The Shroud of Turin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquiringperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Fiasco said:
It`s an over-the-top representation in The Passion of The Christ.
Under Roman law, scourging was set at 40 strokes, but because the Pharisees were worried about miscounting, in that part of the world, it was “limited” to 39.
Click to expand...
Actually, the Romans did not seem to have any set limit. The Mosaic Law stipulated that the maximum number of blows one could inflict a person was forty (Deuteronomy 25:1-3):

If there is a dispute between men and they come into court and the judges decide between them, acquitting the innocent and condemning the guilty, then if the guilty man deserves to be beaten, the judge shall cause him to lie down and be beaten in his presence with a number of stripes in proportion to his offense. Forty stripes may be given him, but not more, lest, if one should go on to beat him with more stripes than these, your brother be degraded in your sight.

(Other Ancient Near Eastern cultures also had similar stipulations that people be whipped for various crimes: the maximum limit for the beating may be as low as twenty or as high as sixty, as per the Code of Hammurabi. The Israelite limit of forty lashes may have been chosen due to its symbolic meaning or the degree of mutilation and personal humiliation permissible for a man to bear without being permanently excluded from religious and social activities. There was apparently no prolonged or indefinite beating; if forty lashes is the maximum penalty, judges may have usually sentenced offenders less than that number.) Later Jewish tradition apparently reduced it by one to prevent breaking the maximum limit as written in Deuteronomy.
 
The debate around the Shroud centers around one primary thing: denying Jesus in some way. The Church has approved miracles and Marian apparitions. We are waiting on just one more miracle for Pope John Paul II. The goal appears to be to deny that God worked and continues to work in human history, or, in some cases, even existed as the physical Jesus Christ.

Here is what Pope John Paul II had to say about the Shroud:

vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/travels/documents/hf_jp-ii_spe_24051998_sindone_en.html

Peace,
Ed
 
Faith1960 said:
There are a lot of conflicting descriptions from Saints who have had visions of the Blessed Virgin, too. Can someone answer why visions of Jesus and Mary are so vastly different if these mystics are seeing visions of the real Christ and Blessed Virgin Mary?
Click to expand...
Can you be more specific?

Peace,
Ed
 
Hesychios said:
It will be nice when the Roman Catholic church returns it. 🙂
Click to expand...
To who? :confused:

Placing such an important artifact in the Mid-East right now would be sheer madness! And it would only be suitable to give it to the Orthodox Church if the ones taking it were the Orthodox Russians! Greece right now is also dangerous and Turkey is unacceptable! :mad:

Therefore, I see the Holy Mother Church as having the artifact rightly.

-Karl
 
Has anyone seen the history channels’s The Real Face of Jesus. They forensically reconstructed the body in the shroud. And it looks different to the shroud, you should download it and watch it if you can. Apparently it was created with a burst of light from inside, and due to the errors in the carbon dating they are going to run the carbon dating again.
This the face that they brought out of the shroud.
 
Also the if Im not mistaken is’nt the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo the same type as on the shroud, and the face on both line up perfectly. I remember reading something on this a while back.
 
sami1066 said:
Also the if Im not mistaken is’nt the blood on the Sudarium of Oviedo the same type as on the shroud, and the face on both line up perfectly. I remember reading something on this a while back.
Click to expand...
Type AB. It’s not really conclusive proof though, since a common truism has it that all old blood typically turns into type AB (but not exactly).
 
Faith1960 said:
There are a lot of conflicting descriptions from Saints who have had visions of the Blessed Virgin, too. Can someone answer why visions of Jesus and Mary are so vastly different if these mystics are seeing visions of the real Christ and Blessed Virgin Mary?
Click to expand...
One has to distinguish between exterior visions and interior vision etc…but besides that.

One aspect is that the Resurrected Body can appear differently. If that is what they can be said to be seeing (depends on what God does).

Also note that Private revelations and visions are not “widows into heaven” or pure seeing etc. They involve the person seeing them…they can involve their culture…their ideas…etc.

Here are a couple of clips from the CDF discussion of Fatima (then Card. Ratzinger) in 2000.

