Talk:Holy Sponge

Template
Hey! Somebody put an NPOV dispute boilerplate message at the top of this page, but -it seems- didn't care to put any explanation of hier/her concerns here on this talk page. So, please come forward and explain. ;-) IMHO, it is hard to avoid a slight sound of sarcasm when talkin about allegedly genuine Christian relics, but if you feel offended by this, it should be possible to rephrase without much change. Just do so. Otherwise, I shall remove the boilerplate message, if no objections come up here. Simon A. 11:25, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

3 months later, and still no arguments for the NPOV marking. So, I'll remove it now. Simon A. 10:39, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)


 * Wow, 13 years of Catholic school and never heard of this! Well, it wasn't me who added the NPOV marking, but I'll tell you, describing anything that is a matter of religious faith as "legendary", especially in the first few words of the article, is bound to be offensive to some. I think this characterization should be removed altogether; I could perhaps soften it, but it's hard for me to think of a completely objective (non-POV) re-phrasing. OTOH, I think it's possible for someone to be a devout believer and yet have serious reservations (or disbelieve altogether) that such "relics" are genuine, that is, that they are really what some people claim them to be. Even the Catholic Encyclopedia article on relics admits that some are "spurious" or "doubtful" or products of "deception". BillFlis 20:30, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Terribly formatted, terribly cited, terribly NPOV
Header says it all, really. The thing that sticks out to me most is, how exactly are the mentions of fragments of the "actual" Holy Sponge being held in various Catholic basilicas a neutral point of view, or even possible to cite references for? I'm not an editor so I don't feel I have the tools to fix this, but can someone who is not a Christian and does not have an agenda to push do something about this? These are clearly false claims being made on an encyclopedic article. Facts are a necessity here, and I'm pretty sure it's the exact opposite of a fact that the "actual" Holy Sponge is still extant, as this article asserts. 71.84.100.193 (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Be bold! Anyone can edit. Even mainstream christians can edit a page on fringe speculation without pushing their private point of view. We can all work to improve content. I have just edited the page, culling a lot of debris and calling for reliable sources. I'm not disputing that there was a sponge at the crucifixion. I am removing WP:UNDUE support that every sponge found, bought and sold is that Sponge. If a sponge is brown, that's fine. If it's "brown with blood" or "brown with the blood of the messiah" that'll need a reliable source. 49.195.120.86 (talk) 07:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

"It was dipped in vinegar (or in some translations sour wine), most likely posca, a favorite beverage of Roman soldiers,"


 * It was dipped in "oxos" (Greek for vinegar). To go from there to posca is a leap of faith. An important question is whether the stick and sponge are supposed to remind us of their equivalent of toilet paper, a final insult to Jesus. Here opinions are divided between whether they used vinegar or water in the sponges. It is interesting that there seems to be no evidence, and those who believe in vinegar are possibly already taking the gospels as evidence. It seems very odd that the above para refers to brown sponges. Fuficius Fango (talk) 07:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Holy Sponge also in Keyenberg, Germany in 11th century
In Germany at Keyenberg there is a scripture in the church "Holy Cross" telling that a part of the Holy Sponge is deposed in the altar. The scripture was created in the 11th century by archbishop Hermann II of Cologne. In 2019 the church was sold to a mine company (RWE) to be distroyed für coal mining. This church got also stained glasses with jewish symbols. These glasses were the only ones in Germany during the Nazi period showing jewish symbols. These glasses will be eliminated out off the public while a war memorial also reminding a SS-Rottenfüher will be replaced in the new Keyenberg.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:6:336F:FC25:EDBB:96B0:6230:27AC (talk) 17:25, 3 January 2021 (UTC)