53:9: Isaiah Prophesies the Shroud of Turin.

[John D. Brey]

As a supposed Christian this is a sin that you should try to avoid.

" . . . Is there no manual that tells me that as a Marine, or a Christian, one of my duties is to take marching orders from Subduction Zone"?



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

" . . . Is there no manual that tells me that as a Marine, or a Christian, one of my duties is take marching orders from Subduction Zone"?



John

It is dishonest to misrepresent your opponents argument.

Why are you afraid? That is the act of someone that knows that he is wrong.

 

[John D. Brey]

It is dishonest to misrepresent your opponents argument.

. . . I must have misread your argument. As I read it it sounded less like an argument, or premise, and more like a dogmatic statement.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

Isaiah 53:9 doesn't mention any shroud let alone the known fake shroud of Turin in my opinion.

In the English interpretation of the Hebrew text the shroud isn't mentioned since 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). A "shrine" is a place where people come to worship or pray to a deity, some element of the deity, some relic representing the deity, acting as the heart and soul of the shrine, as that which draws the faithful to its location. To date millions upon millions of persons have come to view the Shroud of Turin, pray in its presence, and view the relic of divinity on it that wasn't made by human hands. It's undeniably a shrine whether or not there's any legitimacy to the relic of divinity found on the shrine. So when Isaiah claims the "grave" קבר of the servant in the cross hairs will become a "shrine" במתיו ---the Shroud of Turin fits the bill remarkably well.

Nevertheless the the chapter that precedes Isaiah 53 (i.e., chapter 52) emphatically pre-seeds the idea that the suffering servant's grave becomes a "shrine." The KJV reads:

The Lord hath made bare חשף his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations גוים; And all the ends of the earth shall see ראו the salvation ישועת of our God.​

​

Isaiah 52:10​

There are a couple fairly transparent statements in the verse above that lend themselves to the exegesis in the cross hairs of this thread. The Lord has (or will, in the prophetic perfect tense/sense) make naked חשף his "holy arm" (the arm that accomplishes his will, i.e., the suffering servant). Isagogically, which is to say in the time of writing, the word "arm" זרוע was a metaphor for the power through which an act or event is affected. In this case, the suffering servant is the "arm" or power through which the Lord will accomplish the "salvation" that's in the cross hairs of the two chapters.

The verse claims the "arm" of the Lord, i.e., the suffering servant, will be naked before ---get this --- all כל the nations גוים of the entire world (all the ends of the earth shall see this suffering servant naked). Not, mind you, just Jerusalem, Palestine, Greece, Rome, etc.. Everyone on the planet can log onto Google and see the "arm" of the Lord naked. Literally naked. Per the literal text.

But it gets worse for the unbelieving since the text doesn't stop at telling us all the world will see the naked power/arm of the Lord (the naked body/image on the shrine/shroud). The verse proffering all this information says something dramatic. It gives the name of the naked body found on the shrine/shroud. Verse 10 of Isaiah 52 say the name of the personage found naked on the shroud that can be viewed anywhere in the world to the ends of the earth is "Jesus" ישוע. The name of the salvific arm of the Lord spoken of in Isaiah 52:10 is "Jesus" ישוע which is the Hebrew word for "salvation."

The person on the Shroud of Turin was given a name at his birth, a name he was called even by those who rejected his claim to being the "arm of the Lord." That name was ישוע (Jesus). And that's the name Isaiah 52:10 says will be given to the naked body of the suffering servant spoken of in Isaiah 52 and 53, a suffering servant mind you, whose naked body can be, and will be, viewed by every nation on the planet.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

. . . I must have misread your argument. As I read it it sounded less like an argument, or premise, and more like a dogmatic statement.



John

It was none of those. It was a correction. when a person is not being an honest interlocutor and abusing their own holy book it is best to set them straight. Many of the so called prophecies of the Bible are not prophecies at all. Read them in context. See what the author meant. It is improper to add one's own personal meaning to verses taken out of context.

