Pomp

All I have to say is I'm glad I don't have to referee this round.

leonarde

Well, you did a good job last time, PB!! I don't
expect to go so long this time as there doesn't
seem (from my angle) to be a lot left over.
Cheers! (and glad we are out of your hair)

leonarde

One of the links that I gave on the 18 pager was
<a href="http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_556208.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery" target="_blank">http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_556208.html?menu=news.scienceanddiscovery</a>
wherein a 1st Century corpse and shroud were discovered recently by an archaeologist in the general vicinity of Jerusalem. What is very interesting (for me) is NOT the speculation that this person may have seen
the Crucifixion but that this shroud was evidently of the one piece variety: it was not a bunch of strips. It is the ONLY 1st
Century burial cloth to come down to us (except the Shroud of Turin).
Cheers!

[ May 01, 2002: Message edited by: leonarde ]

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

leonarde

One last thing tonight: whereas I had always assumed that the headcloth was left accidently, now, after reading Wilson, I understand that for
the Pharisees of that time one expected a physical resurrection and so even the blood on the headcloth could be "recycled" on the
resurrection.
Cheers!

leonarde

Oh, and about the flowers: while it cannot be excluded that some of them WERE picked on Good Friday, there is a good chance that the flowers
were BOUGHT by someone (Joseph of Arimathea?)even
as flowers frequently play a ceremonial role even
today in funerals. Golgotha was JUST outside Jerusalem so it should NOT have been difficult to
obtain flowers in that city. While they were being
bought (by a servant of Joseph and/or the women involved)Joseph himself was asking permission of
Pilate to bury the body.
The presence of floral images on the Shroud of Turin, thought about for some time, has been confirmed by Israeli (ie Jewish) botany experts.
These plant species are many of the same as those
for which pollen was found in the 1970s by using
sticky tapes to pull up trace evidence from the threads. Thus there are two mutually-sustaining skeins of evidence that there were flowers entombed with the body AND that the Shroud's origins are Near Eastern, specifically the Jerusalem area. See the links I gave on the 18 pager about "floral images" and "pollen".
Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, so far leonarde has provided nothing at all relevant to what I posted.

I will see if I can find anything relevant post by post and address it.

Then why (and how) would they rely upon Roman guards instead of:
<ol type="a">[*] themselves?[*] following Jewish burial customs and burrying Jesus in the ground, where evidence of grave robbing as opposed to a resurrected body clawing its way out of the ground would be abundantly clear to everybody?[/list=a]

DEductive logic, lenny, DEductive.

Who cares what your opinion is on this?

From Jewish Funerals.org: The commandment to bury in the ground finds its origin in the Bible (Genesis 3:19:"By the sweat of your brow you will eat your food until you return to the ground, since from it you were taken; for dust you are and to dust you will return")

From The Shema Israel International Burial Society: The actual burial must be in the ground, filling the grave completely until a mound is formed. To participate in filling the grave is a religious privilege and duty and is an expression of honor for the deceased.

From Beliefnet.com: "Rabbi Simlai lectured: Torah begins and ends with acts of kindness.... It concludes with an act of kindness, as is written (Deut.); 'And He buried him (Moses) in the valley'"(Sotah 14A). Thus, the act of burial and its preparation is seen as an emulation of G-d, fulfilling the commandment to "walk in His ways."

Tensions like "mass murder?"

You mean like, "Hey, Herr Hitler? Your Kommandant won't conduct a pointless trial for us in order to find one of our own guilty of cliaming to be the Fuhrer of the Jews? Or like a Native American Indian tribal leader going to Custer and asking if the U.S. would try and execute one of their own for claiming he was the President of the Indians?

You mean something patently absurd like that, that the Romans wouldn't give two tiny baby shits about?

Yes, I'm sure a mass murderer assigned to rule over the region would really care what the cult faction in that region threatened him with.

Using deductive logic, I would assume that had Rome received a letter stating that Pilate wasted valuable time and Roman resources to conduct a trial, found a man innocent and then executed him anyway in order to appease the crowd, he would have been recalled much sooner than three years after any alleged crucifixion, yes?

Then why the trial at all? Why didn't he just stab the idiot the second he laid eyes on him? Why find him innocent and then kill him?

So will I.

And, as we shall see, you have not.

Please don't respond to this post until I can respond to all of yours, yes? Unless your aim is to provide so many disparate tangibles, of course.

