T
TINYAD
Guest
I do not think there exists any picture , or any painting made during the life time of Jesus exits. Shroud of Turin continues debatable.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
James817
Guest
There are many on the other side who disagree with Valtorta.
P
patrick457
Guest
Come to think of it, there’s hardly any comprehensive physical description of people from that part of the world at that time people. When people did try to describe what other people looked like, often it’s usually more in very broad vague terms like ‘tall’ or ‘red’ (which could be the color of either the skin or the hair).I’ve read the entire Bible, Genesis to Revelation, there’s never a physical description of Jesus.
In Jesus’ case, the earliest records and the earliest Church Fathers did not attach that much importance to His exact appearance (His height, hair color, the shape of His nose, etc.): when they got around to that issue (which isn’t much), they usually dealt with it in very general terms (it’s the whole issue of ‘is Jesus really human / really God’?): was Jesus physically perfect? Or was He ugly and deformed? We know He got wounded and killed, but otherwise, would He have caught a cold or have a toothache on a normal day? Did He really get hungry and thirsty, or did He simply eat and drink even when He didn’t really need to in order to seem more like a normal human (or in order to prove a point)?
E
Eliza10
Guest
Yes, and there always were many who disagree with every single prophet of God. But you must admit those in agreement are quite pious and venerable - even Saintly.
J
James817
Guest
That is so.
And you’d say the same for those on EWTN no? Like Fr. Mitch Pacwa?
https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT
And you’d say the same for those on EWTN no? Like Fr. Mitch Pacwa?
https://www.ewtn.com/library/SCRIPTUR/VALTORTA.TXT
Last edited:
U
undead_rat
Guest
“Far too much evidence against it . . .” This statement is flat out not true. There is absolutely NO evidence that the Shroud of Turin’s image is man-made. The Shroud was intensively examined in 1978 by a team of volunteer scientists, and they found no evidence whatsoever that the Shroud was not the actual burial cloth of Jesus. Your statement here is just plain preposterous.
" . . .endless articles . . ." Sure there are many Atheists who try to discredit the Shroud. There exists also the Flat Earth Society whose arguments make just as much sense. The Atheist starts with the belief that God does not exist which leads to the conclusion that the Shroud cannot be real. Then the Atheist takes his superficial observations and presents these as “proof.”
“…it’s far too close a likeness to . . .artistic representations of Christ . . .” The Shroud was hidden for its first 500 years of existence. It was brought out of its sanctuary in the 6th century, and monks traveled thought the middle east distributing the true image of Jesus. One of the earliest and most famous is the 6th century mural of Christ is St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. Sorry, Faith, but you have this one all backwards.
“. …hardly anyone thinks that it (the Shroud) was ever actually . .in Israel at any point in its lifetime.” Really? On what basis do you make this absurd statement? Pollen studies prove that the Shroud was in Israel. Did you know that dirt was found on the Shroud in the 1978 investigation? This dirt turns out to be travertine aroganite and it has a chemical signature that matches the travertine from Jerusalem and nowhere else.
The Shroud has a history going all the way back to the 6th century when it was known as the Image of Edessa. Furthermore the smug professors who presented the C-14 dates as “1260 to 1390” are now know to have misrepresented these dates. They flat out lied, actually. The real dates were 1195 to 1448. That is a 253 year variance which is far too great for something purportedly only 700 years old.
The 1978 exam found that the image must has been produced by the body that the cloth enclosed: it was not a painting or a photograph. So the event that produced the image also caused the C-14 content of the Shroud to be enhanced. This event is the disappearance of Jesus’ corpse from inside His burial cloth consistent with the Gospel account of Matthew.
You might be interested to know that, as the part of the Shroud tested gets closer to the Image, its date gets younger!
For anyone willing to take an unbiased look at the evidence, the conclusion is that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus!
" . . .endless articles . . ." Sure there are many Atheists who try to discredit the Shroud. There exists also the Flat Earth Society whose arguments make just as much sense. The Atheist starts with the belief that God does not exist which leads to the conclusion that the Shroud cannot be real. Then the Atheist takes his superficial observations and presents these as “proof.”
“…it’s far too close a likeness to . . .artistic representations of Christ . . .” The Shroud was hidden for its first 500 years of existence. It was brought out of its sanctuary in the 6th century, and monks traveled thought the middle east distributing the true image of Jesus. One of the earliest and most famous is the 6th century mural of Christ is St. Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai. Sorry, Faith, but you have this one all backwards.
