Jesus-era leper sheds light on Turin shroud mystery

Haaretz .com ^ | December 16, 2009 | Haaretz Service

[bogusname]

Israel experts said on Wednesday that a burial shroud known as the Turin shroud, assumed to be the type used to wrap the body of Jesus, did not actually originate from Jesus-era Jerusalem.

The conclusion was based on excavation discoveries of a first-century C.E. shrouded man found in a tomb on the edge of the Old City of Jerusalem, which also revealed the earliest proven case of leprosy.

Along with the DNA of the shrouded man, this was the first time that fragments of a burial shroud have been found from the time of Jesus in Jerusalem, which, unlike the complex weave of the Turin Shroud, this shroud was made up of a simple two-way weave, as the textiles historian Dr. Orit Shamir was able to show...

[Joe 6-pack]

"A faith that requires a piece of cloth is not worth having."

I agree, but sometimes God presents us with miracles just because he loves us, and not because we "require" it. Suppose just for a moment, that Christ did leave us the shroud and it is 100% authentic. Do you think he would have done so out of pure whimsy or without some higher intent?

Even St. Thomas the Apostle required physical proof of Christ's resurrection, and Christ did not turn him away, but invited him to probe the wounds. Indeed Christ blessed those who, "have not seen, but still believe," but he didn't exactly run Thomas out of town, either.

I don't need the shroud at all for my faith, but it remains an intriguing anomaly, and if it has drawn but one skeptic out of himself and turned him to God saving his soul, it is indeed, imbued with a touch of the miraculous.

[Rodebrecht]

Gamecock isn’t anti-Christian, as he is a Calvinist, if I’m not mistaken. He’s just delving into anti-Catholicism.

[Houghton M.]

How sad that skeptics feel so threatened by a piece of cloth.

Since it’s just a stooooooopppppppiiiiiid piece of cloth, how come you Catholic-hating Calvinists don’t just ignore it?

How come you are irrationally compelled to jump on all Shroud threads?

It’s just a piece of cloth, isn’t it?

While our faith does not depend on it, your Calvinism seems to depend on debunking it.

Odd, now, isn’t it?

Get a life. Post on your Calvinist threads and leave the meaningless Shroud threads to those fools who study historical artifacts historically.

[Houghton M.]

And let the record show, should affronted Calvinists whine to the Religion Moderator, that Gamecock was the first on this thread to personalize what was up to that point a discussion of the historical merits of the Haaretz article’s reasoning about the leper shroud.

Gamecock accused us of making our faith depend on a piece of cloth.

That’s a falsehood, because our faith does not depend on the Shroud. Gamecock knows it’s a falsehood. It was done to inflame. Gamecock sent his reply to his fellow Calvinists to invite them to hijack this thread.

I did not personalize this.

[chrisser]

How sad that so many require a piece of cloth of questionable origin to help justify their faith.

Way to show the love of Christ to your brethren during the season of His birth.

I seem to remember the apostles having something to say about those who sow discontent among the believers for their own amusement.

I also recall Jesus himself having something to say about hurling accusations against others, and I have to believe that would go doubly so when those accusations are blatantly unfounded, purposely insulting, and obviously deceitful, like yours are.

Merry Christmas.

[Petronski]

How sad that so many require a piece of cloth of questionable origin to help justify their faith.

So many what?

Who requires a piece of cloth of questionable origin to help justify their faith?

[Petronski]

A faith that requires a piece of cloth is not worth having.

Far better to share the faith of Christ in the Church He founded for us: the Catholic Church.

[esquirette]

“Far better to share the faith of Christ in the Church He founded for us: the Catholic Church.”

Glad you left out “Roman.”

[Ditter]

So this shroud was different from the Shroud of Turin? So what? Shrouds all came from the same shroud factory? No they didn’t. I would love for the Shroud of Turin to be authentic. Why? So I could fall down and worship it? No! Because it would make my belief in Jesus stronger? NO, because my belief could not be any stronger. I hope that it is real because if I had been a witness to Jesus death and burial and had been able to, I would have saved the shroud that he was wrapped in and protected it and passed it down to my children. It makes me feel good that some simple ordinary person might have done that so many years ago

[steve8714]

Don’t be baited by the joyless. I guess it’s too bad Papists aren’t quartered any more.

[steve8714]

Isn’t saying that an affront to a true Calvinist?

[Alex Murphy]

And let the record show, should affronted Calvinists whine to the Religion Moderator, that Gamecock was the first on this thread to personalize what was up to that point a discussion of the historical merits of the Haaretz article’s reasoning about the leper shroud.

Gamecock accused us of making our faith depend on a piece of cloth.

That’s a falsehood, because our faith does not depend on the Shroud. Gamecock knows it’s a falsehood. It was done to inflame. Gamecock sent his reply to his fellow Calvinists to invite them to hijack this thread.

