From Vatican Insider, December 12:
Enea, the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development, has published a report on five years of experiments conducted in the ENEA center of Frascati on the “shroud-like coloring of linen fabrics by far ultraviolet radiation”. “Simply put: we tried to understand how the Shroud of Turin was imprinted by an image so special that it constitutes its charm, and poses a great and very radical challenge, "to identify the physical and chemical processes capable of generating a color similar to that of the image on the Shroud. "
In the following article will see how this research developed (the complete version can be found at this link: opac.bologna.enea.it/RT/2011/2011_14_ENEA.pdf ).
Full article: "The Shroud is not a fake" – Vatican Insider
From my perspective, this whole research has got way too much publicity when we look at what was achieved. And what was achieved ? They proved that UV lasers could make a superficial coloration on linen that LOOKED like the Shroud (the word “LOOKED” is important because the result wasn’t even 100% like the Shroud colored fibers and remember also that this result hasn’t been confirmed by some independent researchers as well).
So, they proved that UV laser could make a superficial coloration on linen fibers. That’s all. Big deal !!!
So what ???
That is a big deal Yannick; They have proved it can be done and it is POSSIBLE. Maybe they have not matched the colour exactly but with further tinkering, who knows?. I do agree with you in that I wish this kind of information could not go public until atleast being reviewed by other researchers.
Instead of ridiculing this news you should be glad that someone atleast is doing some research lol, I don’t see too many new reports of studies coming out as of late.
I’m not ridiculing this research (even if I think they look in a wrong direction), but I’m ridiculing the fact that some people make such a big deal of the findings that were reported so far. That’s all. ;-)
And for the fact that someone is doing some research, fine, but at the same time, I would like to see some researches like that being done to test (or retest) some natural hypothesis. I think researches like that would be more interesting (that’s my personal feeling).
To conclude on this topic, I see a great danger in the kind of research being done in Frascati and it is that those result could be misinterpreted to serve the goal of some agenda driven people like you know who… People who desperately want to prove the resurrection while using the Shroud. I just cannot stand this kind of (not so) hidden goal.
I would like to see ANY and ALL types of research period. As I believe research for whatever cause: natural or not, if done truthfully is good for everyone. Remember in the whole history of science, most ‘discoveries’ were by accident when researching something other then the find. We can only hope that if such a discovery is made, whomever finds it and even if it opposes their perspective or agenda, that they are truthful enough to still put it forth.
Unfortunatelly, the seek of truth is not always what motivate people in Shroud science ! But nevertheless, I agree with all you just said.
Creo que Yannick NO ENTIENDE el interés del experimento del ENEA.
Supongamos que la fibrilla del lino sea un cilindro.
En un corte transversal distinguiríamos su CIRCUNFERENCIA y su SUPERFICIE o AREA.
Rogers suponía que cualquier radiación que afectara, por ejemplo, a la SEMICIRCUNFERENCIA del cilindro tendría forzosamente que afectar a la SEMISUPERFICIE correspondiente del cilindro.
Si la radiación afectaba a parte de la superficie de la fibra del lino, la radiación tendría que penetrar forzosamente en la médula del lino, y eso NO sucedía.
Rogers se equivocaba.
El experimento del ENEA ha demostrado que con determinados parámetros, una radiación UV pueden afectar la superficie de la fibrilla del lino SIN afectar la médula.
co’s comment translated into English by Google:
I think Yannick does not understand the interest of ENEA experiment.
Suppose that the fibril of linen is a cylinder.
Distinguish in cross section and circumference surface or area.
Rogers assumed that any radiation affecting, for example, the semi-circumference of the cylinder which would inevitably affect the SEMISUPERFICIE corresponding cylinder.
If the radiation affects the surface of the flax fiber, the radiation would necessarily enter into the heart of the flax, and we did not.
Rogers was wrong.
The ENEA experiment has shown that certain parameters, UV radiation can affect the surface of the fibril of linen without affecting the core.
