The Shroud of Turin

11011121416

Comments

  • I'm not at all sure that undead_rat actually reads (or takes note of) anything posted by others...
    :disappointed:

    KarlLB wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »
    I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already!

    Jesus is not the man to wish for a nuclear attack. Let alone incite one.
    If you were on the eve of being tortured to death, you might wish for the disaster that you saw coming in the distant future to happen immediately and thereby save you from a very painful death.

    I would have thought Jesus better than to wish mass death and suffering on others just to save his own skin. Isn't that the very antithesis of his nature and mission?

    As if Jesus could know anything about nuclear holocausts anyway.

    This.


  • KarlLB wrote: »

    I would have thought Jesus better than to wish mass death and suffering on others just to save His own skin. Isn't that the very antithesis of His nature and mission?

    As if Jesus could know anything about nuclear holocausts anyway.

    In some branches of Christianity Rabbi Yeshu is considered to be an incarnation of the Creator of the Universe, and thereby omniscient. He would know the future.

    You might also consider that this world may not be an end unto itself, but owe its existence to the Creator's higher purpose. And that purpose might be to teach sentient beings the necessity of following the Laws of Heaven which primarily are to love YHWH and to love our fellow humans. As I have mentioned, YHWH brought the flood because He was annoyed by mankind's obsession with violence. He promised not to do that again, and it seems that YHWH has decided to allow mankind's propensity towards violence to play out to its natural end. That ending would be a global nuclear war. It will be the ultimate lesson on the importance of loving our neighbors and our Creator.

    Rabbi Yeshu doesn't wish mass suffering on us, but He does foresee it as a natural consequence of mankind's refusal to follow His teachings.
  • *sigh*

    :disappointed:
  • orfeo wrote: »
    Nuclear war is so 1980s.

    But it is still a possibility. The world seems to be becoming a more dangerous place every year. Groups such as ISIS want to bring about a nuclear war in the hopes that the big players will destroy themselves and thereby leave the ruling of the world to them.

    As certain Church leaders have said, the MAD protocol is a "negative peace" which is based on fear rather than Christian values. Whoever strikes first in a nuclear war has a huge advantage, and if one country becomes convinced, rightly or wrongly, that another is about to launch a nuclear strike, then that country comes under pressure to launch its own first strike.

    I have pointed out that the prophets have predicted this disaster. And Rabbi Yeshu did say that He had come to bring fire to the earth.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »

    I would have thought Jesus better than to wish mass death and suffering on others just to save His own skin. Isn't that the very antithesis of His nature and mission?

    As if Jesus could know anything about nuclear holocausts anyway.

    In some branches of Christianity Rabbi Yeshu is considered to be an incarnation of the Creator of the Universe, and thereby omniscient. He would know the future.

    Omniscience for Jesus Christ whilst incarnate before his resurrection is contrary to scripture. I'm curious which branches of Christianity think the Bible is inaccurate in this matter.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    The obsession with nuclear war is very vintage, very 1950s. There is nothing to indicate that such an outcome is forthcoming or likely, and repurposing Scripture to foretell such is odd.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 30
    Yes, I wondered about that, too, but missed the edit window. IIRC, St Paul has something to say on the subject.

    BTW, am I the only one reading this thread who finds the constant use of *Rabbi Yeshu* for (I presume) Jesus Christ just a tad irritating? I daresay it's technically correct (or is it?), so perhaps I'm being even more pernickety than usual.
  • I don't care for the translation of Yehoshua as "Jesus." In the OT "Yehoshua" goes directly to "Joshua." "Jesus" is a result of that name first going to the Greek before entering into English. And it is so misused as a common swearword or expletive.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »

    I would have thought Jesus better than to wish mass death and suffering on others just to save His own skin. Isn't that the very antithesis of His nature and mission?

    As if Jesus could know anything about nuclear holocausts anyway.

    In some branches of Christianity Rabbi Yeshu is considered to be an incarnation of the Creator of the Universe, and thereby omniscient. He would know the future.

    Omniscience for Jesus Christ whilst incarnate before his resurrection is contrary to scripture. I'm curious which branches of Christianity think the Bible is inaccurate in this matter.

