Shroud of Turin is not a fake, Vatican says


lone wolf
#31
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Despite the misleading head line, the Vatican is NOT saying the shroud is not a fake.

Given the "prove it" nature of today's society I suspect the Vatican is quite hopeful the shroud proves to be exactly what it's believed to be. Seems to me that would be about the same as a bias - NOT a negative thing....
 
gerryh
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by lone wolfView Post

Given the "prove it" nature of today's society I suspect the Vatican is quite hopeful the shroud proves to be exactly what it's believed to be. Seems to me that would be about the same as a bias - NOT a negative thing....


I am sure there are many that would like to see the shroud to be proven to be Christs, just like there are many that would like to see the opposite. The Vatican itself, on the other hand, has taken the entire controversy from the beginning with more than a grain of salt. Despite what it's detractors would like one to believe, the Catholic Church has, for the most part, been vary wary about what it endorses as being "genuine".
 
Omicron
#33
The Vatican has always taken the shroud with a grain of salt in as much as it also analyzes reports of new saints.

The way the Vatican got into this way of thinking was because in the fourth to sixth centuries new saints were being reported a dime a dozen.

It has been determined that the shroud was painted in the 11th century, and the only thing stumping moderns is how the ancient artist knew that nails were put through the wrist.
 
petros
+3
#34
Whatever it is, it's neat.
 
gopher
+1
#35
We had a thread on this many moons ago. As I indicated previously, Jews did not put shrouds on the deceased upon burial. That was a Roman, not Judaic, practice. The New Testament clearly states that Yahshuah was ''wrapped in linen cloth'' in John 19:40. The term used is G3608 in Strong's Concordance or othonion. These are trips of linen cloth for swathing the dead such as in mummification. Bear in mind that Jews lived in or near Africa for many centuries and did not adopt Roman customs until a much later time. Therefore, the Shroud of Turin could not possibly have been used in Yahshuah's burial.
 
gerryh
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

We had a thread on this many moons ago. As I indicated previously, Jews did not put shrouds on the deceased upon burial. That was a Roman, not Judaic, practice. The New Testament clearly states that Yahshuah was ''wrapped in linen cloth'' in John 19:40. The term used is G3608 in Strong's Concordance or othonion. These are trips of linen cloth for swathing the dead such as in mummification. Bear in mind that Jews lived in or near Africa for many centuries and did not adopt Roman customs until a much later time. Therefore, the Shroud of Turin could not possibly have been used in Yahshuah's burial.


Well, there ya's go. The almighty gopher has spoken. The controversy has been answered.
 
petros
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

We had a thread on this many moons ago. As I indicated previously, Jews did not put shrouds on the deceased upon burial. That was a Roman, not Judaic, practice. The New Testament clearly states that Yahshuah was ''wrapped in linen cloth'' in John 19:40. The term used is G3608 in Strong's Concordance or othonion. These are trips of linen cloth for swathing the dead such as in mummification. Bear in mind that Jews lived in or near Africa for many centuries and did not adopt Roman customs until a much later time. Therefore, the Shroud of Turin could not possibly have been used in Yahshuah's burial.

Jesus wasn't a Judean (Jew) so why make the guy something he wasn't? Israelites used burial shouds all the way back to Egypt days.
.
 
gopher
+1
#38
Quote:

Jesus wasn't a Judean (Jew) so why make the guy something he wasn't? Israelites used burial shouds all the way back to Egypt days.

Matthew 1:1 clearly shows Yahshuah's family line going back to Abraham. Verse three shows he was descended of Judas which makes him a Jew. If you looked up Strong's Concordance you would clearly see a shroud was not described in that quote from the New Testament. Instead, it was cloths made of linen used in mummification as Egyptians used. However, if you can show me where the words used were translatable as "shroud", I'd like to see some reference to that.

Quote:

there ya's go. The almighty gopher has spoken. The controversy has been answered.

Thanks Gerry - but the credit goes to Strong's Concordance for its translation of the original Greek texts.
 
petros
#39
Check your Strong's or even take the time to read Kings about how the Kingdom of Israel was split in two. Israelites and Judeans (Jews). Israelites never ever called themselves Jews.
 
In Between Man
+1
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Jesus wasn't a Judean (Jew) so why make the guy something he wasn't? Israelites used burial shouds all the way back to Egypt days.

