posted September 02, 2008 02:10 PM         

Part II http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ufo/video/x4x70a_the-fabric-of-time-23_lifestyle

Part III http://www.dailymotion.com/search/ufo/video/x4x7hw_the-fabric-of-time-33_news

We live in a world where science and religion have often been on opposing sides.

But is all that changing?

For the first time, science and religion have come together to uncover an age-old mystery.

Who was Jesus Christ?

What did he actually look like?

And can the story of his death and resurrection now be proven as true?

Viewers around the world are in the jury box as newly found scientific discoveries are presented by scholars, scientists, and historians in an unflinching search for evidence --nothing has been held back.
Could it be that actual documentation of this amazing story is still available today?

Is it possible that a single fiber from an ancient artifact might hold the answers?

And has science found a way to unlock the hidden information contained in the artifact that could provide a link to the past-one that might explain the universe in a whole new light and give hope to people around the world?

Did Christ leave us physical evidence that only now with quantum leaps forward in science, are we able to understand?

Have scientists actually been able to produce a full three dimensional image of Christ?

posted September 06, 2008 08:34 AM         

The religious commentaries suggesting oneness were quite beautiful though.
He had this great energy/light within that perhaps may have left its mark on the shroud when he died. Who ever suggested something like that must be brilliant. Even the scienctists talking about 'singularity' was great. And matches what I live by (hate to call it belief). And I don't believe in the resurrection described in the NT.

Heres an interesting article that tries to debate religious viewpoints:

quote:

---

Many people believe that the famous Shroud of Turin is the cloth that covered Jesus Christ at His burial. There are serious problems with this view, even if we ignore carbon dating tests in 1988 that showed the cloth may be only 600 or 700 years old.

We admit that carbon dating can give crazy results, and carbon dating results from the shroud have brought major criticisms, so this is not proof of the shroud's age. Even so, there are serious problems with the view that this shroud shows a picture of Christ.

It is clear from the Bible and from Jewish burial customs that several pieces of cloth bound Christ at His burial — not one large sheet like the shroud.

In John 20:5-7 we find there was a separate piece wrapped around Christ's head. Yet the Shroud of Turin depicts a face on the sheet.

The size of the shroud is 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches (434 centimetres by 109 centimetres). But the Bible says linen strips bound Jesus, not an enormous cloth (see John 19:40).
The Bible is the authoritative record of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and the Bible mentions nothing of a shroud.

Walter C. McCrone, head of a Chicago research institute and a specialist in authenticating art objects, examined the shroud. He found a pale, gelatin-based substance speckled with particles of red ochre on fibres from the part of the cloth that supposedly showed the figure of Christ. He also found that fibers from the “wounds” had stains, not of blood, but of particles of a synthetic vermilion developed in the Middle Ages. He said the practice of painting linen with gelatin-based temperas began in the late thirteenth century and was common in the fourteenth.
McCrone concluded that a fourteenth century artist had forged the shroud, and defended this view right up until he died on July 10, 2002.

In the 1980s, Jesuit priest Robert A. Wild expressed surprise that the bloodstains, if they were blood, showed no trace of smearing after all the movement and transport the body would have endured. Wild also noted that the hands of the body masked the genitals. He said this couldn't be right. No matter how you arrange a body after rigor mortis, he said, the hands cannot cover the genitals unless you prop up the elbows on the body and bind the hands tightly in place. Yet this is not what the shroud's image shows.

The first record of the shroud's appearance was in 1353, when Geoffrey de Charny presented it to the small local church in the French town of Lirey. Three years later, in 1356, the bishop of the region wrote to the pope, in Latin, telling of his annoyance that certain people wanted this “painted” cloth displayed as the burial cloth of Christ. The bishop added that his predecessor, Henry of Poitiers, “after diligent inquiry and examination,” had found the artist who painted it. The artist testified that “it was the work of human skill and not miraculously wrought.”

