The attempts to "civilise" the highlands and islands may not be exact matches for the treatment of indigenous folk in North America but they certainly rhyme (the irony of course being that the victims in Scotland were often the perpetrators elsewhere). The township where I currently live grew up largely as a result of cottars being forced off the land to make way for sheep and taking up fishing out of desperation. This is evident in how tightly packed the houses are and how close to the shore.
But calling them colonies? I've never seen it before, have you?
"Treated like a colony", certainly. Actually saying they're a colony I'm not so sure. I have heard the term "white settler" directed at those among us Sassenachean who think they can move out here, throw money around and have the place rearranged to their liking.
Partly by the method of incorporation and partly by method by which the centre extracts resources from the periphery. In a colony the centre exports its own people to the colony to extract resources, where they form a separate population. In Scotland the method was rather to coopt the local elites and import them to the centre.
It may suit those who want an excuse to feel aggrieved. However, Scotland and England have ended up together because the King of Scotland inherited the throne of England. So it's quite a serious misuse of both language and rhetoric to describe Scotland as a colony of England. There'd be a better, but still very weak argument for claiming England was a colony of Scotland. There's a stronger one, but still mistaken claim for saying Bavaria is a colony of Germany or Naples a colony of Italy.
It may suit those who want an excuse to feel aggrieved. However, Scotland and England have ended up together because the King of Scotland inherited the throne of England. So it's quite a serious misuse of both language and rhetoric to describe Scotland as a colony of England. There'd be a better, but still very weak argument for claiming England was a colony of Scotland.
Not really. The Act of Union abolished Scottish institutions in favour of English ones. The Scottish Parliament ceased to exist for nearly three centuries.
I wondered when someone might mention the fact that Scotland actually took over England
This is simply untrue. The Act of Union took place a century after the accession of James I/VI and was very much a replacement of Scottish institutions by English.
I wondered when someone might mention the fact that Scotland actually took over England
This is simply untrue. The Act of Union took place a century after the accession of James I/VI and was very much a replacement of Scottish institutions by English.
Yes, according to some researchers, (sorry that i am unable to provide a reference.)
It seems that the usual burial shroud was about square in shape and was wrapped around the corpse rather that folded over it lengthwise.* Remembering that shops were closing up in preparation for the Sabbath, where was burial shroud to be had? The fine linen tablecloth of the last supper could have been improvised to meet the need.
Dafyd: Partly by the method of incorporation and partly by method by which the centre extracts resources from the periphery. In a colony the centre exports its own people to the colony to extract resources, where they form a separate population. In Scotland the method was rather to coopt the local elites and import them to the centre.
It was also the case that Scotland has exported more of its people to England than vice versa, and that Ireland exported such a significant proportion of its population to Scotland that it changed its culture, not to mention the impact of the Irish ending up in England and Wales. Regarding Scottish elites, I don't think the Scottish elites who negotiated the Union saw themselves as being co-opted and exported, because the terms of the Union guaranteed their continuing control of Scottish life untroubled, removed the threat from the Jacobites to their position, and at the same time offered them new commercial opportunities through links to the City and Empire which they helped to create, and in 1746 effectively united Scotland for the first time. I doubt whether the industrial magnates of Glasgow and West of Scotland in the nineteenth century saw themselves as 'imported to the centre', unless that is how one is to regard the Gladstones.
On the question as to whether in the United Kingdom the centre extracts resources from the periphery, I would have thought that has been generally the reverse. Scotland, Wales, (Ireland) Northern Ireland, and the extremities of England have almost always received more public spending than they have contributed to the exchequer, the Centre (South East of England, esp. London), being the net loser. The only exception was for four years in the 1980s when 'Scottish' oil revenues meant that Scotland subsidised the national exchequer. That is an uncomfortable fact that the Scots, in particular, are in danger of ignoring to their substantial cost.
