Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jewish believer in the Shroud
NewKerala ^ | March 18, 2005 | UWE SIEMON-NETTO

Posted on 03/19/2005 6:18:41 AM PST by NYer

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last
To: Mr Ramsbotham

I agree.Too many questions that imo will never be resolved.


21 posted on 03/19/2005 9:38:21 AM PST by thombo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: NYer

BUMP


22 posted on 03/19/2005 9:39:39 AM PST by nickcarraway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

One reason might be that the core vein of discussion seems to orbit around this notion of finding scientific evidence of Jesus' life.

If this Shroud is an image of Jesus, it would be a fascinating thing, and I think it is.

But for the record, I believe the Churches record on many miracles like Fatima and Lourdes. I just dont see how it is applicable to this discussion.

What did you have in mind that would?


23 posted on 03/19/2005 9:40:15 AM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
"There's faith on both sides of the aisle, equally rabid and equally hostile to anything that doesn't fit the standard perspectives."

There are two types of faith - one is logical and rational (to the extent that the belief is formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties). That sort of "faith" is based upon perfectly valid / warranted presuppositions. The other type of "faith" is illogical and irrational because it's based upon feelings / emotions / superstition.

For instance, you will find that the sort of "faith" it takes for a rational mind to believe that others besides himself have a mind --(and aren't just pre-programmed robots)-- is never militant, rabid or hostile about that "faith".

Then there's the other sort of faith.

24 posted on 03/19/2005 9:42:22 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it." ~ S. Wright)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: thombo
I hate to be a wet blanket,but even if the shroud turns out to be authentic,who's to say the image is actually Jesus?

Wow -I never considered that -thanks for wetting yourself.

25 posted on 03/19/2005 9:48:12 AM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: NYer

Forgive the pun but this topic will forever be "shrouded" in mystery and that's only if it is "that shroud." There is no proof positive of what Christ looked like or any witnesses upon whom to call concerning his appearance. Just another iconic symbol to "worship" rather than the real thing.


26 posted on 03/19/2005 9:50:50 AM PST by elephantlips
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
Then there's the other sort of faith.

You have much faith in your rational theory of and by man.

27 posted on 03/19/2005 9:53:03 AM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DBeers

You didn't get the point. I'm confident that you aren't able to get it, either.


28 posted on 03/19/2005 10:08:38 AM PST by Matchett-PI ("Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it." ~ S. Wright)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: JFK_Lib
That would have to be one big tile, wouldnt it?

Most definitely.

29 posted on 03/19/2005 10:19:49 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
You didn't get the point. I'm confident that you aren't able to get it, either.

LOL -yes my inferior intellect could not decipher your profound rationale.

30 posted on 03/19/2005 10:37:38 AM PST by DBeers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: thombo
I hate to be a wet blanket,but even if the shroud turns out to be authentic,who's to say the image is actually Jesus?

It doesn't matter.

"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them..."

While The Shroud may be interesting as a religious icon, it has no worth or purpose to those who believe that Jesus is Lord and have given over control of their lives to Him.

Is it fascinating? Yes. Do we need to find provenance of it's autheticity? Not so much.

31 posted on 03/19/2005 11:50:28 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (The way that you wander is the way that you choose. The day that you tarry is the day that you lose.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
You didn't get the point. I'm confident that you aren't able to get it, either.

I know where you're coming from, and I believe we're of one mind. But I wouldn't waste too much time trying to explain it to someone for whom "faith" means "believing in something preposterous simply because it makes me feel better."

32 posted on 03/19/2005 11:52:23 AM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham
"I wouldn't waste too much time trying to explain it to someone for whom "faith" means "believing in something preposterous simply because it makes me feel better."

If you ever see me riding in the boats of one-armed boat-rowers for more than two laps, you will know that I have lost my rationality and succumbed to preposterous beliefs myself. :)

33 posted on 03/19/2005 12:14:40 PM PST by Matchett-PI ("Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it." ~ S. Wright)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: JFK_Lib
I spent about fifteen years studying the cult of saints and relics, including all the relics that were brought to the West from Constantinople. Relics are kept for their intercessory power and careful records relate all of the associated miracles. If there are no miracles, then they have no real value. But I am sure that there are lots of testimonials in the archives of Turin.

