Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shroud of Turin Discussion

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Shroud of Turin Discussion

    Discuss. What do you think about the Shroud of Turin? Is it really the ancient burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth?
    I will provide for you in the following posts with all the evidence that I have to support it's authenticity as the burial cloth of Jesus Christ. And I have to do a persuasive speech presentation for my class at school anyways soon , so I (literally) dare you all to try and refute me on this one. Alright, people, buckle up....here we go.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    From CNN News: Shroud of Turin Enigma Solved: In 1988, scientists tested faith. Specifically, they conducted three tests on the Shroud of Turin, believed by the faithful to be the burial cloth of the crucified Jesus of Nazareth, to determine its age.
    The Carbon-14 tests, performed independently at three different radiocarbon labs, dated the cloth between 1260 and 1390 AD. The conclusion: The Shroud couldn't be Jesus' burial cloth. In fact, the British Museum, which coordinated the testing, branded it "a hoax."
    Or were those three tests wrong?
    Scientists with The American Shroud of Turin Association for Research have now shown that the 1988 Carbon-14 tests on the Shroud of Turin were not performed on the original burial cloth, but rather on a rewoven shroud patch. That means the tests created an erroneous date for the actual age of the Shroud.
    What is the Shroud of Turin? It is a large piece of linen cloth that shows the faint full-body image of a blood-covered man on its surface. Many believe it was the burial cloth in which Jesus was wrapped after he was crucified.
    "Now conclusive evidence, gathered over the past two years, proves that the sample used to date the Shroud was actually taken from an expertly-done rewoven patch," AMSTAR President, Tom D'Muhala, said in a news release announcing the findings. "Chemical testing indicates that the linen Shroud is actually very old--much older than the published 1988 radiocarbon date."
    Chemist Raymond Rogers, a fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico who conducted the latest testing, said, "As unlikely as it seems, the sample used to test the age of the Shroud of Turin in 1988 was taken from a rewoven area of the Shroud. Pyrolysis-mass-spectrometry results from the sample area coupled with microscopic and microchemical observations prove that the radiocarbon sample was not part of the original cloth of the Shroud of Turin which is currently housed at The Turin Cathedral in Italy. The radiocarbon sample has completely different chemical properties than the main part of the shroud relic," explains Rogers. "The sample tested was dyed using technology that began to appear in Italy about the time the Crusaders' last bastion fell to the Mameluke Turks in AD 1291. The radiocarbon sample cannot be older than about AD 1290, agreeing with the age determined in 1988. However, the Shroud itself is actually much older."
    Rogers insists the radiocarbon sample was cut from a medieval patch and is totally different in composition from the main part of the Shroud of Turin. Based on his findings, which have been published in Thermochimica Acta, a chemistry peer reviewed scientific journal, the American Shroud of Turin Association for Research declares that the 1988 tests have been refuted.
    The age of the Shroud of Turin is still to be determined.


    From The Shroud of Turin: Proof of the Resurrection: The latest and most dramatic discoveries concern a piece of writing on the Shroud itself. For years, people had been asking why below and to the sides of the chin there are three clear and regular lines where no imprint is present. The Paris-based organisation CIERT (Centre International d’Etudes sur le Linceul de Turin, The international centre of studies on the Shroud of Turin), which I represent in Italy, has conducted studies in the most advanced institute in Europe for image analysis via computer, the Institut Optique d’Orsay, whose director is Professor André Marion. All official photographs of the Shroud were divided into tens of thousands of squares which were then given a corresponding optical density and transferred onto a visualisation programme. By means of an extremely advanced programme, some letters gradually began to emerge, in Latin and in Greek: under the chin, we find written ‘Jesus’ and on one side, ‘Nazarene’. What is the explanation for this? The ‘exactor mortis’ the centurion charged with ensuring the execution of the condemned, had drawn strips of ‘glue’ onto the cloth on which he would write the name of the deceased with a red liquid. Where these strips were drawn, the cloth was impermeable and would not, therefore, be subject to the chemical process which subsequently formed the imprint.

