Jump to content

Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.

* - - - - 1 votes

Turin Shroud 'is not a medieval forgery'

turin shroud giulio fanti

  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#46    brizink


    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 100 posts
  • Joined:23 Dec 2011

Posted 28 April 2013 - 09:54 AM

View PostMr Walker, on 31 March 2013 - 11:37 PM, said:

You are allowing your distaste for the religious side of christ to influence your belief in his historical side. There is no historical doubt that christ, as portrayed in the gospels as a man, existed. He had followers at the time of his death who worshipped locally, and with in a decade or two were as widespread as rome. There were locala churches across the middle east before the gospels as we know them were ever published. The mythology of christianity today incoporates babylonian egyptian pagan and other mythos. The old testament jewish writings incorporate babylonian and egyptian beliefs, as one would expect given their formation in those parts of the world. Jesus created a pivotal evolution fronm judaism to christianity aided and abbetted by paul /saul But christianity gained the dominance it did in large part because of its universla appeal to the psyche of humanity. Judaism had, "by design," a much more limited appeal, and was self limiting.

And actually there are very few contemporary records of romans of the period, and those include only those already famous in their life times.  Christ never was famous or well known in his life, or even after it for some time. In fact he was unknown to people,  until the few days surrounding his death,  except to the locals who walked with him listened to him and observed him. Some of these loved him, some hated what he was saying. Iam sure some wrote letters some wrote diaries some recorded his sayings These seem to no longer exist as many historical documents no longer exist  but his life lived on in the folowers in the local area who quickly spread the message out into the surounding areas. Paul was writing to churches of these members. He didnt create the "mythology"/story of christ, or the churches, or the followers of christ. They already existed and had done, from 30AD They began as " christian jews" because christ was a jew.

With Paul's work the gospel spread to non jews and they became the principle  audience, because they were more open to conversion than the already very devout jews, many of whom  who saw christ as a blasphemer, or at the very least as a "very naughty boy." The later christians did wrong inpersecuting the jews but then the jews had always been persecuted for example by the romans.

The  catholic church misunderstood the relationship between christ, judaism, and christianity. Judaism is the birth place and cornerstone of christianty, and christ would have been impossible without its background.and history.

You don't think there's a good reason to call Jesus a blasphemer? It wasn't just because Jesus spoke against the Rabbi's or even because he said that he was the only route to heaven. Other people said many similar things and they were not killed for saying those things. Jesus was killed because he claimed to be the messiah, he claimed, as well as others that he would save the Jewish people along with the whole world. I's plausible that the Rabbis would have to have some sort of proof, so the easiest way for proof is to kill him, if he was the messiah, there would be no way G-d would allow him to be killed, even Jesus understood this, which is why he says "G-d, oh G-d, why have you forsaken me?" which is also a reference to the dubious Psalm 22 (1.Not Prophecy, just poetry 2.Mistranslated references). Jesus is shocked and horrified that he is being killed. He had no idea he was going to be killed, despite earlier foreshadowing in the story. Honestly though, I feel like the entire story of how Jesus is so hated, later sought after and ultimately killed and the details that make up this story are all completely made up and are made to fit with mostly mis translated and ex-contextual excerpts from the Tanakh and the Torah. I can almost feel a Zechariah argument coming on, so i'm gonna preempt this one and just tell you that this one is taken out of context, the basis for this is apparent when you read the chapter in it's entirety.

Edited by brizink, 28 April 2013 - 10:12 AM.

#47    docyabut2


    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 4,126 posts
  • Joined:12 Aug 2011

Posted 28 April 2013 - 11:01 AM

View Postbrizink, on 28 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

Seems like good ol fashioned apologist gobblty-gook to me. the author presents his argument well and that muc deserves merit but the fact is that Jesus was discussed endlessly by the Sanhedrin or local Rabbinical order or Jerusalem quite extensively which as you may know were very meticulous and recorded rulings and associated findings tirelessly much like any court of law would today. Nothing from around the time of Jesus, or otherwise mentions a Jesus/Yeshuah for any reason within a reasonable time frame. Someone else made the argument that because he had man y followers to begin with and within a short period of time after his death he was venerated and worshiped all the way in Rome means he must have existed. This is just ridiculous because if we use that train of thought and apply it to any other deity, we must assume they pretty much all had to have existed. I don't believe he existed but that's not the real topic anyway. The legitimacy of this shroud is the topic. It's clearly a fake, and the facts are that G-d is responsible for all things (according to Christians) including the apparent laws of the universe and all the sciences associated with them. In that right, we should be able to apply at least some amount of that knowledge and prove a measurable portion of some proposed miracles, or on the flip-side of that, disprove them.

Perhaps the Jewish priests in their records would never have recorded the crucifixion of Jesus at that time, because he was a man labeled, named on a board set above his cross, as a king of the Jews.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users