[Previous Months][Date Index][Thread Index][Join - Register][Login]
[Message Prev][Message Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
[IPr] FW: Shroud of turin
>Re: [IPr] FW: forward to spirit
>To: email @ redacted
>Subject: Re: [IPr] FW: forward to spirit
>From: email @ redacted
>Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2002 20:24:02 EST
Reply-To: email @ redacted
>In a message dated 11/11/2002 6:45:06 PM Eastern Standard Time,
>email @ redacted writes:
>> Does that mean you reject this recent
>> discovery of the first (perhaps) historical (as opposed to religious
>> writings) finding that indicates that there really was a Jesus?
>WRONG! Matt, have you ever heard of The Shroud of Turin? I'm sure you
>haven't, but it is artifact that has been studied minutely with electron
>microscopy and venerated by we Catholics for centuries. IMO it is beyond
>question Jesus' burial shroud. It bears an image of His face, body, and
>wounds just as Holy Scripture describes them. If you're really the
>dispassionate, nonbiased inquirer that you claim to be, you need to spend
>some time here:
>You won't hear The Shroud discussed by your august professors I'm certain.
No, because august scientists at Oxford University, the University of
Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology have all done
independent dating experiments on the shroud and are in agreement that it
was created about 1350. Not to mention that God (or whatever supernatural
force is claimed responsible for the image) used tempura paints & pigments
common to 14th century Italy rather than something uniquely convincing.
The pollen link (that I assume you are referring to) is questionable. The
sample history resting with the same authority that vouched for the (now
recognized as fraudulent) Hitler Diaries.
Some links for you.
I may be mistaken, but I was under the impression that the Vatican had even
distanced itself from these arguments - not wanting to insult the city
fathers of Turin (and their tourist attraction), but not wanting to strongly
associate the Church with something that may well be a fraud.
And of course the real reason this is not historical evidence of Jesus, is
that it is not identified as being the burial shroud of Jesus. Yes, the
wounds appear agree with the Gospels and the person would appear to have
been crucified, but this in no way identifies this person. In fact the
shroud seems to go against prevailing burial custom, especially those that
would have been used for a condemned, itinerant criminal.
>Your father-in-law, huh? Now who could argue with such an authority? You
>do frighten easily, Matt. Are you threatened by anyone that disagees with
No, I am not, but please refrain from ad hominen attacks. They do you a
1. This e-mail is for the intended recipient only. If you have received it
by mistake please let us know by reply and then delete it from your system;
access, disclosure, copying, distribution or reliance on any of it by anyone
else is prohibited.
2. If you as intended recipient have received this e-mail incorrectly,
please notify the sender (via e-mail) immediately. This e-mail is
confidential and may be legally privileged. DSM does not guarantee that the
information sent and/or received by or with this e-mail is correct and does
not accept any liability for damages related thereto.
for HELP or to subscribe/unsubscribe, contact: HELP@insulin-pumpers.org
send a DONATION http://www.Insulin-Pumpers.org/donate.shtml