Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

Yahoo ^ | 5 Oct 2009 | Philip Pullella

[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.

[Petronski]

Do you believe Swordmaker is Roman?

[Dr. Eckleburg]

lol. And yet your catechism thinks its quite explicit.

Some have eyes to see and others don't.

[Petronski]

And yet your catechism thinks its quite explicit.

The problem is that you keep redefining "its."

Here's the "its:"

But Christ explicitly said the only sign we need is His resurrection.

Christ does not explicitly say that in the passage you post. You need a dictionary.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Read your Bible.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

I don’t know what faith Swordmaker is.

[Petronski]

Done and done.

It says what it says, not what you claim it says.

[Marysecretary]

Even when you show them from their own writings, they will not believe you, Dr. E. It has something to do with hardness of heart, I truly believe.

[Petronski]

I didn’t ask about his faith. I asked if you think he is Roman.

Roman is not a faith.

[Petronski]

Even when you show them from their own writings, they will not believe you, Dr. E.

The Catechism does not say what she claims it says. I would not believe her because, again, she is posting falsehoods.

Not being part of the Elim Desperate Housewives Club or the Machenite God-blaming Society, I refuse to believing falsehoods.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Roman Catholicism is a faith. I don’t know if you’re a member or not but by your recent disagreement with the RCC catechism maybe you’re a church of one.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

Hardness of the heart

Or the head. Wonder which is worse?

[Petronski]

Catholicism is a faith.

"Roman" is not a faith.

[Petronski]

...your recent disagreement with the RCC catechism...

Didn't happen. First, you posted from the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Second, you falsely claimed I disagreed with what you posted from it.

You post a great many false things about the Catholic Church and individual Catholics.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

In New York...

[Dr. Eckleburg]

You disagreed with your own church’s catechism.

[Petronski]

Roman is not a faith.

[Petronski]

You disagreed with your own church’s catechism.

I don't have my own church. I disagreed with your misuse of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

It does not prove what you claim.

[Dr. Eckleburg]

A picture is worth a thousand words. In this case, it's worth 16 words --

Roman Catholics believe Mary is on the cross with Christ helping Christ to redeem His sheep.

[Swordmaker]

Wow. So you believe Christ's reference to the "sign of Jonah" does not speak to His resurrection (and our need for no additional signs) but instead is "a veiled reference that's open to interpretation?"

What I believe is irrelevant. What is relevant is the meaning of words.

You claimed: ". . . Christ explicitly said the only sign we need is His resurrection," as an argument against considering any other evidence.

The word "explicit" means:

explicit |ikˈsplisit|
adjective
stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt : the speaker's intentions were not made explicit.

Explicitly is the adverbial form of the adjective. It modifies the verb "said" in your statement. That means that what Jesus "SAID" must be stated clearly and in detail. An analogical reference to Jonah's adventure in the belly of a great fish does not lend itself to clarity and detail of the meaning. Using a euphemism such as "in the ground" for the much simpler, clearer phrase "dead and buried" also does not lend itself to clarity and detail. It's great literature, but it is not a clear and concise statement that you implied Jesus said. A clear and concise statement would be: Jesus said: "The only sign you need that I am the son of God is the fact that I was dead and was buried, am now resurrected." That's explicit. Unfortunately, Jesus did not say that... and I am not going to put those words in His mouth.

That's amazing. I had no idea Rome was teaching such careless errors regarding the very words of Jesus Christ. Christ spoke in parables so that those who were His sheep would hear Him and understand, while those whose eyes had been blinded to the truth could only come up with "not explicit" and "open to interpretation."

Parables, by their very nature, have to be interpreted to uncover their meaning. They are NOT explicit.

Fails? Went underground?

Mere demonstrations of how a parable can be interpreted in another way than what you think.

Who are you? Dan Brown?

One who follows the scholarship and science... and recognizes that words mean things.

It seems that Roman Catholics will go to almost any length to rationalize bowing down to the stock of a tree.

They do? Couldn't prove it by me. I'm not Catholic.

Perhaps it's time for you to consult your catechism...

Sorry, I don't have one.

[Swordmaker]

By the way, “Shroud of Turin” - veiled reference”, I think I get it.

+grin+