Comments about ‘Archaeologists say they may have found piece of Jesus' cross’

Return to article »

Published: Friday, Aug. 2 2013 12:00 p.m. MDT

  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
The Skeptical Chymist

This smells strongly of a hoax to me. Even if you accept all the mythology surrounding Jesus Christ, how could it ever be proven that this particular piece of wood came from the cross used to crucify Christ, rather than any other person. It reminds me of the P.T.Barnum phrase, "There's a sucker born every minute." (excuse my paraphrase, I didn't bother to look up the exact quote.)

Irony Guy
Bountiful, Utah

Very cool. I understand there are enough fragments of the True Cross floating around to constitute an entire forest.

Woods Cross, UT

Please don't surround us with relics and historical evidence that Jesus lived and that Christianity existed. Instead, let's live in such a way that we'll all know that Jesus lives and that Christianity will never be vanquished.

Craig Clark
Boulder, CO

With my own eyes, I saw a splinter from the actual cross Jesus was crucified on. It was kept in the Catholic Church where I was baptized. The splinter was laying on a pillow of silk encased in a small round gold container with a glass cover through which the splinter could be viewed. I believed without questioning. It never occurred to me that it might not be from the actual cross. I was seven years old.

Blue AZ Cougar
Chandler, AZ

How in the world is there any way to know that what they found is a piece of the cross used to crucify Jesus? It's complete speculation. Carbon dating might put it in the same time frame as Christ's existence, but to assert that it's part of THE cross is far-fetched in my opinion.

Bakersfield, CA

Ditto to all the above.

There is more to the finding; it wasn't included, however...

Manti, UT

They are speculating. But that is OK. The reason you know it wasn't just any other is because, if you are smart enough to read the whole story, the artifacts included are no the type of items that would be included for an "average Joe". If it is not Jesus, then it is someone else whom the people of that time thought important. They are still investigating their theory. I suggest you wait for the results before you jump at your conclusions.


I guess that this might be news but....

The real 'news' is that there is another witness for Christ in the testimonies of the Prophets found within the pages of the Book of Mormon.

If you for some reason saw the Broadway play, be sure to read the book.

Filo Doughboy
Bakersfield, CA


If I saw the play, why should I read the book, which is another/different tale about a humanly-procreated man-evolved-god-Son, who was plurally-married (per early LDS authorities), who made extensive post-mortum extra-continental visits...

which thus far, have no archeological substantive evidence either?

Either be consistent in what you accept as imperical evidence, or admit it's just personal preference to which shell game you choose.


@ Filo

The tangible imperical evidence is the Book of Mormon, which you can purchase at your local bookstore.

You can hold it in your hand. You can turn the pages as you read. It is very real, very tangible, and can be perceived by all your senses even by your spirit that is temporarily inhabiting your body, that is, until your body wears out or gets run over by a bus.

Filo Doughboy
Bakersfield, CA


In my hands now I'm holding Alice in Wonderland, Lord of the Rings, Indiana Jones and The Temple of Doom, The Temple in Cosmos, and View of the Hebrews...

Based on your logic, it's my pick. They're all valid representations because they exist in book-form. Now if I can just get some artifacts on e-Bay, we're good. Where are my Indi action figures?...

Filo Doughboy
Bakersfield, CA

The point being, be consistent in what sacred artifacts you malign. I have a closet full of Hill Cumorah Pagent photos and paraphernalia. Just no interested non-LDS academics... Ditto for the imperical, hand-held book thd pagent re-enactment is based on.

Salt Lake City, UT

I don't think Imperical means what you think it means.

Tucson, AZ

@Stenar LOL!

I think he ate a peanut!

G L W8

FYI: the proper spelling of the word is "empirical." One of its definitions is "relying on experience or observation alone often without due regard for system and theory." That "without due regard" phrase seems to put limits on empirical data. If the "system", i.e., the observation or experiment does not control or account for all circumstances or characteristics of the "system", the conclusion can be faulty. That's why we say the tangible Book of Mormon needs to be read, studied, analyzed, and then the possibility that it could be true accepted on faith and asking the Lord for confirmation. It does no good to approach the entire prospect with skepticism.
As to the cross relic, a great deal of skepticism is warranted. Unless it can be shown that it has something to do with my salvation, I'm looking at it--like the Shroud of Turin--as nothing more than an archaic curiosity.

Mike in Cedar City
Cedar City, Utah

Puleeeze. Even if they found a cross from that time period, even if it had blood on it...there were 10's of thousands executed by the Romans in that area of the world and I don't think we have a known sample of Jesus' DNA do we? And G L W8 rational empirical observation and theoretical testing should start from a skeptical view. If you eventually rely on faith and some kind of a spiritual "confirmation" you can just as easy err because faith can be misplaced and spiritual confirmation might come from some force or place other than the master of the universe. See JS discussion on the legitimacy of "revelation". Some revelations are of God, some of man and some of the devil...or words to that effect as I recall.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments