Interesting. Doesn't mean it's evidence for Jesus, just that the foundation for a lot of Christian beliefs originated earlier than thought. But resurrection isn't a solely Christian thing, it's been around a long time. The uniqueness is the symbols, but it's much more likely that Christians borrowed this, as they have other things, rather than were the origin. I wonder, if they found such things before Jesus' time, would this challenge believers?
John Calvin wrote about the image in 1543. The first actual photo of it was taken in 1898, so I wouldn't call that modern photography. There was more modern imaging done in 2004 to reveal more of the image, but the fact that the image was there has been known since its finding/making.
Keep in mind that this tomb was found about 200 feet away from the alleged "Jesus Family Tomb" that supposedly held the bones of Christ and Mary Magdalene. Tabor, it's worth mentioning, was a big part of the documentary that created the hype machine behind that tomb. What's happened here is that Tabor began with a conclusion. He wanted to find evidence of Christianity during Jesus' time, so that's what he went looking for. He finds this tomb, and sees what he wants to see. It's got nothing to do with Christianity, in all probability. You have to consider the source sometimes.
It does not matter were it come from , God did not start His relation with human just at Jesus time , we don't know though how many phases it have gone through. I believe Zoroaster preaching had some similarity, Taoism and Christianity have some similarity. I believe God manifested Himself to different culture in a different way. But perhaps Christianity is the modern binder or perhaps the Bahi
Does anyone know how I could place the 25 page word document onto the forum. for all the foot notes and references are already there and won't need retyping. Can it be put in some obscure part of the forum just as a reference point? Any suggestions. Several years of part-time research has gone into the document (pre-internet days for me).Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
It's the face of a man with a beard, and it is visible in natural light, it's just more visible in a photo. The age is inconclusive. It has probably faded with time. It's the stains that were forged.
What's wrong with Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Anyway, it's just a fantasy, Jesus died long ago, if there was such a man in the first place. Not too worried about him coming back.
He wasn't born from sex, he was born from genetic manipulation and artificial insemination. Mostly because the Christ was of a lineage that was other worldly. Although his mother was from Earth, the male genetics were from outside of the planet earth. Mary's husband would have had hard time understanding this. To say it was "miraculous" is just a whole lot easier than to say she was taken into a star ship, artificially inseminated with superior genetic material, and placed back among earth men. Likewise, it is a faulty assumption to presume the Christ ever, "ascended" anywhere. . . he was just picked up. The time flow of inter-galactic travel makes it possible that decades, centuries, and millenniums can pass by in the blink of an eye while in another dimension a space faring ship can watch it all pass on. He and his fathers people have been watching Earth's history pass by and the fruits of his visit unfold. They have known what was to be due to the funny quirks of the space-time continuum. Whether he pays another visit? Well, that is all up to us. Is there anything. . . miraculous or "godlike" about he and his father? Not especially. His father is just another space faring species distantly related to terrestrial humans. And the Christ is even more so, having a human mother. Their technology is just far superior, and the spiritual evolution is just far more advanced. You would have to be to have so much control over you body, mind and metabolism to survive a crucifixion. The EBE's that have been over watching Earth, and over-seeing the technologies that have been given the human race, have, for what ever reason, decided that in different places through out the globe, that messages need to be delivered to humanity on how to live, treat one another, and how to use technology we have been given along with the genetics we have been encoded with. To assume we "evolved" completely naturally, with out a nudge here or there would probably be a great leap and a profound assumption. Likewise, to assume all of our foods that we depend on as well. . . Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Read your holy books, read the wisdom of the ages. Use your discernment. Treat one another with Love. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Shroud_positive_negative_compare.jpg That second image "Negative has been contrast enhanced" is not of a young man in my opinion and is more like a 50 year old than a 30 plus male, don't you agree?
So "they" invented an impossibly vague and contradictory story, provided it through unknown sources... left the story unpublished for hundreds of years, left the believers to be maimed and killed... and basically, nothing changed on earth anyway...and then they left??
Hard to say. There is this hypothesis... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5706640/Turin-Shroud-is-face-of-Leonardo-da-Vinci.html
Even 30 years old was quite old for the time, and dead bearded men (who have been tortured to death) don't look that youthful.
You might want to consider that the age of Jesus is debatable so various scholars might have different ideas about it. A more salient question, in my mind, is why was the age of Jesus ever touted as something important? This in itself may give us a clue as to any possible motives for the storytellers. (note "Heli" contradicts Matt 1:16 "Jacob") also note that Iraneus was attacking the Gnostics on many different issues, when he also spoke against the Gnostic writing: However, the Catholics arrive at a similar date by the following analysis: In any case, since the shroud was carbon dated to the 13th century, wouldn't it seem likely that the person who made it (whether it was a fraud or just art) was perhaps working on his own assumption about the age of Jesus? I'm not sure if I caught your reasoning behind the significance of the Shroud, but I have the opinion that Jesus parallels Socrates - the cup, the suicide, the man in the forum preaching about one God, etc - and also Jesus seems to parallel Alexander the Great - "the anointed one" who established his kingdom by imposing Greek teachings (philosophy, compassion, justice) - and Alexander had this short rise to fame, from age 30 to 33. When the "Jewish" Christians began spreading the religion to the Gentiles (Greek speakers) it would have made more sense to speak, read and write in Greek and to reference Greek ideas in the text (esp. stoicism of Jesus and logos - not "word" but the Greek idea of the substance of nature). So of course at any time anyone could have easily shifted the story as they pleased to fit their ideas in, just as I might fit my own in as above if the task were given to me. And of course we just don't know. There's not one shred of evidence that a man called Jesus actually went around doing any of the things listed in the stories. The one mention from Josephus is superfluous, with no reason given for why he brings in that name while he's chronicling the disasters that were going on, and the trivial squabbles between people of his day.... none of which has any connection to the Jesus story whatsoever (and experts say it was added posthumously)..... I view the Bible as an incredibly overworked hodgepodge of mixed up facts and fiction that just happened to appear (as we know it) several hundred years later, as the Catholics went through all their texts and selected the ones they thought were worthy of putting together in one book (The Vulgate). It seems very illogical to me that the Protestants cling to this collection as sacred, yet they bash the people who stitched it together. That of course is another story outside the story of Jesus, but one that is equally mixed up.
As I said this was 20 years ago, I convinced myself of the truthfulness of the scriptures. Ireneus says he spoke to those who knew the disciples of Jesus. His age was known by them, but it is us who are guessing. I would definitely have to refresh my memory of the dates once again to be able to argue the point with you, sorry. I take the age of 30 as the time Jesus gave up carpentry and started studying and it is not until he is the age of a master that he got his own followers. Born in 17 BC and crucified in 31 AD he is around 47 - 48 years of age. So if you were a forger during the Catholic era are you going to sketch a young Jesus or an older man? Do you see anyone drawing Jesus as a man approaching 50 today? The discrepancy in the father of Joseph is explained in one of those original books as well. Brother raised children for sonless brothers. But the offspring even though fathered by one person was the son of someone else. You know that. I'm not saying the Shroud is the genuine burial cloth, but it was interesting to see that the image looked older than the traditional Sunday school Jesus, and more like the Jesus of history.
Anyone interested in reading my study? PM me your email and I'll send it to you. It is 41 pages when the footnotes are included.
