Talk:Relics associated with Jesus

Daughter article

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?

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

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?

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

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

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

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)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Relics associated with Jesus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080403025348/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html to http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/03/21/shroud-turin.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100725102819/http://www.zenit.org/article-16519?l=english to http://www.zenit.org/article-16519?l=english
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120304150614/http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford%20CO4-08.pdf to http://chemistry-today.teknoscienze.com/pdf/benford%20CO4-08.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Need references and delete extraneous detail

I performed a substantive copyedit of the article for style, grammar, clarity, and relevance.

Additional issues that need to be addressed: - check links for 404 error messages - substantial amounts of text claims are unreferenced. - there appears to be a considerable amount of extraneous detail that should be eliminated Robertnola (talk) 01:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Veil of Veronica: how many candidates are out there?

I tried, but failed to figure out which of those mentioned here are images not copied from other known "Veils" (Rome, Manoppello,... - what else?). Known copies seem to me far less interesting here. I have brought this up on the talk-page of that article as well. If a result can be obtained, the subsections and their headings here will need to be changed accordingly. Arminden (talk) 20:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin section

The Shroud of Turin section is bonkers. Not encyclopedic it reads like a religious pamphlet written by and for true believers. For that matter the Shroud of Turin is not a jesus relic, it's believed to be a jesus relic by some/many believers, that is all it is so far. I know I can edit it myself, but I'd literally delete the whole thing or just say it's believed to be a jesus relic yet the credible evidence suggests it's not. 2603:8081:8700:687D:D15A:F94C:87B1:52A (talk) 20:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

True. Alerting WP:FTN. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Manger/crib (cunabulum) and/or cradle

The correct Latin word for cradle seems to be cunabulum, but several apparently reliable sources (the "Sacred Architecture" journal, an encyclopedia of relics) use cunambulum, with an added m. Did they just get mixed up with ambulare, ambulatory?

Several sources using the apparently wrong Latin word have been used here: Church of Saint Catherine, Bethlehem#Relic of the Holy Crib.

There seems to be a deeper confusion, between a manger used as crib, and a cradle. See this source:

The Descriptio Lateranensis Ecclesiae [c. 1100] mentions both a cradle and a crib/manger at Santa Maria Maggiore: "Cunabulum Domini ibi est, in quo puer iacuit. De praesepio Domini sunt ibi reliquiae."

From: Mary Dzon (2017). The Quest for the Christ Child in the Later Middle Ages. In "The Middle Ages Series". Ruth Mazo Karras, Series Editor; Edward Peters, Founding Editor. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. ISBN 0812248848. Accessed today. Arminden (talk) 22:45, 24 December 2023 (UTC)