Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by FMF
I would imagine that the Romans crucified hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people in a 400 hundred year 'time frame' including the life of the historical Jesus.

Apparently, you did not read the earlier posts. I
was referring to the post that said that a photographic
process may have been available in 1300 and 1400
time period. I don't believe crucifixions were done
during that time period. I know many crucifixions
were done during the time of Jesus, but the manner
of the crucifixion and torture was unusual for Jesus
especially since the legs were normally broken to
ensure death by suffocation. The man depicted on
the shroud of Turin was crucified in the identical manner
that Jesus was described as being crucified. The legs
were not broken and there was a side wound near the
heart where there was much blood stains. The beating
from the cat-of-nine-tails whip, I believe it is called,
was visiable. Normally, the crucified men were not beaten
before crucifixion I understand. Also, the blood on the
forehead area was similiar to the crown of thorns that
Jesus was forced to wear.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If what he says is true, then why is the shroud the only image
available as proof that it could be done back then? Who could
this crucified man be, if not Jesus? I don't remember anything
in history about crucifixions being performed during that time
frame.

If it was done at the time he suggests, then the person in question was not crucified, but was deliberately trying to create a forgery of Christs shroud.
I do not know if the shroud is the only available proof that it could be done back then, the Wikipedia quote suggests there is other evidence. Maybe you should look up the references.

Originally posted by twhitehead
If it was done at the time he suggests, then the person in question was not crucified, but was deliberately trying to create a forgery of Christs shroud.
I do not know if the shroud is the only available proof that it could be done back then, the Wikipedia quote suggests there is other evidence. Maybe you should look up the references.

The wikipedia article on the shroud of turin is pretty good.
If it is a fake, they apparently did a very good job of it.
They certainly had to have a lot of scientific as well as
religious knowledge to produce a fake as good as the
shroud of Turin. I hope someone is able to prove how
it was produced and they do new dating so everyone s
satisfied that the dating is correct.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The wikipedia article on the shroud of turin is pretty good.
If it is a fake, they apparently did a very good job of it.
They certainly had to have a lot of scientific as well as
religious knowledge to produce a fake as good as the
shroud of Turin. I hope someone is able to prove how
it was produced and they do new dating so everyone s
satisfied that the dating is correct.

The only 'religious knowledge' they would require would be a copy of the New Testament, or access to one, which was, I am sure, readily available to the more educated people of the time. In fact they would not even need that as it would be quite easy to get a knowledgeable priest to give the necessary details.
The only scientific knowledge they would need would be the technique of creating an image via photographic means, and the reference I gave from the Wikipedia article suggests that knowledge was available at the time.

I am curious as to why it is important to you. If it is genuine, what significance would it have? Would you attach importance to knowing what Jesus looked like? Would you gain anything from, say, touching it? Do you believe objects can carry 'blessings' or other forms of magical charms?
Or is it just curiosity?

Originally posted by twhitehead
The only 'religious knowledge' they would require would be a copy of the New Testament, or access to one, which was, I am sure, readily available to the more educated people of the time. In fact they would not even need that as it would be quite easy to get a knowledgeable priest to give the necessary details.
The only scientific knowledge they would nee ...[text shortened]... ve objects can carry 'blessings' or other forms of magical charms?
Or is it just curiosity?

Yes, it is curiosity. I was already a Christian at the time I
first heard of it. As I said before, I believed it was a fake
at that time when I only new it was reported to possibly be
the burial cloth of Jesus the Christ. Even if it were real, I
do not believe these type objects carry blessings or other
forms of magical charms like many Catholics seem to do.
And like I said in my first post, I am not a fan of the Roman
Catholic Church and believed this was another one of their
gimmicks to bring in money. The catholic priest Martin Luther
challenged them on indulgences and other incorrect teachings
and was kicked out for his challenge to their authority. Even
though he was not right on everything he taught, he was more
right than they were. I blame the Roman Catholic Church for
many of the false teachings that their protestant daughter
churches still follow today, like Good Friday, Easter, and
Christmas. Although, there are many good Christians in these
churches, since they have not departed from the main gospel
message, these false teaching can be a hinderance to true
belief and faith. I would just like to see this matter settled
with the Shroud of Turin because I am no longer sure it is a
fake. I would like to be sure, even though, I know it will not
affect my salvation in the least. So, yes I am curious.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I blame the Roman Catholic Church for
many of the false teachings that their protestant daughter
churches still follow today, like Good Friday, Easter, and
Christmas.

There is some danger in blaming an entity that is, in reality, a group of people over the ages.

I should also point out that people do not give up on traditions easily, and they frequently follow traditions even when they don't make much sense or have little to do with their faith or beliefs. I think very few people would include the easter rabbit, easter eggs or even father Christmas as part of their religion, yet many people keep those traditions going for the sake of tradition, or to keep the children happy. I know some Christians from the Church of Christ who do not believe in celebrating Christmas at all as part of their religion, but they do still celebrate it as a traditional celebration.

I would just like to see this matter settled
with the Shroud of Turin because I am no longer sure it is a
fake. I would like to be sure, even though, I know it will not
affect my salvation in the least. So, yes I am curious.
I think it will be practically impossible to prove it was genuine. Even if it was carbon dated to the time of Jesus' resurrection and other evidence suggested it came from the right place, it still wouldn't be proof that it was genuine.

The Shourd of Turin ??

Who, a damn gives ?

Originally posted by twhitehead
There is some danger in blaming an entity that is, in reality, a group of people over the ages.

I should also point out that people do not give up on traditions easily, and they frequently follow traditions even when they don't make much sense or have little to do with their faith or beliefs. I think very few people would include the easter rabbit, eas ...[text shortened]... dence suggested it came from the right place, it still wouldn't be proof that it was genuine.

Yes, you are probably right; but maybe, it could be proved to
be a fake. That would satisfy me. If they use the new method
to date it and still get like 1400, that would settle it for me.