The Shroud of Turin...Incontrovertible Proof

[tbeachhead]

Thanks for taking the time...

The image doesn't prove a resurrection. Intense UV doesn't prove life.

The image proves a technology that cannot be duplicated yet, even today...The image is the impact of a higher degree of intense ultra-violet laser light than we can produce and in such short bursts that the fabric was not destroyed but that images (it was flashing light) caught the movement as the body began to rise. The image reveals coins placed over the eyes that can be read and identified as dating to Pilate's day. The image shows a Jewish man that the Romans allowed to wear his phylactery on his right arm, which is visible in the image...and he was not crucified naked, but wore the linen undergarments with a belt, also visible and forming multiple images as the body moved. He was also wearing a medallion around the neck with an Aramaic inscription that is visible and debated. Here's a great blog that you can get more out of than I as to the meaning of the inscription. https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008/11/are-three-hebrew-letters-on-shroud.html

BTW, where did Jesus get the clothing he was walking around in since he wasn't buried in them? Or the 500 saints who burst thru their tombs?

I'm actually surprised you're asking. Do you not believe Isaiah? That there is a resurrection from the dead? We're not raised naked. As I understand it, our righteous deeds are our clothing. BTW, see above. Here's the sequel to the YouTube video I posted, where the artifacts on the body are identified. The producer makes the claim that the letters on the medallion spell "lamb". That turns out not to be as accurate as other guesses.

It wasn't the mother buried there but Jesus' wife.

You said Mary and Joseph. Jesus was never married. I already proved this to you, He is betrothed to a single Bride...and will not have another.

What confirmation?

Read the book of Acts. Jews took up stones to pelt Paul, but no Christian ever took up a weapon against any, and the gospel spread by God "stretching forth His hand and confirming the Word with signs and wonders" wherever the gospel was preached. This is what Jesus prophesied in Mark 16, and what the believers prayed for in Acts 4. I can post the verses if you want to see the actual promises and prayers.

Paul's letters were the earliest letters. The gospels after that.

You are correct, although there is some indication that Mark's gospel was contemporaneous with Paul's letters. And that claim doesn't help you, "By the time Mary was buried, two of the gospels at least had already been written and were in circulation. You really ought to give up on that fraud." History tells up Mary was with John in Ephesus, and three of the gospels were written before she died. Johns was not yet.

No, I'm just going by the science provided by the Red Cross.

Here's a different link which confirms the same thing.

BLOOD TYPE CHART_CHILD FATHER MOTHER-PATERNITY determination by blood type - parents & child

BLOOD TYPE-CHILDREN BLOOD TYPE MATCH TO MOTHER FATHER - PATERNITY FRAUD

canadiancrc.com

You're hurting your own reputation by not following the science.

This is a joke, right? This is an article on determining paternity that shows how easy paternity is easy to defraud. Jesus is exceptional...in that the male DNA came from the Word itself, as I showed you, when Mary took Gabriel's word to heart and said, "Be it done to me according to your word." The Word once again created, as at the beginning, making Jesus your Messiah the last Adam.

Sorry, but humans have two human parents. AB+ blood proves that.

AB+ proves life...not two parents. In fact...your article shows probabilities...only. That's the best the science of paternity can do. It was a good read. You should have read it before you posted it.

Again, you're not addressing your problem.

I've read...and I've shown you that I've read. You, on the other hand, just proved that you cannot even understand the argument you're making. You have to read that article, and see how it shows "paternity fraud" and why it's so prevalent in Canada.

[quite]Well, of course the church would hide the fact that Jesus had a family. A good Jewish man would in fulfillment of the commandments.[/quote]A good Jewish man, for the joy that is set before Him, awaits the bride. You don't seem to understand good Jewish men and their willingness to obey.

You, on the other hand, missed the point again: If they knew where Jesus was buried, they could have debunked the claim. They could not."

He was reburied after the Sabbath. James Tabor talks about this.

There was nothing to be reburied...James Tabor is another fiction writer...and wishes, like you, that the historic claims were not unassailable, and now more so.

The commandments say for man to marry and procreate.

Yep...There's a future there for sure. That, btw, is the gospel fulfilled.

 

[Jewjitzu]

Thanks for taking the time...The image proves a technology that cannot be duplicated yet, even today...The image is the impact of a higher degree of intense ultra-violet laser light than we can produce and in such short bursts that the fabric was not destroyed but that images (it was flashing light) caught the movement as the body began to rise. The image reveals coins placed over the eyes that can be read and identified as dating to Pilate's day. The image shows a Jewish man that the Romans allowed to wear his phylactery on his right arm, which is visible in the image...

Jews aren't buried wearing phylacteries. Case dismissed.

BTW, phylacteries are worn on the head and arm.

Plus, this is an important point to put in the gospels, and it isn't there.

and he was not crucified naked, but

I didn't say he was.

wore the linen undergarments with a belt, also visible and forming multiple images as the body moved.

Where did he get his clothes from after his supposed resurrection?

He was also wearing a medallion around the neck with an Aramaic inscription that is visible and debated. Here's a great blog that you can get more out of than I as to the meaning of the inscription. https://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/2008/11/are-three-hebrew-letters-on-shroud.html

I'm actually surprised you're asking. Do you not believe Isaiah? That there is a resurrection from the dead? We're not raised naked. As I understand it, our righteous deeds are our clothing. BTW, see above. Here's the sequel to the YouTube video I posted, where the artifacts on the body are identified. The producer makes the claim that the letters on the medallion spell "lamb". That turns out not to be as accurate as other guesses.

You didn't answer the question above.

You said Mary and Joseph. Jesus was never married. I already proved this to you, He is betrothed to a single Bride...and will not have another.

Then he didn't fulfill the physical commandments of marriage and procreation.

Read the book of Acts. Jews took up stones to pelt Paul,

And for reason. He was an apostate leading people astray.

but no Christian ever took up a weapon against any,

Try the garden of Gethsemane with Peter, and Jesus saying to others on another occasion to bring those against him and to kill them with swords, etc.

and the gospel spread by God "stretching forth His hand and confirming the Word with signs and wonders" wherever the gospel was preached. This is what Jesus prophesied in Mark 16, and what the believers prayed for in Acts 4. I can post the verses if you want to see the actual promises and prayers.

No need. It wouldn't help.

You are correct, although there is some indication that Mark's gospel was contemporaneous with Paul's letters. And that claim doesn't help you, "By the time Mary was buried, two of the gospels at least had already been written and were in circulation. You really ought to give up on that fraud." History tells up Mary was with John in Ephesus, and three of the gospels were written before she died. Johns was not yet.

You don't have evidence that the gospels were in circulation when Mary died. Again, Paul's letters came out first.

This is a joke, right? This is an article on determining paternity that shows how easy paternity is easy to defraud. Jesus is exceptional...in that the male DNA came from the Word itself, as I showed you, when Mary took Gabriel's word to heart and said, "Be it done to me according to your word." The Word once again created, as at the beginning, making Jesus your Messiah the last Adam.

Sorry, the science debunked you.

AB+ proves life...not two parents.

Two parents. Is based on combinations from the parents blood types. It's science.

In fact...your article shows probabilities...only. That's the best the science of paternity can do. It was a good read. You should have read it before you posted it.

See above. Okay humans passed down DNA, blood types, etc.

I've read...and I've shown you that I've read. You, on the other hand, just proved that you cannot even understand the argument you're making. You have to read that article, and see how it shows "paternity fraud" and why it's so prevalent in Canada.

See above.

A good Jewish man, for the joy that is set before Him, awaits the bride. You don't seem to understand good Jewish men and their willingness to obey.

You, on the other hand, missed the point again: If they knew where Jesus was buried, they could have debunked the claim. They could not."

Given that the gospels didn't come out until the 90s and common knowledge that he was just a man and not resurrected, there wasn't much to protest.

There was nothing to be reburied...James Tabor is another fiction writer...and wishes, like you, that the historic claims were not unassailable, and now more so.

He's books are a good read and informative.

Yep...There's a future there for sure. That, btw, is the gospel fulfilled.

Good luck with that.

 

[tbeachhead]

Jews aren't buried wearing phylacteries. Case dismissed.

He was a Jew buried with a phylacterie on the arm and the forehead. This case cannot be dismissed...It's the IMAGE of your Messiah, fulfilling the Promise God made.

BTW, phylacteries are worn on the head and arm.

You needed to watch the link. You did not. He had both. The link shows all the artifacts on the buried body that are detailed in the 3d image of the man on the shroud. No technology exists to reproduce the artifact.

Plus, this is an important point to put in the gospels, and it isn't there.