    From Web Site: New Evidence That The Shroud Is Real (National Enquirer 20/11/79): The image of a coin placed over the right eye on the figure on the burial cloth actually shows the coin was minted near the time of Christ's death, according to Rev. Francis L. Filas, S.M., a top expert on the Shroud. With the assistance of coin expert Michael Marx, Father Filas has identified the image of a coin imprinted on the shroud as a coin minted only between A.D. 29 and 36. Christ died in A.D. 30. Placing coins on the eyes of the dead was an ancient burial custom in Christ's time, according to Father Filas, professor of theology at Loyola University of Chicago. Using high quality, high contrast photos of the shroud, Father Filas and Michael Marx deciphered that the coin clearly features a tiny staff, called a "lituus," bordered by four Greek letters. That staff and the Greek letters were found only, on coins minted during Pontius Pilate's governorship of Judea, from A.D. 29 until A.D: 36.
    Last edited by puddlejumper747; 30 January 2005, 06:12 PM.
    There is only one thing we can ever truly control: whether we are good, or evil.


    #2
    From World Net Daily: At the heart of the Shroud controversy is the validity of the carbon dating performed on three samples snipped from the Shroud in April 1988. The samples were taken from the front foot area of the14-foot-long linen, on which the faint image is laid out in a head to head, dorsal and frontal view. Three international laboratories were selected to run the newly refined accelerated mass spectrometry (AMS) method of carbon dating: Oxford University's Research Laboratory for Archeology and the History of Art, the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and the University of Arizona at Tucson. On Oct. 13,1988, the long-awaited press conference revealed that all three labs concurred: The Shroud was dated 1260-1390 AD.

    Many in the academic and scientific community were stunned. Earlier scientific examinations, medical and historical studies had placed the Shroud in the first century. Some called into question the integrity of the samples -- had they been cut from an area charred during a fire in 1532, thus compromising the carbon testing? A fascinating finding comes from Dr. Leoncio A. Garza-Valdes of the University of Texas. Garza-Valdes notes that a biopolymer coating manufactured by bacteria and fungus is notoriously difficult to clean. This calcium carbonate varnish-like substance compromises any accurate dating of the linen fibers that are coated with the material. Garza-Valdes claims the coating continues to be produced on the surface of the Shroud. Some scientists have objected to his findings, although the inventor of AMS, Dr. Harry Gove, concurs.

    Famous and often hilarious examples are cited that credibly argue that carbon dating may be among the least accurate methodologies for assessing the age of the Shroud. An example comes from the Swiss lab that participated in the carbon-14 dating on the Shroud. Dr. Wolfli, head of the lab, ran a C-14 test on his mother-in-law's 50-year-old tablecloth. The results of the C-14 test set the age of the textile at 350 years old! Dr. Wolfli theorizes that soaps were the compromising factor. The University of Arizona lab has had its own C-14 gaffs. It dated a Viking horn as a "back to the future" anomaly: 2006 AD.

    Dating debates aside, some that would debunk the Shroud as a medieval fraud claim that it is a painted image -- a claim that is quickly dispatched by simple investigations. The mystery of how the Shroud image was created lies elsewhere. The reddish oxide found on the Shroud is not paint, according to x-ray fluorescent analysis. Famous artists have attempted to paint in a manner that re-creates the 3-D effect seen on the Shroud, all to no avail. The linen has no brush strokes, no pigments.

    Furthermore, forensic evidence confirms that the red stains are blood, type AB, and that this blood has elevated levels of bilirubin, presumably caused by the trauma of scourging. Drs. John Heller of the New England Institute and Alan Adler of Western Connecticut State ran a series of blood studies. Pathologists employing immunochemistry confirmed their work. Another historical cloth, the Sudarium of Oviedo, known from the first century as being the face cloth of the entombed Christ also contains bloodstains -- type AB.

    Modern medical investigations yield a vast amount of physiological information that was unknown in the Middle Ages. The medical studies on the image of the "Man of the Shroud" reveal a bloody and brutal death. Careful review of the angles of the flow of blood from certain wounds indicates an impossible accuracy for a painted, flat image. Clearly, the image is derived from a real body. Enhanced magnifications of the wounds on the back uncover dumb-bell shaped pellet marks, consistent with the scourging whips used by Roman soldiers, wounds that fall in precise relationship to the contours of the body, over the shoulders and around the sides.

