The Holy Shroud in Turin is and remains a riddle, as honestly
recognised by the manager of the most important of the three
laboratories which analysed the cloth by using the carbon 14. This
manager acknowledged a serious mistake in the dating.
The only means we have at disposal to solve the riddle is that of
recognizing that, without any doubt, in such Holy Linen happened
something that we cannot and never we'll be capable to explain : the
Resurrection of Christ.
Website : www.antoniobragadin.com/mystery.htm
E mail :
.
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 11:05:43 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:58 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:47 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:13 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
DEE wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the
shroud?What will anyone lose one way or the other?
You gain nothing by the shroud being real, and
you lose nothing if it is not.
That IS the mystery of the shroud - it's a mystery
why so many insanely ignorant people still cling to
a psychotic belief that it's what they claim it is.
No amount of evidence, or solid proof, to the
contrary will ever change their beliefs.
There is no SOLID proof to the contrary. The Shroud
is a mystery.
If you can read, there IS solid proof the shroud is a
fraud. The only mystery is why some people are too
ignorant, or blinded by their need to protect their god
beliefs, to understand it is a fraud.
Why can't you accept the fact that it is a fraud?
"Why can't you accept the fact that ..." - that is no
logical argument.
First you have to present a logical argument for a logical
rebuttal.
It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a
thing. Even if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to be
a fraud.
Obviously they knew how to create it since they did. If you are
going to make something to pass off as a fraud, you're going to
make it look good.
You have presented no logical arguments, all you've done is
believe in something in spite of the proof to the contrary.
Start there.
I have no intention to "accept" the "fact" of your bold
assertions without solid proof.
See.... that's the problem; there is solid proof
Where ?
I gave you one link. you can find others if you were interested
in the truth.
and you refuse to accept it since it would threaten your
compartmentalized god beliefs.
Your miserable cynicism does not quench my curiosity. That is
all.
I had no hope of my honesty having any effect on your fantasy.
First, the Shroud is not at all a fraud......
The shroud exists. That part is not a fraud. The claims
people like you are making is where the fraud comes in.
What claims have I made for it? Do I look like some woman who
yelled at you in the bar last night? That is as close as any
"like you" as you will ever find.
I see.... you have no wish to be honest about this. Why is that?
It's obvious that you are clinging to the shroud having some
connection with the biblical jesus. Why can't you be honest about
that?
If you would like to prove it a fraud.....
I do not have to. YOU are the one that needs to do the
proving. You are making the extraordinary claim
Nope. I make the claim that it is 700 years old,
Try 650 years old.
and no cynic knows how it was created.
It was painted.
Even the speculators like you are too frightened to make the
experiment.
They've been done.
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
| User: "David V." |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 02:34:12 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 29, 9:05 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 28, 10:58 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 28, 8:47 am, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 27, 9:13 pm, "David V." <s...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
DEE wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the
shroud?What will anyone lose one way or the
other? You gain nothing by the shroud being
real, and you lose nothing if it is not.
That IS the mystery of the shroud - it's a
mystery why so many insanely ignorant people
still cling to a psychotic belief that it's what
they claim it is. No amount of evidence, or
solid proof, to the contrary will ever change
their beliefs.
There is no SOLID proof to the contrary. The
Shroud is a mystery.
If you can read, there IS solid proof the shroud is
a fraud. The only mystery is why some people are too
ignorant, or blinded by their need to protect their
god beliefs, to understand it is a fraud.
Why can't you accept the fact that it is a fraud?
"Why can't you accept the fact that ..." - that is no
logical argument.
First you have to present a logical argument for a
logical rebuttal.
It came from a time when no one knew how to create such a
thing. Even if they had fraud at heart, it is too good to
be a fraud.
Obviously they knew how to create it since they did.
Wow. Such a scientist and logician.
Where have you provided any scientific or logical explanations?
--
Dave
You measure a democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents,
not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.