Jesus was indeed a Jew. Your claim that he wasn't is absurd.

Jesus:

was circumcised as a Jew (Luke 2:21)

his parents we observant of the Torah and did everything that Jesus' birth required (Luke 2:39)

his other relatives like his aunt and uncle were observant Jews (Luke 1:6)

his parents made the 140 mile trip to every passover with him (Luke 2:41)

he stayed behind an extra 3 days to talk to the teachers at the Jewish temple (Luke 2:46)

he understood the Torah (Luke 2:47)

he respected the Jewish temple, and called it his father's (Luke 2:49)

his disciples were Jewish (John 1:47)

his disciples called him RABBI (John 4:31)

was called Rabbi by others, even crowds (John 3:2, John 6:25)

he spoke Hebrew (Matthew 27:46)

he affirmed the authority of the Torah and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17)

he attended the synagogue (Luke 4:16)

what he taught at the synagogue was respected (Luke 4:15)

he taught at the temple, if wasn't a Jew he wouldn't be allowed (Luke 21:37)

in addition to observing Passover (John 2:13) he observed Succot (John 7:2,10) and observed Hanukah (John 10:22)

when faced with temptation, he answered from the Hebrew scripture (Matthew 4:2-10)

when admonished, he quoted from Hebrew scripture (Mark 7:6-13)

he SELF-IDENTIFIED as a Jew (John 4:22)

his last supper was a Passover meal (Luke 22:14-15)

when taken into custody, he was delivered to the Jewish priests, (Mark 14:53) The arresting Roman soldiers wouldn't place him under Jewish jurisdiction if he wasn't Jewish.

he was charged with violating Jewish law (Matthew 26:65)

he was recognized as being under Jewish jurisdiction by Pilate (John 18:31)

he was mocked by the Roman soldiers as "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:18 )

and when they crucified him, their charge was "King of the Jews" (Matthew 27:37)

he was buried according to Jewish custom (John 19:40)

he spoke Hebrew to Paul on the road to Damascus (Acts 26:14)

he is same yesterday, today and tomorrow (Hebrews 13:8 )

The evidence OVERWHELMINGLY proves that your claim that he was not a Jew is absurd. He was born a Jew. He lived a Jew. He died a Jew, and he was resurrected a Jew. He is alive and Jewish now, and forevermore the same.

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Check your Strong's or even take the time to read Kings about how the Kingdom of Israel was split in two. Israelites and Judeans (Jews). Israelites never ever called themselves Jews.

*face palm*

The split between the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah happened *AFTER* they were unified as the 12 TRIBES OF ISRAEL under Saul, and more strongly united under David, about 1000 b.c. (source (external - login to view))

They are RELATED by blood. They are BOTH JEWISH. BOTH kingdoms comprise of the 12 tribes of the Jewish people.

When the Judeans split from the rest of Israel, they were Jewish. Who did they split from? Their fellow Jews!

You simply don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited by In Between Man; Jan 1st, 2012 at 03:02 AM..
 
L Gilbert
#41
Um, there was no such thing as a Jew back then. Jesus, if he existed, was a Judean according to the book of Matthew.
There is no specific description of Jesus in the Bible except that he was non-descript from other men in the region. He most certainly wouldn't have looked like a 1960's Caucasian hippy if he existed.

Now, about the Shroud; ANY claims about it being the death coverings of Jesus, may appear to be validated by science, but most people tend to make evidence fit their assumptions rather than assumptions fitting the evidence. There's no definitive evidence suggesting the Shroud was as religious people claim. IOW, it's a big "maybe", just like Jesus' existence in general.

And about science; science generally seeks out the facts regardless of where the facts lead. There are occasional hiccups in science, such as personal or group agendas that may skew issues for a while (for instance, tobacco companies' scientific research saying tobacco makes people healthier) or when honest science makes a blunder (for instance, a few of Darwin's analyses) but they disappear after more research.

Religion, on the other hand tends to limit its range and scope to belief in entirely groundless assumption and extreme improbabilities, or in the very least hope that humans are gullible enough to swallow the dogma and rhetoric.
 
In Between Man
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

Um, there was no such thing as a Jew back then. Jesus, if he existed, was a Judean according to the book of Matthew.
There is no specific description of Jesus in the Bible except that he was non-descript from other men in the region. He most certainly wouldn't have looked like a 1960's Caucasian hippy if he existed.

