Koyaanisqatsi

I know I'm pissing on a hornet's nest, but leonarde had posted the following in another <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=51&t=000230" target="_blank">thread</a> and I just had to deconstruct it.

It is my Tao...

This was in response to what actually happened to Jesus on the cross, so why "lenny" decided to post this tripe is beyond me, but there are certain issues that needed to be addressed outside of that thread:

Got that so far everyone? Note that he has simply equated the "headcloth" with the Sudarium of Oviedo.

Ok, here we go...

That's three hours everyone. Jesus died after three hours on the cross.

I can certainly see how christians can claim that Jesus' suffering was more than any other's.

But, onward...

Really? An hour after Jesus dies, somebody puts a headcloth on him to conceal the "ghastly" expression on his face?

Who did such a remarkable thing? How would they do it? Why would God have a "ghastly" expression on his face? Is this at all biblical? What Roman guard would allow such a thing?

Which is it? His side, like the Gospel of John (and only the Gospel of John) tells us, or his chest? They are not equivalent and no one could possibly confuse the two, unless, of course it was deliberate to obfuscate disparate facts.

So, he dies at 3 (after just 3 paltry hours), someone puts a headcloth on him at 4 (resulting in almost certain death for that someone, by the Roman guards, since the whole point of crucifixion was that it is a public death) and then, after an hour of Jesus hanging dead and after someone puts a headcloth on him, then one of the guards decides, for no reason whatsoever, to jab him with a spear.

He's been dead for an hour--so much so that guards allow somebody to stick a headcloth on him--but hey, just in case, I'll jab him with my spear...

What was one of those criterion, leonarde? Logic?

Even though we know from scripture that he most likely died of shock from blood loss and not asphyxiation (he spoke just before dying and his legs did not need breaking to facilitate death) and even though he had been hanging there dead for at least an hour, more likely two to three hours based upon the unprecedented (and entirely unbelievable) story of Joseph waiting until Jesus is dead and then going to Pilate to petition for the body and the time that would take, if it ever happened, any possible remaining post-mortem blood would have pooled in his shins/feet, if not drained completely out of the holes in his feet, but again, let's not apply deductive logic...

A tremendous amount of any alleged post-mortem blood from the face and head, I would logically deduce, considering it had been on his head for at least an hour prior to Joseph removing the body (according to leonarde), absorbing the "fresh blood" he alleges that is still somehow remaining in the upper torso and not pooled in his lower body the way post-mortem blood would according to the laws of gravity.

So, wait a minute. Jesus dies at 3, somebody puts a "headcloth" on him at 4 and then the body is removed from the cross at 5 and then another hour later he is transported to the tomb?

That's a remarkably thorough hours worth of blood and body washing, don't you think?

Well, again, if we're going by scripture, the body was prepared fully for burial according to Jewish custom (which we'll investigate fully in a moment). This meant a thorough washing, the application of anointing spices and oils and (again according to scripture, but not according to burial customs at the time of Jesus, which we'll get into in a moment) the body is bound in strips of linen (not one big head-to-toe shroud) and a headcloth ("napkin") is wrapped around the face.

Again, according to GJohn, we are told this headcloth is separate from the body strips and not applied while the body is still on the cross (which, Roman guards would never have allowed in the first place, even without biblical confirmation), thereby conclusively proving that the Shroud of Turin could not possibly be Jesus' burial shroud (since there was no such burial shroud) but let's just forget all about the scriptural account, right?

According to you, Joseph and Nicodemus had a whole fricking hour to thoroughly and quite casually clean, anoint and bind the body in strips of linen and wrap the head in a "napkin" (according to the scriptural account), so how does your "deductive logic" arrive at a "partial cleansing?"

It takes more than an hour to clean a body and wrap it in a head-to-toe shroud?

"Still-liquid?" A body that has bled to death and remains hanging--dead--for at least an entire hour, most likely two to three hours still has fresh blood (that isn't pooled in his shins/feet)? This is a result of your deductive logic or religious desperation?