- Abbie Hoffman
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
26 Jan 2008 08:14:05 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:57:58 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
Pastor Dave wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:37:53 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
| <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|
|
|> Pastor Dave wrote:
|> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:37 -0500, Mike
|> | <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> said the following:
|> |
|> |
|> |> TruthCheck wrote:
|> |>
|> |>> The Bible says the shroud is the real deal.
|> |> And using the same software on Moby *****
|> |> shows that it says I am god.
|> |
|> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> | one might personally feel about it.
|>
|>
|> Don't read the silly thing much, do you Pastor Dork?
|
| You have just disqualified yourself as an unbiased
| researcher of the custom involved. But what do
| you care about that, when you would be passing
| up an opportunity to slam me, right? <chuckle>
|
I probably have a great deal more time exploring
history then you will ever dream of.
You can lie, if you wish.
|> John 20
|>
|> Try it. Then come back and tell us the total
|> number of "shrouds" used.
|
| I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
| the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
| Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
| two wrappings that would end up covering
| the body's head.
|
| But in your arrogance and eagerness to make sure
| that the Scriptures are wrong, you assumed that
| your 2 minutes of supposed "research" equaled
| my 25 years into the customs of the Jewish people.
|
| In fact, you were so eager to attempt to ridicule me,
| that you didn't even take the time to tell me which
| side of the issue you fall on.
|
| Now if you ever wish to get educated about this
| custom, then let me know and I'd be happy to
| inform you of how this custom was carried out.
|
Sorry bub, but try again.
According to actual Jewish historians,
aka the University at Tel Aviv, peasants
where wrapped, very similar to Egyptian
mummies but with out the organ removal
and such.
See below.
Further, the wrappings were not a single cloth,
as in European winding sheets.
Hey stupid, that's what I said.
Like I said, you don't care about truth.
You don't even read what I write,
which is why you snipped it.
--
When blondes have more fun, do they know it?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
26 Jan 2008 08:55:07 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pastor Dave wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:57:58 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
| <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|
|
|> Pastor Dave wrote:
|>
|> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:37:53 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
|> | <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|> |
|> |
|> |> Pastor Dave wrote:
|> |> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:37 -0500, Mike
|> |> | <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> said the following:
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> |> TruthCheck wrote:
|> |> |>
|> |> |>> The Bible says the shroud is the real deal.
|> |> |> And using the same software on Moby *****
|> |> |> shows that it says I am god.
|> |> |
|> |> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> |> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> |> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> |> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> |> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> |> | one might personally feel about it.
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> Don't read the silly thing much, do you Pastor Dork?
|> |
|> | You have just disqualified yourself as an unbiased
|> | researcher of the custom involved. But what do
|> | you care about that, when you would be passing
|> | up an opportunity to slam me, right? <chuckle>
|> |
|>
|> I probably have a great deal more time exploring
|> history then you will ever dream of.
|
| You can lie, if you wish.
|
|
|> |> John 20
|> |>
|> |> Try it. Then come back and tell us the total
|> |> number of "shrouds" used.
|> |
|> | I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
|> | the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
|> | Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
|> | two wrappings that would end up covering
|> | the body's head.
|> |
|> | But in your arrogance and eagerness to make sure
|> | that the Scriptures are wrong, you assumed that
|> | your 2 minutes of supposed "research" equaled
|> | my 25 years into the customs of the Jewish people.
|> |
|> | In fact, you were so eager to attempt to ridicule me,
|> | that you didn't even take the time to tell me which
|> | side of the issue you fall on.
|> |
|> | Now if you ever wish to get educated about this
|> | custom, then let me know and I'd be happy to
|> | inform you of how this custom was carried out.
|> |
|> Sorry bub, but try again.
|>
|> According to actual Jewish historians,
|> aka the University at Tel Aviv, peasants
|> where wrapped, very similar to Egyptian
|> mummies but with out the organ removal
|> and such.
|
| See below.
|
|
|> Further, the wrappings were not a single cloth,
|> as in European winding sheets.
|
| Hey stupid, that's what I said.
|
| Like I said, you don't care about truth.
| You don't even read what I write,
| which is why you snipped it.
|
Ahhh, no.
You claim above:
|> | I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
|> | the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
|> | Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
|> | two wrappings that would end up covering
|> | the body's head.