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

leonarde

I still think that Koy lacks understanding of the
limits and constraints that a Roman governor or
prefect was under. Take this VERY VERY skimpy account of Pilate's time as prefect: As can be seen from the last two sentences, Pilate's tenure as prefect was terminated because
of his inability to quell unrest among his Jewish
subjects. This is an established fact and informs
the interpretation of those who want to understand
his going along with the crucifixion of Jesus.
Source for above:
<a href="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm" target="_blank">http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08344a.htm</a>

Cheers!

leonarde

A URL which covers the same ground as a previous
post of mine reads, in part, as follows: So the placing of the Sudarium of Oviedo
near the body is in perfect accord with customs of
that era. The staunching of the blood via the Sudarium and minimal, if any real cleaning of the
body is compatible with Jewish customs for the victims of violent death.
The first paragraph from Lamm above seems to indicate that it would be okay to wash the blood
that had been shed DURING life (ie before the 3 pm
or so death) but that cleaning the rest of the blood beyond soaking it up with Sudarium would be
out of the question. The above is from:
<a href="http://www.shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-JewishBurial.html" target="_blank">http://www.shroud2000.com/ArticlesPapers/Article-JewishBurial.html</a>
Cheers!

Koyaanisqatsi

I knew you couldn't follow my request .

So, I'll have to conflate all of your most recent posts into one so that I can act as a rudder to counter balance your redirections.

Your second post is a perfect example, where you make and respond to arguments that I never made.

Since I never made such an argument, I'm at a loss as to why you are.

In fact, my argument is that the GJohn proves the Shroud of Turin cannot possibly be Jesus' alleged burial linens.

Would these be the same biblical scholars who translated the NIV, KJV, NASB bibles, because I want to make sure that if you're going to make arguments from authority when they back your arguments (not mine, mind you, yours) that you then don't flip-flop when they support my arguments?

Which means that it was told to someone who told someone who told someone {insert unknown decades here} who wrote it down.

Since this isn't in contention, why are you trying to avoid addressing anything I argued with this pointlessness?

Good, then we both agree that Jesus was a false prophet. Since this, too, is irrelevant to any arguments I made and we both agree that Jesus was a false prophet, we can dismiss this.

The argument is that the stories of wrapping Jesus' body in linen cloths/strips and the head separately in a "napkin" coincide with second century Jewish burial customs, because they were written in the second century.

It is evidence of fraud.

There is no need to go into any more details on this point than already presented. Only apologists are incapable of recognizing the anti-Judaic/pro-Roman elements of the passion narratives.

A nice unbiased source.

This will serve as a perfect example of how your "research" is unreliable and worse, deliberately misleading.

Take particular note of the fact that you make bold assertions and then offer no actual quotes to support those assertions:

You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it, yes? How does he define a "violent death?" Let me guess. He doesn't in any specific terms, because if he did, he would have to state that a person who dies from a "violent death" would be someone who himself either instigated the violence or was in some way a criminal in order for his burial rites to be at all altered.

Kindly explain to me how Jesus' death could possibly be described as a "violent death." If you say it is because he was nailed to a cross and bled to death, then you are saying that just about any death is a "violent death" that doesn't involve dying in your sleep. A heart attack would then be considered a "violent death."

DEDUCTIVE LOGIC.

I could find nothing regarding Jewish customs of "violent deaths."

This is what I did find:

How, exactly, would the Son of God not fall under these guidelines? Because he had been tortured to death by Romans? All Jews who had been murdered by Romans were not afforded the full burial practice?

Deductive logic.

Finally...

Let's see whether or not this singular quote supports anything you have asserted so far. This will be an excellent example of your disingenuous scholarship:

I thought he was supposed to be an expert. So, just like you, your own source resorts to making arguments from authority.

That would be the Shroud of Turin, yes? So we're not talking about ancient Jewish burial customs here and this quote does not support any of the arguments you claimed Wilson made.

So what does this quote tell us? That Wilson is not an expert and that the image on the shroud hints at the possibility that the man would have needed "different funerary arrangements" that are not in any way specified, detailed or even chronicled, just asserted based upon a call to unknown "true experts."

What were these funerary arrangements different than? The implication is that none of the normal Jewish traditions would apply, which is what this vagary is meant to obfuscate.

If you'll pardon the pun, it just doesn't wash.

Absolutely no mention of excluding any Jew from this ceremony or changing the ceremony based on the manner in which the poor bastard died.

GENERAL NOTE: When references are made to "the shroud," it is not one article like a sheet, rather it is: "a set of clothing, a hat, shirt, pants, shoes, coat, and belt. For a man, a Tallit [prayer shawl], preferably his own, is also worn.

REGARDLESS, this still does not address the fact that prior to the second century, Jews would be buried in the most expensive and/or lavish clothing possible and since Joseph was apparently an extremely rich and influential man (how else can it be explained that he could petition Pilate for the body and have his own burial tomb?) and so would have followed the customs of his own day and not use the linen strips of the second century tradition!

But you do not. You just tell us that Wilson does instead of providing either Wilson's own words on the subject or whoever Victor Tunkel is. Again, why are you telling us what somebody may or may not have argued?

