Recently wacthing a programme on ETWN, I have come to the conclusion that the shroud might actualy be the real piece of cloth used to wrap Christ after his burial. Think about it... how can someone devlope a cloth with an image only seen in negative view and predict that a thousand years later, there would be a machine (camera) to develope the image?

-- Andrew Swampillai (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), June 05, 2003

Answers

I am reasonably sure it's a fake.

Re the "negative 3D image", here's a reader comment on the "skeptics dictionary" site on the shroud

..."negative 3D" images abounded in medieval times, and are commonly know as rubbings.

In fact, I like to amuse my friends by taking a quarter out of my pocket and, with the aid of a pencil and a piece of paper, I magically recreate "the Shroud of George Washington."

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 05, 2003.

its most likely real. carbon testing shows its age (more than midevil times, which was when reverse 3d was popular). ive also had the great privilage to see the shroud on display in the Cathedral at Trier. further, my church has a painting which is considered a miracle because the artist had a dream of Jesus, which he then painted. the face on his painting matches EXACTLY the reverse image of the face of Jesus on the shroud, although the artist had never seen the shroud before.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2003.

I will always believe it's genuine. For a number of reasons. But no one is under any obligation to believe or to repudiate this relic.

It's not very easy to dismiss. One look and you might never again doubt it's real.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

Here are two good reasons why the shroud of turin is a fake:

1. The body of Jesus was bound in strips of linen and not one whole piece of cloth. (John 19:40).

2. John 20:5 confirms there were cloth(s) (more than one) lying there and verse 7 states that there was a handkerchief that was around Jesus head that was folded in a place separate from the linen cloths.

-- Kevin (noemail@nomail.com), June 05, 2003.

Maybe the translation from original texts is faulty. It may say something closer to a shroud. Cloths is plural in English. A head scarf of linen might have been lost, with the larger cloth preserved.. The shroud is definitely linen; and microscopic bits of pollen found in the Holy Land were discovered within the weave. I'm not sure the Bible text rules out one body cloth together with a wrap for the head. It doesn't necessarily sustain strips. I mean, ''two good reasons why the shroud of turin is a fake,'' is a questionable conclusion. It might be; or maybe not.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

thats funny, see, Jesus' entombment was paid for by a rich man, but you suppose this rich man could not have afforded the piece of linen for a burial shroud which was customary in that time? your claim is lost because it is anti cultural for the time. sorry.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 05, 2003.

The tests performed in the 1980s showed them from around 1250-1350 AD. As for the pollen, the shroud has been everywhere around the Mediterranean.

So I believe it is not the true cloth which was used to cover Jesus body.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 05, 2003.

I agree with Kevins's argument of pieces of cloth.

Kevin, have you red anything on the wasy Jews were buried in those days?

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 05, 2003.

Elpidio,
This was the conclusion years back after the carbon testing. But subsequently others have declared it wasn't a true test and disqualified the findings. I'll do a search when I get time, and recover the article which refuted all the first reports.

In fact, even if the first finding were final, it might not be sufficient to prove the shroud isn't the one Christ was buried in. Other determinations carry just as much weight. I'll get back to this soon.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

Elpidio,

I have not read anything on how the Jews were buried in that day, but the apostle John through inspiration of the Holy Spirit said: "Then they took the body of Jesus, and bound it in strips of linen with the spices, as the custom of the Jews is to bury." (John 19:40).

So, according to God's Word, the Jews buried the dead in strips of linen with spices. Since this is the case, [that strips of linen were used to bury the Jews] we can rightly conclude that the shroud of turin is a fake.

-- Kevin (noemail@noemail.com), June 05, 2003.

We are left with only what could be a misinterpreted text saying shroud, ''sudarium'' (the Latin)-- or accurately written as strips, or possibly a burial which was finished in a manner which was the sole exception to the rule. About the bible narrative, we couldn't say. It's supposed to be true. --But there are other considerations, I repeat. Which speak in favor of the shroud's authenticity.

The nail-wounds are seen very clearly on the figure. It is real blood, according to microscopic lab analysis. There is no counterfeiting that. But more significantly, the wounds depart from all accepted tradition. They are on each wrist. No forger could have known this from any report or from the Bible accounts. (There again, a different word for ''wrists'' is given by the apostle. He says hands.) This is more than a slip up. It tells more by that discrepancy than what carbon- dating is able to show.

Another sign; the figure's bloody head. Is there any other executed person in history known to have been crowned with thorns; or is Jesus Christ unique? He is; and the crown of thorns is a dead give-away. It means this was not some poor stranger. Only Jesus had His crown of thorns inflicted on Him; and the signs of the wounds on the head here point strictly to Our Lord. This was the King of the Jews; and that was His crown! Scientifically, it was demonstrated that a man could not be hung to die on a cross by the palms of his hands. How would the forger many centuries later know that? How would he know how to paint a figure in the negative? Many centuries before photography? Without leaving pigment traces on the linen? There are absolutely none. And, why was a sheet of cloth preserved, ANYWAY; over the millennium and a half before it came to light? To serve a whim? or a scam? Or because the ones who kept it knew it was a sacred relic like NO OTHER--? God knows. We operate on faith with regard to many less than important other mysteries. This one is very important, depending on its authenticity. If it's authentic, it's a true sensation; and a glorious one!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 05, 2003.

also, early carbon testing was horrible innacurate, with a range of error of + or - 2000. although the error was generally smaller than this, it can not be excused. that made early carbon testing useful for fossils, which were MUCH older than the shroud. but for something as new as the shroud, testing at that time would have more or less worthless results...

what does have interesting results however, is that the blood on the shroud and the relic of the Holy Blood at the basilica of the Holy Blood both bear the same blood type, although DNA testing isnt useful because of damage to the blood cells on the shroud, indicating their extreme age.

further, as i stated before, there are artists who paint pictures of Jesus, and somehow those faces match EXACTLY with the shroud, even though the artists have never seen the shroud. thats enough for me to believe it.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

You either believe what the Bible says is true, or you do not.

God cannot lie.

Here is another example where it is shown that when someone died there was one piece of cloth placed around the head and that is in John 11:44 "And he who had died came out bound hand and foot with graveclothes, and his face was wrapped with a cloth. Jesus said to them, "Loose him, and let him go."

Jesus had a hankerchief around his head (John 20:7), and so did Lazarus (John 11:44) which is consistent with what is said how the Jews buried their dead in John 19:40. There are NO contradictory statements in the Bible. We can still rightly conclude that the shroud of turin is a fake based on factual evidence from God's word.

-- Kevin (nomail@noemail.com), June 06, 2003.

and history shows us that over the cloths you point out there was ALWAYS placed a shroud, out of respect for the dead.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

Dear Kevin:
It's apparent where you're coming from. A literal fundamentalist and unquestioned text-analysis; or what you would deem a God-given truth.

No one here disputes the Word of God. ''God cannot lie,'' is a condescending remark, because I haven't called anything a lie.

I only suggest there may be some part lacking or ambiguous in translation; which could account for the anomaly.

And, the apostle John relates events in a way that might preclude his own presence as eye-witness, during Jesus' entombment. He tells everything happening up to and during the passion and death of Our Lord, with eye-witness knowledge. It's unmistakeable

However, John 19 :38 says, ''Now after these things'' Joseph of Arimathea --(paraphrased) came, asked Pilate for the body of Jesus, etc., and v. 40: ''THEY therefore took the body of Jesus, and wrapped it in linen CLOTHS with the spices after the Jewish manner of preparing for burial''.

First, THEY took the body, seems to say John was not himself at the site of burial, & not even with Joseph at Pilate's house. He could be relating everything as it was told to him!

''The manner of Jewish preparations for burial'', then, doesn't necessarily demand that no shroud was used. -- Especially since this was all hastily done, because sunset was coming, the start of the Sabbath.

My edition is a Douay-Rheims Bible, Kevin. The words '''strips of linen'' aren't exactly in this narrative. It says, wrapped in ''linen cloths with the spices.'' They could still be strips, I'm not arguing. But there is some ambiguity.

Not only that; but it may have been related to John after the fact, and no attention given to details. ''Cloths'' is not exclusive to ''a large cloth (shroud) plus a head cloth.

The cloth wrapping the head after death is easily accomodated to what may be a genuine shroud, anyway. I've seen old paintings etc., of burials where a large napkin was tied around the head of a corpse. It's mainly done to keep the jaws clenched tightly, because the mouths of the dead often gape open after death. This wrapping would not have covered the face of Jesus, but rather each side, with the ears covered.

Even His hair over the brow and down shoulders would have remained visible. Just as in the image on the Shroud of Turin.

Therefore, after a windy explanation, I can still conclude no real falsehood about this relic is definite. I believe the relic is authentic, and the image on it is that of Our Holy Saviour. I feel very certain.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 06, 2003.

Eugene,

First, I did not call you a liar, nor was I condescending as you so state, as I was merely stating a fact.

Second, my post did not even address you specifically but yet you seem to want to cause those who make any comment as though it were specifically addressed to you.

Third, there is nothing even remotely in the translations that we have today that even suggests the hint that any of what was translated concerning the passages I quoted to have any ambiguity in them at all.

The only ambiguity there, is that you choose not to believe what has been written.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 06, 2003.

no, kevin, it is not a matter of disbelief. HISTORY shows that a shroud was always laid over a dead body, AFTER it was wrapped and entombed. the followers of Christ would have ensured this respect for him, and as such the shroud exists, and there is good reason to suspect that the shroud of turin is it.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 06, 2003.

Kevin, Is it because you mean I think He lied to us in the gospel of John? Did I say that?

I reacted to your supercilious tone.

If you feel the words of John in regard to the burial cloths is final, so be it. I don't feel that way.

Because the words are a translation coming from semitic language ; as ''cloths''; which could mean a shroud and a headcloth. But you made it seem certain the cloths were strips. That's your right, if you understand Aramic better than others.

I know it was actually Lazarus who came out of the tomb wearing bandages. You have no way of truly certifying these were Jesus' burial cloths. None except the ENGLISH words for them.

Fundamentalists use the same tactic when they insist Jesus had siblings. We know He never did; that the words brethren & sisters in the semitic tongues mean various related clan members, from siblings to cousins to nephews and uncles. They were all referred to as brethren of one another. Let's be realistic; no one spoke English in Jesus' day.

This may be just the same case speaking of cloths. And the apostle is not exactly saying he witnessed the burial. Not nearly; so it leaves doubt.

If you don't care for this theory, go ahead and reject it. My opinion stands. And it does not contradict the Bible.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 06, 2003.

paul,

History does NOT show that a shroud was always laid over a dead body, AFTER it was wrapped and entombed. There is NO mention of this in the New Testament or the Old Testament. If Jesus body was wrapped in the linen cloths (or strips) [and it was], then there would be NO need to place another strip of linen over the whole body. They used the cloth to wrap the body and then used a separate cloth to place on the head.

Eugene,

Yes, I do not [feel] as you state, but I do believe that what is written is true. (John 20:31).

If you choose to disregard what is written concerning this matter that is your perogative.

It seems that the translators had NO problem translating the words from Greek to English and many other languages for these passages that I have quoted. If you feel that the translation of these verses is in error, then I am sure that you will be able to expound on how the greek scholars did err in their interpretation.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 06, 2003.

Dear Kev:
No, why expound on anything? This is all conjecture. I have seen the Shroud. It's an extraordinary relic.

To you, maybe it isn't. To you every single word in the New (and Old) Testament is more extraordinary. Well, bravo!

I know the Bible is God's Holy Word. But God isn't a schoolmaster, I figure. His Word can often be misunderstood, because those who write it and those who read it 2,000 years later often let their feelings take charge.

Saint Paul said it best. ''The letter kills, the spirit gives life.'' Be careful with the letter.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 06, 2003.

eugene,

Yes, God's word is often misunderstood. But, it is possible to understand God's word and we are admonished to understand as Paul said in Eph 5:17, "Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is."

He also said in Rom 12:2, "And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God."

God said in Proverbs 2:1-5, "My son, if you receive my words, And treasure my commands within you, so that you incline your ear to wisdom,and apply your heart to understanding; Yes, if you cry out for discernment,and lift up your voice for understanding, If you seek her as silver, and search for her as for hidden treasures; Then you will understand the fear of the LORD, And find the knowledge of God."

So, it is possible to understand God's word.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 06, 2003.

Now we know, Kevin was foreordained to know God's Word; under all circumstances. I can't say this for myself.

I accept the Holy Bible for what it is. Another good way by which He speaks; and the holiest of impulses for meditation on God's Will.

God gave us His Word for consolation; He sent us His Son to save us. it was never left up to the Holy Bible to accomplish anything more in this world.

If you believe differently, Kevin-- show us in the Bible where you got this notion. After you achieve that end, we'll argue the importance of Christ's Holy Church in our lives. Would that be interesting for you?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 07, 2003.

History does NOT show that a shroud was always laid over a dead body, AFTER it was wrapped and entombed. There is NO mention of this in the New Testament or the Old Testament. If Jesus body was wrapped in the linen cloths (or strips) [and it was], then there would be NO need to place another strip of linen over the whole body. They used the cloth to wrap the body and then used a separate cloth to place on the head.

no, youre right, the Bible says nothing about shrouds for Jesus. BUT because of mistranslations and inherent flaws in the semantics as a result of multiple translations, we must assume that certain acts in the Bible can be verified more fully with the aid of historians. thus we know that at the time of Jesus it was only respectful to cover the body with a shroud.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2003.

Paul, Kevin, et al:
I'm not going to have a cow over this. It's perfectly all right to be a skeptic.

All I know is, there's a relic today known as the Shroud of Turin. One look at it and it shouts another GOSPEL right at you (My impression). Not to worry, Kevin. I know the Bible is holy and inspired. I just see Jesus Christ's figure and features in the image showing on the shroud. To me there is no other option; it's a no-brainer. That's not the image of Houdini or George Washington.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 07, 2003.

kevin,

perhaps the question should be raised... have you ever seen the shroud of turin?

what, aside from some translated at least four times version of text leads you to believe it to be false? just curious because i want to understand your rejection of this relic.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 07, 2003.

There are also a few other things to remember when thinking about the shroud. The carbon testing is also not accurate because the shroud was burnied. The church that it was in went up in flames and the edges of the shroud were burned. There was a show on the Discovery Channel about the shroud a long time ago. The program said that for a person to paint the shroud, the person would have to stand 20 feet away from the shroud and use a pole to hold the brush. I don't think that I could paint an image like that from 20 feet away. There is an interesting thing about the pollen too. The pollen comes from one place in Israel. But it has been argued that the shroud had traveled all over the place. This is true, but most of the time it was stored in a box. Kind of like the Arc of the Covenant. Same idea. This explains why there is not much pollen from other places on the shroud.

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), June 07, 2003.

Jmj

Kevin, your objections carry no weight at all.
If you had even the slightest idea about all the decades of research and books and articles and Internet sites that exist concerning the Shroud of Turin, it would blow your mind. Do some research before coming here and sounding off uselessly, please. You can be 100% sure that your concern about numbers of cloths has been complete addressed and explained. I have seen hours upon hours of programs on TV (especially EWTN) about the Shroud. If you had seen the same hours, you would be completely mum right now.

(By the way, are you the same "churches of Christ" Kevin who plagued this forum once before?)

And Stephen, you too know not what you are talking about. "Rubbings," indeed! If you had read or watched a lot about the shroud, you would know that there is no pigment whatsoever on the cloth (no paint or anything else applied by a human hand). Other than the bloodstains, the light yellowish "colorations" that make up the "negative image" have been determined to have been caused by a chemical change in the uppermost layer of fibrils, consistent with some kind of extremely brief burst of heat or radiation (if I recall correctly).

I think that new carbon tests may be done some day, using a piece of cloth from a more reliable section of the Shroud and involving more reliable labs and techniques. I saw a film of the cutting of the fragment that was tested -- from a rather questionable area (corner/edge). For various reasons, brilliant scientists claim that there is plenty of room to doubt that the initial Carbon-14 test results were valid.

I don't claim that the Shroud is genuine -- because I am not qualified to judge. I only speak up to say that uninformed, rank amateurs ought to keep their traps shut rather than waste their own (and our) time.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 08, 2003.

The shroud of Turin like all things in our religion is full of mystery. If any factor of our beliefs could truly be scientifically proven I think that would take away half the beauty of our faith. It is our ability to be in awe of something like the shroud that gives us the greatest sense of God. We can still be in awe of him. No true proof needs to exist in order for us to believe, as we should, blindly. We need to prove our faith by not having absolute defining proof of our Lord and still believing in spite of it. If all of God’s mysteries could be proven without a shadow of a doubt we would all believe and there would be no reason for us to even have this or any religious forum. It would make it too easy and so much less rewarding. Leave the cynics to their version of the truth. Faith is truth, because it is what gives us peace, love, hope, and wonderment without absolute proof. As to the bible being translated incorrectly, think of it this way. The bible is inspired by God but written by men. Then translated by other men centuries later, then again and again. If we know nothing else of our existence is that we make mistakes, well intentioned or not. One more thing, English in this county alone has change in unimaginable ways in just two hundred years. If our fore-fathers were to suddenly appear and try to communicate it wouldn’t surprise me if they thought they where in another country. Mistakes had to have been made that’s just common sense, and it adds to the mystery. Taking the bible word for word is a fool’s errand, taking what it has to teach and applying it to our own lives as best we can is what will guide us through this life. The greatest minds have not been able to unlock the mysteries of the bible...Kevin. Humility is a virtue, one that I don’t personally possess but I’m glad to see I’m not alone.

God Bless Fabiola

-- Fabiola Cagigal Acciarri (ubuibme77479@yahoo.com), June 08, 2003.

I remember seeing a picture in Zenit Newsletter of our Holy Father, Pope John Paul, praying in Turin Cathedral in front of the reliquary that contained the shroud.

Since the Pope is more or less moved by the Holy Spirit in everything he does or says, I would assume that the Pope himself believes there the shroud is indeed a holy relic, a gift from our Lord. Otherwise I don't think the Holy Spirit would cause Pope JP to kneel down before something completely fraud.

-- Andrew Swampillai (andyhbk96@hotmail.com), June 09, 2003.

John,

For someone who "is not qualified to judge", you sure are doing a whole lot of it with your last post.

You said, "Kevin, your objections carry no weight at all."

That is your opinion and you are entitled to it however, as far as I am concerned, your opinion carries no weight at all.

Please do tell everyone here how someone gets faith?

Is it by listening to someone rant about "If you had even the slightest idea about all the decades of research and books and articles and Internet sites that exist concerning the Shroud of Turin, it would blow your mind."

Or is it as stated in Romans 10:17???

Why don't you do a little more "biblical research" before making an ignorant statement such as, "I have seen hours upon hours of programs on TV (especially EWTN) about the Shroud. If you had seen the same hours, you would be completely mum right now."

Go back and re-read Romans 10:17 again and what has been written in the NT concerning how the Jews buried their dead.

If you don't want other people to "waste your time", then I suggest that you ignore what they have written. If those who speak up are "uninformed, rank amateurs" as you so state, please do tell us what qualifications you have that allow you to prove this is true???

It must be from watching all of those television programs right John???

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 09, 2003.

Even if the Shroud were to be faked, Kevin; faith is definitely uplifted when one contemplates the wonder of it. (That is in fact the Catholic Church's declaration.)

As for Jewish burial custom, maybe we ought to reflect on the particular burial. This was an extraordinary entombment by all accepted standards of the era; despite the words of John, ''the Jewish burial custom.''

First, it took place on the eve of the Sabbath. In haste. Second, the man buried would have been considered unclean, in terms of the Law. A criminal executed outside the walls.

In consequence, this was NOT a Jewish burial as per the ''custom'' much less the Mosaic Law. --Linen cloths it was; but strips??? Not so plain in the words of the gospel.

That's the third chink in your theory's armour, Kevin. Christ was buried in a borrowed tomb; exempt and above the Law of Moses. A CHRISTIAN; & as a matter of fact, the Head of the Christian (Catholic) Church.

Out go your high-flown objections. Making the question of the Shroud's authenticity a purely subjective judgment on your part. Not that anybody needed your seal of approval, or mine. How to interpret the brief words of the apostle as to ''cloths'', may be relevant; but only if Sola Scriptura were legitmate and necessary.

It is neither. We aren't denying the Word of God if we consider the Shroud of Turin a True relic of Christ.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 09, 2003.

Eugene,

You ned to go back and re-read Romans 10:17 also.

Scripture tells us of Jewish burial customs. There was a separate cloth wrapped around the head, so this makes two (2) cloths and NOT one as you believe.

Jesus died as a Jew and He was buried as a Jew.

To claim that Jesus was NOT buried as a Jew you ARE denying plain Scriptural references that say He was buried as a Jew.

Go back and re-read John 12:48.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 09, 2003.

I would normally give you the concession, Kevin. But, a large shroud is still a cloth. The other cloth around the head is simply gone; LOST. Nothing about the Shroud mitigates against John's words.

For you, a reader 2,000 years after the event, to insist the burial absolutely was ''as per Jewish custom, a bandage & strips burial, is presumption of the facts, since John's words don't give those details. You are grasping when you cite the raising of Lazarus as conclusive proof. You have no certifiable proofs the ''strips'' were the sole Jewish material used in a burial. The shroud may have also been lawful and customary. You are simply unwilling to see a relic for what it truly is:

Good evidence of the past; and very plausible despite a Bible scholar's scruples (yours).

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 09, 2003.

Pardon, I didn't address your other statement:

''To claim that Jesus was NOT buried as a Jew you ARE denying plain Scriptural references that say He was buried as a Jew.''

But, Kevin-- it isn't a ''claim''-- only an observation, I haven't denied Jesus was a Jew, and a burial took place as Jewish as any other one. But, Our Lord was already Christianity's Lord. The scripture doesn't treat that subject.

And, the Jewish custom as John writes of it here, may refer to the wrapping of spices as the real context of the words; not the shroud.

My observations are plainly true, with regard to these facts:

It was no ordinary burial.
No ordinary Man was placed in the tomb.
It was done in an improvisational way, because the Sabbath was upon them.
The women even returned on Sunday, intending to do the job ''right.''

I have not contradicted scripture. I have reasoned with you. However, if you choose to dismiss my opinion, I won't argue further with you. You may make your reply to this post the ''last word'', I give it to you cheerfully!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 09, 2003.

Eugene,

What does 2 Corinthians 5:7 state???

Since we will be judged by what is written (John 12:48) and faith comes by hearing God's Word (Romans 10:17) and since John 20:7 indicate that there was more than 1 cloth and there was a separate cloth [that was around Jesus head] not lying with the other cloths, but folded together in a separate place by itself, how can you say that there was only one cloth???

Since we walk by faith and NOT by sight, You do err not knowing the scriptures when you state "The other cloth around the head is simply gone; LOST. Nothing about the Shroud mitigates against John's words."

For you to insist that Jesus was NOT buried "as per Jewish custom" you plainly DENY the very words of the apostle John who CLEARLY said that is how Jesus was buried.

I don't presume anything, but merely state and affirm what is written.

Go back and re-read Romans 8:24-25.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 09, 2003.

You've had the last word and misconstrued what I said. It must suit your purpose, Kevin, whatever that may be. I said I would quit. I'll do it, but not because you made any good sense. You're alone in your bias; goodbye.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 09, 2003.

Jmj

Kevin, what's the matter? Why didn't you answer my question about whether you are the "church of Christ" guy who plagued this forum last year and/or the year before -- probably under three or four different identities (Kevin, Gale, etc.)? Admit it or deny it. You were booted out of here before, because you don't follow the rules. Please depart again, unless you are willing to change your ways. If you are the same person, I need to warn others that you were one of the most horrible human beings ever to disgrace this forum.

As I said before, you don't know what you are talking about. Besides your tremendous ignorance on this topic, you make yourself obnoxious by giving us a litany of fundamentalist verses to look up -- general verses that you have misinterpreted -- verses that are totally irrelevant to the subject at hand. This is a CATHOLIC forum. We don't believe in "sola scriptura," and we never will, so stop trying to feed it to us.

An example of your ignorance is your endless insistence on the Shroud representing something that is contrary to the gospels and contrary to Jewish burial customs. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Two of the foremost experts on the Shroud are John and Rebecca Jackson. John has been involved in research into the Shroud for decades, having been part of an elite team that did a hands-on examination. Rebecca is an Orthodox Jew who converted to Catholicism. She is an expert on Jewish customs and laws. She completely contradicts the foolish ideas you have been stating here about the Shroud, the gospels, and the burial customs. If you don't believe me, visit the Jackson's site, watch their lectures [I have seen at least ten hours of them], and correspond with them by e-mail. Unless you are a 100% idiot, your mind will be changed.

Kevin, I want to respond to some of the insults you posted in reply to me ...

K: "For someone who 'is not qualified to judge,' you sure are doing a whole lot of it with your last post."
J: False. I did NOT judge whether or not the Shroud is genuine. I merely tried to show that you are totally unqualified to say the opposite.

K: "You [John] said, 'Kevin, your objections carry no weight at all.' That is your opinion and you are entitled to it however, as far as I am concerned, your opinion carries no weight at all.
J: If my opinion -- which is a relatively informed one -- "carries no weight at all" with you, it confirms my fear that you are merely a mass of prejudice, unable to judge anything accurately.

