Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

THE HOLY SHROUD

Expand Messages
  • cresciniaustwo
    Chemistry, physics, botany, medicine, archeology, tanatology, photography, coin collecting, Biblical exegesis, the science of textiles, the history of art,
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 15, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Chemistry, physics, botany, medicine, archeology, tanatology,
      photography, coin collecting, Biblical exegesis, the science of
      textiles, the history of art, microscopic observation, space science
      and modern computers continue stubbornly to try to answer the
      fascinating question: who is the man of the Shroud? An incredible
      series of coincidences between the Shroud Image and the Evangelical
      Figure of the Man of Sorrows, crucified in Jerusalem when Pontius
      Pilate was public prosecutor makes it certain that the Sheet kept in
      Turin is that which wrapped the Body of Christ.
      In fact nowadays when we are so preoccupied with images, highly
      sophisticated scientific research and electronic computers, so far
      from the Faith of simple people, have penetrated the Mystery of the
      Shroud Imprint to the point of making us say: the Shroud is not a
      work of man nor of physical causes known to man. We owe them our
      gratitude for this Message to an inattentive and disappointed mankind
      that only in Christ can the Eternal live and not the transient.
      Thirty Flashes on Web Site:
      http://digilander.iol.it/crescinidue
      Tell me eventual impressions of yours on E-Mail:
      flashesgospels@...
    • knoxknoxwhosthere
      I think we should burn it... Cheryl ... science ... in ... the ... mankind
      Message 2 of 13 , Apr 16, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        I think we should burn it...

        Cheryl


        --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., cresciniaustwo <no_reply@y...>
        wrote:
        > Chemistry, physics, botany, medicine, archeology, tanatology,
        > photography, coin collecting, Biblical exegesis, the science of
        > textiles, the history of art, microscopic observation, space
        science
        > and modern computers continue stubbornly to try to answer the
        > fascinating question: who is the man of the Shroud? An incredible
        > series of coincidences between the Shroud Image and the Evangelical
        > Figure of the Man of Sorrows, crucified in Jerusalem when Pontius
        > Pilate was public prosecutor makes it certain that the Sheet kept
        in
        > Turin is that which wrapped the Body of Christ.
        > In fact nowadays when we are so preoccupied with images, highly
        > sophisticated scientific research and electronic computers, so far
        > from the Faith of simple people, have penetrated the Mystery of
        the
        > Shroud Imprint to the point of making us say: the Shroud is not a
        > work of man nor of physical causes known to man. We owe them our
        > gratitude for this Message to an inattentive and disappointed
        mankind
        > that only in Christ can the Eternal live and not the transient.
        > Thirty Flashes on Web Site:
        > http://digilander.iol.it/crescinidue
        > Tell me eventual impressions of yours on E-Mail:
        > flashesgospels@l...
      • raging_calvinist
        Mmm k. gmw. ... science ... in ... the ... mankind
        Message 3 of 13 , Apr 16, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Mmm k.

          gmw.

          --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., cresciniaustwo <no_reply@y...>
          wrote:
          > Chemistry, physics, botany, medicine, archeology, tanatology,
          > photography, coin collecting, Biblical exegesis, the science of
          > textiles, the history of art, microscopic observation, space
          science
          > and modern computers continue stubbornly to try to answer the
          > fascinating question: who is the man of the Shroud? An incredible
          > series of coincidences between the Shroud Image and the Evangelical
          > Figure of the Man of Sorrows, crucified in Jerusalem when Pontius
          > Pilate was public prosecutor makes it certain that the Sheet kept
          in
          > Turin is that which wrapped the Body of Christ.
          > In fact nowadays when we are so preoccupied with images, highly
          > sophisticated scientific research and electronic computers, so far
          > from the Faith of simple people, have penetrated the Mystery of
          the
          > Shroud Imprint to the point of making us say: the Shroud is not a
          > work of man nor of physical causes known to man. We owe them our
          > gratitude for this Message to an inattentive and disappointed
          mankind
          > that only in Christ can the Eternal live and not the transient.
          > Thirty Flashes on Web Site:
          > http://digilander.iol.it/crescinidue
          > Tell me eventual impressions of yours on E-Mail:
          > flashesgospels@l...
        • jasperh98
          Cheryl: I think we should burn it... Jasper: The burning of it is already scheduled. 2 Peter 3:10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which
          Message 4 of 13 , Apr 17, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            Cheryl: I think we should burn it...

