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

Re: THE HOLY SHROUD

Expand Messages
  • knoxknoxwhosthere
    I think we should burn it... Cheryl ... science ... in ... the ... mankind
    Message 1 of 13 , Apr 16 6:19 PM
    • 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 2 of 13 , Apr 16 11:15 PM
      • 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 3 of 13 , Apr 17 3:41 AM
        • 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 4 of 13 , Apr 17 9:58 AM
          • 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 5 of 13 , Apr 20 2:57 PM
            • 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 6 of 13 , Apr 20 3:08 PM
              • 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 7 of 13 , Apr 20 4:20 PM
                • 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 8 of 13 , Apr 20 4:28 PM
                  • 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 9 of 13 , Apr 20 4:34 PM
                    • 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 10 of 13 , Apr 21 10:03 PM
                      • 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 11 of 13 , Apr 23 12:00 AM
                        • 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 12 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.