Shroud Authenticated !!

[danbaron]

Italian study claims Turin Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/8966422/Italian-study-claims-Turin-Shroud-is-Christs-authentic-burial-robe.html

'Twas the night before Christmas, when all through the house
Not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse;
The stockings were hung by the chimney with care,
In hopes that St. Nicholas soon would be there;
The children were nestled all snug in their beds,
While visions of sugar-plums danced in their heads;
And mamma in her 'kerchief, and I in my cap,
Had just settled down for a long winter's nap,
When out on the lawn there arose such a clatter,
I sprang from the bed to see what was the matter.
Away to the window I flew like a flash,
Tore open the shutters and threw up the sash.
The moon on the breast of the new-fallen snow
Gave the lustre of mid-day to objects below,
When, what to my wondering eyes should appear,
But a miniature sleigh, and eight tiny reindeer,
With a little old driver, so lively and quick,
I knew in a moment it must be St. Nick.
More rapid than eagles his coursers they came,
And he whistled, and shouted, and called them by name;
"Now, Dasher! now, Dancer! now, Prancer and Vixen!
On, Comet! on Cupid! on, Donder and Blitzen!
To the top of the porch! to the top of the wall!
Now dash away! dash away! dash away all!"
As dry leaves that before the wild hurricane fly,
When they meet with an obstacle, mount to the sky,
So up to the house-top the coursers they flew,
With the sleigh full of toys, and St. Nicholas too.
And then, in a twinkling, I heard on the roof
The prancing and pawing of each little hoof.
As I drew in my head, and was turning around,
Down the chimney St. Nicholas came with a bound.
He was dressed all in fur, from his head to his foot,
And his clothes were all tarnished with ashes and soot;
A bundle of toys he had flung on his back,
And he looked like a peddler just opening his pack.
His eyes -- how they twinkled! his dimples how merry!
His cheeks were like roses, his nose like a cherry!
His droll little mouth was drawn up like a bow,
And the beard of his chin was as white as the snow;
The stump of a pipe he held tight in his teeth,
And the smoke it encircled his head like a wreath;
He had a broad face and a little round belly,
That shook, when he laughed like a bowlful of jelly.
He was chubby and plump, a right jolly old elf,
And I laughed when I saw him, in spite of myself;
A wink of his eye and a twist of his head,
Soon gave me to know I had nothing to dread;
He spoke not a word, but went straight to his work,
And filled all the stockings; then turned with a jerk,
And laying his finger aside of his nose,
And giving a nod, up the chimney he rose;
He sprang to his sleigh, to his team gave a whistle,
And away they all flew like the down of a thistle.
But I heard him exclaim, ere he drove out of sight,
"Happy Christmas to all, and to all a good-night."

[Charles Pegge]

Judging by the 14ft length of the cloth, he must have been about 12ft tall (3.66Metres)


http://lh5.ggpht.com/_xAm5ThnM61o/SXVwTfPqt3I/AAAAAAAAAd8/D88fZEBVoSI/000Shroudpx1.JPG

[kryton9]

This also is intriguing.
Prof Paolo Di Lazzaro, the head of the team, said: "When one talks about a flash of light being able to colour a piece of linen in the same way as the shroud, discussion inevitably touches on things like miracles and resurrection."

At http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcqu.htm :

"We do not know whether he was tall or short. The image on the Shroud
of Turin (believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus) is of a
man variously estimated to be 5' 11½" to 6' 2" tall. Jews who lived in
the 1st century CE were much shorter than this. Writer William Harwood
comments: "According to a medieval writer, [the Jewish historian]
Josephus described Jesus as an old-looking man, balding, stooped, with
joined eyebrows and approximately 135 cm (4ft 6 in.) tall." 2 This is
based on the standard 46 cm. long regular cubit -- an ancient unit of
distance. Using the 53 cm. special cubit, Jesus' height would have
been about 156 cm (5ft 1in.). Harwood also makes the point that if
Jesus were really 6 feet high, his height would have been so
remarkable that he would certainly have been described as a very tall
person by the writers of the Christian Scriptures."

[danbaron]

I doubt the Romans were a bunch of Munchkins.

I think, as we see today in Asia, height depends greatly on nutrition.

How about Homo erectus, who lived approximately 1.5 million years ago?

"These early hominins stood about 1.79 m (5 ft 10 in), and were more robust than modern humans."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_erectus

(I'd like to see someone promote the theory, that due to evolution (species adaptation), Homo sapiens has grown over a foot in the last 2000 years.)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Concerning the Shroud of Turin:

No one has to believe in it.

But, I guess we should have an idea of what we are talking about.


There has been substantial evidence working against it, including a 1988 radiocarbon test conducted at the University of Oxford, which dated the cloth to a time between 1260 and 1390.After years of discussion, the Holy See permitted radiocarbon dating (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating) on portions of a swatch taken from a corner of the shroud. Independent tests in 1988 at the University of Oxford (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Oxford), the University of Arizona (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Arizona), and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ETH_Zurich) concluded that the shroud material dated to 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence.[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-Turin_Nature-3) This 13th to 14th century dating matches the first appearance of the shroud in church history,[53] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-HST-52) and is somewhat later than art historian W.S.A. Dale's estimate of an 11th century date based on art-historical grounds.[54] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-dale-53) Although the quality of the radiocarbon testing itself is unquestioned, criticisms have been raised regarding the choice of the sample taken for testing, with suggestions that the sample may represent a medieval repair fragment rather than the image-bearing cloth.[55] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-54)[56] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-55)[57] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-56) In 2005, Raymond Rogers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Rogers), who conducted chemical analysis for the Shroud of Turin Research Project (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin_Research_Project) stated that after further study he was convinced that: "The worst possible sample for carbon dating was taken."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

"Judging by the 14ft length of the cloth, he must have been about 12ft tall (3.66Metres)"

That picture (above) is misleading.

"The shroud is rectangular, measuring approximately 4.4 × 1.1 m (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre) (14.3 × 3.7 ft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_%28length%29))."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin

If the dimensions in the reference are correct, the dimensions of the picture are, 4.4 / 2 x 1.1 * 2 = 2.2 x 2.2 meters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, it's hard to go through life believing it is meaningless.

In my opinion, if you want to throw out God, then, you might as well throw out ETs, too.

I think we have absolutely zero evidence that ETs could get here.

According to what we know, the speed of light cannot even be approached by beings such as we, and, traveling through, "wormholes", or, "other dimensions", is not more than dreaming.

For the person who is convinced that we exist only by accident, and that the universe doesn't even know we are here, I see some contradictions.

Why would such a person even participate in life?

I think it must be only because, he/she is too afraid to not participate.

And, why would such a person have offspring?

I think it must be only because, he/she is biologically programmed to do so.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To me, for the thinking, empathetic person, life is difficult at best.

For instance, imagine, if for such a person, everything was free, i.e., he/she was effectively a billionaire.

Then, he/she could just take any material thing he/she wanted.

I don't think that ability would produce happiness.

The person could not avoid being aware of the suffering of others, and the resulting feelings of empathic sorrow and guilt.

And, the person would constantly be haunted by the twin specters that, everything is for nothing, and, the cemetery patiently waits - there is no happy ending.

Is it an accident that so many artists commit suicide or die young?

Of course, at the other end of the spectrum, are the people with attenuated emotions.

For them, pride, pleasurable distraction, and, continual progress in material security and social status, are more than enough to make life worth living.

For them, superficiality is great.

And, they are not troubled by the demons of introspection/meaning.

[kryton9]

Dan you posted some of the grand questions of all times. I think it is more exciting that we don't know it all, remember the Q on STNG. Bored out of their minds with all the power and knowledge they had.
Now if something is known and kept from us, that is another matter. Disclosure for sure! Those are the questions I want answered.

[Charles Pegge]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

[danbaron]

That's a long article.

Who can read it all?

By starting this thread, I didn't intend to imply that I believe in Jesus.

But, I do admit, I would like there to be something to believe in.

I find life to be very depressing when I have no hope that we continue in some form beyond the grave.

(Who wants to cease to exist?)

If I think about Jesus logically, then: -->

Since no miracles happen today, why would they have happened 2000 years ago?