I know it's not as a result of your investigative journalism, so don't even try to rehash that pointlessness. Unless you have any post-mortem evidence of a man who has died of blood loss and then hung on a cross dead for at least an hour, of course.

Were they now? And why would that be? Biblical source on that? Jewish burial practice source for such a thing? Joseph and Nicodemus had plenty of time to go pick flowers to place inside the strips of linen (not a cloth) but not enough time to thoroughly and completely wash the dead, dried out body of all remaining blood?

Deductive logic, sir, deductive. Not inductive.

For what purpose? The dual shrouds (according to your version) would have double wrapped the head. The eyes would have been perfectly protected under two layers of burial linen.

Coins were placed on eyelids because the weight would keep them from flipping open during rigor mortis. The purpose was for viewing the body, which Jewish burial custom precludes.

There is some conjecture regarding the money needed for crossing the river styx, which is not a Jewish myth, nor applicable to Jesus, if indeed Jesus was God or even believed to be God, as the GJohn implies is the case with Joseph, so even tradition based on myth doesn't explain why Jesus, a Rabbi would have coins put on his eyelids!

But now let's go to ancient Jewish burial customs that I found while surfing the net. Pay particular attention, if you would, to the dating of the first use of tahrihim, burial linens:

Fascinating. Prior to the second century CE, it was Jewish custom to bury the deceased in expensive clothing.

Funny how the oldest NT papyri date to the second century, John, the only Gospel relating the shroud of Turin in any way to Jesus dating to around the 4th century, I believe.

What does your deductive logic make of that?

Or this...?

Keep in mind, that this was established as Jewish law at least a century after Jesus' alleged death, yet coincides perfectly to NT dating (especially John), no matter how you slice it.

There's that reference again to "expensive," "lavish" burial clothes that Joseph, being a rich man, would have used according to the Jewish burial customs of the time of Jesus, yes?

So, what constituted a burial shroud in the second century CE?

Interesting, but what were they? Strips? One long head-to-toe wrapping?

Keeping in mind that this is from the second century forward, of course, and therefore not applicable to Jesus, what did the burial shroud consist of?

Hunh. A shirt, pants, a head covering and a belt? No mention at all of a single head-to-toe shroud, like the shroud of Turin either in the second century or prior.

Oh, well maybe that was what...no, it's not head-to-toe and was established as Jewish burial law after Jesus' alleged death, remember? Prior to the second century and even into the second century, the dead were burried in clothing, not clothes.

Curious.

Oh, well, maybe this is what the shroud of Turin...no, no, it can't be either, because this was all established after Jesus' alleged death; at least one hundred years after...

So, that can't be the shroud of Turin either.

What then was Jesus buried in according to the scripture? Not expensive, lavish clothes, that's for sure. According to GJohn, his head was wrapped in a "napkin" and his body bound in strips of linen.

Does that sound like the custom first established by Rabbi Simeon ben Gamliel II, who, in the second century CE, asked to be buried in inexpensive linen garments?

Sounds mighty similar to me; far more similar than one huge, head-to-to/back-to-front shroud like that of Turin, yes?

So, we've got Jewish burial law established in the second century CE coincide almost perfectly with the NT accounts, which have also been dated (the papyri, mind you, not conjecture as to when they may or may not have been written, but the physical proof that survives) to the second century.

We also, by the way, have no mention of coins being placed on anybody's eyes and a problem with the fact that, Joseph, being a rich man, would have had the means and obvious conditioned impetus to bury Jesus according to the customs of his people, which would be to use expensive and/or lavish burial clothing, not inexpensive strips of linen that were never a part of Jewish burial customs until the second century.

Quite an interesting conundrum made all the easier to explain by the dating of the NT papyri and my own personal contention that the passion narrative versions (at least) were most likely not written by Jews at all.

