Koyaanisqatsi

John's is the only gospel that mentions a piercing (making a big deal out of it as fulfillment of prophecy), so this means that John embellished Mark's story, which in turn betrays that Mark's story is nothing more than a myth (and John's by extension, since he rewrote Mark).

If Mark's story were an historical account of Jesus/God, then he would not have left out anything relevant or factual about that event (let alone both Matthew and Luke subsequently leaving it out, too), particularly something as important as a prophecy being fulfilled by a soldier piercing God's already dead body and blood and water pouring out!

As Meacham takes great pains to point out (another contradictory element to his "archaelogical" treatise I should add) an already dead body does not bleed and certainly doesn't bleed "copious amounts of blood and water" (as he alleges Origen stated).

Logically speaking, John's account is therefore a fabrication or embellishment and Jesus was therefore never pierced in the side (if indeed he was ever crucified).

If John's account in this regard is to be distrusted (which logically follows for the reasons I've already provided), then we can throw out the shroud on that alone, since the shroud depicts someone who was pierced in the side.

If however, John's account is trustworthy, then beyond the fact that we must now consider the gospel that is farthest removed in time from any alleged actual event more precise than Mark's, Matthew's and Luke's (an entirely illogical assumption to make and therefore a significant problem with all of the contradictions found in those other versions not reconcilable with the one we've now determined to be more precise), we have the significant problem of the face "napkin" as evidence of a separate cloth from the body shroud, also effectively destroying the Shroud of Turin's claims.

It is widely considered by biblical scholars (not atheist scholars, but biblical scholars) that Mark wrote the story of the resurrection and the other authors re-wrote his story.

In other words, Mark is the source for Matthew, Luke and John, not history. That necessarily means that anything outside of Mark was made up by the other authors (if you'll pardon the pun) out of whole cloth as an embellishment of Mark's story.

Since the piercing is only found in John and John mentions it specifically to claim another biblical prophecy fulfilled, then logically this is a fabrication or embellishment of John that never happened (if anything at all actually happened).

Tercel

Two mistakes here:
1. You're siding with "Theophilus", not "Tercel"
2. Theophilus was saying that creationism was unrelated to the shroud's authenticity - not Christianity

Anyone who's intelligent. If the shroud is authentic then it has serious implications – for anyone who’s open-minded enough to accept them at anyrate.

You know, this is probably close on the worst logic I’ve ever heard from you. And that’s saying a lot.

We know that many of the 1st century Jews practiced the custom of putting coins on the eyes of their dead. How? Because archaeologists have found some of their tombs.

My thoughts about your post exactly. Why can’t you write something logical and sensible for once? Perhaps you could try not to be so obtuse while you’re at it?

I can think of two reasons why he might have left it out:
1. Mark didn’t know about it: He probably wasn’t there at the time after all.
2. Mark didn’t think it important either because he didn’t think of the verse John quotes as prophesy (either Mark didn’t think of it as prophesy or simply didn’t think of it). The event is nothing special in itself, after all.

Death in certain ways causes the blood and body fluids to congeal meaning a sword poke in the right place would release them - it’s a known medical condition.

No doubt you’ll seriously qualify this statement if pressed: But as it stands, it’s downright crap.

angelslantern

I personally believe that the shroud is a fake because I dont beleive that this Jesus guy,if he really lived, was the son of any God because Gods are products of mythology. The many stories of creation are nothing more than myth.Science says that we have arrived here because of some sort of evolutionary procces, not because of one of the many creation myths....SCIENCE RULES...RELIGION FOOLS
Angelslantern....from the Truthsearchers

leonarde

Posted by angelslantern: I would paraphrase the above this way:

I, angelslantern won't seriously look at the evidence as to the possible authenticity of the
Shroud of Turin because:

1)(any)god is ruled out a priori.
2) I believe in evolution to the exclusion of
any creative agency.
3) 1) and 2) mean that all religious beliefs are
"myths" (ie untrue)

I would yet again observe that you are specifically saying that you REFUSE to seriously
consider the evidence about the shroud for philosophical/religious reasons.