 

[Subduction Zone]

In the English interpretation of the Hebrew text the shroud isn't mentioned since 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). A "shrine" is a place where people come to worship or pray to a deity, some element of the deity, some relic representing the deity, acting as the heart and soul of the shrine, as that which draws the faithful to its location. To date millions upon millions of persons have come to view the Shroud of Turin, pray in its presence, and view the relic of divinity on it that wasn't made by human hands. It's undeniably a shrine whether or not there's any legitimacy to the relic of divinity found on the shrine. So when Isaiah claims the "grave" קבר of the servant in the cross hairs will become a "shrine" במתיו ---the Shroud of Turin fits the bill remarkably well.

Nevertheless the the chapter that precedes Isaiah 53 (i.e., chapter 52) emphatically pre-seeds the idea that the suffering servant's grave becomes a "shrine." The KJV reads:

The Lord hath made bare חשף his holy arm in the eyes of all the nations גוים; And all the ends of the earth shall see ראו the salvation ישועת of our God.​

​

Isaiah 52:10​

There are a couple fairly transparent statements in the verse above that lend themselves to the exegesis in the cross hairs of this thread. The Lord has (or will, in the prophetic perfect tense/sense) make naked חשף his "holy arm" (the arm that accomplishes his will, i.e., the suffering servant). Isagogically, which is to say in the time of writing, the word "arm" זרוע was a metaphor for the power through which a act or event is affected. In this case, the suffering servant is the "arm" or power through which the Lord will accomplish the "salvation" that's in the cross hairs of the two chapters.

The verse claims the "arm" of the Lord, i.e., the suffering servant, will be naked before ---get this --- all כל the nations גוים of the entire world (all the ends of the earth shall see this suffering servant naked). Not, mind you, just Jerusalem, Palestine, Greece, Rome, etc.. Everyone on the planet can log onto Google and see the "arm" of the Lord naked. Literally naked. Per the literal text.

But it gets worse for the unbelieving since the text doesn't stop at telling us all the world with see the naked power/arm of the Lord (the naked body/image on the shrine/shroud). The verse proffering all this information says something dramatic. It gives the name of the naked body found on the shrine/shroud. Verse 10 of Isaiah 52 say the name of the personage found naked on the shroud that can be viewed anywhere in the world to the ends of the earth is Jesus ישוע. The name of the salvific arm of the Lord spoken of in Isaiah 52:10 is Jesus ישוע which is the Hebrew word for "salvation."

The person on the Shroud of Turin was given a name at his birth, a name he was called even by those who rejected his claim to being the "arm of the Lord." That name was ישוע (Jesus). And that's the name Isaiah 52:10 says will be given to the naked body of the suffering servant spoken of in Isaiah 52 and 53, a suffering servant mind you, whose naked body can be, and will be, viewed by every nation on the planet.



John

No, that is merely a massive reinterpretation. And such a statement is a tacit argument that the Bible is very weak. If the Bible's teachings were valid one would not need to go to such an extent in reinterpreting it. You actually harm Christianity when you do this. You confirm the lack of belief of non-Christians. This sort of nonsense only convinces those that already believe.

 

[John D. Brey]

It was none of those. It was a correction. when a person is not being an honest interlocutor and abusing their own holy book it is best to set them straight. Many of the so called prophecies of the Bible are not prophecies at all. Read them in context. See what the author meant. It is improper to add one's own personal meaning to verses taken out of context.

I plead the fifth, or guilty as charged, to using my own context to interpret the Bible rather than using yours. Shame on me. Bad John.




John

 

[John D. Brey]

No, that is merely a massive reinterpretation. And such a statement is a tacit argument that the Bible is very weak. If the Bible's teachings were valid one would not need to go to such an extent in reinterpreting it. You actually harm Christianity when you do this. You confirm the lack of belief of non-Christians. This sort of nonsense only convinces those that already believe.

Where I'm on the same sheet of music with you is your statement that if the Bible's teachings were valid one would not need to go to such an exaggerated extent in reinterpreting it and spending an immeasurable amount of time exegeting every jot and tittle. 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.

The Roman church, who were the guardians of the Bible, so hated John Wycliff for allowing people to read the Bible for themselves, that they found and dug up his body and burned the bones and scattered the ashes to the wind. That's the kind of hatred this world generates for those who are so arrogant as to believe that this world, this entire world system, is a sham and a cover-up biblical proportions.




