Scientists Say Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus Was Crucified in 'Very Painful' Position

Jordan River
reply to post by windword

 

Im not understanding you, but christ was a historical figure, not a made up man. Him being a God is the only thing debatable. I myself believe, because there is much less hope on earth than in death

No. "Christ" is not an historic figure, Christ is a title that was used and bestowed on many people, before and after the advent of Jesus the Nazarene, if he actually existed.

He may have, and I tend to think that he did, and that he was and Essene master who's teachings were hijacked and corrupted.

There is no historic evidence of the virgin birth, the Star of Bethlehem, any of the so called miracles, record of the crucifixion and certainly no proof that Jesus "Christ" rose from the dead, or that his death was some kind of human blood sacrifice that he and his father secretly cooked up "In the beginning", that make up the mytholiogy of "Jesus Christ"

The so called solar eclipse written about at the time of Jesus' death is a scientific impossibility. There is no record of an earthquake that tore the temple, and dead people probably didn't get up from their graves and walk around visiting their relatives.

The Shroud of Turin has long been touted as a source of "proof" for the death and resurrection of Jesus and people cart it out every year to try and impress on us the barbaric methods and horribly unfair pain that Jesus went through when "He died for our sins".

What I don't understand is why his death matters one iota. Every man, woman and child will die, some in painfully unfair ways. Death is a guarantee, not a sign. It seems to me that if Jesus did exist, it's his life and teaching that mattered, and not the manner or the made up symbolism of his death.

It's unfortunate that his teachings are overshadowed by the Christian philosophy of Paul, who never quotes or employs any of the teachings Jesus left us while he WAS here, if we are to believe he actually did say anything that's recorded in the Bible.

here is the scientific analysis of the image
www.sindone.info...
the protien binder mentioned in the scientific analysis is reminiscent of albumin, egge whites...
which has been used to fix primitive photographic images
eta
boy i am a good guesser
page two
albumin

I'm surprised no one has mentioned the shroud is actually a negative. It isn't just a blood stained image of a man but a stained negative.

Simply placing a sheet over one's bloody face will not produce this effect . Crash tests dummies do not produce this effect either when their painted faces slam into an airbag.

But the shroud is a negative. This can only happen when exposed to intense light. This would also refute any possible hoax seeing no one in that time would be privy to what the hell a negative is anyway.

This is what makes the shroud so mysterious. It's a photograph.

reply to post by DeadSeraph

Something further to consider is that all the artwork in the medieval period presents Christ as being crucified in a T shape, so why would the artist of a forgery paint the figure with blood marks consistent with a Y configuration? Further, how would a medieval forger even know how blood patterns would look on a victim crucified in such a manner? - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

First, S and F. Nicely presented thread.

I, too, am on the fence about the whole thing, however, I would like to address the above questions. (I only got through page 1, so, I'm sorry if I'm being redundant on the thread)......

Why would the artist of a forgery paint a Y config?
He wouldn't.

How would a medieval forger even know?
Really? In the middle ages (medieval times), grave robbing was frequent, and paid a lot. Surgeons (barbers) were certainly interested in learning about anatomy and the human body. Not to mention the fact that any 4-limbed mammal, if strung up to a pole, would bleed in the same way.

Lastly; the fact that there is blood on the shroud indicates that the enshrouded was not dead, but still alive. Dead bodies do not bleed.

That's what I've read and learned, anyway.

Tricky.
I've read a lot about the Shroud, and I find it truly intriguing. But, so far, I'm not convinced of the story.

the t shaped cross is also known as the phonecian cross
how does this relate to the dye-ity?
again, read my siggy thread


the negative did not need bright light as the scientific analysis showed
see above

the blood is likely applied (and did not have to come from a bleeding body) and then "fixed"

reply to post by windword


Meh, haters gonna hate. Jesus was a historical figure, sorry if i offended you by giving him the title of christ. I'm not in any mood to debate.

reply to post by windword


Wow. Great post.

Did you know Bart Ehrman has a new book coming out? Right in time for Easter (and on purpose; he wants to revive the debate about the authenticity/historicity of the Bible stories and Jesus)....he did an interview with Terry Gross on Fresh Air (npr: link is below)

If Jesus Never Called Himself God, How Did He Become One?

During his lifetime, Jesus himself didn't call himself God and didn't consider himself God, and ... none of his disciples had any inkling at all that he was God. ...

You do find Jesus calling himself God in the Gospel of John, or the last Gospel. Jesus says things like, "Before Abraham was, I am." And, "I and the Father are one," and, "If you've seen me, you've seen the Father." These are all statements you find only in the Gospel of John, and that's striking because we have earlier gospels and we have the writings of Paul, and in none of them is there any indication that Jesus said such things. ...

I think it's completely implausible that Matthew, Mark and Luke would not mention that Jesus called himself God if that's what he was declaring about himself. That would be a rather important point to make. This is not an unusual view amongst scholars; it's simply the view that the Gospel of John is providing a theological understanding of Jesus that is not what was historically accurate.

If you go to the link above you can choose to listen to the show, or to read the transcript.


Ehrman's book coming out is:
How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee

New York Times bestselling author and Bible expert Bart Ehrman reveals how Jesus’s divinity became dogma in the first few centuries of the early church.