    Most startling for a layman is the anatomical accuracy of the "disappearing thumbs." On the Shroud image, the victim lies with his hands crossed over the lower abdomen. The natural position would expose at least one thumb. However, when a spike is driven through median nerve of the wrist the thumb jerks back into the palm. French surgeon Pierre Barbet, an early researcher, asks, "Could a forger have imagined this?"


    Selections from Web Site: An amazingly detailed picture of a bearded man who had been beaten about the body, crowned with thorns & pierced with nails through the wrists & the feet," is how Newsweek magazine described the Shroud of Turin. For centuries, this unique burial cloth has generated intense controversy. Many scholars, historians, scientists and theologians have been convinced that it is the cloth in which Jesus Christ was wrapped after his crucifixion, and that by some unknown process his image was transferred onto it. In 1889, something extraordinary happened. Technical progress had made it possible for the first photograph of the the Shroud to be taken. As the photographer, Secundo Pia, examined his first glass-plate negative, he almost dropped it in shocked excitement. What he saw was not an unrealistic and confusing photographic negative, but a clear positive image. Highlights and shadows were reversed from those on the cloth, & were far more lifelike & realistic, & the positive image of a man's face was clearly visible. Pia's sensational photograph showed that the actual image on the Shroud was a negative image!

    How could a negative image be produced on a piece of cloth centuries before the invention of photography? Scores of specialists from all over the world began to earnestly study the mysterious Shroud. Attempts made by skilled painters showed that no artist was able, even when using a model, to convert a human face by the process of the mind into a negative image, & paint it. Leo Vala, a noted photographic expert who pioneered the development of 3-D-photography, recently told Amateur Photographic magazine, "I can tell you that no one could have faked that image. No one could do it today, even with all the technology we have." The educational magazine, National Geographic, reports that the face on the Shroud, hauntingly serene in death, would grace a masterpiece of art. The body, anatomically correct, bears the frightful marks of scourging, crucifixion, & piercing--perhaps by thorns & lance. It would appear to be a portrait, uncannily accurate when matched against the Gospel accounts, of Jesus of Nazareth. Indeed, many believe that this stretch of ivory-coloured linen is the very cloth that Joseph of Arimathea placed under and over the body of Jesus in the rock-cut tomb of Golgotha nearly 2.000 years ago. (See Mark 15:46).

    One of the World's top investigative dentists, Dr. Max Frei of the University of Zurich, a specialist in tracing where a fabric has been, through microscopic pollen analysis, declares: "My tests have convinced me that this Shroud is in fact the cloth in which Christ's body was wrapped. I have isolated from the Shroud more than a dozen pollen grains from plants that grow only around Jerusalem & its deserts." The STURP scientists concluded that the image on the Shroud could not be the work of a painter or artist, for it is too thin, & lies only on the very topmost surface of the threads, nor has it soaked into or left any deposits between the threads as would happen had it been painted. The scientists also agreed that the dark stains that permeated the image were human blood. But the question that haunts them & that has eluded their grasp is, what then could have created this mysterious image?

    The general consensus is that the molecular composition of the image is similar to faint scorch of some kind, yet the scientists cannot determine by what means such a delicate image could have been made. It is now being suggested that an unknown energy force was applied to the lifeless body wrapped within the Shroud, & that a burst of extremely high intensity heat or light for an extremely short duration--probably milliseconds--somehow caused the Shroud to become a primitive polaroid film. Robert Dinager of the Los Alamos scientific laboratory in New Mexico stated, "It seems as if the image possibly came from some short-term pulse of energy. You could say it was instantaneous. It would have had to be a pretty good amount of energy, but not too much or it would have destroyed the cloth." For those who believe the Bible, the answer to this riddle is apparent: At the climactic moment that Jesus dead body was quickened to life, this "photograph" was left behind on His burial cloth as a silent witness of the greatest miracle that ever took place: The resurrection of Christ!