    Rabbi Yeshu made predictions of a great tribulation before His death and resurrection.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 30
    undead_rat wrote: »
    I don't care for the translation of Yehoshua as "Jesus." In the OT "Yehoshua" goes directly to "Joshua." "Jesus" is a result of that name first going to the Greek before entering into English. And it is so misused as a common swearword or expletive.

    O well. Your choice.
    undead_rat wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »

    I would have thought Jesus better than to wish mass death and suffering on others just to save His own skin. Isn't that the very antithesis of His nature and mission?

    As if Jesus could know anything about nuclear holocausts anyway.

    In some branches of Christianity Rabbi Yeshu is considered to be an incarnation of the Creator of the Universe, and thereby omniscient. He would know the future.

    Omniscience for Jesus Christ whilst incarnate before his resurrection is contrary to scripture. I'm curious which branches of Christianity think the Bible is inaccurate in this matter.

    Rabbi Yeshu made predictions of a great tribulation before His death and resurrection.

    He wasn't specific, though.

  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    Specific enough. Within the life expectancy, the generation of his hearers. Spot on.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    The obsession with nuclear war is very vintage, very 1950s. There is nothing to indicate that such an outcome is forthcoming or likely, and repurposing Scripture to foretell such is odd.

    Very sixties to nineties for me. Overwhelmingly reinforced by millennialist apocalypticism.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Regardless, utterly crackpot.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    I don't care for the translation of Yehoshua as "Jesus." In the OT "Yehoshua" goes directly to "Joshua." "Jesus" is a result of that name first going to the Greek before entering into English. And it is so misused as a common swearword or expletive.
    So why do you always use “Rabbi Yehoshua” rather than just “Yehoshua” or “Yehoshua HaMashiac”?

    You certainly don’t need to answer this if you prefer not to, but I find myself wondering what—if any—particular branch or tradition or movement within Christianity or Judaism you identify with, and whether that background at all informs your approach to the topics you’ve brought up on the Ship and that are clearly important to you.

  • Ummm...tell various groups in the Middle East that nuclear war isn't a possibility. They're periodically in the news for "does Z have nukes?" and "will Z use them on X"? Then there's North Korea. And I believe there's a Purg thread about a recent nuke disarmament agreement.

    I don't sit around worrying about nuclear war. I can't live that way. I have my moments of "oh, those STUPID people!!!" when something's in the news. (And that includes my own country.)

    But it's not a negligible risk.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    ECraigR wrote: »
    Regardless, utterly crackpot.

    You should have been there.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Next time around I’ll try.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited January 30
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Rabbi Yeshu made predictions of a great tribulation before His death and resurrection.

    It is tempting to read Jesus’s prophecy regarding the fall of Jerusalem and to try to make more of His kingdom rising against kingdom statements.

    He states clearly that He has no knowledge of the day or the hour, so it is strange to claim that we can discern details about the millennia-long run up. Even the early church was expecting His imminent return. It justifies the Church disengaging from a fallen world and turns it into nothing more than yet another gated community.

    Personally I’ve always felt that the case for nuclear war is far more of a plea to irony rather than scripture. You can make a similar case with climate change; oh, look how we are hoisted by our own petard!

    I always prefer 1 Thess 5:3. It’s when we get a sudden major breakthrough with peace, that’s the time to REALLY be concerned 😉
  • ECraigR wrote: »
    The obsession with nuclear war is very vintage, very 1950s. There is nothing to indicate that such an outcome is forthcoming or likely, and repurposing Scripture to foretell such is odd.

    On the other hand, twisting scripture to support one's pet theories is far from odd.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    undead_rat wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    Nuclear war is so 1980s.

    But it is still a possibility. The world seems to be becoming a more dangerous place every year. Groups such as ISIS want to bring about a nuclear war in the hopes that the big players will destroy themselves and thereby leave the ruling of the world to them.

    As certain Church leaders have said, the MAD protocol is a "negative peace" which is based on fear rather than Christian values. Whoever strikes first in a nuclear war has a huge advantage, and if one country becomes convinced, rightly or wrongly, that another is about to launch a nuclear strike, then that country comes under pressure to launch its own first strike.

    I have pointed out that the prophets have predicted this disaster. And Rabbi Yeshu did say that He had come to bring fire to the earth.

