Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Littlejohn · 10-12-2012, 12:32 AM

Quote:

More interesting is how so many people who saw this object, which threw their ideologies into doubt, are the same people who embraced the James Ossuary, which buttressed their ideological positions. Skepticism is selective.
.

"..are the same people who embraced the James Ossuary..."

Surely, the one of the James' Ossuary is a fitting example. However, the chrism of emblematic certainly goes to the 'sacred' Shroud! ...

As I already said, well THREE distinct and independent research laboratories, specialized in such kind of researches, have established, BEYOND ANY DOUBT, that the manufact called 'Shroud', preserved in the Italian city of Turin, is a manufact produced in a period of time between the twelfth and fourteenth centuries. Despite this, the Vatican authorities, and also their 'expert' lackeys, swear and perjure about the 'genuineness' of the 'sacred' relic! ... In Italy we say "have a face like own ass" (overt manifestation of hypocrisy by profit's purpose).

Littlejohn S

.

Huon · 10-12-2012, 12:58 AM

The shroud of Turin is a linen cloth (approx. 4.36 m x 1.1 m) which was first shown in 1357 at Lirey, a very small village in Champagne, near Troyes, east of Paris, France. Then, Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of Troyes, published a text of his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, in which it was described how the shroud had been painted. The painter had confessed the whole story to bishop Henri de Poitiers. In 1453 Marguerite de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of Savoy. In 1578 the shroud was transferred in Turin. The tissue was analysed in 1988 by Walter Mac Crone. Radiocarbon datation showed that the tissue should have been made between 1260 and 1390. For more details you might go to :

http://www.shroud.com/history.htm

However, this thread is not that of the shroud.

Littlejohn · 10-12-2012, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huon

The shroud of Turin is a linen cloth (approx. 4.36 m x 1.1 m) which was first shown in 1357 at Lirey, a very small village in Champagne, near Troyes, east of Paris, France. Then, Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of Troyes, published a text of his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, in which it was described how the shroud had been painted. The painter had confessed the whole story to bishop Henri de Poitiers. In 1453 Marguerite de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of Savoy. In 1578 the shroud was transferred in Turin. The tissue was analysed in 1988 by Walter Mac Crone. Radiocarbon datation showed that the tissue should have been made between 1260 and 1390. For more details you might go to :

http://www.shroud.com/history.htm

However, this thread is not that of the shroud.
.

"..The shroud of Turin is a linen cloth ...which was first shown in 1357 at Lirey, a very small village.."

I did not know of such an aspect; however, surely, it was not unknown to the Vatican! ..

This further demonstrates how deep the bad faith of those who have the squalid audacity to talk about 'Christian roots', pretending to forget how many million people, in more than 19 centuries of 'honored' activity these 'roots' have stifled! ...

"..However, this thread is not that of the shroud..."

Yeah ... it's true ... However, this is very useful to understand how much cynical and monstrous is the bad faith of those who are ALWAYS ready to point the finger versus anyone who dare refuting the hallucinating falsehood of the forger clergy, as if the cultural level of the 'common people' is remained to the medieval levels! ...

Littlejohn S

.

stephan huller · 10-17-2012, 10:28 AM

On a personal note the production company that was supposed to do a documentary on the Mar Saba document apparently isn't airing its Jesus Wife Fragment any time soon:

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...yed/?hpt=hp_t3

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 12:14 AM

The owner of the fragment has agreed to give it to be tested.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49483231.../#.UIJNNcUj_9A

Strange for a forger don't you think? I couldn't care less about authenticity but proving a bunch of assholes wrong. Who knows if it will happen though. It might not have been the present owner who did it.

Littlejohn · 10-20-2012, 02:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

The owner of the fragment has agreed to give it to be tested.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49483231.../#.UIJNNcUj_9A

Strange for a forger don't you think? I couldn't care less about authenticity but proving a bunch of assholes wrong. Who knows if it will happen though. It might not have been the present owner who did it.
.

As I already said, however should be the resulted of the test of authenticity, there are other evidences to prove that Mary Salomè of Magdala, one of TWO historical Magdalenes, was the wife of Jesus and mother of his two children: Joseph called 'Barnabas' and John said 'Mark'.

In order do not appear this 'awkward' kinship, the counterfeiter fathers, founders of the catho-christianity, gave birth to a real 'orgy' of mystifications to prevent that scholars could get the start-clue of the intricate 'skein'... As an example, it is highly likely that Mary Salomè was originally called Salomè and that the name Maria was added ambiguously during the editorial phase, in view of the syncretic 'merger' with the other historical Magdalene: Mariamne of Magdala, passed down in history as the Virgin Mary ...

