Shroud of Turin: Old as Jesus?

THE NEW YORK TIMES ^ | January 27, 2005 | NA

[Romulus]

I don't understand why this is so hard for people to follow.

The first chapter of John does not speak of "Jesus". It speaks of the second Person of the Trinity as the Word, eternally present with the Father, through whom all things were made. The Word became flesh at a specific moment in time. From this point onward, the Word has been both divine and human. Before the Incarnation, the Word was NOT human, had NO human name, No body, etc.

Jesus is fully divine and fully human, OK? His human and divine natures are inseparable, but this human nature came into being at the moment of his conception.

There was never a time when the Son did not exist. But there was certainly a time that Jesus did not exist. You cannot claim otherwise without calling the Incarnation a sham.

[redgolum]

Then what is the Christological nature of Jesus in your view?

[Romulus]

Yeah, you got me, maestro. How could I ever have hoped to fool you? I am so busted.

[eastsider]

KATA MAESTRO

en arch hn o ihsous kai o ihsous hn pros ton qeon kai qeos hn o ihsous

[maestro]

........ But there was certainly a time that Jesus did not exist. You cannot claim otherwise without calling the Incarnation a sham.....

Wrong again!

[redgolum]

I think the problem is that the way you expressed yourself sounded a lot like modalism, (or Nestorian), IE that Jesus and the 2nd person in the Trinity are two different entities. They are not (which we agree on), but the Son (2nd person in the Trinity) is co Eternal with the Father and the Holy Spirit.

If you are trying to say that the Word (Son, 2nd person of the Trinity) did not become flesh until the Incarnation, you are correct.

[LibertarianInExile]

I'm sorry I interfered with your belief that this fraud hanky is holy and that it's remotely likely that it wiped God's face. I can understand being interested in the provenance of an historical object. However, this is not about that. It's about tangible proof of an intangible deity. You aren't going to get it, no matter how much fake science you buy. You still have to believe. A fraud hanky isn't going to make it more or less likely that Jesus was God's son. You still have to have faith, whether there's a holy hanky or not. I have faith in the carbon dating that says this wasn't around then, and I don't buy the 'they took the wrong part of the shroud' b.s. this guy is shilling. What's next--they didn't take enough? They needed to take the right corner instead? I don't think there will ever be enough proof for him...and worse, it doesn't matter if there is proof, because no matter what power is imagined in relics, faith is the real miracle worker.

[Romulus]

I expressed myself just fine. Next time, read twice before posting.

[Romulus]

LOL!!

[Romulus]

How could Jesus exist before his mother?

[maestro]

en arch hn o ihsous kai o ihsous hn pros ton qeon kai qeos hn o ihsous

Garbage in garbage out.

:-)

[eastsider]

Thou has said it ...

[Romulus]

Game, set, match.

[maestro]

Thou has said it ... ?

....pros or meta

[Paulus Invictus]

Errr...NO!

[eastsider]

The Greek New Testament

[maestro]

:-)

Why 'pros'.....?

[eastsider]

Why Logos?

[maestro]

Why NOT meta?

;-)

[eastsider]

Say goodnight, Gracie : )