    We have a fucking pandemic happening right now, and in some parts of the world the sorts of Christians who go on about the end of the world are the exact same people who refuse to wear masks and shriek about how it's all a government plot.

    We have no need of additional disasters beyond that.
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    mousethief wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    The obsession with nuclear war is very vintage, very 1950s. There is nothing to indicate that such an outcome is forthcoming or likely, and repurposing Scripture to foretell such is odd.

    On the other hand, twisting scripture to support one's pet theories is far from odd.

    Really? Do you know any instances of that round here?
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited January 31
    Martin54 wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    ECraigR wrote: »
    The obsession with nuclear war is very vintage, very 1950s. There is nothing to indicate that such an outcome is forthcoming or likely, and repurposing Scripture to foretell such is odd.

    On the other hand, twisting scripture to support one's pet theories is far from odd.

    Really? Do you know any instances of that round here?

    It varies. If you are experiencing a time of crisis and personal grief then this entire forum can seem like theoreticians trying to fit the pieces of life’s great jigsaw to match the pictures in their heads.

    At others, there are pick-me-ups, real support and words in season here. And the odd life-saver.

    And you never know where it will happen. Threads digress, derail and a gem can come out of nowhere.

    All any of us can do, is to post as thoughtfully and clearly as we can and hope for the best.

    That, and knowing when to stop 😉
  • orfeo wrote: »

    We have a fucking pandemic happening right now, and in some parts of the world the sorts of Christians who go on about the end of the world are the exact same people who refuse to wear masks and shriek about how it's all a government plot.

    We have no need of additional disasters beyond that.

    My! What language !

    BTW, I wear a mask whenever required, and I received my first Pfizer injection last week (lucky me!)

  • Nick Tamen wrote: »
    So why do you always use “Rabbi Yehoshua” rather than just “Yehoshua” or “Yehoshua HaMashiac”?

    You certainly don’t need to answer this if you prefer not to, but I find myself wondering what—if any—particular branch or tradition or movement within Christianity or Judaism you identify with, and whether that background at all informs your approach to the topics you’ve brought up on the Ship and that are clearly important to you.
    I'm just a simple Episcopalian turned Unitarian. Info on the Holy Shroud I picked up from books and research papers. I believed that it was authentic from the first time I learned of it in the late 1970s. The 1988 headlines disappointed me a bit, but I always felt that an explanation would be found for the enhanced 14C content of the Shroud's linen. I bought into Marino's "invisible reweaving" hypothesis for a while.

    The interpretation of the Prophecy of the Popes is of my own making as is the interpretation of the OT. I developed the conviction that the world would end in a global nuclear war in the early 1970s after smoking marijuana a little too often. Over the years I found some OT passages which seemed to support that idea (nuclear war, not smoking weed.)

    Talmudic sources reveal that Rabbi Yeshu's contemporaries referred to Him as "Yeshu ben Pantera," because they believed that a certain Roman soldier was His father. They used "Yeshu" rather than "Yeshua" as away of indicating an anacronym for "May his name be forgotten."
    My understanding is that "Yeshu" is the Galilean way of abbreviating Yehoshua, so I use that version.

    In deference to Judaism, I have chosen to refer to that great Galilean Teacher as Rabbi Yeshu ben Pantera.
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    In deference to Judaism, I have chosen to refer to that great Galilean Teacher as Rabbi Yeshu ben Pantera.

    Out of curiosity, do any Jews call him that? Where?

  • As I said, the Talmud.
  • Where in the Talmud?
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    edited February 1
    Maybe I won’t be an Episcopal priest.
  • Yes I have read that. NONE of those references refer to Jesus as a Rabbi, and nearly all are disputed or just plain impossible.

  • Further why would you use a certain name for a Christian character, a name Christians don't use, out of respect for another religion? It's like always referring to Deutschland as "Allemagne" out of respect for the French.
  • Further further, how is using a Jewish title/honorific for a person they do not use that term for, honoring them? "I'm honoring you by using your religion's honorific to refer to this person whom you rejected and whose followers you expelled nearly 2000 years ago." Not seeing it.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    undead_rat wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Yes I have read that. NONE of those references refer to Jesus as a Rabbi, and nearly all are disputed or just plain impossible.

