It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Translation Analysis of 2nd Timothy letter shows St Paul'd have had the Shroud in Rome at 1st Centu

page: 1

log in


posted on May, 4 2015 @ 12:14 AM
The Peace of God to all that belong to the Light,
Dear Readers,

Apparently , according with a video that is right now circulating in many sites in the web , a very interesting serious Philology analysis of the most ancient versions of the 2nd Timothy letter by St Paul shows that he mentioned clearly using a very distinct word that is uniquely associated with only one object in History the Burial Cloth of Christ .

This discovery , if we can confirm the source , would mean that the shroud might have traveled from Turkey to Italy in the 1st Century and so that St Paul asked to one of his disciples to bring it from Minor Asia to be shown to the young Christian community of Rome as an evidence of the death but also of he resurrection of Christ.

This is the link that shows the documentary that is origin of this claim,

Moreover, another finding in 2010, this time of archaeological nature, in an underground catacomb in Rome of a fresco Portrait dated on the ending of 1st century or in the 2nd century of Christ that is clearly inspired in the Shroud should confirm that what St Paul is asking to be sent to him is the Burial Cloth of Christ.

The fresco is called Callistvs Fresco, and it could represent the very first known depiction of Christ as a bearded and long haired man, if it is confirmed to be painted either in the 1st or 2nd century.

If there is a way to confirm this , it would be a crucial finding, since it might be the very first mention of the Shroud in a book of the New Testament written after the gospels, giving continuity to the History of the object and how it was moved from the Eastern Mediterranean to the capital of the Roman Empire.

The fact that the shroud might be in Italy in that time requires a cautious analysis, since it implies that it was no longer in Turkey after the 1st century, although it is always possible that later , as a consequence of the Barbarian invasions to Italy, it could be sent back by the Byzantines toward Constantinople.

It is interesting to recall that by the fifth century when the western Roman empire collapsed under the invasion of Germanic tribes from the north ( Gothic, Visigoths, Suebi, Vandals, Huns, etc) the south of the Italian peninsula remained attached to the Eastern Roman Empire, so it should be the only secure area of Italy to kept the Shroud before to be sent to the New Roman capital, The city of Bizantium ( Constantinople.)

The thread is especially open to researchers in the topic, that may have more information of these findings, to contribute to collect all what exist on sources about this interesting discovery, since the information posted in the web is yet so limited.

In particular, I am asking to whoever has known this material before and identifies who is the lecturer in the video please provide its complete name, nationality , as well as his precise professional affiliation and also when and where it was given the talk, and if there are papers already published about this.

Thanks for your attention,

The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/4/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 12:23 AM
Those were the good old days when people where revered for rising from the dead.
They seem to be much maligned in today's media.

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 01:40 AM
a reply to: The angel of light
The Greek word is PHAILONES.
My lexicon puts this down as a version of PHAINOLES, a more common word found in writers like Epictetus, meaning an ordinary travelling-cloak.
So PHAILONES is rare because it's a mispronunciation, a case of letter-reversal.
Like the way my father used to refer to London facetiously as "the great metrolops" (meaning, of course, "metropolis").

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 04:46 AM
a reply to: The angel of light

I am thinking that the person is trying to make a connection that is just not there . We are told in Luke and John that it was a linen cloth . Luk_24:12 ThenG1161 aroseG450 Peter,G4074 and ranG5143 untoG1909 theG3588 sepulchre;G3419 andG2532 stooping down,G3879 he beheldG991 theG3588 linen clothesG3608 laidG2749 by themselves,G3441 andG2532 departed,G565 wonderingG2296 inG4314 himselfG1438 at that which was come to pass.G1096
Joh_19:40 ThenG3767 tookG2983 they theG3588 bodyG4983 of Jesus,G2424 andG2532 woundG1210 itG846 in linen clothesG3608 withG3326 theG3588 spices,G759 asG2531 the mannerG1485 of theG3588 JewsG2453 isG2076 to bury.G1779
Joh_20:5 AndG2532 he stooping down,G3879 and looking in, sawG991 theG3588 linen clothesG3608 lying;G2749 yetG3305 went he not in.G1525 G3756
Joh_20:6 ThenG3767 comethG2064 SimonG4613 PeterG4074 followingG190 him,G846 andG2532 wentG1525 intoG1519 theG3588 sepulchre,G3419 andG2532 seethG2334 theG3588 linen clothesG3608 lie,G2749
Joh_20:7 AndG2532 theG3588 napkin,G4676 thatG3739 wasG2258 aboutG1909 hisG846 head,G2776 notG3756 lyingG2749 withG3326 theG3588 linen clothes,G3608 butG235 wrapped togetherG1794 inG1519 aG1520 placeG5117 by itself.G5565

