The Shroud Of Turin

[DVV]

Mike,

I know you didn't say that.
But then, what's the use of saying "we have no proof" ???

Are we back to Renan ?

What is this site about ?

Any proof that JtR has ever existed ?

Amitiés,
David

[Jonathan H]

What Mike means is that in terms of historical methodology there is no primary source evidence that Jesus of Nazareth ever existed, or even that Nazareth ever existed either.

That Christ is a mythical composite, behind which may lie an historical figure, or several.

St Paul is arguably writing about a 'Son of God' who lives, dies, is crucified, and is resurrected, up in the sky, in an invisible realm; a purely spiritual saviour, not an earthly figure.

One theory is that St. Paul's movement combined with -- at a much later stage -- with an earthly prophet's movement, one who had been martyred. That this fusion happened in the chaos experienced by Judaism following the Fall of Jerusalem.

Flavius Josephus does not mention Jesus in the versions which come down to us, except for a notorious Christian forgery from the 4th Century [plus an interpolation from the same period about James the Just] and that is why no early Church fathers refer to the Testimonium Flavianum -- it did not yet exist.

The Gospels are arguably written much later, and the first, St. Mark, may have been a symbolic salvation story -- not to be taken literally.

It has to be remembered that a tiny Jewish splinter sect was absorbed into Paganism, and Pagan traditions/ideas of looking at the world, and the metaphysical realm.

For example, that gods can mate with human females, that a human figure can also be a god, that a god can die and rise again to save the world -- these are not Jewish ideas.

For most of its history Christianity, a Jewish/Pagan hybrid, was a Medieval Religion, producing the first totalitarian state, or multi-state, thus leaving far behind the Jewish/aesthetic/pacifistic teachings of its 'founder', and being a force for ignorance, and intolerance, and injustice.

They don't call it the Dark Ages for nothing.

The Shroud of Turin is a relic not just because it is a Medieval relic, but also because it is a relic of an ugly, sectarian era obsessed with death and torture and Thought-Crime.

It is, in itself, a terrific, realistic painting of Christ's suffering in a sinful world, but modern obsessions with it are a throwback to the Medieval World, one which banned bathing and unleashed plague.

[Tom_Wescott]

There is no proof that Jesus ever existed

That's messed up. The Good Michael just became the evil heathen Michael.

Yours truly,

Tom Wescott

[Ally]

[QUOTE=c.d.;129706]

But as far as we know, the blood is human male blood and follows the pattern of death by crucifixtion.

Ah yes but see the problem is that they went one step too far. They typed the blood and said it was AB. Which is somewhat problematic since AB blood woudn't have existed at the time of christ and he was unlikely to have had that blood type. I mean one could argue that maybe Mary was A and God was B, but really, come on. If he was a virgin birth (giggle, snort) then he would have had the DNA characteristics purely of his mother and since AB is one of the more recent blood groupings, he would not have been AB.
This is example of Junk science. Where those who "believe" write "scientific" papers, to supposedly support their faith. The science is only as good as the objectives of the scientist.And everyone else who has tested the "blood" has found ochre and NOT blood. And for most of the science that supports the shrouds authenticity, it comes from unreliable persons with pre-formed beliefs or questionable reputations...which leads us to the next issue...

The cloth is the type of cloth used for burials at the time of Christ and also contains pollen grains from plants that bloom in the Holy Lands in the Spring.

Actually the cloths are not. The weaves are different than the type that were used in the first century. And when we get to the pollen, oh amusing, but the dude who 'collected' the pollen sample from the shroud, via tape transfer, was the same dude who "authenticated" the Hitler Diaries! There's some credibility. In short, any "science" that comes from the Sturp organization is flawed, because they are not out to prove the truth, they are out to prove their pre-formed decision.

[The Good Michael]

I'm working on a shroud right now. I can't find a hairy bearded guy, so I'm using a 12 year old Korean girl named Lee Jeong Min. A few hours exposure in my camera obscura and a little ketchup and it should be good. I'm using a huge roll of ricepaper as linen is hard to come by in these parts.

Mike

[Celesta]

I'm off to bed, Cel,
just a quick happy Easter to you too.

Amitiés ma chère,
David

Thank you, David, and I hope yours and your son's was a happy one, also.

Whatever the Shroud is, it hasn't been clearly defined to the satisfaction of everyone. It's an interesting artifact. The Sudarium, the supposed companion piece is interesting also, as mysteries go. I've wondered if the Shroud was a replacement for something else, an older artifact that was similar but which was either lost, destroyed, or, perhaps, disintegrated over time. Maybe someone felt there was a necessity to create a facsimile, if indeed it was a creation. Could it not also be an actual shroud that was artistically embellished at some point? Many possibilities here.

Best wishes,

Cel

[The Good Michael]

CD,

I don't think it is a fake. I think it was created as an icon to be carried about, stored in a church, and whatever one does with such things... kind of like the tabots in Ethiopia that represent the 10 commandments. Perhaps it was considered too atrocious or something and got licked away for a couple of hundred years, cataloged, and forgotten.