This is the worst form of scholarship imaginable. Please do not continue in such a manner. If you wish to make someone else's argument, then quote then directly so that we can assess the evidence for ourselves, unless of course, as I suspect and demonstrate, your intentions are to deceive.

Again, what you have omitted is at issue and your scholarship has already been demonstrated to be untrustworthy so either present a full quote or nothing at all.

The sovev is indeed a part of the Tacharim, but it is just one part.

Regardless, the GJohn still contradicts everything you have been asserting, so which is it going to be? The gospel accounts are lies or they are God's inspired word?

Remember, the GJohn foes into specific detail regarding the burial strips of linen (a second century Jewish tradition) and as we can see from all of my sources, bodies were traditionally outfitted in clothing as part of their burial shroud in order to give proper respect and dignity to the dead for their "last Yom Kippur," which Joseph certainly had the time and conditioning to provide.

Even the fallacious second century description by the author of GJohn states there were multiple strips of linen and a separate headcloth, so this vagary about a person dying a violent death and the implication that only the sovev would be used to cover him with is either biblically supported or traditionally supported.

Non sequitur. You never demonstrated this, merely asserted it based upon unquoted arguments from authority that we are simply to take your word for.

Nor does it make any logical sense, since, arguably, any Jew who doesn't die in their sleep would die a violent death.

That is just a bald face lie.

You have demonstrated that you are not to be trusted. From this point forward, do not assert anybody else's arguments. Quote them directly or nothing at all. Any argument made by you on somebody else's behalf will be immediately dismissed.

I went to the site and found some interesting facts:

Funny how carbon dating works just fine in this instance and you don't seem to be applying the same objections you do to the carbon dating of the Shroud of Turin to the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, but more on this in a moment.

Note also that the DNA test does not mention specifically whether or not the person was Jewish.

The link provided within the article--to the Daily Telegraph--was very interesting indeed.

It's a pity leonarde that your scholarship is so poor (if not, as I contend, deliberately misleading), for had you gone to the link to find out more about this story (indeed, it was the Daily Telegraph's story that was reprinted by Ananova news, apparently), you would have read this:

The same doctor who carbon dated the Shroud of Turin to the middle ages carbon dated this shroud to the 1st century.

Where did you get that from? The only mention of the shroud was that it was wool, not linen. There is no mention of whether or not it was one piece or two pieces or whether or not the body was in clothes or out of clothes or that the person was necessarily Jewish.

Probably he was Jewish, but he could also have been a Roman aristocrat.

Regardless, this tells us nothing other than the fact that the same expert who carbon dated the Shroud to be medieval carbon dated this shroud to 1st century.

So, your choice, lenny. Accept the carbon dating of this expert and end all of this, or jettison this red herring as telling us nothing regarding Jesus or the Shroud of Turin.

Airnt! Nice try, but the same guy who determined this one to be 1st century determined the shroud of Turin to be medieval.

You mean, "rationalized," not "understood."

So, the "absorption" rag that you claim somebody put on Jesus' dead face an hour after death and that Joseph used to wash off the blood, snot and excreta from Jesus' body, was now left on his head? Why are you bringing this up?

Nevermind. I'm tired of you not addressing any of my arguments.

Do not bring up ancillary, irrelevant comments any further, if you please.

No, they do not and they certainly wouldn't have been placed on the dead body and wrapped into the burial clothing.

There is no mention of placing flowers onto the body prior to outfitting the body in tachrichim in any Jewish burial customs that I can find, let alone in the biblical accounts.

There is, however, mention of Joseph and Nicodemus anointing the body with oils and spices. Were any traces of those found on the shroud of Turin?

But since it was not a Jewish custom to wrap flowers next to the corpse, why would they? And why wouldn't the bible mention such a thing? It mentions the anointing with oils and spices.

I see. So let's recap the chronology.