The benefits to England in controlling Wales, Scotland and Ireland, have been strategic not economic. For Wales and Scotland it is difficult to detect disadvantages in the arrangement, but in Ireland the imposition of a Protestant establishment, especially in the south, was a threat to the Catholic culture of most of the population. It is not insignificant that the heroes of Scottish and Welsh nationalists are derived from the Middle Ages, but those of the Irish mostly post-the French Revolution.
These are probably unanswerable questions, unless more data is to be had.
Incidentally, @undead_rat mentions the vanishing of...a corpse into another dimension.
Has this been mentioned on this thread before? I may have missed it, but it's an intriguing thought. Which dimension? Fourth? Fifth? How many are there, in any case?
Shroud researchers have noted that, after His death, Rabbi Yeshu was able to appear in a room in which the doors had been locked, and, in a similar vein, He would suddenly vanish after conversing for some time. These stories are noted to be consistent with the hypothesis that His corpse vanished from its tomb.
Data:
The 14C labs had a plan: if the Shroud's 14C evidence turned out to be consistent with a first century date, then they would say that the "medieval forger" had somehow managed to obtain a first century cloth. It was a win-win situation for them.
But the one result that they were not prepared for was vastly disparate readings from different parts of the Shroud. That is why i say that, if the labs had accepted the Church's offer of samples from the Shroud's center, we would not be having this conversation. Those samples are projected to date to about 4000 C.E., and that result would have been a little difficult for the British Museum to explain away.
Let us assume for argument's sake that the Shroud is genuine, and that it has been proved beyond doubt that it was used to wrap the body of Jesus himself, and that it is indeed His image which can be seen upon it.
What do you think ought to be done with that information? Or, to put it another way, now what?
Unilateral Nuclear Disarmament is the short answer.
The image on the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and the Seal of the Gospels.
It confirms that Rabbi Yeshu lived, taught, performed miracles, was executed by crucifixion, and, subsequently reappeared to His followers as a living person.
In my opinion, those facts confirm the Jewish Scriptures, some of which are remarkable (particularly the idea that the sun can move backwards.) The most relevant parts for the modern world are the consistent predictions of a world-wide disaster that will be even greater than Noah's flood. The great Rabbi himself said: I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already!
The primary commandments of the OT an NT are to love YHWH and to love our fellow man. The building of arsenals of nuclear weapons violates both. YHWH brought the flood because He was annoyed by mankind's constant preoccupation with violence, but afterwards, He promised that He would never attempt to destroy mankind again. It seems that He decided to allow mankind's obsession with violence to continue on to its natural end, and that end is a global nuclear war.
Isaiah 3:19 is about taking shelter in underground, which is the only defense against a nuclear attack.
66:15-16 is about judgement by fire, with "chariots like the tempest."
Jeremiah 25:32-33 is even more graphic: See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the earth.
Those slaughtered that day will be scattered across the world from end to end. No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them. They will stay lying on the surface like dung.
The reason that these dead cannot be buried or lamented might be because of the residual radiation of the nuclear attacks.
If a majority in the USA believed this prediction, we could do something to prevent it.
The one thing that would prevent a nuclear war between the USA and Russia would be unilateral nuclear disarmament.
You seem to have a bit of a fixation about nuclear war, but remember that the USA and Russia are not the only countries with enough nuclear weapons to do a fair bit of damage...
So, are you saying that *we* (or those who believe in the Shroud) should, if it were proven to be genuine, go to the leaders of all these countries and ask them to disarm?
Yes, according to some researchers, (sorry that i am unable to provide a reference.)
It seems that the usual burial shroud was about square in shape and was wrapped around the corpse rather that folded over it lengthwise.* Remembering that shops were closing up in preparation for the Sabbath, where was burial shroud to be had? The fine linen tablecloth of the last supper could have been improvised to meet the need.
*THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
Give me a break.
First, we don't even know that they HAD a tablecloth. Was that even a thing in that culture?
