Shroud of Turin

Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b]Are you claiming that the "bulk" of Biblical scholars say that Mark and Luke of The Gospels knew Jesus?

I'm saying the historico-criticalists (a school of thought in Biblical scholarship) do. How do you define "bulk"?

Are you saying that most don't have severe doubts that the authors of Matthew and John did?

What do you mean by ...[text shortened]... her what the basic message should be, but give her the freedom to use her own wording?[/b]

Well, the author of St Luke's Gospel indicates that he is not an eyewitness
to the events he records in the first 4 verses of his Gospel.

Since many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the events that have been
fulfilled among us, just as those who were eyewitnesses from the beginning and
ministers of the word have handed them down to us, I too have decided, after
investigating everythign accurately anew, to write it down in an orderly sequence for
you, most excellent Theophilus*, so that you may realize the certainty of the teachings
you have received.

(Note the play on words with Theophilus -- God friend! -- which I take to mean anyone
who considers themselves to be a friend of God, rather than a discrete individual.)

Any historico-criticalist (?) who claims that the author St Luke knew Jesus is a fool.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
(Note the play on words with Theophilus -- God friend! -- which I take to mean anyone
who considers themselves to be a friend of God, rather than a discrete individual.)

That may be the reason for naming Theophilus thus, but what's the reason for thinking that Luke wasn't writing to a specific person?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
That may be the reason for naming Theophilus thus, but what's the reason for thinking that Luke wasn't writing to a specific person?

It's not impossible, of course, but because St Luke's Gospel is very
clearly a two-part novel, with very careful reworking for literary flair in the
style of 1st-century literature, I'm inclined to believe that Theophilus is
simply a vehicle for starting the story off.

It's not a hinging point of faith, I just think that the probability falls into
my line of thinking. Maybe it doesn't, but it sure is a coincidence otherwise.

Nemesio

Originally posted by KneverKnight
If the shroud turns out to be a genuine relic from the time of the Roman occupation of the Middle East, so what? How is it going to be positively identified as the burial shroud of someone named Jesus, and even if it was, so what? How does a piece of cloth bolster the claim that Jesus rose from the dead? It's presented as a burial shroud, something used to cover the dead.

But it wasn't. Its a 13th century fake, as was already pointed out.