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 ...
It’s sort of ironic that those who denigrate the Blessed Virgin Mary also claim to be Her equal in the eyes of God.
I don’t see how you get this out of what I wrote. I have repeatedly emphasized the late 20thc forensic evidence that points to the fact that this was a burial shroud of a crucified man 2000 years ago.
The likely candidate for that is Jesus of Nazareth, given the known historical record of the custody of this artifact. It could be the burial shroud of some other crucified man, but the science pretty clearly shows that it is 2000 years old, was in Jerusalem in the spring time and was wrapped around a crucified man. It’s possible that the burial shroud of some other crucified man was preserved for 2000 years, but that would take a lot more faith to believe because you’d need a motive for why some unknown group of people preserved the burial shroud of Joe Schmoe crucified and then buried somewhere near Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
Possible, yeah. Likely, no. But all that’s based on forensic evidence from modern laboratory science.
I don’t distort the Gospel accounts at all. I merely point out that the details about the burial cloths in all four gospels stand out oddly, given how few other details are mentioned in all four Gospels. If the Christians of the time that the Gospels were written had not preserved the grave cloths, why the detail? To buttress the resurrection, it’s the empty tomb that counts. Why, in the account of the empty tomb, does the writer dwell with so much detail (as far as detail in the gospels goes) on the fact that there were two different cloths at separate locations? Unless, perhaps today’s Sudarium of Oviedo and today’s Shroud of Turin were already known, distinct relics?
Does it prove that the Shroud of Turin is Jesus’ burial shroud? No. But it certainly reinforces the case for it.
That’s all. I’ve not distorted the text. I’ve offered an explanatory model that makes sense out of otherwise odd details.
So God held a lottery to determine who would carry Jesus into Nazareth?
Blasphemy. If you knew Scripture instead of your magisterium's lies you would know Christ is "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world."
Mary did not "consent." Mary was chosen by God to be the earthly vessel for Christ's entrance into humanity. The idolatry Rome heaps on a nice Jewish girl is revolting. And Rome will have to answer for leading so many so far astray.
You are the twister...You are so hard-bitten a hater of Catholicism...
And you are "making this personal" and therefore breaking the rules of the FR religion forum.
Repent.
They have not known nor understood: for he hath shut their eyes, that they cannot see; and their hearts, that they cannot understand. And none considereth in his heart, neither is there knowledge nor understanding to say, I have burned part of it in the fire; yea, also I have baked bread upon the coals thereof; I have roasted flesh, and eaten it: and shall I make the residue thereof an abomination? shall I fall down to the stock of a tree? He feedeth on ashes: a deceived heart hath turned him aside, that he cannot deliver his soul, nor say, Is there not a lie in my right hand?" -- Isaiah 44:17-20"And the residue thereof he maketh a god, even his graven image: he falleth down unto it, and worshippeth it, and prayeth unto it, and saith, Deliver me; for thou art my god.
Yes, there is.
Believers don't go to any lengths to prove them authentic. They can't be proven authentic. Furthermore, relics are not seen as necessary proof for historical events. That's a completely incorrect understanding of relics. They are principally objects of devotion.
They are handed down and popular devotion leads us to believe that these are things associated with the life of Christ or his saints. For that reason we cherish them, just as you might cherish a keepsake of a loved parent or relation. However, just as your grandfather's Bible is not necessary to prove that he really existed, so the burial cloth of Christ is not essential to believing in his resurrection. Nevertheless, on the belief that it is, we venerate it because this is something which covered the body of our Savior. Out of love and respect we guard it, just as you might guard a memento of a loved one.
The disordered "yikes" mentality which surfaces when relics of Jesus' time on earth are discussed, is truly comical.
What happens to those that idolize these items when they are shown to be fakes?
Do they question their faith? Do they blame their church for misleading them? Do they finally realize their devotion shouldn't be of some object?
I think you are the one who introduced “Rome” and “twisting” into the discussion.
Okay, so God does not ask Mary’s consent. So God rapes Mary. Have it your way.
Good night.
Mary was not "raped." Mary did not "give her consent." Mary was chosen. Did Paul "give his consent" on the road to Damascus?
"Idolize"?
An idol is something which takes the place of God. Money, comfort, pleasure etc, etc. Things which we place above God. Relics, on the other hand, are things which help to stir our love for God.
Ever keep a photo of a spouse or parent in your wallet? Ever take it out and kiss it? Do you think your spouse would be angry because you kissed his or her photo? Would he or she think you were "idolizing" the photo instead of a real person?
The very idea is laughable, isn't it?
There's a disordered, completely irrational fear which runs through Protestantism concerning the concept of "idolatry". You actually think Jesus is going to be angry because we treasure the cloth which covered his body following His crucifixion? What sort of a God do you worship? It sounds like Islam. As for "showing relics to be fakes", this certainly doesn't rise to that level and indeed, it is a very difficult thing to do.