Plus, I don't see the shape or size of a normal* tablecloth being sufficient for wrapping a body as this one allegedly was wrapped. It is, frankly, a ridiculous way to wrap or carry a body, Renaissance paintings be damned. The body is apt to spill out (or be accessible to critters) in both side directions. A sensible person wraps a body as a baby is swaddled, sideways. That is, if you're going to wrap a body at all. We need to think about the utility of wrapping, and not just "how could we twist things to account for this artifact."
* As for normal tablecloths, their shape and size is also a function of utility. There is no earthly reason why Jesus and his disciples should have been sitting (or reclining) at a long, skinny table of the sort we see in the Last Supper painting. People only do that when they are bigwigs on display--for example, at a banquet, and then only the head table does it. Normal people have a square, circular or oblong table, because it allows for the best use of space--maximizing the room for people to be around it while minimizing the distance between people and food set in the middle (so you can reach stuff without endless passing) AND minimizing the distance between individuals (so you can talk without screaming).
You're not going to convince me that anyone in Jerusalem, except goverment types like Herod, Pilate, and possibly a temple functionary or two, used long, skinny banquet tables--and therefore had cloths to fit them. Uh no.
The most relevant parts for the modern world are the consistent predictions of a world-wide disaster that will be even greater than Noah's flood. The great Rabbi himself said: 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.
The most relevant parts for the modern world are the consistent predictions of a world-wide disaster that will be even greater than Noah's flood. The great Rabbi himself said: 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.
Couldn't be a metaphor could it? Nah, that's a crazy idea. Jesus is itching to fucking nuke us.
Dafyd: Partly by the method of incorporation and partly by method by which the centre extracts resources from the periphery. In a colony the centre exports its own people to the colony to extract resources, where they form a separate population. In Scotland the method was rather to coopt the local elites and import them to the centre.
<snip>
On the question as to whether in the United Kingdom the centre extracts resources from the periphery, I would have thought that has been generally the reverse. Scotland, Wales, (Ireland) Northern Ireland, and the extremities of England have almost always received more public spending than they have contributed to the exchequer, the Centre (South East of England, esp. London), being the net loser. The only exception was for four years in the 1980s when 'Scottish' oil revenues meant that Scotland subsidised the national exchequer. That is an uncomfortable fact that the Scots, in particular, are in danger of ignoring to their substantial cost.
The benefits to England in controlling Wales, Scotland and Ireland, have been strategic not economic. For Wales and Scotland it is difficult to detect disadvantages in the arrangement, but in Ireland the imposition of a Protestant establishment, especially in the south, was a threat to the Catholic culture of most of the population. It is not insignificant that the heroes of Scottish and Welsh nationalists are derived from the Middle Ages, but those of the Irish mostly post-the French Revolution.
Without derailing the thread further (is that even possible??), your understanding of the economic history of Wales and other areas does not coincide with mine. Prior to 1914, the British Empire with all its ships, trade and armies was said to be fuelled by Welsh coal, although there of course major coalfields across the north and west of the UK (and Kent). It was not the colliers who benefitted from that. As to later Welsh heroes I give you Dic Penderyn, John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, from the 19th century and Hedd Wynn, Nye Bevan (no nationalist admittedly) from C20.
Shroud researchers have noted that, after His death, Rabbi Yeshu was able to appear in a room in which the doors had been locked, and, in a similar vein, He would suddenly vanish after conversing for some time. These stories are noted to be consistent with the hypothesis that His corpse vanished from its tomb.
Someone once wrote that Jesus was able to walk through walls, be in more than one place at a time, disappear at will etc. because his *resurrection body* was MORE REAL and SOLID than the world in which we live.
Someone once wrote that Jesus was able to walk through walls, be in more than one place at a time, disappear at will etc. because his *resurrection body* was MORE REAL and SOLID than the world in which we live.
Just sayin'...
Whereas in Flatland it is precisely because he exists in one more dimension than we do.
The image on the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and the Seal of the Gospels.
