Posted on 02/12/2005 11:59:27 AM PST by NYer
Rome, Feb. 11, 2005 (CNA) - Forensic scientists in Italy are working on a different kind of investigation—one that dates back 2000 years.
In an astounding announcement, the scientists think they may have re-created an image of Jesus Christ when He was a 12-year old boy.
Using the Shroud of Turin, a centuries-old linen cloth, which many believe bears the face of the crucified Christ, the investigators first created a computer-modeled, composite picture of the Christ’s face.
Dr. Carlo Bui, one of the scientists said that, “the face of the man on the shroud is the face of a suffering man. He has a deeply ruined nose. It was certainly struck."
Then, using techniques usually reserved for investigating missing persons, they back dated the image to create the closest thing many will ever see to a photograph of the young Christ.
“Without a doubt, the eyes... That is, the deepness of the eyes, the central part of the face in its complexity”, said forensic scientist Andrea Amore, one of the chief investigators who made the discovery.
The shroud itself, a 14-foot long by 3.5-foot wide woven cloth believed by many to be the burial shroud of Jesus, is receiving renewed attention lately.
A Los Alamos, New Mexico scientist has recently cast grave doubt that the carbon dating originally used to date the shroud was valid. This would suggest that the shroud may in fact be 2000 years old after all, placing it precisely in the period of Christ’s crucifixion.
Ok Math, ignore that the verses were pointed out by a Bishop, can you disprove those verses?
"All you can do is read that meaning into verses that say no such thing."
I'm not reading anything into the verses. It is what The Church believes that is important to me.
"The "fathers" can go jump in a lake. Haven't I made that clear enough?"
Well you've certainly made it clear enough now. I can't see much point in continuing this discussion, my friend. It is doing none of us any spiritual good.
I think we're talking at cross-purposes here. I state that Islam is a Christian heresy in the same way that gnosticism, Manichaenism etc. are considered Christian heresies. They all took some aspects of Christianity and merged it with other thoughts etc. to form cults.
The Council of Carthage to which you refer also included most of the Deuterocanonical books of the Old Testament in the Canon, as did all of the other early Church Councils.
I presume, therefore, that the Bible you use contains at least those books, and that they are among those books that you have read in your 20 times through the Bible.
Scripture Alone, while not in the Bible as a concept (the Scriptures you quoted all do say that Scripture is good - who disputes that? - and necessary, but they do not say that Scripture is the only thing that is holy and good, nor do they define what "Scripture" IS in the first place), has the virtue of limiting the entirety of knowledge one needs to have about Christianity to a definable book. It would be doubly critical, therefore, to make sure one is reading the right book, and not abridging it.
I presume that you are using a full Bible, using the canon from those early councils which includes the Deuteroncanonica, and that you are not going on a frolic of your own by using an Abridged Version such as the King James?
"What part of "scripture only" aren't you getting?"
The part where the Bible itself says "Scripture Only".
I have heard YOU assert it seventeen times.
I have not seen you quote a single passage of Scripture that says anything like that.
You are telling the learned fathers of the Church to go jump in the lake based upon a doctrine of Bible Alone. But you have not cited any Scripture that says "Bible Alone". You have cited lots of Scripture that says "The Bible is Good" - I already knew that. Or "The Bible is necessary" - knew that too.
What you haven't done is pulled out the piece of the Bible that says "The Bible ALONE is all you need, which is the substance of your argument."
For that, you seem to revert to constant repetition that this is all YOU'LL accept.
Hey, that's your right and privilege.
I merely note that you have cited no Scriptural authority for the assertion. You are asserting "Bible ALONE" without presenting any passage from the Bible that says Bible ALONE - emphasis on the ALONE part, because that is what YOU keep hammering.
As far as I can tell, you tell all of the fathers of the Church to jump in the lake because they had no authority, but your only authority is your own stubborn insistence on Bible ALONE.
Do not cite me history or your own theories of the past.
Give me SCRIPTURE, and ONLY SCRIPTURE, please, that says we should rely ONLY on Scripture.
Not "Scripture is Good and Necessary". Duh. No kidding. Catholics believe that. The Orthodox believe that. Everyone except maybe the Quakers believes that. No, to make your point, you need to find the words ALONE or ONLY or "JUST Scripture".
Otherwise, your argument looks like: "I reject everything but Scripture because I want to, and you should listen to me." Which makes me ask "Why YOU? Have YOU had an angel visit you to tell you this? Have the heavens opened and a Voice spoken to you from above that said "Scripture ALONE"?
If not, on what AUTHORITY do you assert ONLY Scripture ALONE? Thus far you have not presented anything from Scripture that says anything close to that.
I don't think you CAN. Because nowhere does Scripture say that. You have lead yourself astray and interpolated words that are not there, and through sheer bluster and appeal to authority ("I have read the Bible 20 times!") you seem to think you made your point.
Fine, I will play Scripture ALONE for a minute with you.
Cite me the Scripture that has the words "ALONE" or "SOLE" or "ONLY" or "JUST THIS AND NOTHING BUT SCRIPTURE" or anything like that.
You haven't.
And you can't.
Wow. That is amazing. I don't know how you couldn't believe!
The law is not the Bible. Gal 1:9 says "preach" (preach from what? There was no Bible when Galatians was written. 1 Thess 5:21 -- "prove all things; hold fast that which is good" is your proof that the Bible says we should trust only the Bible?
In Acts 17:11, the Scriptures are not the Christian Bible.
The problem with some Protestants is that they can't tell the difference between the OT and the NT, and some of them actually prefer the OT.
The Church which you reject gave you the Bible which you are reading and quoting from. That Bible did not come about until 400 AD. The general population could not read until well into the 20th century. So who was sola scriptura for? The uneducated and illiterate Protestants still had to sit and listen to various interpretations of the bible by a multitude of talents -- and to this day all they do is sit and listen to someone tell them what is righteous and what is not.
You trust that you of all the people YOU infallibly understand Bible, vice a collective of 2,000 years of wisdom.
The doctrine of Trinity was known to the Church before the Bible came on the shelf. The First Ecumenical Council med before the Church had a complete Bible. And the Fathers, clearly stated the doctrine of Trinity in response to people who taught that Jesus was a lesser God, and not because they just "discovered" it.
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.