Lies. If any male was circumcised under religious ceremony, was taught Moses' law, observed the Torah, observed Passover, and attended synagogues you would unequivocally call that person a Jew. But because it is Jesus, someone who you utterly reject, you deny any and all shreds of truth of him.
 
lone wolf
#43
Di'ja bring back souvenirs?
 
petros
+1
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post


When the Judeans split from the rest of Israel, they were Jewish. Who did they split from? Their fellow Jews!

You simply don't know what you're talking about.

They split from ****ing Israel and BECAME Judah (JEWS). Saul, David and Solomon were ISRAELITES. It wasn't until after Solomons death that Israel split into two. JEWdeans and Israelites. Israelites were second class conquered peoples.

Some advice. Take your KJV, soak it in lighter fluid, light it up and throw it out the window as far as you ****ing can.
 
L Gilbert
+1
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by In Between ManView Post

Lies. If any male was circumcised under religious ceremony, was taught Moses' law, observed the Torah, observed Passover, and attended synagogues you would unequivocally call that person a Jew. But because it is Jesus, someone who you utterly reject, you deny any and all shreds of truth of him.

Lies? I doubt you have much of an idea what a lie is. How would you know what I would "unequivocally call" someone? You are implying that you know stuff about me that I don't.

Did Jesus follow Moses' law? No. Rather, he amended it and followed the amendment (Matthew 5).
Did Jesus observe Passover? Apparently, but it was likely on a different day (John 19).
Did he follow the Torah? Yes, but that doesn't make him a Jew. Lots of people follow the first 5 books of the Bible.
Did Jesus attend synagogues? Sort of. He TAUGHT in them. That was most likely the expedient thing to do. Synagogues, churches, etc. are gathering places for people, so what better place to teach people. If I wanted to get some message across to people, I'd find the largest group I could and then tell the message.
Did he worship in them? There's no evidence suggesting he did.

Truth? I doubt you have much of an idea of what that is either. Truth and fact are independent of each other.
I don't reject Jesus. I simply haven't seen any conclusive evidence that he existed.

The FACT is that Jesus was born in Judea. That makes him "unequivocally" a Judean. Whether he was a Jew in the same sense as regular Jews, is debatable. If the dood was a god, it's a disservice to him to be pigeonholed and considered anything less. If the dood wasn't a god, as the Jews seem to think, perhaps he was just being expedient and humoring all the superficial crap about observing rites and whatever else.

The FACT remains that the Vatican is assuming the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus when it could have been the burial cloth of anyone or even just a rag someone had used to try bandaging a wound and coincidentally was tossed aside in such a manner for stains to indicate a person was in it. Same for seeing images of Jesus' face in bits of toast and whatever else.
Just conclusions based upon assumptions. Science tries to correct the assumptions.
 
gerryh
+1
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post


Truth? I doubt you have much of an idea of what that is either. Truth and fact are independent of each other.
I don't reject Jesus. I simply haven't seen any conclusive evidence that he existed.



Ok....................... but, then the following doesn't make any sense.

Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

The FACT is that Jesus was born in Judea. That makes him "unequivocally" a Judean. Whether he was a Jew in the same sense as regular Jews, is debatable. If the dood was a god, it's a disservice to him to be pigeonholed and considered anything less. If the dood wasn't a god, as the Jews seem to think, perhaps he was just being expedient and humoring all the superficial crap about observing rites and whatever else.


Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post

The FACT remains that the Vatican is assuming the Shroud was the burial cloth of Jesus when it could have been the burial cloth of anyone or even just a rag someone had used to try bandaging a wound and coincidentally was tossed aside in such a manner for stains to indicate a person was in it. Same for seeing images of Jesus' face in bits of toast and whatever else.
Just conclusions based upon assumptions. Science tries to correct the assumptions.

The Vatican isn't assuming sweet piss all. As a matter of fact, for the most part, the Vatican has said the shroud is NOT the burial cloth of Jesus. How about YOU get your damn facts straight before commenting. I see your sabbatical hasn't helped any.
 