“. …hardly anyone thinks that it (the Shroud) was ever actually . .in Israel at any point in its lifetime.” Really? On what basis do you make this absurd statement? Pollen studies prove that the Shroud was in Israel. Did you know that dirt was found on the Shroud in the 1978 investigation? This dirt turns out to be travertine aroganite and it has a chemical signature that matches the travertine from Jerusalem and nowhere else.
The Shroud has a history going all the way back to the 6th century when it was known as the Image of Edessa. Furthermore the smug professors who presented the C-14 dates as “1260 to 1390” are now know to have misrepresented these dates. They flat out lied, actually. The real dates were 1195 to 1448. That is a 253 year variance which is far too great for something purportedly only 700 years old.
The 1978 exam found that the image must has been produced by the body that the cloth enclosed: it was not a painting or a photograph. So the event that produced the image also caused the C-14 content of the Shroud to be enhanced. This event is the disappearance of Jesus’ corpse from inside His burial cloth consistent with the Gospel account of Matthew.
You might be interested to know that, as the part of the Shroud tested gets closer to the Image, its date gets younger!
For anyone willing to take an unbiased look at the evidence, the conclusion is that the Shroud of Turin is the burial cloth of Jesus!
T
Teek
Guest
I know people who feel that they had a lot of spiritual growth from reading Valtora’s work.There are many on the other side who disagree with Valtorta.
I think, though, that their confidence in her work and its specificity leads them to confuse the account of sacred scripture with her account. I’ve heard those details being discussed, beautiful details really, but as if they are Biblical, and when I said I don’t remember that part, they would reply, “Oh, I must have gotten that from the Poem of the Man-God. Have you read it? You would looooove it!” That sort of dialogue.
Now, these areas that I refer to are not areas where her account conflicts with Scripture, which some people claim are there but I can’t confirm or deny that. (Father Mitch Pacwa is certain that there are. I respect him. Someone posted that link.)
I’m talking about the details that may even be very likely to be true. Even beneficial to consider.
I, personally, am afraid to read the accounts because then I might consider some detail of her account to be Scriptural, rather than privately revealed. I want to keep clear what is absolutely the Scriptural account from other details.
Not because they are bad or anything, but because they are so close to the Scriptural account sometimes that I couldn’t keep the two clearly defined in my head.
That is a scary thought to me. It makes me nervous about the whole thing. If it decreases your ability to know what is precisely the Revealed Truth in any way, it feels, to me, like it slides a touch closer to deception.
I read The Red Tent for a book club once. That threw me way off kilter because it spoke as if it were historical and yet it felt so horribly wrong—all of this paganism behind Jacob’s back and ridiculing him for his belief in one God. This is totally different than Valtora’s account, and I do not intend to say it is the same or similar. But in a way, the Red Tent feels less dangerous to me because I KNOW the Red Tent was dangerous and it’s contradictions to the Bible set it far away. I can keep that clear, easily.
Just my thoughts.
P
patrick457
Guest
One thing you have to keep in mind regarding private revelations (even approved ones) is that when you read them closely, you’d notice that they contradict each other in certain details.
In St. Bridget’s visions for example, Jesus was nailed to a cross that was already planted on the ground, and His feet was nailed separately: they extended his body on the cross beyond all measure; and placing one of his shins on top of the other, they fastened to the cross his feet, thus joined, with two nails." (Some 17th century Spanish artists actually used her visions, alongside early artworks, to attempt to justify how portraying Jesus crucified with four nails is the correct depiction. To be fair it is the more historically-probable one.) Compare that to say, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich or Maria de Agreda: Emmerich says the executioners “took a very long nail and drove it completely through both feet into the cross below” while Maria’s account says something similar “that they drove through both feet a large nail into the Cross.”
In St. Bridget’s visions for example, Jesus was nailed to a cross that was already planted on the ground, and His feet was nailed separately: they extended his body on the cross beyond all measure; and placing one of his shins on top of the other, they fastened to the cross his feet, thus joined, with two nails." (Some 17th century Spanish artists actually used her visions, alongside early artworks, to attempt to justify how portraying Jesus crucified with four nails is the correct depiction. To be fair it is the more historically-probable one.) Compare that to say, the visions of Anne Catherine Emmerich or Maria de Agreda: Emmerich says the executioners “took a very long nail and drove it completely through both feet into the cross below” while Maria’s account says something similar “that they drove through both feet a large nail into the Cross.”
