Hasn't the Shroud of Turin been proved to be fake (or at least not from the time of the historical Jesus)?

I believe it's a 14th century forgery.

http://www.physorg.com/news4652.html

Interesting end to the article that I never knew. Seems Clement VII even said it was not the true shroud.

quote:

---

14th century forgery

---

I guess I missed the report on how they determined the motive of the person/persons who made it.

Money?

It's a bit of a stretch to assume that just because the thing may not be consistent with a 2000 year old burial shroud that the people who made it were dishonest. Couldn't it be simply an icon?

3xranger, your “recovering catholic” is typical ad hominem

quote:

---

As a recovering Catholic, this attitude is one that really bothered me when I was being indoctrinated (cathesism). The arrogance of a man telling me he knows the truth--the only truth.

---

Are you saying no one can know the truth? You would have to know everything to be able say that. That is what is arrogant.

quote:

---

Others have false beliefs around the world. How arrogant. How about some humility. Crusades anyone?

---

If there is a truth (which there is), then everyone who doesn’t believe it has false beliefs. That’s pretty simple logic.
It is quite hypocritical to call someone arrogant because they have faith in what they believe. You would have to know everything to claim someone couldn’t know the truth. What does the Crusades have to do with this? This is discussion about Christianity – no one is suggesting we take up physical arms to force our beliefs on someone.

I’m sorry you had a bad experience with the Catholic Church. There are a lot of people who have good intentions but poor communication skills, and many with poor doctrinal knowledge. My communication skills and doctrinal knowledge are not what I would like them to be, but my shortcomings are mostly in neglecting proclaiming what I know to be the Truth. If I waited till I could prove everything to the satisfaction of sceptics, I would be more negligent. “All it takes for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing”

When it comes down to it, we all fall short of the glory of God. But for the grace of God go I.

So what is your contribution to the knowledge of truth?

quote:

---

I believe it's a 14th century forgery.

---

Are you saying that you believe they had the knowledge, skill and technology to create an image that modern forensic science cannot duplicate?

I’ve never seen any indication that the original medieval owners porported it to be the burial cloth of Christ, but I’m sure there were many who would draw that conclusion. It definitely appears to be from someone who was crucified in the same way as Jesus was. The coroners who examined the Shroud discovered several things about crucifixion that were previously not noted.

The shroud of Turin has been partially burned and patched in the past, both of which adversely affected the carbon dating. The pollen on the shroud is from plants in Israel. To date, no one has figured out how a negative image of a crucified man with head wounds and real blood stains got onto the cloth.

Me1, that's a good point. I never thought of it as an icon. That's a good possibility rather than just calling it a scam.

The evidence strongly suggests that Jesus existed. Now as for the truth of the events in the Bible there is no proof that supports them happening or not happening. The events in the Bible are written many years after they supposedly happened and by sources that can't be verified as first hand or not some are know to not be first hand and just because the author claims it is first hand does not make it so. The author claiming to be inscribing an account from a first hand source does not make it so. The Bible being inscribed so many times throughout history does not make it fact it means that it is something people liked enough kept around. Same as many other texts that exist thousands of years after first written. I have to address something I have seen many times throughout this post. Why were the gospels validity never debated until so recently. The answer is easy. The shot answer as to why it was only debated recently is this. Until recently it was not safe to say anything against the church let alone voice doubt of any kind on the Bible or the church. There are documented accounts of important historical figures and some of not so important people being labeled heretics and other things and put to death by the church people would lose everything homes family friends etc because they where accused of various crimes by the church. For a long time the church used its influence and power to be history's greatest tyrant it was dangerous to speak out against the church in anyway.Now on to the miracles. Simply put have nothing backing them except the Bible and seem to me to be exaggerations or embellishments of truth or outright lies used after Jesus was crucified. For what purpose you ask? To make the teachings of the religion seem more devine and therfore more valid. Jesus was the leader of a movement with a reformed belief system and had some loyal followers and was a folk hero that was martyred by his death. His followers kept his spreading his teaching by the only safe means they could word of mouth to be found with a written copy would mean death. The problem with word of mouth should be obvious to anyone with sense the facts are never the same from one telling to the next and his teachings were not all that was spread Jesus and his deeds were told and retold in true folk hero fashion they got more and more grand until they reached... Biblical proportions... his actions got exaggerated to the point of divinity and the stories got added to the Bible because they were believed and loved by the people that held to his teachings. Well that is one theory another is that they simply made good stories that gave people hope and strength to hold to beliefs that would get you killed if you were found out. The only facts we can be sure of is that the account is written long after Jesus died. There is no way to know the truth of what truly transpired you can only choose to believe they happened exactly as written or they didn't. I've heard (not sure if it is referenced in the Bible or not been far too long since I read it) that Jesus supposedly lived his life sin free now that is a miracle greater than any other miracle he is said to have preformed. So much we do in everyday life is sinful. I can understand how people believe all the other miracles I don't but I could see why people do. But living a sin free life is simply an impossibility end of discussion. Jesus is the only begotten son of God he is human some see him as the human embodiment of God himself. But whatever you believe one simple fact remains he is human and being human is to sin to sin is human. We literally sin uncontrollably. We can't control what we think thoughts just pop into our mind and the wrong thoughts are sinful but we can choose how we react to our thoughts. Feeling the wrong emotions is sinful and we have absolutely no control of our emotions they are physiological responses chemical are released and we can do nothing to stop them but we can control our reaction to the emotions to an extent. To believe Jesus lived a life without sin is the most delusional thing I have ever heard. But my real point here is that there is no way to provide proof one way or another for the miraculous things the Bible says Jesus did sorry but that is the truth. So your options are believe or not. The same thing applies to the authorship of the Bible. Personally I believe religion all religion is nothing more than a way of laying down rules of socially acceptable behavior and to give the illusion that life has a purpose and death is not the end. Religion is a coping mechanism for those that can't face the realities of life. Life is meaningless and insignificant it is short and it ends forever when the body dies. I hope I'm wrong and there is an afterlife. As for my beliefs about a God... The closest thing to a God in my mind is Mathematics. Math is the only constant it doesn't create or destroy it wasn't created it always was and always will be. Math is the answer to everything even life and death. But it is meaningless because knowing the math of everything doesn't change anything we are still insignificant and our lives mean nothing death is still the end knowing the answers changes nothing but your understanding. We are here because statistically it was bound to happen. Knowing the answers to how it all happened is interesting but nothing changes the outcome we are here now so enjoy the time you have experience as much as you can and don't be a dick don't make other people miserable life is hard enough without people being rude so be kind help people when you can try to improve the lives you impact life is a struggle from day one make that struggle as easy as you can for yourself and the people around you if that explanation isn't good enough reason to be a decent person how about this... make the lives or the people around you easier with kindness and helping when you can and your life will be easier and more enjoyable in turn because your positive interactions with people make them positive towards you so do it so you can selfishly make your live easier... I try to be a decent person not because I'm afraid of some God I do it because life is to short to be miserable and if you make others miserable you will inevitably be miserable too I'm a good person because it not only benefit those around me but it benefits me as well I was an ass rude argumentative aggressive among other negative traits for a long time because it was done to me most of my young life but one day I realized that it was making others around me miserable and that in turn made my life harder and more miserable I was suffering far more than those around me they could get away from me and be better but I was miserable around people and when I was alone. Those I loved struggled due to my anger and hatred I realized I was not angry at anyone and I hated no one but myself so I changed the way I treated those around me my attitude everything I was before the anger and hatred for myself was for me to deal with everyone around be shouldn't suffer because I was and once I changed my attitude towards others around me I was able to forgive myself and with that I wasn't angry at myself anymore and life has been better since the highs in life are much better and even the lows that come are not as difficult as they were before sorry for the all the off topic long winded ramblings have a great day everyone

Lol. What a thread bump from the bot.

Fun to see the old R&P crew again!

Holy wall of text Batman!

Paul did NOT quote Mark's gospel, and no, Peter is not the primary source of the book.

BluHorseShu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Paul did NOT quote Mark's gospel, and no, Peter is not the primary source of the book.

---

Paul didn't quote Mark verbatim but alludes to it in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. Paul was certainly aware of Matthew and Marks gospel. But regardless, that weird diatribe above is completely in accurate . Many of those who knew Jesus directly lived on after he died and the church fathers passed on their direct knowledge. The Bible is actually one of the most historically documented and accurate text we have.

---

I'm not claiming the Bible is ahistorical/false I am just asserting Peter isn't the author/source for Mark, at all, nor did Paul quote from it.

Paul's letters (the genuine ones) were earlier than Mark, Corinthians by probably 10 or so years. Saying he was resurrected on the 3rd day according to the scriptures is an oddly imprecise reference to mark for Paul, if that is what you are intending to assert, especially given the original ending/mystery in Mark. Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or "sightings" of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.

Why would Peter have written/communicated in greek for a gentile audience (likely in/around Galilee), and how would he be the source for a book written in the mid 60's-70's? The whole messianic secret (and first version of the ending) don't match with anything we know about/expect from Peter.

I think Mark should be much more widely studied today, by scholars and laypersons alike, frankly. It's the earliest gospel, and without the markan appendix (last 12 verses), by far the most intriguing, to me. The young man, who slipped away naked from the garden of olives when Jesus was arrested must have been known to the community (14:51-52). Citing Jesus' own family calling him a madman (3:21), His own exhortation about how prophets only lack honor 'in their hometown/household' (6:3-6), it's always a shocking read, again for me.

Peter had been associated with Jacob in the big fight with Paul at Antioch, which is why Joel Marcus noted perhaps Mark paints a negative picture of Peter (vs. the other gospels especially): Jesus even calls him Satan (8:33), and Peter is blustery in how he tries to correct Jesus (14:31) and his boast that all the others may betray Him but he will never do so (14:29). "And he (Peter) launched himself, under pain of a curse, into swearing, "I have no knowledge of the man you mention."" (14:71).

Mark also never adds Matt's positive statements about Peter (calling him the stone (MT 16:18), command for him to 'feed his sheep' as per John).

The old, very very tenuous assertion (more properly a guess that was disproven) that Peter dictated it right before his death was somewhat based (in addition to an RCC need to provide one of the gospels as having come from Peter/Rome) on 13:14-20, and the 'defilement that desolates' as a reference perhaps to Caligula's threat to erect a statue of himself in the temple in 40 (but no one fled to the hills over that). Rather, the zealots occupied the temple in 67 and the following years, as Josephus attested using the same term Jesus does in Mark 11:17. This terminology (defilement that desolates) is taken from Daniel 11:31, 12:11 which describes the pollution of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168BC who put a pagan altar above the altar of sacrifice.

nortex97 said:

---

BluHorseShu said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Paul did NOT quote Mark's gospel, and no, Peter is not the primary source of the book.

---

Paul didn't quote Mark verbatim but alludes to it in 1 Cor. 15:3-4. Paul was certainly aware of Matthew and Marks gospel. But regardless, that weird diatribe above is completely in accurate . Many of those who knew Jesus directly lived on after he died and the church fathers passed on their direct knowledge. The Bible is actually one of the most historically documented and accurate text we have.

---

I'm not claiming the Bible is ahistorical/false I am just asserting Peter isn't the author/source for Mark, at all, nor did Paul quote from it.

Paul's letters (the genuine ones) were earlier than Mark, Corinthians by probably 10 or so years. Saying he was resurrected on the 3rd day according to the scriptures is an oddly imprecise reference to mark for Paul, if that is what you are intending to assert, especially given the original ending/mystery in Mark. Mark gives no accounts of anyone seeing Jesus as Matthew, Luke, and John later report. In fact, according to Mark, any future epiphanies or "sightings" of Jesus will be in the north, in Galilee, not in Jerusalem.

Why would Peter have written/communicated in greek for a gentile audience (likely in/around Galilee), and how would he be the source for a book written in the mid 60's-70's? The whole messianic secret (and first version of the ending) don't match with anything we know about/expect from Peter.

I think Mark should be much more widely studied today, by scholars and laypersons alike, frankly. It's the earliest gospel, and without the markan appendix (last 12 verses), by far the most intriguing, to me. The young man, who slipped away naked from the garden of olives when Jesus was arrested must have been known to the community (14:51-52). Citing Jesus' own family calling him a madman (3:21), His own exhortation about how prophets only lack honor 'in their hometown/household' (6:3-6), it's always a shocking read, again for me.

Peter had been associated with Jacob in the big fight with Paul at Antioch, which is why Joel Marcus noted perhaps Mark paints a negative picture of Peter (vs. the other gospels especially): Jesus even calls him Satan (8:33), and Peter is blustery in how he tries to correct Jesus (14:31) and his boast that all the others may betray Him but he will never do so (14:29). "And he (Peter) launched himself, under pain of a curse, into swearing, "I have no knowledge of the man you mention."" (14:71).

Mark also never adds Matt's positive statements about Peter (calling him the stone (MT 16:18), command for him to 'feed his sheep' as per John).

The old, very very tenuous assertion (more properly a guess that was disproven) that Peter dictated it right before his death was somewhat based (in addition to an RCC need to provide one of the gospels as having come from Peter/Rome) on 13:14-20, and the 'defilement that desolates' as a reference perhaps to Caligula's threat to erect a statue of himself in the temple in 40 (but no one fled to the hills over that). Rather, the zealots occupied the temple in 67 and the following years, as Josephus attested using the same term Jesus does in Mark 11:17. This terminology (defilement that desolates) is taken from Daniel 11:31, 12:11 which describes the pollution of the temple by Antiochus Epiphanes in 168BC who put a pagan altar above the altar of sacrifice.

---

So you don't think Paul was aware of the oral traditions that existed bf the synoptic gospels were written? I agree they were written after Paul's letters, but I think oral tradition had already become somewhat established before.

nortex97 said:

---

Paul did NOT quote Mark's gospel, and no, Peter is not the primary source of the book.

---

You misread this. Paul quoted Luke's gospel.

Luke 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.

Paul 1 Tim 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."


Peter is not the primary source of Mark according to who?

Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter's teaching
In his book, "Against Heresies" (Book 3 Chapter 1), Irenaeus (130-200AD) also reported Mark penned his Gospel as a scribe for Peter, adding the following detail:
"Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form"

Papias said Mark scribed Peter's teachings
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, "Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord". In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as 'the elder', (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:

"And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

DirtDiver said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Paul did NOT quote Mark's gospel, and no, Peter is not the primary source of the book.

---

You misread this. Paul quoted Luke's gospel.

Luke 10:7 "Stay in that house, eating and drinking what they give you; for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Do not keep moving from house to house.

Paul 1 Tim 5:18 For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing," and "The laborer is worthy of his wages."


Peter is not the primary source of Mark according to who?

Irenaeus said Mark wrote his Gospel from Peter's teaching
In his book, "Against Heresies" (Book 3 Chapter 1), Irenaeus (130-200AD) also reported Mark penned his Gospel as a scribe for Peter, adding the following detail:
"Matthew composed his gospel among the Hebrews in their own language, while Peter and Paul proclaimed the gospel in Rome and founded the community. After their departure, Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, handed on his preaching to us in written form"

Papias said Mark scribed Peter's teachings
Bishop Papias of Hierapolis (60-130AD) repeated the testimony of the old presbyters (disciples of the Apostles) who claimed Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome as he scribed the preaching of Peter (Ecclesiastical History Book 2 Chapter 15, Book 3 Chapter 30 and Book 6 Chapter 14). Papias wrote a five volume work entitled, "Interpretation of the Oracles of the Lord". In this treatise (which no longer exists), he quoted someone he identified as 'the elder', (most likely John the elder), a man who held considerable authority in Asia:

"And the elder used to say this, Mark became Peter's interpreter and wrote accurately all that he remembered, not, indeed, in order, of the things said and done by the Lord. For he had not heard the Lord, nor had followed him, but later on, followed Peter, who used to give teaching as necessity demanded but not making, as it were, an arrangement of the Lord's oracles, so that Mark did nothing wrong in thus writing down single points as he remembered them. For to one thing he gave attention, to leave out nothing of what he had heard and to make no false statements in them."

---

As per my post/reading, yes, in the 1st-middle ages it was popular to attribute it to Peter's teaching. Irenaeus was wrong about that, as were many others.

Similarly, Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. It's also from much later.

Papias I am not an expert/read on, sorry. Again, though, this earlier rumor/view that it was written in Rome is just not accurate based on what is…actually written in it. Why would Peter slander/smear his own reputation?

Claiming one of the disciples as the author in fact for the pseudonymously compiled book, ok, that was common (Mary, Judas, Thomas, secret gospels of John, Mark etc), and some at the time of course believed this in each case. Later textual/scholarly analyses matters a lot more, though, to me.

Primrose... Eternal Memory!

One would think you could teach a bot to use paragraphs.

To the OP - there are several well documented cases for a historical Jesus.from non-biblical souces

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus#Non-biblical_sources

Quote:

---

As per my post/reading, yes, in the 1st-middle ages it was popular to attribute it to Peter's teaching. Irenaeus was wrong about that, as were many others.

---

Why are they wrong? Look at all of the independent claims form the 1st and 2nd century. Papias, Clement, Tertullian, Origen,

Is Mark's Gospel An Early Memoir Of The Apostle Peter?


Similarly, Paul didn't write 1 Timothy. It's also from much later.

Quote:

---

Papias I am not an expert/read on, sorry. Again, though, this earlier rumor/view that it was written in Rome is just not accurate based on what is…actually written in it. Why would Peter slander/smear his own reputation?

---

What are your examples of Peter slandering his reputation?

Quote:

---

Claiming one of the disciples as the author in fact for the pseudonymously compiled book, ok, that was common (Mary, Judas, Thomas, secret gospels of John, Mark etc), and some at the time of course believed this in each case. Later textual/scholarly analyses matters a lot more, though, to me.

---

Later textual analysis must take in studying early analysis. Example: When examining the gospel of Thomas the early church rejected this. If one studies this today on it's own merit once can see how the early church came to this conclusion.

The reasons for accepting Mark as Peter's account outweigh the arguments again.