Purgatory: The Shroud of Turin

145791015

Comments


  • YHWH has indicated that He would do exactly that: embarrass the learned and bring their learning to nothing.

    Rabbi Yeshu promised to leave a sign for the whole world to witness, and He said that this sign would be associated with His death and burial.* According to Prof. Beate Kowalski, that sign is an enigma because there is no miracle associated with His death that could be witnessed by an entire generation of people.** Kowalski does not make the obvious connection to the miraculous image on the Rabbi's burial cloth because to do so would cause her to loose all credibility in her academic world since the Shroud has been "proven" to be 14th century.

    *Gospel of Matthew

    **https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307626105_Meaning_and_function_of_the_Sign_of_Jonah_in_Matthew_1238-42_and_161-4/fulltext/57cd92fc08ae83b37460da31/Meaning-and-function-of-the-Sign-of-Jonah-in-Matthew-1238-42-and-161-4.pdf

    Summary: "The Sign of Jonah will remain and enigma in Matthew's Gospel."
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    undead_rat wrote: »
    YHWH has indicated that He would do exactly that: embarrass the learned and bring their learning to nothing.

    Rabbi Yeshu promised to leave a sign for the whole world to witness, and He said that this sign would be associated with His death and burial.* According to Prof. Beate Kowalski, that sign is an enigma because there is no miracle associated with His death that could be witnessed by an entire generation of people.** Kowalski does not make the obvious connection to the miraculous image on the Rabbi's burial cloth because to do so would cause her to loose all credibility in her academic world since the Shroud has been "proven" to be 14th century.

    *Gospel of Matthew

    **https://www.researchgate.net/publication/307626105_Meaning_and_function_of_the_Sign_of_Jonah_in_Matthew_1238-42_and_161-4/fulltext/57cd92fc08ae83b37460da31/Meaning-and-function-of-the-Sign-of-Jonah-in-Matthew-1238-42-and-161-4.pdf

    Summary: "The Sign of Jonah will remain and enigma in Matthew's Gospel."

    I read that that and it doesn't actually support @undead_rat 's conclusions at all. In fact, rather the opposite. To continue from where @undead_rat 's quote of the summary ends:

    ". The fact that it cannot be unequivocally solved is a component of Matthew’s theology and narrative. Preconditions to understand the sign of Jonah in terms of Jesus’ death and resurrection are repentance and belief. Jesus’ opponents demand a sign and expect a supra-natural sign. They were confronted with a riddle which could be understood by his followers, respectively the Matthean community. It necessarily must be misunderstood by Jesus’ enemies and the community’s opponents as they had other expectations and a hidden agenda." (My bold)

    That's ten minutes of my life wasted. The summary of the summary (as opposed to an isolated quote from the summary) is that Jesus is criticising people looking for a supernatural sign. Things like miraculous shrouds, for example.
  • Excellent point @KarlLB. The blindingly obvious that only genius can see. Not wasted at all.
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    But... but... the sign of Jonah is clearly the Resurrection itself!!! Not the shroud (if there even was any shroud)

    I wish we still had the "beats head against wall" emoji.
  • Yeah but JESUS LIED because He was only dead for 36 hours because the Bible says He died on Friday because
  • TurquoiseTasticTurquoiseTastic Kerygmania Host
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Yeah but JESUS LIED because He was only dead for 36 hours because the Bible says He died on Friday because

    Yes I know Martin and I am enough of a literalist that this does indeed bother me. Why go to all that bother to specify "three days and three nights" eh? If I remember rightly you are a "Good Wednesdayist" is that correct?
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    It's certainly true that Jesus denying His opponents of a sign there and then was a call to faith in His followers which depends on what they know of His character, rather than faith based on having seen Him do some form of trick. We could ask why His Resurrection appearances were only to His disciples, those who already had faith in Him (albeit faith that had been shaken on Good Friday)? Why didn't Jesus walk into the Temple and present Himself to the chief priests and Sadducees? That would have been an undeniable proof of His claim, the demonstration of the Sign of Jonah that He'd promised. There is very little that indicates that Jesus is willing to present undeniable proof of who He is, but values the faith of those who believe who have not seen.

