Talk:Relics associated with Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Christianity / Jesus (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by Jesus work group (marked as Top-importance).
 

Notice: This is a daughter article of Jesus Christ - It was taken from the mother page made to alleviate the size of the older article. WhisperToMe 07:19, 12 Nov 2003 (UTC)

what about the Jesus ossuary?[edit]

The American media surpressed the discovery of the ossuary of Jesus because it was thought that because Christ ascended he would not have been burried. However, this bone box has very good chance of being a genuine grave of a man named jesus born of a joseph and mary who died between 10 and 70 AD. google cache of a good page

--metta, The Sunborn 02:55, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Googling turn up this [1] as well -- there are at least two different "Jesus son of Joseph" ossuaries...
The Telegraph has this [2]: "No one suggests that it is of Jesus Christ"
Here's another article from archaeology.org: [3]
Since someone obviously believes it to be of Jesus, it could probably be mentioned, but it seems to be far less accepted -- you'd expect skeptics of the resurrection to be trumpeting this to the ends of the earth if there was any possibility of it being genuinely of "the" Jesus.... -- Mpolo 16:00, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)
You'd expect skeptics of the resurrection to be trumpeting this to the ends of the earth if there was any possibility of it being genuinely of "the" Jesus Honestly, that is how I heard about it. --The Sunborn

For crying out load, this ossuary is from a man called Jacob/James. Nutcases that want it to be from a Jesus so that they can claim it is from the Jesus don't deserve a mentioning. Str1977 (smile back) 15:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This article is about relics attributed to Jesus; so far as I know, no Christian church has ever counted any of the ossuaries found in the Talpiot Tomb to be relics. MishaPan 14:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesus' name was not Jesus Christ when he lived, Christ is a title, it would not have said Christ on his grave when he was buried if he was even a real person to begin with This is wikipedia, not church, no information should be supressed to protect the mindless flocks from the truth —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.225.46.88 (talk) 03:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, I'm not quite sure what your objection is. No one used the word "Christ" in the comments above, and his name was Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent) when the lived. Hysterical conspiracy theories about "the press" (as though it is some centralized, monolithic organization) "supressing" information is not very NPOV. Again, the present article is about relics--i.e., objects which have been venerated by Christians. Also, referring to faithful Christians as "mindless flocks" is uncalled for. P.S., Please sign your comments. MishaPan (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Page move[edit]

I've moved the page to Relics of Jesus from Alleged relics of Jesus, as the latter puts forward a particular POV. I don't believe that any of the relics are real, but some people do, so putting "alleged" is hardly NPOV! --G Rutter 10:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are the Relics of Jesus not 'alleged' but the Inconsistencies in the Bible are 'alleged'? Just because some people believe these relics are real does not justify remove that word. There is clearly a pro-christian POV at work here, which isn't all that surprising considering most wikipedia users will come from the US Damburger 10:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I've moved this page to "Relics attributed to Jesus", to make it reflect the name of the category, after the discussion on the name of the category. This was agreed to be the most NPOV name for the category, and so is also obviously the best name for the lead article. --G Rutter 09:18, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Article now moved to Relics associated with Jesus. Did none of those 2005 dudes have access to a dictionary? "Attributed to" manages to suggest both or either of: a) Jesus made them, b) Some plausible recent scholar has backed, as a matter of fact, that Jesus either made them or used or was at least associated with them in some way. None of these are remotely the case for the great majority of them. There is a Cfd nom to rename the category to match [4] Johnbod (talk) 05:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Needing references?[edit]

Why is this flagged needing references? This is almost a wiki-link-farm, mostly linking to the relevant article, which would contain the required references. Yngvarr (t) (c) 01:07, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Pocket knife[edit]

The knife reputedly used by Jesus and apostles to slice bread during the Last Supper was permanently exhibited in the Logetta (gilded entrance hall) of the famous venetian "Campanile di San Marco". I don't know if it was destroyed when the belltower collapsed in 1902. The Campanile had been cracking for a week previously, so maybe they had the mind to remove the relic collection beforehand. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide references for this assumption. Thanks Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Reference: [5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.163 (talk) 12:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. Here is the full reference. "Belin, Julien-Léonard (1843) (in French), Le Simplon et l'Italie septentrionale: promenades et pèlerinages, Belin-Leprieur, p. 218"

Alberto Fernandez Fernandez (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the statement that the "authenticity of these claims in in doubt" is just too mild. The burden of proof is on the exhibitors, and usually they have all exactly the same amount of proof, namely zero. For all I know they bought the knife at a historic Wallmart in Venice. I see no proof that they did not. I will modify the text as such. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Górny & Rosiknoń Witnesses to Mystery: Investigations Into Christ’s Relics[edit]

Several editors tried to prevent including material from that book, voicing an opinion of the authors that "the results of numerous time-consuming and comprehensive analyses, conducted using the most technologically advanced equipment available, seemed to coincide with assertions prevalent in Christian tradition.", under the pretext of RS. For discussion of the matter, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Is_a_book_by_a_journalist_and_a_photographer_a_reliable_source_for_an_analysis_of_religious_relics.3F

Ignatius is a serious Catholic publisher, I don't know why books published by them should be excluded from Wikipedia -except someone's hostility to Catholicism. If we exclude Górny, then we should also exclude Carrol-Cruz -catholic writer as well, and Nickell, sceptical writer, who is much more biased (against any relics) than any Catholic source -so his book is not the sort of book that should be used to write a neutral article. The statement is an opinion cited, not a fact. Besides there is no such academic discipline as study of the relics yet -anyone can publish whatever wants. In the lead, we have two negative opinions, by Erasmus from 1500s, and by Thurston from 1913. So the lead is not neutral. To balance it, we have posititve Górny&Rosikoń opinion from 2013 -much more recent, after several researches on some relics (described in their book) have been published.

83.29.181.170 (talk) 14:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Good article[edit]

So, does anyone think this could be a good article? If not, what improvements would be necessary? --Leptictidium (mt) 19:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)