            Jasper: The burning of it is already scheduled.

            2 Peter 3:10 "But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in
            which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will
            be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will
            be burned up."


            --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., knoxknoxwhosthere
            <no_reply@y...> wrote:
            > I think we should burn it...
            >
            > Cheryl
            >
            >
            > --- In covenantedreformationclub@y..., cresciniaustwo
            <no_reply@y...>
            > wrote:
            > > Chemistry, physics, botany, medicine, archeology, tanatology,
            > > photography, coin collecting, Biblical exegesis, the science of
            > > textiles, the history of art, microscopic observation, space
            > science
            > > and modern computers continue stubbornly to try to answer the
            > > fascinating question: who is the man of the Shroud? An incredible
            > > series of coincidences between the Shroud Image and the
            Evangelical
            > > Figure of the Man of Sorrows, crucified in Jerusalem when Pontius
            > > Pilate was public prosecutor makes it certain that the Sheet kept
            > in
            > > Turin is that which wrapped the Body of Christ.
            > > In fact nowadays when we are so preoccupied with images, highly
            > > sophisticated scientific research and electronic computers, so
            far
            > > from the Faith of simple people, have penetrated the Mystery of
            > the
            > > Shroud Imprint to the point of making us say: the Shroud is not a
            > > work of man nor of physical causes known to man. We owe them our
            > > gratitude for this Message to an inattentive and disappointed
            > mankind
            > > that only in Christ can the Eternal live and not the transient.
            > > Thirty Flashes on Web Site:
            > > http://digilander.iol.it/crescinidue
            > > Tell me eventual impressions of yours on E-Mail:
            > > flashesgospels@l...
          • maggitta_63
            ... AMEN! and Amen :) d M
            Message 5 of 13 , Apr 17, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              > I think we should burn it...

              AMEN! and Amen :)

              d'M
            • Dr�usioGon�alves
              Dear sir, SOLA SCRIPTURA !!! The Bible alone is enough!! Luke 16.31 Rev.Drausio ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo!
              Message 6 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                Dear sir,

                "SOLA SCRIPTURA"!!!

                The Bible alone is enough!! Luke 16.31

                Rev.Drausio



                --- cresciniaustwo <no_reply@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
                > Chemistry, physics, botany, medicine, archeology,
                > tanatology,
                > photography, coin collecting, Biblical exegesis, the
                > science of
                > textiles, the history of art, microscopic
                > observation, space science
                > and modern computers continue stubbornly to try to
                > answer the
                > fascinating question: who is the man of the Shroud?
                > An incredible
                > series of coincidences between the Shroud Image and
                > the Evangelical
                > Figure of the Man of Sorrows, crucified in Jerusalem
                > when Pontius
                > Pilate was public prosecutor makes it certain that
                > the Sheet kept in
                > Turin is that which wrapped the Body of Christ.
                > In fact nowadays when we are so preoccupied with
                > images, highly
                > sophisticated scientific research and electronic
                > computers, so far
                > from the Faith of simple people, have penetrated
                > the Mystery of the
                > Shroud Imprint to the point of making us say: the
                > Shroud is not a
                > work of man nor of physical causes known to man. We
                > owe them our
                > gratitude for this Message to an inattentive and
                > disappointed mankind
                > that only in Christ can the Eternal live and not the
                > transient.
                > Thirty Flashes on Web Site:
                > http://digilander.iol.it/crescinidue
                > Tell me eventual impressions of yours on E-Mail:
                > flashesgospels@...
                >
                >
                >


                __________________________________________________
                Do You Yahoo!?
                Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
                http://games.yahoo.com/
              • jtgriffin
                Rev.Drausio Does Sola Scriptura mean that the Shroud in question cannot be the one belonging to the risen Lord? Does it mean that even if the Shroud is the
                Message 7 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  Rev.Drausio

                  Does Sola Scriptura mean that the Shroud in question cannot be the one
                  belonging to the risen Lord?

                  Does it mean that even if the Shroud is the Shroud of Jesus that we
                  should just ignore the Shroud?