K: "Why don't you do a little more 'biblical research' before making an ignorant statement such as, 'I have seen hours upon hours of programs on TV (especially EWTN) about the Shroud. If you had seen the same hours, you would be completely mum right now.'"
J: That statement was not "ignorant" in the least. It was the truth! You are actually afraid to watch those programs! I don't need to do "biblical research." All that I have read and watched on this subject takes the Bible into account. How could it be otherwise? The real problem is your cowardice (or laziness) to really find out the facts about the Shroud.

K: "If you don't want other people to 'waste your time,' then I suggest that you ignore what they have written."
J: It doesn't work that way. We can't ignore bad stuff like what you write. Instead, we have to read it and expose it as wrong to the people who are lurking and reading this thread. At the same time, I have to encourage you to change your mind (or leave, if you insist on breaking forum rules).

K: "If those who speak up are 'uninformed, rank amateurs' as you so state, please do tell us what qualifications you have that allow you to prove this is true??? It must be from watching all of those television programs right John???
J: Again you tell a falsehood by saying that I try "to prove this [the authenticity of the Shroud] is true." I'll tell you for a third time now that I make no such claim. Rather, I just refute folks like you who think that they can prove the Shroud to be phony. I have never called myself an expert with "qualifications." I just point out that I am a "moderately well informed amateur" on this subject, in contrast to you, who are almost totally ignorant.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 09, 2003.

John, Thanks for the link.

I got curious on this part < a href="http://www.shroudofturin.com/Figure31.html"> Jesus shroud 3D, ... It looks like the picture 3-D of the man identified as "Jesus" is holding a sword between his abdomen and his feet.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 09, 2003.

John, I will ask you the same question. What’s the matter??? Why didn’t you answer my question about faith???

I didn’t answer your question because it does not matter. If I have posted something in error then it is up to you to prove that this is the case and you have failed miserably in that regard.

You claim that (Kevin, Gale, etc.) was booted out of here before, that is NOT the case as it appears that he/she left voluntarily. If he was “one of the most horrible human beings ever to disgrace this forum” then it is up to you to prove this is in fact true. Where is your proof???

I will also state that you indeed are ignorant of what the word of God says concerning this topic. If I did err in my interpretation of those verses, then I suggest that you do show me how I erred. I merely stated what was written and those verses DO have something relevant to this subject. Once again, this proves that you CATHOLICS claim allegiance to the word of God, but when it goes against what they believe to be the truth they do PLAINLY deny what has been written because it does not agree with what the Catholic Church has told them to believe.

You said “An example of your ignorance is your endless insistence on the Shroud representing something that is contrary to the gospels and contrary to Jewish burial customs. Nothing could be further from the truth.”

Yes John it is AGAINST the truth because the apostle John PLAINLY said, “and the handkerchief that had been around His head, not lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place by itself.” (John 20:7). This IS the TRUTH.

You continued trying to impress me by bringing out how these experts on the shroud are also experts on Jewish customs and laws and you ended with “Unless you are a 100% idiot, your mind will be changed.” No, John it appears that your so-called experts have NOT read their Bibles because it CLEARLY and PLAINLY contradicts the false notion that there was one burial shroud.

Let me respond in kind to what you have said that I insulted you in my earlier post: K: "For someone who 'is not qualified to judge,' you sure are doing a whole lot of it with your last post." J: False. I did NOT judge whether or not the Shroud is genuine. I merely tried to show that you are totally unqualified to say the opposite.

K here: No insult there, I was merely stating my opinion based on what you wrote. For someone who is NOT qualified to judge “whether or not the Shroud is genuine” you sure do seem like an expert when you “judge” someone is unqualified to say the opposite is true. So my earlier statement was TRUE.

You continued: K: "You [John] said, 'Kevin, your objections carry no weight at all.' That is your opinion and you are entitled to it however, as far as I am concerned, your opinion carries no weight at all. J: If my opinion -- which is a relatively informed one -- "carries no weight at all" with you, it confirms my fear that you are merely a mass of prejudice, unable to judge anything accurately.

K here: Once again, NO insult here either. Please answer the question how one gets faith? Is it by watching TV programs, or is it as the word of God states? Go back and re-read John 17:17. If you claim that someone cannot judge anything accurately since you state that your opinion “is a relatively informed one” you do err because your opinion is based on what some so-called expert has told you. Go back and re-read 1 John 4:1.

You continued: K: "Why don't you do a little more 'biblical research' before making an ignorant statement such as, 'I have seen hours upon hours of programs on TV (especially EWTN) about the Shroud. If you had seen the same hours, you would be completely mum right now.'" J: That statement was not "ignorant" in the least. It was the truth! You are actually afraid to watch those programs! I don't need to do "biblical research." All that I have read and watched on this subject takes the Bible into account. How could it be otherwise? The real problem is your cowardice (or laziness) to really find out the facts about the Shroud.

K here: Once again, NO insult here. I did NOT call you ignorant, I merely said your statement was ignorant because it was based on TV programs and NOT in accordance with the word of God. If what you have watched did indeed take the “Bible into account” please do tell us how the apostle John states that there was a “separate cloth around Jesus head? The truth of the matter is that your REAL problem is your statement “I don’t need to do biblical research.” What has been written DOES contradict what you have been told concerning the Shroud. You just do NOT want to believe what has been written.

You continued: K: "If you don't want other people to 'waste your time,' then I suggest that you ignore what they have written." J: It doesn't work that way. We can't ignore bad stuff like what you write. Instead, we have to read it and expose it as wrong to the people who are lurking and reading this thread. At the same time, I have to encourage you to change your mind (or leave, if you insist on breaking forum rules).

K here: NO insult here either. Please do tell how I am guilty of “breaking forum rules”??? Is it because I say that one should believe what has been written? (Go back and re-read John 20:31).

You continued: K: "If those who speak up are 'uninformed, rank amateurs' as you so state, please do tell us what qualifications you have that allow you to prove this is true??? It must be from watching all of those television programs right John??? J: Again you tell a falsehood by saying that I try "to prove this [the authenticity of the Shroud] is true." I'll tell you for a third time now that I make no such claim. Rather, I just refute folks like you who think that they can prove the Shroud to be phony. I have never called myself an expert with "qualifications." I just point out that I am a "moderately well informed amateur" on this subject, in contrast to you, who are almost totally ignorant.

K here: Once again, NO insult here either. No, I did NOT tell a “falsehood” as you so state. I never said you were an expert. I merely stated that “watching all of those television programs” does NOT make you qualified to make a judgment that one who states the “Shroud to be phony” is an “uninformed rank amateur and almost totally ignorant” as you so state. God says, “Buy the truth, and do not sell it, Also wisdom and instruction and understanding.” (Proverbs 23:23).

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 10, 2003.

Dear John Gecik:
I'm finished discussing it with Kevin the Wise, as I gave him the last word over me. Meaning about the Shroud of Turin. But I have to thank you. You told him he's not informed, so his opinion is worthless on that subject.

I made a slight boo boo, letting on that-- as Saint John writes the narration of Our Lord's burial, we could question the accuracy. This caught fire with the expert, and he raced after me; not about the Shroud; but about a dismissal of the Bible as inerrant!

Therein is a clue to what he does here in this forum. He's waiting for an opportunity to dispute holy solo scripturio!!! My least favorite subject!!!

Woe to me. Upstaged by a Bible-thumper, for the first time! I'm glad you ran interference for Eugene the Godless, John. I hope you'll start a better thread than this to let him have his lunch today. Lol!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

With no disrespect to yopu Eugene or Kevin.

Kevin's version is to be believed if one follows John's gospel. Your version Eugene is to be believed if one follows the synoptic gospels:Mark, Matthew, and Luke.

I will explain later this today. I actually brought my Greek Bible and dictionary, but I left them in the car. I had to park far away from school because I was running late and there is no parking nearby.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

no elp, kevins version of the situation is to believed if you follow his personal (mis)interpretation of the Gospel of John, which denies the church teaching of HUNDREDS of scholarly people far more knowledgable than he. cloths is plural. one cloth for the face, one cloth for the body. Jesus was not mumified with bandages.

another thing. can we stop refering to Jesus as having died a Jew? JESUS WAS NOT JEWISH. by all definition Jesus wasnt a christian either. technically speaking, the deity of a particular religion cannot be a member of said religion, since God does not come to church to worship himself, or have sin and need to participate in such worship. deity=object of devotion, people=members of the church in dedication to said deity.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 10, 2003.

Our Lord is Jewish. He's the King of the Jews, Paul. He's the Holy One, Messiah of Israel; so it follows He's Jewish.

He's Founder & Head of the Church; making Him Catholic, so to speak. I understand your squeamishness about using the word Catholic in connection with Jesus. But; Hey. The Head is connected to His Mystical Body the Church. The Catholic Church, not ''all believers''. No point in prolonging this, just a point of view.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

paul said: "no elp, kevins version of the situation is to believed if you follow his personal (mis)interpretation of the Gospel of John, which denies the church teaching of HUNDREDS of scholarly people far more knowledgable than he. cloths is plural. one cloth for the face, one cloth for the body. Jesus was not mumified with bandages. "

I suppose that paul does not know that the shroud is only one cloth and not two as he states above. [Which is EXACTLY what the word of God states! Who can believe it!!!]

God says in John 20:7, "and the handkerchief that had been AROUND HIS HEAD, NOT lying with the linen cloths, but folded together in a place BY ITSELF." [No personal interpretation needed]. So much for the one cloth false theory of the shroud.

You continued with, "another thing. can we stop refering to Jesus as having died a Jew? JESUS WAS NOT JEWISH."

Ignorance of God's word is NO excuse. Jesus was born a JEW, and DIED a JEW. "For it is evident that our Lord arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood." (Hebrews 7:14). Please do not say that "JESUS WAS NOT JEWISH" because He most certainly was a JEW according to the word of God. Go back and re-read Matthew 1:1-17.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 10, 2003.

Kevin,
Ignorance of God's word is a charge you shouldn't bring against anybody. You have denied His words many times, as a protagonist of false doctrines. At least Paul's argument has to do with a semantic appreciation of the origins of God the Son. You are in opposition to God the Son's Holy Church and the Catholic faith.

Making you ''ignorant'' of God's Word.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

Eugene

You said, "Kevin, Ignorance of God's word is a charge you shouldn't bring against anybody."

Was I correct in my statement??? paul did INDEED make an "ignorant statement" when he said "JESUS WAS NOT JEWISH." Scripture clearly reveals that our Lord Jesus WAS in fact a Jew.

You continued with, "You have denied His words many times, as a protagonist of false doctrines."

My charge to you Eugene is for you to PROVE that I have done this. Please cut and paste where I have "denied His words many times". If you CANNOT do this, then you do not speak the truth in your above statement.

You continued with, "You are in opposition to God the Son's Holy Church and the Catholic faith. Making you ''ignorant'' of God's Word."

I would like to suggest that you go back and re-read Ephesians 5:17. While you are at it, continue with Proverbs 2:1-5. It all comes back down to Romans 1:17.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 10, 2003.

Go back & read them yourself, Kevin. You must be ignorant of scripture if you deny truths within the pages of your Bible . If you deny the Church is founded on Peter, you're ignorant of Matt 16,18-19.

That's just a for instance. You may have given a correct definition of the Jewish descent of Jesus Christ. That isn't much Bible wisdom. Frankly, I'm surprised paul would make a question of it. He is probably going to explain, so I won't put words in his mouth.

There is much more to scripture than our range of knowledge. To have value, all your study must result in truth for you.

I dare say paul little ''p'' is much further along the way to the truth than any Baptist or Methodist (No offense to many excellent and upright souls.) Your exegesis is limited to what your church preaches to you. The Catholic Church is paul's Church, and her exegesis of God's Word is the final authority in this life. You're outside her, so you have no perfect access to guide you.

Nevertheless what truth you DO manage from the Bible must either be OBVIOUS to any child, or residual of doctrines known to Catholics from the apostles, those truths which your sect has not rejected in the past. These aren't things it gives anyone pleasure to tell you; I would rather have total agreement with you, and with other protestants who come here. But your ignorance of scripture is constantly causing troubles between us. YOUR ignorance.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

Kevin wrote, "My charge to you Eugene is for you to PROVE that I have done this. Please cut and paste where I have "denied His words many times". If you CANNOT do this, then you do not speak the truth in your above statement.

To which Eugene replied, "Go back & read them yourself, Kevin. You must be ignorant of scripture if you deny truths within the pages of your Bible."

So much for Eugene being able to prove that I have "denied His words many times"

Why am I not surprised at your response Eugene? You CANNOT prove your case because I have NOT denied His words.

You wrote, "If you deny the Church is founded on Peter, you're ignorant of Matt 16,18-19."