The people who funded the present study would just as dearly like to show that your beloved Bible is a "fake". They see it in exactly the same way as they see the Shroud. A symbol of superstition that must be eliminated. It's fun when they pick a Catholic issue to target but they're no friends of Protestantism either.
From that reality Rome has concocted a blasphemous idolatry.
. . . the angel Gabriel was sent from God unto a city of Galilee named Nazareth, t a virgin espoused to a man whose name was Joseph, of the house of David, and the virgin's name was Mary. And the angel came in unto her and said, "Hail, thou that art highly favored, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women." Sounds like Our Lord's Angel said she was blessed, just like the woman in the crowd that you say Jesus rebuked." Jesus can't seem to get his story straight. The Scriptures you claim to operate solely from make Mary out to be highly favored among women. You say she's no different from you. For someone who claims to follow Scripture alone rather than any magisterium, you seem to be governed by some extra-Scriptural magisterium here. And the angel said . . . thou shalt conceive in thy womb and bring forth a son and shalt call his name Jesus. . . and of his kingdom there shall be no end. . . . and the holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God. . . And Mary said, . . . Be it done unto me according to thy word. That's called consent. She said yes. But you know better. She had no choice in the matter. God impregnated her against her will. When a woman says yes, she doesn't really mean yes. She just said it mechanically, God made her say yes. It wasn't her saying yes. God set her up to say yes and she could not have said no. In your twisting of Scripture, God uses this woman as a MERE vessel (the "vessel" text you cite at me does not have the 'mere' part in it but you create it when you say that Mary did not consent--contrary to the plain text of Luke 1). Your God is a monster who abuses women (and your puppet-theology also abuses men by denying human free will. I'm glad you are happy in your rapist-religion. But I for one would have nothing to do with a Christian faith that began with rape or which reduces people to puppets. And the plain text of Scripture in this instance has Mary giving consent. You are so hidebound by your predestinarianism and monergism that you have to rape Scripture with regard to Mary's consent. But your mind is made up and what's a little Scripture verse against all your man-made monergist doctrine?
That is not "consent." That is understanding God's will.
Stand back and take a good look at what the papacy has done to a simple Jewish girl who loved God. They have carved statues of her; they bow down before her; they pray to her; they venerate her; they call her a "Co-Redeemer" and a "Dispensatrix of all Grace;" and they dare to say she "shares" in Christ's work of salvation on the cross.
Can Roman Catholics not see the lie in their right hand? They feedeth on ashes.
Christ alone. Christ alone. Christ alone.
Of course Paul gave his consent. What Bible are you reading? God hits him upside the head and Paul changes heart and consents to God. What’s so hard about that?
Refusing consent would have Paul getting up, blinded, and defiantly telling his companions to take him back to Jerusalem, cursing his blindness, spitting on God.
But the text has him giving in to God, consenting, meekly consentingly following God’s orders. Not giving consent is not following orders. Paul followed orders.
See, you have a theory that consent is not given because people are not free; God elects and that’s that. You have a governing theology against free will.
So even where the text clearly has people giving consent, you have to deny it. This is such a ludicrous misreading of these texts that anyone neutral observer would have to laugh at your twisting. Yet “Rome twists.”
Give me a break.
lol. Did you just learn the word?
Better late than never.
“From that reality Rome has concocted a blasphemous idolatry.”
Sweet. You are such a fine sweet lovely Freeper Religion Forum rule keeper, you just melt my heart.
I think we'd better adjourn this discussion till you find yourself a Bible and read it.
Give me a break.
I just did.
The posted rules of the religion forum are not difficult to follow. Try.
Oh, I see. It’s understanding, not consent.
So, it’s not-non-consent either. It’s not defiance. It’s not disobedience. It’s not consent but she understandingly goes along with being pregnant.
Not consenting, mind you. No, no, no, we’d not want her to be consenting now, would we? No, she’s just understanding.
If it walks like consent, smells like consent, quacks like consent, I’d say it’s consent.
But one’ man’s consent is another woman’s understanding.
Unconsenting understanding. Sounds good. So I refuse to pay my taxes but I understand. I bet the IRS will understand that too, as they garnishee my wages.
Lovely.
Rich, coming from someone who, following the posted rules, calls her opponents blasphemers. Let me complement you on your chutzpah. You hijacked a thread about a relic to flatly accuse “Rome” of blasphemy, repeatedly.
Go ahead. Denounce me. Be sure you tell the Mods that I’m a Roman blasphemer.
And yet you know that God holds Mary in no higher esteem than the rest of us believers.
Can you tell us how both of these can be logically true or truthful statements?
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.