|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 1, 2008 18:34:13 GMT -5
Real? Or fake?  |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan on Jun 3, 2008 11:37:17 GMT -5
No idea....
|
|
|
|
Post by knuckle on Jun 3, 2008 12:36:21 GMT -5
I would like to believe it is true but the bible says Christ's face was covered in a separate cloth from His body
Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie,
Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself.
much love--------------knuckle
|
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jun 3, 2008 16:26:11 GMT -5
I would like to believe it is true but the bible says Christ's face was covered in a separate cloth from His body Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie, Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. much love--------------knuckle Traditionally, the body of a deceased Jew was covered in one long sheet. This in no way contradicts scripture. His face was covered with a separate cloth, but nothing would stop his image from being generated on the cloth over that. The lack of the facial cloth doesn't detract from the body shroud. I heard on a documentary that when they did a DNA test on the blood on the shroud, they found no traces of a biological father to the blood found and that it was the blood of a human man. They've prove how a dead mouse injected with radiation and wrapped in a shroud of the same material does leave an imprint similar to the 3D image on The Shroud. They said that the levels of radiation required to leave an imprint like the one on The Shroud would kill a normal man. We all have radiation in our bodies. Imagine how much radiation Jesus would have. Do I believe "in" it? I can't say that I do, but it would be a great relic if it were true. I definately don't believe in it.  |
|
Danica-Christine.
New Member
"Immaculate Heart of Mary, pray for us, now, & at the hour of our death."
Posts: 45
|
Post by Danica-Christine. on Jul 3, 2008 7:17:10 GMT -5
I believe in it. I've seen several documentaries about it.
Now, a Jew, who does not believe in Christ, is fighting for it! It has changed his life.
Good fruits.
|
|
|
|
Post by teresahrc on Jul 3, 2008 14:54:13 GMT -5
Joh 20:6 Then cometh Simon Peter following him, and went into the sepulcher, and seeth the linen clothes lie, Joh 20:7 And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself. Actuall, it doesn't say that the "napkin" COVERED His face. But it was "about his head". Many people think that was a cloth that went under the chin, then on the back of the head, to sort of hold the head in the position(and so the mouth doesn't drop open). I think the shroud is real, but I'm not betting anything on it. Some people have actually made it sound like if you don't believe in the shroud, then you don't believe in the resurrection. I think that's ridiculous. The reason I think it is real is because of art history (I'm an artist). If you look at most images of Christ by the early church, they have him painted as a beardless, roman looking man for the first 3 centuries. This corresponds to the time that the shroud was believed to be in Jerusalem and then in another city (I forget the name). After the 3 century, All of the images of CHrist in the Roman empire began to change to match the image on the shroud. It was at that time that the Shroud was believed to have moved to (Edessa?) and the rest of the church was able to see it. In fact, there are certain asymmetries on the early Icons of Christ that were meticulously copied by Orthodox Christians. If they had no reason to copy these asymmetries, then they wouldn't have done it, but they all were copied from 1 source, and after the painters copied from a source, they would touch it to the original to "bless" it.   Notice how these images are very similar, yet one is from Constaninople (6th c.) and the other is from Mt. Sinai. It sure looks like they were using the same source. I would think this may be the shroud. Keep in mind too, that if it IS real, images fade over time and with exposure to light. It could have been more detailed when it was new. teresa |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 3, 2008 17:39:35 GMT -5
I believe in it. I've seen several documentaries about it. Now, a Jew, who does not believe in Christ, is fighting for it! It has changed his life. Good fruits. Technically, unless The Church says that it is a valid relic, I cannot believe in it no matter how many secular sources make a great case for it. You know? I want to believe in it, but I just can't. Not until The Church says that it's ok. BTW, excellent proofs definately! Converted antheist/agnostic scientists! But, until The Church confirms anything, I'll wait. With crossed fingers!  |
|
|
|
Post by Cepha on Jul 3, 2008 18:06:26 GMT -5
Art history is a great reference for general history. When all else fails, art speaks. It's been suggested that Jesus was portrayed beardless because after 70 A.D., most Christians were Gentiles. Also, it's been suggested that He was portrayed as Apollo (With Zues being God). The wierdest thing of all is that Jesus' physical description was not given in scripture. Why? I believe that this was because The Jews who wrote The New Testament (believing He was truly God on Earth) wouldn't dare make or discuss His image. Here is what is so convincing about The Shroud...there were pollens that were found on "on" The Shroud that only existed in Jerusalum at that time and that were indigenous to that area. That's indisputable. That's scientifically proven. There is no doubt about that. And based on that scientific evidence along with the facts that they cannot reproduce the image with all of our modern technology and that the image is "on top" of the fibers and not "in" the fibers, it just leaves no room for interpretation. This is not the work of a man. The question is then of whom? God? Satan? The fruits. That is how we are to judge this tree. |
|
