Ye cannee do that man! It's so mediocre. The claim of incarnation is as outrageous as it gets. Tho' admittedly the claim of universalism in Christ is outrageouser.
Anything explosive will suffice, as long as it goes off Bang! and does me in good and proper, as soon as the neatly-piled (I insist on a tidy execution) bundles of wood are lit.
As to the rest of your post, you may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
But as Jesus was instantaneously transmogrified up the 4thD
Probably better to say "if" rather than "as". We don't have a big data set, but based on the evidence we do have that seems unlikely. There are various accounts of people being raised back to life, several miracles by Jesus, a few by the apostles and OT prophets. In all these cases the dead person comes back to life exactly where they are; they are touched by Jesus and sit up as though they've just woken up from a sleep etc. The closest example we have is Lazarus, who walked out of his tomb still wrapped in the burial shroud, and indeed needed help to get out of it. What basis would there be to say that Jesus' resurrection didn't follow the same pattern? That He simply "wakes up" and gets out of the shroud and opens the tomb door to walk out passed the terrified guards (with help from attending angels, who one hopes also brought a set of clothing so He could be decent).
My understanding is that he did in fact rise and leave the tomb, but didn't bother opening the door. That was left for the angel to do a little later on.
After all, a man who strolls past locked doors needn't bother with the stone to make an exit.
Re clothes, I cherish a mental image of him standing beside a Roman soldier's cot in the gray hours, saying politely, "Would you mind handing me back my robe?"
But as Jesus was instantaneously transmogrified up the 4thD
Probably better to say "if" rather than "as". We don't have a big data set, but based on the evidence we do have that seems unlikely. There are various accounts of people being raised back to life, several miracles by Jesus, a few by the apostles and OT prophets. In all these cases the dead person comes back to life exactly where they are; they are touched by Jesus and sit up as though they've just woken up from a sleep etc. The closest example we have is Lazarus, who walked out of his tomb still wrapped in the burial shroud, and indeed needed help to get out of it. What basis would there be to say that Jesus' resurrection didn't follow the same pattern? That He simply "wakes up" and gets out of the shroud and opens the tomb door to walk out passed the terrified guards (with help from attending angels, who one hopes also brought a set of clothing so He could be decent).
Cuh. Fuh. Attending angels. With new clothes. Now that is cool. I love @Lamb Chopped's pastiche. But the Father sent His tailor so the Son could be humanly decent for popping Home. Nice touch.
On this type of cloth not being woven in medieval Europe, I note that some have argued the contrary; that the type was not being done in first century Palestine.
In particular that the type of errors in the weave show it was made on a four-shaft loom and most likely one with heddles. These do not seem to have existed in the first century in the Roman Empire or adjacent areas (they did exist in China but for weaving silk not linen).
Is it proven that the Chinese did not weave cloth in linen?
The Shroud is not heavy and could have easily been imported in the first century from China on the Silk Road.
In his recent book, The 1988 C-14 Dating of the Shroud of Turin, Marino reports:
" . . .in 2016, when a team of scientists was allowed to open the tomb where Jesus was believed by most scholars to have been buried, one scientist was quoted as saying that, 'the tomb had as strong, unexplainable electromagnetic field that messed up their equipment.'"
With respect, that doesn't quite answer my point. The shroud may have been imported from China, yes, but when? Before Christ, or after him?
There is no way to ascertain exactly when the Shroud was imported. The point is that in ancient China the type of weaving that is found on the Shroud was being used for silk fabrics and that imports from China were available in Palestine prior to the 1st century.
The conclusion is that it is not proved that Joseph of Arimathea could not have purchased the Shroud as a Chinese import. Therefore, the Shroud's particular type of weaving does not disprove it as a 1st century artifact.
A bit of googling suggests that there is no data to support the assertion of unusual EM fields around the tomb, only claims that some electronic devices stopped working, and that unsupported by names, quotes or really anything beyond rumour. For something that supposedly happened less than 5 years ago I'm going to flatter this by calling it "pious fabrication".
Page 604 of Marino's new book:* In an interview, STRuP member Kenneth Stevenson said, "I was appalled that they [the C-14 labs] were able to get away with calling this standard operating rules: [. ..] refusing to provide their raw data for peer review,[. ..]arbitrarily throwing out data that conflicted with their announced prejudice. According to their own published reports, they disregarded readings that didn't fit what they wanted. [. . .] Several of the C-14 team members made public statements before the testing that, 'It's a fake and we're going to prove it,' which tends to taint their credibility from the start."