And where is the INDEPENDENT confirmation of this finding ??? I’m still waiting… When I first ear about this news some years ago, I was interested. But then, I learn who was behind those researches (Fanti) and I immediately lose every interest in it. Agenda driven land.
Thanks for the translation Dan. Always interested in Co’s comments.
[Confidential information removed]
We need to look at more than just color closeness. We need to look at the components of the color at a molecular level. It is certainly a complex resonating chromophore output. So how close the color looks makes no difference. That work has not been done that I know of. [Confidential information removed]
Talking about chromophore, it is really interesting to note that Fanti have change his mind about the image chromophore while he was doing thos UV experiments with Di Lazarro ! In the list of facts published in 2005 in Dallas (a list written mainly by himself by the way), he seemed that he was accepting Rogers hypothesis about the thin impurity layer that would probably be the image chromophore. But while he was performing those UV experiments with Di Lazarro and Al., he suddenly changed his mind about that and published an article that claim that the chromophore must be the primary cell wall of the linen fiber instead of a thin layer of impurity proposed by Rogers. Don’t you think, like me, that all this is pretty shady ??? Would it be that M. Fanti found out that those experiments worked better on the primary cell wall of the linen fibers and since it was the case, he now claim that this primary cell wall MUST be the chromophore for the image ??? You see what I mean ? Here, I want to specify that it’s not an accusation (because I don’t know the real answers) but I think those questions are important to ask. At the very least, this acting of M. Fanti in the last couple of years is pretty shady… That’s my perception.
The comment above by IMPMAN has been edited to remove some confidential information.
The big problem with this experiment is that they don’t used a linen sample that is prepared the way ancient linen was prepared according to Pliny the Elder (ref : Rogers book). If they used modern linen, it’s like comparing apples with oranges. They must do this experiment on ancient style linen that have some sugar impurities deposit at the surface of the fibers, just like it was probably the case for the Shroud… Anyway, if Jesus was shooting some UV light with lasers during his resurrection, Fanti, Di Lazarro and Al. could not scientifically explain how in the world it would create a body image frontal and dorsal with a real spatial information like the Shroud. For example, why the UV light would have stop changing the fibers color at more or less 4 cm from the body ??? Why it would have affected more fibers by square inches at 0 cm than at 2 cm (with a proportionnal decrease in the number of affected fibers) ??? If the body of Jesus would have become a laser like that during resurrection, I would not expect the formation of a 3D image but of a ghostly figure that have all the fibers or so colored no matter if the distance is 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 cm, etc. If the UV light was able to color some fibers at 4 cm, why not at 5 cm ??? I just don’t understand why a UV laser shooting his light with the same power from every part of the body would act like that and produce images like the ones on the Shroud that contains 3D properties.
I am 100 % with u Yannick.
Rogers was wrong in referencing Pliny. He never did describe how linen was made as Rogers reports it in his book. Really! I have repeated Rogers’ claim in the past but no one has been able to find the reference. Other than that, Rogers seems to be right and certainly there seems to be an impurity layer of starch and saccarides even if we don’t know for sure what it is.
And how about that : http://shroud.com/pdfs/ancient%20bleaching%20citations.pdf
Also, it’s not because there’s not a perfect match citation found that linen cloth were not done the way Rogers describe it ! Rogers said he read it in an old encyclopedia. I trust him on that because he worked over the years with specialists in old textile and he report that in his book. Rogers never invent this impurity layer… It came to him as an evidence when he learned how ancient linen were done. Dan you say that there’s nothing wrong with those laser experiments. I disagree a bit with you because I don’t think their methodology is correct. If they don’t do their test on linen sample done exactly like the Shroud was done, I repeat, it’s like comparing apples with oranges…
In the most likely hypothesis the Shroud man is Rabbi Yeshua, Di Lazzaro should better reread the Gospels. There are a few cases of raisings from the dead in it. Had he read John’s Gospel, he would have also known Yeshua’s corpse was “tigthly wrapped” in linen sheets not just draped over…
How can you say ‘for sure’ that the corpse was “tightly wrapped”? Because the scriptures say he was buried according to Jewish customs? …Sorry but that is nonsense. Unless one of us was there and witnessed the ordeal we can only speculate on details such as that. He may have been wrapped, as shown by the details on the Shroud but “tightly” is speculation and goes against the evidence shown by the Shroud details.
