Date: 7/2/2002 11:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 4231
Interesting..are they 100% sure its him though?..tHats great..another Unsolved mystery put to rest eh?..  |
Date: 7/2/2002 12:09:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
It is said that part of the titulus was divided and she took one to Rome, this is the one that has the letters saying Nazareth ,as in "Jesus of Nazareth King of the Jews"..Now some has wondered if she did in fact find the real relic, well the titulus found on the shroud seems to match perfectly, which would mean if she did in fact find a copy, it would mean..a man was crucified with a sign matching hers exactly saying he was Jesus King of the Jews and xrays now prove the image was of a real man. How did it get there?...Technology says it could have only been apparent through some form of intense light.....  |
Date: 7/2/2002 1:06:00 PM
From Authorid: 27534
As the Angel said.......He is not here. That is all that matters. Artifacts are for the discussion of humankind. The resurrection is a matter of the heart. Interesting post. Thanks for sharing.  |
Date: 7/2/2002 1:11:00 PM
From Authorid: 53500
Six Gun, Hey, I have little interest in the Shroud of Turin, but I'll tell you what I know. I did read a book called Second Messiah. It has to deal with freemasons and it's a pretty interesting read, though very inaccurate on A LOT of stuff. Anyways, oddly enough, when the Catholic Church in France went after the Freemasons, they symbolically tortured the leader, Jacques Molay, as Christ was crucified. Jacques lived ( I think they killed him by roasting ) and spent a long time recovering in which he was put under a sheet. This is probably where the shroud of Turin comes from. Woodcuts of Jacques Molay look an awful lot like what artists make Christ to look like. Plus the first appearance on the shroud didn't happen til around the 13th century if I'm not mistaken. There are NO records prior to it. That's 1,300 years of no records of it! So as far as "relics" go, I dismiss them. They're neat, but I don't believe in signs or works for the Church age.  |
|
Date: 7/2/2002 1:20:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
Well there is also a relic that is said to cover Christs head and face also, it matches exactly with the shroud. As far as when it was first heard of..I have heard evidence saying it was around much earlier |
Date: 7/3/2002 3:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 17525
Hey Sixgun, this would be a great discovery for the faith in general if there weren't for one thing; the city of Nazareth was not known to have existed until at least the third century. It just wasn't on the map. I think it would be prudent to do further investigation on this issue before accepting the conclusion. There was a man who recently claimed to have found the Ark of the Covenant beneath the Temple mound too. Supposedly he found the actual place of crucifixion also and the blood ran down through the rocks and onto the Ark, but unfortunately there have been no pictures forthcoming, nor any other substantiating evidence. Relics are interesting. The vatican claims to have a relic from the Holy Ghost too; a feather. JMO Peace,  |
|
Date: 7/3/2002 6:06:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
: Although there are no references to Nazareth in any written source outside the gospels before the fourth century,[16] I agree with Strobel that Nazareth probably existed. Even Earl Doherty, a secular humanist who denies that Jesus ever existed, writes, "It is impossible to 'establish' that Nazareth did not exist in the early first century, since no one tells us this fact. And ... no one makes statements or offers other evidence which would lead us to draw such a conclusion."[17] Moreover, the existence of Nazareth is simply not intrinsically improbable. Therefore the gospels do not require independent confirmation on this point; the gospels alone are sufficient historical evidence to make it probable that Nazareth existed in the first century. |
|
Date: 7/3/2002 6:07:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 15621
From a skeptic.... |