<ol type="1">[*] Jesus dies.[*] Joseph turns to a servant and says, "Buy some flowers so that we can desecrate the body with them, but don't thoroughly clean and wash the body and dress him in the most expensive, lavish burial clothes as is our custom; instead, we'll loosely wrap just his body in one giant linen sheet--you know, like we've never before done?--once I get back from risking my life and livelihood (whatever the hell that is) by going before our oppressors to petition for the body they just murdered in the manner only the most dangerous and hardened criminals against Rome were murdered, because Pilate's afraid of a crowd.[*] in under two hours, Joseph has traveled to Pilate's palace; is granted an audience; bribes and/or uses his alleged political clout to convince Pilate to give Jesus' body to him so that he can place Jesus in an easily accessible tomb instead of burying him in the ground according to Jesus' prophecy, Genesis and Jewish custom since Moses; further convinces Pilate to post armed guards at this tomb indefinitely just in case the man resurrects from the dead and/or somebody steals the body (hint, hint) to make it look like he resurrected from the dead, both of which Romans don't believe in, would know is a lie and couldn't care less about since it would be a matter for the Jews, not the Romans; travels back to Golgotha; washes body (blood, snot, piss, semen, feces; all of which would have naturally expurgated upon death) with a headcloth that he decides to desecrate the sacred burial tomb with by leaving behind on the floor of the tomb; anoints the body with oils and spices; adds flowers for no apparent reason and according to no Jewish burial custom I could find; loosely wraps Jesus' body not according to tradition in the finest, most expensive clothing (shirt, hat, pants, prayer shawl, etc.), not according to "St. John" with a headcloth that is left on the body and strips of linen (more closely resembling second century burial custom, which was approximately two centuries prior to when GJohn may have been written according to the only surviving papyri we have), not according to second century custom where the burying of the body in linen tachrichim was the practice, not according to this recent discovery by the man who also proved the Shroud of Turin to be a medieval fake (in wool), but according to you and the demonstrably biased people you quote from; in one loosely fit head-to-toe linen sheet.[/list=a]

Well, that's certainly a product of your warped deductive logic, because it sure as shit isn't a product of applied critical analysis of the evidence.

No, not the presence as in the Jewish burial custom, just that the flower images match species that can be found in and around Israel.

How about instead I provide some insight that I uncovered, considering your research is so demonstrably and consistently shoddy?

First, let's settle the coins issue before tackling the flowers, since this is all tied nicely together. This is what I found regarding the coins and Dr. Whanger from your favorite website, right? <a href="http://www.shroud.com/lombatti.htm" target="_blank">Shroud.com</a>?

Really? So how did he come to this conclusion?

Pure, unsupported speculation by Dr. Whanger that incidentally lends credence to claims that the Shroud of Turin was a deliberate fake meant to get tourists to come to Lirey as we can see from this next piece that also deals with the flowers as well as some facts regarding other images alleged to be on the shroud, coins included.

Funny how leonarde left them out.

Actually, not funny at all; more evidence that leonarde's scholarship is deliberately deceptive, obviously biased and calculated to provide only that information which supports his own personal wish-fulfillment.

The irony being, of course, that it does precisely the opposite:

Now we know why leonarde inexplicably claims that somebody placed the headcloth (napkin) on Jesus head to cover the "ghastly expression" God had in death.

I like this guy (Chris Cunningham). DEductive logic!

Deductive reasoning at its finest.

Finally on to leonarde's last post after my first response, even though I had requested he not post until I could respond:

WHAT? That quote says nothing of the kind!

It states quite clearly that he was summoned to Rome to give an accounting of his actions and nothing at all about him being terminated because of his inability to "quell unrest among his Jewish subjects."

This is another bald faced lie. Pontius Pilate was recalled to Rome because of the massacre of the Samaritans. In other words, he was recalled due to his excessive cruelty and penchant for mass murder!

In other words, biased, revisionist propaganda.

How do I know this? Look at the source:
A catholic website, no less.

Gee, I wonder if the Holy Roman Empire would have any reason to revise the idea that Pontius Pilate was actually a brutal, ruthless mass murderer who was recalled to Rome and subsequently committed suicide as a result of his massacre of the Samaritans, considering the fact that the passion narratives all paint him out to be afraid of a crowd of Jews at a ceremony that never took place after a trial that would have never occurred, in order to make the Jews (commonly known as Christ Killers) to be the enemy and Pilate nothing more than a pawn to their overwhelmingly powerful influence?

I cannot take any more of your obvious lies, leonarde, so go now directly to my first post and cut and paste it and go through it point-by-point so that we can actually have a debate instead of me having to chase after your posts.

You are no longer allowed to post anything off-topic or that does not directly address the unaltered wording of my posts nor are you allowed to paraphrase anybody else's words, so if you are going to quote, quote in detail.

If you break any of these rules, it will end the debate.

I impose these rules because you have demonstrated yourself to be untrustworthy in your scholarship and deliberately attempting to sidetrack any point-by-point argumentation so that everything I post is ignored or obfuscated and everything you post is a goose chase for me, which I will no longer tolerate.

It's up to you. Point-by-point, or I bow out.

If you think you're capable of addressing real arguments directly and that your position is strong enough to go point-by-point under my conditions, then please take this opportunity to demonstrate that you are a scholar and not merely the transparent propagandist your posts have thus far demonstrated.

(edited for formatting - Koy)

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

leonarde

Another very good source on ancient Jewish burial
customs, and on the S of Turin in general is:
<a href="http://www.theshroudofturin.com/evidence.htm" target="_blank">http://www.theshroudofturin.com/evidence.htm</a>

One of the more relevant sections is as follows:
Cheers!

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