    A list of definitive results from research carried out this century: The image is not a painting, and it was left by the corpse of a man who was beaten and crucified. Computer processing has shown that the image has three-dimensional properties, something which neither paintings nor standard photographs possess. Pollens have been found on the cloth, strongly supporting the view that the Shroud spent time not only in Europe but also in the Near East. Tests on traces of blood from the Shroud have revealed the presence of human blood from blood group AB. In 1988, carbon-14 dating was carried out on a fragment of the Shroud. The results date the fabric to between 1260 and 1390 AD. The scientific community itself now questions these results, and more recent experimental studies have reopened the debate.
    Last edited by puddlejumper747; 30 January 2005, 06:02 PM.
    There is only one thing we can ever truly control: whether we are good, or evil.

    Comment


      #3
      i disbelieve...

      no major reasons...but i do not believe in the Christ as portrayed in the Bible...

      I believe there may have been a mytho-historic figure and he may have been a great philosopher, but given that the Bible is a conglomeration of independant books put together by a cabal of men loooking to consolidate the power of a new 'religion' with miracles and an unquestionable holy mandate, I find if difficult to believe that there is a mystical/magical/divine property about this cloth that would allow it to survive these thousands of years...

      Now before i get flamed...i'd also like to point out that the new testament teachings of Christ the philosopher are great - peace, love, honesty and kindness are idea that should be subscribed to anyway...religious leanings aside...

      on only a vaguely related note....there's an amuing series of books out called 'The Christ Clone Trilogy' that starts off with the discovery of living DNA on the Shroud... you can guess where it goes from there based on the title of the series...

      check it out...
      Thanks!
      Jordan

      my page
      My LJ
      From now on, our name will be 'Tenac'.

      Comment


        #4
        Hello Puddlejumper. So my post was eaten by the GW dog.

        I have watched several TV specials about the Shroud of Turin over the years and read a little bit in the paper. At first I was very skeptical. In fact, I'd counted it no more than that grilled cheese sandwich that showed up on e-bay recently. But as research continued, my opinion began to shift a bit. As a Christian, I would love to believe that it was real and I now think that it is possible. I believe so many things are possible that are beyond proof and evidence. But I think this is something that will continue to be proven and disproven over and over again.

        My question to you is: After researching all this information, what is your belief, not your debate argument, but your actual opinion? Do you think it is or could possibly be the shroud of Turin?
        sigpic
        ~ ~ ~mala\suekay sig ~ ~ ~ *Thanks to Mala50 for any caps I post & for her "crankies"*

        Comment


          #5
          I saw A thing on this on the history Channel, they hypothosised that it wa sactully daVinci who used a type of photo chemical and that it is actully his face.
          So often times it happens that we live our lives in chains,
          And we never even know we have the key.
          Already Gone---------
          The Eagles-----------

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by yaaayoubetcha
            i disbelieve...

            no major reasons...but i do not believe in the Christ as portrayed in the Bible...

            I believe there may have been a mytho-historic figure and he may have been a great philosopher, but given that the Bible is a conglomeration of independant books put together by a cabal of men loooking to consolidate the power of a new 'religion' with miracles and an unquestionable holy mandate, I find if difficult to believe that there is a mystical/magical/divine property about this cloth that would allow it to survive these thousands of years...

            Now before i get flamed...i'd also like to point out that the new testament teachings of Christ the philosopher are great - peace, love, honesty and kindness are idea that should be subscribed to anyway...religious leanings aside...
            What you said, and said so eloquently.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by blueiris
              My question to you is: After researching all this information, what is your belief, not your debate argument, but your actual opinion? Do you think it is or could possibly be the Shroud of Turin?
              Yes, I do. But I think it's more then just possible....I think it's almost undeniably true. And in all seriousness, I really don't understand how anyone could beg to differ....maybe you're not a Christian, and therefore you don't believe that Jesus was God, but still....all of the evidence that I have ever seen on the Shroud only serves to point to it's authenticity as the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, I would still like to hear someone present me with any piece of valid scientific evidence that would suggest otherwise. Because as far as I can tell, the single biggest (and most controversial) piece of evidence everyone had against it just disappeared. The carbon dating tests were right, but that's only because they were unknowingly dating an expertly rewoven patch in the Shroud from the middle ages. And for believing Christians, I think the Shroud holds even more fascinating pieces of evidence supporting the validity of the biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. All the pieces just fit together so perfectly....I think it's very cool. And here's another interesting article I pulled up for you:

