11 Mar 13
A most salient point which appears to have gone unremarked in this thread is the lack of distortion in the image on the 'shroud'. Had it been 'burned' into the linen when it was wrapped around a body, the resulting image would in no way resemble that which is apparent. The only way to achieve the perceived image would be for it to be applied or transferred onto the material while it was laid or held flat, unwrapped, unfolded and unwrinkled. This fact alone surely is enough to enable one to disregard it as the 'holy' relic as claimed?
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatApparently not. 😏
A most salient point which appears to have gone unremarked in this thread is the lack of distortion in the image on the 'shroud'. Had it been 'burned' into the linen when it was wrapped around a body, the resulting image would in no way resemble that which is apparent. The only way to achieve the perceived image would be for it to be applied or trans ...[text shortened]... fact alone surely is enough to enable one to disregard it as the 'holy' relic as claimed?
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by SuzianneJohn's account tells us the burial cloth and head cloth were separate items, the shroud is one item.
I've seen you argue this point with RJH. I can't understand why it is relevant though. Who cares about a comment about the placement of the clothes, a comment made almost as an aside? So what if the cloth was lying separate from the linen? Why is this important at all? First you say that we shouldn't be placing our Faith in things, these relics, and th ...[text shortened]... correct if the shroud were genuine? I see no delineation as such in this scripture passage.
The scripture is either correct or it isn't, your choice.
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by avalanchethecatThe whole concept is somewhat ridiculous in my opinion. Here we have the catholic church "collecting" icons and relics down the centuries and using them to position itself as being in a tactile and immediate connection with the artifacts of Christianity; and guess what, they find the actual burial cloth used for Jesus' body - but says Mr Pope, no one will believe us...and wonder of wonders it happens to have a prehistoric photograph of the dead Christ himself. Very convenient.
A most salient point which appears to have gone unremarked in this thread is the lack of distortion in the image on the 'shroud'. Had it been 'burned' into the linen when it was wrapped around a body, the resulting image would in no way resemble that which is apparent. The only way to achieve the perceived image would be for it to be applied or trans ...[text shortened]... fact alone surely is enough to enable one to disregard it as the 'holy' relic as claimed?
11 Mar 13
2 edits
Originally posted by divegeesterYou are so ignorant of the history of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, yet you contiune to make dumb comments without trying to educate yourself on the matter by looking at the videos. At least read this article on the Sudarium so you don't continue looking like an uneducated moron.
The whole concept is somewhat ridiculous in my opinion. Here we have the catholic church "collecting" icons and relics down the centuries and using them to position itself as being in a tactile and immediate connection with the artifacts of Christianity; and guess what, they find the actual burial cloth used for Jesus' body - but says Mr Pope, no one wil ...[text shortened]... ders it happens to have a prehistoric photograph of the dead Christ himself. Very convenient.
http://www.shroud.com/guscin.htm
11 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsHit a nerve did I?
You are so ignorant of the history of the Shroud of Turin and the Sudarium of Oviedo, yet you contiune to make dumb comments without trying to educate yourself on the matter by looking at the videos. At least read this article on the Sudarium so you don't continue looking like an uneducated moron.
13 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterAnd the Sudarium of Oviedo is another relic.
John's account tells us the burial cloth and head cloth were separate items, the shroud is one item.
The scripture is either correct or it isn't, your choice.
What was your point again?
I always lean toward the idea that the Scripture is correct. It may need further clarification to be understandable, and that is where most of the discussion and arguments start.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by SuzianneWhat is it about scripture saying the burial cloth was two pieces, and the shroud of turin being one piece that you feel you need "further clarification" on?
I always lean toward the idea that the Scripture is correct. It may need further clarification to be understandable, and that is where most of the discussion and arguments start.
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by divegeesterNothing. I said nothing that even suggests that is true.
What is it about scripture saying the burial cloth was two pieces, and the shroud of turin being one piece that you feel you need "further clarification" on?
