Re: The Jesus Strand: Scientists want to clone the Messiah
Originally Posted by
Puddle Duck
->
Why should it be ? A shroud is a shroud and part of the Jewish burial
In which case why would anyone keep it, preserve it, rather than just dispose of it and/or burn it?
You can't have it both ways. Either it was revered as an artifact in which case the Gospels would surely have mentioned it and we would have some evidence of caretakers spanning 2000 years . . . or it was not revered and would surely have just been destroyed/burned for hygienic reasons.
Originally Posted by
Puddle Duck
->
If it's a shroud of King David or Tim Buktu , would it be any different to you or all the sceptics.
No. You'd still be trying to present the utterly fantastical and frankly farcical notion that it did actually belong to those people without any proof whatsoever.
They recently dug up a bunch of bones in the UK and spun the fantastical story that they were the bones of Richard III.
In truth they have no idea, they are just a bunch of bones, but the story makes good news sensation and publicity.
Originally Posted by
Puddle Duck
->
Fact : It's a linen cloth. It has a negative imprint of a man, front and dorsal, blood samples have been authenticated as AB group . HOW did the IMAGE get on the cloth ????
Ok so this is better. It's just a linen cloth, so absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus.
Sure, there is some archealogical interest in its make up and preservation, it's an intriguing object. So are rocks from the Moon or Mars. I don't think anyone has issue with the item as an object of interest. The problem comes from the nonsense that it has anything to do with Jesus or anyone else specific, which is clearly what the church is trying to spin.
For me personally that archeological aspect isn't that interesting. We live in a world where we can make films looks as if the things really happened. The Lord Of The Rings films show incredible landscapes and monsters as if they were real things but we know they are not. We live in a world where a great painting from 100s of years ago can be replicated so perfectly as to be virtually indistinguishable.
Hence it is kind of a mute point about how this shroud was created. It could extremely easily be a total fake just like fake paintings and amazing movies. It could be a natural phenomenon.
I get that archeologists would be interested in it but there the interest ceases. After 2000+ years nobody can possibly lay serious claim to the notion of who the shroud belonged to and the church's attempts to spin their yarns serves only to make the whole thing less and less credible.