John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where I'm on the same sheet of music with you is your statement that if the Bible's teachings were valid one would not need to go to such an exaggerated extent in reinterpreting it and spending an immeasurable amount of time exegeting every jot and tittle. 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.

The Roman church, who were the guardians of the Bible, so hated John Wycliff for allowing people to read the Bible for themselves, that they found and dug up his body and burned the bones and scattered the ashes to the wind. That's the kind of hatred this world generates for those who are so arrogant as to believe that this world, this entire world system, is a sham and a cover-up biblical proportions.




John

No, the world is not that bad. That is another false claim by the people that cannot defend their own religious beliefs. By almost every metric the world is getting better as humanity advances.

And yes, the Roman Catholics were far from perfect, but during and after the reformation the new Protestant churches were not much better. You can't excuse the flaws of your beliefs by pointing to another sect of Christianity.

There are still a lot of positive aspects of Christianity, but those that try to defend the faith as you are doing also tend to try to defend the errors in their faith. You should try to apply the ideals of Christianity to the Bible itself instead of trying to find "proof" or even evidence in it. I have never seen anyone do that successfully.

 

[John D. Brey]

There are still a lot of positive aspects of Christianity, but those that try to defend the faith as you are doing also tend to try to defend the errors in their faith.

Not everyone is so fortunate as to have you to lay out what are the errors of Christianity. We usually have to try to make determinations based on a lot of complicated issues. So it's nice to have someone who transcends mere opinion and bias and simply lays out the absolute errors of Christianity. . . If only you could have been around in Jesus' day things wouldn't have got so skewed in the first place.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not everyone is so fortunate as to have you to lay out what are the errors of Christianity. We usually have to try to make determinations based on a lot of complicated issues. So it's nice to have someone who transcends mere opinion and bias and simply lays out the absolute errors of Christianity. . . If only you could have been around in Jesus' day things wouldn't have got so skewed in the first place.



John

Oh my a weak attempt at sarcasm while having beliefs that simply invite sarcasm. How ironic!

And if one does not know of the endless errors in the Bible one can hardly claim to have studied or to understand the Bible.

 

[John D. Brey]

And if one does not know of the endless errors in the Bible one can hardly claim to have studied or to understand the Bible.

That sounds like a challenge I'm happy to take. You appear to be saying you've studied the Bible more than I. So in front of anyone reading this thread I challenge you to a duel. You give me an error in the Bible and I will show how easily it can be shot down in flames by anyone who has really studied the Bible.

Let the reader determine who between us has studied and or understood the Bible.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

That sounds like a challenge I'm happy to take. You appear to be saying you've studied the Bible more than I. So in front of anyone reading this thread I challenge you to a duel. You give me an error in the Bible and I will show how easily it can be shot down in flames by anyone who has really studied the Bible.

Let the reader determine who between us has studied and or understood the Bible.



John

I doubt if you can. Excuses are not "shooting down". You would have to be able to show that I was in error and not the Bible. I doubt if you can do that.

 

[John D. Brey]

The husband is obligated to bring himself to the wife. Please. I'm being very careful with my wording. The woman has NO obligation to the man. He brings himself to her. Literally, using biblical lingo, he comes to her. The conception is divine providence. Conception does not have anything to do with the status of the marriage. Tamar, I think, would be a good example of this. She was a wife and a widow multiple times without bearing children.

You say conception doesn't have anything to do with the status of the marriage. But then I would ask if conception has anything to do with the status of sex? Is the point of sex to be fruitful and multiply, or is it to have an orgasm, and if conception occurs then that's even better? Is there such a thing as sex in the Bible that's neither a sin, nor an intention to be fruitful and multiply? Is sex an activity in itself outside of adultery, fornication, prostitution, and getting pregnant? Is there a biblical purpose for marital sex outside of being fruitful and multiplying?

I'm not insinuating that the Bible is opposed to sexual pleasure between husband and wife, or sex to strengthen the bond, etc. I'm doubting that God instituted sex for any of those ancillary purposes (even if He's not opposed to them). Are there any verses in the Tanakh that can prove me wrong? Verses that command sex for any reason other than being fruitful and multiplying?

