 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Except for John, we have no idea who the authors of various Gospels were. So how can we tell if they witnessed anything? |
I agree with that
I am just saying that we don't know
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
actually I don't beleive that the first three were written by witnesses
I think I already said that though
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Jon Miller
|
|
it was a really chaotic time
there were a lot of beleifs, which the catholic church really hammered when it came into being
the tamer ones were the Arians and Gnostics
Jon Miller
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
 |
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
But it was not a falsyfication of a matter of faith...
And no-one claims it is true today.
|
No, but it was used to shore up a faith. Really, this is just excuse making at its worst.
The only reason noone 'believes' in the Decretals of Isidore and the Donation of Constantine is because they were shown to be fakes. The attitude of the Vatican towards rigorous examination of the cloth goes a long way towards explaining why it, too, has not been exploded as the money making mediaeval fake it is.
The various heads of 'John the Baptist', pieces of the 'True Cross' and the alleged icon painted by 'St Luke' have all been held up as being genuine. How many 'holy foreskins' is Jesus meant to have had I wonder, and how many forests must the 'true cross' have been composed of?
And isn't curious, given mystical, supernatural powers attached to legendary items such as the Grail, Christ's robe, the spear of Longinus, yadda yadda yadda, that the shroud hasn't been there to help Catholicism out when it was needed?
Funny how miracles seem to be in short supply in an age of forensic science, video cameras, and laboratory testing.
In any case, a faith which resides on as shallow a foundation as a piece of cloth or the alleged existence of its founder seems a very fragile belief. Algebra's effectiveness does not rest after all, on proving that its supposed originator was one person, or a group of people.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
 |
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Solomwi
The Buddha is also a historical figure, Heresson. |
I'm not denying that.
quote:
Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
As is Moses. |
But they both lived centuries before Jesus... Perhaps none evidence was found. Or, as I've mentioned, we simply don't know about such cases.
Or contemporary spirituality differed from the one of early/medium Christianity
quote:
The various heads of 'John the Baptist', pieces of the 'True Cross' and the alleged icon painted by 'St Luke' have all been held up as being genuine. How many 'holy foreskins' is Jesus meant to have had I wonder, and how many forests must the 'true cross' have been composed of?
|
Seriously... in ME it was believed the holiness is kind of radiation, that emanates from a body of the holy person also after his death and from the things that this person used....
Also, it is one of the explanations why there were so many reliques. It was enough to put a bone on a bone of a saint for some time to make it a relique as well.
But, of course, another reason was greed and biasphemy of reliques-sellers.
But that doesn't mean every relique was fake. False adidas shoes...
Today, we have means to check if some relique is true or not, and we can use it. What's your point?
quote:
Originally posted by dannubis
why should a piece of cloth which may or may not have been wrapped around the body of christ be supernatural
|
Because it is, whether it is shroud of Jesus of not.
quote:
of all things, i think we 've proven that jesus wasn't immortal. |
Christians are still more numerable than atheists, sorry.
quote:
So the shroud image could not be the result of something wrapped in it transferring an image to the cloth. |
If Jesus was covered with paint and the shroud was put on Him, perhaps You'd have been right. But if it was a miracle, the things You say are irrelevant.
My first point was that I doubt someone would be looking for actually as old shroud to make a forgery. And in Medieval Europe, I don't know what his possibilities of getting one and precisely dating it would be.
Of course, it's possible, but these are just your assumptions.
quote:
that the shroud hasn't been there to help Catholicism out when it was needed?
|
Who says that it did not?
quote:
Algebra's effectiveness does not rest after all, on proving that its supposed originator was one person, or a group of people. |
Religion is not algebra.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Heresson
|
|
of frogs
Jun 2000
time: 06:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by molly bloom
I agree. But that wasn't the point. The point was, does the efficacy or test of algebra rest on proving that its supposed sole originator existed?
Trying to base an article of religious faith on the supposed existence of one person (especially given the lack of anything approaching real evidence, rather than propaganda, hearsay and so forth) seems to me a recipe for disaster. Extending this level of credulity to a piece of cloth which appeared in 14th Century France with a very dubious provenance seems to me to be inviting not dispelling scepticism.
Now we understand why the Catholic Church might have been so reluctant to have a holy relic tested. |
Christianity does not lay on proving that Christ did exist.
But of course, if Christ did not exist, Christianity has a problem, just as evolution theory would have if monkeys, neanderthales, or dinos did not exist.
You can't prove existance of Moses even more than of Jesus. Do You doubt his existance?