Source: Science and Faith, in The New American, 12/17/90, pg. 28
*THE 1988 C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Marino, 2020
Re clothes, I cherish a mental image of him standing beside a Roman soldier's cot in the gray hours, saying politely, "Would you mind handing me back my robe?"
Plus there’s His apparent sermon in 1 Peter 3:19. Preaching in Hell was more of a commando mission than we thought?
With respect, that doesn't quite answer my point. The shroud may have been imported from China, yes, but when? Before Christ, or after him?
There is no way to ascertain exactly when the Shroud was imported. The point is that in ancient China the type of weaving that is found on the Shroud was being used for silk fabrics and that imports from China were available in Palestine prior to the 1st century.
The conclusion is that it is not proved that Joseph of Arimathea could not have purchased the Shroud as a Chinese import. Therefore, the Shroud's particular type of weaving does not disprove it as a 1st century artifact.
The plain people of 1C Palestine were importing cheap linen from China?
ISTM there's a good deal of clutching at straws happening on this thread...
We don't know, and does it matter, anyway? We either believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or we don't believe (or simply aren't sure either way).
A piece of cloth with bloodstains and a peculiar image on it isn't going to prove anything, and neither does it tell us where Jesus (if he rose) is today.
I think it's possible to underestimate the amount of trade along the Silk Road in the classical era, though it wasn't on the scale it became after the Mongols imposed their version of Pax Mongolica.
Still, rich as Joseph of A. was, why would he need to buy the expensive import version of something he could get from a local weaver for cheaper? Conspicuous consumption?
But this is just linen, which you could get anywhere. If you're going to buy from China, buy silk, not linen with a slightly fancier weave.
Linen might have been more suitable for a long table cloth where up to a dozen people could have sat. Burial shrouds are typically square in shape rather than rectangular, and they are wrapped around the corpse. Some researchers have said that they noticed a wine spill on the Shroud.
But this is just linen, which you could get anywhere. If you're going to buy from China, buy silk, not linen with a slightly fancier weave.
Linen might have been more suitable for a long table cloth where up to a dozen people could have sat. Burial shrouds are typically square in shape rather than rectangular, and they are wrapped around the corpse. Some researchers have said that they noticed a wine spill on the Shroud.
A wine spill? O well - that proves it beyond a doubt...
But this is just linen, which you could get anywhere. If you're going to buy from China, buy silk, not linen with a slightly fancier weave.
Linen might have been more suitable for a long table cloth where up to a dozen people could have sat. Burial shrouds are typically square in shape rather than rectangular, and they are wrapped around the corpse. Some researchers have said that they noticed a wine spill on the Shroud.
A wine spill? O well - that proves it beyond a doubt...
High neutron levels often induce splodges that can appear like wine stains.
Did ordinary Jewish folks use tablecloths in first-century Palestine / Judea / (proper term)? Would they have used one for passover?
Given undead rat's mention that a long, linen tablecloth might be for a table that seated up to "about" twelve, I'm guessing they think (or have come across others' thoughts) that it might have been the tablecloth for the Last Supper.
The point is that in ancient China the type of weaving that is found on the Shroud was being used for silk fabrics and that imports from China were available in Palestine prior to the 1st century. .
But the shroud is not silk, it's linen. Is a weave type that works for silk equally suitable for linen?
Did ordinary Jewish folks use tablecloths in first-century Palestine / Judea / (proper term)? Would they have used one for passover?
Given undead rat's mention that a long, linen tablecloth might be for a table that seated up to "about" twelve, I'm guessing they think (or have come across others' thoughts) that it might have been the tablecloth for the Last Supper.
oh give me a freakin' break.
(Not you, Golden Key, you're not the lunatic)
I'm beginning to think this thing is an idiot trap thought up by the devil to distract Christians from their ordinary duties and love of God and neighbor.
Did ordinary Jewish folks use tablecloths in first-century Palestine / Judea / (proper term)? Would they have used one for passover?
Given undead rat's mention that a long, linen tablecloth might be for a table that seated up to "about" twelve, I'm guessing they think (or have come across others' thoughts) that it might have been the tablecloth for the Last Supper.
oh give me a freakin' break.
(Not you, Golden Key, you're not the lunatic)
I'm beginning to think this thing is an idiot trap thought up by the devil to distract Christians from their ordinary duties and love of God and neighbor.