What's interesting about this is: at first you critisise watering it down, but then, the "marriage" is being watered down by considering it symbolic. Please see my next comments for an example of what I mean.

For me, watering it down means adding things to it that aren't biblical. Saying it's symbolic doesn't water it down so much as it neuters or spays it.

Well, that's really more of a comment on Boyarin and Handelman and others, not on "Jews". As I've noticed recently, and spoken of recently, people say things about Jews all the time, but when it's examined, they're not being accurate at all. What they're commenting on is: "this is important to me." But the "this" may or may not be actually what Jews do or don't do. It's just a thing that the person likes or doesn't like. And if you agree with them, then you're commenting on your values, your affinities and your aversions. It actually has nothing to do with Jews.

I can only speak for myself in saying that having wrestled with the nature of Jewish identity for a long time I've found elements of that identity that are utterly unique so far as anything I've encountered in any other ethnicity, or religious identity. In my personal encounter with my Jewish interlocutors these unique traits come up almost every time implying to me that they're not arbitrary or mere cultural phenomenon but are indeed ingrained traits which I find fascinating.

For the circumcision, it's an obligation on the parents or on the convert. The spiritual content is directed to the them.

Voila. Here's one of those strange and unique Jewish beliefs. I.e., that cutting flesh off an eight day old child is really about the parents and not the person who will probably receive the largest scar he will ever have on his body (or at least that's the case with many males, yours truly include) from his father (mohel or doctor) so that the father can receive some spiritual benefit at the cost of flesh and blood of his newborn son.

Don't think I'm being critical of brit milah. I'm not. I'm not even being critical of the idea that the spiritual content is for the parents and not the one whose flesh is in the cross-hairs of the blood-letting. I'm not being critical of anything. I'm pointing out that in my opinion many Jewish beliefs and practices transcend logic making it not just difficult for a Jew to argue or justify them to a non-Jew, but making it impossible.

Once it's accepted that there's a chasm between a Jew and a non-Jew that's likely impossible to breach, we enter into some really deep and problematic religious issues about a Jew's relationship to non-Jews.

So, if you or Boyarin or anyone are looking at the circumcised penis and expecting to... ahem.... size up whether there is something spiritual happening to it, the penis, you're looking in the wrong place. And this mistake, naturally, will lead to the miscomprehension about what the spiritual content is, and the mistake of thinking the physical deed isn't needed. Guess what? No way. There is no way to replicate what happens when a parent physically fulfills this commandment. Nothing. No mental or emotional meditation accomplishes the same thing. There is only 1 way to do it. And that goes double-triple for the convert.

This statement seems to speak of a unification of the mind and the body (or flesh and spirit) in a way that rejects the binary difference between mind and body.

Whereas Jesus claims it's enough just to lust after a woman (even if you don't do the deed), and Paul insinuates that faith transcends bodily works in a manner that makes the latter inconsequential so far as spiritual reality is concerned (Paul seems to exaggerate the mind body duality rather than unify the binary polarity), Jewish thought like your statement above seems to ignore the binary nature of body and mind, or fleshly vs. spiritual, so that you can't be spiritual if you're a sinner in the flesh (ala Paul's claim you can ---Romans chapter 7) and so you can't be a Jew and a Christian at the same time: the latter being a person who is a sinner and righteous at the same time since the righteousness isn't mixed or tainted with, by, the sinful flesh.

Unfortunately there's the Pauline paradox that if you can be a sinner in the flesh, and yet still be spiritual (in the spirit) since flesh and spirit are mutally exclusive, then in his own way he seems to be unifying the flesh and the spirit in the paradoxical sense that by being mutually exclusive, they can coexist perfectly somewhat parallel to the Jewish idea that collapses flesh and spirit, mental intention vs. actual action.

Untangling the difference between Paul's paradoxical unification through exclusivity, versus the Jewish idea of unification through rejection of "sin" as something that disqualifies unity between the flesh and the spirit would seemingly be profitable. Jesus and Paul's concept of "sin" (and thus Christianity's concept of "sin") is fundamentally different than the Jewish concept of sin.

What I'm saying is, the spiritual content is there in these actions, often automatically. But I don't think you know where to look nor would you recognize it because you're looking for something else. And when you claim it's missing, what you're actually saying is, "this spiritual aspect is important to me." And, you're probably right that these spiritual aspects ARE important. You're just looking for them in the wrong place.

Interesting. As a Christian, with a Christian concept of sin, I'm looking beyond the body contaminated with sin (the Christian belief) rather than looking, as a Jew might, through the body, in concert with the body, since the body is not bad, or contaminated, etc.. . . This idea of the body, world, god of this world, as bad, seems like the primary departure between Christian thought and Jewish thought. The Christian is in the body, and world, and under the authority of the god of the world, but is not of the world, of the body, or of the god of this world. That's a pretty giant chasm ----seemingly impossible to bridge ----between Christian thought and Jewish thought.

My belief is that it can be bridged without throwing either under the bus. I believe in one sense it's impossible, but in another sense that all things are possible with God. I don't think tearing the curtain of impossibility between Christianity and Judaism is like asking God to make a rock so big he can't lift it. I think the former is a heavy stone no doubt, but one that can be lifted.



John

 

[John D. Brey]

I doubt if you can. Excuses are not "shooting down". You would have to be able to show that I was in error and not the Bible. I doubt if you can do that.

It's impossible to show a person is in error if they refuse to accept it (which applies to me as much as anyone else). Which is why I said let the reader decide. If a majority agree that you're right and I'm wrong it doesn't mean I'll accept it for myself. But I will accept that that's the objective determination and live with it since I've no alternative.

There are no errors in the Bible. Knowing that forces a person to sharpen their thinking to a razor's edge so that they can understand how to rightly approach the word of God in a manner that can handle legitimate perceptions of error. If a person gets their thinking as sharp as a mohel's blade they can sometimes cut through "errors" that even serious minded persons considered intractably erroneous.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's impossible to show a person is in error if they refuse to accept it (which applies to me as much as anyone else). Which is why I said let the reader decide. If a majority agree that you're right and I'm wrong it doesn't mean I'll accept it for myself. But I will accept that that's the objective determination and live with it since I've no alternative.

There are no errors in the Bible. Knowing that forces a person to sharpen their thinking to a razor's edge so that they can understand how to rightly approach the word of God in a manner that can handle legitimate perceptions of error. If a person gets their thinking as sharp as a mohel's blade they can sometimes cut through "errors" that even serious minded persons considered intractably erroneous.



John

Then you just admitted defeat. You cannot refute any of my claims. At best you can only come up with half donkeyed excuses.

We could start with Genesis. We know that it is mythical at best. Do you believe that God is a liar? If you say that Genesis is historical then you are claiming that God is a liar.


But that is the Old Testament. Let's get into the new where right away Luke has a cockamamie Nativity myth, Matthews is not much better, but the time of birth between the two of them is off by ten years.

 

[John D. Brey]

Then you just admitted defeat. You cannot refute any of my claims. At best you can only come up with half donkeyed excuses.

We could start with Genesis. We know that it is mythical at best. Do you believe that God is a liar? If you say that Genesis is historical then you are claiming that God is a liar.


But that is the Old Testament. Let's get into the new where right away Luke has a cockamamie Nativity myth, Matthews is not much better, but the time of birth between the two of them is off by ten years.

Wow. It sucks for me that you win that easily. I throw in the towel after the first few minutes of the first round. Kind of like when Roberto Duran threw in the towel against Sugar Ray Leonard. "I quit" (no más).

These sorts of "errors" have sound answers all over the web now. Everyone can determine for themselves the legitimacy of the answers. Nothing I say will matter to a hill of beans to the hardened skeptic.

But I do lose fair and square with hardly a shot fired. The trophy is yours.

I'm tainted beyond hope: though he slay me yet will I trust in him. Though the Bible be a corrupted mess of lies, yet will I study it night and day, and, as Rabbi Hirsch implored me just last night when we communed, I must study it till the moment I drop dead, as I promised him I will follow him in doing. King David said trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding. He couldn't have known there'd come along a dope like me for whom such a thing would come so natural and easy as to take away all the value of it.

Forgive me brother. But what I am is God's fault. He made me so pathetic. I can shine your trophy with Brasso, but that's about it.



John

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then you just admitted defeat. You cannot refute any of my claims. At best you can only come up with half donkeyed excuses.

We could start with Genesis. We know that it is mythical at best. Do you believe that God is a liar? If you say that Genesis is historical then you are claiming that God is a liar.


But that is the Old Testament. Let's get into the new where right away Luke has a cockamamie Nativity myth, Matthews is not much better, but the time of birth between the two of them is off by ten years.

Wow. It sucks for me that you win that easily. I throw in the towel after the first few minutes of the first round. Kind of like when Roberto Duran threw in the towel against Sugar Ray Leonard. "I quit" (no más).

These sorts of "errors" have sound answers all over the web now. Everyone can determine for themselves the legitimacy of the answers. Nothing I say will matter to a hill of beans to the hardened skeptic.

But I do lose fair and square with hardly a shot fired. The trophy is yours.

I'm tainted beyond hope: though he slay me yet will I trust in him. Though the Bible be a corrupted mess of lies, yet will I study it night and day, and, as Rabbi Hirsch implored me just last night when we communed, I must study it till the moment I drop dead, as I promised him I will follow him in doing. King David said trust in the Lord with all your heart and lean not to your own understanding. He couldn't have known there'd come along a dope like me for whom such a thing would come so natural and easy as to take away all the value of it.

Forgive me brother. But what I am is God's fault. He made me so pathetic. I can shine your trophy with Brasso, but that's about it.



John

No, they have not been "answered". Dishonest answers, lies and out right idiocy do not count as refutations. If you want to refute a claim you need stronger evidence that is provided against you. When it comes to the flood myth, which is a scientific question, there is no scientific evidence for it and only scientific evidence against it. The same applies to the creation myths.

When it comes to the Nativity myths of the New Testament historic claims are made and history refutes those beliefs. Once again, the evidence for the Nativity myths are all against them. That is why all you have are excuses at best. And excuses are not refutations.

The Bible is vey unclear as to what the "Word of God" even is. You are at best making the error of interpreting poetic verses literally. If the Bible is to have any value it would be in the underlying message. Not in strict literalism.

You earlier put down the Roman Catholics, but they tend to realize that it is a mistake to try to take too much of the Bible literally.

 

[John D. Brey]

No, they have not been "answered". Dishonest answers, lies and out right idiocy do not count as refutations. If you want to refute a claim you need stronger evidence that is provided against you. When it comes to the flood myth, which is a scientific question, there is no scientific evidence for it and only scientific evidence against it. The same applies to the creation myths.

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

 

[John D. Brey]

The person on the Shroud of Turin was given a name at his birth, a name he was called even by those who rejected his claim to being the "arm of the Lord." That name was ישוע (Jesus). And that's the name Isaiah 52:10 says will be given to the naked body of the suffering servant spoken of in Isaiah 52 and 53, a suffering servant mind you, whose naked body can be, and will be, viewed by every nation on the planet.

Luke chapter 24 has a story about two travelers to Emmaus speaking among themselves concerning the recent crucifixion of Christ. As they walk and talk a stranger approaches them to share in their discussion of the events of the crucifixion they'd all witnessed. They ask him to dinner where they come to realize ---suddenly, for the first time ---- that their guest is none other than the risen Christ himself. It's precisely when their guest raises his hands to the table to grasp the bread that they come to see whom their guest is. For the first time they see the hands of the man who's going to break the bread such that something about his hands causes them to know without any doubt the identity of the person with whom they've shared the discourse concerning the crucifixion.

Can a woman fail to recognize her sucking child that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? Possibly. Nevertheless I will not forget you or mistake you in a crowd for they have graven you upon the palms of your hands.​

​

Isaiah 49:15-16.​

One of the things that anyone anywhere from the very ends of the earth can see on the Shroud of Turin is that the hands have been pierced or engraved. It's this unique element of the shroud that cries out המה concerning the identity of the person on the shroud.

An assembly of the wicked have enclosed me: They pierced my hands and my feet. . . They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will morn for him as one morns for an only child.​

​

Psalm 22:16; Zechariah 12:10.​

John