              From Reflections on the Shroud:What is it about the Shroud that has people on their seat's edge waiting for evidence of its authenticity? Isn't it because Jesus Christ has been and always will be the single most controverted figure in history? Isn't it because so many have come to Christ through the Shroud? Anyone else's burial cloth would simply not matter as much.

              From the historical perspective, the earliest documentation of the Shroud in the West is from a 13th century letter. More copious sets of documents appear in 14th century France, which begin to trace its whereabouts year by year. This, in itself, was sufficient for some to consider the Shroud an artifact of the period. However, recent investigations show a link between the Shroud and the cloth of Edessa, a linen which had been in the keeping of the Eastern Church until the 13th century. The cloth of Edessa had its roots in Apostolic times, when the apostle Thaddeus was said to have brought it to the city of Edessa, which is in present-day Turkey. Already by the 3rd century, the existence of a cloth bearing the full image of Christ, "not made by human hands," is documented in the East, and is described in the 8th century by St. John Damascene as being a very large burial cloth. Although the cloth was brought to Edessa in the 1st century, it disappeared from documentation for some time, only to be rediscovered in Edessa in the early 6th century, concealed behind some stones above one of the city gates. In the 10th century it was transferred to Constantinople. It is there that references to a "Holy Mandylion" appear, which is described as being a faint but bloodstained image of the face of Christ. It is at this time that different representations of the "Holy Mandylion" begin to surface in the east. The Greek word mandylion means "little cloth."

              But how could this "little cloth" be the same as the cloth of Edessa? Historians now argue that this title was used because it was found in a relatively small oblong frame revealing only the part of the cloth that contained the Holy Face in a central circular opening. The way a Byzantine writer would have seen it, it was a small cloth. But another Greek word, tetradiplon, has been found in texts describing the Edessa cloth and means something double-over-in-four. This tetradiplon fold was applied to a life-sized copy of the Shroud to see what would result. Astonishingly, it reduced the Shroud to the same oblong shape of the Mandylion with the face resulting exactly in the center. More importantly, John Jackson, who was one of several physicists that physically examined the Shroud in 1978, used special raking light photography to reveal ancient fold marks on the Shroud. He found persistent creases exactly where expected and in the correct folding direction for just such a tetradiplon folding, once more linking the Shroud to the Mandylion.

              The Shroud appeared in the West after the barbarian sack of Constantinople. About a year after this unhappy event, Theodore Ducas Angelos wrote in a letter to Pope Innocent III: "The Venetians partitioned the treasure of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice and France and in other places."

              This explains why the Shroud's history in the West begins to be documented only in the 13th century, soon after the disappearance of the Mandylion in the East. Coincidence? I think not. It is a more than reasonable assumption that the Shroud of Turin is the same as the Edessa cloth or Mandylion.
              There is only one thing we can ever truly control: whether we are good, or evil.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by puddlejumper747
                Yes, I do. But I think it's more then just possible....I think it's almost undeniably true. And in all seriousness, I really don't understand how anyone could beg to differ....maybe you're not a Christian, and therefore you don't believe that Jesus was God, but still....all of the evidence that I have ever seen on the Shroud only serves to point to it's authenticity as the actual burial cloth of Jesus of Nazareth. In fact, I would still like to hear someone present me with any piece of valid scientific evidence that would suggest otherwise. Because as far as I can tell, the single biggest (and most controversial) piece of evidence everyone had against it just disappeared. The carbon dating tests were right, but that's only because they were unknowingly dating an expertly rewoven patch in the Shroud from the middle ages. And for believing Christians, I think the Shroud holds even more fascinating pieces of evidence supporting the validity of the biblical account of the resurrection of Jesus Christ. All the pieces just fit together so perfectly....I think it's very cool. And here's another interesting article I pulled up for you:

                From Reflections on the Shroud:What is it about the Shroud that has people on their seat's edge waiting for evidence of its authenticity? Isn't it because Jesus Christ has been and always will be the single most controverted figure in history? Isn't it because so many have come to Christ through the Shroud? Anyone else's burial cloth would simply not matter as much.

