Shroud of Turin.

Ah, so was Jesus a slave or a prisoner? Or an enslaved prisoner?

So why did I say he was never crucified? Well just trying to make a point... which is...

Christianity is based around an idea that has so little evidence towards either side, no one can really be sure if Jesus even existed. Now there are some sources who claim this or that, but if it was really positively asserted then the debate would end.

So was he crucified? Probably not, but that's my opinion based on some sources I've read before. You gotta remember, crucifixion isn't the only thing attributed to Jesus. He also walked on water and raised the dead. After 3 days of crucifixion he was gone or something along those lines... I've heard he came back to his "disciples" and told them stuff then he went up to "Heaven".

Considering the stuff that was attributed to Jesus, it is hard to believe ANYTHING that is written about him. He was probably just a man who was spiritually inspired and taught others things that previously were not taught, and therefore he was despised by the "system".
I'm going to refrain from saying what I may "know" about him, since I would have no way of proving anything. So I'll just leave everything at "maybe".

(sorry double post)

[Edited on 10-2-2004 by lilblam]

good enough,i think i know more but thats good enough

Originally posted by thoth
real deal has something during the inquisition and the fall of the knights templar jacque molay was tortured and crucified for a brief time upon a doorway this would produce the traumatic conditions required for the bodily excretion to imprint upon the shroud (runners get this condition often from working out hard and their body literally fumes) jacque molay was wrapped in a shroud of some sort after his torture while he recovered because of the distortions in the image it indicates that the figure was lying on a soft bed not a stone slab also the shroud was first displayed by a close descendent of molay's closest friend and fellow templar they were burned alive together 2 years later today noone but uninformed christians still believe it was christ's shroud but the evidence for jacque molay is the best i've heard by far

I would have posted something simular but you just about covered it.

One of the materials it is made from is the Flax plant,which had ceased to be living entities between AD 1260 - 1390.This would be spot on for the time of De Morlay and indeed make the shroud medieval.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep
Lilblam,

During those times only Slaves and prisoners were Cruicfied..........................

Deep

Only slaves and non Roman people who had caused havoc (allthough tradition wants it that Saulus Paulus was crucified by Nero, allthough he was a Roman citizen). The two criminals hanging together with Jesjuah were possibly followers of Jesus Barabbas. The person who was not crucified, but set free instead of Jesjuah. If you say that Jesus wasn't crucified, you are joining the crowd which said "Crucify him! Let Barabbas loose!" Barabbas was also called Jesus (Yeshuah). This whole thing was probably the regular confusion: "Which Jesus do we choose?" They chose Barabbas back then, just like many of you do today. For you want his Spirit, but not his Spirit's Servant.

Blessings,
Mikromarius

[Edited on 14-2-2004 by Hamilton]

Some news concerning the shroud

news.bbc.co.uk...

A second face is visible, apparently.

I agree with the hoax theory. I doubt Jesus really even lived. The whole Chrisitanity story was made to get people to behave. There are other, older religions with a trinity, and with a god who died and was raised up on the third day.
David Icke does a fine job explaining all this in two chapters in his book The biggest secret. The chapters to read are 4 (The suns of God) and 5(Conquered by the cross). They are referenced, for your further reading pleasure.

Alright I am a member of the Order of DeMolay... and I just wanted to correct some people who couldnt get his name right. Jacques DeMolay died at the hands of an inquisition which sought to root out his entire Order, the Knights Templar. I have to say the actual evidence is stacked against the Shroud of Turin being actually Jesus. Also when I look at it I see a white man, not a man who would have been living in Israel. I suppose faith is strong and people will believe what they want but I would say that the evidence defenitely is against the Christ theory. However, wouldnt carbon dating not really work to 2000 years because something like the half life of carbon isnt that long? I could be very wrong but I think carbon dating that far back is just an educated guess.

Vir Fidelis

I believe, with the support of science, that the Shroud of Turin was an early form of photography. And in fact, this shroud was not from the time of Jesus, rather the early middle ages.

Many tests have been conducted which show the extreme likelihood of the shroud being nothing more than a photograph.

I believe, with the support of science, that the Shroud of Turin was an early form of photography. And in fact, this shroud was not from the time of Jesus, rather the early middle ages.

Many tests have been conducted which show the extreme likelihood of the shroud being nothing more than a photograph.

Well, according to carbon dating they found in a " seed " its from the time of Jesus.

I have never heard of it as some sort of photograph though.

Deep

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

Well, according to carbon dating they found in a " seed " its from the time of Jesus.
I have never heard of it as some sort of photograph though.
Deep

I thought the whole carbon dating was suspect because of the fire that burned part of the shroud?

Also, one of those shows mentioned something about the possibility of some sort of energy, perhaps not a photofraph, but some radiation? I think that is what I remember

after watching "Quest for Truth" on TLC or was it Discovery (i'll look for a link) I am gonna say Leonardo Da Vinci developed some method of early photography, faked the image on much older material which he had access to in his times. The show said that linen used for the shroud was older than Da Vinci time, but that it was still readily available in large quantities. Leo could have bought some old cloth and then made the image using a method we don't know about. The man was a genius, we still can't duplicate his painting methods and I certainly think he did it...plus if you look at Leo's self portrait....it does look at like the face on the shroud

gonna search for a link now.

Originally posted by worldwatcher
The man was a genius, we still can't duplicate his painting methods and I certainly think he did it...plus if you look at Leo's self portrait....it does look at like the face on the shroud
gonna search for a link now.

DaVinci was one of the enlightened ones, who was allowed access to much more knowledge than we are aware of. I'm sure he was a genius, but he had outside help.