What I am writing is “no sense”… is it really? Ron, have you ever read the Greek version of John’s gospel and more particularly, John 19:40?
STURP (Jackson and Al.) and Mario Latendresse’s articles tend more to a non wrapped shroud put loosely over the body… And I believe there’s enough evidences on the Shroud to say that there’s a good probability that effectively, the Shroud was never tied up with linen strips during the “partial” burial rite on friday. That make plenty of sense that they didn’t tied up the Shroud because they knew full well that they would have to come back to the tomb on sunday morning to anoint the body. So, in this context, why attach the Shroud ? A Shroud loosely draped over the body is more logic in the context of a partially done burial rite and that seem to be the most probable conclusion reached by the specialists. Of course, it’s just a probability but it make sense…
Maria of Magadla mistook Yeshua, “her master” not for a messenger from heaven but for…a mere gardener.
The Shroud man image was recorded during the burial ritual (the drying up). Neither before nor after.
Do you just make up this stuff?
Just try to get yourself informed about Judean/Jewish funeral practices before passing any more comments on this, PLEASE
I think he does and I think he is also assuming the burial ritual was completed on the Friday.
Di Lazzaro is totally off track. Roger is right to a certain extent.
In the context of a Judean burial, both Rabbi’s excessive sweating and bleeding HAD to be dried up and his shed innocent blood purified.
All the more so as Yeshua’s shed innocent blood could not be atoned for.
Yeshua’s burial linens were kept by Judean Christians because the linens had been purified during the burial ritual.
…and also beacause Rabbi Yeshua had raised from the dead according to the same early Judean Christians…
If Dan did, how come then he just ignores “the drying up” which is part and parcel of a Judean/Jewish burial (the body of the Judean/Jewish defunct HAS TO BE DRY).
Max, many many shroud researchers have. It is just that nobody agrees with you. But you could try to explain rather than just posturing.
Max, you have no idea what science is all about.
Dan, you wrote about pareidolia WIThOUT even knowing about negative optical illusions! Now you are telling me I HAVE NO idea what Science is all about? I definitely have not the same NOTION of what SCIENCE is all about. That’s all. What is/or was your job, Dan? Can you tell me? Are you a scientist to be so sure of what Science is all about?
Can any body talk about Rabbi Yeshua’s burial WITHOUT even taking into account the Judean/jewish funerary practice? It does seem you and many researchers can. Is it science as you mean it, Dan?
Yannick, you wrote, “Dan you say that there’s nothing wrong with those laser experiments. I disagree a bit with you because I don’t think their methodology is correct. If they don’t do their test on linen sample done exactly like the Shroud was done, I repeat, it’s like comparing apples with oranges…”
I stand corrected. You are right.
Yannick is definitely right in that aspect. May I add though, that point leads to the most likely avenue or logical next step that MUST be taken in the further studies/experiments. But personally, I think it would be fruitless and the results still questionable, as we do not know the exact method in which the Shroud was prepared. There are too many variables. But repeating the experiment on linen prepared as closely as we can mimic the original could bring us closer to the truth of the matter.
I agree totally with you Ron, especially on the fact that there’s a lot of missing data about the Shroud ! It’s pretty hard to any sample testing it this context…
I get some error in my comment, so I’ll write it again : I agree totally with you Ron, especially on the fact that there’s a lot of missing data about the Shroud ! It’s pretty hard to do any sample testing in this context…
This was a very good comment by Yannick. Common sense is here more than ever needed along with a scientific and archaeological approach.
