Jesus crucifixion thorn goes on display

page: 2
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:32 AM
link   
If it is a thorn from Jesus's head, maybe they could see if they can get any DNA samples from it, this should help determine if it came from this period? Yes?No?




posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:36 AM
link   
reply to post by ReaPErofSIN
 


No other so called gods (Aliens) ever asked for sacrifices.


I guess you never heard of the Aztecs...


Soooo now that your theory has been blown to bits...

The Thorn from the Crown of Christ?

I think not.

But a cool story?

You bet.

peace



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 10:39 AM
link   
I honestly don't believe this.
Thorns that small wouldn't make it throughout the years.
It's just another way to make money.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:35 AM
link   
Wow what a find!!! I must say for all those that are faithful please pm me I have a jesus burrito where you canclearly see the face of the lord in it and i have a Virgin Marry pizza. They can both be yours for a price.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
reply to post by Darkk
 


Only if its fresh and comes with a side of Holy Rolla Cola and Cheesy Bible Thumping fries.
LOL Seriously though... no real Christian cares about relics. The props are for the mindless drones that are told to obey what the man in front says and they get angry when that belief system is questioned. LOL
You would think that they would not get angry but they always do. Those are the ones that care about the thorn.
Its a thorny issue - religion is -

Zip



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by ziplogan
 


yeah i don't see what difference a thorn would make in a persons faith. That thorn is no more real than the pictures and statues of jesus eveyone sees. Ever wonder how they came to agree that is what christ looks like even though there is no physical description and all the paintings (and the bible) did not come along until MUCH after jesus had died.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Darkk
 


I have to agree with Ziplogan about "relics". We are clearly told in the scriptures the only One true Person worthy of our worship and warned significantly against worshipping idols and relics. Side note: I think this is why I have issue with some of the Catholic rituals. With that said I have to point out a mistake that you made in your post and is often made.

The "Bible" as you claim was, yes, put together (if you will) after Jesus left this earth, centuries later in fact. BUT, close study of the OT and I don't mean just the scriptures themselves, shows that books like the first 5 books of the OT were written WAY before Jesus birth, life, death and resurrection. Genesis in fact was written sometime during the 1400's BC. So just because we didn't get our "Bible" until much later, doesn't mean that the scrolls and scripture weren't around until then. Now if you had made that statement about the NT, I would be in full agreement, except for the "much later" part.

The Gospel According to Mark was the first NT "book" written and it was written around 60's AD, only around 30 years after the death and resurrection of Jesus. So to say "MUCH later" is quite an erroneous statement. Not only that, Mark was not just some caveman or hermit that decided to come out and pen a best selling script for monetary profit. He was a missionary companion of Paul and Barnabas and an associate of the apostle Peter.
edit on 25-3-2011 by watchdog because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 12:46 PM
link   
reply to post by watchdog
 


I was talking about the NT...



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:01 PM
link   
reply to post by watchdog
 


The OT was written far before Jesus birth by a number of different sources. It was edited and redacted and the evidence is in the text itself.

The gospel of Mark was not written by Mark.

Have faith in Christ, follow his teachings, but the bible is full of holes from a historical perspective.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Buddha1098 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:23 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Sweetheart, I assure you that my faith is fully in Christ, not a book, but thanks BUDDHA. Second, yes you are right, there is no way with 100% certainty to know who wrote the Gospel According to Mark as it is not stated in the Gospel, but it is traditionally attributed/credited to John Mark. Third, I am quite aware of the "holes" as you put it, some of them at least, but the faults are in "OUR" translations, not the original Hebrew and Greek. Our english words just do not translate the same. So there are no "holes" in the biblical hebrew and greek. But the majority of us do not understand, speak, read, or write these two languages. So to have a better understanding of what the author (God) intended, we (Believers) should all be students of the original language.

