nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is it right to be skeptical?

martinedwards

Ok disclaimer first.

I'm a Christian.

I absolutely believe in the Life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

I recently visited Rome, and toured the Holy sites.

the tombs of some of the Apostles....... Maybe. I suppose its possible, so I'll allow those.....

but there is news today that the Vatican have taken the wooden covers off the stairs that Jesus was supposed to have walked up to see Pilate.

Fair enough, they were in what was Pilates palace, so it is possible that he was marched up these stairs. or not.

but there are spaces to show where Jesus bloody footprints were.

now.

my Skepticism coming into play.......

Jesus wasn't stripped and beaten until AFTER Pilate condemned him. so if he was taken up these steps to see Pilate, he wouldn't have been bleeding yet anyway.

these steps were gathered up in the 4th century from Jerusalem and shipped to Rome by the same same woman who discovered the "true cross".

hmmmmmm.

but if you read the biblical account of the trial, it didn't happen inside the Roman offices anyway!

John 18 New International Version (NIV)

28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

I know it's good to have things help you focus your concentration of faith, but really? 2 minutes with google and for me, these stairs are well over the line into the fake category.

cover 'em up again!

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/pictures-romes-holy-stairs-uncovered-for-the-first-time-in-300-years/

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Infernum

Sounds like a bit like the Shroud of Turin, which in recent years has been proven to be an artistic piece from somewhere around the 13th century made using complex methods for the time.

Skepticism is healthy, no matter how religious you may be. It's okay to question things that don't seem right to you.

branie2

I'm skeptical of Christina Gallagher, the so-called "visionary" of Achill Island, Co. Sligo.

homer911

I'm sure you will find a lot of this if you go digging

I'm sceptical about a lot of the Jerusalem sites

kneemos

There's way too much symbolism in Catholicism anyway.
People flock to revere bits of old timber, it's ridiculous.

smacl

homer911 wrote: »

I'm sure you will find a lot of this if you go digging

I'm sceptical about a lot of the Jerusalem sites

If you're interested in scepticism surrounding Christianity, Bart Ehrman has the subject covered pretty well. Some of his stuff may not sit well with those that don't like questions asked of their beliefs, but to the best of my knowledge he's one of the more respected historians in this area. I only read a couple of them, and while they were informative, my interest in Christianity isn't deep enough to pursue it much further.

antiskeptic

martinedwards wrote: »

Ok disclaimer first.

I'm a Christian.

I absolutely believe in the Life, death and resurrection of Jesus.

I recently visited Rome, and toured the Holy sites.

the tombs of some of the Apostles....... Maybe. I suppose its possible, so I'll allow those.....

but there is news today that the Vatican have taken the wooden covers off the stairs that Jesus was supposed to have walked up to see Pilate.

Fair enough, they were in what was Pilates palace, so it is possible that he was marched up these stairs. or not.

but there are spaces to show where Jesus bloody footprints were.

now.

my Skepticism coming into play.......

Jesus wasn't stripped and beaten until AFTER Pilate condemned him. so if he was taken up these steps to see Pilate, he wouldn't have been bleeding yet anyway.

these steps were gathered up in the 4th century from Jerusalem and shipped to Rome by the same same woman who discovered the "true cross".

hmmmmmm.

but if you read the biblical account of the trial, it didn't happen inside the Roman offices anyway!

John 18 New International Version (NIV)

28 Then the Jewish leaders took Jesus from Caiaphas to the palace of the Roman governor. By now it was early morning, and to avoid ceremonial uncleanness they did not enter the palace, because they wanted to be able to eat the Passover. 29 So Pilate came out to them and asked, “What charges are you bringing against this man?”

I know it's good to have things help you focus your concentration of faith, but really? 2 minutes with google and for me, these stairs are well over the line into the fake category.

cover 'em up again!

https://catholicherald.co.uk/news/2019/04/12/pictures-romes-holy-stairs-uncovered-for-the-first-time-in-300-years/

Wherever there's a buck to be made, there is reason to be skeptical. The holy land is probably ground zero for sharp practices.

When I was there, the most impressive place I visited was the middle of the sea of Galilee on a boat. Far from shore you couldn't see the detail of modern humanity but the topography was the same as what folk in Jesus' day looked out at when they were out there.

I recall the bus tour I was with arriving up outside a souvenir shop. All the Christians piled in to be welcomed by very friendly Arabs, who had all the Christian lingo. I noticed that the tiered display stands where square shaped - about 4 ft long - and on wheels. Although the displays were lined up side by side, a closer look revealed displays on all 4 sides, the ones to the side and rear covered with cloth panels: they simply wheeled the displays around to suit the religion of whatever bus was due in next.

