New Evidence: Shroud of Turin Older Than Thought

[Whaleboy]

To quote...

Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulchre, and seeth the linen clothes lie,

(John 20:6)

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.

(John 20:7)

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
To quote...


(John 20:6)


(John 20:7)

They sold the napkin on ebay already.

[Whaleboy]

Damn! Just ran out of kleenex

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Mr. Nice Guy


But the real question is, are there any records in history of anyone suffering a death that was more horrifying than the death of Christ, especially execution records?

Most of the victims of Vlad the Impaler come to mind .

[aneeshm]

I think I have come up with a quote good enogh to be put in an atheist's sig .

"Hell , modern society has ensured that now there are many practitioners of BDSM who can now claim that they have had it worse than Jesus ."

Completely original , I assure you .

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom



I agree. But that wasn't the point. The point was, does the efficacy or test of algebra rest on proving that its supposed sole originator existed?


Trying to base an article of religious faith on the supposed existence of one person (especially given the lack of anything approaching real evidence, rather than propaganda, hearsay and so forth) seems to me a recipe for disaster. Extending this level of credulity to a piece of cloth which appeared in 14th Century France with a very dubious provenance seems to me to be inviting not dispelling scepticism.


Now we understand why the Catholic Church might have been so reluctant to have a holy relic tested.

Christianity does not lay on proving that Christ did exist.
But of course, if Christ did not exist, Christianity has a problem, just as evolution theory would have if monkeys, neanderthales, or dinos did not exist.
You can't prove existance of Moses even more than of Jesus. Do You doubt his existance?

Why is church reluctant to scientifical judgement of its worshipped stuff? No-one likes to admit a mistake, especially since people like You will treat it as a mistake of religion instead of mistake of people of that religion.

The cloth is likely the Mandillion.
And if I recall correctly Mandillion is not quite shroud of Christ, but image of Christ made during his way on Golgota. That would explain the point of Whaleboy. Of course, it would cause another questions, and I'm sure there are other possibilities.
First of all, John can be mistaken. Or the translation is wrong... Or our interpretation.

[Whaleboy]

"Hell , modern society has ensured that now there are many practitioners of BDSM who can now claim that they have had it worse than Jesus ."

I'll take it!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Heresson
Seriously... in ME it was believed the holiness is kind of radiation, that emanates from a body of the holy person also after his death and from the things that this person used....

If Jesus was covered with paint and the shroud was put on Him, perhaps You'd have been right. But if it was a miracle, the things You say are irrelevant.

I was not assuming paint, but I hope you realize that such a "holiness" radiating from his body would STILL not produce the image on the cloth.

The image on the cloth was clearly made when the cloth was laid flat. Otherwise, there would have to be all sorts of distortions where the cloth was wrinkled and bunched up and wrapped around the body. Also, the "holiness" would also, presumably, leave an image of the body's ventral angle (his sides). But all we have is a straight-on image of the front and straight-on of the back. This makes no sense for a cloth wrapped around a body.

If you're going to just wave it away as a "miracle" that an image that wasn't representative of the cloth being wrapped around someone, then it's a pointless argument, because you can justify anything by just throwing out the "miracle" word. Since there's no evidence of any miraculous creation here, and many indications of a man-made image, you'll understand me for dismissing claims of the miraculous as being speculative piffle.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
A relic of my X-ian past is that I'm fascinated by early X-ian history and writings.

It may or may not be somewhat telling that my fascination with the same period has grown since I drifted out of faith, so to speak.

[Heresson]

Blood... I've heard it was sth different, but I'm perfectly aware I may be right in this matter.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Heresson


Religion is not algebra.

aleph = 1
bet = 2
Gimmel = 3
etc.

This makes it possible to establish equations between different words in the Hebrew scriptures, which can be used to support one interpretation or another.

This is called gematria.

http://www.inner.org/gematria/gematria.htm


"In Hebrew, each letter possesses a numerical value. Gematria is the calculation of the numerical equivalence of letters, words, or phrases, and, on that basis, gaining, insight into interrelation of different concepts and exploring the interrelationship between words and ideas.

Here is a basic introduction to Gematria that discusses different systems for identifying the numerical equivalence of individual letters, how these letters can be calculated according to the implicit word-value of their names.

The assumption behind this technique is that numerical equivalence is not coincidental. Since the world was created through God's "speech," each letter represents a different creative force. Thus, the numerical equivalence of two words reveals an internal connection between the creative potentials of each one. (see Tanya, Sha'ar HaYichud VeHaEmunah, chapters 1 and 12.) "

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Heresson

You can't prove existance of Moses even more than of Jesus. Do You doubt his existance?

Why is church reluctant to scientifical judgement of its worshipped stuff? No-one likes to admit a mistake, especially since people like You will treat it as a mistake of religion instead of mistake of people of that religion.

Uhhhh.... well it is a fault of religion if the religion in question (Roman Catholicism) places so much store on the supposed validity of a piece of cloth.

Rereading bible accounts, it seems that the Jesus's spittle, robe and shadow have supernatural qualities.

And yet the Catholic church is strangely reluctant to let a bit of this 'magically' endowed cloth be tested.
Oooh, I wonder why?

Erect a religion based on the supposed real existence and suffering of someone and then compound that error by treating body parts and bits of cloth like some grisly equivalent of Pokemon cards and is it any wonder that whatever teachings or message the religion espoused or espouses gets lost in the rush to make money or induce credulity?

I happen to think that parts of the New Testament offered a radical way of viewing the world, and what humanity could achieve- but having said that, it was in no way hugely different from earlier Greek philosophies, or Asiatic belief systems. The difference comes in saying that they had a monopoly on truth, and later on that every word of the Old and New Testaments is literally true, the revealed word of god, and that all these events happened, and that they are somehow a substitute for rational thought and science.

Now you offer rejoinders such as:

'prove the Shroud of Turin isn't responsible for preventing things that didn't happen' .


As for doubting the existence of the biblical Moses- yes, I do.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by molly bloom
I happen to think that parts of the New Testament offered a radical way of viewing the world, and what humanity could achieve- but having said that, it was in no way hugely different from earlier Greek philosophies, or Asiatic belief systems. The difference comes in saying that they had a monopoly on truth, and later on that every word of the Old and New Testaments is literally true, the revealed word of god, and that all these events happened, and that they are somehow a substitute for rational thought and science.

To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that. Fundamentalism (the belief in the absolute truth of the scriptures) is an evangelical thing.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by Spiffor

To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that. Fundamentalism (the belief in the absolute truth of the scriptures) is an evangelical thing.

Which is why I said 'later on'- I hoped that the ellipsis
(Catholic-Protestant Schism) would be understood.

Sorry for the confusing shorthand, but time is pressing.
And of course I should also say that Luther played a bit fast and loose with his translation of the Bible, and that many Christian beliefs aren't based on biblical evidence either.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Spiffor

To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that. Fundamentalism (the belief in the absolute truth of the scriptures) is an evangelical thing.

At least nowadays (and even among evangelicals the fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of the bible seem to be a minority)
some centuries ago also the catholic church probably consisted of more Biblethumpers than it does today.