Minimalist

Arnoldo, don't you even read what you post? Do you see the word "may" in there.

That means also that it "may not."


Aren Maier's point is well-taken. At least, unlike Mazar, he does not work for a bunch of right-wing Jews who are trying to use archaeology to evict Palestinians from their homes.

Try not to be fooled by such con men so easily, Arnoldo.

arnoldo

“No foreigner shall enter within the balustrade of the Temple, or within the precint, and whosoever shall be caught shall be responsible for (his) death that will follow in consequence (of his trespassing).”

http://www.templestudy.com/2008/02/0...hurch-exhibit/

Johnny Skeptic

Of course, which means that, for instance, when you claim that Jesus said a specific thing, you need to be sure that you have sufficient historical evidence that he probably said it, which you don't. In addition, if you wish to claim that a localized flood occured in Mesopotamia that killed all of the humans except for Noah's group, you need to be sure that you have sufficient historical evidence that that happened, which you don't.

It is not a question of whether or not the Bible contains many errors and interpolations, only a question of how many.

mountainman

This sounds very similar to a 5th century - Inscription

New York Times Article
Published: March 18, 1894
Copyright © The New York Times

"Early Christian Cursings"
Reports of inscriptions ....

"He that throws rubbish in this enclosure
has the anathema from the Three Hundred
and Eighteen Fathers, as an enemy of God".

Chili

I suppose we call that the sin against the holy spirit that seems to be very pupular in protestant circles where 'to be caught' inside this 'temple' makes one a Christian . . . who no doubt will be sure to die since he had been made aware of eternity that seems to remain on the other side of this great divide.

Notice please that the inscription says that he will be responsible for his own death that will follow in consequesnce of this trespessing.

Chili

Very interesting, Pete. The question I would have is how an icon can be a forgery if it only bears witness to truth. Where I come from it seemed that every city had it's own Mary and each one of them was more special that the other. Most or all churches had an icon someplace and that is how it was, but I have never seen a living forgery who called himself a Christian.

I am not sure if you understand this or not but we were Catholics and that is what we were, and I always thought that if that was good enough for them it was good enough for me. Never once did I hear someonce claim to be a Christian until I met a protestant and I have since learned that this idea often teaches them to crawl, once again, instead of just being happy to walk upright. Is there maybe any truth to that?

Chili

. . . that obviously makes reference to the temple of the body. Now notice also that Jesus was allowed to enter the precinct because he was a Galilean (= was born again), . . . except that he was not 'caught there' but was called and chosen to be a Galilean.

rcscwc

I did not prounce on the SHROUD. I was searching for Hindu laws in regard the DOCUMENTS. It is a document? Let xians say NOT.

A document MUST be ATTESTED about its truthfullness.

[Hindu laws provide WHO can attest to its truth , the KING is not in the list!!!]

What are the credentials of this document aka THE SHROUD?

A BIG ZERO, incidentally, defined by Hindus.

Now the SHROUD. It could be a copy of the authrntic original. Is it? Who has attested to the authenticity? NONE.

Do I draw a map?

arnoldo

There were certainly many fake shrouds made. Is the following one one of them?

Turin Shroud expected to attract two million visitors: World's most famous holy relic on display for only sixth time in a century

rcscwc

All are FAKES.