No I haven’t, have you? and if you have why don’t you give us “your interpretation” of it? But you know what?, …it’ll still be an interpretation, nothing more!….I’ll have my daughter interpret the passage for me as she lives in Greece and has studied ancient Greek since childhood…can you direct me to the exact Greek version of scripture you talk of, please?…
But in the same course you are assuming the body needed drying hense with the spices? Have you ever thought in your calculations that maybe the body would already be dry before being wrapped? The body did hang on the cross and then lie on the ground, outside, in the air for atleast 2 hours before being wrapped!…Remember that all aspects/scenarios must be examined before coming to conclusions.
I have many versions of the Gospels (in French, English, Latin, Greek and even one in Biblical Hebrew retroversion). I read them all.The real “non sense’ is to talk (like you do/did) without having even read the Greek version of John 19:40.
Greek words do have a meaning in Greek!
Ron you write: “The body did hang on the cross and then lie on the ground, outside, in the air for atleast 2 hours before being wrapped!… How can you be so sure the body was left outside on the ground in the air for at least 2 hours?
The antechamber of Rabbi’ Yeshua’s tomb was used as a shelter nearby for his body. To think Yeshu’a body was just left unattended “li[ying] on the ground OUTSIDE, IN THE AIR for at least 2 hours” is just “one” forensic interpretation which has not been confirmed yet by any other independant medical examinantion.
John wrote (19:40) Yeshua’s body was “fastened/tightly wrapped into linens”. John is a far reliable witness of the event than you Ron, don’t you think so?
The Shroud image does prove the blood was either fresh or remoistened.
Ron, don’t you think you are FAR MORE SPECULATIVE that you think I am?
Should I repeat here: The Shroud Man image formation process is due to a “contact & gradual loss of contact mecanism” (actually a physico-chemical mecanism).
The body was first tightly wrapped up and then the tightly fit inner linen shroud soaked with purifying waters gradually loosened once subjected to a myrrhoaleotic fumigation (purification of the shed innocent blood + drying up to have the blood buried with the body, see the 6 last pages of my Torun paper as a postlogic implication).
Hyperthermia of the body, though not a must, should not be excluded.
I’ve read only the English version, thanks. So what if you’ve read it in French, Latin etc; What possible difference would that make? You still haven’t posted the exact Greek reference I asked for. I’m perfectly aware that Greek words can have their own meanings, that doesn’t take an expert to know! That is why I asked you for the reference, so I can get my own expert to read and interpret it for me and to see if your argument bears any weight.
No, I don’t think I’m being anymore speculative then you at all, far less actually. My point was basically there can be different scenarios and all must be studied. My speculation of the ‘time’ in which Jesus was outside in the air ‘drying’ comes both from evidence in the scriptures and also from the complete studies on the Sudarium of Oviedo…and Yours? But unlike you, I don’t assume it’s the only possible explanation…Also I can only propose it was more likely the body was remoistened by some means or action.
I don’t claim to be an expert, but still, my ‘simpleton’ mind can see several serious problems with your hypothesis (from what you mention), on the image formation. We still wait for your 6 pages from the Torun paper also.
Firstly, I do know about the Oviedo studies, thanks. How do they know the body was outside the antechamber of the tomb for two hours and not already inside? Can they prove it? I wrote a paper (IIIrd Turin international Shroud Congress, 1998) about the most likely burial time frame. Have you read it? It is in French. Can you read French?
Secondly, I have already mentioned twice the reference to you: John 19:40 (Greek version). Are you a dummy, Ron? Cannot you look up by yourself? How old are you? Before your last comments, I had a higher idea of your intellect.
Thirdly, I already e-mailed Dan the six first pages of my Torun paper Ask him why he has not published them yet. I DID GIVE HIM MY PERMISSION. Once he has them published on his blog I would send him the six last pages. I reserve the very core of my Torun paper to Alexander Stramsky, conference secretary
Fourthly, you may see several problems with my hypothesis just because biased observations and half truths about the Turin Shroud are still mistaken for facts or other facts simply misunderstood.
Fifthly, have you Ron a best scenario to explain the Shroud image formation. I am very eager to read it.