They had it down to a tee evidently: the tour bus bunch I'd tagged along with were "spirit filled evangelicals". There wasn't a virgin Mary statue in sight

kelly1

martinedwards wrote: »

Jesus wasn't stripped and beaten until AFTER Pilate condemned him. so if he was taken up these steps to see Pilate, he wouldn't have been bleeding yet anyway.

I haven't looked at the relevant bible verses yet, but afaik, Jesus was sent away by Pilate to be scourged (which would most likely cause a lot of bleeding, flagrums with embedded bone shards and lead balls) and then taken back to Pilate, at which point the Jews in the crowd called for crucifixion. So the bloody footprints could well have been made by Jesus walking back to the praetorium (or whatever you call it).

kelly1

Infernum wrote: »

Sounds like a bit like the Shroud of Turin, which in recent years has been proven to be an artistic piece from somewhere around the 13th century made using complex methods for the time.

Skepticism is healthy, no matter how religious you may be. It's okay to question things that don't seem right to you.

Your information is outdated. There was a subsequent test done by Giulio Fanti which dated the Shroud to 1st century. The original material used was contaminated by material used to patch the shroud after medieval fire damage.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-tests-by-prof-giulio-fanti-show.html

Morbert

kelly1 wrote: »

Your information is outdated. There was a subsequent test done by Giulio Fanti which dated the Shroud to 1st century. The original material used was contaminated by material used to patch the shroud after medieval fire damage.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2013/04/new-tests-by-prof-giulio-fanti-show.html

I believe it is the consensus of the scientific community that the shroud dates back to arount the 13th century, and that the medieval repair hypothesis you mention here is false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#Scientific_analysis
"Some proponents for the authenticity of the shroud have attempted to discount the radiocarbon dating result by claiming that the sample may represent a medieval "invisible" repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.[8][9][16][13][80][81][82][83] However, all of the hypotheses used to challenge the radiocarbon dating have been scientifically refuted,[10][11][12] including the medieval repair hypothesis,[13][14] the bio-contamination hypothesis[16] and the carbon monoxide hypothesis.[11]"

Atlantic Dawn

The star positions over Bethlehem at Christmas for the birth of Jesus could never have happened, the bible is a joke of a book if it can't get basic real facts correct.

martinedwards

kelly1 wrote: »

I haven't looked at the relevant bible verses yet, but afaik, Jesus was sent away by Pilate to be scourged (which would most likely cause a lot of bleeding, flagrums with embedded bone shards and lead balls) and then taken back to Pilate, at which point the Jews in the crowd called for crucifixion. So the bloody footprints could well have been made by Jesus walking back to the praetorium (or whatever you call it).

OK.

so 400 years later, these footprints still there, so they can be marked out in Gold?

Romans were sticklers for cleanliness, even in a backwater like Judea!

kelly1

martinedwards wrote: »

OK.

so 400 years later, these footprints still there, so they can be marked out in Gold?

Romans were sticklers for cleanliness, even in a backwater like Judea!

I don't know and I don't care tbh, it's pretty much irrelevant to my faith.

Peregrinus

1. From a historical point of of view, there's no evidence that these steps came from Pilate's Palace.

2. From a theological point of view, it's unimportant whether they did or not. The meaning and signficance of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ is not in any way dependent on whether any associated structures or artefacts survive or not.

3. From a devotional point of view, it may be valuable to have artefacts associated with the passion to assist the faithful in calling the matter to mind. But it makes no difference whether the association is that the artefact was actually employed in the historical events, or merely represents the historical events. Almost every Christian church of every denomonation displays a cross, for example. The signficance of this is not diminished by the fact that this is not the actual cross on which Jesus was crucified.

4. This is in fact vividly illustrated in the case of the Scala Sancta itself, where the staircase supposedly recovered from Jerusalem by Helena, which in theory could be the actual staircase from the governor's palace on which Jesus could have walked, is flanked by four sixteenth-century replicas, which certainly could not be. The significance of the five staircases is the same; each of them recalls this aspect of the passion of Christ.

5. There's no suggestion, so far as I know, that the marks on the stairs are actual traces of Jesus's blood. Rather, they are believed (by some) to mark the spots where Jesus climbed. This isn't inconsistent with them being actual bloodstains, but it also doesn't require it.

6. If it is the case that Jesus didn't enter the palace, that's not really signficant. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have ascended a staircase at the palace. This could have been an external staircase leading to a portico, loggia or similar structure visible to the public. This was a common feature of Roman public buildings.