It confirms that Rabbi Yeshu lived, taught, performed miracles, was executed by crucifixion, and, subsequently reappeared to His followers as a living person.
Nothing you have put there, or elsewhere for that matter, supports the assertions quoted.
Kwesi and others, I don't want to take the diversion any further, but I'd be hesitating to call Wales or Scotland colonies of England. Constituents of the UK, but not colonies.
The image on the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and the Seal of the Gospels.
It confirms that Rabbi Yeshu lived, taught, performed miracles, was executed by crucifixion, and, subsequently reappeared to His followers as a living person.
Dude.
The sign of Jonah was Jesus' death and resurrection.
@Kwesi "For Wales and Scotland it is difficult to detect disadvantages in the arrangement"
The fact that Wales or Scotland could consistently vote Labour if they wanted and still get Tory governments because England has so many more constituencies is one thing.
That and having your villages drowned to provide water for Liverpool.
Having your kids beaten for speaking their native language.
How many English people know what Cofiwch Drywerin even means, let alone what happened to Trwyerin?
The image on the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and the Seal of the Gospels.
It confirms that Rabbi Yeshu lived, taught, performed miracles, was executed by crucifixion, and, subsequently reappeared to His followers as a living person.
Nothing you have put there, or elsewhere for that matter, supports the assertions quoted.
This.
undead_rat, if belief in the Shroud helps you somehow--helps you live, helps you cope, helps you follow Rabbi Yeshu--then that's great. Seriously.
For those of us who don't share your belief, we can't get there the same way you did. Some people on this thread have tried to look at your information and beliefs, and walked through the steps of figuring out what might be true. Some question the science; some think the pieces don't fit; some emphatically don't believe; some don't know; and some don't see how it could help with their daily living of their faith.
I don't know if it's Jesus' shroud. IMVHO, there's no way that it could prove any of what you said above. If it's not a deliberate fake, then it might indicate that some poor person died from crucifixion, and was wrapped in the shroud. But, even if it really is the shroud that wrapped Jesus, there's no way I know of to prove that for sure. So, for me, it doesn't prove Jesus' existence, ministry, miracles, execution, resurrection, or his post-resurrection visits to his friends.
But I need to live in the meantime. That means working out my own faith, in the meantime, and trying to live it. And the Shroud, even if real, won't help me do that--if anything, it would probably get in the way.
I grew up fundamentalist Protestant, and end times matters were taken seriously. There might be references to a nuclear event in the Bible, and there might not. But it's really easy to focus in on a particular passage, make that everything, and lose balance. Jesus said to pay attention, to avoid being deceived, and that even he didn't know exactly when "the end" would happen.
In the meantime, we're supposed to live. So maybe it would be ok for you to take a break from your Shroud studies once in a while: take a walk, write more about your boating adventures, find a simple way to do a small bit of good in the world, laugh.
How many English people know what Cofiwch Drywerin even means, let alone what happened to Trwyerin?
That sort of thing.
Although, to be fair, they’re equally unlikely to know about Mardale Green, Nether Hambleton, West End, Ashopton, Derwent, Capel Celyn or Taf Fechan. (But the last of those was flooded to provide water for Merthyr Tydfil, not somewhere in England.)
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 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 nuclesr holocausts anyway.
The image on the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and the Seal of the Gospels.
It confirms that Rabbi Yeshu lived, taught, performed miracles, was executed by crucifixion, and, subsequently reappeared to His followers as a living person.
The sign of Jonah was Jesus' death and resurrection.
That is true for Mark and Luke.
To qualify as a "sign," an event has to be miraculous. His resurrection meets that test, but His death does not. In the Gospel of Matthew, the "Sign of Jonah" is presented a little differently and is about His burial, not His resurrection. Theologian Beate Kowalski has researched this issue and concluded (pg. 52, summary) that the Sign of Jonah in Matthew's Gospel will remain an enigma. Because of the trashing of the Holy Shroud by Prof. Hall of Oxford's 14C lab, Prof. Kowalski dares not make the obvious connection of the miraculous image on the Shroud to the Sign of Jonah in Matthew's Gospel lest she loose her credibility in the academic world.