Nothing of the burial besides the myrrh and aloe found in the TWO cloths is there. The author was intent on bearing witness to the death, burial and resurrection according to the scriptures. The Tenakh doesn't say anything about phylacteries, so nothing was fulfilled. More happened with Jesus than was prophesied.

I didn't say he was.

This isn't about you. It's about the image. It has been said, and I was taught that the Romans crucified their victims naked to humiliate them. This man was spared that ignominy...

Where did he get his clothes from after his supposed resurrection?

I answered this. It's a weird question. Do you suppose when you're raised from the dead, you are raised naked? As I understand it, you're clothed in your righteous deeds. In the Revelation 19, the Bride is clothed in the righteous deeds of the saints. The Bride groom is clothed in glory.

You didn't answer the question above.

I did. Let me help you. "I'm actually surprised you're asking. Do you not believe Isaiah? That there is a resurrection from the dead? We're not raised naked. As I understand it, our righteous deeds are our clothing." You didn't answer my question. I wonder why? What are you avoiding? Again, "Do you not believe Isaiah? That there is a resurrection from the dead?":

Then he didn't fulfill the physical commandments of marriage and procreation.

First, there is no such commandment. Second, that you think this is logic is silly. He rose from the dead to marry the Bride, Who is now making Herself ready for the wedding supper of the Lamb. You're ignorant of prophecy and what it stands to provide.

And for reason. He was an apostate leading people astray.

Oh. For this "reason?"...then the prophets whom your fathers stoned were all apostates? If you cannot know the way, you cannot know the meaning of "astray." Your own words lead others astray, because you've long fallen from the path.

Try the garden of Gethsemane with Peter, and Jesus saying to others on another occasion to bring those against him and to kill them with swords, etc.

Jesus spoke in parables. In this case Peter took him literally and cut off the servant of your apostate high priest's ear. Jesus healed the ear and said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." At no other occasion was the sword ever taken up in the early church.
You're referring to Jesus speaking in parables and the apostles taking Him as literally as you still do in Luke 22:"35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
36“Now, however,” He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors (Is 53).’ For what is written about Me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” He answered.

One of the two swords was used...once. And Jesus rebuked the user, Peter, and healed the damage to the apostate high priest's servant's ear.

No need. It wouldn't help.

Of course not...you would be seeing evidence again that you would have to reject as with any evidence..

You don't have evidence that the gospels were in circulation when Mary died. Again, Paul's letters came out first.

No one does. No one has evidence of or on the date of Mary's death...No one. Least of all the Roman church. The gospel is not about Mary, and she disappears as do all in history. Best bets put her with John in Ephesus, and John was on Patmos for a time after he survived his deep fat fryolater experience. Marks gospel was circulating by all evidence in 60 AD or shortly thereafter, contemporary with Paul's letters. Luke's and Matthews were next. Whatever claim either one of us makes, it can only be substantiated with conjecture.

Sorry, the science debunked you.

You're still insisting. You are not a biologist...or a French teacher for that matter, because even I get this science. It's the basic biology that children today are being taught to ignore. I'm not going to go further to quote more from your article. Being written by actual scientists, it only speaks of the odds that you are insisting are rigid facts. You really should read the article. It was well written and debunked your claims completely.

Two parents. Is based on combinations from the parents blood types. It's science.

Jesus had two parents...The Word the mother and the Spirit overshadowed the womb and brought life. You're still only highlighting your own desperation.

See above. Okay humans passed down DNA, blood types, etc.

The choice and distinction is made in the womb of the mother when the ovum receives the seed. In this case, the seed was the Word Mary supernaturally received. The rest was made flesh, and dwelt among us. You CANNOT understand this. It's way over your head. Your god is limited to the natural laws you can see.

See above.

OK. "...and I've shown you that I've read. You, on the other hand, just proved that you cannot even understand the argument you're making. You have to read that article, and see how it shows "paternity fraud" and why it's so prevalent in Canada." That's above, so you can see too.

Given that the gospels didn't come out until the 90s and common knowledge that he was just a man and not resurrected, there wasn't much to protest.

This is silly...The persecution of the Nazarene sect began very shortly after the first Pentecost, because the apostles were healing as little Christlings would, and they were demonstrating the authority that the priests and scribes lacked, just as Jesus did before them.

His books are a good read and informative.

