Copyrighted Logo

css menu by Css3Menu.com


 

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
    Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

  HomeHelpSearchLoginRegister  
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print
Some general and specific musings. (Read 4781 times)
Justin2710
Ex Member


Some general and specific musings.
Apr 17th, 2005 at 8:08am
 
   I too like TruSeekers quote, 
Quote:"....question everything, do not accept it if I told you, do not accept it if the Master told you, do not accept it if Buddha told you himself, only accept it if you know it to be true by experience.." 

  Basically what any spiritual teacher worth his weight in fast vibrations has said.  With the above in mind here is my post and it ain't the gospel truth..(well a bit to me, but i'm biased  Grin but of course).

   Some generalized and specific musings...

   If you had the impression, the knowledge, or at the very least strong suspicion that someone you knew was misleading many of your friends, telling them things that could not be verified, or things that ran contrary to much other consistent info what would you do?
  I can’t speak for you, but I would try to point out some of the apparent inconsistencies, the fact that very little of this person’s info has been verified, but I wouldn’t try and force it down their throats.  I would say, this is just my  perception, then outline it in as logical way as I could, and let them make up their minds.  Course some of your friends may not want to hear you at all period, so with these friends you might not address them directly anymore as not to just facilitate hard feelings and strifes.
   Here at afterlife, there is stress upon independent verifications, various correlations, consistent patterns etc. amongst those who do retrievals or psychic work.   This seems to make a lot of obvious sense, it’s a very pragmatic way to develop trust in something that by much material accounts is rather of a subtle and little known “science” (if you can call it that).  Sometimes downright intangible seeming, especially at first. 
   If we were just attracted to some kind of source of info, and just took it all for truth because it “resonated” with us then we would be as many of the religious people taking things solely on “faith” alone.  Perhaps also we would become very dogmatic (and often defensive)  in our views too?   I don’t see anything ultimately wrong with this, but for me I need some outside verifications and at the very least circumstantial evidence.  As I said in another post, I do not believe in ultimate proof, or being able to prove to others anything, but I do believe in circumstantial evidence of a sort.
   Back to the friend example; to get a little historical perhaps this is why a seeming non-dualistic person like Yeshua did seem to  speak out against the Pharisees, Sadducees, Scribes etc. because though he had nothing personal against them, he thought that their info was misleading, inconsistent, and extremely self-serving.  Not too mention dogmatic to the extreme...  In other words, according to his perception he was trying to help all his friends.
    This leads me to the subject of channeling and mediumship.  I’m of the opinion that this is rather a neutral tool, depending on the channels overall vibrations, the intent and motivations of the channel, and the “atmosphere” in which the channel is around (like ones friends or seekers).  Or to put very simply, like attracts like and like begets like.  I really don’t know how anyone of a non-materialistic mind set can really argue with that easily observed law of energy.  This perhaps just means there is a built in order system to creation around the “chaos” of freewill.  But I’m not going to deal with the medium directly since I know so little about same, but rather just deal with the information and make comparisons for others to make up their own mind.
   Also, I would like to talk about the different ways of tuning in, and point out that though I do believe mediumship is a neutral tool, it does seem to be one with inherent difficult variables.  Why, because the average medium allows self to be taken over to a greater or lesser degree by an outside source.  This is why Edgar Cayce could not be classified as a medium per se, because he would go deeply within for information, and though oft he communicated with seemingly outside sources, almost never did they actually speak through him.  He almost always “checked” their info before relaying it to others.  But to be fair to the facts as I know them, on a couple of occasions an essence other than Edgar did come through him.   Another way to gauge a sources ability to facilitate or to act as a catalyst, is simply by the sources helpfulness on ALL levels, physically, mentally, and spiritually.   Do these coordinate?  Or is it  rather lopsided and unbalanced, because though they have their differences they are ONE, and must be made one in purpose if a person seeks full completeness or At-One-Ment.  At least IMO.   I always ask, what is the channels and channeled intent and motivation.  Is the channel seeking to be of universal assistance, or is the channel seeking to glorify self...to be known as a “channel”.    I may never be able to answer these questions conclusively, but I still ask and listen.
    This brings me back to my old friend Seth.  Was reading some more of Seth Speaks and thought Seths unwillingness to outline probable events, and his excuses for such didn’t make much sense.  Well, some made sense but it seems Seth (or is it rather Roberts unconscious?) doesn’t understand the difference between reading the probabilities of individual events (which is very, potentially speaking, flexible and malleable) and collective long term events which can often be predicted to the very day in physical terms.  Who says, say you?  Well back to the tried and verified–Edgar Cayce and the many, many accurate predictions and/or trends he outlined.
   Michael Mandeville is perhaps the author who most researched and scored Cayce’s various predictions in a very hard scientific manner.  Therefore I would refer the true seeker to read his second book especially.  This book goes over many of the stock market advice Cayce gave (the stock market was extremely fluidic and freewill influenced), the business advice to those in radio and other burgeoning markets, the many World War predictions, the World Political developments (who many, many scoffed at then), the various extreme weather patterns then,  and then of course the Earth Changes.  Mandeville doesn’t tackle the sheer immensity of health info that was unique to individuals, or the many more personal predictions the Source made...  Another book which is fairly objective and very well researched is Sidney Kirtpatrick’s biographical book on Edgar.  And of course you have the readings themselves which are still in their original form.
    Just to give one a taste.  Cayce predicted years in advance the rise of Hitler, the militarization of Japan, and Italy eventually aligning with Germany, the exact year and month the second world war would officially end, and the eventual breakup of communism in the USSR (for many, many years people scoffed at–some even Cayce supporters).  Cayce said years before it was discovered, that there would be found more gold in the sea than in all of the worlds banks.  Cayce predicted that the Dead Sea Scrolls would be found in a few years, and roughly where.  A few years after he died they were found.  He gave pertinent information about the Essenes that then bible scholars refuted, but later archeology and the various new found texts would support; such as the Essenes allowed women into their community and that they held important roles. 
  He predicted that in 1936 there would be an upheaval both deep within the earth and within the political powers.  Sure enough graphs of Chandlers Wobble shows a “jerk” in the average motion.  He said this upheaval in the earth would be followed by gradual changes with an increase in all kinds of earth activity and especially with a general trend of heating–this way back before America became such a enormously polluting country, and way before many developing third world countries got into the whole industrial shabbang.  Yet Cayce stressed that this heating was rather to due to the stresses physically within the earth.  He gave 98 as an important marking year indicating both an acceleration of the physical changes, and of the spiritual changes in consciousness, and specifically telling people of his time/space cycle that these changes would be better understood by 98'.  Look at the info that came out around then, especially in relation to the Galactic Center alignment indications.
   Interestingly, he said all these trends, indeed all major world developments past, present, and future (and potential soul evolution of humanity) were outlined in the Great Pyramid for those with eyes to see.  Many researchers into the Great Pyramid have come to the conclusion that it is numerologically, symbolically, and emblematically encoded with information of past, present, and future knowledge.  Though mainstream Egyptologists still stubbornly maintain that the G.P was made no more than 5000 years or so ago at the arbitrary whim of a megalomaniac who just wanted a giant tombstone, yet some reachers have found interesting evidence quite to the contrary.  For example, the rain and water weathering on the Sphinx which strongly suggests that at least the Sphinx is at minimum 10,000 yrs old.  The sky patterns which align with the Pyramids of Giza of then which interestingly match up almost exactly to the date Cayce gave for the beginning of construction (10,500 B.C.). 
    To give a idea of Cayce’s usefulness and truthfulness, you can look at some of the individuals who used his information and/or those who tried to debunk him.  Some of the then top business men of America consulted Cayce on a consistent basis (this known because there are signed affidavits for health help).  Or take Houdini the great magician and debunker of mediums.   Houdini for personal reasons apparently, was obsessed with exposing mediums and he was really, really good at his job.  Many a medium fell under his sword doing the day.  It is known that Houdini went to investigate Cayce and out of all the psychics he ever investigated, Cayce is the only one he didn’t publically denounce as a fraud.  Indeed, there is circumstantial evidence that he may have been influenced by Cayce’s metaphysics.  Why?  Because around the time Houdini met Edgar he was a Jew who as mentioned earlier was extremely skeptical of psychic phenomena and non-traditional explanations for things.  Later in his life, Houdini made some movies and just before he died he was working on a movie whose main theme was of reincarnation and soulmates.  The opening for the movie was a quote from John of the New Testament...Interesting from an extremely skeptical Jew.
    There is evidence that both inventors, Thomas Edison and Nicola Telsa, also consulted with Cayce and received readings.  There were some letters to and from Edison to Cayce where they apparently argued the nature of soul, of which Edison was originally skeptical of, though later on much like Freud he said he would have loved to devote more time to psychical or spiritual subjects.  Well, there is much, much more to Cayce–his readings, his life, and the degree of contribution he in an oft painful and self-sacrificing way gave to humankind.  Not surprising since his own life readings he mentions many lives that were devoted to the spiritual and physical development of humankind, in short he was and is one of the most helpful Retrievers who came into this system and physical incarnation often working along side his brother in-service the soul who became the Christ and World Teacher in many ages.
   Now there is helpful and helpful, there is intuneness and intuneness, and there is verification and verifications...  Seth in my eyes severely lacks when it comes to any circumstantial evidence, to anything seemingly objective and verifiable not just by individuals but by the Collective.  This is not an emotional ego judgment, but rather just acknowledgment that compared to some sources, especially in regards to a balance between all phases of experience physical, mental, and spiritual there is no comparison even though the way Seth speaks in clearer and much more “fancier” sounding.
   There are some uncompleted souls who would have you believe that you can realize complete freedom without self-sacrifice.  Indeed some would even mislead you that Yeshua didn’t die and come back to life with the same body to show the possibilities for all of mankind.  Almost all World Teachers have knowingly suffered at the hands of man (or at least history writes), though in their eyes there is no such thing as self-sacrifice when you expressing from such Oneness consciousness.   There are those who either lack understanding, or would willfully mislead.  There are dark entities who are quite knowledgeable, especially those that hail from other systems.  And though most here might agree that darkness is a temporal illusion, it certainly doesn’t negate the reality of it in the moment or in time.  Some have destroyed their own planets in their selfishness, darkness, and destructiveness...their illusion that they are Gods independent of Whole–the Creator who made them.


Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freebird
Ex Member


Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #1 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 12:32am
 
Good points, Justin, I agree with much of what you said.  Here are a few specific comments:

Quote:
only accept it if you know it to be true by experience..


This principle should not be taken to extremes, however.  There are other ways of seeking truth besides experience, and personal experience does not always lead to objective truth because it can be misinterpreted.  But, I agree that if we do not have experiential evidence for a belief, we should not hold it dogmatically.  Even if our experience does confirm it, we should try to consider various possible interpretations and keep an open mind even after we decide on the most likely meaning.

Quote:
   If we were just attracted to some kind of source of info, and just took it all for truth because it “resonated” with us then we would be as many of the religious people taking things solely on “faith” alone.  Perhaps also we would become very dogmatic (and often defensive)  in our views too?   I don’t see anything ultimately wrong with this, but for me I need some outside verifications and at the very least circumstantial evidence.


I never support being dogmatic.  As for believing things on faith alone, it might be okay in some cases as long as the belief does not contradict logic and evidence and if the belief is helpful -- and most importantly, as long as we are not arrogant in asserting our belief.

Quote:
like attracts like and like begets like.  I really don’t know how anyone of a non-materialistic mind set can really argue with that easily observed law of energy.  This perhaps just means there is a built in order system to creation around the “chaos” of freewill.


I generally agree with the principle, but I don't think it holds in all cases, because if it did, there could never be growth and progress.  If like and unlike never come together and interact, then nothing ever changes.  It's just a bunch of self-reinforcing vicious cycles which lead to stagnation.  So, I think another law of reality is probably that things/beings unlike each other are sometimes made to come together for purpose of growth of all concerned.  This would have to be done by a Higher Power because free will would tend not to produce interaction between things that naturally are repellant and incompatible with one another.  But I bet God is in the business of challenging us by bringing dissimilar entities together or encouraging us to choose to interact with that which is unlike us, and then everyone and everything comes out somewhat different and more evolved than if the difficult interaction had never taken place.  Keep in mind, soul retrievals are essentially an example of like and unlike coming together for the purpose of one soul helping another.

Quote:
   There are some uncompleted souls who would have you believe that you can realize complete freedom without self-sacrifice.  Indeed some would even mislead you that Yeshua didn’t die and come back to life with the same body to show the possibilities for all of mankind.


Good points.

Yes, the resurrection is well verified by the Shroud of Turin.  After I researched the Shroud, I have never again been able to take seriously the claim that Jesus did not rise from the dead.  There is scientific evidence basically proving that some kind of miraculous event occurred which is consistent with the account recorded in the Gospels.

As for self-sacrifice, it is the fundamental substance of what Jesus taught, and since I believe Jesus is the greatest soul ever to have lived on this planet, I cannot take seriously any spiritual philosophy that posits that souls can be advanced without having pursued self-sacrifice to a significant degree and recognized its value.

Quote:
Some have destroyed their own planets in their selfishness, darkness, and destructiveness...their illusion that they are Gods independent of Whole–the Creator who made them.


Indeed, any form of spirituality that does not include acceptance of a Higher Power beyond the individual spirit or will, is IMO a form of darkness that can only lead us astray from our goal of spiritual growth.

Freebird
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Raphael
Ex Member


Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #2 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 5:40am
 
Quote:
Yes, the resurrection is well verified by the Shroud of Turin


Ok I have to respond to that.

The shroud of turin doesn't prove anything. There is actually more evidence that points to a medieval forgery.

For a very good and complete document : http://skepdic.com/shroud.html

It's from a materialistic point of view, I agree, but the facts listed are what science reported finding.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freebird
Ex Member


Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #3 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 12:54pm
 
Most scientists who have studied the Shround of Turin believe it cannot be a forgery.  There are numerous scientific facts that make the forgery theory very unlikely.  The best case that can be made against the Shroud being anything supernatural is the theory that the image was produced by some rare, natural phenomenon.  However, the most likely explanation according to scientific studies is that some kind of high intensity radiation struck the cloth in a sudden burst of subatomic particles, producing an extremely detailed surface scorch.  Scientists cannot explain how a dead body could emit such radiation.  One possibility is that energy transfer occurred during a resurrection event or dematerialization of the physical body.  Admittedly, that is only a theoretical possibility, but it is just as good as any other theory that has been proposed.  The weakest link in the case for the Shroud being an artifact of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is that we have no way of proving whether the person in the Shroud was really Jesus or some other man who was crucified in ancient Israel.  However, Jesus was known to have been a great miracle worker, so if the Shroud is miraculous, the crucified man who was wrapped in it is likely to be Jesus.  Scientists do know that the carbon dating test that had once suggested the Shroud is medieval was false, because the cloth sample that was used has now been proven to have come from a medieval repair patch, not the original fabric.  Also, pollen evidence from the cloth places the origin of the fabric in Israel, not Europe.

An excellent site to learn about the Shroud of Turin is http://www.shroud.com .  This site is produced by Barrie Schwortz, a Jewish scientist who has spent decades studying and examining the Shroud and has come to the conclusion that it is most likely the authentic burial cloth of the historical Jesus.

Freebird
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Raphael
Ex Member


Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #4 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 1:40pm
 
http://skepdic.com/shroud.html
Quote:
the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long.

Quote:
Apparently, the first historical mention of the shroud as the "shroud of Turin" is in the late 16th century when the shroud was brought to the cathedral

Quote:

shroud of Turin
"All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the Shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the Shroud is an artifact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century." --Steven D. Schafersman

The shroud of Turin is a woven cloth about 14 feet long and 3.5 feet wide with an image of a man on it. Actually, it has two images, one frontal and one rear, with the heads meeting in the middle. It has been noted that if the shroud were really wrapped over a body there should be a space where the two heads meet. And the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long. Nevertheless, the image is believed by many to be a negative image of the crucified Christ and the shroud is believed to be his burial shroud. Most skeptics think the image is a painting and a pious hoax.  The shroud is kept in the cathedral of St. John the Baptist in Turin, Italy.

Apparently, the first historical mention of the shroud as the "shroud of Turin" is in the late 16th century when the shroud was brought to the cathedral in that city, though it allegedly was discovered in Turkey during one of the so-called "Holy" Crusades in the so-called "Middle" Ages. In 1988, the Vatican allowed the shroud to be dated by three independent sources--Oxford University, the University of Arizona, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology--and each of them dated the cloth as originating in medieval times, around 1350. The shroud allegedly was in a fire during the early part of the 16th century and, according to believers in the shroud's authenticity, that is what accounts for the carbon dating of the shroud as being no more than 650 years old. To non-believers, this sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis. According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,

The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*

It may interest skeptics to know that many people of faith believe that there is scientific evidence which supports their belief in the shroud's authenticity. Of course, the evidence is limited almost exclusively to pointing out facts that would be true if the shroud were authentic. For example, it is claimed to be the negative image of a crucifixion victim. It is claimed to be the image of a man brutally beaten in a way which corresponds to the way Jesus is thought to have been treated. It is also claimed that the image is not a painting but a miraculously transposed image. Skeptics disagree and argue that the shroud is a painting and a forgery.

the relic trade

Skeptics believe that the shroud of Turin is just another religious relic invented to beef up the pilgrimage business or impress infidels. (Another equally famous painting, also claimed to have miraculously appeared on a cloth, cropped up in Mexico in the 16th century, "Our Lady of Guadalupe.")  The case for the forged shroud is made most forcefully by Joe Nickell in his Inquest On The Shroud Of Turin, which was written in collaboration with a panel of scientific and technical experts. The author claims that historical, iconographic, pathological, physical, and chemical evidence points to inauthenticity. The shroud is a 14th century painting, not a two-thousand year-old cloth with Christ's image.

One theory is that "a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Christ."* The model was covered in red ochre, "a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages, and pressed his forehead, cheekbones and other parts of his head and body on to the linen to create the image that exists today. Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image's wrists, feet and body to represent blood."

Walter McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998).

Quote:
Dr. Rogers estimates the actual date of the shroud to be between about 1,000 BCE. and 1700 CE. Still, all the evidence points toward the medieval forgery hypothesis. As Nickell notes, "no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave" (1998: 35). "In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face."*

Quote:
Of course, the cloth might be 3,000 or 2,000 years old, as Rogers speculates, but the image on the cloth could date from a much later period. No matter what date is correct for either the cloth or the image, the date cannot prove to any degree of reasonable probability that the cloth is the shroud Jesus was wrapped in and that the image is somehow miraculous. To believe that will always be a matter of faith, not scientific proof.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freebird
Ex Member


Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #5 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 6:45pm
 
Quote:
"All empirical evidence and logical reasoning concerning the Shroud of Turin will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the Shroud is an artifact created by an artist in the fourteenth-century." --Steven D. Schafersman


In fact, it is the exact opposite.  All empirical evidence and logical reasoning will lead any objective, rational person to the firm conclusion that the Shroud was not created by an artist and dates far earlier than the fourteenth century.

Artists and scientists have tried dozens and dozens of methods to create a replica of the Shroud images -- even using modern technology which was not available in medieval times -- and all have failed.  As for the date, if a medieval repair patch was carbon dated to the fourteenth century, and the original cloth upon which the patch was sewn appears much older (as textile experts agree), this proves that the original fabric of the Shroud is significantly older than medieval times.  Furthermore, the specific weave of the cloth is consistent with ancient Israeli cloths from the first century, which used a unique type of herringbone twill that is not used in any later period of European fabrics.

Quote:
Actually, it has two images, one frontal and one rear, with the heads meeting in the middle. It has been noted that if the shroud were really wrapped over a body there should be a space where the two heads meet. And the head is 5% too large for its body, the nose is disproportionate, and the arms are too long.


There is a space between the front and back images of the head, enough to be realistic.  As for the proportions, experts have tried draping a cloth over a real human body in rigor mortis and have found that the contours of the face and body, along with the rigidity of the muscles, accounts perfectly for all disproportionality observed in the Shroud images.  In fact, it is evidence that the Shroud wrapped a real body of a dead man, rather than being a painting.

Quote:
The shroud allegedly was in a fire during the early part of the 16th century and, according to believers in the shroud's authenticity, that is what accounts for the carbon dating of the shroud as being no more than 650 years old. To non-believers, this sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis. According to microchemist Dr. Walter McCrone,

The suggestion that the 1532 Chambery fire changed the date of the cloth is ludicrous. Samples for C-dating are routinely and completely burned to CO2 as part of a well-tested purification procedure. The suggestions that modern biological contaminants were sufficient to modernize the date are also ridiculous. A weight of 20th century carbon equaling nearly two times the weight of the Shroud carbon itself would be required to change a 1st century date to the 14th century (see Carbon 14 graph). Besides this, the linen cloth samples were very carefully cleaned before analysis at each of the C-dating laboratories.*


This is all outdated.  New evidence of cloth analysis published in a reputable peer-reviewed scientific journal a few months ago shows that the test cloth was a medieval repair patch, not even part of the original Shroud fabric, but sewn on by medieval nuns after the fire (which was not an alleged fire, but a known historical fire based on scientific analysis of burn marks in the Shroud).  In fact the new evidence refuting the carbon dating test has been confirmed by other scientists, so it is now an established fact that the carbon test was totally wrong.

Quote:
One theory is that "a male model was daubed with paint and wrapped in the sheet to create the shadowy figure of Christ."* The model was covered in red ochre, "a pigment found in earth and widely used in Italy during the Middle Ages, and pressed his forehead, cheekbones and other parts of his head and body on to the linen to create the image that exists today. Vermilion paint, made from mercuric sulphide, was then splashed onto the image's wrists, feet and body to represent blood." 

Walter McCrone analyzed the shroud and found traces of chemicals that were used in "two common artist's pigments of the 14th century, red ochre and vermilion, with a collagen (gelatin) tempera binder" (McCrone 1998). 


Later tests with far more sophisticated scientific equipment, used by a whole team of scientists examining the Shroud, disproved McCrones painting theory.  No evidence of any type of known paint or pigment was found on the Shroud of Turin, except a few fragments of paint in tiny quantities that could have made their way onto the cloth when painted icons were touched against it.  The image area was analyzed with several types of million-dollar high-tech scientific equipment to look for any evidence of artificial or natural pigments applied to the cloth to produce an image, and none was found.  In fact, microscopic analysis of the fabric fibrils shows that the image is formed not from pigment, but from a light scorch of the uppermost fibrils of the cloth, consistent with a radiation burn.

Quote:
As Nickell notes, "no examples of its complex herringbone weave are known from the time of Jesus when, in any case, burial cloths tended to be of plain weave" (1998: 35).


Joe Nickell's theories about the Shroud of Turin have been thoroughly discredited.  Nickell is not even a scientist, but a magician.  As for the type of herringbone weave, Nickell has it backwards; the specific type of weave has been found by fabric experts to be consistent with ancient Israeli fabric, not medieval European.

Quote:
"In addition, Jewish burial practice utilized—and the Gospel of John specifically describes for Jesus—multiple burial wrappings with a separate cloth over the face."*


There is a separate cloth put over the face, but there is also a cloth wrapped lengthwise for the whole body including the head.  That is confirmed by experts in ancient Jewish burial practices.  Interestingly, there is a centuries-old legend about a small facial cloth with an image of Jesus's face on it -- and the people who first created or heard about this legend would not have known anything about first-century Jewish burial customs, suggesting the legend is authentic.

Freebird
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Raphael
Ex Member


Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #6 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 6:55pm
 
How interesting...

I shall research on the subject.

*fades away*
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Raphael
Ex Member


Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #7 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 7:51pm
 
While I do admit I am curious and open like you freebird, I am part of those who don't want Jesus to have been the son of god.

BUT ! Since i'm open minded I had to check a WHOOOOLE bunch of documents *sigh*

I found one that was quite interesting actually.

and I'll start a new thread for the shroud of Turin
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Touching Souls
Super Member
*****
Offline


LOVE IS ALL, SHINE YOUR
LIGHT THAT OTHERS MAY
SEE

Posts: 1966
Metaline Falls, WA
Gender: female
Re: Some general and specific musings.
Reply #8 - Apr 18th, 2005 at 11:36pm
 
Freebird,

Her name was Veronica and she gave Yeshua a cloth to wipe his face of the blood and it left an imprint on the cloth.

Love, Mairlyn
Back to top
 

I AM THAT I AM -- WE ARE ALL ONE -- TOUCHING SOULS
Wink
WWW minniecricket2000  
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1
Send Topic Print


This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.