Posted on 12/17/2009 4:57:12 AM PST by bogusname
Israel experts said on Wednesday that a burial shroud known as the Turin shroud, assumed to be the type used to wrap the body of Jesus, did not actually originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.
The conclusion was based on excavation discoveries of a first-century C.E. shrouded man found in a tomb on the edge of the Old City of Jerusalem, which also revealed the earliest proven case of leprosy.
Along with the DNA of the shrouded man, this was the first time that fragments of a burial shroud have been found from the time of Jesus in Jerusalem, which, unlike the complex weave of the Turin Shroud, this shroud was made up of a simple two-way weave, as the textiles historian Dr. Orit Shamir was able to show...
(Excerpt) Read more at haaretz.com ...
bump
Were I a constable, or a sheriff, in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts prior to 1820. I could have you clapped in irons for those remarks. Or perhaps exiled to Maine. Or both.
M*##y Christm@$!
What the heck is so anomalous about one of the more technically-minded disciples recording an image of the big event?
The Shroud of Turin could be this technically-minded Italian city's answer to The Holy Birthplace of Obama, in Mombasa. In fact, according to the testimony of officials in Hawaii, Obama may be an example of saintly bi-location. At least no one in Turin makes THAT claim.
There is not much about the cloth itself except for this:
The article you posted is full of speculation not backed by scientific evidence. Note the use of the term investigators instead of using scientists.
a first-century C.E. shrouded man found in a tomb on the edge of the Old City of Jerusalem, which also revealed the earliest proven case of leprosy.
Note also that this is not the earliest proven case of leprosy, but instead the earliest found in Israel.
To be accurate, I left it out. I'm not Roman.
It is by design that there is so little evidence to prove of Jesus' existence, His works and His divinity. For if we had proof positive of any of these things, what need is there to have faith?
Well, as a lawyer, I have found that there is the meaning most people attribute to words, and therefore, that meaning is what they intend to communicate.
But - even though that common meaning (which is well understood by everyone), is conveyed, there are some people who when confronted, scurry over to the historic and less used meaning of the same word, claiming purity in meaning.
So - does “Catholic Church” mean to you the organization seated in Vatican City, and headed by Pope Benedict, or not? Because the fact is, that is known as the Roman Catholic Church.
No.
I am interested in this burial for a couple of reasons, mainly my research interest in leprosy and death.
However, I completely disagree that a comparison of a shroud of a leper AUTOMATICALLY assumes that it would be the same type/weave of the Shroud of Jesus.
I agree with dangus that the burial shroud of Jesus was probably buried in a finer cloth, due to Joseph of Aramathea wealth and status. The Biblical accounts of the burial, (oil and spices) also show a more wealthy burial for Jesus, than ANY leper (who were outcasts and considered “the living dead”) would have had.
neglects that Jesus was a Nazarene.
If he were to have taken a vow of a Nazerite, included within the vow was prohibition to cutting the hair of one's head, or corners of the beard.
Samson was such a one or similar, it is understood.
bttt
but if it is real...and we will probably never know...it is just plain cool.
- - - -
My mother bought me (from an antique store) an old (possibly very early 2oth century) “negative” 1/4 scale image of the shroud on linen. I have no idea how old it is, or it’s origin, or anything. I figure it is possible that it is a “gift shop souvenir” from Turin, but have been unable to find anyone who has ever heard of one.
It is really cool wall art, but it tends to freak out my friends when they first see it.
It takes no mind reading to know that when someone writes that someone else’s faith depends on a piece of cloth it is intended to inflame. The statement is, on its face, insulting. Your tu quoque response further personalizes it.
The thread was about historical evidence regarding historical artifacts. No one said anything about religious belief—not in the Haaretz article, not in the comments before yours. You have been told repeatedly that no one who believes the Shroud is authentic does so because his faith in Christ depends on it.
You have been told this repeatedly. Having been told this, every time you make this comment it is prima facie evidence that you intend to inflame.
Other Religion Forum thread types (prayer, devotional, caucus and ecumenical) provide safe harbor for discussing matters without contention. Click on my profile page for more.
It is true that St Ambrose, in speaking of Helena, the mother of the Emperor Constantine the Great, who sought with great trouble and expense for the cross of our Lord, says that she did not worship the wood, but the Lord who was suspended upon it. But it is a very rare thing, that a heart disposed to value any relics whatever should not become to a certain degree polluted by some superstition.
