leonarde

Yet another new (to me!)URL, this one on the Sudarium of Oviedo and its relationship to the S of Turin is at:
<a href="http://www.rense.com/general4/turin.htm" target="_blank">http://www.rense.com/general4/turin.htm</a>
Cheers!

Asha'man

Hi Koy,

You seem to have a good handle on researching old Jewish history and customs. Since leonarde seems entirely incapable of discussion, and is merely posting URLs, I have a question for you.

Somewhere I read that the Sanhedrin had the legal authority to enforce capital punishment until the year 40 CE, at which time the Romans took that power away from them. This is directly in conflict with John 18:31, where the Jews protest that they have already lost this power.

Since the Sanhedrin had pronounced Jesus guilty of blasphemy (Mark 14:64), they should have stoned him to death and hung the corpse on a tree, as required by Jewish law (Deu 21:21-23). Going to the Romans only makes sense if the gospels were written much later, long after everybody had forgotten that the Sanhedrin used to have real authority.

So, what evidence can you find out about the Sanhedrin and capital punishment?

Tercel

Koy,
As usual, most of your posts are full of nothing more of assertions of what you wished was true. Your ignorance of some basic facts becomes particularly obvious when dealing with the dating of the Gospel of John.

You wrote:
"Funny how the oldest NT papyri date to the second century, John, the <strong>only</strong> Gospel relating the shroud of Turin in <strong>any</strong> way to Jesus dating to around the 4th century, I believe."
Now this sentence is slightly confusing, but it seems you're saying that our oldest papyri containing a piece of the Gospel of John dates to the 4th century.
Indeed this is apparently what you're saying because in a later post you write:
"(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),"

Are you just being an idiot deliberately or have you never ever read anything on the subject??? Even occasional lurking on the BC&A forum should have been enough to tell you that:
The (probably) oldest NT papyri we have is p52 which <strong>is a piece of the Gospel of John</strong> - and is a piece from the passion narrative section no less. And the common consenus in recent years seems to be that p52 should be dated no later than 125AD.
Furthermore:
p90 contains a larger section of John also containing a piece of the passion narrative and dates around the middle of the 2nd century.
p66 contains most of John's gospel and dates c200AD.
And there are 12 papyri containing portions of John's gospel dating to the 3rd century.

Oh and you may be interested to know that archeological digs in Jerusalem have shown that the writer of John had accurate knowledge of Jerusalem as it existed before the destruction by the Romans in 70AD. What implications that has for the Gospel's dating I leave for you to decide...

leonarde

Asha'man,
You say that I seem incapable of discussion. How is it then that when you on the 18 page Shroud thread asked a series of questions of me, not about things that I had claimed but about things that Koy had claimed or, in his words, "speculated" about arterial wounds, (based VERY vaguely on URLs provided by me)and yet
when this came to light, you were no longer able
to discuss it? (you could check out page 12 of that thread). Let me guess: you are going to disappear from this thread as well, right? And then in the very next Shroud thread you will claim I was incapable of discussing the things here.
Cheers!

Principia

Now, now, leonard(e):

Perhaps he read your plea for people not to 'gang up' on you as you did <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000642" target="_blank">here</a>... But even if he didn't, what exactly do you hope to achieve with this peevish retort? The truth is that you and Koy continue to talk past each other, with Koy having the more analytical arguments. Like the previous thread, your counters are still weak at best because of your continued reliance on arguments from authorities.

Now, given your strategy, there is no possible way for anybody to consider you an authority on the Shroud in any sense. So, your posts beg the question: Why bother discussing the Shroud if it is not to analyze the evidence? More to the point, why bother presenting evidence that *you* consider irrefutable? On the ARN site, you have already asserted your conviction that the Shroud is nearly 100% authentic (in your own criteria for authenticity). Again, what's your purpose here and now?

I am also confused by another matter about your convictions. You've posted quite a few times on ARN how you would be reluctant to come back to this oh-so-dreaded place. Is this your last hurrah, before you go on your vacation? Did we Infidels (or 'Infantiles' and 'worthy arch-enemies' according to you) leave you so dissatisfied?

SC

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

leonarde

As to the merits on the Sanhedrin's authority: I
haven't of late done any research specifically related to this but to give an overall impression I have from readings over a couple decades:

1)there were a number of illegal or ad hoc
aspects to the Sanhedrin's hearing/trial of Jesus.

2)that, 1), does not prove that things did not
transpire in exactly that way. Extra-legal judicial procedures have not been totally absent
from American history either.

3) just because the Jews may have claimed that they had the right to try someone for crime X,
doesn't mean that the Romans necessarily
recognized that right.

4)the late-at-night aspect of the arrest and trial
indicates that there was a surreptitious element
to the Sanhedrin procedures.

5)turning Jesus over to the Romans meant that the
Sanhedrin members could do away with him yet blame
it on the Romans if it turned out to be very unpopular.

6)the emphasis before Pilate was not blasphemy, which would have counted for little among the Romans, but that Jesus called himself a king.

7)point 6) meant that if Pilate failed to carry out the execution, he could be taxed with being
"no friend of Caesar".

Cheers!

leonarde

Cheers, oh many-faced one! You posted: I didn't start this
thread; it was started by Koy and he stated his intention in the OP. Naturally, since the Shroud is my hobby-horse, I'm only too happy to participate, and then some, in any such thread.
What is your excuse, SC?

Principia

Greetings, oh paranoid one. My excuse, of course, is to remind the readers of your intentions. Hobby? Or perhaps, obsession?

So, please, what does who starting what thread have to do with anything? I ask again, if you already consider the Shroud to be nearly 100% authentic, what is your purpose in 'participating' by re-posting evidence that you already consider irrefutable?

SC

leonarde

Posted by SC: Well,
I have seen some very interesting threads about
the Scriptures here but in terms of the Shroud: no, the only one who has shown much knowledge of
it (and here I'm talking about the 18 pager)is
Tercel. He, of course, is not a debunker: he merely thinks that

1)more tests should be done.

2)one should keep an open mind about authenticity.

Apparently here keeping an open mind is considered very controversial.
Cheers!

Principia

Indeed. If having an 'open mind' entails blind acceptance of any arguments from any proclaimed authority...

But, it would seem then that Tercel is not quite as convinced as you are about the Shroud's authenticity. Does he have near 100% certainty about the Shroud as you do?

SC