New Evidence: Shroud of Turin Older Than Thought

[Spiffor]

Are you sure about that?

I have always considered the creed of the Catholic Church to be trustful of the priesthood's interpretation of the Bible, and thus I have always believed the Catholics to be quick to dismiss whatever displeases them in the Bible.

[Proteus_MST]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Are you sure about that?

I have always considered the creed of the Catholic Church to be trustful of the priesthood's interpretation of the Bible, and thus I have always believed the Catholics to be quick to dismiss whatever displeases them in the Bible.

Not absolutely sure, as I am no Catholic.
(raised in an evangelical household [not fundamentalistic, which is normal, as in germany the biblethumpers among the evangelicals are very rare])

But considering that also the catholic church had its Problems with things like the heliocentric theory and the Theory of Evolution,
I assume, that even they during most time of their history did take most parts of the bible for literal.

The Priests were the ones who interpreted the bible, as you already said, (a power they were very reluctant to give away, which is why Luther was the first to translate the bible from latin to german ) but AFAIK they did it in a rather conservative way,
sometimes inventing things, like the letters of indulgence,
but always trying to find logic ways to fit it to the bible.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by molly bloom
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.

First of all, Catholicism is not a religion...
Secondly, I don't think it does. I think the shroud of Turin isn't even officially approved, though practically it is. I don't think Catholicism puts much pressure on it.
I've never heard any catholic priest or bishop mentioning it, even.
And if it can't be proven that the shroud is fake,
and it's part of the tradition of the church, why should the church get rid of it?

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

Not them, but the power of Jesus that emanated from them

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

The cloth was tested, wasn't it...
But it's not a laboratory rabbit to be tested all of the time - if it is true, it is too valuable for that.

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,

You're wrong here. Christianity never claimed it had monopoly on truth.
Moreover, it accepted the fact that some of the earlier teachings covered part of Jesus',
and treated it as a preparation of mission of Christ.
Still, to claim that Christianity was not a novelty in any way is somewhat biased.

Through entire history, Christian scholars made use of ancient philosophy.
When it comes to literal understanding of the Bible,
it's one of the ways of understanding it that were present, but not the only one. Another one was alegoric one.

Now you offer rejoinders such as:

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

Who's said that because the shroud or any other relique is present, catholics are immune to the dangers of this world?

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

Why?

Also, what's your opinion of the start of Christianity, if Jesus never existed? Who made Him up?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
First of all, Catholicism is not a religion...

[Docfeelgood]

I would not put so much faith into a cloth that could be a fake.

[Heresson]

Originally posted by Spiffor

It is a denomination. Criticisement of something unique to part of Christianity does not apply to Christianity in general.

Originally posted by Docfeelgood
I would not put so much faith into a cloth that could be a fake.

According to Molly, Jesus is fake as well...