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.
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.
Comments
"Treated like a colony", certainly. Actually saying they're a colony I'm not so sure. I have heard the term "white settler" directed at those among us Sassenachean who think they can move out here, throw money around and have the place rearranged to their liking.
What distinction are you making between them? (not disputing there are differences just wondering how you're drawing these lines)
Pity they can't do it again. If they did, why, I might even start to believe in miraculous pieces of cloth!
Not really. The Act of Union abolished Scottish institutions in favour of English ones. The Scottish Parliament ceased to exist for nearly three centuries.
This is simply untrue. The Act of Union took place a century after the accession of James I/VI and was very much a replacement of Scottish institutions by English.
Yes, I know...I was being rather mischievous...
Yes, according to some researchers, (sorry that i am unable to provide a reference.)
It seems that the usual burial shroud was about square in shape and was wrapped around the corpse rather that folded over it lengthwise.* Remembering that shops were closing up in preparation for the Sabbath, where was burial shroud to be had? The fine linen tablecloth of the last supper could have been improvised to meet the need.
*THE SHROUD, Wilson, 2010
Better yet, let's tell Alan . . . .
It was also the case that Scotland has exported more of its people to England than vice versa, and that Ireland exported such a significant proportion of its population to Scotland that it changed its culture, not to mention the impact of the Irish ending up in England and Wales. Regarding Scottish elites, I don't think the Scottish elites who negotiated the Union saw themselves as being co-opted and exported, because the terms of the Union guaranteed their continuing control of Scottish life untroubled, removed the threat from the Jacobites to their position, and at the same time offered them new commercial opportunities through links to the City and Empire which they helped to create, and in 1746 effectively united Scotland for the first time. I doubt whether the industrial magnates of Glasgow and West of Scotland in the nineteenth century saw themselves as 'imported to the centre', unless that is how one is to regard the Gladstones.
On the question as to whether in the United Kingdom the centre extracts resources from the periphery, I would have thought that has been generally the reverse. Scotland, Wales, (Ireland) Northern Ireland, and the extremities of England have almost always received more public spending than they have contributed to the exchequer, the Centre (South East of England, esp. London), being the net loser. The only exception was for four years in the 1980s when 'Scottish' oil revenues meant that Scotland subsidised the national exchequer. That is an uncomfortable fact that the Scots, in particular, are in danger of ignoring to their substantial cost.
The benefits to England in controlling Wales, Scotland and Ireland, have been strategic not economic. For Wales and Scotland it is difficult to detect disadvantages in the arrangement, but in Ireland the imposition of a Protestant establishment, especially in the south, was a threat to the Catholic culture of most of the population. It is not insignificant that the heroes of Scottish and Welsh nationalists are derived from the Middle Ages, but those of the Irish mostly post-the French Revolution.
Shroud researchers have noted that, after His death, Rabbi Yeshu was able to appear in a room in which the doors had been locked, and, in a similar vein, He would suddenly vanish after conversing for some time. These stories are noted to be consistent with the hypothesis that His corpse vanished from its tomb.
Data:
The 14C labs had a plan: if the Shroud's 14C evidence turned out to be consistent with a first century date, then they would say that the "medieval forger" had somehow managed to obtain a first century cloth. It was a win-win situation for them.
But the one result that they were not prepared for was vastly disparate readings from different parts of the Shroud. That is why i say that, if the labs had accepted the Church's offer of samples from the Shroud's center, we would not be having this conversation. Those samples are projected to date to about 4000 C.E., and that result would have been a little difficult for the British Museum to explain away.
The image on the Shroud is the Sign of Jonah and the Seal of the Gospels.
It confirms that Rabbi Yeshu lived, taught, performed miracles, was executed by crucifixion, and, subsequently reappeared to His followers as a living person.