The claim at the heart of the Christian faith is that Jesus of Nazareth was, and is, God. But this is not what the original disciples believed during Jesus’s lifetime—and it is not what Jesus claimed about himself. How Jesus Became God tells the story of an idea that shaped Christianity, and of the evolution of a belief that looked very different in the fourth century than it did in the first.

A master explainer of Christian history, texts, and traditions, Ehrman reveals how an apocalyptic prophet from the backwaters of rural Galilee crucified for crimes against the state came to be thought of as equal with the one God Almighty, Creator of all things. But how did he move from being a Jewish prophet to being God? In a book that took eight years to research and write, Ehrman sketches Jesus’s transformation from a human prophet to the Son of God exalted to divine status at his resurrection. Only when some of Jesus’s followers had visions of him after his death—alive again—did anyone come to think that he, the prophet from Galilee, had become God. And what they meant by that was not at all what people mean today.

Written for secular historians of religion and believers alike, How Jesus Became God will engage anyone interested in the historical developments that led to the affirmation at the heart of Christianity: Jesus was, and is, God.

I highly recommend reading the transcript of the interview, or listening to the show.

reply to post by Danbones

the negative did not need bright light as the scientific analysis showed
see above

Cant' copy/paste from the PDF but the very last paragraph says blood could have only been transferred to the cloth by contact, but the image was 'non-contact'. Meaning, some type of radiation or energy transfer mechanism...afterwards. Then it quickly goes to say it doesn't necessarily mean anything supernatural. Maybe not, but I don't know of any other natural occurring negative image process. Especially in a dark tomb. But just the fact alone that it is indeed a negative should raise a few eyebrows.

Jordan River
reply to post by windword

 

Meh, haters gonna hate. Jesus was a historical figure, sorry if i offended you by giving him the title of christ. I'm not in any mood to debate.

"haters" how mighty christian of you..really
jesus used to prove his points to doubting thomases not "hate" on them
lol
well he did if he existed...which he might not have...
certainly if there was proof you'ld have played that card instead of the hate card i would have thought

reply to post by BuzzyWigs


Thanks BuzzyWigs,

Cool! Thanks for the linky. I like Bart Ehrman! Although I don't always agree with everything he says.

I actually think John was written specifically for the early Christians and that it has a remnants of Gnosticism in it, like John 1:1. Very Gnostic! IMHO

reply to post by windword


Again, I hope you listen to the interview or at least read the transcript.

You'll be very interested, I promise.
He talks about how early on,no one even considered it, and how from 'well maybe' to 'well, then if he was when he died, he had to be earlier than that' - and how the more the early Chrsitians thought about it, the more they had to back up - all the way back to the virgin birth myth.....
which (as you know) is not an original thing.

FlySolo
reply to post by Danbones

 

the negative did not need bright light as the scientific analysis showed
see above

Cant' copy/paste from the PDF but the very last paragraph says blood could have only been transferred to the cloth by contact, but the image was 'non-contact'. Meaning, some type of radiation or energy transfer mechanism...afterwards. Then it quickly goes to say it doesn't necessarily mean anything supernatural. Maybe not, but I don't know of any other natural occurring negative image process. Especially in a dark tomb. But just the fact alone that it is indeed a negative should raise a few eyebrows.

edit on 8-4-2014 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)

good points
i read to the paragraph just above and missed that
question what is supernatural about an 19th century ansel adams photographic negative...?
as i said the albumin was also used in early photography too

of course the mystery of how they did it is kind of like the antkythra device ..or the working celtic cross
once solved its like the "i could have had a v8 commercial"
( the smack in the forehead - doh!..as if it was that simple! )

i would love to know the answer when its discovered

reply to post by Danbones


Have another star sir, by me

reply to post by Jordan River


star back JR

regardless of where it comes from the message is still the same
walk the path of peace

Different dimensions multi world universes parallel universes and space and time, possible alien life and so much potential outside this universe. That's what makes me believe

reply to post by Danbones

regardless of where it comes from the message is still the same
walk the path of peace

Yes. That. All the arguing over whether who said what or why was how or when did where.......
none of it matters.

the message is:
care for others, and treat them like you would want to be treated. Don't sweat it, everything is okay.

Since eons ago. "Jesus" was not the only one who said so.

reply to post by DeadSeraph


Sigh... The Shroud of Gullibility more like. Why does anyone believe this crap when it's been debunked over and over and over and over..

We're going ahead here with a wide suppostion without really knowing.

"Shroud of Turin Shows Jesus"...we dont know for positive who it shows for definite proof. And all the replies and posts here are assuming that it is.

I believe it is....but can we treat it as such unproven? And Im not taking about faith here at all.

That's very interesting. It never crossed my mind that being spread out on a large wooden cross and having spikes pounded through your hands and feet would have been a painful experience...

Kudo's to those scientists for making it clear.

reply to post by Danbones


You may wish to fix the link in your reply. It goes to a wikipedia page on "the world". Unless that's what you intended, in which case you've still failed to prove your point. As for the figure depicted in the rock carving, he doesn't appear to be carrying a cross at all. Try again.

Btw, nothing personal but I read your thread when you first posted it and felt it was nonsense then.