Notre Dame

Thread starter #1

WaltL1

Senior Member
Not sure how to word this question but...….
Are the Christian artifacts said to be held in the cathedral more of a "Catholic thing" or widespread belief across all Christian denominations?
Mainly -
what is believed to be the
Crown of Thorns, a fragment of the True Cross and one of the Holy Nails.
And I realize only a few Christians participate here so will probably only get a few opinions...
 

Israel

Senior Member
ya ever hear of Nehushtan?
 
Thread starter #7

WaltL1

Senior Member
Artifacts? I'm totally ignorant to this. Have no idea.
Well, claimed by the Church to be artifacts.
However there are also religious paintings etc.
I think this is boiling down to denominational differences but regardless, there is a lot of what is considered "Christian history" stored there.
Check it out.
 

Madman

Senior Member
The catholic church, (the Latin Church in Rome, the Coptic Church in Egypt, the Orthodox Church in Asia, the Anglican Church in England, Ireland, and Scotland) in other words the vast majority of Christendom, have always seen artifacts, relics, stained glass, artwork, icons, etc. as items that direct the believer to God.
 
A Roman Emperor sent his mom off on a "treasure hunt" and started an entire industry of "Christian Artifact" production. Constantine, the Emperor of Rome who moved the capital to Constantinople, shipped his Mother, Empress Helana, to the middle east to find evidence of the Christian God. She, of course, found the "True Cross" and hundreds of other artifacts. After Helana, thousands of other relics were "discovered." Is it possible that some of the "Holy Relics" are real? - SURE, it is possible. It is even likely that a few of the "knuckle bone of St. Whosit" relics are real. Are they "magic"? - No.

What these relics truly represent are centuries of faith and hopeful belief in the Creator God AND a focus for the worship of a living God who once walked among us. The relics do not heal injury or disease, but many people, over many centuries, have found relief from their ailment, relief from their pain, when they prayed to God in the presence of one of these objects.

I honestly believe that miracles have happened, that people have received God's blessing, throughout history. Sometimes, an old bone, a circlet of thorns, a piece of wood, or an old piece of cloth were nearby when faithful believers in a healing God were touched with grace. That is enough to make those old bones, fragments of wood, or fragile remains of a Legionaire's spear worth keeping around. God doesn't need bones, pieces of wood or iron, or even dice, to work miracles. But weak, timid, broken people need all the help we can get, and a crutch made of time, faith, old stuff, and hope doesn't hurt anyone!
 
The catholic church, (the Latin Church in Rome, the Coptic Church in Egypt, the Orthodox Church in Asia, the Anglican Church in England, Ireland, and Scotland) in other words the vast majority of Christendom, have always seen artifacts, relics, stained glass, artwork, icons, etc. as items that direct the believer to God.
Is it scriptural? Did Jesus use tangible objects or leave tangible objects as proof the he existed? I wonder why God didn't leave the tomb available?

I have been in Catholic Churches. It did feel holy. The incense, the stained glass windows, the foreign priest that no one could understand.

Then on the flip side, sitting in the woods next to a river feels holy. Picking up a beautiful rock from that river feels holy. Even the sunshine.

I'm still not convinced that all of those artifacts are what God left behind. I think part of what God wants or requires is a belief from faith. So in the reality, artifacts or the river rocks aren't what I think they are.
 

660griz

Senior Member
If that "Crown of Thorns" was autographed, it would be worth some money.
 
I think it's a catholic thing.

I'm not a believer but I was really saddened to see it burn. I hope it wasn't arson. Such a shame.
 
Well, claimed by the Church to be artifacts.
However there are also religious paintings etc.
I think this is boiling down to denominational differences but regardless, there is a lot of what is considered "Christian history" stored there.
Check it out.
Will do.
 
I would very seriously doubt if that crown of thorns, the piece of the cross, or the nail are actually authentic artifacts that were connected to Jesus in real life.
That would about be the same probablity as someone 2,000 years from now actually having the bullet that killed Lincoln, or a lock of David Koresh's hair, or Jim Jones's koolaid pitcher.

I guess their value is not so much in their authenticity, but what they represent to those who believe in them.
 

rosewood

Senior Member
I do know Notre Dame means "our lady". And the design of the building is supposedly symbolic of Mother Mary covering the church with a cloak or something like that. Yeah, they taught that in one of those elective classes in college. History of art and architecture IIRC.

That is one of the things I diverge on the Catholics on. They put a lot of value on Mary when it should all be on Jesus.

Rosewood
 

Madman

Senior Member
Is it scriptural? Did Jesus use tangible objects or leave tangible objects as proof the he existed? I wonder why God didn't leave the tomb available?

I have been in Catholic Churches. It did feel holy. The incense, the stained glass windows, the foreign priest that no one could understand.

Then on the flip side, sitting in the woods next to a river feels holy. Picking up a beautiful rock from that river feels holy. Even the sunshine.

I'm still not convinced that all of those artifacts are what God left behind. I think part of what God wants or requires is a belief from faith. So in the reality, artifacts or the river rocks aren't what I think they are.
God instructed Joshua to stack 12 stones so that the fathers could tell the children about 40 years in the desert.

Why does it matter if it is in the Bible? You just said some churches bring about awe and reverence. Go back and read how the Tabernacle was to be constructed, or the temple.

All these things do is direct us to the awesomeness of God.
 
God instructed Joshua to stack 12 stones so that the fathers could tell the children about 40 years in the desert.

Why does it matter if it is in the Bible? You just said some churches bring about awe and reverence. Go back and read how the Tabernacle was to be constructed, or the temple.

All these things do is direct us to the awesomeness of God.
With such evidence that the Exodus and 40 years of wandering the desert as told in the Bible never happened, and even with Jewish Rabbis saying that it was all storied symbolism, it makes me wonder why a God would instruct someone to stack stones in order to tell their children about something that didn't happen when there are so many other things that could be truthful go unused.
 

Madman

Senior Member
Is it scriptural? Did Jesus use tangible objects or leave tangible objects as proof the he existed? I wonder why God didn't leave the tomb available?

I have been in Catholic Churches. It did feel holy. The incense, the stained glass windows, the foreign priest that no one could understand.

Then on the flip side, sitting in the woods next to a river feels holy. Picking up a beautiful rock from that river feels holy. Even the sunshine.

I'm still not convinced that all of those artifacts are what God left behind. I think part of what God wants or requires is a belief from faith. So in the reality, artifacts or the river rocks aren't what I think they are.
The Bible is full of commandments to place markers, 1 Samuel 7:12. Did Christ leave the shroud? Was his cross and crown left on earth or did he take it with him? People knew where Christ was buried and have venerated the tomb for centuries. The church has always recognized artifacts, and relics If they are of no interest to some, so be it.
 

Israel

Senior Member
I would very seriously doubt if that crown of thorns, the piece of the cross, or the nail are actually authentic artifacts that were connected to Jesus in real life.

That would about be the same probablity as someone 2,000 years from now actually having the bullet that killed Lincoln, or a lock of David Koresh's hair, or Jim Jones's koolaid pitcher.

I guess their value is not so much in their authenticity, but what they represent to those who believe in them.

For the believer I see the question as why esteem any of them?

The matter of being

connected to Jesus in real life
is far more important to a complete negation of the other in consideration; eclipsing to such measure that material things hold in relation to what is truly bequeathed to the believer in Jesus' name, that being the Holy Spirit.

But I myself am new in such considerations and your post has helped me to reconsider such. How a man is tempted to hold to what is passing away that can never (and actually runs quite in opposition to the) supply of what is to him, that real life.
 
Last edited:
Top