It's like one of those finger traps where you stick both fingers in either end and can never get it off the harder you pull.
I believe that the authenticity of the Holy Shroud is as obvious as the nose on one's face, yet I have noticed a strident and unrelenting opposition to that idea. At this point, it might be instructive to examine just where all that skepticism is coming from.
In their book, VERDICT ON THE SHROUD, Stevenson and Habermas devote a chapter to discussing this subject, and here are some excerpts:
"Prior to the 17th century Enlightenment, few scholars rejected belief in miracles. However, doubts about miracles became widespread as the new rationalism spread in Europe."
"To the rationalist, the laws of nature were an insurmountable obstacle to miracles.
Man's reason judged that miraculous events which would violate these laws of nature would not occur."
"The Enlightenment efforts to dismiss the miraculous culminated in David Hume's essay, OF MIRACLES. Hume's major thesis was that the laws of nature are uniform and thus do not allow for miracles. Hume's influence persists from his time to the present."
"For David Hume and other skeptics, miracles are virtually impossible because they violate the laws of nature. . . .Even if God existed, He would not choose to reveal Himself in a way that offends man's reason, meaning that He would not intervene in history with miraculous events."
When the Holy Shroud was first photographed in 1898, the astounding negative plate caused an uproar in the rationalist circles of Europe. Secundo Pia was accused of doctoring his plates (an act which he never practiced) and even of witchcraft. Prominent Catholic theologians jumped on the rationalist bandwagon, finding a French photographer to endorse their theory of a "photographic accident." Fr. Thurston wrote a skeptical piece for the Catholic Encyclopedia. Even to this day we can notice Catholic clergy using such phrases as "myth of authenticity" and "devotional and pseudo-scientific literature" in their praise of the nonsensical works of art historian Gary Vikan.
Hugh Farey, who describes himself as a "card-carrying Catholic," seems to devote his entire life to his attempt to discredit the Holy Shroud. His work has been cited here.
In my opinion, the skepticism of Farey and those here on SOF, is not based as much on an objective consideration of scientific results as it is on an adherence to the modern philosophies of "rationalism" and "naturalism."
Thanks for the link. I'll have to print it out. Farey gives away his true colors when he states, "Even if it [the Shroud] is authentic, I am certain that nothing supernatural is involved."
In my opinion, without the hypothesis of a supernatural intervention, it is impossible for one to understand the Holy Shroud and its sacred image. In my discussions with Farey, I found him to be a devoted rationalist, even to the point of insisting that the miracle of Jesus walking on water had to be some kind of magic trick.
I believe that the authenticity of the Holy Shroud is as obvious as the nose on one's face, yet I have noticed a strident and unrelenting opposition to that idea.
...
In my opinion, the skepticism of Farey and those here on SOF, is not based as much on an objective consideration of scientific results as it is on an adherence to the modern philosophies of "rationalism" and "naturalism."
I think you're unfamiliar with how scientific evidence works, particularly in regard to starting from the evidence and then reaching a conclusion. The evidence with regard to the shroud is conflicted, but a mediaeval origin is most likely. The evidence otherwise is based on assertions of visual similarity, on circumstantial evidence about the underlying cloth's origin, and unprovable hypotheses attempting to explain away the countervailing evidence. The neutron hypothesis is a case in point. It was created in response to the C14 dating, and seized on like a drowning man seizes a life belt. It's a post hoc attempt to explain away an inconvenient piece of evidence, not part of a coherent framework to explain what happened. That's why its supporters flounder over the secondary effects of the radiation.
I don't dismiss the shroud out of hand (all bets are off when it comes to miracles) but I expect the miraculous to be the conclusion reached when the evidence is not capable of supporting any other hypothesis. The supernatural must necessarily be a result of entirely excluding the natural.
Actually, the "neutron flux" hypothesis was postulated before the interpretation of the Shroud's 14C evidence, but Prof. Hedges of the Oxford lab insisted that such hypothesis would not be considered. Recent re-evaluation of of the Shroud's 14C data has revealed that this evidence does not pass standard mathematical tests that are used to certify 14C data as being valid for dating purposes. Here is a quote from Marino's book* documenting the events and letters relevant to the Shroud's 1988 14C data gathering and evaluation:
---1990 (December). In an interview, STURP member Kenneth Stevenson said, "I was appalled that they were able to get away with calling this standard operating rules: . . .refusing to provide their raw data for peer review, . . .arbitrarily throwing out data that conflicted with their announced prejudice. According to their own published reports, they [C-14 scientists] discarded readings that didn't fit what they wanted. Several of the C-14 team members made public statements to the effect that 'its a fake and we're going to prove it.'"
