22 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kd2aczI believe that was the Eqyptians. They mummified the dead and wrapped them with many strips of cloth.
I recently heard somwhere that ancient jews did not even use a single piece of material when burying their dead, it was many.
-k
http://www.ancientegypt.co.uk/mummies/home.html
23 Oct 12
2 edits
Originally posted by kd2aczHi pat. There is a genuine fear that yet another relic will become a worship object in itself. So what else is new? 73, AI3N.
I recently heard somwhere that ancient jews did not even use a single piece of material when burying their dead, it was many.
-k
So here is some other evidence, a finding of real 1st century shroud material, nothing like the shroud of Turin:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy/
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsNo I am not really concerned that it would be worshipped, it already is. I think people already make pilgrimages to Italy to see it. I also think there is a danger in supposing what Christ may have looked like, and there is a worship of an image. Just my opinion.
So you are a Christian concerned about the possibility that the Shroud of Turin will be worshipped?
-k
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by kd2aczI have not heard of any evidence that anyone is yet worshipping the image on the shroud. But I believe the Jewish photographer stated that unless the image was made by human hands that it would not be considered a graven image anyway.
No I am not really concerned that it would be worshipped, it already is. I think people already make pilgrimages to Italy to see it. I also think there is a danger in supposing what Christ may have looked like, and there is a worship of an image. Just my opinion.
-k
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsYeah? Whatever. I think Christians should not rely on the authenticity of the shroud one way or another for what they believe. The shroud debate is a moot point when I comes to true faith, it should make no difference at all. So lets say for a moment the shroud is dated to the period of Christ. What does it prove? It proves that the shroud is from the period of Christ, 1979 years ago. I think we should focus more on who He is vs. vain controversies. Just my humble opinion.
I have not heard of any evidence that anyone is yet worshipping the image on the shroud. But I believe the Jewish photographer stated that unless the image was made by human hands that it would not be considered a graven image anyway.
-k
23 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by kd2aczChristians have never relied on the shroud or the sudarium for their belief. The existence of the shroud and the sudarium are not even well known by most Christians. The shroud has only become more well known recently because instead of being passed on within the family that owned it, it was willed to the Roman Catholic Church and a request was made to scientifically examine it for authenticity through the church.
Yeah? Whatever. I think Christians should not rely on the authenticity of the shroud one way or another for what they believe. The shroud debate is a moot point when I comes to true faith, it should make no difference at all. So lets say for a moment the shroud is dated to the period of Christ. What does it prove? It proves that the shroud is from the per ...[text shortened]... I think we should focus more on who He is vs. vain controversies. Just my humble opinion.
-k
My wife and I became believers in Christ without knowing anything about it. I suspect most other Christian are the same as us. Therefore it does not have any effect on my faith one way or the other. But perhaps it is meant to help others like the apostle Thomas in the Holy Bible that needed to see and touch before he would believe in the resurrection. This may not be as good as the real Jesus, but nobody knows what the real Jesus looked like anyway.
But as one of the investigators said this was overwhelming circumstantial evidence for him and each person will have to make up their own mind as to what it means to them, because it does not eliminate the need for faith and belief.
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsI think more Christians know of the shroud than you give credit. I do believe it is mainly a catholic thing however. Interesting stuff though.
Christians have never relied on the shroud or the sudarium for their belief. The existence of the shroud and the sudarium are not even well known by most Christians. The shroud has only become more well known recently because instead of being passed on within the family that owned it, it was willed to the Roman Catholic Church and a request was made to sci ...[text shortened]... n mind as to what it means to them, because it does not eliminate the need for faith and belief.
-k
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsAh so you keep harping on about the shroud like a broken record for our benefit.
Christians have never relied on the shroud or the sudarium for their belief. The existence of the shroud and the sudarium are not even well known by most Christians. The shroud has only become more well known recently because instead of being passed on within the family that owned it, it was willed to the Roman Catholic Church and a request was made to sci ...[text shortened]... n mind as to what it means to them, because it does not eliminate the need for faith and belief.
Well let me clear something up.
As you rightly say, those that don't need evidence to believe don't and wont care about the shroud being the right age either way.
Those that do care about evidence will also not care about how old the shroud is either way
Even if the shroud were 2000 (ish) years old, and even if you could somehow prove (you can't) that it was wrapped around JC and
that he was a real person that STILL wouldn't be evidence (let alone compelling evidence) that JC was the son of god or could work
miracles or came back to life.
Nobody who actually cares about evidence and reason is going to alter their beliefs based on the shroud and nobody who doesn't care
about evidence and reason is going to care either.
So why do you keep posting about it?
Whats the point?
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by googlefudgeI am not concerned about you only. It might help someone. You should just ignore this thread and it will run its course. Then in a few months later I can repost for any new people that might be open to the truth. 😏
Ah so you keep harping on about the shroud like a broken record for our benefit.
Well let me clear something up.
As you rightly say, those that don't need evidence to believe don't and wont care about the shroud being the right age either way.
Those that do care about evidence [b]will also not care about how old the shroud is either way
...[text shortened]... is going to care either.
So why do you keep posting about it?
Whats the point?[/b]
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Oct 12
Originally posted by RJHindsThere is nobody who actually cares about evidence for whom the Shroud would be convincing was my point.
I am not concerned about you only. It might help someone. You should just ignore this thread and it will run its course. Then in a few months later I can repost for any new people that might be open to the truth. 😏
The reasons being that even if you could establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this was actually wrapped
around a guy who lived 2000 yrs ago who had just been crucified and who was called Jesus Christ (which you
emphatically can't do) It would still not be evidence of anything supernatural.
While I don't believe that JC actually existed or that any of the events in the NT actually happened (or happened anything
like it says they happened) it wouldn't be in any way surprising or interesting to learn that actually there was a bloke who
went by that name who lived at that time who did the non-supernatural things in the bible and upon whom the religion was
founded.
What you need to prove that the religion is true is evidence of the supernatural, of actual miracles, of god.
This isn't evidence for any of those things, even if you assumed the best case scenario for it's authenticity.
The reason you keep clinging to nonsense like this is that you have no real evidence to show.
Harking on about this like it was a trump card or something worthy of looking at doesn't make your case stronger to
anyone who cares about evidence.
It makes it weaker. It makes you look desperate.
Originally posted by googlefudgeI don't think you know who cares and who doesn't. So again you are just making things up. 😏
There is nobody who actually cares about evidence for whom the Shroud would be convincing was my point.
The reasons being that even if you could establish beyond any reasonable doubt that this was actually wrapped
around a guy who lived 2000 yrs ago who had just been crucified and who was called Jesus Christ (which you
emphatically can't do) It wo to
anyone who cares about evidence.
It makes it weaker. It makes you look desperate.