Lastly, this is a conversation my husband and I have had over the last few months in regards to what importance the "Bible" plays or should play in the Christian life as we understand that NOT all Believers have bibles, like the "Oonga Boonga" tribe (I made that name up of course) in "insert a country of your choosing". Does that mean that their faith is lacking or greater than those that can mosey on down to the nearest Christian book store and buy one? We have both agreed that that neither is the case. Even without the Bible our faith is still just as strong or possibly "fragile" in some cases. I guess my point is that NO, Believers don't have to have a bible to have faith, but it sure does help answer a few questions as it comes directly from the source.

Oh and yes you are absolutely correct in your statement that the OT had numerous authors and was written way before Jesus. But then again, Jesus was there all along. Genesis even tells us this in the very first chapter when God says, "Let US make man in OUR image...." This is the first hint at the Trinity we get. So Jesus was there all along, even in the beginning, just not as a man on earth YET.
edit on 25-3-2011 by watchdog because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by grindhouzer





If only this story was true. They would of had a Jesus clone by now with DNA samples, unless it is a secret project in the works.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchdog
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Sweetheart, I assure you that my faith is fully in Christ, not a book, but thanks BUDDHA. Second, yes you are right, there is no way with 100% certainty to know who wrote the Gospel According to Mark as it is not stated in the Gospel, but it is traditionally attributed/credited to John Mark. Third, I am quite aware of the "holes" as you put it, some of them at least, but the faults are in "OUR" translations, not the original Hebrew and Greek. Our english words just do not translate the same. So there are no "holes" in the biblical hebrew and greek. But the majority of us do not understand, speak, read, or write these two languages. So to have a better understanding of what the author (God) intended, we (Believers) should all be students of the original language.

Lastly, this is a conversation my husband and I have had over the last few months in regards to what importance the "Bible" plays or should play in the Christian life as we understand that NOT all Believers have bibles, like the "Oonga Boonga" tribe (I made that name up of course) in "insert a country of your choosing". Does that mean that their faith is lacking or greater than those that can mosey on down to the nearest Christian book store and buy one? We have both agreed that that neither is the case. Even without the Bible our faith is still just as strong or possibly "fragile" in some cases. I guess my point is that NO, Believers don't have to have a bible to have faith, but it sure does help answer a few questions as it comes directly from the source.

Oh and yes you are absolutely correct in your statement that the OT had numerous authors and was written way before Jesus. But then again, Jesus was there all along. Genesis even tells us this in the very first chapter when God says, "Let US make man in OUR image...." This is the first hint at the Trinity we get. So Jesus was there all along, even in the beginning, just not as a man on earth YET.
edit on 25-3-2011 by watchdog because: (no reason given)


You're welcome WATCHDOG

I wasn't referring to the English translations... Yes Mark was written according to tradition in 60AD.. But the oldest surviving copies are from Hundreds of years later. These copies are hand transcribed and differ from each other. Your earlier post seemed to indicate you believed that copies from 60AD existed when that is simply not the case.

Gen 1:26 is used by Christians as a proof of the Trinity, however Hebrew scholars disagree. The Bible was written in Hebrew so you take that for what you will.

I would never debate your faith with you, but I will debate you if you make erroneous claims about history or science or language.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


I never suggested that the "originals" of any of the "books" are still around or were around when ALL the copies were transcribed. But obviously the original existed at some point otherwise what would they have had to transcribed from. Oh and only the OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Koine Greek. And "hebrew scholars" can debate all day long on the Trinity. Again, it goes back to a person's faith and usually is impossible to debate. Someone either believes or they don't I personally believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three Persons. What do you believe?

And to respond to these copies having "discrepancies", it is my understanding (and I am still researching this as I am a student and will be until I die lol) that yes there were/are discrepancies, but that the ones that were most "accurate" and had the most similarities was the "one" the Catholic church went with when it came to putting the "bible" together. With that said, I have major issues with the Catholic "church" not the people, but the Catholic church's teachings and expressed authority (their leadership if you will) and the institution as a whole, So through my research and studying, I have come to start questioning much when it comes to what we have today (teachings, "facts", etc) as most of what I previously thought I knew, came from the Catholic church. I have never been Catholic, but a product of the Protestant Reformation. And I will even admit that I find more and more issues with Protestant teaching the further my studies go, which is why I have started studying Biblical Hebrew here just recently. I am tired of taking other's interpretations as truth instead of going to the source for myself.