In my opinion, those facts confirm the Jewish Scriptures, some of which are remarkable (particularly the idea that the sun can move backwards.) The most relevant parts for the modern world are the consistent predictions of a world-wide disaster that will be even greater than Noah's flood. The great Rabbi himself said:
I have come to bring fire to the earth, and how I wish it were blazing already!
The primary commandments of the OT an NT are to love YHWH and to love our fellow man. The building of arsenals of nuclear weapons violates both. YHWH brought the flood because He was annoyed by mankind's constant preoccupation with violence, but afterwards, He promised that He would never attempt to destroy mankind again. It seems that He decided to allow mankind's obsession with violence to continue on to its natural end, and that end is a global nuclear war.
Isaiah 3:19 is about taking shelter in underground, which is the only defense against a nuclear attack.
66:15-16 is about judgement by fire, with "chariots like the tempest."
Jeremiah 25:32-33 is even more graphic:
See! The disaster spreads
from nation to nation.
A mighty tempest rises
from the far ends of the earth.
Those slaughtered that day will be scattered across the world from end to end. No dirge will be raised for them; no one will gather them or bury them. They will stay lying on the surface like dung.
The reason that these dead cannot be buried or lamented might be because of the residual radiation of the nuclear attacks.
If a majority in the USA believed this prediction, we could do something to prevent it.
The one thing that would prevent a nuclear war between the USA and Russia would be unilateral nuclear disarmament.
You seem to have a bit of a fixation about nuclear war, but remember that the USA and Russia are not the only countries with enough nuclear weapons to do a fair bit of damage...
So, are you saying that *we* (or those who believe in the Shroud) should, if it were proven to be genuine, go to the leaders of all these countries and ask them to disarm?
Give me a break.
First, we don't even know that they HAD a tablecloth. Was that even a thing in that culture?
Plus, I don't see the shape or size of a normal* tablecloth being sufficient for wrapping a body as this one allegedly was wrapped. It is, frankly, a ridiculous way to wrap or carry a body, Renaissance paintings be damned. The body is apt to spill out (or be accessible to critters) in both side directions. A sensible person wraps a body as a baby is swaddled, sideways. That is, if you're going to wrap a body at all. We need to think about the utility of wrapping, and not just "how could we twist things to account for this artifact."
* As for normal tablecloths, their shape and size is also a function of utility. There is no earthly reason why Jesus and his disciples should have been sitting (or reclining) at a long, skinny table of the sort we see in the Last Supper painting. People only do that when they are bigwigs on display--for example, at a banquet, and then only the head table does it. Normal people have a square, circular or oblong table, because it allows for the best use of space--maximizing the room for people to be around it while minimizing the distance between people and food set in the middle (so you can reach stuff without endless passing) AND minimizing the distance between individuals (so you can talk without screaming).
You're not going to convince me that anyone in Jerusalem, except goverment types like Herod, Pilate, and possibly a temple functionary or two, used long, skinny banquet tables--and therefore had cloths to fit them. Uh no.
Jesus is not the man to wish for a nuclear attack. Let alone incite one.
Couldn't be a metaphor could it? Nah, that's a crazy idea. Jesus is itching to fucking nuke us.
At least, I think that's what undead_rat means.
Without derailing the thread further (is that even possible??), your understanding of the economic history of Wales and other areas does not coincide with mine. Prior to 1914, the British Empire with all its ships, trade and armies was said to be fuelled by Welsh coal, although there of course major coalfields across the north and west of the UK (and Kent). It was not the colliers who benefitted from that. As to later Welsh heroes I give you Dic Penderyn, John Frost, Zephaniah Williams, from the 19th century and Hedd Wynn, Nye Bevan (no nationalist admittedly) from C20.
Getting narrow eyed, I don't think so Bishops. I'm taking him as literal; he has form. This is a firming up of the darkness.