P
patrick457
Guest
(Continued)
Fr. Benedict Groeschel once wrote the following:
Fr. Benedict Groeschel once wrote the following:
So even if Valtorta’s book is an authentic private revelation (as opposed to a speculative novel along the lines of say, that Anne Rice novel about Jesus or Ben-Hur, which was how some people took it), I personally still wouldn’t use it - or any visionaries’ stuff, even if they be saints - uncritically to find stuff about the historical Jesus. One might use it for edification or to find out how Valtorta’s personal spirituality or something along those lines, but they are not on the same level as the gospels or any other actual ancient source are.Several questions should arise immediately in the minds of those interested in private revelations: “How can there be error? How can this be? How can a vision from God be wrong?” It cannot. But the recipient of the vision can make mistakes. No divine revelation is immediately received by a visionary. It is filtered through the perceptive faculties of the human being who receives it. Here an old Latin proverb is pertinent: “That which is received is received in the manner of the receiver.” A good analogy often used is light passing through a glass prism. The prism causes a distortion in our perception of the pure white light, a rainbow distortion that may be beautiful and helpful. But don’t try driving a car with a prism before your eyes.
[…] The reasons for possible mistakes and distortions in revelations are many, and we shall review them separately. However, it is necessary before doing so to point out that all authentic private revelations are responses of a specific individual in a very concrete historical situation to a divine call - a theophany - the adequate knowledge of which is ultimately beyond all limitations of our senses or intelligence. If you will, it is the Infinite Reality trying to communicate with a finite being. Beyond this difficulty, there is the basic fact that with human knowledge every perception of things outside one’s own inner being has some distortion of it due to previous experience and expectations of the individual. We all have our own frames of reference, which in psychology are referred to by the German word Gestalten. An example may help us to appreciate this important fact. A woman may bring her young daughter to a great performance of the opera Madama Butterfly. The mother is deeply moved by an artistically powerful production of this familiar story. The child may be bored by everything but the stage scenery. They have different frames of reference and perceive the same reality on stage in very different ways by reason of what they think is important and attractive. The same effect is true of the frame of reference in a mystical vision associated with a private revelation.
Last edited:
C
Cruciferi
Guest
They have since reissued Valtorta’s books as “The Gospel As Revealed to Me“. I read the first two and really enjoyed them. I believe that they’re authentic; however, treating them as a work of fiction is also prudent. Personally, it helps fill in the gaps so you have a more seamless narrative. They’d definitely make a good TV series!
T
TINYAD
Guest
patrick457
I liked the quote taken from Fr. Benedict Groeschel,
‘Several questions should arise immediately in the minds of those interested in private revelations: “How can there be error? How can this be? How can a vision from God be wrong?” It cannot. But the recipient of the vision can make mistakes’.
And the conclusion, “But don’t try driving a car with a prism before your eyes.”
Essentially, one may wonder, what really are we looking for? Image of Jesus at what stage in his life.
In the manger, as a boy in the Jerusalem temple, at his baptism at the river, wdedding at Cana, Last supper, road to Calvary, at crucifixion, into the tomb, resurrected Jesus, at Ascencion,
Why are we talking about visions, dreams, etc.
Taking clues from visions, and weaving the threads from different dreams and visions and make a TAILORED IMAGE OF JESUS.
Can that be truthful ?
I liked the quote taken from Fr. Benedict Groeschel,
‘Several questions should arise immediately in the minds of those interested in private revelations: “How can there be error? How can this be? How can a vision from God be wrong?” It cannot. But the recipient of the vision can make mistakes’.
And the conclusion, “But don’t try driving a car with a prism before your eyes.”
Essentially, one may wonder, what really are we looking for? Image of Jesus at what stage in his life.
In the manger, as a boy in the Jerusalem temple, at his baptism at the river, wdedding at Cana, Last supper, road to Calvary, at crucifixion, into the tomb, resurrected Jesus, at Ascencion,
Why are we talking about visions, dreams, etc.
Taking clues from visions, and weaving the threads from different dreams and visions and make a TAILORED IMAGE OF JESUS.
Can that be truthful ?
T
Teek
Guest
Because we love Him, He really lived and so He really had a face and hands and skin and hair, and we long for Him. And those are all we have.Why are we talking about visions, dreams, etc.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.