Goober
#47
I would love to see the Vatican open their library. Digitalized and posted on line. Imagine how it would change how we look at historical events.
 
petros
+1
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I would love to see the Vatican open their library. Digitalized and posted on line. Imagine how it would change how we look at historical events.

Would you be disappointed if the Vartican version were the same as what is general knowledge?
 
Goober
+1
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Would you be disappointed if the Vartican version were the same as what is general knowledge?

No - I think it would provide information that may change a persons perspective.

Original post should have used could not would.
 
CDNBear
+3
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

Would you be disappointed if the Vartican version were the same as what is general knowledge?

Yes. These threads wouldn't be nearly as fun.
 
L Gilbert
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

[COLOR=Black]Ok....................... but, then the following doesn't make any sense.

Until you consider the context in which I was commenting; that being Biblical doctrine.

Quote:

The Vatican isn't assuming sweet piss all.

]Except that god(s) exist and that SOME incidental evidence supports their other assumptions.
Quote:

As a matter of fact, for the most part, the Vatican has said the shroud is NOT the burial cloth of Jesus.

Show me what the Vatican says precisely.
Quote:

How about YOU get your damn facts straight before commenting. I see your sabbatical hasn't helped any.

lol Still popping your fuses, huh? Well, you obviously haven't changed any of your assumptions either. Believe what you wish.

""This is a burial cloth that wrapped the remains of a crucified man in full correspondence with what the Gospels tell us of Jesus," Benedict said."
""He said the relic — one of the most important in Christianity — should be seen as a photographic document of the "darkest mystery of faith" — that of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection." - The Baltimore Sun.
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jan 1st, 2012 at 04:02 PM..
 
gopher
+1
#52
Quote:

Quoting IBM,

The evidence OVERWHELMINGLY proves that your claim that he was not a Jew is absurd. He was born a Jew. He lived a Jew. He died a Jew

That says it all. And at least you quoted from the Bible to prove the point whereas the others did not.
 
petros
#53
What they hell was a Judean doing up in Nazareth in Israel?
 
gerryh
+1
#54
Quote: Originally Posted by L GilbertView Post


""This is a burial cloth that wrapped the remains of a crucified man in full correspondence with what the Gospels tell us of Jesus," Benedict said."
""He said the relic — one of the most important in Christianity — should be seen as a photographic document of the "darkest mystery of faith" — that of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection." - The Baltimore Sun.


Still twisting things to suit your agenda I see. Every single article reads "all but endorses", As much as you and your kind would like to think that the Pope and Catholics in general are idiots. Think again.
 
gopher
+1
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

What they hell was a Judean doing up in Nazareth in Israel?

In John 1:46 Nathaniel asked, "can anything good come from Nazareth?"

The village was small and probably not well liked. It said in the Old Testament that the Messiah would be despised and his lowly origins or place of residence was more reason to hold him in contempt.
 
petros
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

In John 1:46 Nathaniel asked, "can anything good come from Nazareth?

I say that about Ottawa all the time.
 
Dexter Sinister
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

As much as you and your kind would like to think that the Pope and Catholics in general are idiots. Think again.

Well, speaking as someone I'm pretty sure you'd lump under that "your kind" label, I feel compelled to remark that no, Catholics in general are not idiots. Certainly some of them are, though that's true of any large group of people and doesn't really mean anything, but I'm also quite convinced that Catholic religious beliefs and claims, in common with ALL religious beliefs and claims, are not true. You will almost certainly interpret that as bashing your faith, as you've done before, but all it really means is that I fundamentally disagree with you, I believe you're mistaken.

But you're half right here. I think the current Pope IS an idiot.
 
petros
#58
Quote: Originally Posted by Dexter SinisterView Post

I think the current Pope IS an idiot.

So is the Guru Sai Baba.



Update. Sai baba passed on to a new life as a Hereford steer in S.W. SK

Neil Young - quotHome On The Rangequot - YouTube

 
MHz
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by GooberView Post

I would love to see the Vatican open their library. Digitalized and posted on line. Imagine how it would change how we look at historical events.

Imagine if the RCC continued that statement to say, "but as a responsible religious organization we are." and then go to list all the ways the current organization is corrupt. By 'current organizations' I mean all branches of the Christian religion not just the RCC.
Say the 'list' would be equal to those who took part in the 'schools for Native children' which was not only the RCC and the Anglicans and the Protestants, etc but it also included members of both the Provincial and Federal Governments who may not have been active participants in the terror and torture caused but are just as guilty because the knew but did nothing to stop the abuses.