After you stated:
|> |> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> |> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> |> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> |> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> |> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> |> | one might personally feel about it.
There was NO shroud of any kind. There were wrappings, lots of wrappings.
Please, do try to keep up in the future.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHm/KLf+wl0F6+jvgRAkevAJ9iLwa5Peoy2SdZCUu3BgvnwTm3oACePkW5
X+GPxKs/wvVV+iq0bIK/OsI=
=pw+e
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Dave" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
26 Jan 2008 09:31:57 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:55:07 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
Pastor Dave wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:57:58 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
| <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|
|
|> Pastor Dave wrote:
|>
|> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:37:53 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
|> | <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|> |
|> |
|> |> Pastor Dave wrote:
|> |> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:37 -0500, Mike
|> |> | <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> said the following:
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> |> TruthCheck wrote:
|> |> |>
|> |> |>> The Bible says the shroud is the real deal.
|> |> |> And using the same software on Moby *****
|> |> |> shows that it says I am god.
|> |> |
|> |> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> |> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> |> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> |> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> |> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> |> | one might personally feel about it.
|> |>
|> |>
|> |> Don't read the silly thing much, do you Pastor Dork?
|> |
|> | You have just disqualified yourself as an unbiased
|> | researcher of the custom involved. But what do
|> | you care about that, when you would be passing
|> | up an opportunity to slam me, right? <chuckle>
|> |
|>
|> I probably have a great deal more time exploring
|> history then you will ever dream of.
|
| You can lie, if you wish.
|
|
|> |> John 20
|> |>
|> |> Try it. Then come back and tell us the total
|> |> number of "shrouds" used.
|> |
|> | I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
|> | the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
|> | Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
|> | two wrappings that would end up covering
|> | the body's head.
|> |
|> | But in your arrogance and eagerness to make sure
|> | that the Scriptures are wrong, you assumed that
|> | your 2 minutes of supposed "research" equaled
|> | my 25 years into the customs of the Jewish people.
|> |
|> | In fact, you were so eager to attempt to ridicule me,
|> | that you didn't even take the time to tell me which
|> | side of the issue you fall on.
|> |
|> | Now if you ever wish to get educated about this
|> | custom, then let me know and I'd be happy to
|> | inform you of how this custom was carried out.
|> |
|> Sorry bub, but try again.
|>
|> According to actual Jewish historians,
|> aka the University at Tel Aviv, peasants
|> where wrapped, very similar to Egyptian
|> mummies but with out the organ removal
|> and such.
|
| See below.
|
|
|> Further, the wrappings were not a single cloth,
|> as in European winding sheets.
|
| Hey stupid, that's what I said.
|
| Like I said, you don't care about truth.
| You don't even read what I write,
| which is why you snipped it.
|
Ahhh, no.
You claim above:
|> | I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
|> | the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
|> | Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
|> | two wrappings that would end up covering
|> | the body's head.
After you stated:
|> |> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> |> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> |> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> |> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> |> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> |> | one might personally feel about it.
There was NO shroud of any kind. There were wrappings, lots of wrappings.
Please, do try to keep up in the future.
You are a stupid man. And you are not interested
in learning. Goodbye.
--
"I am not permitted to let my love be so merciful
as to tolerate and endure false doctrine. When
faith and doctrine are concerned and endangered,
neither love nor patience are in order... For
a defective life does not destroy Christendom,
but exercises it. However, defective doctrine
and false faith ruin everything. Therefore, when
these are concerned, neither toleration nor mercy
are in order, but only anger, dispute and
destruction - to be sure, only with the Word
of God as our weapon." - Martin Luther
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
27 Jan 2008 06:50:59 AM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Pastor Dave wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 19:55:07 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
| <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|
|
|> Pastor Dave wrote:
|>
|> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:57:58 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
|> | <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|> |
|> |
|> |> Pastor Dave wrote:
|> |>
|> |> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:37:53 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
|> |> | <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|> |> |
|> |> |
|> |> |> Pastor Dave wrote:
|> |> |> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:37 -0500, Mike
|> |> |> | <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> said the following:
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> |> TruthCheck wrote:
|> |> |> |>
|> |> |> |>> The Bible says the shroud is the real deal.