Oh and I will even daresay that there are "missing" pieces if you will. I mean we know that we don't have all of Paul's letters, evident from the biblical text, as you put it. BUT, and this is a big "but" lol, I do believe that we have exactly what God intended for us to have and is enough for us to know/understand what it is that He wants us to know/understand, even if it was through the Catholic church. The Israelites were (and yes I used it past tense "were") His "chosen people", even though they were a sinful people. So who am I to question His using the Catholic church to give us what we have today.
edit on 25-3-2011 by watchdog because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:17 PM
link   
If I remember right, there were once enough pieces of the True Cross to reconstruct a forest. So I daresay this is just the last of the 17,640 thorns sold to pilgrims over the past 1500 years


And interesting historical curio. But not from a Biblical perspective,



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by watchdog
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


I never suggested that the "originals" of any of the "books" are still around or were around when ALL the copies were transcribed. But obviously the original existed at some point otherwise what would they have had to transcribed from. Oh and only the OT was written in Hebrew. The NT was written in Koine Greek. And "hebrew scholars" can debate all day long on the Trinity. Again, it goes back to a person's faith and usually is impossible to debate. Someone either believes or they don't I personally believe in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, one God in three Persons. What do you believe?

And to respond to these copies having "discrepancies", it is my understanding (and I am still researching this as I am a student and will be until I die lol) that yes there were/are discrepancies, but that the ones that were most "accurate" and had the most similarities was the "one" the Catholic church went with when it came to putting the "bible" together. With that said, I have major issues with the Catholic "church" not the people, but the Catholic church's teachings and expressed authority (their leadership if you will) and the institution as a whole, So through my research and studying, I have come to start questioning much when it comes to what we have today (teachings, "facts", etc) as most of what I previously thought I knew, came from the Catholic church. I have never been Catholic, but a product of the Protestant Reformation. And I will even admit that I find more and more issues with Protestant teaching the further my studies go, which is why I have started studying Biblical Hebrew here just recently. I am tired of taking other's interpretations as truth instead of going to the source for myself.


I was talking about you using Gen 1:26 as proof of Jesus being there in the beginning, Hebrew scholars say that this text is not a trinity proof text.

What do I believe about the trinity? I'm an agnostic panentheist. I believe that you and I are as much a part of God as Jesus, and Moses and Mohammed, and my cats and the trees and the rocks are. But being agnostic I realize that Belief and knowledge are two completely different things.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stop-loss!

Originally posted by grindhouzer



If only this story was true. They would of had a Jesus clone by now with DNA samples, unless it is a secret project in the works.


Red blood cells don't contain DNA.... they have no nuclei.

I think some here are confused... the crown of thorns pictured is not the relic.... the relic is a single thorn encased in the glass.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


I have never heard of an agnostic panentheist before, so WOW lol. I actually went and googled it to see if I could get a better understand of just what it is that you believe, but I am quite aware that the internet is the wrong place to get a "good" understanding of what one believes as there are so many different "definitions" for one title. Like the word "Christian" has been twisted to mean so many things now and many claiming to be "Christians" now are not what I thought or think should be called "Christians", like Westboro Baptist Church. So now when someone says they are a Christian, the first thing that comes to my mind is "which Christian?". Which is why if you notice, I use the word "Believer" instead. I know that the original word "Christian" means "Christ-like" so when I see or hear people calling themselves a Christian that aren't following Christ's teachings it unnerves me and the word "Christian" just has a bad connotation these days. Does that make sense? I know, I am rambling, sorry.

But to the point of my rambling, Brava. I will admit that though you are an "agnostic panentheist" (still not sure exactly what that means), that at least you have opened a Bible and have studied the scriptures and it's history, and willing, dare I say enjoy, an educated discussion about Christianity, which is extremely rare and more than I can say for most "Christians" and Believers. Most atheists, agnostics, and non-Believers, are more knowledgable about our faith than we are. Sad really, we'd (and I use the term loosely and do not include myself) would rather be spoonfed once or twice a week by a "man" and then regurgitate it the rest of the week if/when we (again used loosely) are feeling "spiritual", rather than go to the Man Himself.

edit on 25-3-2011 by watchdog because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 03:39 PM
link   
reply to post by watchdog
 


A Pantheist would say that "God is the Whole" a panentheist says the "Whole is in God." To boil it down basically I'm a Zen Buddhist I believe that everyone has a Buddha or Christ nature in them and through stripping away the ego, a focus on the present, and a lack of attachment one can attain a state of unconditional love for all of creation.

