outhouse

Your all faith! While throwing out cultural anthropology.


These are all Roman fabrications of a Jewish event.

These Romans competed their Emporers divinity with the Jesus charactor.


Jesus never spoke in front of large crowds, as the fiction fabled sermon on the mount oh wait! valley floor states :constern01:. but Emporers did.

Jesus never had a shining star at birth, but previously Emporers did on coins and claimed these for their own events. :constern01:

Romans played Pilate as washing his hands, inoccent of killing Jesus. Plate was a blood thristy killer who was known to have a severe hatred of Galileans.

Adam

John 20:6 would be the Shroud of Turin, with the text including a superflous "s". The Shroud is so big that it would look like multiple "cloths".

John 20:7 would be the Sudarium of Oviedo stored at the Cathedral in Spain. It was used to cover Jesus's bloody face while he was being removed to the tomb. It has AB blood type (rare in Spain) like the Shroud. It is documented back to the 7th Century, so any dismissal of the Shroud of Turin has to include debunking the Oviedo napkin as well. Google articles are plentiful on both, including Wiki articles with links.

I read Ian Wilson's book decades ago. I see that Frei's pollen studies have since been attacked, but so have all attempts to explain away how the image on the Shroud came about.

Your viewpoint excludes considering the evidence. Mine does not.

Toto

Discussions of the Shroud of Turin belong in the Pseudoscience forum.

The Shroud has been decisively debunked, for many reasons. Try this: The Shroud of Turin: The Great Gothic Art Fraud — Because If It's Real the Brain of Jesus Was the Size of a Protohuman's!

Sheshbazzar

Oh my view most certainly, and most carefully considers the evidence, the quality of that 'evidence', and the source of that 'evidence'.

If you are ignorant and gullible enough to believe that shroud crap, You may as well hang out your stained underwear as being the part of your 'evidence'.

Wanna buy a Holy Prepuce? it was whacked off baby Jee-sooce's dick and is just loaded with Khrists magical healing properties.
Got a whole can full of them Holy Jeesooce nails around here somewhere to. Ain't been selling well lately. Make you a real good deal on 'em, Hell, I'll even give ya a quantity discount.

.

outhouse

I dont believe you have the credibility to posit that, being one would have to know and understand the evidence.

You have not shown anything beyond faith.

Adam

That "brothers" in Mt. 28:10 is more than a fluke is shown by the reading in the parallel spot in John 20:17: "...But go and find my brothers, and tell them: I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." Here there is no mention of Galilee, but John does contain its final chapter John 21 all set in Galilee. Perhaps two traditions developed around this. In one the brothers of Jesus are directed to go to Galilee where they will see his final ascension from a mountaintop there. In the other the brothers were told in Galilee that Jesus would come to them there where he would join them in worshipping the Father God before his final ascension (elsewhere per Luke). The first is emphasized in Matthew and Mark, the latter in Luke, and both are drawn into John. That both traditions are directed at "brothers" reduces the apparent inconsistency among the gospel accounts of the Resurrection.

I'll leave the Shroud of Turin debate in "Limbo" as Toto has ruled it out-of-order here.

(Strangely enough, my 1990 NIV Concordance omits both "brothers" reference at Mt. 20:10 and Jn 20:17 even though they're in my 1978 NIV, so I can't readily verify that "brothers" is never used in the gospels other than for literal brothers (Matthew 18 seems broader). Paul generally means the broader sense, hence it is read back into the gospels readily.

outhouse

Jewish families in Galilee generally had decent sized families, there was a 40% mortality rate by age 5.

If a HJ existed, he probably would have had brothers and or sisters.


But the unknown gospel authors would have never known anything about them.

Toto

Are you seriously suggesting that the "brothers" referred to here are biological brothers and not fellow believers?

Or that the Easter morning scenarios in the gospels are totally inconsistent?

It is out of order because there is no serious debate over whether the Shroud is a fake. It clearly is, in spite of some desparate attempts to identify a blood type.

Adam

Everywhere in the gospels that specific people (rather than moral precepts apparently applying to any "brother" as in forgiving seventy times seven) are called "brothers" it is about biological brothers. All the early Church tradition, however, regards them not as half-brothers but as "cousins" or step-brothers. In this wider sense, yes, I do reject that these two verses speak of the apostles or believers in general.

If not, then the Easter morning scenarios could be contradictory. If Mt. 28:10 means in effect "apostles", then that the eleven turn up at Mt. 28:16-20 contradicts John and Luke that have them see Jesus later that day and hang around in Jerusalem (John 20:24-29) until eight days later, thus leaving the departure to Galilee until even later than this. Why direct the apostles in both Mt 28:7 ("disciples") and 28:10 ("brothers") to go to Galilee to see the resurrected Jesus when he will be seeing all of them at least twice in Jerusalem beforehand? If Mt. 28:7 means disciples in the broader sense and in this case excluding apostles and 28:10 means biological brothers, then the point clears up if we further interpret the "eleven disciples" in 28:16 to mean all the disciples except the eleven (assuming a textual error where it originally read "disciples') or that the eleven disciples in the second week or so go to join the disciples who have already been seeing Jesus in Galilee--maybe Paul's "500 at once" (I Cor. 15:6--and the word there is "brothers", interestingly).

Yes, I used to regard the Resurrection accounts as inconsistent (but believed in the Resurrection anyway, rejecting inerrancy but accepting Higher Criticism), but now see the problem as resolved. This is not to say the four gospels all stem from one consistent account, but that different eyewitnesses gave slightly varying accounts (I still reject inerrancy) that gave rise to the extant texts. For example, that Jesus said "brothers" was remembered by both eyewitnesses (Mary Magdalene who told John Mark and "the other Mary" who told the writer of Twelve-Source) and still stands in both and Jn. 20:17 and Mt. 28:10,respectively , but the ultimate destination or message is different in both. See my post #15 in this thread for links to my two passes-through of eyewitnesses here in FRDB.

outhouse

If you want to understand about the brothers, you would have to get spin in here to translate the greek spelling of "brother" as one spelling indicates family and those of faith.

There is no room for confusion once properly studied. But spelling only idicates authors intent, not accuracy.