Easy come, easy go.
Or, he got up and walked away.
Just sayin'...
Whereas in Flatland it is precisely because he exists in one more dimension than we do.
Nothing you have put there, or elsewhere for that matter, supports the assertions quoted.
Dude.
The sign of Jonah was Jesus' death and resurrection.
Yeah I'm almost sure Jesus said that very exact thing. Less the "Dude". Perhaps.
Now surely he was from California!
You did.
It is perhaps time to put down the thread and back away slowly. Or just turn it into a comedy revue like everyone else is doing.
I was wrong.
Anyway, Jesus wasn't from California - he was from Bethlehem, wot is in Wales...
Perhaps a comic strip tract is imminent?
The fact that Wales or Scotland could consistently vote Labour if they wanted and still get Tory governments because England has so many more constituencies is one thing.
That and having your villages drowned to provide water for Liverpool.
Having your kids beaten for speaking their native language.
How many English people know what Cofiwch Drywerin even means, let alone what happened to Trwyerin?
That sort of thing.
This.
undead_rat, if belief in the Shroud helps you somehow--helps you live, helps you cope, helps you follow Rabbi Yeshu--then that's great. Seriously.
For those of us who don't share your belief, we can't get there the same way you did. Some people on this thread have tried to look at your information and beliefs, and walked through the steps of figuring out what might be true. Some question the science; some think the pieces don't fit; some emphatically don't believe; some don't know; and some don't see how it could help with their daily living of their faith.
I don't know if it's Jesus' shroud. IMVHO, there's no way that it could prove any of what you said above. If it's not a deliberate fake, then it might indicate that some poor person died from crucifixion, and was wrapped in the shroud. But, even if it really is the shroud that wrapped Jesus, there's no way I know of to prove that for sure. So, for me, it doesn't prove Jesus' existence, ministry, miracles, execution, resurrection, or his post-resurrection visits to his friends.
But I need to live in the meantime. That means working out my own faith, in the meantime, and trying to live it. And the Shroud, even if real, won't help me do that--if anything, it would probably get in the way.
I grew up fundamentalist Protestant, and end times matters were taken seriously. There might be references to a nuclear event in the Bible, and there might not. But it's really easy to focus in on a particular passage, make that everything, and lose balance. Jesus said to pay attention, to avoid being deceived, and that even he didn't know exactly when "the end" would happen.
In the meantime, we're supposed to live. So maybe it would be ok for you to take a break from your Shroud studies once in a while: take a walk, write more about your boating adventures, find a simple way to do a small bit of good in the world, laugh.
FWIW.
Well said @Golden Key.
These three. New every morning.
And the greatest isn’t faith.
Although, to be fair, they’re equally unlikely to know about Mardale Green, Nether Hambleton, West End, Ashopton, Derwent, Capel Celyn or Taf Fechan. (But the last of those was flooded to provide water for Merthyr Tydfil, not somewhere in England.)
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 nuclesr holocausts anyway.
To qualify as a "sign," an event has to be miraculous. His resurrection meets that test, but His death does not. In the Gospel of Matthew, the "Sign of Jonah" is presented a little differently and is about His burial, not His resurrection. Theologian Beate Kowalski has researched this issue and concluded (pg. 52, summary) that the Sign of Jonah in Matthew's Gospel will remain an enigma. Because of the trashing of the Holy Shroud by Prof. Hall of Oxford's 14C lab, Prof. Kowalski dares not make the obvious connection of the miraculous image on the Shroud to the Sign of Jonah in Matthew's Gospel lest she loose her credibility in the academic world.
bazhum.muzhp.pl/media//files/Studia_Koszalinsko_Kolobrzeskie/Studia_Koszalinsko_Kolobrzeskie-r2015-t22/Studia_Koszalinsko_Kolobrzeskie-r2015-t22-s35-54/Studia_Koszalinsko_Kolobrzeskie-r2015-t22-s35-54.pdf
This.
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.