|
Posted on 10/05/2009 11:22:44 AM PDT by Gamecock
An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake. The shroud, measuring 14 feet, 4 inches by 3 feet, 7 inches bears the image, eerily reversed like a photographic negative, of a crucified man some believers say is Christ. "We have shown that is possible to reproduce something which has the same characteristics as the Shroud," Luigi Garlaschelli, who is due to illustrate the results at a conference on the para-normal this weekend in northern Italy, said on Monday. A professor of organic chemistry at the University of Pavia, Garlaschelli made available to Reuters the paper he will deliver and the accompanying comparative photographs.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
You are dense. No one cherishes a tool used by his grandfather or his grandmother’s engagement ring UNLESS he has satisfied himself of its authenticity.
You presume inauthenticity and then decry family heirlooms totally based on inauthenticity.
The issue here is whether this particular “heirloom” is authentic. If it is, humans cherish authentic “heirlooms” across the globe and across time.
But you bait and switch. You challenge authenticity and when we adduce overwhelming evidence in favor of authenticity, you dismiss all heirlooms. When I give you overwhelming evidence that people do, instinctively, value heirlooms from people they care about, you dismiss cherishing of fake heirlooms.
No one is advocating cherishing of something we know to be fake.
Make up your little mind. Is your beef with the inauthenticity of this particular relic or with cherishing of relics and heirlooms of any sort, including authentic relics?
Do a little theological study on the words.
No one said for you to use dictionaries. Although that may be all you are capable of....
Try again.
It could be an ignorance of the difference between “revere” and “worship,” or it could be a malicious attempt to conflate the two terms, a common tactic of anti-Catholic bigots.
I’m not in a position to know which is at work here, since I am not a mind-reader.
Sure it can. We believe by grace through faith - not by the tactile senses, but through the renewed mind's conceptualization of who Christ is and what He has done for us.
If Christ's entire wardrobe turned up on some mis-routed Bekins truck it would only serve to take Christians' minds off the prize who now resides in heaven and within the heart of each believer.
Resist the urge to touch the wound. He has risen -- the only sign we need.
I vote for the “anti-Catholic bigots” version...
“What they have is a cloth that poppsed up in the 1200s.”
Demonstrably false. See my comment on pedigree.
You just
plain
don’t
know
what
you
are
talking
about.
The Shroud preserved in Turin has a pedigree reaching back through medieval Constantinople to the Gospel of John. The sweatcloth of Oviedo has an even stronger pedigree.
Read the dossier of evidence before you shoot your mouth off.
I have a favorite tie. And because of that, I’m headed for hell.
You’re being silly or intentionally dense.
It was a qualified falsehood, using a false qualification.
Stuff and nonsense.
“Anti-Catholicism, pure and simple.”
The Roman Catholic Church doesn’t even take a position on the shroud. Not remotely relevant to the discussion.
Then John the Evangelist is by your definition an idol-worshiper. The passage in the Gospel of John about the empty tomb darn sure “exalts” the burial cloths. It gives more space to them than it does to Joseph the adoptive father of Jesus or to thre-fourths of the apostles.
Maybe you ought to start reading your Bible. It suggests that the earliest Christians venerated the burial cloths of Jesus.
That doesn’t prove that the Shroud in Turin is one of those burial cloths—plenty of other evidence supports that claim.
But it blows out of the water you claim that exalting a piece of cloth is worshiping the piece of cloth.
Your quarrel is with the Gospel-writer. Take it up with him, if you are such hot stuff.
Good points. Again, I discount the old carbon dating evidence etc. that tries to say it is a fraud.
|
“blatant falsehood”
Might want to read post 45. In context. It’s apparent I was being accused of being an atheist because I doubt the claims of the Shroudies.
Relying on the opinion of others rather than the opinion of you.
Anti-Catholic bigotry on your part, to decry any respect whatsoever to relics, and your claiming they are really being worshipped.
And then to extend it to the Shroud of Turin without being educated enough to read about it.
Pure prejudice.
LOL
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.