Macdarack

If you were skeptical you wouldn't have written 'I'm a Christian'

kelly1

Macdarack wrote: »

If you were skeptical you wouldn't have written 'I'm a Christian'

Seriously? A person can't be Christian and sceptical? I'm both!

Peregrinus

kelly1 wrote: »

Seriously? A person can't be Christian and sceptical? I'm both!

Macdarack is sceptical that this is possible.

More seriously, one of the standard definitions of "sceptic' is "one who doubts the truth of the Christian religion; an unbeleiver in Christianity". With this definition, "sceptic" and "Christian" are pretty much opposing categories.

(There are, of course, other senses of sceptic/scepticism in which it's perfectly possible to be both Christian and sceptical.)

kelly1

Peregrinus wrote: »

Macdarack is sceptical that this is possible.

More seriously, one of the standard definitions of "sceptic' is "one who doubts the truth of the Christian religion; an unbeleiver in Christianity". With this definition, "sceptic" and "Christian" are pretty much opposing categories.

(There are, of course, other senses of sceptic/scepticism in which it's perfectly possible to be both Christian and sceptical.)

The bible advises skepticism too...

1 John 4:1 "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world."

martinedwards

Macdarack wrote: »

If you were skeptical you wouldn't have written 'I'm a Christian'

Nah, I'm skeptical about these steps and pretty much 99% of all "historical" items that claim to be the actual wood of the cross/crown of thorns, Mary's breast milk, St Peter's Belly button fluff (probably)

Effects

kelly1 wrote: »

I don't know and I don't care tbh, it's pretty much irrelevant to my faith.

What is? Reality?

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. From a historical point of of view, there's no evidence that these steps came from Pilate's Palace.

2. From a theological point of view, it's unimportant whether they did or not. The meaning and signficance of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ is not in any way dependent on whether any associated structures or artefacts survive or not.

3. From a devotional point of view, it may be valuable to have artefacts associated with the passion to assist the faithful in calling the matter to mind. But it makes no difference whether the association is that the artefact was actually employed in the historical events, or merely represents the historical events. Almost every Christian church of every denomonation displays a cross, for example. The signficance of this is not diminished by the fact that this is not the actual cross on which Jesus was crucified.

4. This is in fact vividly illustrated in the case of the Scala Sancta itself, where the staircase supposedly recovered from Jerusalem by Helena, which in theory could be the actual staircase from the governor's palace on which Jesus could have walked, is flanked by four sixteenth-century replicas, which certainly could not be. The significance of the five staircases is the same; each of them recalls this aspect of the passion of Christ.

5. There's no suggestion, so far as I know, that the marks on the stairs are actual traces of Jesus's blood. Rather, they are believed (by some) to mark the spots where Jesus climbed. This isn't inconsistent with them being actual bloodstains, but it also doesn't require it.

6. If it is the case that Jesus didn't enter the palace, that's not really signficant. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have ascended a staircase at the palace. This could have been an external staircase leading to a portico, loggia or similar structure visible to the public. This was a common feature of Roman public buildings.

So you're saying its unimportant whether such items are fake or not, so long as people are impressed by them.
I could say the same thing about my Gucci handbag.

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

1. From a historical point of of view, there's no evidence that these steps came from Pilate's Palace.

2. From a theological point of view, it's unimportant whether they did or not. The meaning and signficance of the passion, death and resurrection of Christ is not in any way dependent on whether any associated structures or artefacts survive or not.

3. From a devotional point of view, it may be valuable to have artefacts associated with the passion to assist the faithful in calling the matter to mind. But it makes no difference whether the association is that the artefact was actually employed in the historical events, or merely represents the historical events. Almost every Christian church of every denomonation displays a cross, for example. The signficance of this is not diminished by the fact that this is not the actual cross on which Jesus was crucified.

4. This is in fact vividly illustrated in the case of the Scala Sancta itself, where the staircase supposedly recovered from Jerusalem by Helena, which in theory could be the actual staircase from the governor's palace on which Jesus could have walked, is flanked by four sixteenth-century replicas, which certainly could not be. The significance of the five staircases is the same; each of them recalls this aspect of the passion of Christ.

5. There's no suggestion, so far as I know, that the marks on the stairs are actual traces of Jesus's blood. Rather, they are believed (by some) to mark the spots where Jesus climbed. This isn't inconsistent with them being actual bloodstains, but it also doesn't require it.

6. If it is the case that Jesus didn't enter the palace, that's not really signficant. It doesn't mean that he couldn't have ascended a staircase at the palace. This could have been an external staircase leading to a portico, loggia or similar structure visible to the public. This was a common feature of Roman public buildings.

So you're saying its unimportant whether such items are fake or not, so long as people are impressed by them.
I could say the same thing about my Gucci handbag.