Interestingly, this date accords with the carbon-14 tests, which dated the shroud to about the first quarter of the 1300s. It also agrees with art expert Walter McCrone's estimate of the age based on known painting styles (see 5th point above).

The verses that tell of Joseph of Arimathea's wrapping Jesus in linen cloth are Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, and John 19:40. Look in Vine's Expository Dictionary, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and the Ryrie Study Bible. They all tell us the Greek words used in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (entulisso and eneileo) mean “to roll in, wind in”, “to twist, to entwine”, “to enwrap”, “to wrap by winding tightly”. Winding, twisting and entwining imply wrappings, or strips of bandage, rather than a single shroud.
But if they did mean a single sheet, then Matthew, Mark, and Luke would conflict with John 19:40, which is clearer by using the Greek word othonion, meaning “linen bandage” (Strong's concordance). If the Bible writers had meant a single linen sheet like the shroud, the word used should have been othone (a single linen cloth, a sail, or a sheet). From this, it seems that all four Gospel writers were telling us that normal long strips of linen covered Jesus.

The Catholic Church itself does not accept the shroud as authentic. When we last checked, in May 2008, the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Shroud of Turin admitted a number of reasons to doubt its authenticity. These included:

--the awkward fact that many similar shrouds existed which their owners claimed showed the genuine image of Christ
-- a pope in the 1300s issued a pronouncement that when the shroud was exhibited, the priest must “declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ”
--the admission that “no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud” before it appeared at Lirey around 1353
--this shroud, like the others, “was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting” at Easter
--witnesses in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries said the image was then so vivid that the blood “seemed freshly shed.” But the blood is now dark and hardly recognizable.
On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from aroound the year AD 30, “why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.”

Even if the Shroud of Turin proves to be 2000 years old — and it hasn't — there are strong arguments against its being Christ's burial cloth.

Historical note: The Shroud of Turin has been kept since 1578 in a chapel at the Cathedral of San Giovanni Battista in Turin, Italy.
http://www.creationtips.com/shroud.html

---

posted September 06, 2008 09:45 AM         

I tend to believe the carbon dating. I'm as far removed from a scientist as one can get, but my understanding is that the older the item being carbon dated the less accurate. In other words, carbon dating something 1000 years old is very much more accurate and dependable than something 50,000 years old.

Anyway, it looks like an etheric impression to me. And the physical body of Jesus,or anyone for that matter, isn't necessary for that.

posted September 06, 2008 04:23 PM         

I looked up third option. He did live few centuries before Da Vinci.

quote:

---

Two Masonic historians, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, have written a controversial book called The Second Messiah: Templars, the Turin Shroud, and the Great Secret of Freemasonry, which claims that the Turin Shroud is actually an image of Jacques de Molay, not of Jesus Christ as is common belief. They claim that when King Philip IV of France and Pope Clement V seized and dissolved the Order of the Knights Templar, that one of the French king's inquisitors, Guillame de Nogaret, tortured and crucified de Molay in a parody of the crucifixion of Jesus. He then put a cloth on de Molay's head, and de Molay's face was imprinted on the cloth. The authors claim that one of the reasons the Knights Templar were suppressed was because they knew a secret true history of Jesus which had been distorted by the Roman Catholic Church. According to Knight and Lomas, Jesus considered himself not God, but a Jewish revolutionary working to establish God's kingdom on Earth, and that the Templars' initiation ceremony involved a denial of Jesus as God.

Apart from Knight and Lomas' suggested scenario, there is a connection in the provenance of the Shroud of Turin and the Templars. Geoffroi de Charny's widow Jeanne de Vergy is the first reliably recorded owner of the Turin shroud; his uncle, Geoffrey de Charney, was Preceptor of Normandy for the Knights Templar. This uncle is the same Geoffrey de Charney who was initially sentenced to lifetime imprisonment with de Molay, and was burned with de Molay in 1314 after both proclaimed their innocence, recanting torture-induced confessions.

---