I believe this is what Christ taught (The Loss of ego obviously not the Panentheism) so I value the teachings of Jesus very much, but also those of Buddha, Lao Tsu and others.
Thank you for your interest and thank you for the discussion. It's nice to have a stimulating debate without anyone getting angry

God bless you
Namaste



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Buddha1098
 


Thank you, I agree the conversation has been quite refreshing and it is definitely nice to disagree without the mudslinging tactics we so often see on ATS.

Thank you for helping me understand better what it is that you believe. Very interesting, especially given the fact that I just returned from a month long visit to Sri Lanka and visited many many Buddhist temples while there, including the Temple of the Tooth. Such beautiful places and what a wonderful people. I even got to climb "Adam's Peak" or Sri Pada as the locals call it. It was the hardest thing I have ever done and not sure I would do it again, but I did reach the top right before sunrise and it was a magnificent and humbling experience. I was not able to see "Buddha's footprint" due to the fact that it was bitterly cold and my daughter became sick during our journey and we needed to get back down to the bottom as soon as possible to see about her, but my husband was able to see it. So after visiting the many temples, being blessed by numerous Buddhist monks (still wearing my bracelet) and talking to them, and what you have explained to me, I now have a better understanding of your beliefs.

And yes, you are absolutely correct in the statement that Jesus was/is a teacher of "loss of ego/self". It's a very hard thing to do, I think moreso sometimes for Christians, because it's an alien concept for us (the old man that sticks to us like glue) and we are still living "in" this world. I have changed my way of thinking in the last year or two. I know longer look at this world as my "home". It's not. My home is in heaven, so things that would have upset me immensly in the past, don't tend to bother me as much anymore and I am not as surprised as I use to be by peoples actions. So "this is not my home, nor my body" concept, has helped me let go of that ego. I am no one in the scheme of eternity, it is only Christ and Christ alone that matters and my body, talents, gifts, words, and actions should only be of use to Him, not myself. But I admit, I am not perfect and faulter.

In response to your statement that "belief and knowledge are completely different", that's a tricky one. Many believed that the earth was flat until the subject was studied and only after proof was provided did they change their belief. It's a little harder with "faith" just as it is with "love". They are not tangible items that can be experienced with the 5 senses or proof. I try to keep an open mind, which if I understand correctly is the basis for agnostics?, but I can only keep an open mind to a certain extent, and with that I mean, as to what the Holy Spirit reveals to me. You know, kinda like that whole right vs. wrong, devil vs. the angel on your shoulder type thing. My beliefs now are more logical than they used to be. Before it was purely emotion (it's a woman thing I guess lol), but spending much time and discussion with my husband, has transformed me if you will, as men are more logical thinkers. To me, belief and knowledge work hand in hand in the case of faith. We, or maybe I should use I rather, base my beliefs less on personal experience (but still some) and more on the knowledge that I have attained from scripture, the Holy Spirit, the study of history, logical thinking, and common sense. That does not mean that with that knowledge I know it all, but just that there is plenty of room for error and growth in my beliefs.



posted on Mar, 25 2011 @ 04:29 PM
link   
reply to post by watchdog
 


You're blessed to have traveled so extensively! I'm happy for you!

That is my point about belief and Knowledge. People believed the Earth was flat. The Truth is it is round obviously so knowledge is where the Truth and Belief overlap. I'm not willing to debate of the things that I cannot know. Such as what happens when we die or the nature of God and that's why I always add Agnostic.

I will give my opinions of course but I understand that my opinion is no more correct or valid than anyone else's.
edit on 25-3-2011 by Buddha1098 because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
5
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join