Source: Jasper, William. "Science and Faith," The New American, December 17, 1990, pg. 28.----
*THE 1988 C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Marino, 2020
"Miracle" and "supernatural" are not synonymous. Nor does a rational explanation for something preclude the miraculous. If we had a time machine and went back to the shore of Galilee as Jesus takes a couple of fish and a few loaves of bread, blesses them and the disciples pass them out we'd be watching a miracle even as we watch others in the crowd bring out the food they had and shared it with those around them such that all were fed. The miracle is that people were hungry, and Jesus supplied food - either by some scientifically inexplicable food-multiplication trick or by example causing others to share what they had. Though, I admit I can't imagine any rational scientific process whereby someone who'd been crucified could return to life. But, the miracle is that God vindicated His Son by raising Him, not that He did it by a means that confounds 21st century scientists (His intent was to embolden the disciples and the Church in their mission, not provide puzzles for the 20th and 21st century sceptics).
Comments
Just make sure you put gunpowder in amongst the firewood...
Any attempt at credibility by downgrading the claim of hypostatic union is, for once, less is less.
Saltpetre, charcoal, sulphur isn't it?
As to the rest of your post, you may think that. I couldn't possibly comment.
I'm dead, then? And murdered by Jesus??? Who knew?
My understanding is that he did in fact rise and leave the tomb, but didn't bother opening the door. That was left for the angel to do a little later on.
After all, a man who strolls past locked doors needn't bother with the stone to make an exit.
I was replying positively about you. But on the wrong thread...
Cuh. Fuh. Attending angels. With new clothes. Now that is cool. I love @Lamb Chopped's pastiche. But the Father sent His tailor so the Son could be humanly decent for popping Home. Nice touch.
Is it proven that the Chinese did not weave cloth in linen?
The Shroud is not heavy and could have easily been imported in the first century from China on the Silk Road.
The Silk Road opened up in about 200 B.C.
If it was imported after the date of his death, whenever that might have been exactly, it couldn't have been used on him at the time of his death.
Or am I missing something?
" . . .in 2016, when a team of scientists was allowed to open the tomb where Jesus was believed by most scholars to have been buried, one scientist was quoted as saying that, 'the tomb had as strong, unexplainable electromagnetic field that messed up their equipment.'"
https://www.churchpop.com/2016/12/05/astounding-mysterious-magnetic-readings-at-recently-opened-tomb-of-christ/
There is no way to ascertain exactly when the Shroud was imported. The point is that in ancient China the type of weaving that is found on the Shroud was being used for silk fabrics and that imports from China were available in Palestine prior to the 1st century.
The conclusion is that it is not proved that Joseph of Arimathea could not have purchased the Shroud as a Chinese import. Therefore, the Shroud's particular type of weaving does not disprove it as a 1st century artifact.
In an interview, STRuP member Kenneth Stevenson said, "I was appalled that they [the C-14 labs] were able to get away with calling this standard operating rules: [. ..] refusing to provide their raw data for peer review,[. ..]arbitrarily throwing out data that conflicted with their announced prejudice. According to their own published reports, they disregarded readings that didn't fit what they wanted. [. . .] Several of the C-14 team members made public statements before the testing that, 'It's a fake and we're going to prove it,' which tends to taint their credibility from the start."
Source: Science and Faith, in The New American, 12/17/90, pg. 28
*THE 1988 C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Marino, 2020
They weren't 100% sure it was Jesus' tomb, anyway.
Plus there’s His apparent sermon in 1 Peter 3:19. Preaching in Hell was more of a commando mission than we thought?
We don't know, and does it matter, anyway? We either believe that Jesus rose from the dead, or we don't believe (or simply aren't sure either way).
A piece of cloth with bloodstains and a peculiar image on it isn't going to prove anything, and neither does it tell us where Jesus (if he rose) is today.
Linen might have been more suitable for a long table cloth where up to a dozen people could have sat. Burial shrouds are typically square in shape rather than rectangular, and they are wrapped around the corpse. Some researchers have said that they noticed a wine spill on the Shroud.
Maybe they imported the linen? Then shipped it back as a very nice tablecloth?
A wine spill? O well - that proves it beyond a doubt...
