Who was Jesus?

[naomi24]

Any idea?

[jomifl]

Khandro, I am not sure what you meant when you described panning a camera to get views of a portrait then re-assembling them. An image on a flat plane is just that. All the information in the image can be obtained from a viewpoint perpedicular to the centre of the image, surely?

[Cetti]

It's been 3 years naomi and I'm a bit rusty with posting on AB, so tell me how what to do via Chatterbank and perhaps we could have a natter.

[starone]

Easter was originally a pagan festival which has been adopted and adapted by Christians, as of course was Christmas (Yuletide).

[jackthehat]

I remember seeing a TV programme many years ago, where the Turin shroud was given 'holographic' treatment. It was *not* the same as was shown in my link, but I couldn't find any mention of the one I sought.

The resulting 3-d image was used to, primarily, contradict the idea that the shroud had been 'painted/stained' during the Medieval period. A painted image was similarly 'holographed (hologrammed?)' and did not yield the same results.

I don't think that *anyone* can claim that the Turin Shroud is that used to wrap the mortal remains of Jesus, but until the Vatican decides to let it undergo proper rigorous scientific testing, I would be happy to accept that it is not a painted hoax.

[FredPuli43]

If Jesus was a completely fictional character, we have the apparent problem of his being written about as early as 70 AD (the gospel we know as Mark's gospel) and a whole following created . Which is more plausible, that there was a real person who was credited with extraordinary deeds, such as would be associated with someone sent by a god, by imaginative believers or that somebody invented a non-existent person who 'lived' only decades before they created him? It's bit of a stretch to think that, even 2,000 years ago, someone would place a fictional character to be passed off as real, in the equivalent of what,say, the 1930s are to us.
It is a common to find that real people are ascribed miraculous powers or deeds, be they witch doctors, Saint Joan of Arc, other saints in the Catholic church, or even kings (who decided that scrofula, 'the King's evil', could be cured by the touch of the monarch?)

[Khandro]

I have a mass of documentation on the shroud, too much for here, but covering things like the weave of the linen, pollen take from it, and the secrecy always surrounding the tests on it. In an early test the sample was 'destroyed by fire'. Dr Holger Kersten of Freiburg University has made an exhaustive study into the background of all the analysis and found nothing but chicanery; in the carbon dating of 1988. the three samples given to laboratories in Zürich, Oxford and Tucson were not even from the shroud at all. After the tests the director of the investigation; Dr Michael Tite was donated a million pounds for a new institute by 'friends and sponsors' and cardinal Ballestrero unexpectedly went into retirement and was no longer available for interview.

Kersten sums up on the carbon dating fiasco; "The radiocarbon dating of 1988 has turned out to be no more than a cynical attempt at criminal deception, the intentional, and fraudulent falsification of the test results is yet one more proof that the Turin Shroud really is the shroud in which Jesus was once wrapped, and that he was still alive when he was 'laid to rest' in it.

[naomi24]

Beso, whilst there’s no doubt that other gods and other religions greatly influenced the Abrahamic faiths –notably Zoroastrianism – since Mithras was a God of the Romans (a fact that would have been well known to Paul, the architect of Christianity) and the story of Mithras bears an uncanny resemblance to that of Jesus, I think it very likely that Paul saw that as a carrot to entice new recruits. Offer them something they were familiar with, but with extra benefits, and the job was done. For the same reasons, Christianity hijacked Pagan festivals and simply changed the names.

Khandro, when you say ‘originally authentic’, I assume you’re talking about the date of the cloth, rather than the identity of the subject?

Fred, I believe the man Jesus existed – but I don’t believe in magic – and he wasn’t the only reputed miracle working healer around at that time.

Cetti, I’ve got to go out soon, but I’ll have a chat with you later this afternoon in Chatterbank. Oh, I am pleased you’re okay! :o)

[jackthehat]

As I said, until the Vatican decides to let Science have an exhaustive look at the Turin Shroud, all the doubts will remain.

Even *if* carbon- and pollen-dating, etc, confirm that it is contemporaneous with Jesus' death, unless Mary sewed his name label into it, there can never be any evidence that it wrapped the body of Christ!

[naomi24]

//until the Vatican decides to let Science have an exhaustive look at the Turin Shroud, all the doubts will remain.//

They're never going to do that, Jack. Whilst doubt remains, the chance of people believing it remains.

[jackthehat]

'zackly!! :o)

Faith through doubt.......it's hardly a ringing endorsement!!

[naomi24]

No, it isn't, but people who have faith don't have doubt because they never investigate anything that might contradict that faith. 'Heaven' forbid they should find answers they weren't looking for. ;o)

[vulcan]

The thing that has puzzled me regarding the shroud is, wouldn't a cloth that has been wrapped around a body, show a distorted image rather then a "normal" type picture, which this clearly is ?

[Khandro]

Naomi, "when you say ‘originally authentic’, I assume you’re talking about the date of the cloth, rather than the identity of the subject? " Well, put it this way; there is evidence that the cloth, by the weave of the fabric and and from what it is made, plus twelve types of pollen, which come from the region of lake Galilee, and some of which do not appear in Europe. It contains blood and sweat and was wrapped around a living man. Throughout history people have claimed it was Jesus, sceptics will say it isn't proof, but there are enough facts for me to say that it was probably Christ. Why should it be anyone else?

[jackthehat]

Why *shouldn't* it be anyone else?

He wasn't the only person to die in that place at that time......

[birdie1971]

I don't know enough about the shroud to know if it's been correctly dated and placed in the correct geographic location but I do know that even if those two things are true, there's no good reason to believe it depicts the image of Christ. It could literally be anyone.

[jomifl]

Khandro, there are enough relics amassed in thousands of churches all over Europe to build several christs and probably all the disciples too, this is no different. Even if the shroud is/was contemporaneous with jesus it proves nothing. The image is obviously an artifact, probably from a previous use of the shroud. Remains of body fluids could have come from anyone. If you were going to 'wrap' a body in a piece of cloth 14 feet long would you just lay the cloth over the body. The 'wrapping' of corpses has always been exactly that, from the Egyptian mummies to present day. Nothing has been proven by the 'evidence' it has just raised more doubts in my mind.

[Khandro]

I didn't say it was, I said it probably was. Put the other way round; why would anyone want to protect a blood-stained piece of linen if it belong to an anonymous person ?

[Gromit]

A bit of a cult.

[Khandro]

PS. and it wasn't a corpse, - corpses don't sweat and bleed.

[birdie1971]

^ Sort of. A corpse doesn't 'bleed' because bleeding requires pressure (ie. a heartbeat). However, blood will still leave the body through any open wound after death due to the effects of gravity.