                From the historical perspective, the earliest documentation of the Shroud in the West is from a 13th century letter. More copious sets of documents appear in 14th century France, which begin to trace its whereabouts year by year. This, in itself, was sufficient for some to consider the Shroud an artifact of the period. However, recent investigations show a link between the Shroud and the cloth of Edessa, a linen which had been in the keeping of the Eastern Church until the 13th century. The cloth of Edessa had its roots in Apostolic times, when the apostle Thaddeus was said to have brought it to the city of Edessa, which is in present-day Turkey. Already by the 3rd century, the existence of a cloth bearing the full image of Christ, "not made by human hands," is documented in the East, and is described in the 8th century by St. John Damascene as being a very large burial cloth. Although the cloth was brought to Edessa in the 1st century, it disappeared from documentation for some time, only to be rediscovered in Edessa in the early 6th century, concealed behind some stones above one of the city gates. In the 10th century it was transferred to Constantinople. It is there that references to a "Holy Mandylion" appear, which is described as being a faint but bloodstained image of the face of Christ. It is at this time that different representations of the "Holy Mandylion" begin to surface in the east. The Greek word mandylion means "little cloth."

                But how could this "little cloth" be the same as the cloth of Edessa? Historians now argue that this title was used because it was found in a relatively small oblong frame revealing only the part of the cloth that contained the Holy Face in a central circular opening. The way a Byzantine writer would have seen it, it was a small cloth. But another Greek word, tetradiplon, has been found in texts describing the Edessa cloth and means something double-over-in-four. This tetradiplon fold was applied to a life-sized copy of the Shroud to see what would result. Astonishingly, it reduced the Shroud to the same oblong shape of the Mandylion with the face resulting exactly in the center. More importantly, John Jackson, who was one of several physicists that physically examined the Shroud in 1978, used special raking light photography to reveal ancient fold marks on the Shroud. He found persistent creases exactly where expected and in the correct folding direction for just such a tetradiplon folding, once more linking the Shroud to the Mandylion.

                The Shroud appeared in the West after the barbarian sack of Constantinople. About a year after this unhappy event, Theodore Ducas Angelos wrote in a letter to Pope Innocent III: "The Venetians partitioned the treasure of gold, silver and ivory, while the French did the same with the relics of saints and the most sacred of all, the linen in which our Lord Jesus Christ was wrapped after His death and before the resurrection. We know that the sacred objects are preserved by their predators in Venice and France and in other places."

                This explains why the Shroud's history in the West begins to be documented only in the 13th century, soon after the disappearance of the Mandylion in the East. Coincidence? I think not. It is a more than reasonable assumption that the Shroud of Turin is the same as the Edessa cloth or Mandylion.
                Hey Puddle, I just wanted to say that those articles were really interesting. You sure spent a lot of time researching this issue. To be honest, in some ways, I tend to agree with yayoubetcha/Jordan in that I don't think the Bible is the most reliable source of information for which I should base my opinions. I believe Jesus was a very important man, but right now, at this stage in my life, I'm not sure if I believe he was he son of God.

                I wish I had more faith, because I really believe I'm lacking in this area. I think if I had more faith in my life, I'd be a better person. Because I think a good person who has faith in God (a good God, not the God of the Old Testament, which seems to be to be a rather selfish God...IMO...no offense). In other words, a God that wants us to be happy and do the right things and NOT hurt each other and not simply worship and adore him.

                When I younger, my family was Lutheran and pretty strict. I remember reading excerpts of the Bible, especially the Old Testament, and thinking there sure was a lot of negativity going around there. If you think about it, that God seems an awful like a Goa'uld: selfish, demanding worship, putting him over the lives of even one's family (i.e., Isaac), not being able to worship other gods, etc. But later, I realized that the Bible was more than just that sort of junk; it was about doing the right the thing and leading a good life.