                  I will gladly admit that Scripture alone is Autopistos -- that it alone
                  bears its own authentication -- and that the authenticity of the Shroud
                  has to be proved by external means, but that surely does not furnish us
                  with the answer to every question that anyone might ask concerning the
                  Shroud, is it?

                  Surely, we do not venerate relics, but that fact alone cannot mean that
                  relics are not in fact relics. Right?

                  In Christ

                  J.T. Griffin



                  "Dráusio Gonçalves" wrote:

                  > Dear sir,
                  >
                  > "SOLA SCRIPTURA"!!!
                  >
                  > The Bible alone is enough!! Luke 16.31
                  >
                  > Rev.Drausio


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • DráusioGonçalves
                  Mr.Griffin, I think you can ignore the shroud becouse, first, its legitimacy is questionable; second, has everything you need to salvation, to believe in God,
                  Message 8 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Mr.Griffin,

                    I think you can ignore the shroud becouse, first, its
                    legitimacy is questionable; second, has everything you
                    need to salvation, to believe in God, and to worship
                    Him, etc. The Bible is God�s special revelation, and
                    it�s infalible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and
                    inerrant. If you have the Scriptures in your heart and
                    mind nothing else is necessary to "heat" your
                    spiritual life. If the Holy Spirit, through the
                    Scriptures, does not convince anyone about Jesus
                    Christ, the shoroud or anything else can do it.
                    In Him
                    Rev.Drausio.


                    > Does Sola Scriptura mean that the Shroud in question
                    > cannot be the one
                    > belonging to the risen Lord?


                    >
                    > Does it mean that even if the Shroud is the Shroud
                    > of Jesus that we
                    > should just ignore the Shroud?
                    >
                    > I will gladly admit that Scripture alone is
                    > Autopistos -- that it alone
                    > bears its own authentication -- and that the
                    > authenticity of the Shroud
                    > has to be proved by external means, but that surely
                    > does not furnish us
                    > with the answer to every question that anyone might
                    > ask concerning the
                    > Shroud, is it?
                    >
                    > Surely, we do not venerate relics, but that fact
                    > alone cannot mean that
                    > relics are not in fact relics. Right?
                    >
                    > In Christ
                    >
                    > J.T. Griffin
                    >
                    >
                    >
                    > "Dr�usio Gon�alves" wrote:
                    >
                    > > Dear sir,
                    > >
                    > > "SOLA SCRIPTURA"!!!
                    > >
                    > > The Bible alone is enough!! Luke 16.31
                    > >
                    > > Rev.Drausio
                    >
                    >
                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                    > removed]
                    >
                    >


                    __________________________________________________
                    Do You Yahoo!?
                    Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
                    http://games.yahoo.com/
                  • DráusioGonçalves
                    ... I think that my hands are slower than my thoughts. Sorry! Rev.Drausio. ... covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com ...
                    Message 9 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Sorry people, we need some corrections here:


                      >second, THE BIBLE has everything
                      > you need to salvation,...


                      > the shoroud or anything else canNOT do it.

                      I think that my hands are slower than my thoughts.
                      Sorry!
                      Rev.Drausio.






                      > In Him
                      > Rev.Drausio.
                      >
                      >
                      > > Does Sola Scriptura mean that the Shroud in
                      > question
                      > > cannot be the one
                      > > belonging to the risen Lord?
                      >
                      >
                      > >
                      > > Does it mean that even if the Shroud is the Shroud
                      > > of Jesus that we
                      > > should just ignore the Shroud?
                      > >
                      > > I will gladly admit that Scripture alone is
                      > > Autopistos -- that it alone
                      > > bears its own authentication -- and that the
                      > > authenticity of the Shroud
                      > > has to be proved by external means, but that
                      > surely
                      > > does not furnish us
                      > > with the answer to every question that anyone
                      > might
                      > > ask concerning the
                      > > Shroud, is it?
                      > >
                      > > Surely, we do not venerate relics, but that fact
                      > > alone cannot mean that
                      > > relics are not in fact relics. Right?
                      > >
                      > > In Christ
                      > >
                      > > J.T. Griffin
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > "Dr�usio Gon�alves" wrote:
                      > >
                      > > > Dear sir,
                      > > >
                      > > > "SOLA SCRIPTURA"!!!
                      > > >
                      > > > The Bible alone is enough!! Luke 16.31
                      > > >
                      > > > Rev.Drausio
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > [Non-text portions of this message have been
                      > > removed]
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > __________________________________________________
                      > Do You Yahoo!?
                      > Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
                      > http://games.yahoo.com/
                      >
                      > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
                      >
                      > To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                      >
                      covenantedreformationclub-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
                      > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                      >
                      >