|> |> |> |> And using the same software on Moby *****
|> |> |> |> shows that it says I am god.
|> |> |> |
|> |> |> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> |> |> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> |> |> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> |> |> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> |> |> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> |> |> | one might personally feel about it.
|> |> |>
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Don't read the silly thing much, do you Pastor Dork?
|> |> |
|> |> | You have just disqualified yourself as an unbiased
|> |> | researcher of the custom involved. But what do
|> |> | you care about that, when you would be passing
|> |> | up an opportunity to slam me, right? <chuckle>
|> |> |
|> |>
|> |> I probably have a great deal more time exploring
|> |> history then you will ever dream of.
|> |
|> | You can lie, if you wish.
|> |
|> |
|> |> |> John 20
|> |> |>
|> |> |> Try it. Then come back and tell us the total
|> |> |> number of "shrouds" used.
|> |> |
|> |> | I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
|> |> | the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
|> |> | Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
|> |> | two wrappings that would end up covering
|> |> | the body's head.
|> |> |
|> |> | But in your arrogance and eagerness to make sure
|> |> | that the Scriptures are wrong, you assumed that
|> |> | your 2 minutes of supposed "research" equaled
|> |> | my 25 years into the customs of the Jewish people.
|> |> |
|> |> | In fact, you were so eager to attempt to ridicule me,
|> |> | that you didn't even take the time to tell me which
|> |> | side of the issue you fall on.
|> |> |
|> |> | Now if you ever wish to get educated about this
|> |> | custom, then let me know and I'd be happy to
|> |> | inform you of how this custom was carried out.
|> |> |
|> |> Sorry bub, but try again.
|> |>
|> |> According to actual Jewish historians,
|> |> aka the University at Tel Aviv, peasants
|> |> where wrapped, very similar to Egyptian
|> |> mummies but with out the organ removal
|> |> and such.
|> |
|> | See below.
|> |
|> |
|> |> Further, the wrappings were not a single cloth,
|> |> as in European winding sheets.
|> |
|> | Hey stupid, that's what I said.
|> |
|> | Like I said, you don't care about truth.
|> | You don't even read what I write,
|> | which is why you snipped it.
|> |
|> Ahhh, no.
|>
|> You claim above:
|>
|> |> | I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
|> |> | the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
|> |> | Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
|> |> | two wrappings that would end up covering
|> |> | the body's head.
|>
|> After you stated:
|>
|> |> |> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> |> |> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> |> |> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> |> |> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> |> |> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> |> |> | one might personally feel about it.
|>
|>
|> There was NO shroud of any kind. There were wrappings, lots of
wrappings.
|>
|> Please, do try to keep up in the future.
|
| You are a stupid man. And you are not interested
| in learning. Goodbye.
|
So, you can not refute your own words.
Thanks.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHnH4vf+wl0F6+jvgRAkBzAJ0ZCY2lcnhoCIndBpcdoLSzA44SugCgpPQf
iiPHgtvhHExiv5p/x5okEBk=
=z9Cp
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 11:33:18 AM |
|
|
Pastor Dave wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:57:58 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
<ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
Pastor Dave wrote:
| On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:37:53 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
| <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|
|
|> Pastor Dave wrote:
|> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:37 -0500, Mike
|> | <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> said the following:
|> |
|> |
|> |> TruthCheck wrote:
|> |>
|> |>> The Bible says the shroud is the real deal.
|> |> And using the same software on Moby *****
|> |> shows that it says I am god.
|> |
|> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|> | one might personally feel about it.
|>
|>
|> Don't read the silly thing much, do you Pastor Dork?
|
| You have just disqualified yourself as an unbiased
| researcher of the custom involved. But what do
| you care about that, when you would be passing
| up an opportunity to slam me, right? <chuckle>
|
I probably have a great deal more time exploring
history then you will ever dream of.
