|
Post by N. De Plume on Dec 21, 2011 20:10:00 GMT -5
So, then there is absolutely no way whatsoever to stain this shroud resulting in this composition other than with UV light? Sure there’s not some obscure thing they’re overlooking?
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Dec 21, 2011 21:11:10 GMT -5
There almost certainly is. Pretty much every time there's a study saying something about the authenticity of the Shroud there's another that says the opposite.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 21, 2011 21:19:08 GMT -5
I believe the Shroud is the real deal, but I also freely admit this is a belief, i.e. not based on air tight proof.
|
|
|
Post by lexikon on Dec 21, 2011 23:31:34 GMT -5
So their argument is that people in the middle ages were so dumb they couldn't have fabricated? People in the past were cabable of doing a lot of things we weren't sure about. I think it has something to do with the wound in his side, or not having broken legbones, but I'm not an expert on this. Actually Lexikon, if you had read the article you would have known that they were saying that the technology required to fake the shroud (keeping in mind the particular type of stain on it) did not exist in medieval times, so if it HAD been a forgery, the stain would have been of a different chemical composition. Or something. If I read it correctly this time, it said that UV lasers would be required to make the stains. Although I'm not sure whether this means that if it was wrapped around someone's bloody body it wouldn't have the same marks without the technology.
|
|
|
Post by RavynousHunter on Dec 22, 2011 3:20:23 GMT -5
I know how they had the technology...
|
|
|
Post by Haseen on Dec 22, 2011 4:44:31 GMT -5
The face would look really wide and distorted if it was actually wrapped around someone. Regardless of what method/chemicals used to stain it, it was drawn on, not actually *on* anyone's face (whether it was Jesus or an imposter).
|
|
czechmate
Full Member
Czech Republic / UK
Posts: 123
|
Post by czechmate on Dec 22, 2011 5:44:46 GMT -5
If it's real, it is certainly an amazing historical artifact regardless if you're religious or not. However, I don't see it proving that Jesus is the divine son of God, only that he was in some way brutally killed. In fact, how do they know definitively that it was Jesus and not any number of men who could have been brutally killed in some way? 1.. Nobody knows what Jesus (Yeshua Ben Miriam) actually looked like, but all "likenesses" of him are Caucasin, who had nothing to relate to the Middle East of the time. 2.. The Romans (actually Syrian mercenaries) tortured and crucified over 35,000 Jews, so why single out 1. 3.. The story of JC is directly copied from the legend of Horus and didn't even appear in the Bible until many decades after the event. 4.. Christmas Day is actually Mithas Day annexed by the RCC in order to appease the newly oppressed converted. 5.. For good measure, Mary Magdelene was a Celtic God annexed by the RCC to get the Celts to accept christianity. The Shroud of Turin is a proven fake, but the Church is expert at moving goalposts. There are so many "relics" of JC scattered around the world, enough to reconstruct his body 15 times over.
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on Dec 22, 2011 5:50:12 GMT -5
Even if it's not fake, how do we know it is indeed Jesus's burial shroud and not any random person's who happened to resemble what we think Jesus probably looked like?
|
|
|
Post by Yla on Dec 22, 2011 6:25:23 GMT -5
3.. The story of JC is directly copied from the legend of Horus and didn't even appear in the Bible until many decades after the event. Duh, the Bible didn't even exist until many decades after the event.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 22, 2011 6:33:27 GMT -5
Even if it's not fake, how do we know it is indeed Jesus's burial shroud and not any random person's who happened to resemble what we think Jesus probably looked like? We don't "know," some of us have faith, different things. Anyone who tells you otherwise doesn't understand what he's talking about.
|
|
|
Post by itachirumon on Dec 22, 2011 8:23:55 GMT -5
Isn't it Dionysus the Jesus story mimics also? I remember in my greek lit class they did a side-by-side of the two and it was really...pretty interesting.
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Dec 22, 2011 8:50:11 GMT -5
OMG are you talking about Euripedes' play Bacchae?? Because I pointed out the exact. same. thing. in my Western literature class when I was a freshman in college.
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Dec 22, 2011 8:58:49 GMT -5
Isn't it Dionysus the Jesus story mimics also? I remember in my greek lit class they did a side-by-side of the two and it was really...pretty interesting. There's quite a few virgin born miracle workers in the record, Apollo, Krishna, I think its an element of Mithraism too.
|
|
|
Post by The_L on Dec 22, 2011 9:26:24 GMT -5
If it's real, it is certainly an amazing historical artifact regardless if you're religious or not. However, I don't see it proving that Jesus is the divine son of God, only that he was in some way brutally killed. In fact, how do they know definitively that it was Jesus and not any number of men who could have been brutally killed in some way? 1.. Nobody knows what Jesus (Yeshua Ben Miriam) actually looked like, but all "likenesses" of him are Caucasin, who had nothing to relate to the Middle East of the time. 2.. The Romans (actually Syrian mercenaries) tortured and crucified over 35,000 Jews, so why single out 1. 3.. The story of JC is directly copied from the legend of Horus and didn't even appear in the Bible until many decades after the event. 4.. Christmas Day is actually Mithas Day annexed by the RCC in order to appease the newly oppressed converted. 5.. For good measure, Mary Magdelene was a Celtic God annexed by the RCC to get the Celts to accept christianity. The Shroud of Turin is a proven fake, but the Church is expert at moving goalposts. There are so many "relics" of JC scattered around the world, enough to reconstruct his body 15 times over. Citation needed on number 5. The others, while some are overly-simplified to the point of being slightly misleading, are all true, but I've never heard anything about Mary of Magdala being a Celtic Goddess. (St. Brigid, on the other hand...) I don't even know of any of the Tuatha de Danaan whose names even closely resemble "Mary" or "Magdalene." Also, the Bible (which refers to Mary of Magdala by name) was written in the Middle East, where Celtic deities probably would not have been worshiped.
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Dec 22, 2011 14:45:02 GMT -5
Also... why the obsession with trying to tie Celtic Pagan gods/goddesses to Christianity? It's clear a lot of the Christianity stuff comes from Egyptian beliefs.
"In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototype of the Virgin Mary and her Child."
"...the Copts of Egypt during the early Christian centuries were known for their massive production of Apocrypha and pseudepigrapha. This characteristic of the early Copts should not be surprising to us in light of the evidence of gnostic influence on the early Coptic Christian thought. The gnostics were literate people and well acquainted with ancient religions and mythology. As Christianity was spreading in Egypt, a group of these gnostic Christians apparently made an effort to tie old Egyptian myths to Christian beliefs."
"In the theology and art of Gnosticism Horus and Christ could easily be blended.... Aeon/Horus was born of the Virgin Isis.... Clearly in the Gnosticism which fringed Christian orthodoxy Horus and Christ could merge."
|
|