In the end would 'full disclosure' help or hinder the RCC as a 'lasting organization' in that they would still have a flock even though their 'offices' had migrated to the street corners of the world and the congregation was as few as two. (not due to being shunned but because everybody had already taken the 3-week course entitled 'God, according to the Bible')

Quote: Originally Posted by petrosView Post

I say that about Ottawa all the time.

Technically isn't is supposed to go, 'can anything good be sent to Ottawa'
 
L Gilbert
#60
Quote: Originally Posted by gopherView Post

That says it all. And at least you quoted from the Bible to prove the point whereas the others did not.

lol And we all know how accurate the Bible is, right?

Quote: Originally Posted by gerryhView Post

Still twisting things to suit your agenda I see. Every single article reads "all but endorses", As much as you and your kind would like to think that the Pope and Catholics in general are idiots. Think again.

If you had a clue, you'd realize that saying "Pope all but endorses the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Christ" means damned near the same thing as saying "Pope endorses the Shroud as being the burial cloth of Christ".
That is NOT twisting things.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:
"s.v. all: " b. all but: Everything short of. Hence (adverbially) Almost, very nearly, well nigh, (also with hyphen) used adj., almost complete or entire; in ellipt. use: almost; also as n.
1598 J. BASTARD in Farr S.P. II. 306 Man..All but resembleth God, all but his glasse, All but the picture of his maiestie. a1678 MARVELL Poems Wks. III. 412 Society is all but rude To this delicious solitude. 1810 M. L. WEEMS Let. in Wks. III. 14 Doctor Fendall..sold 60 doll[ar]s all but. 1816 TUCKEY Narr. Exped. R. Zaire i. 18 Negro washerwomen, whose state of all but nudity. 1831 CARLYLE Sart. Res. II. ii. 111 The all-but omnipotence of early culture. 1862 STANLEY Jew. Ch. I. v. 87 These were all but unknown to Greeks and Romans. 1866 PUSEY Mirac. Prayer 12 An all-but-infinite variety of phænomena. 1878 R. B. SMITH Carthage 203 The best and all-but-sufficing answer. 1881 GILBERT Patience 11 Col. (apologetically). I'm afraid we're not quite right. Ang. Not supremely, perhaps, but, oh, so all-but! Oh, Saphir, are they not quite too all-but? 1914 'I. HAY' Knight on Wheels xix. 192 Most of them are Impossibles, but there are a good many All-Buts. 1920 'W. S. PALMER' Christianity & Christ 43 Until the great all-but-men brought forth true men. 1935 W. EMPSON Poems 3 Our all-but freedom."

The OED is not quite through. "But" in the meaning of "except" or "with the exception of" is treated under "but". Unfortunately, the discussion of "but," like the use of it, can be extremely complex.

s.v. but " I. In a simple sentence; introducing a word or phrase (rarely a clause) which is excepted from the general statement: Without, with the exception of, except, save.

1. After universal statements with all, every, any. a. In OE. construed as a prep. with dative. (See A. 3.)
a1000 Beowulf 705 (Z.) Ealle buton anum. c1000 ÆLFRIC Job (Ettm.) iv. 15 Ealle a ing..buton am"

A. 3. mentioned above is:

"3. Leaving out, barring, with the exception of, except, save. Distinctly a preposition in OE.
979-82 O.E. Chron. (MS. Cott. Tib. AIII) a feng Eadmund to..and heold seofoe healf {asg}ear butan II nihtum. a1000 Menolog. 87 (Gr.) Ymb first wucan butan anre niht.

In later times, the original prepositional and later conjunctional uses are so inseparable that the whole are treated under C."

So, no, I don't particularly think the Pope and all Catholics are idiots, but saying that I do think that isn't particularly bright. Untwist your quaint, little mind.

And just out of curiosity, what IS my agenda?
Last edited by L Gilbert; Jan 2nd, 2012 at 08:51 PM..
 

Similar Threads

24
US-"Patriot" Act...Shroud of Secrecy
by Ocean Breeze | Dec 15th, 2005
5
Vatican To Allow Gay Priests
by missile | Oct 19th, 2005
no new posts