You can lie, if you wish.
|> John 20
|>
|> Try it. Then come back and tell us the total
|> number of "shrouds" used.
|
| I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
| the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
| Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
| two wrappings that would end up covering
| the body's head.
|
| But in your arrogance and eagerness to make sure
| that the Scriptures are wrong, you assumed that
| your 2 minutes of supposed "research" equaled
| my 25 years into the customs of the Jewish people.
|
| In fact, you were so eager to attempt to ridicule me,
| that you didn't even take the time to tell me which
| side of the issue you fall on.
|
| Now if you ever wish to get educated about this
| custom, then let me know and I'd be happy to
| inform you of how this custom was carried out.
|
Sorry bub, but try again.
According to actual Jewish historians,
aka the University at Tel Aviv, peasants
where wrapped, very similar to Egyptian
mummies but with out the organ removal
and such.
Which would not result in a shroud that shows an image like the Shroud
of Turin shows.
See below.
Further, the wrappings were not a single cloth,
as in European winding sheets.
Hey stupid, that's what I said.
Hey, stupid, you claimed there were only 2 cloths ("There were two
wrappings that would end up covering the body's head."). There were way
more than that.
Like I said, you don't care about truth.
You don't even read what I write,
which is why you snipped it.
Hey, stupid, he didn't snip a thing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rev. Karl E. Taylor" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
29 Jan 2008 06:38:33 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Mike wrote:
| Pastor Dave wrote:
|> On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 12:57:58 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
|> <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|>
|>
|>> Pastor Dave wrote:
|>>
|>> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 10:37:53 -0700, "Rev. Karl E. Taylor"
|>> | <ktayloraz@getnet.net> said the following:
|>> |
|>> |
|>> |> Pastor Dave wrote:
|>> |> | On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 08:05:37 -0500, Mike
|>> |> | <prabbit1@shamrocksgf.com> said the following:
|>> |> |
|>> |> |
|>> |> |> TruthCheck wrote:
|>> |> |>
|>> |> |>> The Bible says the shroud is the real deal.
|>> |> |> And using the same software on Moby *****
|>> |> |> shows that it says I am god.
|>> |> |
|>> |> | The most that the Bible says, is that there was
|>> |> | a shroud. Is that the "Shroud of Turin"? Well,
|>> |> | that's another question. To say that the Bible
|>> |> | proves that that specific shroud is the shroud,
|>> |> | is ridiculous, without proof, no matter how
|>> |> | one might personally feel about it.
|>> |>
|>> |>
|>> |> Don't read the silly thing much, do you Pastor Dork?
|>> |
|>> | You have just disqualified yourself as an unbiased
|>> | researcher of the custom involved. But what do
|>> | you care about that, when you would be passing
|>> | up an opportunity to slam me, right? <chuckle>
|>> |
|>>
|>> I probably have a great deal more time exploring
|>> history then you will ever dream of.
|>
|> You can lie, if you wish.
|>
|>
|>> |> John 20
|>> |>
|>> |> Try it. Then come back and tell us the total
|>> |> number of "shrouds" used.
|>> |
|>> | I read it just fine. What you don't read, is how
|>> | the Jewish burial procedure worked, which the
|>> | Scriptures line up perfectly with. There were
|>> | two wrappings that would end up covering
|>> | the body's head.
|>> |
|>> | But in your arrogance and eagerness to make sure
|>> | that the Scriptures are wrong, you assumed that
|>> | your 2 minutes of supposed "research" equaled
|>> | my 25 years into the customs of the Jewish people.
|>> |
|>> | In fact, you were so eager to attempt to ridicule me,
|>> | that you didn't even take the time to tell me which
|>> | side of the issue you fall on.
|>> |
|>> | Now if you ever wish to get educated about this
|>> | custom, then let me know and I'd be happy to
|>> | inform you of how this custom was carried out.
|>> |
|>> Sorry bub, but try again.
|>>
|>> According to actual Jewish historians,
|>> aka the University at Tel Aviv, peasants
|>> where wrapped, very similar to Egyptian
|>> mummies but with out the organ removal
|>> and such.
|
| Which would not result in a shroud that shows an image like the Shroud
| of Turin shows.
|
|> See below.
|>
|>
|>> Further, the wrappings were not a single cloth,
|>> as in European winding sheets.
|>
|> Hey stupid, that's what I said.
|
| Hey, stupid, you claimed there were only 2 cloths ("There were two
| wrappings that would end up covering the body's head."). There were way
| more than that.
|
|> Like I said, you don't care about truth.
|> You don't even read what I write,
|> which is why you snipped it.
|
| Hey, stupid, he didn't snip a thing.
|
True, but when Pastor Dork has lost an argument he resorts to accusations.
Oh well.
- --
There are none more ignorant and useless,
than they that seek answers on their knees,
with their eyes closed.
____________________________________________________________________
Rev. Karl E. Taylor http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
A.A #1143 http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/
Apostle of Dr. Lao EAC: Virgin Conversion Unit Director
____________________________________________________________________
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFHn8cJf+wl0F6+jvgRAr5RAKCf3hbuWTABH2OyAp3/H4LKtYA8zgCfUNZY
8jlaNxJ2KnOx1nwfiJXusmA=
=JMjd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
26 Jan 2008 05:52:15 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:39:26 -0800 (PST), Werewolfy
<Werewolfy1@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Jan, 23:29, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:07 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:30 pm, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the shroud?What will anyone lose
one way or the other?
You gain nothing by the shroud being real, and you lose nothing if it
is not.
Who clings? ?What is the purpose of denying the Shroud?
Sigh. Nobody "denies" anything.
Idiots who should know better make claims in the real world that if
they kept them inside their religion, nobody would take any notice.
But instead they make them to try and convince people of their
religion's tenets.
So they get checked.
But for example, even if the shroud weren't medieval (which the RCC
knows because the Bishop who reported it to the Vatican named the
painter) it could be anybody.
The purpose is if people make some sort of scientific claim about it
and
others want to dispute it.Valid behaviour in science.Necessary.
BTW this is also me, Leo Sgouros.I use this account, "adravirgo" and
also "sheppjon".Sometimes this newsreader gets funky on replying.
Nobody "wants to dispute it". I wish people wouldn't invent
non-existent motives where there are none.
In fact nobody would give it a though if silly believers hadn't tried
to use it as "proof".
The RCC cave up fragments of this and other pieces of cloth for double
blind carbon dating. This showed it was medieval.
? As you say,
nobody gains if the shroud is real.
Except those who claim that Jesus never existed, was never crucified,
and that the Gospels are fiction - those people lose. ?They MUST
therefore deny the shroud.
More fabricated motivations, this time from somebody incapable of
thinking outside their religion. There is a real world beyond it,
where it is merely one of hundreds of competing religions, each of
which is only special to its own believers.
TCross
If God needed a prop like that he would make it obvious and there
would be no controversy or atheists.There is no purpose in another
article that you need to accept on faith.
That's right.
But there are so many problems with the shroud. Plenty of
rationalisations, plenty of arguments from ignorance leading to non
sequiturs, etc all of which somewhere presume Jesus.
I wish someone would burn the bloody thing and take the conversation
out of the news group I use, alt phrophecies Nostradamus.
Me too.
It's that damned Min idiot again..isn't it?
Probably.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A.Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
26 Jan 2008 06:09:12 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:01:17 -0800 (PST), DEE <adravirgo@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:52 pm, Christopher A.Lee <ca...@optonline.net> wrote:
On Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:39:26 -0800 (PST), Werewolfy
<Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Jan, 23:29, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:07 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:30 pm, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the shroud?What will anyone lose
one way or the other?
You gain nothing by the shroud being real, and you lose nothing if it
is not.
Who clings? ?What is the purpose of denying the Shroud?
Sigh. Nobody "denies" anything.
Idiots who should know better make claims in the real world that if
they kept them inside their religion, nobody would take any notice.
But instead they make them to try and convince people of their
religion's tenets.
So they get checked.
But for example, even if the shroud weren't medieval (which the RCC
knows because the Bishop who reported it to the Vatican named the
painter) it could be anybody.
The purpose is if people make some sort of scientific claim about it
and
others want to dispute it.Valid behaviour in science.Necessary.
BTW this is also me, Leo Sgouros.I use this account, "adravirgo" and
also "sheppjon".Sometimes this newsreader gets funky on replying.
Nobody "wants to dispute it". I wish people wouldn't invent
non-existent motives where there are none.
I meant that in the context of falsifiability.Poor wording on my part.
Sorry, I misunderstod what you meant.
I'd seen the other poster's misrepresentationto the point of
falsehood.
In fact nobody would give it a though if silly believers hadn't tried
to use it as "proof".
The RCC cave up fragments of this and other pieces of cloth for double
blind carbon dating. This showed it was medieval.
? As you say,
nobody gains if the shroud is real.
Except those who claim that Jesus never existed, was never crucified,
and that the Gospels are fiction - those people lose. ?They MUST
therefore deny the shroud.
More fabricated motivations, this time from somebody incapable of
thinking outside their religion. There is a real world beyond it,
where it is merely one of hundreds of competing religions, each of
which is only special to its own believers.
TCross
If God needed a prop like that he would make it obvious and there
would be no controversy or atheists.There is no purpose in another
article that you need to accept on faith.
That's right.
But there are so many problems with the shroud. Plenty of
rationalisations, plenty of arguments from ignorance leading to non
sequiturs, etc all of which somewhere presume Jesus.
I wish someone would burn the bloody thing and take the conversation
out of the news group I use, alt phrophecies Nostradamus.
Me too.
It's that damned Min idiot again..isn't it?
Probably.
Werewolfy
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
26 Jan 2008 08:25:33 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:39 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Jan, 23:29, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:07 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:30 pm, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the shroud?What will anyone lose
one way or the other?
You gain nothing by the shroud being real, and you lose nothing if it
is not.
Who clings? �What is the purpose of denying the Shroud?
The purpose is if people make some sort of scientific claim about it
and
others want to dispute it.Valid behaviour in science.Necessary.
BTW this is also me, Leo Sgouros.I use this account, "adravirgo" and
also "sheppjon".Sometimes this newsreader gets funky on replying.
� As you say,
nobody gains if the shroud is real.
Except those who claim that Jesus never existed, was never crucified,
and that the Gospels are fiction - those people lose. �They MUST
therefore deny the shroud.
TCross
If God needed a prop like that he would make it obvious and there
would be no controversy or atheists.There is no purpose in another
article that you need to accept on faith.
I wish someone would burn the bloody thing
That is the normal sentiment of a fanatic toward the relics of a rival
religion. You are right in line with three thousand years of Judaism.
TCross
As usual, Terry/Carol, you can't resist flaunting your antisemitic
bigotry. One would think you would be ashamed of being such a bigot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
26 Jan 2008 10:02:35 PM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:25 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:39 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Jan, 23:29, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:07 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:30 pm, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the shroud?What will anyone lose
one way or the other?
You gain nothing by the shroud being real, and you lose nothing if it
is not.
Who clings? �What is the purpose of denying the Shroud?
The purpose is if people make some sort of scientific claim about it
and
others want to dispute it.Valid behaviour in science.Necessary.
BTW this is also me, Leo Sgouros.I use this account, "adravirgo" and
also "sheppjon".Sometimes this newsreader gets funky on replying.
� As you say,
nobody gains if the shroud is real.
Except those who claim that Jesus never existed, was never crucified,
and that the Gospels are fiction - those people lose. �They MUST
therefore deny the shroud.
TCross
If God needed a prop like that he would make it obvious and there
would be no controversy or atheists.There is no purpose in another
article that you need to accept on faith.
I wish someone would burn the bloody thing
That is the normal sentiment of a fanatic toward the relics of a rival
religion. You are right in line with three thousand years of Judaism.
TCross
As usual, Terry/Carol, you can't resist flaunting your antisemitic
bigotry. One would think you would be ashamed of being such a bigot.
I didn't say there is anything wrong with it - murdering non-believers
of the True Faith and destroying their cultural artifacts is the time-
honored tradition of all followers of Moses. Who am I to criticize?
You leap too quick to punch that "antisemitism" nuclear launch button.
No, Terry/Carol. You didn't need to say anything, but you couldn't
resist. It simply shows you for what you are.
But don't you find it curious that Atheists have the same custom? I
do.
TCross
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
27 Jan 2008 02:23:45 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:02 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:25 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 3:39 pm, Werewolfy <Werewol...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
On 26 Jan, 23:29, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 5:07 pm, Terry Cross <tcros...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 26, 2:30 pm, DEE <adravi...@gmail.com> wrote:
What is the importance of clinging to the shroud?What will anyone lose
one way or the other?
You gain nothing by the shroud being real, and you lose nothing if it
is not.
Who clings? �What is the purpose of denying the Shroud?
The purpose is if people make some sort of scientific claim about it
and
others want to dispute it.Valid behaviour in science.Necessary.
BTW this is also me, Leo Sgouros.I use this account, "adravirgo" and
also "sheppjon".Sometimes this newsreader gets funky on replying.
� As you say,
nobody gains if the shroud is real.
Except those who claim that Jesus never existed, was never crucified,
and that the Gospels are fiction - those people lose. �They MUST
therefore deny the shroud.
TCross
If God needed a prop like that he would make it obvious and there
would be no controversy or atheists.There is no purpose in another
article that you need to accept on faith.
I wish someone would burn the bloody thing
That is the normal sentiment of a fanatic toward the relics of a rival
religion. You are right in line with three thousand years of Judaism.
TCross
As usual, Terry/Carol, you can't resist flaunting your antisemitic
bigotry. One would think you would be ashamed of being such a bigot.
I didn't say there is anything wrong with it - murdering non-believers
of the True Faith and destroying their cultural artifacts is the time-
honored tradition of all followers of Moses. Who am I to criticize?
You leap too quick to punch that "antisemitism" nuclear launch button.
No, Terry/Carol. You didn't need to say anything, but you couldn't
resist. It simply shows you for what you are.
But don't you find it curious that Atheists have the same custom? I
do.
TCross
But don't you find it curious that Atheists have the same custom? I
do.
TCross
No, I don't. I think that your views of both are equally bigoted and
ridiculous. Your speculations are gratuitously hateful. I despise you
on my atheist days just as much as on my Jewish days. But I don't wish
you harm; in fact, I'm not sure whether you are capable of change
without serious psychological harm. So while I would very much like you
to be able to enter decent society, I'm not sure whether the risk to you
is worth it. Stay in your little swamp, Terry/Carol, it's probably
safer for you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "cactus" |
|
| Title: Re: The mystery of the Holy Shroud |
27 Jan 2008 02:39:12 AM |
|
|
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 27, 12:23 am, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 8:02 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
Terry Cross wrote:
On Jan 26, 6:25 pm, cactus <cac...@nonespam.com> wrote:
I wish someone would burn the bloody thing
That is the normal sentiment of a fanatic toward the relics of a rival
religion. You are right in line with three thousand years of Judaism.
TCross
As usual, Terry/Carol, you can't resist flaunting your antisemitic
bigotry. One would think you would be ashamed of being such a bigot.
I didn't say there is anything wrong with it - murdering non-believers
of the True Faith and destroying their cultural artifacts is the time-
honored tradition of all followers of Moses. Who am I to criticize?
You leap too quick to punch that "antisemitism" nuclear launch button.
No, Terry/Carol. You didn't need to say anything, but you couldn't
resist. It simply shows you for what you are.
But don't you find it curious that Atheists have the same custom? I
do.
TCross
But don't you find it curious that Atheists have the same custom? I
do.
TCross
No, I don't. I think that your views of both are equally bigoted and
ridiculous.
So you have detected that I bigoted against Atheists? How marvelous!
That poor oppressed minority, struggling to survive in the poorer
sections of town, forbidden to take professional positions, barred
from higher education, sneered at and spat upon in public ...
Your speculations are gratuitously hateful.
Destruction o other religions should be tolerated, right? After all,
if it's a religious commandment to destroy, murder, massacre, rape,
and enslave, we should tolerate it. I see where you are coming from.
I despise you
on my atheist days just as much as on my Jewish days.
Which of those days do they call "niddah?"
TCross
You should know that with all your alleged knowledge. And you should
know the meaning of the word as well.
You are regressing.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