                So, I know I'm off topic, and I'm really sorry, but I just wanted to say that I really really admire your faith and your ability to make sense of it all. I wish I could do that and accept it and be a better person for it. I think faith in a higher being who is good and just is a great thing, but I also think many religions become distorted and end up being quasi-political -- in other words, men controlling men (and women) and a bunch of rules. Hell, some religions even lose focus and become political and God becomes a secondary consideration. I mean, how can you have a religion where MAN is the focus, not God? It happens though. Look at the mid-east.

                About the Shroud....I think the evidence is pretty compelling and that it's very likely it was Jesus' burial shroud. If it is, it would sure be cool to see it. It would be like seeing the image of God in a way.

                On a side note, and I hope this is not perceived as being blasphemous or anything, but do you think it might be easier for some ppl to accept in God or believe in God if we could put a face to Him? In other words, if we knew what God looked like, which I guess is stupid now that I think about it. I read this article once a few years ago where this Harvard theologian theorized that the reason Jesus was "elevated" to the status of Messiah was to put a face to God and make it easier for ppl to accept.

                I dunno, though.

                Thanks for the post !

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by LordAnubis
                  If you think about it, that God seems an awful like a Goa'uld: selfish, demanding worship, putting him over the lives of even one's family (i.e., Isaac), not being able to worship other gods, etc.
                  Hey, LordAnubis....see if this helps. (And please feel free to PM/E-mail me if you have any questions....I really don't mind at all.)
                  There is only one thing we can ever truly control: whether we are good, or evil.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by UnderT
                    I saw A thing on this on the history Channel, they hypothosised that it wa sactully daVinci who used a type of photo chemical and that it is actully his face.
                    I think I saw that show. It also said that it could have been a metal mold sculpted by DaVinci in his own likeness and the image was actually burned into the shroud using the mold. From researching DaVinci for a class, it seems like something he would do.

                    Truthfully, I don't believe that the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus. There's just too much evidence that points that way and since I am not a very religious person I tend to think that way. I think that the Bible is more of a moral code than an actual historical account, but it's still something that would be good to follow.
                    Why yes, I am aware that I am too sexy for my cat
                    RIP Stargate SG-1: The iris may be closed, but the gate will always be spinning, lighting the chevrons in my heart

                    And to the Sci Fi Channel...

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by NightGloom
                      I think I saw that show. It also said that it could have been a metal mold sculpted by DaVinci in his own likeness and the image was actually burned into the shroud using the mold. From researching DaVinci for a class, it seems like something he would do.
                      1) Quote: Some scientists have shown that an imprint similar to that on the Shroud can be produced by placing a linen cloth on a red-hot statue. Do you think this is possible? These scientists have not taken into consideration that the Shroud has a number of burns due to the fires it has experienced. All these burn marks appear fluorescent if subjected to ‘Wood’s light’ also known as ‘black light’, whereas the imprint of the ‘Man of the Shroud’ does not, and therefore cannot be the result of thermic effect. It is a natural imprint caused by a chemical effect similar to that involved in flower-pressing. Jewish law prohibited that the bodies of those who died a violent death be washed and perfumed. The scents aloe and myrrh, mixed with sodium bicarbonate, were therefore sprinkled on and under the cloth which wrapped Jesus. The linen thus acted as a kind of blotting-paper. The image would not have been immediately imprinted, it only appeared a few decades later when the cloth was being preserved as a relic by the first Christians in their flight from the Roman Legions, across the Dead Sea.
                      2) The image is a photographic negative. The concept of photography wasn't even invented until about 1727 AD.
                      3) DaVinci lived from 1452-1519 AD. The carbon dating tests placed the creation of the repair patch on the Shroud somewhere between 1260-1390 AD. And we have historical records of the Shroud being kept in Lirey, France, as early as the year 1357 AD. So, ummm....nice try, guys....but no. Try again.
                      There is only one thing we can ever truly control: whether we are good, or evil.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        The Shroud of Turin has ... somebody in it, it's not Jesus though. Why do I say this?