Do you think that is compatible with the scientific method?

leonarde

Thanks Tercel for your participation here. I'm
a newbie here and hope not to be presumptuous but
I've been reading in a serious way about the Shroud since 1978. The internet sites really add
a LOT!

Your point about the Gospels is well-taken:
generally they are grouped thusly:
1)the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, Luke)
2)John.

Mark is believed by most scholars to be A source
for the longer Luke and Matthew (the main one?).
John is considered NOT to be based on ANY of the
Synoptic Gospels including Mark.
Tradition (but not the Bible explicitly) says
that the Apostle John was the (source) for John's
Gospel (who wrote the actual words is unknown).
The Crucifixion details in John are NOT believed
to be later accretions. (Such religious accretions
rarely, if ever, emphasize the mortality and
physical humiliation of the religion's founder).
John and Peter were (as far as we know) the only
male disciples to stay around to watch the Crucifixion.
Cheers!

[ March 20, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

I should mention about the coins-in-the-eyes
question: one of the reasons this is not a clear-
cut matter is that in 1st Century Judea secondary
burials were practiced: after a year or more,
when there was little but bones left the body was
reburied. Since at this point the coins were probably superfluous, they were discarded/pocketed
by the caretakers.
Cheers!

Tercel

You're welcome. But I suspect you may be confusing me with Koyaanisqatsi since the rest of your post appears to be addressed at the points he was raising. I generally agree with your statements about the Gospels.

leonarde

Posted by Anunnaki: 1)I'm trying to avoid expiring but figure I can
get away with it for only 2 or 3 more decades.
2) I misplaced my victory trumpet ages ago: I
THOUGHT it was next to the tuba in the attic!
3)I have two left feet and so dancing is all but
out of the question.

Seriously, I don't look at threads as contests;
I look at them primarily as places to
1)learn (in a cognitive sense).
2)communicate with others.
3)get a feel for what OTHERS believe and/or how
they think.

The Shroud could be a forgery but the authenticity
adherent(s)still win the "debate".
OR
The authenticity adherent could lose a debate (even badly) but the Shroud could STILL be genuine.

Debating can be fun and stimulating but it isn't
the BEST way to get at truth.....

Atticus_Finch

There are far too many posts on this subject to read them all so I apologize if this has been said previously.

I am a Christian and have faith. However, I do not believe in the Shroud of Turin. Belief in the Shroud has nothing to do with belief in Christ or the bible. Christian relics were big business for many years. Some may actually have been authentic but what is the point. The evidences of creation and the bible are more than sufficient for faith.

Finch.

Koyaanisqatsi

Name one, beside what I argued and you ignored regarding the GJohn.

If it really is Jesus on the shroud then all that means is we have proof that a man named Jesus was crucified in the manner that only one author described. That's it. The fact that the image is imprinted on the shroud is no more mystical than if it’s a fake or some other later generation man crucified. For all we know the cave, this guy (if it is a guy) was put in was loaded with Uranium.

Just click on lenarde's theshroud.com link under Isabel Piczek and you'll see what I mean.

Better yet, here, allow me:

She all but tells us precisely how such an image could have been transferred while at the same time attempting to dismiss it all away with a childish call to poetic mystical thought, instead of applying the example of Madame Currie correctly!

You do the exact same thing. If the shroud were to be Jesus, then that means of the four "witnesses" (Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John) we can logically rule out the other three as being not as precise as John.

You see, these authors are either writing myths or they are recording what actually happened in a factual, historically documented manner, which isn't possible to determine by reading any of them comparatively because their versions contradict each other.

Use the same stupid analogy all cult members use with the eyewitness to a car crash. If we have four people who all say contradictory things about a car crash and then evidence comes forward the corroborates one of those stories as more precise than the other three, then we turn to that one as the most reliable account and discard the other three as being not as reliable!

Try, just once, to use that brain of yours to comprehend this.

If we have corroborative proof that one of them got the details right, then logically that's the one that is (at least) the most reliable.

The problem is, of course that this same most reliable account also tells us that the body of Jesus was wrapped in a shroud and that the head was covered with a separate cloth, thereby destroying entirely the Shroud of Turin's authenticity!

Don't talk about logic, Tercel. It's entirely beyond your comprehension.