|Hey Walter -- seen this new Jesus evidence (maybe)?||scottfree|
Oct 21, 2002 10:52 AM
Oct 21, 2002 11:35 AM
|"No physical artifact from the first century related to Jesus has been discovered and verified."
What about the Shroud of Turin? Didn't the first attempt at carbon dating it disprove it while a second attempt verify it? I can't remember the whole story.
|That's a good question...||Wayne|
Oct 21, 2002 11:46 AM
|but seeing as that guy is an expert I would suspect that the Shroud of Turin, which is usually met with alot of skepticism even in the popular press, probably isn't given much credance. But I'm going to go look. I thought I remember reading that the textile itself, either the weave or the actual material or both, were western european and later in age than 1st century AD anyway.
Plus even if it dated correctly, is it plausible that wrapping a textile around a dead body would leave a "picture" of the face? Then again, if it it's a miracle I guess it doesn't have to be plausible.
|Wayne, here's what I found....||rtyszko|
Oct 21, 2002 12:03 PM
|I got a kick out of the last line in the article. I think that the current thinking is that it's a hoax, but a friggin brilliant one. My question to Catholics has always been; Why would it be so important to prove the burial cloth is real or fake? I mean, even if it's fake it doesn't disprove that Christ lived, died or rose from the dead. It just proves that the cloth is fake, that's all.
|The irrefutable "Energy of God" argument against carbon....||rtyszko|
Oct 21, 2002 12:07 PM
|LOL - That was funny. Talk about speculation!||Kristin|
Oct 21, 2002 1:34 PM
|John P. Boatwright must be a very important scientist indeed. They created an award in his honor:
And here is a great quote from Mr. Boatwright:
"I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't written it oh maybe 20 times now." -- John P. Boatwright
taken from: http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/qotm_read.php?y=1998&m=7
His contributions are invaluable indeed:
Florida Man Proves Existence Of God
Tampa Bay resident John P. Boatwright has conclusively proved the existence of the Christian God, according to documents on his webpage. Boatwright has returned to the original Hebrew texts of the Bible and corrected various mistakes made in the translation to demonstrate that it's all absolutely true. Common errors made by the medieval translators include using the word "column" where the correct translation was "intercontinental ballistic missile", and "firmament", which should have read "primordial matter".
Make sure you don't miss any of his important articles. Appearantly he writes under a number of aliases.
Butt certainly, we all hope Mr. Boatwright recovers from his recent accident:
|I need to apologize for this post||Kristin|
Oct 22, 2002 5:43 AM
|On Sunday morning I sat in Axis (church) and watched a 3 minute clip of homosexual protests staged by christian groups.* One clip showed two you boys--perhaps 8-10 years old--holding signs reading, "God hates fags," and "Die." These little boys were laughing. They enjoy hating. It made me cry, and I wondered who is teaching our children to be so cruel. And then I realized that I can be just as cruel. I have such a propensity inside me to laugh at others. I'm really like those boys in many ways, just older, which makes it worse.
So I made a decision, then and there, that I would stop being cruel. Stop making fun of people. Every single person on this earth, regardless of their choices has feelings that can be hurt. And being cruel and making fun never facilitates anything good in the other person. It only brings hurt and more anger and more confusion and more cruelty. But being kind to someone does amazing things. I've seen this principle at work in myself when others were kind to me.
It took a sum total of 27 hours for me to blow it--and in a pretty big way I fear. John Boatwright is a human being with feelings and I am sorry that I delighted in and participated in making jokes about him. I'm so sorry.
*These clips were not shown as a positive example at the service--they were shown in rather the opposite light. At Axis, we are committed to accepting others, not hating them--no matter the differences.
|I would hardly...||Wayne|
Oct 22, 2002 5:59 AM
|say you were being cruel to the guy, especially since he will in all probability never know it. I think it's a very delicate operation to tell someone they're an idiot without hurting their feelings. This guy's ideas are idle speculation at best, purposeful fabrications at worst, and he's trying to pass them off as legitimate facts. Getting made fun of for saying things that are silly is hardly the equivalent of being told to die or being hated because of lifestyle choices.|
|I'll go read that...||Wayne|
Oct 22, 2002 3:06 AM
|I looked for about 30 minutes and got a headache. Seems like you have a bunch of sites argueing weird esoteric techniques that proves it's "unexplainable by modern science" (i.e. a miracle?), and then some science (like pollen analysis that shows it's been in the middle east) to back up certain favorable ideas, and then a refutation of C14 dating since this is contradicts what they want to believe (but oddly enough the science that backs up their claims is without fault?). Then I found some sites that say it's known to have been a painted fabric that was a gift to a pope blah, blah, called by such and such a name in the middle ages, then disappears for awhile. That would explain why the "pro" sites seemed to go to such an effort to prove there's no paint on the shroud. What I found so odd about the pro sites is that there was no mention of the analysis of the textile itself. I have just enough familiarity with archaeology to get myself in trouble, but I know that textile analysis is a pretty well developed field since it can tell you so much. Anyway I gave up after 30 minutes, I'd like to believe there's a definitive book out there but I don't have much hope.|
|Shroud of Turin, fake?||Wayne|
Oct 22, 2002 10:00 AM
|Here's a site that appears to be a guy refuting a shroud supporter and contains several references to articles published in scientific journals which directly contradict what many of the shroud sites state as facts (with no supporting references by the way).
I'm glad to see I wasn't making up BS, this guy says the weave of the cloth was not used in 1st century Palestine. Also the carbon dates (from three independent labs) nicely support historical documents that indicate it was a middle ages forgery to profit off of the rampant relics "industry" of the day. The guys pretty blunt so it makes for a funny read.
|What are the scholars saying?||Wayne|
Oct 22, 2002 3:27 AM
|Here you go:
Is it real or fake: appears more legit than some other recent claims of "Jesus" artifacts, needs further analysis.
So it's real: Still could be a coincidence but there are some lines of arguement that support it being James' burial box.
Bottom line: I'd sure as hell like to be the guy who has it because there's enough circumstantial evidence that it COULD POSSIBLY be James' box which means anyone who wants to believe it is will do so and somebody no doubt will be willing to pay a pretty penny for it.
My conclusion would be even if authentic there's no conclusive proof that it's James' ossuary box and probably no hope of ever finding out, so I would just say I don't know one way or the other. Logical arguements lean me toward believing it is James' box but coincidences occur and James and Jesus weren't exactly uncommon names in first century Palestine.
|Hey Wayne (not Walter)||scottfree|
Oct 22, 2002 8:03 AM
|I apologize -- I was originally pointing this story out to you, but had a middle-aged moment and confused you with Walter on the Retro board. Just call me stevefree and we're even.
I think this is a pretty exciting discovery. For some reason, it just feels ... authentic. Not all supernatural and over-the-top like the Shroud. I'm not a Christian, but I dabble in religious history and early Christianity is fascinating to me. And I gotta say, the very idea that this could be THE James and THE Joseph and THE Jesus kinda gives me chills. What an incredible find this could be!
|Yeah, that's pretty much...||Wayne|
Oct 22, 2002 8:32 AM
|how I feel. Pretty cool find if it's authentic. It's a shame the middle east is such a messed up place, I've always thought it would be very interesting to go there and see all the old churches and mosques and temples, etc.
I recently read a new book about Richard the Lionhearted and Saladin and the crusade that really made me want to go there. Probably the locale that has had more effect on the history of the western world than any other.
|Did you mean me?||Walter|
Oct 24, 2002 5:53 PM
|I guess not but I do teach history at the local comm. college and we talked about it during class the other day.
Probably no way to conclusively prove its provenance but fascinating. A shame it's held by a private collector. It's something that should be seen.
|The box contained no bones...||Psalm 147-10_11|
Oct 25, 2002 12:21 PM
|Interestingly, James did not believe that Jesus was the Messiah during his ministry (Mark 3), but after Christ's resurrection, Jesus appeared to James before ascending to heaven (I Corinthians 13). Later, James was said to be a pillar in the early church (Galations 2).
So while the box contains no bones, someday, somewhere, I beleive James' ancient bones will be formed again when he is raised at Christ's return. Then he and his brother will meet again at the judgement seat.
I am looking forward to that day.