Posted on 03/04/2004 2:19:56 PM PST by Vets_Husband_and_Wife
It might be. But we do know that Jesus was horribly brutalized before being crucified.
And to think He did it all out of His love for us.
LOL Where did you read that?
This Encyclopedia entry was written in 1912... by an author who's work was described as "poorly researched." I showed you this in an earlier post CITING your link's copyright date. This entry was replaced in 1968... and is still outdated.
Stop using outdated source material, Dog. It is DISHONEST!
This is incorrect, Doc. You are confabulating Egyptian burial practices with Jewish. The Bible DOES NOT describe any such "cocoon" or strips of fabric. The original Greek speeks of Joseph of Arimathea buying a "Sindon", a Shroud, and reports a "sudarion" (Greek), "sudarium" (Latin), "napkin" (English) head cloth... no strips.
Secondo Pia, the photographer, was the first to discover that the ALREADY EXISTANT image on the shroud produced a POSITIVE in the NEGATIVE glass plate of his photographic process. In other words, the Shroud itself is apparently a negative, with darks and lights reversed. Check out the pictures on this page: Shroud Face images
The first is an image of how the Shroud appeared througout its history. The second is a negative of the first.
So those in medieval times most likely did not even know the image was there. They just believed it to be the burial cloth of Christ.
Medieval descriptions of the Shroud ALL speak of the faint image of the crucified Christ on the Shroud... they were quite well aware of the image.
We agree.
but I have no love or respect for the shroud, and I wince when people cling to it as some kind of proof of Jesus' existence.
I'm interested in it as a testable archaeological artifact. I don't forclose the possibility that it could be THE shroud. If it happens to be the actual shroud, and proves itself to be so, then that could be pretty neat. As an accomplished scientist, I will look at it from this perspective as well. No one can positively say one way or the other right now, though even I must honestly admit that at this time the evidence appears to be building for it rather than detracting from it.
It challenges my faith in no way at all, however it proves to be. If I were you, I wouldn't let it challenge your faith either.
Just don't refuse to believe it out of hand, simply because of how some people may look at it or how you feel they have become inappropriately attached to it. If it strengthens their faith, so what? Who are you or I to say otherwise or judge their faith? Don't fear that there actually may be a true testable artifact from the crucufixion of Christ, just to fear it. That is actually more "tin-foil" hat-ed than you may realize.
Who knows...they might even locate the Holy Grail some day too. Keep an open mind and remain intellectually honest.
But they could only see it partially, correct? The full extent of the image was not apparent until it was photographed. What I was trying to say...it would have been difficult to fake the image in medieval times. How could they create the image of Christ if they could not see it completely? The detail of the scourging & blood spots would have very difficult to show.
Yeah, I know you're an expert. (no sarcasm) :)
No, but a source citing opinions and errors AS FACTS that have been disproven by subsequent research IS invalid. You choose to use that source because it says what YOU WANT IT TO SAY. I, on the other hand, discount it because later research has superseded it... and disproved its thesis. HappyDogDesign prefers to ignore 92 years of valid research and latches onto a "poorly researched" article from 1912.
To keep using an outdated, disproven, and invalid source in a discussion is dishonest, Dog. You keep using the 1912 source... ignoring those of us who point out your error. That makes you dishonest. Do you use a Highway Map from 1912 as well? And I bet you keep reading the same newspaper from 1962 as well...
And to think those wacky Catholics have had physical proof of the Lord's resurrection in their hands, and they just aren't smart enough to read the same books you do.
Don't you think that those "wacky Catholics" have changed their opinion since 1912... based on those same books and the research that is reported in them? Yes, they have... and it is reported in the 1968 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia.
You seem to think that I am Catholic. I am not. However your Catholic bashing is bordering on abuse. I suggest you stop. Discuss the issues honestly, without the ad hominem.
Uh-Oh, don't tell Krauthammer, Safire or Mona Charen. They'll say this is an unfair depiction and might rile people to think that the Jewish High priest didn't exactly like Jesus.
You are right, Madison.
The image is VERY faint. Even today, one has to stand at a good distance (usually about 15 feet or more away) to see the image. Any closer and it fades into the background color of the linen. Any "artist" working on such an image would have a difficult time even seeing what he was "painting".
Yeah, I know you're an expert. (no sarcasm) :)
No, I am not an expert... but I have studied this topic for over 30 years. I have made some small contributions to the scholarship on the Shroud. You will find my name on www.shroud.com along with fellow freeper Shroudie's. I know Barrie Schwortz and several other of the scientists doing research. I will be attending another Shroud symposium the Month. All of this, perhaps, makes me more informed on this subject that most other Freepers with the sole exception of Shroudie.
The Shroud covered the face, and shows an imprint of a face. Clothing does not cover the face, and if you take a look at John 20:7, it was a napkin that covered his face.
What we have today are more doctrines and traditions of men, than what the bible truly teaches us. Let's let go of the false and fraudulent. Let's stick to facts of the scriptures. John 20:7
BZZZT! Wrong. Your link does not link to the "catholic website." It is a commercial site selling various religious books, DVDs and PUBLIC DOMAIN documents (like the 1912 version of the Catholic Encyclopedia). IT is Advent.org, a private organization with a Catholic agenda.
Is your research always this flawed, Dog? You really need to know WHO you are quoting or linking to. It causes you to make assumptions that make you look ignorant and at worst stupid. I don't believe you are stupid... but you are ignorant (which just means "ininformed") on this subject.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.