More About the Holy Cross
It has been suggested to me that I offer a more specific set of answers to the question of St. Helena and her finding of the Holy Cross. My previous response was more general, and intended to look at broad questions of why we believe anything at all. But if we need to also look at specifics in this particular case, then here are a few things to think about:
> Such major symbols or objects
> from Christ's passion conveniently
> buried in one place?
From the sounds of it, the excavation of Jerusalem was anything but convenient. Also, the account did not specify whether all of these objects were found in exactly the same place, or were rather found in independent locations not far from each other.
If we read Church History, however, we should not be surprised by any of this. The account of St. Polycarp's martyrdom in the early 2nd century is quite explicit: even by that time, Christians were placing a high value on the relics of holy men and woman - a fortiori, would they not place a high value on the relics surrounding Our Lord Himself?
It is entirely possible that the cross, the crown, etc., were already in possession of the Jerusalem churches immediately following the Passion, and that they were lost as a result of the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If that were the case, it would make sense that they would be later discovered basically in the same location.
> I find it rather hard to believe
> that even the cross that Christ was
> crucified on was preserved somewhere,
> let alone all three crosses from
> that scene
I don't find that difficult to believe at all. Again, people of that time were a lot more of the mindset to preserve relics. Shoot, for that matter, we're very much prone to keep "relics" of our own, aren't we? Isn't that what scrapbooks and keepsakes are all about?
What I find nearly impossible to believe is that we today do things like keep our baby's first shoes, our dead grandmother's wedding dress, or a lock of our girlfriend's hair, but that the early Christians wouldn't bother to preserve relics from the Crucifixion.
These people already believed Jesus was God. If you were at the Crucifixion, do you really think you'd just walk away from that scene without taking not only His Sacred Body, but also the nails, the crown of thorns, the horizontal beam of the cross, etc.?
For goodness' sake, I know people who take handfuls of dirt from plots of land that they hold dear - maybe from the Gettysburg battlefield, or similar places. We preserve dirt, but the early Christian's didn't preserve relics from Golgotha hill? That's a difficult proposition to accept.
> And then add into the mix the
> finger of Thomas (which we don't
> really read was ever placed into
> Jesus' hands or side)??
It's certainly implied in the account.
> Like the Romans would have set
> aside the one or two (or however many)
> whips used, for the special collection
> and preservation of Christians centuries later.
No, the Christians would have taken these things of their own accord, just like they made sure to collect St. Polycarp's bones from the funeral pyre, even though the authorities were hesitant to let them do that.
> My thought is that the cross
> would have been disposed of, just
> like the other ones, after it was done
> with, if not reused.
Under normal circumstances, probably. But these were not normal circumstances. Under normal circumstances, Our Lord's body would have been left to hang as bird food, or He would have been given a common burial in a community grave - dead criminals who were Crucified were considered accursed by the Jews, and not worthy of a proper burial.
Not so in this case - the Christians, who knew better, who knew who this God-Man was, made sure to give His Body a proper burial in a brand new tomb. Already this is not a normal set of circumstances. Again, I find it a lot harder to believe that they would have left His cross and crown and nails and the rest to simply be burned or used again. Not Jews (keep-sake fiends already - who else would preserve a jar of stale manna, or the bones of their patriarchs?), and especially not Jews who believed that Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah, the Son of God, the Incarnation of the Almighty Himself.
Again - put yourself in that situation. Would you let these precious relics be lost, or would you be sure to preserve whatever you could?
Something to think about.
> Such major symbols or objects
> from Christ's passion conveniently
> buried in one place?
From the sounds of it, the excavation of Jerusalem was anything but convenient. Also, the account did not specify whether all of these objects were found in exactly the same place, or were rather found in independent locations not far from each other.
If we read Church History, however, we should not be surprised by any of this. The account of St. Polycarp's martyrdom in the early 2nd century is quite explicit: even by that time, Christians were placing a high value on the relics of holy men and woman - a fortiori, would they not place a high value on the relics surrounding Our Lord Himself?
It is entirely possible that the cross, the crown, etc., were already in possession of the Jerusalem churches immediately following the Passion, and that they were lost as a result of the Roman sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. If that were the case, it would make sense that they would be later discovered basically in the same location.
> I find it rather hard to believe
> that even the cross that Christ was
> crucified on was preserved somewhere,
> let alone all three crosses from
> that scene
I don't find that difficult to believe at all. Again, people of that time were a lot more of the mindset to preserve relics. Shoot, for that matter, we're very much prone to keep "relics" of our own, aren't we? Isn't that what scrapbooks and keepsakes are all about?
What I find nearly impossible to believe is that we today do things like keep our baby's first shoes, our dead grandmother's wedding dress, or a lock of our girlfriend's hair, but that the early Christians wouldn't bother to preserve relics from the Crucifixion.
These people already believed Jesus was God. If you were at the Crucifixion, do you really think you'd just walk away from that scene without taking not only His Sacred Body, but also the nails, the crown of thorns, the horizontal beam of the cross, etc.?
For goodness' sake, I know people who take handfuls of dirt from plots of land that they hold dear - maybe from the Gettysburg battlefield, or similar places. We preserve dirt, but the early Christian's didn't preserve relics from Golgotha hill? That's a difficult proposition to accept.
> And then add into the mix the
> finger of Thomas (which we don't
> really read was ever placed into
> Jesus' hands or side)??
It's certainly implied in the account.
> Like the Romans would have set
> aside the one or two (or however many)
> whips used, for the special collection
> and preservation of Christians centuries later.
No, the Christians would have taken these things of their own accord, just like they made sure to collect St. Polycarp's bones from the funeral pyre, even though the authorities were hesitant to let them do that.
> My thought is that the cross
> would have been disposed of, just
> like the other ones, after it was done
> with, if not reused.
Under normal circumstances, probably. But these were not normal circumstances. Under normal circumstances, Our Lord's body would have been left to hang as bird food, or He would have been given a common burial in a community grave - dead criminals who were Crucified were considered accursed by the Jews, and not worthy of a proper burial.
Not so in this case - the Christians, who knew better, who knew who this God-Man was, made sure to give His Body a proper burial in a brand new tomb. Already this is not a normal set of circumstances. Again, I find it a lot harder to believe that they would have left His cross and crown and nails and the rest to simply be burned or used again. Not Jews (keep-sake fiends already - who else would preserve a jar of stale manna, or the bones of their patriarchs?), and especially not Jews who believed that Jesus was their long-awaited Messiah, the Son of God, the Incarnation of the Almighty Himself.
Again - put yourself in that situation. Would you let these precious relics be lost, or would you be sure to preserve whatever you could?
Something to think about.
<< Home