a sinner can say "MY SAVIOR". How do you explain this??.
2) The context of that amazingly edited line is the Immaculate Conception. The Pope is making the case that it would be outrageous that Christ would be born to a sinner; Since Christ is the treasury of all good things, and Christ came into the world through her, then to her has been committed He who was treasury of all good things.
Then you have to argue that Heli (Mary's Father according to the Apostle Luke) was not sinful either, nor his father, nor his ultimate father Adam.
No the only thing that takes away Sin is Believing UPON the Attonment of the Lord Jesus Christ on the CROSS Alone.
The Doctrine is BAD.
Also in the same document:
Her foot has crushed the head of Satan.
No, it is Christ that crushed the head of Satan, just as the prophesy said in Genesis "He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel."
Notice the pronoun "HE" not "SHE"
The document makes Mary your Deliverer in all things "Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin."
Whereas the Scriptures says that "Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the LORD delivers him out of them all. (Psalm 34)"
This Doctrine takes Salvation, Mercy, Deliverance and goodness from God and gives it to Mary.
And then in 1950, the Doctrine was enhanced to take Her Sinlessly into Heaven; Thus magnifying her into a Goddess.
>> You have not answered the question, How is Mary “All SALVATION”?? <<
Right. Because the question itself is based on a misreading. Since I demonstrated that the article states that Jesus is all salvation, and merely that Jesus was committed to Mary, why would I answer how Mary is all salvation. She’s not; the article states she’s not, and anyone reading the article instead of just proof-texting sentence fragments couldn’t possibly make that confusion.
>> Then you have to argue that Heli (Mary’s Father according to the Apostle Luke) was not sinful either, nor his father, nor his ultimate father Adam. <<
No, because unlike Jesus,
First, since Mary is not God, there is no desecration by her being born of a sinful person.
Second, Mary does not commit the act of her own birth; she was created through her conception, rather than Jesus who pre-existed and chose to enter into the world. Even though Joachim’s birth was unclean (Heli is Joseph’s father according to the apostle Luke), there was no sin of his own commission; his only sin was in the inheritance of the uncleanness of original sin.
>>>> Her foot has crushed the head of Satan. <<<<
>> No, it is Christ that crushed the head of Satan, just as the prophesy said in Genesis “He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” <<
The reference is from Revelations 12.
>> The document makes Mary your Deliverer in all things “Mary, ever lovable and full of grace, always has delivered the Christian people from their greatest calamities and from the snares and assaults of all their enemies, ever rescuing them from ruin.” <<
>> Whereas the Scriptures says that “Many are the afflictions of the righteous, But the LORD delivers him out of them all. (Psalm 34)” <<
Stop quoting out of context. The passage very plainly states that God is the author. He worked THROUGH Mary.
She is a decendent of Adam and Romans 3 says "All have Sinned" and Romans 5 says of Adam that he brought "sin and death" to the entire race. The statement above denies the Doctrine of Original Sin. No the statement is made up of whole cloth.
I'm noting that every time I cite the relavent Scripture it is denied and it is obvious that doctrine is being used to over-ride the Scriptures.
All I can do is to present the Scriptures and contrast them with the documents. The rest is up to the Holy Spirit.
The Ubi Primam clearly states that "All Salvation" is Attributed to "Mary". Your statements have not proven otherwise. You have given no quotes, and no Scripture.
Know that there is Salvation in no one else but the Lord Jesus Christ and a personal faith upon Him for Salvation. Placing your faith in an Organization committed to Salvation in Mary will not lead to Salvation through her. Grace, Salvation, Healing, and much more come through him alone.
If you wish to discuss the Scriptures rationally and without preconceptions, I am willing to also, any time. Until then.
>> The Ubi Primam clearly states that “All Salvation” is Attributed to “Mary” <<
Are you serious? You can only put quotes around three words in your citation, and you say it clearly states so? You can’t give more than three words of context to uphold your assertion, and you’re picking on me for not providing quotes, when I provided three entire paragraphs of Ubi Primam?
>> I’m noting that every time I cite the relavent Scripture it is denied and it is obvious that doctrine is being used to over-ride the Scriptures. <<
You’re not quoting scripture, you’re misquoting Ubi Primam. By the way, you should read Charles Spurgeon’s commentary on the word translated as “all.” If “all have sinned” meant “every human has sinned,” he would be saying Jesus sinned. The bible uses “all” in many places where it doesn’t mean “every one” literally: “All of Jerusalem was upset,” “All of Gallilee came to see him,” “And with him, All of Judea.” In this case, Paul means Gentile and Jew alike. Read the whole chapter, not just three words.
O, and by the way, it’s “adieu.” It’s French for “to God.” Those French Catholics insist on crediting everything to God, and commending everyone to God. They don’t say “amarie.”
Yes, I am serious, because in the same sentance to Mary is also attributed "every grace" and "every hope". So you would be denying the "all salvation" but attributing "every hope, every grace ...".
This would also deal with your "all" argument not being "all" because in the same sentence "every" is used twice - once with "hope" and once with "grace". Therefore there is no ambiguity and "all" means "all" just as "every" means "every".