I admit that people do not arrive at once at open idolatry, but they gradually advance from one abuse to another until they fall into this extremity, and, indeed, those who call themselves Christians have, in this respect, idolatrized as much as Pagans ever did. They have prostrated themselves, and knelt before relics, just as if they were worshipping God; they have burnt candles before them in sign of homage; they have placed their confidence in them, and have prayed to them, as if the virtue and the grace of God had entered into them. Now, if idolatry be nothing else than the transfer elsewhere of the honor which is due to God, can it be denied that this is idolatry? This cannot be excused by pretending that it was only the improper zeal of some idiots or foolish women, for it was a general custom approved by those who had the government of the church, and who had even placed the bones of the dead and other relics on the high altar, in the greatest and most prominent places, in order that they should be worshipped with more certainty.
It is thus that the foolish fancy which people had at first for collecting relics, ended in this open abomination, — they not only turned from God, in order to amuse themselves with vain and corruptible things, but even went on to the execrable sacrilege of worshipping dead and insensible creatures, instead of the one living God. Now, as one evil never comes alone but is always followed by another, it thus happened that where people were seeking for relics, either of Jesus Christ or the saints, they became so blind that whatever name was imposed upon any rubbish presented to them, they received it without any examination or judgment; thus the bones of an ass or dog, which any hawker gave out to be the bones of a martyr, were devoutly received without any difficulty. This was the case with all of them, as will be shown hereafter.
For my own part, I have no doubt that this has been a great punishment inflicted by God. Because, as the world was craving after relics, and turning them to a wicked and superstitious use, it was very likely that God would permit one lie to follow another; for this is the way in which he punishes the dishonor done to his name, when the glory due to him is transferred elsewhere. Indeed, the only reason why there are so many false and imaginary relics is, that God has permitted the world to be doubly deceived and fallen, since it has so loved deceit and lies.
The first Christians left the bodies of the saints in their graves, obeying the universal sentence, that all flesh is dust, and TO DUST IT MUST RETURN, and did not attempt their resurrection before the appointed time by raising them in pomp and state. This example has not been followed by their successors; on the contrary, the bodies of the faithful, in opposition to the command of God, have been disinterred in order to be glorified, when they ought to have remained in their places of repose awaiting the last judgment.
John Calvin's Treatise on Relics
I have a tweed jacket hanging next to a blue blazer in my closet. Although they were purchased from the same Brooks Bros store on the same day, they are nothing alike in weave and therefore clearly prove that I lived in two different centuries and continents simutlaneously - and therefore never existed.
To be a native or inhabitant of Nazareth is all it takes to make one a Nazarene.
However to be a Nazarite is something different altogether. When someone makes the vow of the Nazarite they then must abide by those conditions all of their days. This has nothing to do with being from Nazareth as Christ was. Christ did not make the vow of the Nazarite. A Nazarite can not drink anything that comes from a grape. Christ drank wine. A Nazarite can not touch a dead body. Christ took the little dead girl’s hand and told her to get up. A Nazarite can not cut his hair. Christ had short hair.
You are getting the two terms confused like many folks do because Nazarite sounds like Nazareth. One is a vow and the other is a place.
Amen.
Thanks, Harley. Isn't that just a great understanding of the pitfalls of elevating earthly relics to something spiritual when they are, in fact, just objects awaiting dust?
Calvin was so fearful of the lure to glorify things and men other than God he specified in his will that he be buried with no headstone so there would be nothing left of him other than his writing.
"I admit that people do not arrive at once at open idolatry, but they gradually advance from one abuse to another until they fall into this extremity, and, indeed, those who call themselves Christians have, in this respect, idolatrized as much as Pagans ever did. They have prostrated themselves, and knelt before relics, just as if they were worshipping God; they have burnt candles before them in sign of homage; they have placed their confidence in them, and have prayed to them, as if the virtue and the grace of God had entered into them. Now, if idolatry be nothing else than the transfer elsewhere of the honor which is due to God, can it be denied that this is idolatry? This cannot be excused by pretending that it was only the improper zeal of some idiots or foolish women, for it was a general custom approved by those who had the government of the church, and who had even placed the bones of the dead and other relics on the high altar, in the greatest and most prominent places, in order that they should be worshipped with more certainty..."
Sounds like some of our Romanist FRiends, doesn't it?
Can you cite that for me? I missed that part (serious request, not being sarcastic).
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.