Cheers,

Mike

[c.d.]

If someone was capable of producing the image back in the Middle Ages, you would think that they would simply grab the nearest cloth, kill a stray dog or cat and drip some blood on the cloth. That would be all that you need to be in business. But as far as we know, the blood is human male blood and follows the pattern of death by crucifixtion. The cloth is the type of cloth used for burials at the time of Christ and also contains pollen grains from plants that bloom in the Holy Lands in the Spring. Also, it has been shown that the marks on the cloth are what would be expected had it been stored in clay jars which apparently was a common practice among the Jewish people. On the other hand, the lack of provenance is troubling. You pays your money and you takes your chances.

c.d.

[The Good Michael]

David,

I didn't say that Jesus didn't exist. I said that there is no proof. We have a brief mention by Josephus after the alleged death of Christ. We have Paul's letters which don't mention and earthly Jesus. We have the gospels that, if they were written by contemporaries, make them ancient men when they were written. The contemporary forms don't exist to this day. We have no contemporary account of his trial and punishment by Pilate, and one would think at least those records should have survived. In short, all there is is hearsay. I believe he existed, but there is no proof.

Mike

[DVV]

You made a statement. You were wrong. It has been shown, by a scientist, how it could easily have been done. Now I realized a while back that your reasoning skills were never at their best when you argue from a position of "faith" or blind adoration, and we're here again with you kneeling at the shrine of another tainted and unworthy object of your slavering devotion. You seem to enjoy the position, so I'll leave you to it.

I realize that you know next to nothing on the subject.
This article is the alpha and the omega on the question for you ?!
Just funny.

I maintain that according to serious scientists, nothing is yet scientifically proven either way.

[Ally]

DVV,

You made a statement. You were wrong. It has been shown, by a scientist, how it could easily have been done. Now I realized a while back that your reasoning skills were never at their best when you argue from a position of "faith" or blind adoration, and we're here again with you kneeling at the shrine of another tainted and unworthy object of your slavering devotion. You seem to enjoy the position, so I'll leave you to it.

BillyE

Not only because of the perfect anatomy of the shadow figure, the perfectly corresponding wounds to the crucifixion, and the impressions of plants (and pollen) that only occur in first century Palestine, but because of the 3-D effects that the shroud produces when photographed with the proper equipment. Sure, that can be reproduced today, and probably could be in the 11th through 12th centuries, but why would they reproduce the effect when they wouldn't know 3-D even existed?

I am not entirely sure what your argument is here. Are you saying that because we have technology today that shows something that couldn't have been shown in the 12th century, Jesus must have made this especially for us here in the 21st? Knowing that the technology would exist?

A better question would be, if Jesus were making things for 21st century technology, why not a DVD? Or even better, considering he is supposed to be sole and only path to salvation, why didn't he come in the 21st century when his message could have been beamed around the globe in 20 seconds, rather than coming to earth at a time when the fastest his word would travel is by foot, ensuring that 1600 YEARS would pass before his news even reached all the continents on the planet, thereby ensuring millions and millions of people would die unsaved never having even heard of him a thousand years after his birth?

I mean if we are saying that modern technology was considered back then, I am assuming by Jesus, why would he have bothered being born then anyway? He was condemning millions to die unsaved and rot in hell simply by virtue of not arriving at a time when his word could quickly and easily be heard by all.

The idea that because modern technology can see things that the hoaxers in 1500 couldn't, there is an argument for it being real, is not exactly apt.

[DVV]

Hi Mike,

no proof that Jesus has ever existed ?
Well...back to the 19th century.

Amitiés,
David

[The Good Michael]

That being said, out of all the religious artifacts out there (and there are a lot) the shroud had the best chance of being genuine. Not only because of the perfect anatomy of the shadow figure, the perfectly corresponding wounds to the crucifixion

Excuse me! Did you see Jesus' wounds? There is no proof that Jesus ever existed, and you're talking about corresponding wounds. Perfect anatomy? Define perfect anatomy please. I bet my definition is different and has a lot to do with Jessica Alba. You can't bolster an argument by using such terms and including faith as well.

Mike

[Jonathan H]

And if a dating process, which you regarded as kosher, discovered that the Shroud was Medieval in origin -- what then?

[BillyE]

I'm getting into this debate a little late, but I'll throw in my two cents (which is probably all it's really worth.)

I'm not going to say if I think it's fake or genuine, because I don't need it to be either to solidify my faith. That's why it's faith!

That being said, out of all the religious artifacts out there (and there are a lot) the shroud had the best chance of being genuine. Not only because of the perfect anatomy of the shadow figure, the perfectly corresponding wounds to the crucifixion, and the impressions of plants (and pollen) that only occurr in first century Palestine, but because of the 3-D effects that the shroud produces when photographed with the proper equipment. Sure, that can be reproduced today, and probably could be in the 11th through 12th centuries, but why would they reproduce the effect when they wouldn't know 3-D even existed?

None of this proves the shroud to be fake or real, but it does provide us with an interesting mystery, and isn't that what we all like? Something mysterious?