If Jesus did exist, then most likely the apostles removed his body from the tomb during the night. If they did, then, they got the result they wanted, a new religion. (I guess for some people, whether the movement they start has a factual basis, doesn't matter. (I don't think I would do it.))

Interestingly, the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, touches on the issue of whether it matters if Christianity is factually based. In the movie, Jesus is hanging on the cross. There are many people all around, running, jumping, yelling and screaming. It sounds like an insane asylum. Suddenly, it becomes absolutely silent, but, the many people can still be seen running, jumping, yelling and screaming. It is like someone turned the sound off. A little girl approaches the cross and speaks to Jesus. She tells him that he has pleased his father. It is not necessary for him to die. (This is similar to the story of Abraham and Isaac, in the Old Testament. God tells Abraham to take his son, Isaac, up on the mountain, and to sacrifice him. Abraham is in the process of obeying God, and has the knife raised above his head, when God basically says, "Just kidding.".) The nails pull out of the cross into the air, Jesus comes down, and the two of them walk away in total silence, and seemingly invisible to the mob. After that, Jesus marries Mary Magdalene, and they have children. Years later, Jesus encounters Paul, preaching about the risen Christ. Jesus angrily confronts him and says it never happened. Paul pays little attention to Jesus, says something like, "Don't you see, it doesn't matter?", and walks away preaching about the risen Christ. At the end of the movie, when Jerusalem is burning (and Jesus is old), Jesus realizes that he was tricked by the little girl, begs his father for forgiveness, and then is suddenly back hanging on the cross (the time that passed is erased). He says something like, "It is done.", and dies. I thought it was a very good movie.

The Bible is zero proof of Jesus as God. Anyone can write a book. The older a book becomes, the more difficult it becomes to check its assertions.

The idea of Original Sin seems phony to me. I see it as a way of justifying God. People knew how terrible and unfair life generally was. Therefore, to exonerate God, the reason life was that way, must be the fault of the people. (Of course, Christianity doesn't have much to say about the suffering of animals.)

And, how about the suffering of all of the animals and humanoids who lived prior to Original Sin (prior to Adam and Eve)? I don't think Christianity has an answer.

Why doesn't the Bible mention dinosaurs?

We can't even determine the truth of many many events that have happened during our lifetimes, for instance, JFK, 9/11. How can anyone be certain concerning Jesus?

I will say that, religions appear. Christianity appeared. Recently, in America, Mormonism appeared. A good case could be made that the only reason religions appear, is because of the psychological nature of humans.

If religions effectively spring into existence from nothing, then, I guess an analogy could be made between them and the universe (according to the big bang theory).

And, if, for instance, Christianity appeared from nothing, then, I think it is pretty amazing how big something based on nothing, can become.

Without religion, what would people have to believe in, what motivation to persevere through life?

And, of course, there are other forms of religion - science, magic, ETs, etc.

I would say that since people have nothing close to certainty in answer to any existential question, they absolutely need to pretend in one way or another, and to hope and then believe, in what they are pretending.

[Pipes]

Interestingly, the movie, The Last Temptation of Christ, touches on the issue of whether it matters if Christianity is factually based. In the movie, Jesus is hanging on the cross. etc.

If you are getting your theology from Hollywood you should find another source.


The Bible is zero proof of Jesus as God. Anyone can write a book. The older a book becomes, the more difficult it becomes to check its assertions.

Who are you to say it's wrong? Prove that it's wrong. Why should the world listen to you and throw the Bible out?
I think I'll just compare your assertions with the Bible. That seems to be a more viable option.


The idea of Original Sin seems phony to me. I see it as a way of justifying God.

God doesn't need to be justified but perhaps you do. That's probably why you are asking all these questions and basing your deductions on false premises. Have you really ever read the Bible? If not, then explain how you can comment on it.


I would say that since people have nothing close to certainty in answer to any existential question, they absolutely need to pretend in one way or another, and to hope and then believe, in what they are pretending

Which do you think is the reality of this situation?

1. The majority of the people on this planet are a bunch of deluded fools pretending to hope, while you are the all knowing and all wise and we should throw off our delusions and listen to you.
Or...
2. Perhaps you are wrong and the Bible is right.

Ask yourself this question. Who are you to say Jesus is a liar?