He's saying that of something, fake or not, causes genuine contemplation then fine. It's the genuine contemplation that's of value, not the device which enables it's coming into being.

When is Israel, I was at a fake tomb ( the one by Jerusalems Busaras)
The tomb was a genuine New Testament era one, just not (or highly unlikely to be) the one which Jesus was buried in.

A genuine fake, ot nevertheless added substance and import to what had previously been mental imagery

The fake brought something of the reality to the surface for me to access. Had it been the genuine genuine tomb then perhaps more impacting. But impacting n'er the less

Peregrinus

recedite wrote: »

So you're saying its unimportant whether such items are fake or not, so long as people are impressed by them.
I could say the same thing about my Gucci handbag.

And you would be right. I struggle to think of a more trivial question than whether your Gucci handbag is, in fact, by Gucci, rec.

NIMAN

Problem is the vast majority of religious people are not skeptical enough.

They believe everything they are told.

Peregrinus

NIMAN wrote: »

Problem is the vast majority of religious people are not skeptical enough.

They believe everything they are told.

Clearly they don't; they disbelieve what sceptics tell them, for one thing.

Cabaal

Peregrinus wrote: »

Clearly they don't; they disbelieve what sceptics tell them, for one thing.

If I told you that 2,000 years ago a man existed that could fly would you believe me? No of course not.
If I could find you stories from 2,000 years ago that stated they saw him fly would you believe me? Again, no of course not. you'd think the very idea is silly.
You'd no more believe me then you believe any of the many, many stories from ancient Greek or any other religions that talk about giants, dragons or horses with wings.

Yet somehow, people who appear at first glance to be grounded, logical people believe a man once existed that could walk on water and could come back from the dead.

But if somebody came on here saying they believed a man could fly like superman they'd be laughed out of it.

When it comes down to it everyone’s an atheist in relation to thousands of Gods. Myself and others who actually identify as atheist just take atheism one God further.

antiskeptic

Cabaal wrote: »

If I told you that 2,000 years ago a man existed that could fly would you believe me? No of course not.
If I could find you stories from 2,000 years ago that stated they saw him fly would you believe me? Again, no of course not. you'd think the very idea is silly.
You'd no more believe me then you believe any of the many, many stories from ancient Greek or any other religions that talk about giants, dragons or horses with wings.

Yet somehow, people who appear at first glance to be grounded, logical people believe a man once existed that could walk on water and could come back from the dead.

But if somebody came on here saying they believed a man could fly like superman they'd be laughed out of it.

When it comes down to it everyone’s an atheist in relation to thousands of Gods. Myself and others who actually identify as atheist just take atheism one God further.

You're forgetting once important thing. If someone actually encounters the person who flew 2000 years ago, today, they would have something else to go on than your list.

At which point, the believer in empiricism (at which one must laugh, given there isn't any compelling evidence for the empiricism's claim) will ask

"where's the empirical evidence".

What they always forget to precursor the demand with, is compelling evidence (empirically preferably and obviously) for the need for empirical evidence.

smacl

antiskeptic wrote: »

What they always forget to precursor the demand with, is compelling evidence (empirically preferably and obviously) for the need for empirical evidence.

To prefix the word evidence with the word empirical implies implies there is such a thing as non-empirical evidence, distinct say from faith, opinion, speculation or subjective experience. Could you define what you mean by non-empirical evidence and perhaps provide an example.

Peregrinus

Antiskeptic is suggesting that it's skeptics who characteristically demand empirical evidence. Should your challenge perhaps be addressed to skeptics? Or do you want to refute antiskeptic's suggestion that the demand for empirical evidenc is a characteristically skeptic position? Or his suggestion that it's a self-refuting one?

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Antiskeptic is suggesting that it's skeptics who characteristically demand empirical evidence. Should your challenge perhaps be addressed to skeptics? Or do you want to refute antiskeptic's suggestion that the demand for empirical evidenc is a characteristically skeptic position? Or his suggestion that it's a self-refuting one?

I just wondering why qualify the word evidence with the word empirical? I would have thought evidence was by its nature empirical and that qualifying it thusly implied the existence of non-empirical evidence.

antiskeptic

smacl wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Antiskeptic is suggesting that it's skeptics who characteristically demand empirical evidence. Should your challenge perhaps be addressed to skeptics? Or do you want to refute antiskeptic's suggestion that the demand for empirical evidenc is a characteristically skeptic position? Or his suggestion that it's a self-refuting one?

I just wondering why qualify the word evidence with the word empirical? I would have thought evidence was by its nature empirical

Why would you have thought that?