"The subject, the visionary, is still more powerfully involved. He sees insofar as he is able, in the modes of representation and consciousness available to him. In the case of interior vision, the process of translation is even more extensive than in exterior vision, for the subject shares in an essential way in the formation of the image of what appears. He can arrive at the image only within the bounds of his capacities and possibilities. Such visions therefore are never simple “photographs” of the other world, but are influenced by the potentialities and limitations of the perceiving subject. "

“This can be demonstrated in all the great visions of the saints; and naturally it is also true of the visions of the children at Fatima. The images described by them are by no means a simple expression of their fantasy, but the result of a real perception of a higher and interior origin. But neither should they be thought of as if for a moment the veil of the other world were drawn back, with heaven appearing in its pure essence, as one day we hope to see it in our definitive union with God. Rather the images are, in a manner of speaking, a synthesis of the impulse coming from on high and the capacity to receive this impulse in the visionaries”

Just a couple of clips but one can see that the persons subjectivity can enter into things among other things.
 
patrick457 said:
Artists and filmmakers couldn’t even agree on whether Jesus’ feet were positioned one over the other or separately, whether He wore the crown of thorns or not, or just how tall the cross exactly was. 😉 :cool:
Click to expand...
Well, we have have this unreliable testimony concerning the placement of the feet
On another occasion Satan made fun of the manner in which Christ was nailed to the cross.

“Were not the feet of Jesus nailed one on top of the other, and not aside of each other?”
Click to expand...
Catherine Emmerich gives the same information. She says that the left foot was nailed first with a shorter nail. Then a longer and stronger nail, at the sight of which our Saviour is said to have shuddered, was driven first through the right foot and then through the left. Those standing nearby at the crucifixion saw very plainly how the nail penetrated both feet.

This does not mean that we are now sure how the feet of our Saviour were placed upon the cross, even if Beelzebub’s statement tends to confirm the description given by Catherine Emmerich. We do not give the father of lies credit for being a reliable witness in such matters as the crucifixion, even if there is no doubt that many devils were personal witnesses to the crucifixion of Christ.
Click to expand...

from ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/BEGONESA.htm
 
Evan said:
Well, we have have this unreliable testimony concerning the placement of the feet

from ewtn.com/library/NEWAGE/BEGONESA.htm
Click to expand...
From a purely historical POV, virtually all early depictions of the Crucifixion (including the oldest ones surviving even today) agree in showing the feet separated from one another. It is only in medieval Western art that the convention of showing Jesus pierced with three nails began to be popular - note that Eastern iconography (save for a handful of Western-influenced samples) still show Jesus’ feet side by side even today.

I’ve written quite a bit about it in my blog a while back. 🙂

http://img829.imageshack.us/img829/273/alexgraffito.gif



http://img240.imageshack.us/img240/389/crucifixiongemtu6.png

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-unqMG4fARv4/Tk9jUIOSz7I/AAAAAAAAFFs/GuB6JKeYMvg/s1600/SabinaCrucify.jpg

http://www.scriptoriumdaily.com/wp-content/photos/rabbula_cross_copy.JPG

 
Faith1960 said:
There are a lot of conflicting descriptions from Saints who have had visions of the Blessed Virgin, too. Can someone answer why visions of Jesus and Mary are so vastly different if these mystics are seeing visions of the real Christ and Blessed Virgin Mary?
Click to expand...
I have read why Anne Catherine Emmerich’s revelations have come into question. The poet, Clemens Brentano, who interviewed her at length, and later, wrote a couple of books about the interviews took poetic license with her visions. So the question is: how much did she say, and how much did he invent?
The authenticity of Brentano’s writings has been questioned and critics have characterized the books as “conscious elaborations by a poet” and a “well-intentioned fraud” by Brentano.
Click to expand...
 
CarloMagnus said:
To who? :confused:

Placing such an important artifact in the Mid-East right now would be sheer madness! And it would only be suitable to give it to the Orthodox Church if the ones taking it were the Orthodox Russians! Greece right now is also dangerous and Turkey is unacceptable! :mad:

Therefore, I see the Holy Mother Church as having the artifact rightly.

-Karl
Click to expand...
It is a sin to steal, it is a sin to accept and hold stolen property.

If it is genuine it is stolen goods and restitution is in order.
 
Hesychios said:
It is a sin to steal, it is a sin to accept and hold stolen property.

If it is genuine it is stolen goods and restitution is in order.
Click to expand...
Come to think of it, many relics and religious items throughout Christian history were gotten through rather questionable (and dare I say borderline, if not outright sinful) means, though in a number of cases, you have attempts for the act to be justified through some miraculous story.

I mean, just look at how St. Nicholas’ relics were taken from Myra to Bari in Apulia, or how the icon of Our Lady of Perpetual Help was according to legend stolen from Crete by a sailor, or how people were willing to fight and kill each other for the bodies of saints like St. Martin of Tours and St. Patrick.
 
Gunta said:
it depends in what region in the world the picture/icon was made… people usually show Jesus, Mary and saints similar to themselves.
But realistically it is unlikely that in area where Jesus lived people were blond…
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know.
 
Hesychios said:
It is a sin to steal, it is a sin to accept and hold stolen property.

If it is genuine it is stolen goods and restitution is in order.
Click to expand...
The artifact belongs to Iesus Christus. He can have it back when he comes back. 'Till then, I think the Catholic Church is just fine holding onto it.

-Karl
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top