                      __________________________________________________
                      Do You Yahoo!?
                      Yahoo! Games - play chess, backgammon, pool and more
                      http://games.yahoo.com/
                    • jtgriffin
                      ... It s funny how sometimes we can agree with everything that another person says and still know that we are disagreeing with just about everything the other
                      Message 10 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        "Dráusio Gonçalves" wrote:

                        > Mr.Griffin,
                        >
                        > I think you can ignore the shroud becouse, first, its
                        > legitimacy is questionable; second, has everything you
                        > need to salvation, to believe in God, and to worship
                        > Him, etc. The Bible is God´s special revelation, and
                        > it´s infalible, inspired by the Holy Spirit, and
                        > inerrant. If you have the Scriptures in your heart and
                        > mind nothing else is necessary to "heat" your
                        > spiritual life. If the Holy Spirit, through the
                        > Scriptures, does not convince anyone about Jesus
                        > Christ, the shoroud or anything else can do it.
                        > In Him
                        > Rev.Drausio.

                        It's funny how sometimes we can agree with everything that another person
                        says and still know that we are disagreeing with just about everything the
                        other person says. That's my situation at the moment Rev. Drausio. I think
                        it is because you may have missed my point.

                        (Other's chime in here as well, please.)

                        If the shroud is not real then obviouslyi we ought not to think that it is
                        real. Science should be able to shed some though not necessarily conclusive
                        light on its reality.

                        BUT, both Calvin and Van Til use evidences AND they use evidences
                        presuppositionally, i.e., presupposing the authority, necessity, perspicuity,
                        and sufficiency of the inscripturated Word of God. Both assert that such
                        evidences are of no value for convincing the unbeliever, he must be convinced
                        by the Word of God speaking to him in Scripture through the power of the Holy
                        Ghost. Nevertheless, Calvin cites many evidences both internal and external
                        to the Word of God (which he calls Autopistos) that afford the chosen of God
                        much joy and confirm them in the faith.

                        If the shroud of Turin is authentic or has through the means of science been
                        shown beyond a moral probability to be authentic, why should we not enjoy
                        knowing about that? Why should we not receive such information with
                        gladness.

                        The shroud is natural revelation. We are supposed to see God in natural
                        revelation. We are supposed to know what natural revelation means; to know
                        how to interpret it to the world. We Christians are in fact supposed to be
                        the only ones who are able to do that. How is this different from the way we
                        are, according to Calvin, view all of natural revelation, i.e., through the
                        spectacles of the Word of God?

                        Afraid that I don't get it. If the shroud might be authentic, let's at least
                        remove any reasonable doubt about that if we can; and if we can, let's enjoy
                        it.

                        In Christ,

                        J.T. Griffin
                      • raging_calvinist
                        Surely, we do not venerate relics, but that fact alone cannot mean that relics are not in fact relics. Here is my take on the Shroud: 1. I do not believe
                        Message 11 of 13 , Apr 21, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          "Surely, we do not venerate relics, but that fact alone cannot mean
                          that relics are not in fact relics."

                          Here is my take on the Shroud:

                          1. I do not believe that it is genuine. The burial clothes in
                          Scripture do not sound like one sheet wrapped around the entire
                          length of the body (John 20:5-7).

                          2. Whether it is genuine, or not, it doesn't matter one bit to me.
                          My faith is not increased, nor decreased, based on the Shroud.

                          3. I happen to be a bit of a biblical archaeology buff, and I'm all
                          for studying the artifacts of days gone by, in the hopes of shedding
                          some light on the cultures and times described in Scripture. But the
                          FACT is that certain artifacts, even those that are not genuine, tend
                          to be abused by superstitious folk who demand a sign to believe. The
                          Shroud is no exception. Just look at the title of this thread, and
                          have no doubt what is going on here: The ***HOLY*** Shroud.