High neutron levels often induce splodges that can appear like wine stains.
Given undead rat's mention that a long, linen tablecloth might be for a table that seated up to "about" twelve, I'm guessing they think (or have come across others' thoughts) that it might have been the tablecloth for the Last Supper.
oh give me a freakin' break.
(Not you, Golden Key, you're not the lunatic)
I'm beginning to think this thing is an idiot trap thought up by the devil to distract Christians from their ordinary duties and love of God and neighbor.
It's like one of those finger traps where you stick both fingers in either end and can never get it off the harder you pull.
In their book, VERDICT ON THE SHROUD, Stevenson and Habermas devote a chapter to discussing this subject, and here are some excerpts:
"Prior to the 17th century Enlightenment, few scholars rejected belief in miracles. However, doubts about miracles became widespread as the new rationalism spread in Europe."
"To the rationalist, the laws of nature were an insurmountable obstacle to miracles.
Man's reason judged that miraculous events which would violate these laws of nature would not occur."
"The Enlightenment efforts to dismiss the miraculous culminated in David Hume's essay, OF MIRACLES. Hume's major thesis was that the laws of nature are uniform and thus do not allow for miracles. Hume's influence persists from his time to the present."
"For David Hume and other skeptics, miracles are virtually impossible because they violate the laws of nature. . . .Even if God existed, He would not choose to reveal Himself in a way that offends man's reason, meaning that He would not intervene in history with miraculous events."
When the Holy Shroud was first photographed in 1898, the astounding negative plate caused an uproar in the rationalist circles of Europe. Secundo Pia was accused of doctoring his plates (an act which he never practiced) and even of witchcraft. Prominent Catholic theologians jumped on the rationalist bandwagon, finding a French photographer to endorse their theory of a "photographic accident." Fr. Thurston wrote a skeptical piece for the Catholic Encyclopedia. Even to this day we can notice Catholic clergy using such phrases as "myth of authenticity" and "devotional and pseudo-scientific literature" in their praise of the nonsensical works of art historian Gary Vikan.
Hugh Farey, who describes himself as a "card-carrying Catholic," seems to devote his entire life to his attempt to discredit the Holy Shroud. His work has been cited here.
In my opinion, the skepticism of Farey and those here on SOF, is not based as much on an objective consideration of scientific results as it is on an adherence to the modern philosophies of "rationalism" and "naturalism."
Admittedly maybe the Doctor visited Joseph of Arimathea and dropped off a medieval European linen weaving.
In my opinion, without the hypothesis of a supernatural intervention, it is impossible for one to understand the Holy Shroud and its sacred image. In my discussions with Farey, I found him to be a devoted rationalist, even to the point of insisting that the miracle of Jesus walking on water had to be some kind of magic trick.
In the movie "Being There", a character walks on water--because he doesn't know he can't. Jesus walked on water because he knew he could.
Or something like that.
That will keep the thread going (to put it mildly!)
I think you're unfamiliar with how scientific evidence works, particularly in regard to starting from the evidence and then reaching a conclusion. The evidence with regard to the shroud is conflicted, but a mediaeval origin is most likely. The evidence otherwise is based on assertions of visual similarity, on circumstantial evidence about the underlying cloth's origin, and unprovable hypotheses attempting to explain away the countervailing evidence. The neutron hypothesis is a case in point. It was created in response to the C14 dating, and seized on like a drowning man seizes a life belt. It's a post hoc attempt to explain away an inconvenient piece of evidence, not part of a coherent framework to explain what happened. That's why its supporters flounder over the secondary effects of the radiation.
I don't dismiss the shroud out of hand (all bets are off when it comes to miracles) but I expect the miraculous to be the conclusion reached when the evidence is not capable of supporting any other hypothesis. The supernatural must necessarily be a result of entirely excluding the natural.
---1990 (December). In an interview, STURP member Kenneth Stevenson said, "I was appalled that they were able to get away with calling this standard operating rules: . . .refusing to provide their raw data for peer review, . . .arbitrarily throwing out data that conflicted with their announced prejudice. According to their own published reports, they [C-14 scientists] discarded readings that didn't fit what they wanted. Several of the C-14 team members made public statements to the effect that 'its a fake and we're going to prove it.'"
Source: Jasper, William. "Science and Faith," The New American, December 17, 1990, pg. 28.----
*THE 1988 C-14 DATING OF THE SHROUD OF TURIN, Marino, 2020