I did not personalize this.

BWA HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

[bogusname]

As I stated in post #7 the Biblical account of Christ’s crucifixion indicates that the shroud of Turin was never wrapped around our severely battered Lord.
If you believe Christ was born of a virgin, died for your sins and rose from the dead, you are saved. Christ lives and likewise so shall we.

[Ditter]

That is exactly what I believe but the Shroud of Turin is a fascinating story and I would LIKE for it to be true. Nothing in my belief of Jesus NEEDS for the shroud to be real.

[Gamecock]

Gamecock accused us of making our faith depend on a piece of cloth.

Who is us? There are plenty of non-Catholics who have a fascination with the shroud, including Evangelicals.

It was done to inflame.

Gee, that sounds like mindreading, which is strictly forbidden 'round these parts.

Gamecock sent his reply to his fellow Calvinists to invite them to hijack this thread.

Sounds like mindreading.
Besides, this wasn't tagged as anything (devotional, Catholic caucus, etc) which makes it open. Want a closed thread? There are plenty of mechanisms to keep we evil Calvinists out.

[Petronski]

Glad you left out “Roman.”

Why would I add it in? I'm not Italian. Neither is Pope Benedict.

[Kenny Bunk]

My Board of Directors impressed by your scientific methodology.

I am authorized to issue a $10 Million Albert Gore Grant to your data sequestration team to finally prove Anthropogenic Global Warming and silence the Right Wing Critics of our work.

Report to our offices at the University of East Anglia w/o leaving a Carbon Footprint. BTW, there was some trepidation among some of our board members that you might be harboring outdated binary gender normative attitudes, however we waited until they left to attend their daily NAMBLA Board meeting, and then confirmed you by voice vote.

We shall be publishing your results tomorrow. Good show and don't miss the Press Party!

[vladimir998]

You wrote:

“How sad that so many would spend so much time trying to debunk a piece of cloth in order to debunk an entire faith.”

Touche!

[esquirette]

‘Glad you left out “Roman.”’

‘Why would I add it in? I’m not Italian. Neither is Pope Benedict.’

To be accurate.

[chrisser]

Isn’t saying that an affront to a true Calvinist?

Which part? Merry Christmas?

I'm sorry, I can't keep track of what every splinter group believes and doesn't believe - half of them can't agree among themselves without initiating a further splintering event. But, as Scripture reveals, the early Church had it's share of splintering, dissent, and distraction even when the Apostles were still running the show.

So many, however, believe in sola scriptura, that I would have to say to look to the Bible for the answer.

It is evident from scripture that there was quite a bit of celebratory hubub in heaven surrounding Christ's birth - and that's just what we, as humans, were allowed to see and document.

It is also evident that humans, in several cases, were personally invited to both witness and rejoice.

Although many people doubt the date is accurate (I have seen conflicting arguments for and against - and not all those against have the interests of the church in mind), I don't see how our predecessors possibly losing track of that date can be used realistically to infer that we should not celebrate the anniversary. How many events are recorded in the Bible in which heaven and earth simultaneously rejoiced?

I had a professor in college who said "whenever two lines on a graph intersect - it's important". Likewise, I would argue that, whenever Scripture says that Heaven and Earth rejoiced over an event - it's important.

I'm saddened that those before us didn't record, or lost track of, the date (if that, in fact, is the case. Right now, all we have is a lack of recording up to the point it shows up several centuries later). Considering the persecutions and turmoil in the early Church, we're lucky we got what we got from that era. Perhaps, in God's time, we will find some artifact from the period which fixes the day on a date which all can agree is accurate. However, in the meantime, we have what we have.

Jesus himself, with his mother, went to a wedding and joined in the celebration (and, alchohol was involved, in part thanks to His intervention, I would add). There is no scriptural recording of Heaven and Earth rejoicing at that event, yet Jesus and Mary were partying with Jesus as acting bartender for miracle #1. Ergo, my conclusion, from the examples in scripture, is that celebrating Christmas is not only scripturally permitted, but scripturally encouraged. And choosing to celebrate with a few cups of egg nog, long as you don't overdo it, is OK too.

Scripture (most specifically in Acts) encourages the community of believers - what better example of community is there than that of (most) Christians coming together and celebrating the anniversary of an event like no other? So we might have picked the wrong day two millenia ago. Humans are imperfect, and here we collectively screwed up, and then made the best of a bad situation by making an educated guess on the date. Seems to me that not celebrating Christmas because of an act of human incompetence is less preferable to celebrating it on what might be the wrong day. What's more important, the celebration, or that the celebration occurs on the exact date?

But I'm just going by what I read in Scripture, and that we're having this conversation at all is an example that YMMV...