    I find that I regularly come back to thinking about Lamentation 3, and more and more regretting the mistake of Thomas Chisholm when he put that passage into a hymn. Jeremiah spends a couple of chapters describing in detail the state of his own life and the nation as abandoned by God, totally destroyed, nothing but despair. Then in chapter 3 he remembers something - he remembers who God is, that every morning there are new mercies because God is merciful, and bursts into praise, "Great is thy faithfulness". Chisolm gets it wrong, "morning by morning new mercies I see" isn't in the passage, Jeremiah declares the faithfulness of God even though he doesn't see any mercies (in the morning or any other time), it's a declaration made on what he knows even though there's no evidence of that in anything he can see.

    Jesus doesn't change that ... faith in His resurrection shouldn't need to depend on a piece of stained linen.
  • KwesiKwesi Deckhand, Styx
    The length of this discussion is, surely, a miracle in itself.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Yeah but JESUS LIED because He was only dead for 36 hours because the Bible says He died on Friday because

    Yes I know Martin and I am enough of a literalist that this does indeed bother me. Why go to all that bother to specify "three days and three nights" eh? If I remember rightly you are a "Good Wednesdayist" is that correct?

    Aye, unless Jesus was that pragmatic, He certainly played fast and loose with all other 'prophecy' and appeared nonetheless to believe what He was saying. He was right for the 'wrong' reasons. For a pre-modern epistemology. As He continued to be after resurrection. It doesn't bother me at all; God is either that pragmatic or our timing is wrong or both. And our timing is wrong because we insist on it on no rational basis.

  • Jesus doesn't change that ... faith in His resurrection shouldn't need to depend on a piece of stained linen.

    Of course, Alan. But the fact remains that He did promise us a sign, and in Matthew that sign is not quite the same as in the other accounts. It is not His resurrection there, so the Sign of Jonah is a sign both for the 500 that his post mortem self appeared to (as mentioned by St. Paul) and for us in the 21st century as provided by His corpse's image.

















  • What about all of these between the 500 and 1354?
  • EnochEnoch Shipmate
    undead_rat wrote: »
    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.'"

    https://www.churchpop.com/2016/12/05/astounding-mysterious-magnetic-readings-at-recently-opened-tomb-of-christ/
    WaWaWaWhat?!!! The tomb has been a pilgrimage site visited by an uncountable number of people for multiple centuries, including me, before 2016. You can go in it.

    I do not know whether the shroud is genuine or not. But it doesn't further the cause that it might be to plead weak arguments without attributions from popular magazines or websites.

    Nor, I'm afraid, is the statement,
    "I believe that the authenticity of the Holy Shroud is as obvious as the nose on one's face, ... "
    an argument with persuasive force to someone who doesn't know one way or the other, yet alone those that one might describe as having
    "a strident and unrelenting opposition to that idea."

    As so often, I find myself agreeing with @Lamb Chopped's
    "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."
    That strikes me as the most sensible thing that 's been said on this thread.

  • Given that Hugh Farey apparently started off his career supporting the antiquity of the shroud, he can hardly have devoted his entire life to discrediting it. His change to the medieval camp seems to have been in the last decade or so. https://medievalshroud.com/the-day-i-changed-my-mind/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-day-i-changed-my-mind

    My theory is that, at some point, our friend Mr. Farey realized that, in order for the Shroud to be authentic, a miracle had to have happened.
    That idea conflicted with his rationalist philosophy so he was forced to change sides.

    We had extended conversations on CAF which benefited the development of my own arguments. He is right about the rat being banned at CAF, but i've been given the 1000 year suspension there so many times that i can't say exactly what that one was for.
    Catholic Answers absolutely hates the Prophecy of the Popes, so that may have been it.

    BTW, i am not arguing, i am just explaining why i am right, TY.
  • @undead_rat said:

    BTW, i am not arguing, i am just explaining why i am right, TY

    This is surely worthy of the SoF Quotes File, no?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host

    He's right though, it's not an argument it's just contradiction.

  • He's right though, it's not an argument it's just contradiction.

    No it isn't.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host
    Martin54 wrote: »

    He's right though, it's not an argument it's just contradiction.

    No it isn't.

    I want to complain.
  • What, the Norwegian Blue?
  • And of course you can’t have three days and nights in the earth and rise on the third day.