                          4. Because the above is true, some artifacts, as precious and as
                          wonderful they may be in other circumstances, must, in other
                          circumstances, be destroyed. As Cheryl alludes to in here last post,
                          even the Brazen Serpent, which was made at the command of God, had to
                          be destroyed because of the superstitious idolatry which became
                          attached to it (2 Kings 18:4). Of course, if Hezekiah was a Papist,
                          he would have authorized the worship of it and hid this goldmine in
                          the Vatican. ;)

                          The "Holy" Shroud = Nehushtan.

                          gmw.
                        • thebishopsdoom
                          Greetings, raging. I have been off forum with other things for quite some time now, and only just caught it again today. I am in agreement with your assesment
                          Message 12 of 13 , Apr 23, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Greetings, raging. I have been off forum with other things for quite
                            some time now, and only just caught it again today.

                            I am in agreement with your assesment in general with regards to the
                            shroud. But I think you may be neglecting one point which is
                            sometimes neglected in the discussion. You stated:
                            > 1. I do not believe that it is genuine. The burial clothes in
                            > Scripture do not sound like one sheet wrapped around the entire
                            > length of the body (John 20:5-7).

                            It had been my understanding that the napkin in fact would be wrapped
                            under the linen shroud. In this case, the face napkin is supposed to
                            be the Sudarium of Oviedo, which has at least a more traceable
                            antiquity (traceable to the 11th century, from a box whose contents
                            were known to have been placed in it the 8th century as it is
                            traceable who it was that had packed the box). There are those who
                            claim that the sudarium and the shroud work together perfectly as a
                            match up, but this claim also has its detractors.
                            A few points on the claims of correspondence between the two (from a
                            site favourable to the genineness of these as true relics)
                            "The first and most obvious coincidence is that the blood on both
                            cloths belongs to the same group, namely AB.
                            The length of the nose through which the pleural oedema fluid came
                            onto the sudarium has been calculated at eight centimetres, just over
                            three inches. This is exactly the same length as the nose on the
                            image of the Shroud.
                            If the face of the image on the Shroud is placed over the stains on
                            the sudarium, perhaps the most obvious coincidence is the exact fit
                            of the stains with the beard on the face. As the sudarium was used to
                            clean the man's face, it appears that it was simply placed on the
                            face to absorb all the blood, but not used in any kind of wiping
                            movement.
                            A small stain is also visible proceeding from the right hand side of
                            the man's mouth. This stain is hardly visible on the Shroud, but Dr.
                            John Jackson, using the VP-8 and photo enhancements has confirmed its
                            presence.
                            The thorn wounds on the nape of the neck also coincide perfectly with
                            the bloodstains on the Shroud.
                            Dr. Alan Whanger applied the Polarized Image Overlay Technique to the
                            sudarium, comparing it to the image and bloodstains on the Shroud.
                            The frontal stains on the sudarium show seventy points of coincidence
                            with the Shroud, and the rear side shows fifty."

                            On the other hand,

                            "The sudarium has no image, and none of the facial stains of dried or
                            drying blood visible on the Shroud, especially the stain on the
                            forehead in the shape of an inverted three. The stains on the
                            sudarium were made by a less viscous mixture.
                            This, together with the fact that the fingers which held the sudarium
                            to Jesus' nose have left their mark, point to a short temporal use of
                            the cloth and eliminate the possibility of its contact with the body
                            after burial.
                            Jewish tradition demands that if the face of a dead person was in any
                            way disfigured, it should be covered with a cloth to avoid people
                            seeing this unpleasant sight. This would certainly have been the case
                            with Jesus, whose face was covered in blood from the injuries
                            produced by the crown of thorns and swollen from falling and being
                            struck.
                            It seems that the sudarium was first used before the dead body was
                            taken down from the cross and discarded when it was buried."

                            The author of this article concluded,

                            "This fits in with what we learn from John's gospel, which tells us
                            that the sudarium was rolled up in a place by itself."

                            That might be more of a conjecture, to claim that the head cloth was
                            by itself throughout the three days left rolled up and bloody in the
                            tomb rather than remaining over the head. Such a view would seem
                            necessary to vindicate its genuineness I suppose. But it is quite
                            explainable from the perspective of the napkin remaining on the head
                            after burial.It would have been rolled up apart from the shroud
                            because of Christ coming physically out of his graveclothes and
                            therefore that the napkin was removed separately from the linen
                            shroud, rather than passing through it phantasmically. I do not know
                            enough of Jewish customs offhand to know whether or no the napkin
                            would normally remain over the face after burial to confirm one way
                            or the other whether the author of that article was making a
                            conjecture or can substantiate the claim that the napkin would have
                            been removed prior to burial and merely discarded in the tomb during
                            the time after the burial, so I refrain from making any definitive
                            statements offhand as to whether he has reason for his claim or
                            whether it was mere conjecture to strengthen the case for the
                            historicity of the shroud and sudarium as genuinely those used on
                            Jesus Christ.
                            The victim in the sudarium was wearing his hair in a ponytail, which
                            may leave some to doubt the credibility on the basis of evidence
                            pointing the Christ having short hair. But it is not clear to me that
                            the victim's hair was "long" like a woman's which would have come
                            down the back, as opposed to just down the neck to the shoulders,
                            which would be long enough for a ponytail.
                            All in all, the evidence is not clear that the burial cloths were
                            kept. However, as surely as such items physically existed, so they
                            could phyically still exist, regardless of whether or not they
                            actually do still exist (the same is true of the sign above the
                            cross, of which an ancient relic exists in the reliquary in the
                            church of Santa Croce in Rome purporting to be the actual genuine
                            sign). Whether or not they are genuine, however, does not say that it
                            will be proveable enough that they are in fact the genuine ones. If
                            one could prove that they were beyond any shadow of a doubt the
                            genuine ones, it would not in itself answer the question of religious
                            devotion to such an artifact and whether that constitutes idolatry to
                            venerate an image of the body of Christ (even if it could be shown to
                            be historically accurate), which gets into a historical debate that
                            has raged for centuries, with the reformers in general siding with
                            the iconoclasts (some, as the Lutherans, excepted).
                            -thebishopsdoom
                          • Dr�usioGon�alves
                            I totally agree with your point of view. Drausio. ... __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Health - your guide to health
                            Message 13 of 13 , May 1, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              I totally agree with your point of view.

                              Drausio.


                              --- raging_calvinist <ragingcalvinist@...>
                              wrote:
                              > "Surely, we do not venerate relics, but that fact
                              > alone cannot mean
                              > that relics are not in fact relics."
                              >
                              > Here is my take on the Shroud:
                              >
                              > 1. I do not believe that it is genuine. The burial
                              > clothes in
                              > Scripture do not sound like one sheet wrapped around
                              > the entire
                              > length of the body (John 20:5-7).
                              >
                              > 2. Whether it is genuine, or not, it doesn't matter
                              > one bit to me.
                              > My faith is not increased, nor decreased, based on
                              > the Shroud.
                              >
                              > 3. I happen to be a bit of a biblical archaeology
                              > buff, and I'm all
                              > for studying the artifacts of days gone by, in the
                              > hopes of shedding
                              > some light on the cultures and times described in
                              > Scripture. But the
                              > FACT is that certain artifacts, even those that are
                              > not genuine, tend
                              > to be abused by superstitious folk who demand a sign
                              > to believe. The
                              > Shroud is no exception. Just look at the title of
                              > this thread, and
                              > have no doubt what is going on here: The ***HOLY***
                              > Shroud.
                              >
                              > 4. Because the above is true, some artifacts, as
                              > precious and as
                              > wonderful they may be in other circumstances, must,
                              > in other
                              > circumstances, be destroyed. As Cheryl alludes to
                              > in here last post,
                              > even the Brazen Serpent, which was made at the
                              > command of God, had to
                              > be destroyed because of the superstitious idolatry
                              > which became
                              > attached to it (2 Kings 18:4). Of course, if
                              > Hezekiah was a Papist,
                              > he would have authorized the worship of it and hid
                              > this goldmine in
                              > the Vatican. ;)
                              >
                              > The "Holy" Shroud = Nehushtan.
                              >
                              > gmw.
                              >
                              >


                              __________________________________________________
                              Do You Yahoo!?
                              Yahoo! Health - your guide to health and wellness
                              http://health.yahoo.com
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.