Any more evidence of my contention? Well, yes. There's the "trial of Jesus" that never would have been conducted, let alone conducted in the manner it was alleged to have been conducted.

For one thing, the Sanhedrin could have just stoned Jesus to death at any time and tried:

And, as Jesus his bad self tells us in Luke, such stoning was well in keeping with Jewish practice and accepted as part and parcel to being a prophet:

But back to the "burial" of Jesus that never happened. What evidence is there that such a burial betrays either non-Jewish tradition or the lack of basic Jewish rituals, setting aside for the moment the fact that the burial in a tomb contradicts Jesus' own prophecy of being "buried in the heart of the earth"?

So, we see not only is burial in the ground a biblical requirement with its origins in Genesis, but that such a ritual--particularly the filling of the grave--was considered a religious privilege and duty as well as an expression of honor for the deceased.

What did Joseph do? Bound Jesus' body according to burial customs not in practice until the second century and placed him in a tomb, contradicting both Genesis and Jesus' own prophecy of being three days and three nights in the "heart of the earth."

So, the authors of the passion narratives (or, more accurately, the author, since there was most likely only one story--Mark's--and the others just copied and embellished it (<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0060653752/qid=1020188518/sr=5-3/ref=cm_lm_asin/002-1553300-9233636" target="_blank">Burton Mack</a>) get several basic Jewish (and Roman) customs wrong.
<ol type="1">[*] the unnecessary and unbelievable trial sequence[*] the releasing of a convicted criminal during Jewish holy days that was never a Roman or Jewish custom[*] the description of second century Jewish burial customs[*] placing Jesus' body in a tomb instead of burying the body in the earth as Genesis and the Talmud instructs[/list=a]

I'm sure there are more, but those are the most damning and the most prevalent examples of blatantly incorrect historical accounting, demonstrating a deliberate fraud, IMO.

Add in the fact that the Pauline cult actually went after gentiles and otherwise "non-Jewish" members and the fact that the whole NT is decidedly anti-Jewish, pro-Roman with a Hellenistic sensibility instead of what it purports to be (the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy) and you get a compelling argument for the authors of the NT not being Jewish at all, IMO, let alone offshoots, but that's really neither here nor there.

Removed by whom? Where are you getting this from? Certainly not the Bible!

How convenient. These Jews had a powerful sway over these silly, easily manipulated Romans. Especially after Pilate pronounces Jesus innocent of all crimes three f-ing times!

You'd think the Jews would have followed custom and Jesus' own prophecy and buried him in the ground so that there would be absolutely no question about either his death or his resurrection and no need for Roman guards.

I wonder what the sequence was? Let's use deductive logic...

According to the NT, the Jewish leadership turns to their murderous oppressors for help in sentencing one of their own under Roman law, even though such a procedure would be utterly and completely pointless, illogical and ludicrous (like Auschwitz victims asking the Nazi's to conduct a trial in order to kill one of their own for transgressions against Jewish law).

In spite of that, Jesus is declared innocent of all crimes three times by Pilate (as well as Herod) and set free. He is a free man and has officially been declared as such under Roman law by Pilate and set free.

Somehow (within a parenthesis) that officially thrice declared innocence and freedom is illogically turned into the worst form of capital punishment then known.

Joseph awaits Jesus' death and then risks his own life by petitioning Pilate for the body, which he allows for no given logical reason.

Joseph then performs second century burial procedures by binding the body in strips of linen and wrapping the head separately in a "napkin," ignoring the most basic of all Talmudic commandments and contradicting Jesus' own prophecy by placing Jesus in a tomb (aka, cave) instead of burying him in the earth.

At the insistence of the Jews Roman guards are sent to the tomb. Why? To make sure that Jesus isn't God? To make sure that Jesus doesn't resurrect from the dead? Why?

What Roman would have done such a thing? What Roman would have cared about such a thing? What Roman would have believed such a thing?