    That article and the references fall into the same category as assertions by @undead_rat on this thread - both most kindly explained as the result of the continued use of the weed consumed 40 or more years ago.
  • undead_rat--

    Thx for your "I'm just a simple Episcopalian turned Unitarian" post. Helps to have context and backstory.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    undead_rat--

    Thx for your "I'm just a simple Episcopalian turned Unitarian" post. Helps to have context and backstory.
    Yes, thank you.

  • ECraigR wrote: »
    Maybe I won’t be an Episcopal priest.

    Hmm. I don't think undead_rat was a typical Episcopalian.

    At least, I hope not...
  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    So why do you always use “Rabbi Yehoshua” rather than just “Yehoshua” or “Yehoshua HaMashiac”?

    You certainly don’t need to answer this if you prefer not to, but I find myself wondering what—if any—particular branch or tradition or movement within Christianity or Judaism you identify with, and whether that background at all informs your approach to the topics you’ve brought up on the Ship and that are clearly important to you.

    Talmudic sources reveal that Rabbi Yeshu's contemporaries referred to Him as "Yeshu ben Pantera," because they believed that a certain Roman soldier was His father. They used "Yeshu" rather than "Yeshua" as away of indicating an anacronym for "May his name be forgotten."
    My understanding is that "Yeshu" is the Galilean way of abbreviating Yehoshua, so I use that version.

    In deference to Judaism, I have chosen to refer to that great Galilean Teacher as Rabbi Yeshu ben Pantera.

    Lovely.

    So you intend an insult.

    I can't even with you.

  • Ah, but undead_rat is a Unitarian, so presumably it doesn't matter, because Rabbi Wossname wasn't God...
  • Dunno if it's an insult to Jesus. It's certainly an insult to the Rabbis who compiled the Mishnah.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    edited February 1
    I'm quite confused, having reviewed the bit about Rabbi Yeshu. Are you saying he's not divine? Just a 'great Galilean Teacher'? If he's not divine, then why would the shroud of Turin be what you claim it is? If he is divine, why do you think that calling him by a name you seem to acknowledge is used to denigrate what Christians think about him be acceptable to you?

    And why would you defer to Judaism and then claim that this particular Rabbi was important enough to fulfill prophecies concerning the Messiah, rise from the dead, somehow imprint a cloth with a miraculous visage, and then properly be referred to by what the people who don't believe in any of that refer to him as?
  • Martin54Martin54 Shipmate
    That is a first class rational question @ECraigR, but on behalf of @undead_rat the answer is, lemon curry.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited February 1
    No, no. The answer is clearly 41.

    This has been Revealed to Me in a Dream, by some Nameless Entity from the planet Xiccarph.


  • I thought the answer was 42.

    But, I might need clarity on the question.
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    Perhaps it's a paradox and you're both right, or otherwise linked through the ether.
  • I thought the answer was 42.

    But, I might need clarity on the question.

    Of course the answer is "forty two." (The "question" doesn't really matter.)
  • ECraigRECraigR Castaway
    There are multiple questions.
  • undead_rat--
    undead_rat wrote: »
    I thought the answer was 42.

    But, I might need clarity on the question.

    Of course the answer is "forty two." (The "question" doesn't really matter.)

    Ah, but it does (Hitchhiker's Fandom wiki):
    Having returned to the supercomputer Earth, albeit in a prehistoric stage, Ford Prefect got Arthur Dent to randomly pull Scrabble tiles out of a bag, revealing information in his unconscious (Marvin announced that he could see the Question imprinted in Arthur's brainwaves). This resulted in the Question: "What do you get if you multiply six by nine?"[3]

    Since 6 x 9 = 54, not 42, the Universe is revealed to be a bit...off.

    And the article addresses the base 13 question. :)
  • Not so much the Universe as the Earth. Since the real earthlings were replaced with Golgafrinchan hair dressers and telephone sanitizers.
  • Yes, the universe is certainly a bit off.

    Who was it that said:
    "The universe is not only stranger than you imagine, it is stranger than you are even able to imagine."

    And the answer is still "forty two."
This discussion has been closed.