Mary, Joseph, Jesus and the census records

Medicine Woman said:
*************
M*W: I'm not talking about Nikon or Minolta. What I meant was a prototype projector with internal mirror(s) to project images onto canvas or a wall which was used (illegally) by artists of the day. If I'm not mistaken, I think Leo may have built such a device behind the back of the RCC.

And, oh, BTW, they didn't have one-hour print shops in the 1400s, either. If the Shroud is a work by da Vinci, it was done in the form of a negative, that's why it could have been an experiment on cloth. If there was blood actually found on the Shroud, and if da Vinci was responsible for its creation, he also experimented with cadavers and easily had access to human blood. I don't remember what blood studies they've done or what they found.
Click to expand...

interesting idea about the shroud. is it yours, or did you read is somewhere?

im not a believer in the shroud of turin, myself...but i would think that actual blood used to paint it would have decomposed by now?
 
The Devil Inside said:
interesting idea about the shroud. is it yours, or did you read is somewhere?

im not a believer in the shroud of turin, myself...but i would think that actual blood used to paint it would have decomposed by now?
Click to expand...

*************
M*W: Well, I'm sure it has reached its maximum decomposure by now. Actually, it's a theory of mine, as far as I know. It's been several years since I read about the Shroud.

People believe because they want to believe, but the image on the Shroud looks pretty much like Leonardo, himself. What gets me is that it has been C-dated to the 1400s (which is relatively late compared to human history), yet, the Shroud is still treated as if it were holy and blessed, and it's still on display at the church at Turin. Now that we know it couldn't possibly have been the burial shroud of Jesus, I don't understand why it is still revered by the RCC. That is perpetuating the lie of christianity.

But, if I might for one single moment, tiptoe into the mind of da Vinci, he believed that Jesus was no savior. I think he spent his life's work poking fun at the RCC through his creative forces, and that the whole story about Jesus was a hoax, so he created the burial shroud of Jesus knowing full well that if Jesus existed, he did not resurrect (resuscitate) as told, but that if he did exist, he surely was no god. I like to think of it as the hoax of a hoax. The Shroud is about as authentic as Jesus.
 
Hapsburg:

"Considering that this the anal-retentive Roman Empire we've all come to know and love? Yeah, we can."

The Roman Empire was hardly "anal-retentive" and we have lost thousands upon thousands of Roman documents.
 
The last time I saw this question come up here, two or three years ago, links to some pretty scholarly authorities were provided. I had always uncritically accepted the general belief that Jesus was a real historical person. But I came away convinced that not only is there no evidence to that effect, but as you say the thorough and ubiquitous lack of evidence, about someone who supposedly attracted a lot of attention in his own time, argues against it.

That still doesn't make it quite certain that he did not exist, but if he did he could not have lived the life that was attributed to him. That would mean that almost all of Christian lore is based on apocrypha, legends that sprang up about him making him larger than life, or in this case "aliver than dead."

The belief of his reality among non-Christians was generally based upon the writings of Josephus, a contemporary Roman chronicler of Jewish parentage who mentioned him. Late in the 20th century it was determined that those passages in Josephus's writing were forgeries.
 
I believe that Jesus was a real person, but his celebrity is more around a religious movement that needed a figurehead, so they took this rabbi and turned him into a messiah, kind of like they did with the psychopath in "Wag the Dog" when they needed a war hero. I had read somewhere that there were thousands of so-called messiahs preaching and hollering in the Roman Empire at the time. I'm not sure why Jesus was picked out of all of them. He may have had the largest following in a particular area, or was of sufficiently obscure enough background that they could mold him the way they wanted to and nobody credible could refute it. At any rate, I think he was created by the "media" at the time. Otherwise he was just another itinerant holy man, one of thousands and nothing special.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top