SANHEDRIN: Say, thanks a lot Pilate for killing the guy you thrice pronounced officially innocent of all charges for us. We kept missing him with our rocks. Now, if it's not too much, would you mind posting a couple of your guards at the tomb until they die just in case Jesus really was God and resurrects from the dead? Because, we think that's a real possibility and none of us were around to hear his prophecy about popping back up after three days and three nights, so we're going to have to just ask you to keep those guards at his tomb for the rest of their natural born lives, umkay? Could you do that for us, too, hmmm? Umkay?

PILATE: You crazy Jewish bastarde! I would do any ting for you guys, you know that! Of course I willa putta my best guards atta the tomba for their entire lives just ina case Jesus really was The One True God That I Don't Believe In! We Romans have nothing but the highest regard for you Jews and your beliefs! That's why we're here! To make all of you as happy as possible, non? Ciao!

SO MANY LOGICALLY INCONSISTANT AND HISTORICALLY ASININE HOLES <img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

Actually, wasn't he supposed to be in hell freeing all of the souls?

Oh, no, that's right, he was in paradise with the other guy...no, wait, that would have been Friday...no, couldn't have been according to Jewish custom, wherein a day ended at sundown, so that's another prophecy that didn't come true...

It's so hard to keep bad fiction consistent.

AIRNT! WRONG ANSWER.

<ol type="1">[*] in order for Jesus prophecy of three days and nights in the earth to have been true, it would have had to have been Monday morning.[*] the tomb was not empty according to Mark, the first to create the myth; there was a man inside. Not an angel sitting on the rock, but a man sitting inside.[*] according to John, the head cloth that you argue was removed and/or used as a wash cloth, was found inside the tomb, lying separate from the burial strips (plural).[/list=a]

If the head cloth was removed around 7 pm and it was nothing more than something used to absorb or clean the wounds then Joseph would have never left it in the cave as that would have made the entire burial site unclean and an abomination in God's eyes according to Jewish burial law, but then we've already established that Joseph was not following Jewish burial law and/or that he was impossibly following second century Jewish burial law, which still would have forbidden him from leaving behind Jesus' blood, snot and excreta rag.

None of which are attested to by anybody who was actually there; all of which are written about at least three to four decades later by one author and embellished by others even later still.

So, what do we have?

Blatant (and, IMO, deliberate) anti-Jewish (not to be confused with mere anti-Semitic) fraud written by arguably non-Jewish authors with Hellenistic bents in Greek many, many, many, many, many years after any alleged events that follow none of the then current Jewish/Roman customs (as well as logic) all of which prove conclusively that the Shroud of Turin could not possibly be Jesus' burial strips as described in the only gospel that can be compared to the wounds of the image on the Shroud, the GJohn.

Q.E. Mother-f*cking D.

Comments...?

(edited for formatting - Koy)

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>

Mad Kally

That's all F**ked up that he goes by my dog's name. My Lenny is smart..

cloudyphiz

yeah, but i think 'leonarde' is closer to 'leonardo' than to lenny.
that may explain a lot.

-gary

Egoinos

Cool post.
Never even thought about most of that before. I might look into this further - I have an exam coming up on the Historical Jesus and the historicity of the passion and trial accounts This could make me look well-read...

--Egoinos--

Tusitala

It has become clear to me that the reason I flunked school was because I never did my homework.

Koy, on the other hand, would appear to have done his. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Tusi

leonarde

Gee, youse guys, thanks for the vote of confidence
!!!!! But I'm in a bit of a rush right now. Back
later with a response for Sir Koy. Anon!

Koyaanisqatsi

I've modified it slightly to correct for minor confusions, lenny, so re-read it before responding.

leonarde

Greetings! As was true with the 18 page thread I
will probably restrict myself to multiple shortish posts rather than one, two, or three long ones.
To Koy: I thank you for starting this thread: I had some vague ideas about starting one myself but
then thought better(?) of it. I also thank Koy for
his participation on the 18 pager: I only had perhaps 5 or 6 pages worth of material in me; it was the oppositionists who bulked that thread up.
This seems like the best place to correct a couple
mistakes I made on the previous thread and to give
a good reference for those interested.