Why is church reluctant to scientifical judgement of its worshipped stuff? No-one likes to admit a mistake, especially since people like You will treat it as a mistake of religion instead of mistake of people of that religion.
The cloth is likely the Mandillion.
And if I recall correctly Mandillion is not quite shroud of Christ, but image of Christ made during his way on Golgota. That would explain the point of Whaleboy. Of course, it would cause another questions, and I'm sure there are other possibilities.
First of all, John can be mistaken. Or the translation is wrong... Or our interpretation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Seriously... in ME it was believed the holiness is kind of radiation, that emanates from a body of the holy person also after his death and from the things that this person used.... |
quote:
If Jesus was covered with paint and the shroud was put on Him, perhaps You'd have been right. But if it was a miracle, the things You say are irrelevant. |
I was not assuming paint, but I hope you realize that such a "holiness" radiating from his body would STILL not produce the image on the cloth.
The image on the cloth was clearly made when the cloth was laid flat. Otherwise, there would have to be all sorts of distortions where the cloth was wrinkled and bunched up and wrapped around the body. Also, the "holiness" would also, presumably, leave an image of the body's ventral angle (his sides). But all we have is a straight-on image of the front and straight-on of the back. This makes no sense for a cloth wrapped around a body.
If you're going to just wave it away as a "miracle" that an image that wasn't representative of the cloth being wrapped around someone, then it's a pointless argument, because you can justify anything by just throwing out the "miracle" word. Since there's no evidence of any miraculous creation here, and many indications of a man-made image, you'll understand me for dismissing claims of the miraculous as being speculative piffle.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lord of the mark
|
 |
FUKCOV - Former United Kingdom Colony of Virginia
Dec 2000
time: 00:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
Religion is not algebra. |
aleph = 1
bet = 2
Gimmel = 3
etc.
This makes it possible to establish equations between different words in the Hebrew scriptures, which can be used to support one interpretation or another. 
This is called gematria.
http://www.inner.org/gematria/gematria.htm
"In Hebrew, each letter possesses a numerical value. Gematria is the calculation of the numerical equivalence of letters, words, or phrases, and, on that basis, gaining, insight into interrelation of different concepts and exploring the interrelationship between words and ideas.
Here is a basic introduction to Gematria that discusses different systems for identifying the numerical equivalence of individual letters, how these letters can be calculated according to the implicit word-value of their names.
The assumption behind this technique is that numerical equivalence is not coincidental. Since the world was created through God's "speech," each letter represents a different creative force. Thus, the numerical equivalence of two words reveals an internal connection between the creative potentials of each one. (see Tanya, Sha'ar HaYichud VeHaEmunah, chapters 1 and 12.) "
|
|
| |
|
|
|
molly bloom
|
|
Lundenwic
Oct 2001
time: 15:28
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heresson
You can't prove existance of Moses even more than of Jesus. Do You doubt his existance?
Why is church reluctant to scientifical judgement of its worshipped stuff? No-one likes to admit a mistake, especially since people like You will treat it as a mistake of religion instead of mistake of people of that religion.
|
Uhhhh.... well it is a fault of religion if the religion in question (Roman Catholicism) places so much store on the supposed validity of a piece of cloth.
Rereading bible accounts, it seems that the Jesus's spittle, robe and shadow have supernatural qualities.
And yet the Catholic church is strangely reluctant to let a bit of this 'magically' endowed cloth be tested.
Oooh, I wonder why?
Erect a religion based on the supposed real existence and suffering of someone and then compound that error by treating body parts and bits of cloth like some grisly equivalent of Pokemon cards and is it any wonder that whatever teachings or message the religion espoused or espouses gets lost in the rush to make money or induce credulity?
I happen to think that parts of the New Testament offered a radical way of viewing the world, and what humanity could achieve- but having said that, it was in no way hugely different from earlier Greek philosophies, or Asiatic belief systems. The difference comes in saying that they had a monopoly on truth, and later on that every word of the Old and New Testaments is literally true, the revealed word of god, and that all these events happened, and that they are somehow a substitute for rational thought and science.
Now you offer rejoinders such as:
'prove the Shroud of Turin isn't responsible for preventing things that didn't happen' .
As for doubting the existence of the biblical Moses- yes, I do.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Spiffor
To be fair, the Catholic Church doesn't believe that. Fundamentalism (the belief in the absolute truth of the scriptures) is an evangelical thing. |
At least nowadays (and even among evangelicals the fundamentalists who believe in the literal truth of the bible seem to be a minority)
some centuries ago also the catholic church probably consisted of more Biblethumpers than it does today.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-01-2005 08:11
|