I like fiction, especially when it's informative. Cite one and I'll look it up.

Good luck with that.

Gospel doesn't need luck. Just faith...that happens when you finally decide to take God at His Word and stop inventing when things don't work the way you think they should according to your limited imagination.

 

[Jewjitzu]

He was a Jew buried with a phylacterie on the arm and the forehead. This case cannot be dismissed...It's the IMAGE of your Messiah, fulfilling the Promise God made.

This is a joke. Religious Jews aren't buried with phylacteries, nor would religious Jews bury another with phylacteries. That's a fact.

You needed to watch the link. You did not. He had both. The link shows all the artifacts on the buried body that are detailed in the 3d image of the man on the shroud. No technology exists to reproduce the artifact.

See above.

Nothing of the burial besides the myrrh and aloe found in the TWO cloths is there. The author was intent on bearing witness to the death, burial and resurrection according to the scriptures. The Tenakh doesn't say anything about phylacteries, so nothing was fulfilled. More happened with Jesus than was prophesied.

See above.

This isn't about you. It's about the image. It has been said, and I was taught that the Romans crucified their victims naked to humiliate them. This man was spared that ignominy...

See above.

I answered this. It's a weird question. Do you suppose when you're raised from the dead, you are raised naked? As I understand it, you're clothed in your righteous deeds. In the Revelation 19, the Bride is clothed in the righteous deeds of the saints. The Bride groom is clothed in glory.

The custom today is we're buried with clothes. Jesus was buried in a hurry.

I did. Let me help you. "I'm actually surprised you're asking. Do you not believe Isaiah? That there is a resurrection from the dead? We're not raised naked. As I understand it, our righteous deeds are our clothing." You didn't answer my question. I wonder why? What are you avoiding? Again, "Do you not believe Isaiah? That there is a resurrection from the dead?":

See above.

First, there is no such commandment. Second, that you think this is logic is silly. He rose from the dead to marry the Bride, Who is now making Herself ready for the wedding supper of the Lamb. You're ignorant of prophecy and what it stands to provide.

There are two commandments to marry and procreate. It's in Genesis. I'm shocked you didn't know that.

Oh. For this "reason?"...then the prophets whom your fathers stoned were all apostates? If you cannot know the way, you cannot know the meaning of "astray." Your own words lead others astray, because you've long fallen from the path.


Jesus spoke in parables. In this case Peter took him literally and cut off the servant of your apostate high priest's ear. Jesus healed the ear and said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword." At no other occasion was the sword ever taken up in the early church.

Then you don't know how the church persecuted the Jews.

You're referring to Jesus speaking in parables and the apostles taking Him as literally as you still do in Luke 22:"35Then Jesus asked them, “When I sent you out without purse or bag or sandals, did you lack anything?” “Nothing,” they answered.
36“Now, however,” He told them, “the one with a purse should take it, and likewise a bag; and the one without a sword should sell his cloak and buy one. 37For I tell you that this Scripture must be fulfilled in Me: ‘And He was numbered with the transgressors (Is 53).’ For what is written about Me is reaching its fulfillment.”
38So they said, “Look, Lord, here are two swords.”
“That is enough,” He answered.

One of the two swords was used...once. And Jesus rebuked the user, Peter, and healed the damage to the apostate high priest's servant's ear.

First blood.

Of course not...you would be seeing evidence again that you would have to reject as with any evidence..

What evidence?

No one does. No one has evidence of or on the date of Mary's death...No one. Least of all the Roman church. The gospel is not about Mary, and she disappears as do all in history. Best bets put her with John in Ephesus, and John was on Patmos for a time after he survived his deep fat fryolater experience. Marks gospel was circulating by all evidence in 60 AD or shortly thereafter, contemporary with Paul's letters. Luke's and Matthews were next. Whatever claim either one of us makes, it can only be substantiated with conjecture.

Paul's letters were circulated first.

You're still insisting. You are not a biologist...or a French teacher for that matter, because even I get this science. It's the basic biology that children today are being taught to ignore. I'm not going to go further to quote more from your article. Being written by actual scientists, it only speaks of the odds that you are insisting are rigid facts. You really should read the article. It was well written and debunked your claims completely.

Because the science shows two human parents are required for AB+.

Jesus had two parents...The Word the mother and the Spirit overshadowed the womb and brought life. You're still only highlighting your own desperation.

See above.

The choice and distinction is made in the womb of the mother when the ovum receives the seed. In this case, the seed was the Word Mary supernaturally received. The rest was made flesh, and dwelt among us. You CANNOT understand this. It's way over your head. Your god is limited to the natural laws you can see.

DNA is physical.

OK. "...and I've shown you that I've read. You, on the other hand, just proved that you cannot even understand the argument you're making. You have to read that article, and see how it shows "paternity fraud" and why it's so prevalent in Canada." That's above, so you can see too.

Yes, there's fraud but the science shows two parents for AB+.

This is silly...The persecution of the Nazarene sect began very shortly after the first Pentecost, because the apostles were healing as little Christlings would, and they were demonstrating the authority that the priests and scribes lacked, just as Jesus did before them.


I like fiction, especially when it's informative. Cite one and I'll look it up.


Gospel doesn't need luck. Just faith...that happens when you finally decide to take God at His Word and stop inventing when things don't work the way you think they should according to your limited imagination.

I just follow Tanakh and science.

 

[Jewjitzu]

I'm actually surprised you're asking. Do you not believe Isaiah? That there is a resurrection from the dead? We're not raised naked. As I understand it, our righteous deeds are our clothing. BTW, see above. Here's the sequel to the YouTube video I posted, where the artifacts on the body are identified. The producer makes the claim that the letters on the medallion spell "lamb". That turns out not to be as accurate as other guesses.

I found this video interesting. It mentions Jesus' long hair and it possibly indicating that he took a Nazarite vow as I have said before in other places, that he did during the last supper, abstaining from wine. Your thoughts?

 

[tbeachhead]

I found this video interesting. It mentions Jesus' long hair and it possibly indicating that he took a Nazarite vow as I have said before in other places, that he did during the last supper, abstaining from wine. Your thoughts?

The wine at the last supper would preclude the Nazirite vow, wouldn't it, as would the gallons and gallons of wine He produced in Cana of Galilee? But the braid is clearly present in the back side image.

I have always thought the concept of "long hair" was relative. I knew beautiful Christian girls in my teen years whose hair went down below the waist. That was long hair. We were hippies with our hair to the shoulders. That wasn't long, using the girls' hair as a standard.

All of this is interesting to me. It had been several years since I last looked at the "latest" on the shroud. My post on the sudarium is brand new discovery...I'd never heard of it before, and these are the types of claims of which I'm usually most skeptical. I'm losing my skepticism here. Can you help me?

 

[Jewjitzu]

The wine at the last supper would preclude the Nazirite vow, wouldn't it, as would the gallons and gallons of wine He produced in Cana of Galilee? But the braid is clearly present in the back side image.

Right, but afterwards would be a problem like what he drank at the cross.

I have always thought the concept of "long hair" was relative. I knew beautiful Christian girls in my teen years whose hair went down below the waist. That was long hair. We were hippies with our hair to the shoulders. That wasn't long, using the girls' hair as a standard.

All of this is interesting to me. It had been several years since I last looked at the "latest" on the shroud. My post on the sudarium is brand new discovery...I'd never heard of it before, and these are the types of claims of which I'm usually most skeptical. I'm losing my skepticism here. Can you help me?

In what way?

 

[tbeachhead]

Right, but afterwards would be a problem like what he drank at the cross.

You've already tried that...what they shoved in His face. He didn't have much choice, and there is no evidence he drank, and clear evidence He refused it.

In what way?

I entitled both of the last threads "incontrovertible." I eschew hyperbole...but in the case of the shroud and the sudarium, I don't think the evidence can be refuted.

 

[Jewjitzu]

You've already tried that...what they shoved in His face. He didn't have much choice, and there is no evidence he drank, and clear evidence He refused it.

We all have a choice. He received it, and drank it, and broke his vow.

John 19:30
When Jesus had tasted it, he said, “It is finished!” Then he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

Strong's Greek: 2983. λαμβάνω (lambanó) -- to take, receive

to take in the mouth: something to eat, John 13:30; Acts 9:19; 1 Timothy 4:4 (cf. Latincibum capio, to take food); to take anything to drink, i. e. drink, swallow, ὕδωρ, Revelation 22:17; to drink, τό ὄξος, John 19:30;

I entitled both of the last threads "incontrovertible." I eschew hyperbole...but in the case of the shroud and the sudarium, I don't think the evidence can be refuted.

I see differently.