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, 2002
      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...
    • 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 2 of 13 , Apr 17, 2002
        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 3 of 13 , Apr 17, 2002
          > 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 4 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
            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 5 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
              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 6 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
                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 7 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
                  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 8 of 13 , Apr 20, 2002
                    "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 9 of 13 , Apr 21, 2002
                      "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 10 of 13 , Apr 23, 2002
                        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 11 of 13 , May 1, 2002
                          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.