Littljohn S

.

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 10:27 PM

David Trobisch joins the list of experts who 'confirm' that the text must be a forgery. From Facebook:

Quote:

Many of you have asked my opinion on the Coptic fragment recently publicized by Karen King. It seems that a copying error from an online source will carry the burden of proof that it is a forgery.

Also this - http://www.technewsdaily.com/8299-sl...esus-wife.html

stephan huller · 10-20-2012, 11:17 PM

More from Trobisch:

Quote:

As a scholar I don't want it to be genuine. I am afraid that it might be genuine. Why? Because it is so sexy to the public (literally). True scholarship is never of any interest to the wider public. And if it is of interest to the public it cannot be scholarly (I am not serious, but I have often be criticized by scholars, because I make scholarly topics sound interesting -- they feel I discredit the discipline). Few other exegetical methods mirror our emotions and prejudices as forgery criticism does. We tend to look for what supports our views and disregard what opposes it. This is why faith communities are so likely to count forgeries among their sacred writings. Truth is, I don't know as a scholar. But as a gambler: I put my money on the forgery side. The writing looks to me very childish, a crude attempt to imitate. But references to GospThomas and GospMary on such a short text -- and sexy -- too nice to be true. And publicized by a Harvard professor, another strike against it! Statistically most forgeries originate where they are first publicized. And the collector wants to stay anonymous! Please, why then publish it? One cannot date the ink without destroying the papyrus. It is easy for specialists to get old papyrus without writing. So the carbon dating does not convince me at all. And we all agree that even the best scenario will only prove that a second century Christian could imagine that Jesus was married. Many contemporary Christians can imagine that as well. There is not much at stake here.
.

.

Regardless by the authenticity of the fragment in question, it would be interesting to know, in my opinion, is whether Trobisch think probable or not that Jesus may have had a wife ...

Littlejohn S

.

Sheshbazzar · 10-21-2012, 11:26 PM

If the Jebus story is nothing more than a story, it may have expanded in a hundred directions and still be nothing more than an entertaining story, with no person ever behind it.
Hell, might as well make up a complete 'genealogy' of the 14 children that Jebus fathered by his 4 wives, and trace his family line down through Adolf Hitler, Charles De Gaulle, and Barrack Obama while we are at it.
Once it is set in writing its virtually assured that some jackass will eventually get around to asserting it as being a factual historical accounting.

10-12-2012, 12:58 AM	#42
Huon Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Bordeaux France Posts: 2,796	The shroud of Turin The shroud of Turin is a linen cloth (approx. 4.36 m x 1.1 m) which was first shown in 1357 at Lirey, a very small village in Champagne, near Troyes, east of Paris, France. Then, Pierre d’Arcis, the bishop of Troyes, published a text of his predecessor, Henri de Poitiers, in which it was described how the shroud had been painted. The painter had confessed the whole story to bishop Henri de Poitiers. In 1453 Marguerite de Charny deeded the Shroud to the House of Savoy. In 1578 the shroud was transferred in Turin. The tissue was analysed in 1988 by Walter Mac Crone. Radiocarbon datation showed that the tissue should have been made between 1260 and 1390. For more details you might go to : http://www.shroud.com/history.htm However, this thread is not that of the shroud.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-17-2012, 10:28 AM	#44
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	On a personal note the production company that was supposed to do a documentary on the Mar Saba document apparently isn't airing its Jesus Wife Fragment any time soon: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/1...yed/?hpt=hp_t3

10-20-2012, 12:14 AM	#45
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	The owner of the fragment has agreed to give it to be tested. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/49483231.../#.UIJNNcUj_9A Strange for a forger don't you think? I couldn't care less about authenticity but proving a bunch of assholes wrong. Who knows if it will happen though. It might not have been the present owner who did it.

10-21-2012, 11:26 PM	#50
Sheshbazzar Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: On the path of knowledge Posts: 8,889	If the Jebus story is nothing more than a story, it may have expanded in a hundred directions and still be nothing more than an entertaining story, with no person ever behind it. Hell, might as well make up a complete 'genealogy' of the 14 children that Jebus fathered by his 4 wives, and trace his family line down through Adolf Hitler, Charles De Gaulle, and Barrack Obama while we are at it. Once it is set in writing its virtually assured that some jackass will eventually get around to asserting it as being a factual historical accounting.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.