1)a Roman whip for scourging is a "flagrum" not
a "flagellum" as I erroneously put it.

2)instead of "spectrography" I said "spectography"
the latter being a non-existent word.

The reference: since I gave many many URLs the last time, I thought I should give a hard copy reference: the current best English-language treatment of the Shroud is "The Blood and the Shroud" by Ian Wilson (1998)Touchstone/Simon and
Schuster. First rate all the way. (in SOME public
libraries; otherwise $14 in a bookstore plus tax).
The only weakness is that the information cutoff
is around mid-1997 and so there is NOTHING in the
book about the Sudarium of Oviedo. Comparisons and
crossreferences between the Shroud and the Sudarium are one of the more fruitful of Shroud research areas in recent years.

I also thought about how one could possibly read
about Yves Delage's paper reading at the French
Academy of Sciences in 1902. The New York Times
might well have had an account of the meeting. If so it would be in the week of April 21 to 28th. If
there is a NYT account it would be on microfilm.

Just a couple points this post.
No, the Roman guards outside the tomb were there
to keep the body from being STOLEN by disciples who, so the Sanhedrin members feared, would then
use the MISSING body as evidence of a resurrection.

To me being in a cave IS being in the earth. But
perhaps that is JUST me.

Koy's depiction of Pilate and Company at full roar, and in Italian dialect at that!!, is very entertaining.

Here's the way I understand the geopolitical situation: Pilate, who had been prefect since about 27 AD(?) had had some tensions with the local Jewish religious authorities before. Their tactic seems to have been to threaten(by implication)Pilate with (possible) recall by informing the Emperor (Caesar)about his misrule.
THAT is the import of the charge of "being no friend of Caesar" (if he didn't execute the would-be King of the Jews). Perhaps the prospect didn't faze Pilate TOO much but for him there was
no countervailing pressure: by crucifying Jesus he
risked nothing.

I'll get back to the burial linen on my next post.
Thank again, Koy! I see you have done some research.

Cheers!

[ May 03, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

Just on the point of the Gospels: I don't agree that they are unreliable; yes there are small inconsistencies but they agree on the essentials.
There is NO consensus among New Testament scholars
that the Gospels were written by one person. St. John's Gospel in particular has much information and detail which indicate that in the VERY LEAST
it was based on an actual eyewitness to the crucifixion.

Unlike the Biblical literalists, I'm not into prophecies: a resurrection after 2 days is fine with me. Jonah would have been jealous.

Having accounts written 50 to 100 years after Christ's death is amazingly useful: only in fantasies could you get such close chronological
proximity.

I don't really see anti-Jewish/anti-Semitic elements to the NT. Which do you mean?

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]</p>

leonarde

Again, Koy did some very nice research on Jewish
burial customs. I found similar stuff.....with one
difference.
My best information on this is from Wilson's "The
Blood and the Shroud" (Chapter 4).
First Wilson lays out the usual proceedures: the
need for a complete body washing and a complete
burial ensemble.(page 54)But then he notes on the
next page that when the deceased died a violent death the procedures changed: no washing was
to be done, the deceased was buried in the clothes
he was wearing at time of death, and a shroud ,not a number of strips, was used.
Let me quote Wilson: Wilson cites Victor Tunkel of the University of
London on these Jewish burial customs. Also cited
are 13th Century Jewish figure Nahmonides and the
Shulhan Aruch, a code of Jewish law. The latter gives a description of the shroud used in such a
burial: 'a sheet which is called sovev'.
It envelops or wraps the body and is a one piece
cloth.

In sum:

1)the Shroud DOESN'T match burial garments for
those who died NON-violently.

2) it DOES match, and match to a "t", everything
we know about shroud for those who died violent
deaths in the 1St Century.

Cheers!