I am just saying that these scientists are trying to change the rules of proof in a way that has little interest to the church. Surely, you realize that there is no way that carbon dating can, in fact, prove that the image is Jesus. The problem is that the "chain of custody" was broken. So, science is a dead end, here. It can only debunk. I suggest you look at what the church says. Its standards are very rigorous.

34 posted on 03/19/2005 2:52:54 PM PST by ClaireSolt (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ClaireSolt

I understand that any dating, even to the 1st century would not necarily prove it is Jesus' Shroud. But I think the circumstantial evidence narrows it down pretty tight.

I respect the churches authority and competence, but I still feel like scientific standards of evidence are a bit different in that it looks solely at natural evidence that can be replicated, unlike, say Fatima.

So it is a tougher arena, and it intrigues me that the evidence thus far seems to point at something unnatural occuring - ie the tomb was emptied within a few days of JEsus' burial or the Shroud would have decayed.


35 posted on 03/19/2005 4:07:59 PM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Mr Ramsbotham

JFK_Lib - That would have to be one big tile, wouldnt it?

Mr Ramsbotham - Most definitely.

JFK_Lib - So are there examples of similarly large tiles in that time and culture?


36 posted on 03/19/2005 4:09:16 PM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Matchett-PI
There are two types of faith - one is logical and rational (to the extent that the belief is formed by properly functioning cognitive faculties). That sort of "faith" is based upon perfectly valid / warranted presuppositions. The other type of "faith" is illogical and irrational because it's based upon feelings / emotions / superstition.

The second form of faith is irrational, but no less valid for a means to discern truth and ascertain information about the world around us in practical terms.

Intuition, experience, emotional reactions have a validity to them independent of reason or revelation. One might think of some of it as a personal inductive-deductive process, but it would not be statistically valid.

Nonetheless were I to need a guide through the deep woods relying on a guid alone (no GPS, etc) I would much rather have an experienced guide than a scientist without the experience of living in those particular woods.

Were I to guage the prevalence of certain activities or opinions in a parish, I would trust the confessional priest more than some survey of that parish.

And I will trust my own instinct when seeking a partner (in fact I have and we are still married after 18 years) rather than rely on some scientific matching process, lol!

In our day-to-day lives we far more rely on experience, intuition and emotional 'gut reaction' to guide us than on reason or science.

Given that Christianity has outlived the Atomists fromt he ancient world and number int he billions, it would seem that a Darwinistic analysis would suggest that nonrational methods can work quite well, in fact.

And please dont pretend that anyone, especially scientists, are unaffected by nonrational factors like love, money or the desire to be popular among their peers.

37 posted on 03/19/2005 4:23:48 PM PST by JFK_Lib
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: JFK_Lib
"Given that Christianity has outlived ..."

I hate to break it to you, but Christianity is a RATIONAL faith

38 posted on 03/19/2005 4:42:11 PM PST by Matchett-PI ("Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it." ~ S. Wright)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: JFK_Lib
JFK_Lib - So are there examples of similarly large tiles in that time and culture?

Plenty of life-size stone images, yes; and many larger-than-life.

39 posted on 03/19/2005 5:29:48 PM PST by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: JFK_Lib
This is not to mention the chemical analysis done earlier this year that dates the Shroud to way before the 13th century and to at least the third century AD, IIRC.

Not that precisely. The late Dr. Raymond N. Rogers postulates that the shroud is from 1300 to as much as 3000 years old, depending on the ambient temperatures in may have encountered during its existence. He bases this on the fact that the shroud shows no traces of Vanillin in the linen which degrades and disappears over time. The only area of the Shroud that DOES show Vanillin is the medieval patch invisibly rewoven into the shroud... at the area tested by the C14 labs in 1988.

40 posted on 03/19/2005 6:22:03 PM PST by Swordmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-73 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson