Shroud of Turin

[SeekingSanctuary]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -date.html

The Gospel of Matthew:
"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."

Come to think of it, were there any recordings outside of the Bible about these people? Do we know what happened to them?

You mean about the saints coming out of their graves? Not sure as I never really looked into this. Interesting question though

I was actually wondering about as soon as I started looking into the earthquake. I hadn't really thought about it until today.

[bippy123]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -date.html

The Gospel of Matthew:
"Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus, saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the Son of God."

Come to think of it, were there any recordings outside of the Bible about these people? Do we know what happened to them?

You mean about the saints coming out of their graves? Not sure as I never really looked into this. Interesting question though

I was actually wondering about as soon as I started looking into the earthquake. I hadn't really thought about it until today.

Excellent question Seekingsanctuary
Your question intrigued me so i started looking it up online and found a very interesting historical account that really intrigued me as I think it will intrigue you and everyone else here.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2485413/posts

Historical *Evidence* for the Crucifixion Darkness (Solar Eclipse?)
biblehistory.net ^

Posted on Friday, April 02, 2010 9:27:17 AM by CondoleezzaProtege

The first reference found outside of the bible mentioning this darkness which fell over the land during the crucifixion of Christ, comes from a Samaritan historian named Thallus, who wrote around 52 A.D. His work was quoted by another early historian by the name of Julius Africanus who researched the topic of this darkness and wrote the following:

"Upon the whole world there came a most fearful darkness. Many rocks were split in two by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts were thrown down. It seems very unreasonable to me that Thallus, in the third book of his histories, would try to explain away this darkness as an eclipse of the sun. For the Jews celebrate their Passover on the 14th day according to the moon, and the death of our Saviour falls on the day before the Passover. But an eclipse of the sun can only take place when the moon comes under the sun, how then could an eclipse have occurred when the moon is directly opposite the sun? (Scientifically it is impossible to have a full moon on the same day that there is an eclipse of the sun.)

Another first century historian who also mentions this darkness was Phlegon who wrote a history entitled the "Olympiads. Julius Africanus mentioned a quote taken from the Olympiads which said: "Phlegon records that, in the time of Tiberius Caesar, at full moon, there was a full eclipse of the sun from the sixth hour to the ninth . . . It is evident that he did not know of any such events in previous years."

Phlegon is also mentioned by Origen in his work ‘Against Celsus’ Book 2: "The darkening of the sun took place at the time of Tiberius Caesar, in whose reign Jesus was crucified, and the great earthquakes which then took place, Phlegon, I believe, has written an account in the thirteenth or fourteenth book of his Chronicles."

This is the site the poster on the free republic got it from http://www.biblehistory.net/newsletter/ ... rkness.htm

Could the ecplipse have been a supernatural event, plus what are the chances of an earthquake taking place at the same time of an eclipse at the same moment that Christ died on the cross?
Special thanks to SeekingSanctuary for bringing the subject up.

[PaulSacramento]

What is this part about?
"Last year scientists at the University of Padua in northern Italy dated it to between 300BC and AD400 – still hundreds of years after Christ, who is believed to have died between 30-36AD."

Actually paul the 300bc to 400 ad is within the time of Christ. It isn't right at 33 ad but if it holds up it will be the closest date to Christ's time of any dating method.
It all depends on if he can prove that chain of evidence that the fibers he tested came from the flask that has the the then archbishop Ballestrero's signature.
It is in the process of being submitted for peer review.
I have a feeling they will probably save that announcement for Easter, Christmas or in October at the shroud conference in ST Louis .

Ah, cool.

[SeekingSanctuary]

Excellent question Seekingsanctuary
Your question intrigued me so i started looking it up online and found a very interesting historical account that really intrigued me as I think it will intrigue you and everyone else here.

Thanks.

Could the ecplipse have been a supernatural event, plus what are the chances of an earthquake taking place at the same time of an eclipse at the same moment that Christ died on the cross?
Special thanks to SeekingSanctuary for bringing the subject up.

Your welcome.

As for it being supernatural, I don't know. Usually I'm pretty cautious to call anything supernatural, I mean, God made the universe no reason he can't use mundane measures to reach his goals, or at least highly improbable (omniscience, he could set things up in advanced when needed). However, I can't think of much. Meteorite impact? That could create a cloud, but we should have other recordings, and it doesn't fit the description. It's compared to an eclipse, if it was caused by a cloud there would be a lot of noted differences.

But what I was really focused on was the dead rising. Its not hard to imagine any secular recordings of it being lost over two thousand years, but I would still really like to know if there ever was a secular recording of it. Or if the Bible says anything more about them (it might, been a long time since I actually read about the resurrection). I did some searches on Google, it just keeps coming up with statements that there weren't any documentation besides that verse.

[bippy123]

Excellent question Seekingsanctuary
Your question intrigued me so i started looking it up online and found a very interesting historical account that really intrigued me as I think it will intrigue you and everyone else here.

Thanks.

Could the ecplipse have been a supernatural event, plus what are the chances of an earthquake taking place at the same time of an eclipse at the same moment that Christ died on the cross?
Special thanks to SeekingSanctuary for bringing the subject up.

Your welcome.

As for it being supernatural, I don't know. Usually I'm pretty cautious to call anything supernatural, I mean, God made the universe no reason he can't use mundane measures to reach his goals, or at least highly improbable (omniscience, he could set things up in advanced when needed). However, I can't think of much. Meteorite impact? That could create a cloud, but we should have other recordings, and it doesn't fit the description. It's compared to an eclipse, if it was caused by a cloud there would be a lot of noted differences.

But what I was really focused on was the dead rising. Its not hard to imagine any secular recordings of it being lost over two thousand years, but I would still really like to know if there ever was a secular recording of it. Or if the Bible says anything more about them (it might, been a long time since I actually read about the resurrection). I did some searches on Google, it just keeps coming up with statements that there weren't any documentation besides that verse.

Seekingsanctuary, You have to start looking at things through the lenses of the 1st century roman empire. It is a miracle at all that we have secular accounts of Christ himself because you have to remember that in 1st century Rome, Christianity was an extremely tiny cult to romans and therefore insignigant to the roman empire. The empire would also have a bias against anything that was not of its pagan beliefs. As for the Pharasees, we both know that they attributed Christ's powers to Satan. The odds of any record of that day are miraculous in and of itself, we are lucky to even have the account of the link I provided.

Think of Christianity back then as having a tiny group of people compared to the romans who had an empire and the pharsees who also had a much larger following then the small band of people that started out following Christ. It is no wonder that it was recorded in the bible as the apostles werent afraid of writing of this event.

[SeekingSanctuary]

Seekingsanctuary, You have to start looking at things through the lenses of the 1st century roman empire. It is a miracle at all that we have secular accounts of Christ himself because you have to remember that in 1st century Rome, Christianity was an extremely tiny cult to romans and therefore insignigant to the roman empire. The empire would also have a bias against anything that was not of its pagan beliefs. As for the Pharasees, we both know that they attributed Christ's powers to Satan. The odds of any record of that day are miraculous in and of itself, we are lucky to even have the account of the link I provided.

Think of Christianity back then as having a tiny group of people compared to the romans who had an empire and the pharsees who also had a much larger following then the small band of people that started out following Christ. It is no wonder that it was recorded in the bible as the apostles werent afraid of writing of this event.

I am thinking of it from their perspective. That's where it gets weird.

Romans don't simply crush and delete. They absorb. Compare them to the Hitite empire. The Hitites simply expanded, absorbing all the gods of every culture into their pantheon. Rome did this in a way. Only instead of accepting every god they just claimed they were the same gods to begin with, except the other culture was doing it wrong. So they would look for equivalent gods in the other cultures and say they were always the same god. (The exception is the Greek gods which replaced the original Etruscan pantheon, leading to the mythology we all know and love).

This gets me to my point: There were more Romans. They could easily say they were escapees from Tartorus and had to be executed to keep the universe in balance (which fits to Roman beliefs), say one of their gods did it, or call it a wash and make Jesus a demigod. Once again, more Romans, hard to win that argument. And considering certain groups that branched off the early church, not naming any names (gnostics), at least some would have went along with it. It was already a lie that could have worked, people today are making this claim, or at least a variation of it, saying the demigods and Horus inspired the Jesus-myth.

So, why act so un-Roman? Why hit the backspace bar here?

Of course, the whole thing with Jesus v Rome is freaking weird, so it is hard to come up with a decent comparison. It was an upstart movement from within, not an external mythology. Most other groups were other self-proclaimed messianic figures, each wiped out as soon as they went militaristic. Nothing I can compare here. I guess you could count mystery cults, but these were tolerable variations of the state religion, henotheistic and focused on the wrong god (Jupiter and Apollo were the focuses of the state religion, and the Emperor as their image), but sometimes acceptable.

[bippy123]

Ok as far as the earthquake image formation theory which allready strains credulity to put it mildly, the people nehind this theory said that an earrthquake witha magitude of at least 8.2 was needed to even have a chance of forming images like this. If an earthquake of this magitude had struck jerusalem, the romans would have reported it as well as the otehr people of this region. We see none of this.
In fact theer would have been many many deaths. None of this is reported . In fact Roman historians which are very reliable never recorded an earthquake of this magnitude at this time in that region.

In fact everytime we see a major earthquake in history of this magnitude whole towns were flattened, and we dont see this in the biblical earthquake account during the time of Jesus's crucifixion and the earthquake written about in Mt 28:20 where an angel of God rolls away the tomb of Christ and then sits on top of the stone. Both quakes would have killed many romans and hebrews and completely flatten jerusalem and its neighborning towns to the ground. Again no roman accounts of this leading to the inescable fact that these earthquakes werent even big enough to be 8.2 to even have a chance of causing the image these scientists say could have happened on the shroud.

What i see here is that these secular folks are getting more frustrated each day with their inability to disprove the authenticity of the shroud and provide any naturalistic explanations for the shroud image.

[bippy123]

Romans don't simply crush and delete. They absorb.

Correct Seeking, they usually assimilate, which makes the Christian situation even more unique as the romans tried everything they could to destroy Christianity (remember Nero who tried to blame the fire on the Christians and even tried to exterminate them all), and the fire was in 64ad and I believe the apostles were all still alive at that time (dont quote me on that as I am not sure of the exact date on their deaths, all I know is that it was close to that time , maybe a little later). Romans usually used the beliefs of conquered people and absorb them into their culture when it was convenient and helped them financially and militaristically, but the message that Christ gave us wasnt about how to gain in this material realm, it was about being right with God and that came through Christ.

I see that you also have questions on other threads about the editing of the bible?
I believe you would most benefit from studying the writings of the apostolic fathers like polcarp and ignatius of antioch whose beliefs didnt deviate from the original teachings of Jesus to the apostles.

This gets me to my point: There were more Romans. They could easily say they were escapees from Tartorus and had to be executed to keep the universe in balance (which fits to Roman beliefs), say one of their gods did it, or call it a wash and make Jesus a demigod. Once again, more Romans, hard to win that argument. And considering certain groups that branched off the early church, not naming any names (gnostics), at least some would have went along with it. It was already a lie that could have worked, people today are making this claim, or at least a variation of it, saying the demigods and Horus inspired the Jesus-myth.

Im not understanding the point your trying to make here. Could you explain this a little better? My appologies

[SeekingSanctuary]

Romans usually used the beliefs of conquered people and absorb them into their culture when it was convenient and helped them financially and militaristically, but the message that Christ gave us wasnt about how to gain in this material realm, it was about being right with God and that came through Christ.

It was also a way to pacify the conquered people. Was there an early attempt to try and take over the movement? I've heard of conspiracy theories, but nothing I think are credible. It would certainly have been benefitual to try and get the restless natives to listen to the pacifist guy over all the people wanting a military rebellion.

I see that you also have questions on other threads about the editing of the bible?
I believe you would most benefit from studying the writings of the apostolic fathers like polcarp and ignatius of antioch whose beliefs didnt deviate from the original teachings of Jesus to the apostles.

I might do that. Any websites you recommend? I don't really intend on buying any books. I'm the stereotypical broke college student.

Im not understanding the point your trying to make here. Could you explain this a little better? My appologies

Oh, sorry I wasn't clearer. Looking at it after a night's sleep I can tell that I wrote that paragraph really badly.

Basically the thought went like this:
1. There would be several ways for Rome to explain it away.
*They were lemures (or whatever escaped shades were called) from Tarturus. This was a common fear at the time, and fit in with the Roman religion. Sisyphus might be an example, I have never heard him called one, but he also escaped the underworld.
*Hades brought some people back. I mean, earthquakes, resurecctions? That all sounds like things Pluto could cause. Which he did almost let someone come back in their mythology, so it isn't like there was no precedent.
2. The larger number of Romans could easily drowned out any of the Jewish claims that any other explanation could be behind the dead coming back.

They wouldn't need to cover up the story, it could easily be absorbed into the Roman world-view.

However I have had another thought. What if it wasn't Rome that covered anything up? Rome was busy. There was more than enough excitement over the earthquakes and darkness. They may have ignored any claims of simple superstition. We know the centurion saw it, but did he tell anyone?
Alternatively, like I said Rome had a precedent for this. In their myths dead could come back, and when that happened things were handled pretty specifically. There is only so much life in the universe, when the dead come back (without divine help, at least) they end up leaching life off of others. People die. So any die-hard Hellenist would only see one way to handle the problem: kill them all. Hunt down any saint that came back and kill them. There wasn't even a law, so the reaction would probably be pretty darn close to lynchings. If I had just got my father back, I'd do whatever it takes to cover it up. Just in case.
Or it could have been edited in. Heck if I know.
(At least I think I am remember the Roman religion right)

[bippy123]

Sure Sanctuary, im gonna give you links from different denominations from protestant to orthodox to catholic to show you that all 3 have always held the correct belief in the doctrine of the trinity and ignatius of antioch had a pure and unchanged early belief of the trinity and he wrote about them in 110ad. This is extremely early on in Christian history. Since Ignatius was a student of John the apostle he was personally taught by John about who Christ is and they match the bible.

The first is from a nondenominational Christian and its 22 pages long. Great information on the beliefs taught to ignatius by the apostle John. Remember that not only was Ignatius a student of John the apostle who learned at the apostles feet personally but he was also one of the early Christian martyrs . He was killed by the roman authorites for believing that Jesus Christ is God. He was eaten alive by Lions in the roman colliseum. All he had to do was deny the claim that Christ is God and he would have been spared but he kept his faith even onto death.

http://www.smashwords.com/extreader/rea ... the-church

This is a Catholic site which talks about how Ignatious spoke of Christ as being both God and man.

http://www.thetruthdecoded.org.au/Ignat ... ntioch.php

An orthodox account of Ignatius of antioch

http://oca.org/saints/lives/2013/12/20/ ... of-antioch

Now here are some other sites that talk about the students of the apostles and other important writings such as the didache which is probably the oldest extra biblical account of Christian teachings and it uses the phrase "in the name of the father, the son and the holy spirit"
It is dated anywhere from 50 to 120 ad

http://reluctant-messenger.com/didache.htm

A great collection of the apostolic fathers here http://www.goarch.org/resources/fathers (look for anything that has to do with clemente of rome, ignatius of antioch and polycarp)
Clemente was a student of Peter and Paul and ignatius and polycarp were both students of the apostle John.

This is also a great collection of their writings from an evangelical Christian site
http://www.theopedia.com/Apostolic_Fathers

These writings should help you to understand why these students of the apostles show us that their writings were totally in line with the early teachings of the early church and actually confirmed the bible teachings very early on in Christian history. I would find more links but my sleep pattern is totally off wack as im sleeping all day and staying up all night because the scabies bug I have is primarily active at night. I will try to get you more links later if you need anymore, but there is a massive amount of reading that should keep you busy for a while my friend.

Hope this helps
God bless

[bippy123]

It was also a way to pacify the conquered people. Was there an early attempt to try and take over the movement? I've heard of conspiracy theories, but nothing I think are credible. It would certainly have been benefitual to try and get the restless natives to listen to the pacifist guy over all the people wanting a military rebellion.

No there wasnt and this is what Made Christianity unique to other religions back then to the romans. Sure there were conspiracy theories by gnostic believers but you have to remember that the historicity of the gnostics was extremely poor compared to the history of the apostles, scripture and the apostolic fathers. For example the writings of Clemente were so early (80ad) that his writings were almost including in the first bible.

In 110 ad Ignatius even spoke of the docetists that they were heretics who spoke contrary to the mind of God because they didnt believe that Jesus had an actual flesh Body but only had a spiritual form, in eessence deny Christ as both God and Man. Remember Ignatius was a student of John the apostle and if he is the same one as mentioned in scripture was called most excellent theophilus by John the apostle.

It certainly wasnt advantagious to get the restless natives to listen to the pacifist guy because those so called restless natives were the early Christians who loved the lord enough to die for their belief and faith in him and they wouldnt allow themselves to be simply absorbed by the romans into their religion. they resisted this fiercly until death.

the martyrdom of polycarp was a prime example of how Christians are supposed to act when someone tries to force them to denounce their faith in God. When polycarp was told by the romans in the colliseum to denounce and revile Christ he refused and said how can he revile his king and savior. This is an early writing that shows that polycarp believed that Christ is his lord and savior.
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0102.htm

the time of his departure having arrived, they set him upon an ass, and conducted him into the city, the day being that of the great Sabbath. And the Irenarch Herod, accompanied by his father Nicetes (both riding in a chariot ), met him, and taking him up into the chariot, they seated themselves beside him, and endeavoured to persuade him, saying, "What harm is there in saying, Lord Cæsar, and in sacrificing, with the other ceremonies observed on such occasions, and so make sure of safety?" But he at first gave them no answer; and when they continued to urge him, he said, "I shall not do as you advise me." So they, having no hope of persuading him, began to speak bitter words unto him, and cast him with violence out of the chariot, insomuch that, in getting down from the carriage, he dislocated his leg [by the fall]. But without being disturbed, and as if suffering nothing, he went eagerly forward with all haste, and was conducted to the stadium, where the tumult was so great, that there was no possibility of being heard.

Chapter 9. Polycarp refuses to revile Christ

Now, as Polycarp was entering into the stadium, there came to him a voice from heaven, saying, "Be strong, and show yourself a man, O Polycarp!" No one saw who it was that spoke to him; but those of our brethren who were present heard the voice. And as he was brought forward, the tumult became great when they heard that Polycarp was taken. And when he came near, the proconsul asked him whether he was Polycarp. On his confessing that he was, [the proconsul] sought to persuade him to deny [Christ], saying, "Have respect to your old age," and other similar things, according to their custom, [such as], "Swear by the fortune of Cæsar; repent, and say, Away with the Atheists." But Polycarp, gazing with a stern countenance on all the multitude of the wicked heathen then in the stadium, and waving his hand towards them, while with groans he looked up to heaven, said, "Away with the Atheists." Then, the proconsul urging him, and saying, "Swear, and I will set you at liberty, reproach Christ;" Polycarp declared, "Eighty and six years have I served Him, and He never did me any injury: how then can I blaspheme my King and my Saviour?"

The proconsol gives him more chances to praise Ceasar instead of Christ, Polycarp again refuses.

Chapter 10. Polycarp confesses himself a Christian

And when the proconsul yet again pressed him, and said, "Swear by the fortune of Cæsar," he answered,

Since you are vainly urgent that, as you say, I should swear by the fortune of Cæsar, and pretend not to know who and what I am, hear me declare with boldness, I am a Christian. And if you wish to learn what the doctrines of Christianity are, appoint me a day, and you shall hear them.

The proconsul replied, "Persuade the people." But Polycarp said,

To you I have thought it right to offer an account [of my faith]; for we are taught to give all due honour (which entails no injury upon ourselves) to the powers and authorities which are ordained of God. Romans 13:1-7; Titus 3:1 But as for these, I do not deem them worthy of receiving any account from me.

Chapter 11. No threats have any effect on Polycarp

The proconsul then said to him, "I have wild beasts at hand; to these will I cast you, unless you repent."

But he answered, "Call them then, for we are not accustomed to repent of what is good in order to adopt that which is evil; and it is well for me to be changed from what is evil to what is righteous."

But again the proconsul said to him, "I will cause you to be consumed by fire, seeing you despise the wild beasts, if you will not repent."

But Polycarp said, "You threaten me with fire which burns for an hour, and after a little is extinguished, but are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and of eternal punishment, reserved for the ungodly. But why do you tarry? Bring forth what you will."
Chapter 12. Polycarp is sentenced to be burned

While he spoke these and many other like things, he was filled with confidence and joy, and his countenance was full of grace, so that not merely did it not fall as if troubled by the things said to him, but, on the contrary, the proconsul was astonished, and sent his herald to proclaim in the midst of the stadium thrice, "Polycarp has confessed that he is a Christian." This proclamation having been made by the herald, the whole multitude both of the heathen and Jews, who dwelt at Smyrna, cried out with uncontrollable fury, and in a loud voice, "This is the teacher of Asia, the father of the Christians, and the overthrower of our gods, he who has been teaching many not to sacrifice, or to worship the gods." Speaking thus, they cried out, and besought Philip the Asiarch to let loose a lion upon Polycarp. But Philip answered that it was not lawful for him to do so, seeing the shows of wild beasts were already finished. Then it seemed good to them to cry out with one consent, that Polycarp should be burnt alive. For thus it behooved the vision which was revealed to him in regard to his pillow to be fulfilled, when, seeing it on fire as he was praying, he turned about and said prophetically to the faithful that were with him, "I must be burnt alive."

Polycarp is to be burnt, but when the it is time for him to be burnt the fire instead of burning him surrounds and protects him, and this miracle converted many romans on that day. He is finally pierced by a dagger by a roman soldier and is killed.

Chapter 14. The prayer of Polycarp

They did not nail him then, but simply bound him. And he, placing his hands behind him, and being bound like a distinguished ram [taken] out of a great flock for sacrifice, and prepared to be an acceptable burnt-offering unto God, looked up to heaven, and said,

O Lord God Almighty, the Father of your beloved and blessed Son Jesus Christ, by whom we have received the knowledge of You, the God of angels and powers, and of every creature, and of the whole race of the righteous who live before you, I give You thanks that You have counted me, worthy of this day and this hour, that I should have a part in the number of Your martyrs, in the cup of your Christ, to the resurrection of eternal life, both of soul and body, through the incorruption [imparted] by the Holy Ghost. Among whom may I be accepted this day before You as a fat and acceptable sacrifice, according as You, the ever-truthful God, have foreordained, have revealed beforehand to me, and now have fulfilled. Wherefore also I praise You for all things, I bless You, I glorify You, along with the everlasting and heavenly Jesus Christ, Your beloved Son, with whom, to You, and the Holy Ghost, be glory both now and to all coming ages. Amen.

Chapter 15. Polycarp is not injured by the fire

When he had pronounced this amen, and so finished his prayer, those who were appointed for the purpose kindled the fire. And as the flame blazed forth in great fury, we, to whom it was given to witness it, beheld a great miracle, and have been preserved that we might report to others what then took place. For the fire, shaping itself into the form of an arch, like the sail of a ship when filled with the wind, encompassed as by a circle the body of the martyr. And he appeared within not like flesh which is burnt, but as bread that is baked, or as gold and silver glowing in a furnace. Moreover, we perceived such a sweet odour [coming from the pile], as if frankincense or some such precious spices had been smoking there.
Chapter 16. Polycarp is pierced by a dagger

At length, when those wicked men perceived that his body could not be consumed by the fire, they commanded an executioner to go near and pierce him through with a dagger. And on his doing this, there came forth a dove, and a great quantity of blood, so that the fire was extinguished; and all the people wondered that there should be such a difference between the unbelievers and the elect, of whom this most admirable Polycarp was one, having in our own times been an apostolic and prophetic teacher, and bishop of the Catholic Church which is in Smyrna. For every word that went out of his mouth either has been or shall yet be accomplished.

See Seeker, there are many reasons to trust the early writings and beliefs of the early Christians once you dig deep into the writings of the apostolic fathers. These writings will also help strengthen your faith and confidence as a Christian to proclaim the lords word. It is exactly people like you that have a chance to become the most zealous lovers of the lord because you seeked and you found
God bless

[bippy123]

Oh, sorry I wasn't clearer. Looking at it after a night's sleep I can tell that I wrote that paragraph really badly.

Basically the thought went like this:
1. There would be several ways for Rome to explain it away.
*They were lemures (or whatever escaped shades were called) from Tarturus. This was a common fear at the time, and fit in with the Roman religion. Sisyphus might be an example, I have never heard him called one, but he also escaped the underworld.
*Hades brought some people back. I mean, earthquakes, resurecctions? That all sounds like things Pluto could cause. Which he did almost let someone come back in their mythology, so it isn't like there was no precedent.
2. The larger number of Romans could easily drowned out any of the Jewish claims that any other explanation could be behind the dead coming back.

They wouldn't need to cover up the story, it could easily be absorbed into the Roman world-view.

However I have had another thought. What if it wasn't Rome that covered anything up? Rome was busy. There was more than enough excitement over the earthquakes and darkness. They may have ignored any claims of simple superstition. We know the centurion saw it, but did he tell anyone?
Alternatively, like I said Rome had a precedent for this. In their myths dead could come back, and when that happened things were handled pretty specifically. There is only so much life in the universe, when the dead come back (without divine help, at least) they end up leaching life off of others. People die. So any die-hard Hellenist would only see one way to handle the problem: kill them all. Hunt down any saint that came back and kill them. There wasn't even a law, so the reaction would probably be pretty darn close to lynchings. If I had just got my father back, I'd do whatever it takes to cover it up. Just in case.
Or it could have been edited in. Heck if I know.
(At least I think I am remember the Roman religion right)

Correct seeker, the Romans could care less about a tiny insignifigant off shoot of Judaism (as they saw it back then) and had no reason to drown it out. If anything the Pharasees tried to drown it out much more then the romans and you can only see a brief mention of Christ in their holy book (I believe the talmud) you could see that they tried to make Christ into an insignifigant heretic. The reason why they didnt try to wipe him out of history completely was that they didnt have foresight. The romans and pharasees never imagined this tiny sect growing to the proportions it has now become, and that in and of itself is one testament to Christianity's truth.

As far as the claim that people were coming out of their graves being comparable to the ancient Myth beliefs of the romans and greeks, there is a major difference here. The writings of the bible had a much superior historicity then any ancient myth writings and Christ was an actual historical figure, the roman and greek Gods werent and they werent written as such. In fact Gary Habermas said teh bible is written like a collection of roman autobiographies and not like myths. Habermas was weeks from telling his his Christian parents that he was about to convert to buddhism when he decided he would do his phd dissertation on the resurrection of Christ. It was the strong historicity and reliability of the apostles writings that convinced him that what they wrote about was true and he came back to Christianity. Thats not to say he didnt have his doubts. He suffered with doubts for 10 years after but those doubts eventually went away . He seeked and he found.

i will also give you a good link for habermas
Here is his minimal facts argument for the resurrection
http://www.garyhabermas.com/articles/so ... 2-2012.htm

and a great FREE BOOK called dealing with doubt

http://www.garyhabermas.com/books/deali ... _doubt.htm

Dont think there is no reason that you are suddenly here on this forum my friend. You will realize one day that everything happens for a reason

Your gonna be busy for a while with all the links I have given you. I dont envy you for the task ahead of you but what I do envy is that you are a seeker and I know that every seeker finds

Ill get back to sleep, hopefully my sleep patterns will returbn to normal after I beat this scabies.

[DRDS]

Here is a new video interview on the Shroud. I've never heard of these people, I guess you can say it's pretty decent. Here is the link GB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz-AhmcQEOI

[bippy123]

Here is a new video interview on the Shroud. I've never heard of these people, I guess you can say it's pretty decent. Here is the link GB.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz-AhmcQEOI

Very nice presentation DRDS. I liked how he talked about how the abrasions on the shoulders show that Christ probably only carried the beam of the cross that went across and that the rest of the cross was probably allready hanging up waiting for Christ to get there. He seemed to focus alot on the scourge wounds which alot of shroud researchers seem to forget about compared to the amazing properties that the image itself presents to us. The scourge marks were all over his body going all the way down to his ankles. I cant imagine the pain he must have been in.
There will be a shroud conference in St Louis in october sometime. Lets see if something new will be presented on it.

here is also a great post from Stephen Jones on his blog showing why the earthquake image theory is ridiculous.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... cient.html

[DRDS]

Here are some new Shroud links y'all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iR0-PwT4 ... e=youtu.be

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYIEWEWrkoI