53:9: Isaiah Prophesies the Shroud of Turin.

[Subduction Zone]

One of the things Karl Popper propounded about science, which has come to be understood more since Popper, e.g., Thomas Kuhn's, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, is that contrary to the general belief, science and the scientific-method aren't a free-standing objective view of the world. Science always serves the ideology of the ones doing the science. As Sartre put it, we can only find what we're already looking for. Sartre gave the example of someone entering a bar looking for Jim. If there's a guy name Willy in the bar, whom the searcher has never met, his eyes will pass right over Willy in his search for Jim.

The scientists doing the science on the Shroud of Turin were searching for refutation. Wherever they looked they kept passing right over Jesus in their search for refutation. Everywhere they looked on the shroud there was Jesus. But they weren't looking for Jesus. They were looking for refutation. So they looked right past the person glaring back at them: Salvation ישוע as it were, was, is, will ever be.



John

No, the scientists testing the Shroud of Turin were a mixed lot. Some of them were looking for refutation. Some of them were looking for confirmation. One of them at least was shown to be dishonest after the fact. He was one of those looking for confirmation. That does not mean that all scientists looking for confirmation were dishonest. Just that one. They all agreed at time of publication that it had been refuted. But sometimes religion causes a mental defect that I like to call "the stupid". Religious beliefs often lead to stupid thoughts. When one has a cherished belief the intellect may temporarily cause that belief to lose effect, but then "the stupid" occurs. The brain desperately searches for an answer, any answer, to justify one's former belief, and it is very easy to fool ourselves when it comes to cherished beliefs. He claimed to have samples that he took "by accident". The problem was that accident or not all of them agreed to ahead of time that private sampling was not to be allowed since one's personal bias could affect how that information was interpreted. This one scientist went back on his word. So if you read about a scientist that worked on the STURP team that changed his mind due to threads that the found you have to ask yourself:

"Was he lying when he agreed to not take private samples and do tests without everyone else? Or was he lying about his test results" Either way his work is useless. Lying about one's work is one of the few unforgivable sins in the sciences.

It appears that you have made a False Idol of the Shroud. I do believe that there is even a Commandment about that.

And you also broke the Ninth Commandment. You made false claims about the scientists involved. When making claims about others, as a Christian you need to be able to support those claims with proper evidence.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, the scientists testing the Shroud of Turin were a mixed lot. Some of them were looking for refutation. Some of them were looking for confirmation.

Ironically, perhaps, failure to refute should --to some extent at least ---confirm?

But sometimes religion causes a mental defect that I like to call "the stupid". Religious beliefs often lead to stupid thoughts. When one has a cherished belief the intellect may temporarily cause that belief to lose effect, but then "the stupid" occurs. The brain desperately searches for an answer, any answer, to justify one's former belief, and it is very easy to fool ourselves when it comes to cherished beliefs.

I've found this malady to be universal in my observations.

He claimed to have samples that he took "by accident". The problem was that accident or not all of them agreed to ahead of time that private sampling was not to be allowed since one's personal bias could affect how that information was interpreted. This one scientist went back on his word. So if you read about a scientist that worked on the STURP team that changed his mind due to threads that the found you have to ask yourself:

"Was he lying when he agreed to not take private samples and do tests without everyone else? Or was he lying about his test results" Either way his work is useless. Lying about one's work is one of the few unforgivable sins in the sciences.

This sounds like an obvious obfuscation of science. You can't do it in private and claim to have refuted what's done in public.

It appears that you have made a False Idol of the Shroud. I do believe that there is even a Commandment about that.

And you also broke the Ninth Commandment. You made false claims about the scientists involved. When making claims about others, as a Christian you need to be able to support those claims with proper evidence.

I don't know that I've made any false claims about the scientists involved? On the other hand, concerning idolatry and the shroud, I plead guilty as charged.

As a "shrine" imbued with a relic of deity the shroud is indeed a world-class idol such that worship of it, or worship of any material emblem of deity associated with it, is idolatry through and through, such that I must plead my case to the power of the blood on this particular idol in hopes that the very death of this idol is the death of death itself, idolatry itself, so that, admittedly in a vertiginous act, this peculiar idolatry is the salvation from idolatry itself. I stand before you and God guilty of idolatry directed toward the idol depicted and destroyed on the shroud in hopes that the death of this idol (as it's depicted on the shroud) is the elixir of everlasting life able to cleanse not just from the sin of this kind of idolatry, but all idolatry, cleanse from sin and death itself.

The ensuing chapters will grapple with the extent to which the discernment that the final iconoclastic achievement of monotheism calls for destroying the idol of the very God personified as the deity that must be worshiped without being idolized. As Henri Atlan deftly expressed the paradox, "the ultimate idol is the personal God of theology . . . the only discourse about God that is not idolatrous is necessarily an atheistic discourse. Alternatively, whatever the discourse, the only God who is not an idol is a God who is not a God."​

​

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Giving Beyond the Gift, Preface.​

The only God who can be worshiped without that worship being condemnable idolatry is the God who admits to being an idol and who is thus destroyed as an idol therein taking down with him, when he's destroyed, the weapon employed against idolaters: death. The wages of idolatry is death. But the gift of God's becoming an idol, and then being destroyed as the source of all idolatry, is the gift of a life cleansed from idolatry by the very blood of the source of all idolatry.

The blood on the shroud is the elixir of everlasting life since all blood outside a body signifies "death" (red blood is read as death) so that if red blood ---blood outside a body (perhaps on a cloth tied to the horns of a scapegoat or on a linen shroud) ever turns white rather than red when it's outside a body, that blood is the death not just of the body it came from, but the death of death itself. Red blood signifies death, white blood signifies everlasting life.

With that said, I'm going to assume anyone reading this fancies themselves scientifically literate. So I'm going to issue a challenge to science types. Examine the blood of the shroud of Turin and see if you can refute the fact that the blood, that should be read as red on the positive image of the shroud, is instead white as snow, while the blood on the shroud that should be read as white, i.e., on the shroud as a negative image, is instead red. Anyone well read in the scientific method should be able to read the shroud in a manner to show that with all the examination that's been done on it, these brilliant scientists for the most part didn't even notice the most glaring anomaly of the shroud: the blood on the positive image of the shroud is white as snow as though the ruddiness of death has been turned white as snow on this shroud of death.

Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as bleached wool.​

​

Isaiah 1:18.​

John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ironically, perhaps, failure to refute should --to some extent at least ---confirm

I don't understand your question. Since gods are probably man made it is rather foolish for believers to try to test their beliefs using science. The shroud was known to be a fake from when it first was "donated" to the Catholic Church. Why put your faith in a man made fraud?

I've found this malady to be universal in my observations.

With religion? You are probably right.

This sounds like an obvious obfuscation of science. You can't do it in private and claim to have refuted what's done in public.

Then why believe the one person that went back on his word? Why give the shroud any credibility at all? Is your faith that weak that you need a magic talisman?

I don't know that I've made any false claims about the scientists involved? On the other hand, concerning idolatry and the shroud, I plead guilty as charged.

Okay, then just drop the shroud argument in the future.

As a "shrine" imbued with a relic of deity the shroud is indeed a world-class idol such that worship of it, or worship of any material emblem of deity associated with it, is idolatry through and through, such that I must plead my case to the power of the blood on this particular idol in hopes that the very death of this idol is the death of death itself, idolatry itself, so that, admittedly in a vertiginous act, this peculiar idolatry is the salvation from idolatry itself. I stand before you and God guilty of idolatry directed toward the idol depicted and destroyed on the shroud in hopes that the death of this idol (as it's depicted on the shroud) is the elixir of everlasting life able to cleanse not just form the sin of this kind of idolatry, but all idolatry, cleanse from sin and death itself.

The ensuing chapters will grapple with the extent to which the discernment that the final iconoclastic achievement of monotheism calls for destroying the idol of the very God personified as the deity that must be worshiped without being idolized. As Henri Atlan deftly expressed the paradox, "the ultimate idol is the personal God of theology . . . the only discourse about God that is not idolatrous is necessarily an atheistic discourse. Alternatively, whatever the discourse, the only God who is not an idol is a God who is not a God."​

​

Professor Elliot R. Wolfson, Giving Beyond the Gift, Preface.​

The only God who can be worshiped without that worship being condemnable idolatry is the God who admits to being an idol and who is thus destroyed as an idol therein taking down with him, when he's destroyed, the weapon employed against idolaters: death. The wages of idolatry is death. But the gift of God's becoming an idol, and then being destroyed as the source of all idolatry, is the gift of a life cleansed from idolatry by the very blood of the source of all idolatry.

The blood on the shroud is the elixir of everlasting life since all blood outside a body signifies "death" (red blood is read as death) so that if red blood ---blood outside a body (perhaps on a cloth tied to the horns of a scapegoat or on a linen shroud) ever turns white rather than red when it's outside a body, that blood is the death not just of the body it came from, but the death of death itself. Red blood signifies death, white blood signifies everlasting life.

With that said, I'm going to assume anyone reading this fancies themselves scientifically literate. So I'm going to issue a challenge to science types. Examine the blood of the shroud of Turin and see if you can refute the fact that the blood, that should be read as red on the positive image of the shroud, is instead white as snow, while the blood on the shroud that should be read as white, i.e., on the shroud as a negative image, is instead red. Anyone well read in the scientific method should be able to read the shroud in a manner to show that with all the examination that's been done on it, these brilliant scientists for the most part didn't even notice the most glaring anomaly of the shroud: the blood on the positive image of the shroud is white as snow as though the ruddiness of death has been turned white as snow on this shroud of death.

Though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as bleached wool.​

​

Isaiah 1:18.​

John

But you could not do that. When you say that your beliefs are true due to a fraud you are in essence telling everyone that your beliefs are false.

 

[John D. Brey]

The shroud was known to be a fake from when it first was "donated" to the Catholic Church. Why put your faith in a man made fraud?

The shroud was "presumed" to be a fraud. Most Christians presumed it was a fraud. It was just too coincidental that an image like that would be found on a shroud. I presumed it was a fraud. I laughed when I first saw it. Even the Catholic church was (is) hesitant to believe it's authentic.

But anyone who bothered to watch the Youtube video in the first message will see that all the presumptions that it's a fraud have come to a bad end except one. The carbon dating of the shroud. The carbon dating of the shroud is the only thing the skeptics who examined the shroud scientifically could hang their hat on.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

The shroud was "presumed" to be a fraud. Most Christians presumed it was a fraud. It was just too coincidental that an image like that would be found on a shroud. I presumed it was a fraud. I laughed when I first saw it. Even the Catholic church was (is) hesitant to believe it's authentic.

But anyone who bothered to watch the Youtube video in the first message will see that all the presumptions that it's a fraud have come to a bad end except one. The carbon dating of the shroud. The carbon dating of the shroud is the only thing the skeptics who examined the shroud scientifically could hang their hat on.



John

No, it was not presumed. Why do you think that? The original owner was using it for faith healing and other nonsense. And though the carbon dating is a slam dunk for it, there is other evidence too. The last I heard was a forensic study and the blood drip patterns are all wrong for what it is claimed to be.

There is only scientific evidence against it and none that I have ever seen for it.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, it was not presumed. Why do you think that? The original owner was using it for faith healing and other nonsense. And though the carbon dating is a slam dunk for it, there is other evidence too. The last I heard was a forensic study and the blood drip patterns are all wrong for what it is claimed to be.

There is only scientific evidence against it and none that I have ever seen for it.

Have you watched the link in the first message in this thread? Mind you it's a presentation prepared from an accumulation of the evidence as found in multiple books, many of which I have and have read, but nevertheless, not withstanding the somewhat dopiness of the presenter, the material is accurate. It presents the fact that there are elements of the shroud that are extremely problematic if it's a forgery.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Have you watched the link in the first message in this thread? Mind you it's a presentation prepared from an accumulation of the evidence as found in multiple books, many of which I have and have read, but nevertheless, not withstanding the somewhat dopiness of the presenter, the material is accurate. It presents the fact that there are elements of the shroud that are extremely problematic if it's a forgery.



John

Do you think that it actually has evidence? I doubt if it does. Most nonscientists have no idea what is and what is not evidence in a scientific setting. That video is an hour and forty minutes long. Give me a time period of what you think is the best piece of evidence or explain it in your own words.

 

[dybmh]

The fact that we do have to go to such extreme measures to see what's hidden in the Bible is a sad commentary on the nature of the world.

Or, it makes it memorable, and makes it fun to re-read over and over again. It's not sad, it's wonder-ful. Literally.

 

[dybmh]

Have you watched the link in the first message in this thread?

I actually didn't watch it when I first starting reading the thread. I didn't even click on it. On my screen the headline on the video was :"CSI: Jerusalem", and I thought it was an episode or clip from a fictional TV Show called, CSI: Jerusalem. Hee. Guess not.

I watched about an hour of it. It was only so-so for me. It never answered the main question I had from the very beginning. But I'll get to that in a moment. Maybe It did answer the question, after the 1 hour mark. But like I said, I lost interest. Here's why. The problem with videos like this, and it doesn't matter whether it's a militant atheist critic, or a warm friendly religious apologist, there are no challenging questions. No one is asking critical questions. The speaker can just say whatever they want, and they answer to no one. After an hour, I decided I'd do a tiny bit of reading about the Shroud on my own. And I found that the speaker left out a few things. That's a problem for me.

He didn't say that the primary microscopic investigator on the STRUP team in 1978 ( I think that was the year ) said there was no way it was real. I don't remember the reason he gave. But there wasn't a 100% agreement, and it sounds like there was a bitter dispute over this. This particular scientist pulled himself from the team. I think he wrote at least one book and a coule of journal articles about how the shroud was not real. This needed to be stated by the speaker. but he made it sound like everyone was awe struck and in perfect agreement.

But more than that, wikipedia says there was paint found on it. There was paint on it, John. The speaker, I'm like 95% sure said there was no paint. I actually trust wikipedia on this more than the speaker, since he already left out this detail about the primary, and only (?) microscopist fervently rejecting the conclusion made by the others. He made it sound like there was 100% agreement on the STRUP Team.

After reading this, I stopped watching the video.

But here's where I'm at. I don't care about the dating. I don't even care about the paint. And I dont care about the microscopist. I don't care about any of that. There is nothing about this cloth that says, Jesus, to me. I see the evidence of a crucifixion, John. But that could be anyone. when I look at the face, it looks to be 40-60 years old. And then when the speaker in the video put a reconstructed picture of wha they think the face of the person looke like under the cloth... they made it look 33 years old. That's not the face that's on the shroud. That's another reason I don't trust the speaker. They left out details, and are exaggerating the evidence. I'm thinking someone found a burial shroud of a person who was taken off a cross and presto-change-o, it must be Jesus? That assumes no one else was killed the same way by the Romans, and it's known that's not true.

So, I can ignore all the faults. Every single one, and it's still not convincing to me. Imagine what happens when I put the faults back in. Now I really really doubt it's authentic. Someone added paint to it to make it look more real? Maybe some blood was added to it? I don't know. But I don't take it seriously. And all of this ignores the dating fiasco.

And that's how I feel about the shroud. Just like anything, it could be... but for this one, it's probably not.

 

[John D. Brey]

The problem with videos like this, and it doesn't matter whether it's a militant atheist critic, or a warm friendly religious apologist, there are no challenging questions. No one is asking critical questions. The speaker can just say whatever they want, and they answer to no one.

I agree totally. It's completely the opposite of what you see at say a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee where you get to hear both sides making really good points pro and con. Or at Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings. The debate back and forth was amazing. Both sides had you believing their side until the other got their go. It really made you appreciate the binary nature of every argument.

It's like when I get frustrated reading Jewish takes on scripture. All I have to do is read Rabbi Hirsch's Horeb and I'm so humbled that my haughty, one-sided, frustration dissipates every time.

After an hour, I decided I'd do a tiny bit of reading about the Shroud on my own. And I found that the speaker left out a few things. That's a problem for me.

Later in the Wikipedia article I think they explained that the alleged paint on the shroud was not agreed on by many of the examiners. The person who claimed there was no blood wrote a very negative book on the shroud implying the potential for some bias.

He didn't say that the primary microscopic investigator on the STRUP team in 1978 ( I think that was the year ) said there was no way it was real.

There's no way the Red Sea was parted. There's no way Moses' face glowed. There's no way David killed Goliath. There was no universal flood. Science proves there was no Exodus from Egypt.

And that's how I feel about the shroud. Just like anything, it could be... but for this one, it's probably not.

I don't know if you remember a thread I did on the shroud about five years ago. I examined it from a Jewish perspective so to say and came up with something that's never mentioned about the shroud since apparently the shroud aficionados don't do Jewish scripture. The blood on the shroud is an inversion of the rest of the image. Which is to say that the image as seen by the naked eye on the shroud is actually a negative image similar to a photographic negative. If you take a picture of the shroud, and look at the negative before it's developed, the image on the negative is a positive image of the person on the shroud since the actual image on the shroud is, for some strange reason, a negative image.

But the blood is inverted. On the actual shroud, the blood should be light, or bright, since when you convert the negative image to the actual positive image, the blood will be dark (as blood tends to be). But it's not light (as it should be) it's dark.

Someone might say, That proves the blood was painted on the shroud since its a positive color, dark, on a negative image (the natural image on the shroud). But that begs the question of why the natural image on the shroud is a negative, and ups the ante quite a bit on whether the blood on the shroud is human blood or paint.

As a Jew, I would hope you can appreciate the meaning of blood, on a piece of cloth, turning white as snow (as it is on the positive image of the shroud).



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree totally. It's completely the opposite of what you see at say a hearing for a Supreme Court nominee where you get to hear both sides making really good points pro and con. Or at Bill Clinton's impeachment hearings. The debate back and forth was amazing. Both sides had you believing their side until the other got their go. It really made you appreciate the binary nature of every argument.

It's like when I get frustrated reading Jewish takes on scripture. All I have to do is read Rabbi Hirsch's Horeb and I'm so humbled that my haughty, one-sided, frustration dissipates every time.



Later in the Wikipedia article I think they explained that the alleged paint on the shroud was not agreed on by many of the examiners. The person who claimed there was no blood wrote a very negative book on the shroud implying the potential for some bias.



There's no way the Red Sea was parted. There's no way Moses' face glowed. There's no way David killed Goliath. There was no universal flood. Science proves there was no Exodus from Egypt.




I don't know if you remember a thread I did on the shroud about five years ago. I examined it from a Jewish perspective so to say and came up with something that's never mentioned about the shroud since apparently the shroud aficionados don't do Jewish scripture. The blood on the shroud is an inversion of the rest of the image. Which is to say that the image as seen by the naked eye on the shroud is actually a negative image similar to a photographic negative. If you take a picture of the shroud, and look at the negative before it's developed, the image on the negative is a positive image of the person on the shroud since the actual image on the shroud is, for some strange reason, a negative image.

But the blood is inverted. On the actual shroud, the blood should be light, or bright, since when you convert the negative image to the actual positive image, the blood will be dark (as blood tends to be). But it's not light (as it should be) it's dark.

Someone might say, That proves the blood was painted on the shroud since its a positive color, dark, on a negative image (the natural image on the shroud). But that begs the question of why the natural image on the shroud is a negative, and ups the ante quite a bit on whether the blood on the shroud is human blood or paint.

As a Jew, I would hope you can appreciate the meaning of blood, on a piece of cloth, turning white as snow (as it is on the positive image of the shroud).



John

The original STURP team was not exactly unbiased. And there were several problems with their work. They had no appropriate textile experts, probably because they did not support the shroud just based upon the weave of the fabric. And as to Moses a lot of his story would have left evidence behind if it happened. Forget about the miracles. The non-miraculous events should have left endless evidence and that is not to be found. That is why archaeologists reject the myth.

But again, as a Christian you should be happy with that. God was the bad guy in a lot of that story. More than once when Pharoah was ready to let Moses go it was God that "hardened his heart" so that he could have an excuse to kill more Egyptians. Now in tribal days that would have seemed good, but our morality has improved quite a bit since then.

 

[dybmh]

Later in the Wikipedia article I think they explained that the alleged paint on the shroud was not agreed on by many of the examiners. The person who claimed there was no blood wrote a very negative book on the shroud implying the potential for some bias.

The point is, the speaker didn't give both sides, and I think he actually said the opposite. I think he said there was no paint, none at all. And if i recall, he repeated it multiple times. And I think he said everyone who investigated the shroud with STRUP was awe struck. The image of baby-face 33 year-old Jesus was the last straw for me. Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3. I can't trust this speaker not to exaggerate.

There's no way the Red Sea was parted. There's no way Moses' face glowed. There's no way David killed Goliath. There was no universal flood. Science proves there was no Exodus from Egypt.

Again, there is a big difference between 100% agreement and the primary microscopist says, "No way." This isn't about the shroud itself, it's about the video you chose.

I don't know if you remember a thread I did on the shroud about five years ago. I examined it from a Jewish perspective so to say and came up with something that's never mentioned about the shroud since apparently the shroud aficionados don't do Jewish scripture. The blood on the shroud is an inversion of the rest of the image. Which is to say that the image as seen by the naked eye on the shroud is actually a negative image similar to a photographic negative. If you take a picture of the shroud, and look at the negative before it's developed, the image on the negative is a positive image of the person on the shroud since the actual image on the shroud is, for some strange reason, a negative image.

But the blood is inverted. On the actual shroud, the blood should be light, or bright, since when you convert the negative image to the actual positive image, the blood will be dark (as blood tends to be). But it's not light (as it should be) it's dark.

Someone might say, That proves the blood was painted on the shroud since its a positive color, dark, on a negative image (the natural image on the shroud). But that begs the question of why the natural image on the shroud is a negative, and ups the ante quite a bit on whether the blood on the shroud is human blood or paint.

As a Jew, I would hope you can appreciate the meaning of blood, on a piece of cloth, turning white as snow (as it is on the positive image of the shroud).

The negative image doesn't mean anything to me. Blood fading in a peculiar way, is a question mark for me. I appreciate that maybe there's a miracle there. But I would need a devil's advocate just like the Catholic Church uses ( do they do that anymore? ) before I took it seriously. And again, let's say it was a miracle, that doesn't say Jesus to me.

A lot of time and energy and research has gone into this to quiet the nay-sayers. That's great! But putting the shroud in the right place and the right time and the right circumstances doesn't positively identify Jesus.

 

[dybmh]

the Hebrew word במתיו is mistranslated as the Hebrew word for "death" (when even if it were "death" מת the suffix יו it would require it to be translated as a plural and the KJV has it singular)

For this, the plural of death would be B'mossaye, with a long "I" sound at the end.

Ezekiel 28:8

​

לשחת יורדוך ומתה ממותי חלל בלב ימים׃​

​

They shall bring you down to the pit, and you shall die the deaths of those who were slain in the midst of the seas.​

Some refer this verse to those Israelites that die in exile; others derive במתיו from במה “high places;” comp. במתימו “their high places” (Deut. Xxxiii. 29), and refer it to the building erected over the grave; so that קבדו=במתיו “his tomb.”Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 53:9.

A couple of things here. There's more to this. Please remember, a Bamah, a high place, is no good, John. The Jews are supposed to destroy all their Bamot, high-places. Bamot, high-places are not kosher. And that's kind of clear in Deut. 33:29 which in the quote above, but even more clear in 2 Kings. And the MOST clear in Ibn Ezra's comments immediately following what you quoted above. I'm a little surpised that this did not occur to you because the verse in 2 Kings is one of your favorites.

Deut 33:29

אשריך ישראל מי כמוך עם נושע ביהוה מגן עזרך ואשר־חרב גאותך ויכחשו איביך לך ואתה על־במותימו תדרך׃​

​

Happy are you, O Israel; who is like you, O people saved by the Lord, the shield of your help, and who is the sword of your excellency! and your enemies shall submit themselves to you; and you shall tread upon their [ the enemies ] high places.​

2 Kings 18:4

הוא הסיר את־הבמות ושבר את־המצבת וכרת את־האשרה וכתת נחש הנחשת אשר־עשה משה כי עד־הימים ההמה היו בני־ישראל מקטרים לו ויקרא־לו נחשתן׃​

​

He removed the high places, and broke the images, and cut down the Ashera, and broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for in those days the people of Israel burned incense to it; and he called it Nehushtan.​

Ibn Ezra on Isaiah 53:9

​

Some refer this verse to those Israelites that die in exile; others derive במתיו from במה high place; comp. במתימו their high places (Deut. 33:29), and refer it to the building erected over the grave; so that קברו═במתיו his tomb.​

​

רשע═עשיר Wicked. The heathen nations that are rich in comparison with Israel are meant. I think that this verse describes the trouble of the Israelites in exile, which is so great, that they long to die with the nations​

OK. So, hopefully you can see a Bamah, is bad. Its what the other nations do. It's a form of idol worrship. In Deut 33, the Lord tramples them. In 2 Kings, they are removed along with the other accessories to idol worship. And Ibn Ezra says that this is what the rich wicked heathens did. Do you really think that this is Isaiah seeing Joseph of Aramathea, a just councilor, putting Jesus UP in a high place which is designated for idol worship?

What Ibn Ezra is showing is actually really cool. It's a poetic couplet. Which is classic Isaiah. He's saying: "קברו=במתיו" AND "רשע=עשיר". That means: "את־רשעים קברו" "ואת־עשיר במתיו" are a pair. They're saying basically the same thing, but the second is more intense. That's the way couplets work.

ויתן את־רשעים קברו ואת־עשיר במתיו על לא־חמס עשה ולא מרמה בפיו׃​

​

And he gave: his grave to the wicked, and his idolotrous-tomb to the wealthy-wicked-heathens, but, he had done no violence and there was no deceit in his mouth.​

So, this Bamah, is not a shrine for Jesus, it's something very very bad. But the suffering servant, whomever that is, has this idolatrous shrine, and he gives it, but without intending any harm or deception. Weird concept, right? Also... I kind of hinted at this before, there's no actual death here. The suffering servant doesn't die. There's something buried in the Zohar about this, that the suffering servant is more of a role different people take on throughout history. And that fits this pretty well, in my opinion.

So, what's being described here is very very different than the Christian idea of what Isaiah intended. Plucking out Ibn Ezra's comment and looking Jesus' tomb in the cave doesn't really work here. And you also lose the literal death of the suffering servant, which I think is probably important to you.

 

[John D. Brey]

The point is, the speaker didn't give both sides, and I think he actually said the opposite. I think he said there was no paint, none at all. And if i recall, he repeated it multiple times. And I think he said everyone who investigated the shroud with STRUP was awe struck. The image of baby-face 33 year-old Jesus was the last straw for me. Strike 1, Strike 2, Strike 3. I can't trust this speaker not to exaggerate.

Again, I couldn't agree with you more on this count. I actually noted that I thought the presenter was not the greatest. Someone I know asked me to watch the video and it touched on many points I'd read in a number of books on the shroud which were written by more serious scientists.

The negative image doesn't mean anything to me. Blood fading in a peculiar way, is a question mark for me. I appreciate that maybe there's a miracle there. But I would need a devil's advocate just like the Catholic Church uses ( do they do that anymore? ) before I took it seriously. And again, let's say it was a miracle, that doesn't say Jesus to me.

A lot of time and energy and research has gone into this to quiet the nay-sayers. That's great! But putting the shroud in the right place and the right time and the right circumstances doesn't positively identify Jesus.

For the longest time I was dead against the legitimacy of the shroud. I thought it was laughable. For me it was way too perfect: a crucified man buried in an expensive shroud with a wound in his side and potentially wounds in his head from something like a crown of thorns. Also the body was brutally scourged which wasn't typical in Roman crucifixions since they wanted the person to live as long as possible to suffer more. Scourging like found on the shroud would have caused the person do die too fast for Roman tastes. And in fact when they came to break Jesus' legs (so the three crucifyees would die before sundown) he was already dead.

My acceptance of the possibility, even the likelihood, that the shroud is authentic, is based on the fact that the image on the shroud is unquestionably a negative image that transforms to a positive image on a photographic negative. To think a forger in the Middle Ages would conceive of producing a negative image is absurd (and if the negative image was a natural fluke related to how the material on the shroud decomposed we should know of the process or it should be repeatable scientifically). If one couples the near impossibility of a Medieval artist painting a negative image for the day when someone would photograph it and see how clever he was, with the historical knowledge that going back to the first centuries of the current era there was documentation that a cloth like this was circulating and that it allegedly had an image on it "made without human hands" it lends itself to the possibility (unlikely as it is) that this is the actual shroud. (What made the people over a thousand years ago so sure it was made "without human hands"? What were they seeing that made them proclaim that?)

Another interesting fact is that the Roman Church, who are somewhat idolatrous about relics related to the earliest days of the church, were actually standoffish about the shroud. They didn't know what to think of it. It's almost like when a huckster selling fake Rolex watches comes to realize he actually sold a genuine Rolex Pearl Master on the cheap without knowing that somehow he'd come upon the actual watch in his nefarious dealings.

What I've come to consider interesting just during this thread is the possibility that the use of the bloody cloth used for cleaning the blood of circumcision, which is thereafter used as an "ornament" and fancied a quasi-holy relic (it's used to wrap a Torah scroll, and to ornament the chuppah) appears very likely to be one of the case noted by Professor Arthur Green whereby Judaism finds something in Christian symbolism or practice interesting or appealing and finds a way to incorporate it into Jewish practice. Green claims much of the fascinating symbolism in the Zohar comes from very knowledgeable Jews incorporating Christian symbolism in a manner to serve (very well I might add) Jewish ideas. Numerous orthodox Jews have berated the Zohar as a Christian apologetic. Kinda like the Jewish grandma who coming down the stairs heard someone reading Isaiah 53 and mistakenly asked who the heck was reciting that Christian garbage in her home.

If it be the case that the shroud of Turin and the practice of using the circumcision cloth as sacred relic are related, we could research when the practice of using the circumcision cloth as an ornament began and that should parallel the time when the shroud first appeared (or thereabouts). The parallel symbolism between the circumcision cloth as sacred relic versus the Shroud of Turin is pretty amazing when it's realized that St. Paul in one of his epistles compared Christ's resurrection to a circumcision performed "without human hands" implying that the ornamentation on this macrocosmic circumcision cloth, this sacred relic which was wrapped around the living Torah, is made "without human hands."




John

 

[dybmh]

Again, I couldn't agree with you more on this count. I actually noted that I thought the presenter was not the greatest. Someone I know asked me to watch the video and it touched on many points I'd read in a number of books on the shroud which were written by more serious scientists.

I honestly think the video was a poor choice if that is the case. They said everyone in STRUP agreed, and they didn't. The said there was no paint, and there was. They showed me a reconstructed image of Jesus' face, but it doesn't match the face on the shroud.

For the longest time I was dead against the legitimacy of the shroud. I thought it was laughable. For me it was way too perfect: a crucified man buried in an expensive shroud with a wound in his side and potentially wounds in his head from something like a crown of thorns. Also the body was brutally scourged which wasn't typical in Roman crucifixions since they wanted the person to live as long as possible to suffer more. Scourging like found on the shroud would have caused the person do die too fast for Roman tastes. And in fact when they came to break Jesus' legs (so the three crucifyees would die before sundown) he was already dead.

Well.... I would expect there would be different methods for different "criminals" at the discretion of the dictator. If I was a Roman dictator, I would want the leader of a rebel group to be hung up AND killed quickly. If I was your disicple, John, if you get set up on a pole, come night fall, I'm coming to get you down. So, the dictator has motive to kill Jesus or any other rebel leader quickly.

My acceptance of the possibility, even the likelihood, that the shroud is authentic, is based on the fact that the image on the shroud is unquestionably a negative image that transforms to a positive image on a photographic negative. To think a forger in the Middle Ages would conceive of producing a negative image is absurd (and if the negative image was a natural fluke related to how the material on the shroud decomposed we should know of the process or it should be repeatable scientifically). If one couples the near impossibility of a Medieval artist painting a negative image for the day when someone would photograph it and see how clever he was, with the historical knowledge that going back to the first centuries of the current era there was documentation that a cloth like this was circulating and that it allegedly had an image on it "made without human hands" it lends itself to the possibility (unlikely as it is) that this is the actual shroud. (What made the people over a thousand years ago so sure it was made "without human hands"? What were they seeing that made them proclaim that?)

It's touch-up paint. The image was there as a negative image in blood AND there's paint. It's not an "either-or", it's both. The outines were there, and someone came and did a little touch-up work so that more people could be inspired and saved. And maybe, they added a little, or a lot, of someone's blood to make it really authentic. I don't know. But both things could be true. It was a burial shroud with the negative image on it. And it was touched up with paint. And someone added blood in the proper locations on the underside of the shroud to make it really-really believeable.

But none of this invalidates that it's Jesus's shroud. It's just, ya know, someone or someones opened up Pandora's box when they decided to make changes to it that are detected later. It's the same complaint I have when you point out the minor possible word changes made to the MT. They're not really a big deal, but, it has given license to consider rewriting any word you choose. Whomever changed those words ( if it actually happened ) opened Pandora's box. And Whomever added paint to the shroud ( if it actually happened ) also opened Pandora's box.

Another interesting fact is that the Roman Church, who are somewhat idolatrous about relics related to the earliest days of the church, were actually standoffish about the shroud. They didn't know what to think of it. It's almost like when a huckster selling fake Rolex watches comes to realize he actually sold a genuine Rolex Pearl Master on the cheap without knowing that somehow he'd come upon the actual watch in his nefarious dealings.

What you're describing is a known con. It's the "Shill game", but the rolex is actually fake.

What I've come to consider interesting just during this thread is the possibility that the use of the bloody cloth used for cleaning the blood of circumcision, which is thereafter used as an "ornament" and fancied a quasi-holy relic (it's used to wrap a Torah scroll, and to ornament the chuppah) appears very likely to be one of the case noted by Professor Arthur Green whereby Judaism finds something in Christian symbolism or practice interesting or appealing and finds a way to incorporate it into Jewish practice. Green claims much of the fascinating symbolism in the Zohar comes from very knowledgeable Jews incorporating Christian symbolism in a manner to serve (very well I might add) Jewish ideas. Numerous orthodox Jews have berated the Zohar as a Christian apologetic. Kinda like the Jewish grandma who coming down the stairs heard someone reading Isaiah 53 and mistakenly asked who the heck was reciting that Christian garbage in her home.

Well, I hadn't gotten there yet in this thread, but, there is no blood on the wimple, John. You're imagining a messy blood letting ritual, but that's not what happens. Especially if there's direct suction. Christian imagery came from Judaism, John. So, nothing is being copied or emulated. In General, people who critisize the Zohar are, just like anyone else, saying more about themselves than the Zohar.

If it be the case that the shroud of Turin and the practice of using the circumcision cloth as sacred relic are related, we could research when the practice of using the circumcision cloth as an ornament began and that should parallel the time when the shroud first appeared (or thereabouts). The parallel symbolism between the circumcision cloth as sacred relic versus the Shroud of Turin is pretty amazing when it's realized that St. Paul in one of his epistles compared Christ's resurrection to a circumcision performed "without human hands" implying that the ornamentation on this macrocosmic circumcision cloth, this sacred relic which was wrapped around the living Torah, is made "without human hands."

And if there's no blood on this ornament? Yes there was a bloody cloth described in one place, and you have a couple of books that are both probably retelling the same story. But it's not used in the mariage ceremony, and it's not wrapped around the Torah. Regarding the commentator(s) who possibly wrote using the name Paul... I honestly don't care. I've read too many of those warped loophole attempts to take anything that's written by them seriously.

 

[John D. Brey]

The original STURP team was not exactly unbiased. And there were several problems with their work. They had no appropriate textile experts, probably because they did not support the shroud just based upon the weave of the fabric. And as to Moses a lot of his story would have left evidence behind if it happened. Forget about the miracles. The non-miraculous events should have left endless evidence and that is not to be found. That is why archaeologists reject the myth.

We live in a time when science and the scientific-method is almost worshiped as objective and infallible. It's not true. I remember when we were all being told that if you got the Covid shot you couldn't get nor transmit the virus. I know numerous people who got the shot and the boosters and got Covid three or four times thereafter. Oh the debates I've had with those who turned Covid into a religious crusade so that even if science showed one of their sacred facts incorrect the science had to go.

But again, as a Christian you should be happy with that. God was the bad guy in a lot of that story. More than once when Pharoah was ready to let Moses go it was God that "hardened his heart" so that he could have an excuse to kill more Egyptians. Now in tribal days that would have seemed good, but our morality has improved quite a bit since then.

I agree with you that I shouldn't worry about proving anything or worrying about what science says or what you personally consider evolved morality when it comes to the Bible or God. What each of us believes, and the direction we all go in our beliefs, functions as a feedback-mechanism that reinforces what we already believe. True objectivity is an extremely rare quality of the human mind.




John

 

[dybmh]

I remember when we were all being told that if you got the Covid shot you couldn't get nor transmit the virus.

I don't remember anyone ever actually saying that other than the critics setting up a strawman. But! I do think it's a valuable lesson for those in sciency fields. When they exaggerate or lie, it feeds distrust for the science community and the institutions tasked with protecting public health. And people probably died because of it.

 

[John D. Brey]

Yes there was a bloody cloth described in one place, and you have a couple of books that are both probably retelling the same story. But it's not used in the mariage ceremony, and it's not wrapped around the Torah.

I posted this earlier in this thread (bold emphasis mine):

Just close by to the Yemenite headdress in this display case about Torah, we find this unassuming little textile object – a Torah binder or wimpel. In Germany it became customary in the second half of the 16th century to prepare a binder for the Torah scroll on the occasion of the birth of a son. This binder was usually made by the child’s mother or grandmother from the cloth used to swaddle the baby boy during the circumcision ceremony. The baby’s name, his father’s name and his date of birth were embroidered or written on the cloth. It would be brought to the synagogue when the boy was three years old – the age at which, according to tradition, he was ready to start learning Torah (or, others say, when he was toilet trained!). The boy with help of father would wrap the binder around the Torah. The binder would be used again to bind the Torah scroll at the boy’s bar mitzvah and other important occasions through his life.​

This particular wimple is inscribed in Hebrew “Abraham ben Zev, may he live a good life, born with good fortune on Tuesday the 18th of Sivan, 1747. May he grow to study Torah, to come to the chuppah and excel in good deeds” (the blessing said at the brit milah ceremony). The fantastical figures and zodiac sign are typical of German wimpels. I feel a special connect to this one because it has the zodiac sign of the twins or Geminim which is also my star sign!​

As many of you would know, issues of gender in Judaism have always been of great interest to me, and the subject of my academic research. I remember when I first learnt about these wimpels, they struck me as being really significant from a feminist perspective.They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded. Women’s handiwork, and their love for their children, found a place in the very centre of male-dominated Jewish ritual.​

When I was doing some research for this presentation, I came across an article by an American rabbi and scholar Dr Barbara Thiede which elaborates this idea and places it in historical context. She believes that the custom of making these wimpels can be traced back to the time that Ashkenazi rabbis legislated to remove women from the brit milah ceremony in the 13th century. She says: “The Maharam, Rabbi Meier b. Barukh of Rothenburg, ruled that it was improper for a woman to sit among men at a circumcision. In the next century, the Maharil concurred. Confirming male status in the covenant required a celebration of maleness. Women were excluded.​

“Ashkenazic Jewish women, however, cleverly reinserted themselves in the ritual and related observances, creating customs and practices that gave them a significant – sometimes even a public – role. They cleaned and cut the cloth used either to bind the infant’s feet or to catch drops of blood, embroidered and decorated a blessing onto the fabric, and presented the wimple to their communities in a public, liturgically embedded ceremony. Cloth from a circumcision was repurposed to serve as a tool for a sacred task: binding and wrapping the Torah scroll.​

“Sixteenth-century Jewish women sidestepped their rabbis in an audacious act of spiritual ingenuity. Banned from the rite of brit milah, they used the wimpel to reestablish their presence by introducing a new liturgical practice. . . Women’s artistry, artistry created from the rite of brit milah, was on display for the entire congregation. . . The rabbis could legislate the exclusion of women from Jewish ritual, liturgy, or practice. The women, in turn, could find their way right back in.” They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded.​

Ten Tantalising Tales #5 Wimple — Jewish Women of Words

They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded.

jewishwomenofwords.com.au

John

 

[John D. Brey]

And if there's no blood on this ornament? Yes there was a bloody cloth described in one place, and you have a couple of books that are both probably retelling the same story. But it's not used in the mariage ceremony, and it's not wrapped around the Torah.

This is from Wikipedia (bold emphasis mine):

The wimpel is an offshoot of a common Jewish practice. In the times of the Tannaim, all Torah scrolls were wrapped only with a cloth, known in Hebrew as a “mappah,” or in German, a “wimpel.” As with other holy Judaic objects, donating a mappah was considered to be a great mitzvah and honor, and very often a groom would donate one on the eve of his wedding. Most of these were made from old clothing. While some Rabbis approved of this practice, others did not because they felt that it was not proper respect for the Torah. Unlike these controversial “second-hand” mappot, the cloth used at a baby's circumcision was undoubtedly holy, and it gradually became the custom to donate these as mappot.​

​

Wimpel - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

John

 

[dybmh]

I posted this earlier in this thread (bold emphasis mine):

Just close by to the Yemenite headdress in this display case about Torah, we find this unassuming little textile object – a Torah binder or wimpel. In Germany it became customary in the second half of the 16th century to prepare a binder for the Torah scroll on the occasion of the birth of a son. This binder was usually made by the child’s mother or grandmother from the cloth used to swaddle the baby boy during the circumcision ceremony. The baby’s name, his father’s name and his date of birth were embroidered or written on the cloth. It would be brought to the synagogue when the boy was three years old – the age at which, according to tradition, he was ready to start learning Torah (or, others say, when he was toilet trained!). The boy with help of father would wrap the binder around the Torah. The binder would be used again to bind the Torah scroll at the boy’s bar mitzvah and other important occasions through his life.​

This particular wimple is inscribed in Hebrew “Abraham ben Zev, may he live a good life, born with good fortune on Tuesday the 18th of Sivan, 1747. May he grow to study Torah, to come to the chuppah and excel in good deeds” (the blessing said at the brit milah ceremony). The fantastical figures and zodiac sign are typical of German wimpels. I feel a special connect to this one because it has the zodiac sign of the twins or Geminim which is also my star sign!​

As many of you would know, issues of gender in Judaism have always been of great interest to me, and the subject of my academic research. I remember when I first learnt about these wimpels, they struck me as being really significant from a feminist perspective.They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded. Women’s handiwork, and their love for their children, found a place in the very centre of male-dominated Jewish ritual.​

When I was doing some research for this presentation, I came across an article by an American rabbi and scholar Dr Barbara Thiede which elaborates this idea and places it in historical context. She believes that the custom of making these wimpels can be traced back to the time that Ashkenazi rabbis legislated to remove women from the brit milah ceremony in the 13th century. She says: “The Maharam, Rabbi Meier b. Barukh of Rothenburg, ruled that it was improper for a woman to sit among men at a circumcision. In the next century, the Maharil concurred. Confirming male status in the covenant required a celebration of maleness. Women were excluded.​

“Ashkenazic Jewish women, however, cleverly reinserted themselves in the ritual and related observances, creating customs and practices that gave them a significant – sometimes even a public – role. They cleaned and cut the cloth used either to bind the infant’s feet or to catch drops of blood, embroidered and decorated a blessing onto the fabric, and presented the wimple to their communities in a public, liturgically embedded ceremony. Cloth from a circumcision was repurposed to serve as a tool for a sacred task: binding and wrapping the Torah scroll.​

“Sixteenth-century Jewish women sidestepped their rabbis in an audacious act of spiritual ingenuity. Banned from the rite of brit milah, they used the wimpel to reestablish their presence by introducing a new liturgical practice. . . Women’s artistry, artistry created from the rite of brit milah, was on display for the entire congregation. . . The rabbis could legislate the exclusion of women from Jewish ritual, liturgy, or practice. The women, in turn, could find their way right back in.” They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded.​

Ten Tantalising Tales #5 Wimple — Jewish Women of Words

They represented an opportunity for women’s presence to be inserted, almost surreptitiously, into the ritual space of synagogue, from which they were otherwise excluded.

jewishwomenofwords.com.au

John

Uh-huh. I read that. But that's just an opinion of what maybe it's used for. I'm not sure you understand what they're talking about when they say a torah binder. It's a belt. Literally. Something to catch drops of blood from circumcision is not a belt like what would be used. The whole thing makes no sense. I see a picture on the link, I see a tiny little spot of something, I have no idea what that is. But any other picture I see has no blood on it at all. If there was a spot of blood on it, that is definitely not the intention. It just happened. And this ignores that it's not a bloody messy ritual.

Just like I said earlier. People say all kinds of things about Jews, but it usually says more about them and what's important to them. The author above is saying female inclusion/exclusion is important to them. But whether or not females were actually excluded is another question altogether. Your comments say more about you than Judaism. Blood is important to you. You can bathe in Jesus' blood day and night if it makes you happy. You're not wrong that it's significant, but it's not what you think it is. Blood is used to annoint, to select, to seperate. It's gevurah, John. Pure gevurah. That's the connection you're looking for. Christ = Annointed = Blood = Gevurah. Literally. It's written he came to divide, to bring the sword, to seperate the chaff from the wheat, to judge and judge harshly.

Given that, why in the world would blood be included in binding, John? Binding the Torah, binding the child to the community, binding the child to the Torah, binding spouse to spouse in marriage? Answer: it wouldn't. Blood is not included in any of those things. The nephesh is in the blood. The blood is a container for the nephesh. And the body is a container for the blood. And blood fills the body every part of it. Blood is what seperates, and divides. Yes a part of it is "soul" itself, but it is the dividing power of it. From a physiological perspective it's what causes the heart to beat and the lungs to breath, and the eyes to dialate. All of those autonomous cyclic functions, expand/contract, dialate/squint, perspire/goose-bumps, sleep/wake circadian rythms.

That's what's represented by blood. It has no place at a wedding, or binding a torah scroll. But, joining the a covenant? OK, that kind of works. And when a parent or convert does the deed of circumcising there child or themself? Yeah, that's strict, and they have to seperate themselves from their protective impulses and think about what their child would want, or seperate themself from their own self-protective impulses.