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 07:16 AM
The video, especially since it mentions Edessa, makes me wonder how the Shroud got from Rome to Edessa, where it was found centuries later and taken to Constantinople.

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 08:01 AM

originally posted by: skunkape23
Those were the good old days when people where revered for rising from the dead.
They seem to be much maligned in today's media.

Lazarus syndrome?

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 08:06 AM
a reply to: Lazarus Short

I appreciate the replies to the thread, and the comments trying to find the level of seriousness or precision that is in behind this.

My position with respect to this finding is of caution, for different reasons:

- This was disclosed in a relatively informal manner, I don't see the name of any scholar connected with the supposed analysis of translations. The video is posted in youtube with no name attached to it, just a nickname and no names associated with production or any institution taking responsibility of it.

- The title of the video is in the best of the cases sensationalist, Solid proof that the Shroud is of 1st century, taking in account that no body really assumes responsibility on its content, in spite of how many sites are reproducing it. Such a claim if it is true may deserve public acknowledgement from the academic community.

- It comes to my attention that who talk in the video never refer his findings to some specific facsimile of this Letter of St Paul, in other words, which ancient original he is trying to translate more accurately, where is located, how he got access to it or what references are in the middle.

- There is no mention at all of archives, museum, library, or collection of ancient writings or other possible institution where the original that is matter of the translation could be associate with.

- I am still trying to find other sources that , for instance, validate the finding of the Fresco of the face of Christ that supposedly come from the 1st or 2nd centuries and that might be found in the Callixtus catacombs in Rome in 2010, if we believe in what the video says.

- The only pictures that come in any search in the web of that portrait of Christ are in just black and white and always associated with this specific video or with Shroud sites advertising the video.

- Now, the question of Edessa is interesting, since according with the History sources I have found on the topic there was a sudarium in that city that might have been stored beyond any date of the first century. When anybody investigate the topic of the Mandylion, the Edessa cloth always appears related or refereed as to be the same, as well as the same one that was in Constantinople until the time of the Crusade of XII century.

- If St Paul was in possession of a relic of the category of the original Shroud at some point of his life why there is only one single mention of the object in all his extremely large contribution of writings to the New Testament? Is this a confirmation of the prosecution that the ancient Christian communities had at the time? but if that is the case why he never mentioned it also in the same subtle way again in any other of his writings?

- The author of the video clearly states that this mention of the Shroud, if it was what appears to be, is unique and used only once along all the New Testament.

- Another intriguing fact is that there are no records of the Shroud in Italy in so early times, no Historic accounts of that fact, even no Christian tradition concerning that ? An object of such importance by force couldn't be completely ignored along so many centuries.

Catholic authorities when they refer to the History of the Shroud always refer its byzantine origin, there has been no other claim before that it was a relic that from Italy was sent to Constantinople before it came back from that city later.


The Angel of Lightness

edit on 5/4/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 08:13 AM

originally posted by: The angel of light
- It comes to my attention that who talk in the video never refer his findings to some specific facsimile of this Letter of St Paul, in other words, which ancient original he is trying to translate more accurately, where is located, how he got access to it or what references are in the middle.

The word he is quoting is definitely there in the accepted Greek text of the N.T., so that's valid as far as it goes.
Only the attempted translation is dubious, especially when he tries to derive it from PHOS, which is a very different word indeed.