Must be nice to have all that insider information avaiable to one? Well, maybe not

oh da Vinci definitely had help, the shroud was possibly commissioned by the Pope of the time and the Savoy's, relatives of the medici family, i believe. I can't find info on the damn show anywhere.

oh yeah, another thing i forgot to mention, researchers of the shroud, said the figure depicted had abnormal proportions, torso too long, head too small....some believe it was made from a sculpture...so it probably wasn't a real person underneath it at all.

Davinci was years beyond his time without a doubt. How he conjured up his genious could fall into a myriad of theories.

Deep

This is an excerpt from the book 'The Atlantis Blueprint' (p272>) by Rand Flem-ath and Colin Wilson. The chapter (What the templars found) is talking about what the order of the templars dicovered at the temple of Jerusalem. It then starts to talk about Roslin Chapel, near Edinburgh, and its connection to Freemasonry.


"Why did the St Clairs call their home Rosslyn? Alittle research revealed that they didn't. The chapel, like the castle, was then called Roslin (as the village is today).
In the 1950s the name had been changed to Rosslyn to make it sound more 'olde worlde'. Village names usually have meanings. LKomas and Knight checked a Scottish Gaelic Dictionary and found that 'Ros' meant knowledge and 'Linn' meant generation. They consulted modern Gaeic speakers and found that a better translation would be 'Knowledge passed down through the generations' , which sounded exactly what they were looking for - the place had been specifically named by the Gaelic-speaking Henri St Clair to hint at the templars' secret.
The dates did not fit though. Henri had returned from the crusades about 1100, 18 years before Hughes de Payens and his knights moved into the yemple and began their search.
Yet surely the name Roslin, with its implication of ancient knowledge, could not be coincidence? The two authors had already wondered precisely why the nine knights went to jerusalem. Were they merely seeking treasure? Or did they already have an idea of what they were looking for? The name Roslin suggested the answer was yes. Studying the chapel more closely, the authors found something even more exciting. One of the pillars had a tableau that showed a figure, presumably a knightm - holding up a cloth with both hands. On the cloth there was a bearded face. the head of the figure holding the cloth had been hacked off, presumably to disguise his identity. Nearby was a frieze showing the crucifixion, yet it did not seem to be Jesus' crucifixion. To begin with, the people were shown in mediaeval garb, and some were hooded - members of the Inquisition. Another frieze showed the Templars with an executioner next to them.
The face on the cloth, the authors felt, bore a resemblance to that of Jacques Molay, the Grand Master of the Templars. Molay had not been tortured in the torture chamber of the Inquisition, but in the Paris headquarters of the Templars. The rack and suspension chins would not have been availible. Lomas and Knight argue that Molay was, in fact, tortured by being crucified.
The Inquisitor William Imbert, a devout Catholic, would have been horrified to learn that the Templars denied that Christ was the son of God. And he would have felt that the Templars' use of a ceremony of resurrection in their rituals was simply blasphemous. It would have been highly appropriate to torture Moray by nailing him to a door. Lomas and Knight believe that Rosslyn provides the evidence that this is what happened.
After Molay had confessed to whatever the Inquistors had accused him of, he was taken down nd wrapped in a piece of cloth. He was laid on his bed on this 'shroud', his body streaming with perspiration and blood containing a high lactic acid content. The authors suggest that the blood and perspiration 'fixed'Molay's image on the cloth, in a process similar to that which creates that image of flowers pressed between the pages of a book. The piece of cloth, they believe, is now known as the Holy Shroud of Turin, the shroud that is supposed to contain the image of Jesus.
What evidence is there that the figure on the Shroud of Turin is Jacques Molay? To begin with there is the interesting fact that the 1988 carbon-14 dating reveal that the fabric of the shroud was woven between ad 1260 and 1390, which conclusively rules out the possibility that the shroud was ever used to wrap the body of Jesus. But these dates do cover the arrest and torture of Jacques Molay.
There is an even more powerful piece of circumstantial evidence . The shroud belonged to the family of Geoffrey de Charney, who was roasted to death with Jacques Molay in 1314. In 1356, England's Black Prince routed France's John II, son of Louis X at Poiters. And another Geoffrey de Charney, presumably the grandson of Geoffrey's brother Jean, died beside his king. Later, when Geoffrey's widow was searching through her husband's effects, she found a piece of cloth, about 14 feet long, with the brown image of a man on it - a man with a bearded face. Both his front and his back were visible, and bloodstains indicated that he had been crucified with nails through the wrists. Not unnaturally, Jeanne was inclined to believe she was looking at an image of Jesus, and since she had been left penniless by her husbends death she decided to put the 'Holy Shroud' on display in the church at Lirey, built by her husband. It drew an unending stream of of pilgrims and - presumably - solved Jeanne's financial problems.
Alan Mills, the photographic expert, believes that immense physical stress caused the release of oxygen-free radicals in Molay, arguing that these 'Photographed the image on the shroud, which then developed in the 50 years it was stored."

This would seem to prove that the shroud does not have the image of Jesus on it.

I read about this in the book "The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail" and this seems like the most likely scenario. As for it actually being Jesus? There's no way, nice myth and everything, but that's all it is, a Myth.

Yeah, and these Lomas And Knight guys are the authors of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail.

Originally posted by ZeroDeep

I believe, with the support of science, that the Shroud of Turin was an early form of photography. And in fact, this shroud was not from the time of Jesus, rather the early middle ages.

Many tests have been conducted which show the extreme likelihood of the shroud being nothing more than a photograph.

Well, according to carbon dating they found in a " seed " its from the time of Jesus.

I have never heard of it as some sort of photograph though.

Deep

If you are so dependent on carbon dating, you should be aware of the gross inaccuracy of its test results. Carbon decays at a much faster or slower rate depending on the environmental conditions. CRD testing works only on the assumption that the radiation decayed at a uniform rate, which is altogether untrue.