                        Because I believe that Jesus was not killed on the cross.

                        The shroud just squeaked past the speculated date of Jesus' life. Scientists have proved this, but have argued with themselves in an attempt to say it is christ.

                        Another reason why the person could not be Jesus is because back in Jesus' time, the jews were not of the european type that we are shown consistantly in Isreal.

                        Here is an interesting site.. http://www.shroud.com/ And ... http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm#rogers
                        TEAM SG1 LIVES

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Osiris-RA
                          The Shroud of Turin has ... somebody in it, it's not Jesus though. Why do I say this?

                          Because I believe that Jesus was not killed on the cross.

                          The shroud just squeaked past the speculated date of Jesus' life. Scientists have proved this, but have argued with themselves in an attempt to say it is christ.

                          Another reason why the person could not be Jesus is because back in Jesus' time, the jews were not of the european type that we are shown consistantly in Isreal.

                          Here is an interesting site.. http://www.shroud.com/ And ... http://www.shroud.com/latebrak.htm#rogers
                          You mean back then, Jews were more Mid-eastern? I guess we're used to the watered-down, European-looking Jesus, but in reality, Jews and Arabs are related, both being Semitic peoples, and true Jews, not the ones mixed with European blood, tend to be dark-skinned and look similar to Arabs. Is that what you're referring to?

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by puddlejumper747
                            Hey, LordAnubis....see if this helps. (And please feel free to PM/E-mail me if you have any questions....I really don't mind at all.)
                            Thanx, Puddle...interesting article. How do you know so much about Christianity? I wish I had your knowledge and faith dude

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Osiris-RA
                              Because I believe that Jesus was not killed on the cross.
                              Ummm....hold on. First, you told us in the Creation Theory thread about how you believed that the Genesis account of Creation literally took place within a period of seven 24-hour days....and now you try to tell us that you don't even believe that Christ's death as accounted in the Gospels was real? We know that Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and executed as a common criminal....the apostle and biblical author John himself was an eyewitness to this event. I'm really confused here, O-Ra....so what do you believe?
                              Originally posted by Osiris-RA
                              The shroud just squeaked past the speculated date of Jesus' life.
                              "Speculated date"? We already know that Jesus was born near the end of the reign of Herod the Great, and around the time when the Roman governor Quirinus took a census in Judea. These two events together place his birth at somewhere around 7-4 BC. (Not to mention the Star of Bethlehem, which was almost definitely the triple planetary conjunction of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn in the night sky around this exact same time period....an extremely rare event that the religiously star-gazing Magi surely would have noticed.) And we know that Pontius Pilate ruled as the Roman governor of Judea from 26 to 36 AD. So I think it's definitely safe to say that Jesus of Nazareth lived somewhere within this time period. (But what did this have to do the with the Shroud of Turin, again?)
                              Originally posted by Osiris-RA
                              Another reason why the person could not be Jesus is because back in Jesus' time, the jews were not of the european type that we are shown consistantly in Isreal.
                              Considering how I can find absolutely no evidence whatsoever to either support or refute your claim about Jewish ethnic features (primarily because no one else I can find really seems to either care or consider it a valid argument), this is the only related comment that I could find on this subject....for now:
                              "There have also been many who do not believe that Christ could look like this because to their opinion this portrait looks more like a European man than an Arab or Middle Easterner. Even though I am not particularly interested in making a big deal over the physical features of Christ, it should be noted that Jesus was a Jew. According to anthropologists, Jews belong to the Caucasian race, which includes all those throughout Europe, the Middle East, and north of the Sahara. What some commonly call the Jewish, Arab, or European race is really a misnomer. Those would be ethnic groups within the same race, thus they may share similar features. In fact, sometimes, a person within an ethnic group may be mistaken as being part of another ethnic group." --Tom Brown
                              Originally posted by LordAnubis
                              How do you know so much about Christianity?
                              Probably becaue I'm a devout orthodox Christian who has been taught how to study what I believe about my faith and why I believe it....so that I can intelligently/logically attempt to defend it and explain it to others.
                              There is only one thing we can ever truly control: whether we are good, or evil.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X