To be honest, I also have doubts
a) Whether the church in Jerusalem would allow such an important relic to fall into Paul's hands instead of keeping it in their own.
b) Whether he would treat an important relic so casually as "leaving it with Carpus".

edit on 4-5-2015 by DISRAELI because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 09:48 AM
People will believe in Christ if they so deem to choose to.

The cloth real or fake will prove nothing to no one and its all speculation and assumption.

Its frightening the way religious relics have been worshiped and bought and sold for obscene amounts of money.
There is no power or validity and the speculation helps no one but the superstitious in my opinion.

Its an old cloth, a rag. We have Jesus and His Holy Spirit

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 11:20 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

Well, if this is the actual burial cloth of Christ it is far to be superstition, I believe the correct word to describe it is reverence for the memory of somebody. No body conserve personal objects of death people for superstition, by the way, but to preserve in some way their memory.

Now, the gospels have a lot of episodes in which clearly was mentioned that whoever touched Christ or even his clothes and was ill became cured, so there is indeed some reason to don't consider it as one more old ordinary piece of linen.

Anybody can mention Jesus by his name as well as quote his words, but to have something that actually belonged to him is a very different story. Such an object, once confirmed to be authentic, would become immediately cultural patrimony of Humanity, since the impact of the influence of Jesus Christ in the western Civilization has no comparison at all with any other figure.

Now, from the Historic point of view it might be the ultimate proof not only of the existence of Jesus as a very real Human being but also of the death he suffered and moreover of his physical aspect as well as even , according with some researchers that are convinced that the only way to explain the image is due to radiation, of how the resurrection might have taken place.


The Angel of Lightness

St Mt 14:36
and begged him to let the sick just touch the edge of his cloak, and all who touched it were healed.

St Mt, 9: 21
She said to herself, "If I only touch his cloak, I will be healed."

St Mk 3:10
For he had healed many, so that those with diseases were pushing forward to touch him.

St Lk 6:19
and the people all tried to touch him, because power was coming from him and healing them all.

edit on 5/4/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

posted on May, 4 2015 @ 06:30 PM
Thanks Angel

I am a Christian and accept that Jesus lived died and rose again.
With all respect the cloth you hold so dearly means literally nothing to me.
Sadly just by reading your post I see how much value you have placed on it, you seem to deem it with far more than a healthy amount of expectation.
Seems maybe even as an idol of sorts
Its a little like the assumption you have shown us in your op, seems like they are stretching and moulding something that isnt written to explain what you would like to see written?

Historically it proves nothing, its only a cloth, many here dont believe Jesus existed never mind died on a cross and was wrapped in a shroud. It proves nothing. I would imagine it will only, if not already be something many greedily eye for their own purpose.
For some reason the Creator didnt leave as many obvious clues of His existence when He very well could have, ours is a faith,belief without the the evidence.
You want evidence when it seems like Jesus didnt deliberately leave any?

Jesus is not a memory, Jesus is the here the now through the Holy Spirit left with humanity by our God
This World clouds our minds and spirits with so much information and argument, this cloth seems another distraction to be argued over.
Best I leave you my opinion there, hope I havnt offended.

posted on May, 5 2015 @ 11:19 AM
a reply to: borntowatch

Well Dear borntowatch,

First at all the word idol does not have way to fit in the context of what you are talking about, there are no idols in Christianity, there can be relics, but that is something entirely different since nobody is claiming at all that the Shroud is a God, that is absurd at all.

Second, please don't worry to much for my feelings, after all to find an object that is authentic related with a figure of the importance of Christ is something that is extraordinary important, even for a non Christian Historian or Archaeologist, that is apart of any emotional considerations , and well to be honest to feel shocked or uncomfortable with somebody comments first you need to take him or her seriously.

By the way your replies on these feelings are clearly off topic, we are not here discussing on peoples attitudes with respect to the Shroud, but if a quote of the 2nd Letter to Timothy by St Paul refers or not to the Shroud.


The Angel of Lightness
edit on 5/5/2015 by The angel of light because: (no reason given)

new topics


log in