What is it about the Shroud of Turin being ONE relic and the Sudarium of Oviedo being ANOTHER relic that you do not understand? One piece and another piece total TWO pieces. How hard is that to grasp? Did you not read the entirety of my last post? Or maybe you just passed it through your filter of "what you want to believe"? At least that's more honest than twhitehead's filter of "what he wants everyone else to believe".
13 Mar 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI don't understand why you're getting so techy about it all - what is it you think I don't believe?
What is it about the Shroud of Turin being ONE relic and the Sudarium of Oviedo being ANOTHER relic that you do not understand? One piece and another piece total TWO pieces. How hard is that to grasp? Did you not read the entirety of my last post? Or maybe you just passed it through your filter of "what you want to believe"? At least that's more honest than twhitehead's filter of "what he wants everyone else to believe".
I'm still not sure why you would even entertain that the should of Turin could possibly be genuine when scripture says the garment was 2 pieces. Or are you suggesting the 2 relics are actually the 2 items in question?
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by divegeesterShe says that you were misunderstanding scripture because scripture does not say the garment is two pieces. The face cloth is not the Shroud of Turin. The face cloth is called the Sudarium of Oviedo. The scriptures never says that there is two Shrouds.
I don't understand why you're getting so techy about it all - what is it you think I don't believe?
I'm still not sure why you would even entertain that the should of Turin could possibly be genuine when scripture says the garment was 2 pieces. Or are you suggesting the 2 relics are actually the 2 items in question?
There are different interepretations of both the passage in Luke and in John. Most translate it as the body in wrapped in linen, or linen clothes, or strips of linen. So the text is not completely clear and it is up to how the translator believes it should be. It could be refering to being wrapped in one linen sheet or more than one linen sheet. Or it could be referring to one linen sheet around the body that is tied with several small strips of linen, which is the way one of the Shroud researchers said it appeared to be done at one time. We do know from the text in John that the face cloth was separate from the other linen that wrapped the body, however. That face cloth is today believed to be what is called the Sudarium of Oviedo.
14 Mar 13
Originally posted by RJHindsNo it isn't.
That face cloth is today believed to be what is called the Sudarium of Oviedo.
You may believe it and certain other people who are happy to be distracted by relics may believe it, but simply postulating "...is today believed..." as though it is a widely accepted fact by the "Church, does not make it so.
In a similar analogy, suzianne weighed into this thread with a juxtaposition when you were too intellectually lazy to get past posting "numbnuts" at people, this interjection by her neither supports your argument nor to lends credence to you personally; it is just her stating her opinion.
14 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by divegeesterWell, since the Sudarium of Oviedo has matching points with the head portion of the Shroud of Turin to show that it covered the head and face of the same man covered by the Shroud, including the same bood type AB, there is good reason to believe it is the face cloth. I can't imagine early Christian keeping a bloody rag like that unless it did mean something important to them, like the resurrection of Christ. I believe that is the reason and you can believe whatever you wish.
No it isn't.
You may believe it and certain other people who are happy to be distracted by relics may believe it, but simply postulating [b]"...is today believed..." as though it is a widely accepted fact by the "Church, does not make it so.
In a similar analogy, suzianne weighed into this thread with a juxtaposition when you were too in your argument nor to lends credence to you personally; it is just her stating her opinion.[/b]
P.S. The point is that nobody, including the scientists that investigated both relics, have been able to give any other credible explanation for what they represent.
14 Mar 13
1 edit
Originally posted by RJHindsBut they don't have to provide a credible explanation. All they have to say is it's cloth that has some blood on it. Now demonstrate that this has actually been in contact with a divine corpse. That passes the issue back to the believers. Can they produce anything other than "You must have your head up your arse if you don't believe numbnuts"? No? Not proven then.
Well, since the Sudarium of Oviedo has matching points with the head portion of the Shroud of Turin to show that it covered the head and face of the same man covered by the Shroud, including the same bood type AB, there is good reason to believe it is the face cloth. I can't imagine early Christian keeping a bloody rag like that unless it did mean something ...[text shortened]... ted both relics, have been able to give any other credible explanation for what they represent.