That is certainly NOT the topic of this thread and has NOTHING to do with the shroud of turin, however, please go back and re-read 1 Corinthians 3:11 and Ephesians 2:20 and Colossians 1:18.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 10, 2003.

thanks eugene for the complement... eugene and kevin, from a completely SECULAR point of view, Jesus was not jewish. although he was raised in a jewish family and raised jewish, he was not a member of such a church. (take theology 101 if you dont believe me) if anything, Christ could be considered to be christian (from a theological perspective), but never jewish for several reasons. one of which is that Jesus recognized the fact that he was the messiah. Jews did not believe that he was the Son of Man. second, jews do not recognize the new testament, or the new covenant, both of which Jesus was the beggining point of. therefore, it is preposterous to think that Jesus was a member of a church which does not even recognize the core beliefs of the Christian doctrine of which he is the foundation. remember, Jesus founded a NEW church built on Petros, the rock. (again, take theology 101 if you dont believe me) now, for kevin only: that being said... are you BLIND? or are you just really slow? i never said the shroud was more than one piece. in fact, i even agreed with you that Jesus COULD have been wrapped in strips of cloth, even though the Bible only says burried in cloths. what i did assert was that laid over it all was one MORE cloth, the shroud of turin. yes i know the shroud was one piece, lest you forget i have SEEN it. if you want to deny that which THOUSANDS of scholars have declared before you, thousands of people who are EXPERTS, thats fine, but dont claim biblical authority over the pope and experts for some link as vague as
Jesus was buried in cloths(true positive premise)
Lazarus was burried in bandages(true positive premise)
therefore Jesus was also buried in bandages(falty conclusion, does not follow from premise) your logic is flawed. try again.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 10, 2003.

I'm sorry, paul. In order that Kevin not assume all Catholics believe like you; that Christ wasn't a Jew, I have to contradict you. Jesus did lead a fully Jewish life, He was circumcised, He observed the Sabbath rest, He celebrated the feasts, (Tabernacles, Passover, Temple worship.) He was always in the synagogues; and He fulfilled the Mosaic Law until He gave us the New Covenant.

Kevin;
You are right to ask me to prove what is negative about your Bible wisdom. I can't say for sure you're the ''Kevin'' who argued with us here once before. I think you are, as John Gecik suggested. But you're a non-Catholic and a ''Bible scholar'' of some sectarian church. That's enough for one to think you suport false doctrines. I'll prove it if you stay, as soon as the opportunity arises. Just leave it to me. (Or any number of capable Catholics here.)

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

little paul,

Jesus was Jewish. It's simply not true to say he wasn't Jewish. He was presented in the temple and would have been raised as a Jew. Indeed when he was lost at age 12 he was found in the temple 'in my father's house'. Every religious observance which Jews undertook would have been followed by Jesus.

Christians are FOLLOWERS of Christ. He couldn't follow himself, little paul. He led, we follow.

You said:

‘second, jews do not recognize the new testament, or the new covenant, both of which Jesus was the beggining point of. therefore, it is preposterous to think that Jesus was a member of a church which does not even recognize the core beliefs of the Christian doctrine of which he is the foundation’

little paul, this doesn’t make any sense to me. How could the Jews of Jesus’ time recognise the New Testament? It wasn’t written, obviously, until many years after Jesus’ death and resurrection. You seem to be confusing the Jews of today with the Jews of Jesus’ time. Today’s Jews obviously don’t recognise Jesus as the Messiah. Many of the Jews of Jesus’ time didn’t recognise Him as the Messiah either. However, that doesn’t mean that He himself wasn’t Jewish. He didn’t abolish the law, little paul, he fulfilled it. Christianity is founded in Judaism. They not accepting his words didn't then make Him not Jewish.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 10, 2003.

For Kevin and Eugene

Notice that the synoptics use the word sindoni, sindona for an undergarment sheet made of linen: Matthew 27:59)kai labwn to swma o iwshf enetulixen auto [en] sindoni kaqara

< a href="http://www.greekbible.com/index.php"> Matthew

Mark 15:46kai agorasaV sindona kaqelwn auton eneilhsen th sindoni kai eqhken auton en mnhmeiw http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

Lukek 23:53)kai kaqelwn enetulixen auto sindoni, kai eqhken auton en mnhmati http://www.greekbible.com/index.php

The Three synoptic gospels say Jesus was wrapped with wthe linen sheet. There is no mention of anything covering Jesus face. Based on this, then the Shroud of Turin has a better choice of being Jesus burial cloth.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

< a href="http://www.greekbible.com/index.php"> Matthew.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

Notice as steven had pointed out, the words used in the resurection of Lazarus are: keiriais (the V is a sigma or s in English, not a v) (strips of linen) which are used to tie Lazarus feet and hands also.

The other word is sudario (spelled soudariw here) which is a facecloth or handkerchief to cover the face. the word face is opsis (spelled here oyiV).

John 11)44exhlqen o teqnhkwV dedemenoV touV podaV kai taV ceiraV keiriaiV, kai h oyiV autou soudariw periededeto. legei autoiV o ihsouV, lusate auton kai afete auton upagein.

John 11.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

I've understood the winding sheet is the sindon; sudarion a face cloth and to ''wrap'' is in fact to ''attach'' and to ''bind''. Latin has this as ''ligaverunt'' or ataron, in Spanish.

What's the problem? There might have been several, or at least two cloths originally.

I still maintain the actual Shroud speaks for itself. It is too rare a phenomenon to simply write off, however the scriptures state this. Seeing is believing; and no one saved this shroud as a relic of anyone else's but Jesus Christ's. --The crown of thorns; wounds on the hands and feet, and a bloody wound into the region of the heart. No traceable signs of forgery, no positive image of any painted sort. The image is a 3D photo negative not made with pigments and made centuries prior to any concept of photography! The blood is human blood.

AND: It is preserved in the custody of His own Holy Church. I don't ask for any proof greater than that. If others like their explanations better, more power to them.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 10, 2003.

John 19: 39)hlqen de kai nikodhmoV, o elqwn proV auton nuktoV to prwton, ferwn migma smurnhV kai alohV wV litraV ekaton. 40elabon oun to swma tou ihsou kai edhsan auto oqonioiV meta twn arwmatwn, kaqwV eqoV estin toiV ioudaioiV entafiazein

In John 19 we see Jesus is tied up (edesan) (spelled here edhsan) with othoniois (spelled here oqonioiV) which are larger pieces of linen. The word is feminine plural.

When Peter enter the tomb he sees these

John 20: 6)Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 70as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen. (From NIV)

the ta othonia( ta oqonia) are the strips of linen, the burial cloth is the sudarion (soudarion) placed on his head.

The cloth folded by itself is here in Greek ton othonion (twn oqoniown) which is also plural in form.

So at least there are 2 pieces.

John 20: 6)ercetai oun kai simwn petroV akolouqwn autw, kai eishlqen eiV to mnhmeion: kai qewrei ta oqonia keimena, 7kai to soudarion, o hn epi thV kefalhV autou, ou meta twn oqoniwn keimenon alla cwriV entetuligmenon eiV ena topon.

The word ta othonia ( ta oqonia)is also found in Luke 24:12 for the same passage . Here, Peter only sees the large strips of linen. There is no mention of the sudario. The word mona means only, one

12)o de petroV anastaV edramen epi to mnhmeion, kai parakuyaV blepei ta oqonia mona.

Text in Englishf for Luke 24.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

The problem I see Eugene is in having 2 versions. I John's version is to be believed, then the Shroud of Turin could not be Jesus real burial cloth if the sudario was placed on the face first. The sindona then could not have Jesus face, only his body.

Until more tests are done for its age like those done in the 1980s, I still stand for a 1300 AD age for the Shroud ( my average for the three lab results).

I don't doubt the blood and the wounds could be real, Eugene. Somehow, the Jesus of the Shroud doesn't look like the Jesus I saw on July 23, 2000 in my third part of the dream. The one in the shroud looks too Germanic, not semitic.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

Even today, to be a Jew, little paul, your mother must be Jewish. Even if you believe Joseph is not his real father, but his adoptive one, you cannot deny Jesus came out of Mary. That makes him a JEW by birth.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 10, 2003.

Is a sidon always over the face? I imagined it as holding the jaws shut. With no cloth on the face.

We speculate on such trivial things. If upon His resurrection, the Son of God removed a cloth off of His holy face? Same question. We weren't there to see. Kevin wasn't; even the apostle St. John wasn't.

Only Jesus was in the tomb. It's almost presumptuous, in 2,003; acting as if it were so plain to us.

I hope Kevin realises this. But I wonder if the life and death of Jesus aren't secondary to some folks. Those who stick to a Bible verse; not to God or the life of faith. They would rather be right than faithful.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2003.

Dear Elpidio:
I hate to keep saying to you, keep the dream to yourself.

I know we have no right to judge you. But, for a man to think he already sees Jesus, and no one else is able to say how He looks?

With no help from you--anyone's help; I certainly know Jesus is not just a true man, but God Incarnate. Which seems to evade your refined metaphysical powers. I didn't need paranormal powers, Elpidio. I believe in Him on faith.

Are you totally bereft of faith? La Santa Fe????

Do you even know I love Elpidio? De veras! Because I have faith Jesus is your Saviour and will come to you! God calls to you! Yave is Jesus!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2003.

hate to bring up an old arguement but i have to respond to Sara's post:

Jesus was Jewish. It's simply not true to say he wasn't Jewish. He was presented in the temple and would have been raised as a Jew. Indeed when he was lost at age 12 he was found in the temple 'in my father's house'

no, he was raised in the jewish tradition, but he was NOT jewish. even as a child, when he was in the house of his fathers, HE WAS DEBATING SCRIPTURE WITH THE ELDERS. he was proving how the jews were wrong at THAT time, as well as now.

Every religious observance which Jews undertook would have been followed by Jesus.

consequentially, that is because of his upbringing, which made Him raised jewish, but Jesus knew that from the moment He was born the jews would betray Him, that He would found a new church, and that the jewish faith would not recognize Him as their messiah.

Christians are FOLLOWERS of Christ. He couldn't follow himself, little paul. He led, we follow.

by that logic, jews are followers of God. if Christ is God then he couldnt have been a jew either, because he would be following himself again. since we christians know that Christ was the messiah, God, and wholly divine, we know that he came to establish the new church.

How could the Jews of Jesus’ time recognise the New Testament?

pretty easily, actually. they could have followed him instead of crucifying him.

It wasn’t written, obviously, until many years after Jesus’ death and resurrection.

that doesnt matter, the apostles, the disciples, and the followers of Christ all recognized the new covenant and the Son of Man. they all followed him because they realized the Word Made Flesh, and didnt need the written word.

You seem to be confusing the Jews of today with the Jews of Jesus’ time.

not at all, the jews back then chose not to believe as well, or there wouldnt be a jewish church today.

Today’s Jews obviously don’t recognise Jesus as the Messiah. Many of the Jews of Jesus’ time didn’t recognise Him as the Messiah either.

exactly, those who did recognize him as messiah followed him and the new christian church.

He didn’t abolish the law, little paul, he fulfilled it. Christianity is founded in Judaism.

irrelevant, he came and established a new church on peter, which jews of the time rejected. if Jesus were jewish, then wouldnt have speaking out against church teaching have been wrong? instead he was NOT jewish, and didnt come to support any current jewish teaching. he didnt come to abolish the old law (MOSES LAW NOT THE JEWISH LAW) he came to fulfil it and establish his church for all time.

They not accepting his words didn't then make Him not Jewish.

how about the fact that when it was posted that he was king of the jews on the cross they demanded that it be taken down because he was not theirs? when we tell tom daschle that he is not catholic, does his claim that he is hold water? Jesus didnt even claim to be jewish, but he was rejected by the church. that alone makes him a seperate entity from the jewish church, and founder of the christian church.

God bless

thank you, you too.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 11, 2003.

italics off

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 11, 2003.

I know Sara has a perfectly good answer. But Paul ''little p'';
Jesus was not in the Temple to debate. He was doing His father's business. His Father is the God of Israel.

Jesus in fact IS Jewish; not ''was''. He is the messiah; and you're mistaken about the Jews.

The first apostles were Jews, all circumcised. They became His followers, the first Catholics. But by birth al were Jews. Many, MANY other Jews believed in Jesus. The gospels show us this. In fact, in the gospels and Acts, thousands-- as many as three thousand xconvertyed in one day; were Jews.

Yes, many rejected Him. Their eyes were shut; and they have a synagogue today. But they are still His people. He is still their Lord.

Our Mother the Holy Virgin Mary is a Jew. NOW, paul. Even as we speak. Her descent is from Abraham. We b are mostly ''spirittual'' children of Abraham, but Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the Holy Family, are Jews from birth, and Chrisitans by faith. You are lucky to know these holy Jewish faithful of God Almighty. Without Jews, Jesus would not have His Holy Church. Give God thanks for this. If Abraham had not served God in his own lifetime, we would have no salvation!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2003.

Amen Eugene! There's not really much I can add to what you've said. Little Paul, really you are espousing sentiments which go against Catholic teaching. The Jews = the Chosen People.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 11, 2003.

Jesus was not in the Temple to debate. He was doing His father's business. His Father is the God of Israel.

exactly, he was about his fathers business, the sacrifice of the Son of God, leading to the new covenant and the establishment of the new church.

Jesus in fact IS Jewish; not ''was''. He is the messiah; and you're mistaken about the Jews.

this is not true at all. Jesus was not jewish, and he even more so is not jewish today. they still dont recognize his being the messiah, no more than jews of that day did. there is no mistake, when the highest members of a church condemn you from that church, youre not a member. they didnt only condemn him, they crucified him, and would have killed his followers (the first christians) had they not dispersed as well.

The first apostles were Jews, all circumcised. They became His followers, the first Catholics. But by birth al were Jews.

nope, the disciples were selected from jews and gentiles, tax collectors and fishermen. being jewish was not a prerequisite to following Christ.

Many, MANY other Jews believed in Jesus.

and thus many jews became the first christians, the first followers of Christ. remember, a church is defined by its teachings, and the pharisees taught that Jesus was wrong, therefore if we believe that he was right we must believe he did not ascribe to the teachings of the church.

The gospels show us this. In fact, in the gospels and Acts, thousands-- as many as three thousand xconvertyed in one day; were Jews.

and these thousands were converted to christianity.

Yes, many rejected Him. Their eyes were shut; and they have a synagogue today. But they are still His people. He is still their Lord.

yes, many rejected the new church and the new covenant founded by Christ.

Our Mother the Holy Virgin Mary is a Jew. NOW, paul. Even as we speak. Her descent is from Abraham.

WAS a jew, when she recognized the divinity of Christ she was converted to a christian as well. religion is not passed from parent to child, it is free will by which we CHOOSE God. thus there came a point in Mary's life where the old covenant was fulfilled, the new covenant made, and the Christian Church formed. this point was the birth of Christ.

We b are mostly ''spirittual'' children of Abraham, but Jesus, Mary and Joseph, the Holy Family, are Jews from birth, and Chrisitans by faith. You are lucky to know these holy Jewish faithful of God Almighty.

yes, im glad the jews are around. before Christ they were the keepers of God's word. but with the birth of the Savior, those who did not convert were no longer members of the true church. the lamb was given for them and they rejected it (the stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone[of the new church])

Without Jews, Jesus would not have His Holy Church. Give God thanks for this. If Abraham had not served God in his own lifetime, we would have no salvation!

and without God the jews would have been eradicated by pharoah? whats your point? thats old covenant. im not discrediting the Jews, but everything Jesus stood for was rejected by the pharisees of the jewish faith.

on to sarah...

Little Paul, really you are espousing sentiments which go against Catholic teaching.

show me where, ex cathedra, the church has stated that Jesus was jewish (not merely stating that Jesus was raised jewish)

The Jews = the Chosen People.

the jews = were the chosen people but now the christians are. I AM NOT CONDEMNING THE JEWS BUT MERELY POINTING OUT A DEFINITIVE FACT.

definition of christianity:

a person professing belief in Jesus as the Christ, or in the religion based on the teachings of Jesus; of Jesus Christ or his teachings; of or professing the religion based on these teachings; having qualities demonstrated and taught by Jesus Christ; of or represnting christians or christianity.

therefore, if Christianity is professing that Christ was the messiah, and we know that Christ knew he was the messiah, AND we know that the jewish church (by its teachings from its leaders) rejected the divinity of Christ, then it stands to reason that by default Jesus could NOT have possibly been jewish. at most he was a christian, the cornerstone of the new church, but not a jew.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 11, 2003.

You are not speaking as a Catholic (To the readers of this thread: the Catholic Church has NOT taught us the things which Paul is saying here.)

If you truly are Catholic, paul; see a priest right away. Make an appointment. You must pray, and rely only on the Church's teaching.

It is sinful to say these things. I advise you now, as a brother: go read the entire epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews. Meditate on it. Don't come back to argue your position until you've read the epistle to the Hebrews, and have understood everything. You're getting another chance; take it.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2003.

I have seen the image of the Shroud of Turin my whole life, and believed. Then I saw a video about the attempts to date it.

Don't flame me about this, but for some practical reasons I doubt the Shroud of Turin's authenticity.

The purported shroud was supposedly laid on long strip of cloth that was laid down first before the body placed on top of it, then the rest of the cloth was pulled over the head and then laid on top of the body. I don't think shrouds are made like that. Has anyone seen a shroud with dimensions like that? I saw some messages in this thread asking if the other person was aware of Jewish burial practices around the time of Christ. I didn't see an answer. What were they? Anybody know?

Point two: If a piece of cloth was laid over anyone's body, it would not show a two-dimensional photographic image like the one we see on the Shroud of Turin. The cloth would have draped itself over the top of the head and the sides of the face, and when it was removed, you would see a stretched out version of the face. The Shroud of Turin is a two-dimensional image that looks like a painting. A real shroud would not look the same.

If you want to see what I mean, you could do a fairly elaborate experiment. Try this: Prepare a "shroud" with the same dimensions as the one of Turin. Lay a little less than half of it on a table letting the rest of it drape down from the head of the table. Paint your face and hair with red in the areas where you believe the wounds of Christ were on His head. Lie down on the table. Have someone pull the part of the cloth that is hanging at the head of the table over your body and let it mold itself around your head

Once you take it off you will see a stretched out version of your face. The image that you see won't be like a photograph, because the cloth will have picked up the paint not only from the front of your body but the sides and top. Therefore the image will show not only the front of your face, but the sides and your top and part of your neck under your chin.

Besides all this, the Scriptural description is clear that there were two cloths, not one.

I am an orthodox Catholic and I believe what the Church teaches in all respects. It is not a matter that I am obligated to accept on conscience.

I remember reading one time about a man who knelt all night before the Shroud of Turin and asked God to reveal Himself to Him. In the morning, He felt God's presence but it was not related to the Shroud of Turin. God was there, but not as he had expected.

Just some thoughts.

-- Roseanne (roseannesullivan@sbcglobal.net), June 11, 2003.

Good observations Roseanne on experimenting by making a shroud a nd laying it on somebody to see what details are picked up.

I saw that in one of those programs of the science channel. It was 2 hours long. The face was too thick.

-- Elpidio gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 11, 2003.

There's no obligation to believe. I may as well just believe the image on the Shroud was the result of a plain miracle; since ''science'' insists on proof for every detail. It's always so. Elpidio a month ago had doubts about the Virgin Of Guadalupe's portrait, which appeared miraculously. Her face was maybe too cute. This image's face ''too thick'' --compared to our ''knowledge'' of Christ's face??? I needed no knowledge when I saw the Shroud. I believe in miracles.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 11, 2003.

You are not speaking as a Catholic (To the readers of this thread: the Catholic Church has NOT taught us the things which Paul is saying here.)

no, but the catholic church has not come up with a converse opinion either. i raised the challenge to produce one single ex cathedra document where a pope states that Christ was jewish (not simply raised jewish) and you have failed to do this. so i must assume that everything you have stated is personal opinion.

conversely, my source is a catholic nun with a doctorate in theology teaching at a catholic university. produce a higher source if you think that my catholic university is wrong.

If you truly are Catholic, paul; see a priest right away. Make an appointment. You must pray, and rely only on the Church's teaching.

dont pull this card eugene. during this debate you and yours have claimed that the jews and not the christians are still the chosen people, that Christ did not come to start a new church, that he was a member of a faith which did not even recognize his own divinity, and that he and his mother are still members of that faith today. i would dare say that it is you who should consider seeing a priest. Jesus came to SAVE the world. he didnt support the pharisees, he REBUKED them.

It is sinful to say these things.

why? why is it sinful to say that there is a new covenant that started with Jesus? why is it so evil to note that the new church is the chosen people and not the jews, why is it so important that i not state that Jesus came to change the world and save the jews from the error in their churches... you have produced no difinitive proof, and instead have made claims which are contrary to church teaching.

I advise you now, as a brother: go read the entire epistle of Saint Paul to the Hebrews. Meditate on it. Don't come back to argue your position until you've read the epistle to the Hebrews, and have understood everything. You're getting another chance; take it.

i'll consider this, but i dont have alot of time in the next two months.

finally, let me ask you a question. because i was raised in a protestant church, although i never accepted that church, does it make me protestant? martin luther was born catholic, was he a catholic when he shattered Christs church? i hope you arent going to answer yes to either of these questions. the only claim that Jesus was a jew that is substantiated is that jews believe their religion is passed on by blood, but Jesus and christians obviously didnt and dont believe that, we are religious by our free will, and not by our blood.

so you must choose, are you jewish and Jesus was jewish because he was born to jewish parents? OR are you catholic, and Jesus was at least christian because he was the Son of God and came to save the world? its your choice, but Jesus fulfilled the old and established the new covenant, not merely extended the old covenant.

im serious though, when i recommend that sarah should consider seeing a priest if she seriously believes that the jews are still the chosen people.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 12, 2003.

paul,

Jesus was born a Jew and here is why:

Jesus was born under the Old Testament Law. Under the Old Testament Law, ALL Israelites and Jews were circumcised on the 8th day. By physical birth they were identified as being in the family of God.

Acts 7:8 speaks of the covenant of circumcision, "Then He gave him the covenant of circumcision; and so Abraham begot Isaac and circumcised him on the eighth day; and Isaac begot Jacob, and Jacob begot the twelve patriarchs."

John the Baptist was circumcised, Luke 1:59-60 says, "So it was, on the eighth day, that they came to circumcise the child; and they would have called him by the name of his father, Zacharias. His mother answered and said, "No; he shall be called John."

The apostle Paul was circumcised, Philippians 3:5 says, "circumcised the eighth day, of the stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the Hebrews; concerning the law, a Pharisee;"

Luke 2:21 has this to say of Jesus, "And when eight days were completed for the circumcision of the Child, His name was called JESUS, the name given by the angel before He was conceived in the womb."

Jesus was circumcised, so by birth He was a Jew.

-- Kevin (Nomail@noemail.com), June 12, 2003.

Dear Paul,
It appears you're obsessed with a non-issue. Here we do not confuse a religious affiliation with racial descent. I already explained why you are wrong. So does a protestant (WoW!) and you cling to your distorted idea still. We haven't maintained Christ remained in the synagogue after founding His Church. His New Covenant did NOT make outsiders of the Israel, as you'll see in the epistle to the Hebrews. (Just read it, in two months' time, OK?). You are stuck on a theme of Judaism versus Christianity, and you're dead wrong. Christ remains the Messiah, even if the Jewish religion denies it for now.

Christ has not ''cut off'' the Old Covenant. He represents the Old Covenant on the cross; as the Passover Lamb.)

It is as the true Lamb of God He gives all mankind a share in all the ancient promises God made to Abraham, the Father of the Jews. WE become a part with Jesus of the Chosen People. He makes this happen for the world in His death and resurrection; these holy events ratify His New Covenant. A Jewish inheritance (from Abraham) becomes the New Covenant for all peoples, not only one race! However, everything stems from the original promises of God Almighty to His servant Abraham; (Genesis 22:15 ~~ after that one offered to sacrifice his only son Isaac to the Lord. Jesus is the fulfillment of every word of His Father to the Jews! He is the actual Person the Father calls ''My Son, Israel''. He makes Israel the People of God. The Church will even embrace them at the second coming of Jesus in glory. You could learn these things by consulting with a Catholic priest as I asked you. But you're being contrary; for what purpose I don't know. Don't you trust the word of a priest? He will give you a true understanding of your own faith !

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

little paul,

I won't debate with you any further on this issue. It's pointless, especially since you insist on misquoting what people have said. You would be well-advised to do as Eugene suggested and speak to a Catholic priest on this matter. John G told you on another thread that you ought to beware of what people teach in theology lessons . He's right you know. It's well-known that theologians vary from being liberal to right-wing, to bordering on the heretical! Now, as far as your suggestion that I see a priest, I do that on a daily basis little paul. My boss is a priest who received one of his several degrees, in theology, from the Pontifical Gregorian University, and was awarded a license to teach dogma by that instituion. In case you're not aware, that's the Papal University which is situated in Rome.

God bless

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 12, 2003.

I just had to post once more in connection with your comments, little paul. Here's an excerpte from the Vatican's Archives, regarding the Jews. There are too many pages to quote each of them regarding our 'Jewsish brothers and sisters'

I. THE SACRED SCRIPTURES OF THE JEWISH PEOPLE ARE A FUNDAMENTAL PART OF THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE 2. It is above all by virtue of its historical origin that the Christian community discovers its links with the Jewish people. Indeed, the person in whom it puts its faith, Jesus of Nazareth, is himself a son of this people. So too are the Twelve whom he chose “to be with him and to be sent out to proclaim the message” (Mk 3:14). In the beginning, the apostolic preaching was addressed only to the Jews and proselytes, pagans associated with the Jewish community (cf. Ac 2:11). Christianity, then, came to birth in the bosom of first century Judaism. Although it gradually detached itself from Judaism, the Church could never forget its Jewish roots, something clearly attested in the New Testament; it even recognised a certain priority for Jews, for the Gospel is the “power of God for salvation to everyone who has faith, to the Jew first and also to the Greek” (Rm 1:16).

The URL for this particular excerpt is:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/r c_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#C.%20Conclusion

Unfortunately I don't have the computer skills to make this into a link. Perhaps someone else will do that.

The bottom line is, there are hundreds, probably thousands of web pages which would give you authentic Church teaching on Judaism in relation to Jesus, little paul.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 12, 2003.

Please excuse my typing in my last post...

Jewsish = Jewish. Excerpte = excerpt.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 12, 2003.

i didnt say that judaism had no relation to Jesus, in fact i fully endorse the fact that Jesus was the son of a jewish family, that he comes out of the Jewish tradition. you have yet to produce a vatican document, however, that specifically states that Jesus was jewish. (ive been searching, and i havent found anything of the sort, which leads me to believe it doesnt exist).

all there is to find is reminders that the new covenant sprang forth from the old, and this is EXACTLY what i said. he was born to a jewish family, raised in the jewish faith, and then taught the jews that what the pharisees and scribes were teaching was no longer right. raised jewish does not equal jewish. this is an intrinsic difference that you dont quite seem to understand.

second, sara, you did specifically say that the jews ARE the chosen people. i havent put words in the mouth of anyone. and eugene, you did say that Jesus was, and IS a jew to this day, thus you did claim his membership in a church that does not recognize his own divinity. these things are not in keeping with church teaching.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 12, 2003.

Dear Paul:
To begin with, Jesus told nobody the Pharisees & Scribes were wrong about God. He agreed with their teachings from Moses. (Matt 23 :3) But not their actions and hypocrisy.

He even told the Pharisees, ''Abraham saw my day and rejoiced.'' He meant the day of the Messiah; His coming.

Why did Abraham rejoice? Because in Christ, God was keeping His holy Word to him; ''In your descendents all the nations of the earth shall be blessed.'' (Gen 22:18) He speaks of his descendents; not the synagogue. His race.

All the nations means the Church; coming by the word of Jesus Christ in the New Testament. The link is clear, Jews will bring God's blessing on all mankind; from the Father Abraham to Jesus to the Holy Church of Jesus. All one chain of fulfilled promises. From God Almighty. The Jews are not cut off. They were active in this chain; when they obeyed God.

The Holy and Immaculate Virgin Mary, a daughter of this race, is one Jew who has always in every way obeyed God. --She is the Mother of Jews AND Christians. We just haven't seen all the developments yet. Pray, Paul; for God's light. And read Hebrews.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

Paul, look at what Mary says in her Magnificat:

''My soul magnifies the Lord, and my spirit rejoices in God my Saviour; because He has regarded the lowliness of His handmaid; for, behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed; because He who is mighty has done great things for me, and holy is His name; and His mercy is from generation to generation on those who fear Him. He has shown might with His arm, and has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart. He has put down the mighty from their thrones, and has exalted the lowly. He has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent away empty. ,HE HAS GIVEN HELP TO ISRAEL, HIS SERVANT, MINDFUL OF HIS MERCY-- EVEN AS HE SPOKE TO OUR FATHERS--TO ABRAHAM AND HIS POSTERITY FOREVER.''

You can see in this holy praise how Mary appreciated for every Jew the glory and the power of God; who keeps all his promises to His people. She even says ''for Abraham and his posterity FOREVER.''

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

--

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 12, 2003.

Aaaaarrrrggghhh!

This frustrating thing keeps happening to me!

I come to an interesting thread for the first time (or for the next time after I have posted something), and I find that it has had an explosion of activity. Three, four, five people have posted dozens of messages! It takes me a long time just to read them all (because I am a slow reader).

As I am reading all these words and thoughts, I keep coming across one after another after another things to which I would like to respond -- praise for some, castigation for others, correction of errors, etc.. But I find myself without the hours that it would take to respond to everything. In fact, at this moment I have no time at all except to mention these wailings! Well, maybe I can say two other (appetite-whetting) things, in hopes of being able to follow up tomorrow with some solid, meaty material (evidence) to back up these two contentions ...

(1) Eugene and Sara are right about Jesus's Jewishness. Sorry, little paul, but you are mistaken. I have evidence for saying this -- evidence designed to convince a good Catholic.

(2) Roseanne and Elpidio are wrong in what they said about the image of the face on the shroud. Their (very common) error is based on a misunderstanding of how the image was formed, if it really is the image of Jesus.

Until manana ... God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), June 12, 2003.

okay, john,

i await your proof which has been lacking from this discussion so far.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 13, 2003.

bump for john

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 14, 2003.

Here follows an interesting and enlightening piece of writing by Bishop Murphy from the Archdiocese of Boston, in which he (as we would expect) specifically affirms Jesus' Jewishness:

'Our most important prayer from the lips of Jesus Himself is so Jewish in its inspiration that it should assist and guide us all on the road of conversation and collaboration that we all, Jew and Christian, are called to share. Guided by the example of the Holy Father, I want to continue reflecting from time to time on Catholic/Jewish relations. The “new beginning” and new foundation for the conversation and collaboration between our two communities which he established during his recent pilgrimage to Israel and the Holy Land invite us all to re-discover links and insights that can draw us closer together. There are two in particular that recently keep coming to my own meditation. One of them is directed more to our Jewish brothers and sisters and the other more to us Catholics. Both are obvious but bear repeating. Let me take the second one first. The most solemn expression of our faith is the Nicene Constantinople Creed. Formulated first at the Council of Nicea in 325, and solemnly confirmed at the Councils of Chalcedon and Constantinople in the following centuries, this creed is the clearest and most precious proclamation we have of what we believe and what we must believe to be a faithful follower of the Lord. All the Christian churches and ecclesial communities accept this Creed as foundational. Almost every Sunday of the year, the Nicene Creed is recited at every Mass in every parish of the world. Because it is so central, it is worthwhile noting what is not in the Creed. In our Creed there is no mention of anything contrary to the Jews. When the Second Vatican Council in Nostra Aetate rejected officially and definitively the notion that any Catholic could ever refer to Jews as responsible for the death of Jesus, the Council Fathers were articulating a truth that is implicit in the Nicene Creed of 325. For the Creed does not speak at all of the Jews as responsible for or guilty of the crucifixion of Jesus. The Creed states that “He suffered under Pontius Pilate, died and was buried." The only person mentioned is the Roman Governor whose very name has come to personify a cynical or malicious contempt for truth. In all the debates and discussions at Nicea the old canard of “Christ killer” was not ever laid at the doorsteps of Jews. It could not be because it is a falsehood that every Catholic must ever reject and every Jew be quick to refuse as contrary to truth. The second observation to be made about a central part of our faith is The Lord’s Prayer. Have we Catholics ever reflected on how Jewish is the "Our Father"? Of course it would have to be.

Jesus was a Jew, teaching His Jewish followers how to pray to God.

Only a prayer that reflected the teaching of Torah and the richness of Jewish tradition could have been so compelling. But what is so important is that the prayer, which is the foundational prayer for every Christian, is one that, I believe, any pious Jew could recite as easily as do we. Perhaps the most startling words are at the beginning. “Our Father” is a term so very dear to Jesus as a way to announce the uniqueness of His filial relationship to God. But extending that privilege to us is to recognize the role God plays in our lives. No Jew could ever be uncomfortable with the prayer to the one who “art in heaven” nor would any Jew want to say anything but “Hallowed be thy Name.” The prayer for the coming of the Kingdom is a reminder that only God is truly King and that His Kingship and His Kingdom are what we constantly seek on earth as it is in heaven. The prayer for daily bread reminds us of the manna God gave His chosen people in the desert and the care and concern we all must have to feed the poor and the lowly, a mitzvah deep in the traditions of Judaism. As we pray for forgiveness, and ourselves offer forgiveness, such prayers resonate in Jewish tradition especially in terms of the Day of Atonement, Yom Kippur. Finally, the prayer for divine guidance both to “lead us not into temptation” and to “deliver us from evil” echo the words of the psalms that Jesus recited so often and that form the prayerlife of Judaism through the centuries. My purpose in this brief reflection is simply to suggest to Christian and Jew that our Creed reflects the truths of our faith and thus in no way contributes to one of the ancient sources of anti-Semitism. Our most important prayer from the lips of Jesus Himself is so Jewish in its inspiration that it should assist and guide us all on the road of conversation and collaboration that we all, Jew and Christian, are called to share.'

The pages online which refer to Jesus' Jewishness are numerous. The document that I quoted from in an earlier post ( Declaration Nostrae Aetate - Vatican 11) was from the Congregation for the Faith, from the Vatican Archives.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 15, 2003.

I'm sorry, I forgot to post the following excerpt from the Catechism of the Catholic Church in my last post:

423. "We believe and confess that Jesus of Nazareth, born a JEW of a daughter of Israel at Bethlehem at the time of King Herod the Great and the emperor Caesar Augustus, a carpenter by trade, who died crucified in Jerusalem under the procurator Pontius Pilate during the reign of the emperor Tiberius, is the eternal Son of God made man. He 'came from God', 'descended from heaven' and 'came in the flesh'. For 'the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; we have beheld his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father. . . And from his fullness have we all received, grace upon grace.'

531. "During the greater part of his life Jesus shared the condition of the vast majority of human beings: a daily life spent without evident greatness, a life of manual labour. His religious life was that of a JEW obedient to the law of God, a life in the community. From this whole period it is revealed to us that Jesus was 'obedient' to his parents and that he 'increased in wisdom and in stature, and in favour with God and man.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 15, 2003.

To slightly rehabilitate little paul's controversial point above, Christ as God the Son is not Jewish or Christian, because God is simply God. From the moment of his conception, Christ (the Greek word for Messiah) was of course fully Jewish in his human nature. Is he still Jewish after his ascension? I think yes, to fulfil the Messianic prophecies of a son of David who will reign forever. Is he or was he ever Christian? I think clearly no, because a Christian by definition is a follower of Christ. The shepherd is not one of the flock.

I wonder if that nun little paul talked to has anti-semitic inclinations.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 15, 2003.

no, she doesnt have any anti semetic inclinations, shes a conservative catholic nun teaching theology at a catholic university, with a doctorate. she is every bit as qualified in her statement as the above bishop was. i wonder though, if your blatant use of a red herring statement really has anything to do with the debate in process.

NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT THE JEWS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRUCIFIXION. the point i am TRYING to make is that there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Christ being born and raised under jewish tradition and Christ's actually being a jew.

so here are some scholarly questions i would like answered: is there a difference between faith and birth into a religion? did Christ NOT know that he was the messiah? if so, did he not know this until a certain age? did the pharisees and scribes NOT accuse Christ of breaking their church's law, and did Christ not inform them that said church law was no longer in keeping with Gods law? as God, did Christ not know that his actions would create a new and seperate church from the jewish faith? if Christ knew this would start a NEW church, and this was NOT his will, why didnt he warn us against the new church? if you believe that Christ never intended to start a new church, then where does that place your belief in the catholic faith?

the truth of the matter is this, the historical teaching that Christ was jewish, and not merely raised in the jewish tradition was not even accepted widely until AFTER WWII. prior to that time the world feeling had always been that the jews crucified Christ and bear responsibility for that act. both ideas are WRONG. as you can see, claiming Christ was and is jewish calls into question the entire new church, including the catholic faith.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 16, 2003.

paul: maybe she's a bit too conservative. However some religious scholars seem to agree with you and her.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 16, 2003.

Dear Little p Paul:
What is your problem? Is Christ's bloodline opposed to His Godhead and his Words?

Can you prove He was only ''raised as'' but not a Jew ?

If you think you can, by some trick of semantics, you commit an error. Before you can separate Him from the Jewish identity of his own gene- pool; His brothers in blood, you must separate him from the human race. Then, He is not True Man and True God. He is only God without human lineage.

Why was Jesus ''raised as'' a Jew, if He isn't one? And do you believe Jews were barred from becoming Christian (followers of the Lord) on account of their race? You're wrong if you do. You do not change your lineage when you leave one occupation and take another one. A Jewish convert to the Catholic faith doesn't lose his Jewish background. He just leaves the synagogue, for spiritual motives. Jesus was a Jew, faithful to His people; and never ended His commitment to them. He wants them all to follow Him. Many millions already have. The twelve apostles were all Jews. They are the first Christians of Jewish descent. Not ''raised'' Jews and ''changed'' into Christians. That's an absurd way to look at conversion.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 16, 2003.

Little Paul,

In your last post you stated:

‘NOBODY IS ARGUING THAT THE JEWS ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CRUCIFIXION. the point i am TRYING to make is that there is a FUNDAMENTAL difference between Christ being born and raised under jewish tradition and Christ's actually being a jew.’

Whilst you had previously stated in a prior post:

‘this is not true at all. Jesus was not jewish, and he even more so is not jewish today. they still dont recognize his being the messiah, no more than jews of that day did. there is no mistake, when the highest members of a church condemn you from that church, youre not a member. they didnt only condemn him, they crucified him, and would have killed his followers (the first christians) had they not dispersed as well.’

I’m glad to see that you’ve changed your mind and that you no longer believe the Jews were responsible for Christ‘s crucifixion. I pray (and I’m not being facetious here, I mean that literally) that you will be shown some insight into Christ’s Jewishness now. How you can tenaciously hang onto your opinions in the light of what the Catechism tells us, I don’t know.

I was born into a Catholic family, received my Sacraments, and was raised Catholic. I haven’t stopped practising Catholicism. I will hopefully practise my Faith until the day my Father calls me home. No matter how you look at it, that makes me Catholic.

On the night before He died, when he instituted the Holy Eucharist in the Last Supper, Jesus was celebrating Passover, a Jewish Feast instituted, as I’m sure you’re aware, to commemorate the deliverance of Israel from Egyptian bondage. So, until the very night he was betrayed by Judas and taken to be crucified, Jesus was practising Judaism. The Lord’s Last Supper, was the Lord’s Last Passover.

Our Lord and Saviour was a Jew.

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 16, 2003.

i find this discussion somewhat bizarre (and totally unrelated to the shroud!).

Hitler "WAS" a Catholic.

Luther "WAS" a Catholic.

Jesus "WAS" a Jew.

"WAS".

"WAS".

"WAS".

"WAS".

"WAS".

......

NOT "IS".

NOR "EVER WAS".

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 16, 2003.

Don't point at me, Ian. I told paul; Jesus IS a Jew. He's the King of the Jews, and also Our Christ the King.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 16, 2003.

eugene, ian was (i believe) agreeing with me.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 16, 2003.

yes, paul, i was (and still am). most fervently, as it happens.

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 16, 2003.

The New Covenant was the final covenant; reflecting the Jews' failure to obey all previous covenant[s]; and the New Covenant itself was rejected by the glitterati of the Jewish religion; thus creating this new Christian "sect"; that at one point was nearly destroyed by Jewish persecution; and which the Jews continue to reject.

So if being a Jew means being born in Palestine, the Jesus was/is a Jew --- but being a Jew means believing that Jesus is a mrer prophet -- so Jesus is not and never was a Jew.

the supplied the firewood --- we supplied the fire --- a crude analogy -- but i thinm it sort of explains the point

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 16, 2003.

I see. You think Jesus is no longer Jewish, as the world of the Jews is now?

He was once a Jew, but no longer? Ian, paul was wrong. You have nothing concrete to add to his mistake. The kingdom of heaven is home to millions of Jews right now, today. They have been given eternal life through Jesus Christ, just as we Gentiles hope to receive. But as believing Christians & without rejecting the God of Israel.

Because, JESUS is the God of Israel. It only remains for all the Jews of the world to confess it so. The truth is, all Christians are His, and all Jews are his, and Greeks, etc., all are One to him. I suggested to paul he read the words of his patron saint; the epistle to the Hebrews. You go ahead, too. It's very good reading. Paul hasn't read it yet; I suspect.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 16, 2003.

eugene

i spent today reading Hebrews. and i moved onto James.

i struggle to understand the point being mae.

maybe we should agree on the definition of "Jew" and then see if Jesus is a Jew. i am starting to suspect that i am a Jew and that all the "Jews" are protestants ..... or something like that.....

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 17, 2003.

Eugene,

You've made some terrific posts on this thread. Thanks for your interesting and informative input.

I thought perhaps you might find the following Vatican document interesting reading ...you may already have read it of course.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/r c_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html#C.%20Conclusion

God bless

Sara

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 17, 2003.

Thank you, Sara. I'll read that paper as soon as I can.

To Ian:

We are all Catholics, in our own way. Some faithful and others unfaithful. Hitler & Martin Luther were just unfaithful. You give the ''protestant'' designation more credit than it calls for; they are simply Catholics gone out of the fold.

Jesus is Jewish and always will be. He is not out of the Jewish fold. He remains forever the Holy One of Israel. When He replied to the deputation of John He asserted His great glory, since they had asked Him from John the Baptist; ''Art thou He who is to come, or shall we wait for another?'' Now the promises to Abraham were fulfilled. The statement made this clear. Jesus was the Holy One who ''is to come''.

You mean that there is a line drawn, between the religion of Israel, and the Church's faith? It seemed to be, when Jesus died on Calvary. How can the line be drawn, though, if Jesus is the True Paschal lamb? The Jews' holy observance par excellence? Jesus fulfills the promise of God to his chosen people, in His death & resurrection!

In Exodus, the blood of a spotless lamb was sprinkled by the priests on the Jews. On the lintels of each of their houses. The angel of death struck every house in Egypt, death to the firstborn every one. Except the houses with the lamb's blood sprinkled on them! He Passes Over these!

It was the foreshadowing of Calvary, where Christs' blood was shed for our own salvation. We are delivered from death in sin. By the Paschal Lamb of Israel, Ian!

So, we acknowledge the holiness of God's promises to the people of Israel, when we worship the Holy One of Israel, the ''One who was to come.''

To come from the Virgin womb of a Jewish girl. She is Mary; Our Holy Mother of God in heaven.

The Old Testament is fulfilled, but lives in the Person of the lamb. In Revelations He reigns over all Creation. ''And when He had opened the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the lamb, -- and these all sing a new canticle, ''Worthy art Thou to take the scroll and open its seals, for Thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us for God with Thy blood, out of every tribe & tongue & people and nation, --'' (Rev 5 :8- 9).

Ian; we are supposed to realise, by this last verse; ''. . . for God with Thy blood, out of every tribe & tongue & people and nation,'' --is meant we have become one with the Chosen People, Israel. Just as God has promised Abraham in Genesis; ''In your descendents all the nations of the earth shall be blessed; because you have obeyed Me.'' We have cause to love all the Jews; for Jesus, from whom He sprang as Man! It pleased God to do this; and we have to praise his Divine wisdom! The Jews will come to praise Him in Jesus Christ, too. At the appointed time.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 17, 2003.

Eugene,

forgive my ignorance and answer me this -->> what is a "Jew"??

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 17, 2003.

yes, i second that... what IS a jew in YOUR definition. then lets compare that to how a JEWISH person views their faith and you'll see the difference.

lets consider a little point. there was a split between Christians and the jews that came about because of the actions of Christ. now, being God we assume Christ would have known this would have happened, and had he not inteded it to be so, then he would never have told peter he would be the rock on which the (new) church would be built.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 17, 2003.

without detracting from the main question:

was Adam a Jew?

Eve?

Cain?

Noah?

St Peter --- after he was made first Pope?

are you a Jew?

are the Jews Jews anymore?

-- Ian (ib@vertifgo.com), June 17, 2003.

Thanks for asking me. You could have asked ten others, and the ten would have likely contradicted me. But really; I should have been asked rather, WHO WERE the Jews when Jesus was born? They are Jesus' family; and over many centuries after his death & resurrection, we all realise these people were dispersed.

The people of the Promise were all those who were of the race of one man, Abraham. These were descended to Jesus' day through his son Isaac, and grandson Jacob. Other descendents from Abraham are the semitic people called arabs today.

As anyone knows, a Jew in Jesus' day was a descendent of Abraham who kept the Law of Moses. Jesus kept the Law Himself, so he knew He was a son of Abraham in the flesh. He had been circumcised. He had learned & kept the Law and commandments, and kept the Sabbath. He celebrated the feasts, including Passover. He worshipped in the Temple.

Other Jews were in essence like us. Either God-fearing and upright, or sinners and evil. Barabbas was a Jewish murderer.

But all were of the twelve tribes of Israel, and all called Abraham their father.

Jesus was their King. No exaggeration, he was --Is the Messiah; Son of Man, of David's line. The royal line of Israel.

After the Jews' dispersion, we have no history to depend on. Maybe some who are alive today have kept to the faith of their fathers and others have been absorbed. They do have a synagogue still; and seders and Passovers and Chanukkas. They still refer to Abraham as their Patriarch.

I hope this answer suits you. Just remember, Our Lord is living and aware of whjat we think. His mercy is more important now, than the descent of those who who count on the Law of Moses. But Jesus is merciful to prostitutes and thieves. Why shouldn't He also have mercy on the just and unjust who meet their responsibilites the best way they know how? As practicing Jews? Would we limit the mercy of Jesus?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 17, 2003.

I have always understood Jesus to be a Jew. I can't quote many specifically Catholic sources, other than what I learned in school, (Catholic) and later the writings of people like Owen Chadwick, John Dominic Crossan, Bart Ehrman etc. I understand that the authors mentioned are not Catholic sources but they all know more than me. If I'm really far off here, feel free to help me out. I'm here to learn.

St. Paul who was Jewish felt Jesus was a Jew- Gal.4:4. The earliest Christian, followers of Christ, considered themselves to be Jews, they used the Old Testament,and worshiped with fellow Jews, and followed the Law. As time passed, their differences with fellow Jews became more pronounced as a result of continuing revelation. St. Paul taught freedom from "The Law." But this was after Christ's death and resurection. Christ's death and resurection being central to the Christian faith would suggest that early followers of Christ did not begin to see themselves as "not being Jewish" until after Jesus died. St. Peter was Jewish and still followed "The Law" after Christ's death. St. Paul clashed with him over issues of table fellowship, circumcision and dietary restrictions when Peter seemed to backslide after tentatively agreeing with Paul's teachings about Jewish Law with regards to the gentiles. My point is that if Jesus' earliest followers were Jews, and followed the Law, it would follow that Jesus was (Jewish)too. It was after Jesus' death and resurection, and revelations by the Holy Spirit through St. Paul and others that allowed Jesus's earliest followers to understand themselves as "not being Jews." I'm not claiming my understanding of Jesus' Jewishness and that of the early followers holds water, but it seems reasonable.

-- Jim Furst (furst@flash.net), June 17, 2003.

This is one of those few times, Eugene, that I agree with you 99.999999%. Your words are well chosen.

-- Elpidio Gonzalez (egonzalez@srla.org), June 18, 2003.

elp, how in the world was that supposed to help this thread? eugene, i'll have a response for you in a couple days when i get back to the states.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), June 18, 2003.

Here’s a thought. Maybe Jesus was automatically ex-communicated when the chief priest held him guilty of blasphemy.

-- Stephen (StephenLynn999@msn.com), June 19, 2003.

Dear Stephen, et al:
Some remarks here are an attempt at irony, I realise. But, for a few who never seem to understand--

CHRIST is the Latin for ''Annointed One''. It means Jesus the Christ is the Messiah. Not some Spartacus of the New Testament, working to free the slaves. He has made Himself Israel's crowning achievement; Israel's Lamb of God.

You might say; Jesus is OUR Lamb, since the Jews didn't accept Him for their Messiah. But this is narrow-minded. Only sinners rejected Him. It happens the Pharisees and the high priests were sinners!

Israel is His people, and from this stock, Jesus started the Gospel to all the nations; in His holy apostles. One apostle, the Judean Judas Iscariot, gave away his faith for thirty pieces of silver. All His Galilean Jewish disciples went out and spread the Gospel. It was Israel's finest hour.

The fact that Christianity was brought to the nations in this manner is proof Jesus did NOT renounce His Kingship of the Jews. He actually assimilated the ''nations'' into the people God chose for His own. Israel became, as the prophets foretold, a ''Light unto the nations.''

What's more, to be the true Messiah, He had to be David's male heir; from the royal house of Israel. We mean by BLOOD! What that entails is very clearly, the shedding of Jewish blood, for the life of the world! Christ's royal blood!

He's the True Paschal Lamb, immolated for Passover by the Hebrews since the days of Moses. Use your spiritual energy and see: The Messiah hanging on the cross on Calvary is our Lamb; we've all joined Israel, He's King over us all now; not just one race. But He remains the Jew because that was God's Divine Will. That salvation come from the Jews. It is written, and it's an article of faith.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), June 19, 2003.

Well said Eugene.

-- Sara (sara_catholic_forum@yahoo.co.uk), June 19, 2003.

From the Discovery channel: "From the beginning of work on the Shroud of Turin I surmised that this cloth dated from about the 13th century. It could not be taken, with confidence, back beyond that date, and this period is one of fabricating relics with great skill. The carbon dating tends to suggest a date not far from that century." - James H. Charlesworth

Surely the Shroud is a fake. Just like other relics have been proven fakes.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 02, 2003.

I'll agree that your faith is a fake, David. It's not the faith which the apostles taught. Modern men made it up. You don't need carbon testing to prove your sect is not originated from Jesus Christ. It started in the 1500's, and the true Church started in 33.A.D., on Pentecost.

Whether the Shroud is authentic or not, we do not have to believe in the scientist's testing.

The scientists insist we are descended from apes, D.O. I suppose that makes it so?

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

Discovery Channel had a series a few weeks back; and the subject was: Man's ancestors the Apes. You should always believe the Discovery Channel, you know. Very good scientists produce that stuff.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

--Shucks;
I guess David is hiding out. He shows up on other threads during the last hour, but when he's proved wrong, he quits the thread where he's wrong. He tries a new one. I don't think he'll be back to this thread any more. It's too embarrassing for him.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

Oh I suppose I should believe those Catholic videos that say the walls bleed or that the Virgin Mary appeared to someone in a tortilla. I did not say everything on D.C. was true, but they have studied the shroud the best they could, I doubt any of you have even seen it physically. You just don't want to admit your relics are fakes.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 02, 2003.

Or the one about the 'miracle' and finding a trace of human heart in the eucharist. Yea I should see those.

-- David Ortiz (cyberpunk1986@prodigy.net), July 02, 2003.

On the contrary David, if any relic is a fake, I am most anxious to know that it is. Personally I'm a born skeptic, and in the final analysis, no relic, real or fake, has any effect on my faith one way or the other. Nevertheless, there is overwhelming evidence for the genuineness of some relics, for whatever it is worth. There is never any harm in knowing the truth. There is harm though in rejecting truth out of fear, arrogance, or ignorance.

-- Paul (PaulCyp@cox.net), July 02, 2003.

David Ortiz resorts to lies. He knows nobody believes walls bleed, or any tortilla claim. Those aren't relics, nobody claims they are, but David wants to say we think so. He's a coward, and can't face the truth about true relics, because it would show the Catholic faith in a favorable light. That's something he can't allow. He grabs a chance to say the Shroud was proved a fake. But it hasn't been. Even if it were; it has nothing to do with doctrinal truth the Church.

David would side with the scientist who thinks he (David) came from apes. He would; if that somehow contradicted the Catholic faith. Why not? Discovery Channel proved it !!! Hahaha!

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 02, 2003.

Hi Eugene. I saw that documentary about man and apes. They never proved anything, but their stories were entertaining. I have my doubts about the Virgin Mary appearances. Then,I was handed a photo showing an image of Mary on the bark of a tree. I had to rub my eyes and look hard to find how it couldn't be her image. The bark on the tree looked very natural and unaltered; it was definately an image of what we perceive to be the Virgin Mary. As a result, I'm left with several thoughts:

1. it was a coincidence.

2. it was manufactured.

3. it was genuine.

4. it was what I wanted to see.

The reality is that The Virgin Mary was and is real and in my thoughts she is also real. But, like Paul, we don't need to see those things appearing in trees, tortillas, or office buildings. We have faith. I mean it would be very amazing to see those relics and images for the mystery and history, but faith is what we need. ro

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 02, 2003.

Rod, I agree with you in principle. Lots of very silly things or events are pushed on the gullible. But we cannot blame the Curch. The Ctholic Church is always the very LAST to give tacit approval on the truth of the spirtual phenomenon. She has never endorsed a falsehood, NEVER!

And we must face the facts: Many apparitions are valid and reasonable, though the Church does not command any of her faithful to believe in them if they can't. We know the Mother of God truly was present at Lourdes, in France. Many certified miracles have been witnessed in the baths at Lourdes. No one is able to explain them scientifically, but they're authentic. We know and have faith; there HAVE been true miracles. There are genuine relics of God's holy saints. They have procured miracles for those who asked their intercession. It's indisputable.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 03, 2003.

Hi Eugene.

Oh, I don't blame the Church. I think the Church has the correct approach in regards to such miracles and sightings.

rod. . .

.

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 03, 2003.

When I was a grad student in the late 1980s I listened to a seminar by Dr. WIlliam McCrone, one of the foremost experts on carbon dating and pigmentation. At that time he stated that the Shroud could not possibly be earlier than the 13th century. Years later, as technology and knowledge improved, he recanted his statement, and said that in all likelihood the Shroud originated in the first century during the time of Christ.

Pax et Bonum.

Thomas

-- Thomas (tcdzomba@excite.com), July 03, 2003.

Likely due to the deposition, over-time, of subsequent carbon based impurities having more recent origin, leading, of course, to a date skewed toward the present. The amount of sample used in carbon dating is becoming increasingly smaller thus magnifying the importance of sample homogeneity, with regard to the specific material being tested.

Just the former chemist in me speaking.

I used to date some carbon to search for purity of natural materials versus synthetic ones in my bygone days.

Karl

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), July 03, 2003.

The Shroud of Turin was just barely saved from burning completely about 4 centuries back. It has been theorized this exposure to extreme heat makes carbon dating on the material a long chance. This is not an ordinary relic.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), July 03, 2003.

In the book The Templar Revelation by Picknett & Prince on page 24 it reads (my paraphrase)

The Shroud of Turin is a 500 year old photograph of Leonardo da Vinci.

If this is true, Da Vinci was a heretic who has left the world a fake relic.

The book claims that all of the necessary materials and technology was available back then for a genius -Leonardo- could complete such a hoax. Camera obscura was very much known to such artists.

Rodrigo.. .. .. ..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2003.

"...were available..."

Sorry.

Rodrigo.. .. ..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), July 20, 2003.

I believe there are references to the shroud dating from around the 12th century? A lot before Leonardo's time.

-- stephen L. (StephenLynn999@msn.com), July 20, 2003.

I was challenged to check out what the Turin Shroud was all about, since I myself am not a Christian. I think both sides have good points, it is a mystery, and I doubt it is possible to ever conclude to non-believers that it is authentic, or vice-versa. But one comment on this thread distrubed me.

Eugene: She (the Catholic Church) has never endorsed a falsehood, NEVER!

here's one little clip Eugene:

Galileo wrote about his observations and thus angered the Roman Catholic Church. The Church eventually placed him under house arrest. The Inquisition was the tribunal of the Roman Catholic Church at this time. The Inquisition made Galileo kneel before them and confess that the heliocentric theory was FALSE.

I'm no scientist, but I learned the heliocentric theory at a very young age.

There's nothing wrong with Faith, but Think for Yourself At Times Don't go around claiming the church has never lied or been wrong.

Blind Faith is dangerous, question authority, think for yourself.

(i know this thread is pretty old, just wanted to add my two cents, since this page came up in my search)

Spiral Out.......Keep Going

-- Daniel Longo (longodaniel@susqu.edu), August 12, 2003.

dan,

nice post. one little thing i might point out, however, is that heliocentrism cannot be proven. relatively speaking, which in physics is really the only way to speak, the earth very well COULD be the center of the universe. a simple fact which einstien points out very clearly.

-- paul (dontsendmemail@notanaddress.com), August 12, 2003.

In Keeping an Open Mind your right, the earth could be the center of the universe, it's good to think in terms of "COULD", i was pointing out that the catholic church was not so open-minded in terms of what COULD be possible, unfortunately for the victims of the Inquisition. Basically Eugene's comment of the church never endorsing a False statement really irked me. False or not, the church is a human institution, capable of mistakes like you and me. I subscribe to the view that religious leaders are too often the middle man between us and God, we can experience God through our own experiences, i guess you could call me a gnostic. Thanks for the reply, never been part of an internet discussion like this.

-- Daniel Longo (longodaniel@susqu.edu), August 12, 2003.

The earth is the center of the universe. Now, before everybody gets freaky, think about this:

All points in the universe are the center, if we move the clock backwards and observe all points move back to their original start all points begin at the same place--the center.

rod..

..

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), August 12, 2003.

Jmj

Daniel Longo, you took what Eugene Chavez said out of context, and then wasted a lot of time and energy on an unnecessary attack.

You said that he wrote: "She (the Catholic Church) has never endorsed a falsehood, NEVER!"
But what you left out was the preceding sentence: "The Catholic Church is always the very LAST to give tacit approval on the truth of the spiritual phenomenon.

Thus, he was speaking about alleged spiritual phenomena, such as the Shroud of Turin -- not about such matters as heliocentrism. The Church teaches about religion, not science. Gene was saying that the Church, upon ascertaining that some alleged spiritual phenomenon was phony, has "NEVER" "endorsed" such a "falsehood" (a claim that is known to be deliberately erroneous). Clearly, this has NOTHING to do with your complaint about Galileo.

Your next mistake was to use improper language in your complaint. You stated: "Galileo wrote about his observations and thus angered the Roman Catholic Church.
He didn't anger "the Roman Catholic Church." You have to learn to avoid generalizing -- i.e., assigning to the whole "Catholic Church" what should be assigned only to certain people who happen(ed) to be Catholic.
So, your sentence, correctly stated, reads: "Some things that Galileo wrote alarmed certain churchmen."

Next, you stated: "The Church eventually placed him under house arrest."
Correctly stated, this becomes: "Certain high-ranking churchmen put Galileo under house arrest."

By the way, I suggest that you visit the site of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights to learn the facts about the Galileo case. I have little doubt that you are laboring under various anti-Catholic misconceptions on this subject. For example, you probably think that those churchmen who condemned Galileo insisted that all Catholics believe in geocentrism. But they did not insist on this. Surprise you? If so, go to the CLRCR site and learn the rest of the facts.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), August 13, 2003.

just to get things straight, how do you talk about catholic leaders without generalizing that there word is the voice of catholicism. i would like to believe that most catholics are not anti-semitic. But for centuries the "leaders" of the catholic church clearly were. doesnt mean every catholic during the time was. i went to the website you linked. it is extremely biased. i checked out a review of one of the books i have read "popes against the jews", they try to discredit the book in one small article, i suggest to all catholics to read it. civil rights and catholicism seem like an oxy-moron to me. look at the "guidelines" the vatican is putting out now, telling all (catholic and non-catholic) to fight the legalizatoin of gay marriage. Thats POLITICS. the church is political as well as a religious institution. why does being catholic mean you must defend the mistakes of the vatican and catholic leaders? admit at times they were wrong, and caused and are causing a lot of pain and suffering. its a cliche but come on, people must own up to their mistakes and we should acknowledge that. don't be someone who eats up candy coated messages, ex. THe "We Remember speech"

-- Daniel Longo (longodaniel@susqu.edu), August 14, 2003.

Mr. Longo:
The Church is DIVINE, since her Founder is. No single individual speaks for the Church; the Church speaks through the Holy Spirit and her prelates, beginning with the Pope.

You've misinterpreted the word ''mistakes''. We all make mistakes in life. But the Holy Spirit is incapable of a mistake. --Whenever in past ages a bishop or even a Pope had trouble with speaking for the Church, it was always on the perimeters of our faith. Our faith is in Christ, not in science or human knowledge. We count on the Holy Spirit to lead us in the life of faith. The Popes and bishops whom you accuse of mistakes were never guilty of misleading the faithful; or of misinterpreting the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Just remember that even the wisest man is incapable of speaking for God in the world; but the Vicar of Christ speaks for Him with regards to the life of faith and morals. He was appointed by Jesus Christ to speak, and given authority.

You protest: ''look at the guidelines (NO NEED FOR SCARE QUOTES) the Vatican is putting out now, telling all Catholic and non-Catholic) to fight the legalization of gay marriage. Thats POLITICS. the Church is political as well as a religious institution. Why does being Catholic mean you must defend the mistakes of the Vatican and Catholic leaders?-- ''

The Pope is speaking out against immorality, and that's religion, not politics. He isn't laying out guidelines, he is denouncing sinful practices; just as Saint John the Baptist denounced the evil of Herod % his incestuous mistress Herodias.

This isn't a mistake by the Vatican. It's a voice crying in today's wilderness. We are warned against the encoachment of depravity into the very governments of our society. You are refusing to hear. You cover your ears with both hands. But here we listen; we have to listen. You have some growing up to do, Daniel Longo.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), August 14, 2003.

this arguement about painters, painting the same face as the shroud even though they never saw it (this being proof to some people) is a bogus argument, as the shroud had already been copied and incorporated into many many images already, it is quite likely they had seen some of these have as much faith as you want but stop calling it proof.

-- bob (me@here.co.uk), November 19, 2003.