    Unless, along with preaching in Hell, He also crosses the International Date Line a couple of times.

    Jet lag from Hell is probably, er, jet lag from hell.

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    Ah, but Hell is directly below the earth, so no International Date Lines.

    Therefore, the Bible is Wrong™.

    This has been revealed to me by the LORD, in a Dream, and is therefore manifestly True™.
  • South of the South Pole?
  • No - sort of in the middle, IYSWIM, so that it's straight down from every part of the planet.

    O wait - suppose the earth really is flat ?
    :open_mouth:

    I'd better lay me down, and have another Dream.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    Good point. He probably took the stairs.

    Or the hell-ta skelta
  • *groan*
    :lol:
  • Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Good point. He probably took the stairs.

    Or the hell-ta skelta

    Don't take the stairs.

    The best short horror story ever written.
  • Bill_NobleBill_Noble Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    This has been revealed to me by the LORD, in a Dream, and is therefore manifestly True™.

    And for a modest fee of $$$ you too can receive a regular Dream Update™ revealing more of God’s Truth to His World.

    Act promptly and receive this lovely Shroud Replica at a special discount. Available in a range of sizes. Wear this and surprise your family at breakfast.

    😉

  • ...three days later.
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Bill_Noble wrote: »
    Good point. He probably took the stairs.

    Or the hell-ta skelta

    Don't take the stairs.

    The best short horror story ever written.

    O indeed. Scary stuff, and thanks (I think) for reminding me of it...

  • undead_rat wrote: »
    Farey kept insisting that it was a magic trick because Jesus had to have been close to shore (His disciples were fishing.)

    Man needs to read his Bible better, then--the walking-on-water thing came when they'd spent half the night trying to cross the Sea of Galilee in a windstorm (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 14:22-33&version=ESV)
  • Lamb ChoppedLamb Chopped Shipmate
    edited January 2021
    My dudes, before you get your undies in a twist about the three-days-and-three-nights bit, it's worth finding out if it might have been an idiom (which is what I'm told). Like when people say, "I spent the whole weekend at X's place" and when you quiz them, you find they mean they went there Friday afternoon and didn't get home till Sunday lunch. That isn't the whole weekend, that's bits of two days and the whole of the middle one. But human beings talk that way.*

    * And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate, Heaven Host

    * And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.

    I think of it like bookends - one day at each end.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited January 2021
    My dudes, before you get your undies in a twist about the three-days-and-three-nights bit, it's worth finding out if it might have been an idiom (which is what I'm told). Like when people say, "I spent the whole weekend at X's place" and when you quiz them, you find they mean they went there Friday afternoon and didn't get home till Sunday lunch. That isn't the whole weekend, that's bits of two days and the whole of the middle one. But human beings talk that way.*

    * And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.

    It don't bother me, but what do bother me is attempting to validate the already decided Friday-Sunday on that basis. Friday-Sunday is far from proven.

  • * And for more shits-n-giggles, "weekend" is not exactly a great term for a period that includes the first day of the week. And ancient Aramaic was no more likely to be scientifically precise about these matters than English.

    I think of it like bookends - one day at each end.

    This. Neat.
    :wink:
  • Works for me, too.

    However I do have a follow up question regarding the etymology of shits-n-giggles.

    Is it similar to all-fun-and-games-until-someone-loses-an-eye or a level of toilet humour I have yet to plumb?

    Or maybe I just have.
  • MooMoo Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Farey kept insisting that it was a magic trick because Jesus had to have been close to shore (His disciples were fishing.)

    Man needs to read his Bible better, then--the walking-on-water thing came when they'd spent half the night trying to cross the Sea of Galilee in a windstorm (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 14:22-33&version=ESV)

    If the water was shallow enough for Jesus to wade, then it was too shallow to float the boat.
  • Moo wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Farey kept insisting that it was a magic trick because Jesus had to have been close to shore (His disciples were fishing.)

    Man needs to read his Bible better, then--the walking-on-water thing came when they'd spent half the night trying to cross the Sea of Galilee in a windstorm (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 14:22-33&version=ESV)

    If the water was shallow enough for Jesus to wade, then it was too shallow to float the boat.

    :thumbsup:
  • Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.

    Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...
  • MooMoo Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.

    Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...

    And the boat managed to avoid these stones?

  • Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.

    Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...

    What bothers me is traction.
  • Moo wrote: »
    Continuing this tangent, I was once told that there are flat stones just beneath the surface of the water at the place where this incident is supposed to have occurred.

    Jesus therefore only seemed to be walking on the water...

    And the boat managed to avoid these stones?

    Perhaps there were navigational aids warning of them.
  • Possibly, but the boat must have been some way away from the Stones, otherwise Peter wouldn't have sunk the moment after he jumped overboard...
    :confused:
  • Moo wrote: »
    undead_rat wrote: »
    Farey kept insisting that it was a magic trick because Jesus had to have been close to shore (His disciples were fishing.)

    Man needs to read his Bible better, then--the walking-on-water thing came when they'd spent half the night trying to cross the Sea of Galilee in a windstorm (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew 14:22-33&version=ESV)

    If the water was shallow enough for Jesus to wade, then it was too shallow to float the boat.

    Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached. However I think we need a reference for where Farey said this before diving too deeply. My own view is that this was a story that accrued to Jesus after his death and never actually happened.
  • MooMoo Shipmate, Host Emeritus

    Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached.

    How shallow?

    A boat with a draft of twelve inches can be easily beached. I have trouble believing that a boat that would hold twelve people would float in less than a foot of water.

  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host
    I think the idea of stories accruing to Jesus within the time frame of the gospels being written is based on a mistaken analogy with the transmission of very different kinds of traditions over much longer periods.

    Matthew’s Gospel is generally regarded as having reached its present form in AD 80-90, only 50 or 60 years after the events it recounts. There is significant internal and extra-biblical evidence to suggest that ‘The Twelve’ exercised considerable control over the material about Jesus for years, even possibly decades, after his death and resurrection, one aspect of which was the prevention of stories accruing.

    Even in our very non-oral culture it wouldn’t be hard to gather living memories of the 1960s and 70s. And to reiterate, the idea of stories accruing in this way is derived from very different kinds of material transmitted over a very different time frame.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Moo wrote: »

    Non-keel boats can float in very shallow water. I note that a boat from about Jesus's time excavated from the area (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_of_Galilee_Boat) has a shallow draft which would allow it to be easily beached.

    How shallow?

    A boat with a draft of twelve inches can be easily beached. I have trouble believing that a boat that would hold twelve people would float in less than a foot of water.

    You really need to use your powers of imagination better. Our house is built on just over a half acre of land, so a polystyrene boat or raft that size would almost certainly carry a dozen people and draw less than a foot. I expect you to say that there was not that much polystyrene around in first century Palestine, but how do we know that?
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Had not thought of the shoes, but a good point.
  • Draft figures don't seem to be mentioned anywhere except as shallow or very shallow. The max preserved boat height is stated to be 1.3 meters but the draft would be considerably less than that (btw you can wade in 12in of water).
  • MooMoo Shipmate, Host Emeritus
    Draft figures don't seem to be mentioned anywhere except as shallow or very shallow. The max preserved boat height is stated to be 1.3 meters but the draft would be considerably less than that (btw you can wade in 12in of water).

    How large were these boats? How many people or how much cargo could they carry? Were they big enough to carry twelve people?

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    And then you get the miraculous catches of fish. I doubt that the boats would have been very large as normally they would only have a couple of people aboard at once. If they were much larger than decent sized dinghy, they'd be hard for more than a couple of crew to row in the event that they were becalmed. Perhaps a half dozen metres long, a metre and a half wide? A bit less freeboard?
  • The excavated boat was 27 feet (8.27 meters) long and 7.5 feet (2.3 meters) wide and very flat bottomed so quite a good size boat (several of the researchers think it was probably about the largest usual boat of the Lake of Galilee [especially since its construction indicated that usable wood for boat building might have been rare]). It likely had a sail but would also have depended upon rowers. From the literary reading, some researchers think the number of rowers might have been 4 along with a helmsman. On a fishing boat (and this is thought to be a fishing boat) there likely would have been some people along to help with the handling of nets and the catch. It could also hold more people if being used as a transport from A to B (this is where some of Josephus comes in since he talks about boats capable of having 10 or so people on board). When being used for fishing some of the space would be used for storing the catch so less people.
Sign In or Register to comment.