[danbaron]

You made 4 points.

I will respond to them in order.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

1.
I didn't say I got my theology from Hollywood.
I described what happened in the movie, and said I thought the movie was good.
But, if I was getting my theology from Hollywood, it would be my right.
It is only your opinion, that I should, "find another source".

2.
I didn't say the Bible is wrong.
No one can prove it right or wrong.
(Incidentally, no one can prove whether or not leprechauns exist.)
But, "Who are you to say.."?
I am a human being, like you, and, I may express my thoughts.
No one has to listen to me, and, no one has to listen to you.
(Actually, if you didn't listen to me, you wouldn't be replying to my post.)
You can compare my, "assertions", to anything you want.
If it (the Bible) is a, "more viable option", then, that is not more than your opinion.

3.
You say God does not need to be justified.
That is not more than your opinion.
You say I am basing my deductions on false premises.
That is not more than your opinion.
You can speculate about whether I have or have not read the Bible.
"If not, then explain how you can comment on it."
I should explain, because you command me to?

4.
I didn't say that people are, "deluded fools".
I didn't say that I don't hope.
But, apparently, you think I don't hope.
You said, "perhaps you are wrong and the Bible is right".
Perhaps.
"Ask yourself this question. Who are you to say Jesus is a liar?"
Ask yourself this question. Why do I think he said, Jesus is a liar, when in actuality, he did not?

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Everything I wrote was premised by the statement, "If I think about Jesus logically:".
That statement was intended to mean, that all of the statements below it were only my speculations, not my convictions.

My entire post was written in response to the previous post,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus

Interestingly, you don't seem to be upset about it.

[Charles Pegge]

A popular theory is that such places exist, displaced from us in another (4th?) dimension, and not necessarily far away in any of our 3 spatial dimensions.

Personally I am rather wary of gated communities though :)


Returning to the Historicity of Jesus:

It is surprising that there is no contemporary references to Jesus of Nazareth outside the New Testament, and there are few references to 'The Christ'.

However Christians, as a community were already visible to the Romans by the time of Nero. They were renouned for believing in immortality, not fearing death and refusal to worship the Roman pantheon.

Nero persecuted the Christian community as a convenient scapegoat for the fire of Rome (July 19, AD 64)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Fire_of_Rome

Charles

[danbaron]

I'll be happy if we all can meet in a better place than this.

Say we are two dimensional, and live on a sheet of paper. Then, we would be unable to imagine a third spatial dimension. We couldn't imagine a direction perpendicular to the sheet. But, unknown to us, our sheet could be in a huge stack of sheets. All we would have to do is to move the thickness of one sheet perpendicularly to the stack, and, we would be in what for us would be, a completely different universe. And, actually, since the sheets are two dimensional, they would have zero thickness, so if we moved any distance greater than zero in the perpendicular direction, we would be in a completely different place.

When you are a tyrant and you can't scare a group of people into submission, then, that group is a threat to you.

I remember that Nero used Christians as human torches. I think he had them tied to poles, covered with pitch, and ignited. He and his court would see them burning nearby, from his gardens at night.

It seems to me that a person who is secure in his beliefs, would not react antagonistically to someone who expresses the possibility of an alternative theory.

Would Newton have become angry if someone denied the existence of gravity?

Would Einstein have become angry if someone said the theory of relativity is wrong?

Would Andrew Wiles become angry if someone said he had found an exception to Fermat's Last Theorem?

I think that, for instance, with respect to Christianity, some Christians become angry because, they base everything on the Bible. If someone says, "I think the Bible was written by people, who were not divinely inspired.", then, how can they respond? They can insult the person, and try to intimidate him, but, they cannot prove he is wrong. So, I think that sometimes, the result is true hatred. Some people cannot tolerate uncertainty.

The more you invest in a particular theory, the more you will feel threatened when its validity is legitimately challenged. But, some are courageous enough to value truth above all else, no matter how painful doing that may be.

I'll say it again, some people cannot tolerate uncertainty. I think those are the ones who become fanatical about a particular belief system.

Additionally, in my opinion, a fanatical Christian, had he been born in Saudi Arabia, would instead be a fanatical Muslim.