Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by YouLie, Dec 17, 2013.
Lamm should read this: http://creationhistory.com/Shroud.shtml
That link is wrong, see https://www.reviewofreligions.org/11770/the-sudarium-of-oviedo-and-the-shroud-of-turin/
"The presence of aloes and myrrh is mentioned explicitly in the Gospel of John. Nicodemus and Joseph of Arimathea are reported to have tended to Jesus’as body by night with a mixture of aloes and myrrh.The presence of these herbs on the Sudarium is interesting, as it suggests the cloth would have come in contact with the body of Jesusas while aloe and myrrh were present on it.
The presence of aloe and myrrh connect the Gospel narrative with both the Sudarium and the Shroud of Turin. The Shroud has also been found to contain aloe and myrrh. It is unlikely that elements such as aloe and myrrh would be added to the cloths by any relic forger. These items are only traceable using modern scientific techniques. Evidence of the aloe and myrrh supports the authenticity of each cloth in relation to the Gospel of John, and provides another point of similarity between the two cloths."
There is also no contradiction between the body of being wrapped as it says in the NT and the Shroud, the wrappings would have been over the bloody Shroud.
IMHO the folks in your link can be counted on to react negatively to anything seen as 'Catholic'.
Aren't you all forgetting that this was not a permanent 'laying out'; or preparation for burial, just a temporary measure. The body would have been covered and waiting for the final preparation 3 days later. It wasn't prepared and put in a casket until 3 days after the death.
By the way, Jesus would probably not have carried the whole cross to Golgotha. Just the crossbeam. but then we don't even know what shape of Cross Jesus was crucified on. Tradition has the Crux Commissa, but it could have been the Crux Simplex.. The wounds would have been the same but the blood flow different. Neither Joseph or Nicodemus would have. attended the body after the crucifixion. It was either a normal Sabbat or Passover.Sabbat.
That is correct, Simon of Cyrene was compelled to help.
Irrelevant to the Shroud authenticity.
Anyone want to answer my question as to how that image got on the Shroud? If you don't know, shouldn't the God hypothesis be on the table?
No one knows what technique or materials were used, but that does not mean we should go to a hypothesis that cannot be studied or researched.
It is irrelevant since no one believe in the Jesus character anyway.
Not at all. The flow of blood would have been different in each case, and marks on the shroud at the back would have been different.
Why should the God hypothesis be on the table? We have first to establish that there is a god. .
By the way don't split one point into two. The point was that if it was a simple upright there would have been nothing for Jesus to carry anyway. The writer of the gospel of Matthew mentions Jesus being led away. Mark and Luke neither there, mention Simon, and only John, who was presumably there, mentions Jesus carrying it himself. Which is right? 3 different accounts and only one was there?
The Shroud is still a unique artifact and only explainable as the burial clothe that encased Jesus our Lord when he was ascending.
Why? Just because you want it to be?
Unique? What about the Sudarium of Oviedo?
A preponderance of evidence.
Excellent video here on the Shroud and what is good and bad science.
Well worth watching if you have a genuine interest in the Shroud.
Very few people don't believe Jesus of Nazareth existed.
If God exists and is not silent, but has spoken to us through His word, and we have testimony of those who knew God incarnate in the person of Jesus Christ, than to some degree we can study and research that. Since nobody knows how that image got on the Shroud, a supernatural event is a reasonable explanation, given the failure of natural explanations.
In other words...…..take it all on faith like everything involving your God.
I cannot do that.
Is that cannot or will not? All world views involve some faith. Believing the scientific evidence for the Shroud doesn't involve faith.
It can be difficult to believe in the resurrection because it's an unusual event, and if true, you have to change your life.
I CANNOT accept things on faith as they seem to me little more than popular opinion. Having reviewed the "Evidence" on this shroud I see the opposite of confirmation because of everything that goes against validity. You say I should change my life based on such a thing and I wont do so based on opinion. You are ignoring fact based data because you want to believe it as if you did not YOUR life would change.
The list of things that debunk the shroud is far too extensive for me to ignore, but if you wish to accept a Zombie child of an invisible entity you are welcome to it and far from alone....people started believing in this stuff long before Christianity and in fact much of it came from earlier stories.
I can prove that you don't believe in the biblical Jesus. Walk outside and command the nearest tree to uproot it self and to jump into the nearest body of water. If it does as you command without any help then you believe in Jesus. If it doesn't then you don't believe in him at all. No one in history has ever passed that simple test.
Luke 17:6 (NKJV) = So the Lord said, “If you have faith as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled up by the roots and be planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.
Will you be the first person to ever have faith in the biblical Jesus?
https://www.newgeology.us/presentation24.html latest examination of the shroud..
youtube video .. these are from 2017... 4 years later than the presentation above, which was presented on even older analysis, first note is.. the image was not made by paint or chemical processes.. but rather a nano burst of light of parallel wavelength, this also imparted billions of data points by which a 3D model could be constructed 9and in fact was) . so I watched the presentation above.. watch this one.
The story about Simon of Cyrene becoming a slave to carry the Jew's cross is related to the passage in Isaiah 14:1-2 (ERV) = "The Lord will again show his love to Jacob. He will again choose the people of Israel. He will give them their land. Then the non-Israelites[a] will join the Israelites, and both will become one family—Jacob’s family.2 Those nations will bring the Israelites back to their land. The men and women from the other nations will become slaves to Israel. In the past, those people forced the Israelites to become their slaves. But in the future the Israelites will defeat those nations, and Israel will then rule over them in the Lord’s land."
A number of today’s biblical scholars claim the Jesus we read of in the gospels is only a partial and at times fictional portrait.
Another stream of recent biblical scholarship suggests there were a significant number of Jesus type figures preaching at the time.
Myself I’m certain of only one thing. To claim the New Testament as the inerrant Word of God borders on blasphemy. That is if you believe in the concept of a God.
There was about ten minutes of actual science in that video, if you watched the other video you will know that most of it is bad science.
Of what? Man's credulity?
Exactly what this thread is about.
Separate names with a comma.