Just from the first question you ask above, about the research on the Sudarium, I am convinced you DON’T know the studies done on the Sudarium WELL, or if at all or you wouldn’t ask such a question. Secondly, scriptures alone give us a good idea that Jesus remained on or near the cross pretty close to sundown, hense the mention of the hurried entombment…
I don’t read French, so what are you implying?…That I should? I could search all the versions of that reference but I thought it might be prudent if you were to post your exact version yourself, so there would be no dispute over the version…afraid of something here Max?
I can’t say anything about your paper situation with Dan, that’s out of my hands.
Biased observations and half truths? Please explain that comment Max.
I think I’ve made it very clear on here (this blog), several times, what my believe is when it comes to the Image formation, but I don’t claim to be able to explain it’s scientificly.
I’m sorry I have deminished my standing with you Max, that is unfortunate.
Sorry line above should read as; but I don’t claim to be able to explain it scientifically.
Nobody can… at least for the moment ! ;-)
Ron you write: “I’m sorry I have deminished my standing with you Max, that is unfortunate.
“Ron, dont you take it too seriously, I am just overdoing it!
Ron, in terms of speculations on “air”, you are definitely more speculative than I am…
How so? Scriptures tell us Jesus died on the cross shortly after the 9th hour, after this (nearing the evening~12th hour) Joseph went to get permission from Pilate to retrieve the body. That is written quite clear in scriptures and means atleast 2 or, possibly close to 3 hours had passed before they retrieved the body and he was entombed….Thats an easy 2+ hours his naked body was out in the elements. More then enough time for the body to dry. I DON’T SEE MUCH ROOM FOR SPECULATION THERE!…less your going to try to tell me atmospheric conditions were not conducive to a sweaty, bloody body drying?, whereas, we must remember this was in early April where temps in Jerusalem get quite cool and breezy.
First read my 1998 Turin paper before being so sure of your exegetical analysis. How are you so sure what you have just written is not FIRST AND FOREMOST an interpretation? In which language are you reading the relevant text? When it comes to translation from one language into another language, have you ever heard of “entropy”? Were you there when Rabbi Yeshua got buried? Have you ever thought the body might well have been put rapidly to shelter just because of the chamsin wind blowing in Jerusalem on that day in spring etc.
YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY JUST TOO BLIND TO SEE HOW SPECULATIVE YOU ARE.
Ron, I agree to a certain extend with your reasonning but you forget one possibility : the rain ! The corpse could have been exposed to some rain between the moment of death and the moment he was put into the Shroud… We cannot completely forget this possibility. As I said often, there’s so much data that we don’t know about the Shroud that finding the correct “chemical recipe” will be VERY HARD and maybe impossible…
You just missed the irony of my question.
Before asseritng “Jesus” remained on or near the cross pretty close to sundown, PLEASE, read my 1998 Turin paper.
There were two nights in a day on that very day. Cannot you read!
Actually, there were two nights and two days on that very day. This particular event does fit with Rabbi’s Yeshua’s “Sign of Yonah”. Cannot you understand?
I am oK to send my 1998 Turin paper. However I have no time to translate it into English. All the more so as I am still looking for an openminded British native speaker, familiar with Shroud literature of all persuasion who could language edit my 2011 Torun paper before I send it to be peer reviewed by three archaeologists (among whom a numimastist scholar) and two Computer Science experts.
That’s a pretty strong statement there Max, and I can just as easily say the same about you! I think most here would also agree with me…Why don’t you post your 1998 Turin paper and in English? I can’t seem to find it anywhere on the internet, just references to it, just a link would suffice!
Anyhow, I’ve got to ask; How possibly could you believe your ‘Interpretation’ of your Greek ‘relevant’ text is anymore relevant then anyother text, seriously! …If you really want to prove your point here Max, you would put forth your paper and let us all see if there’s anything to what you say. Oh almost forgot, Were you actually there at the burial Max? Your going to tell us that scriptures, as we read them today, are so far off from the originals in interpretation that everyone has it wrong? You have proof that Jesus, immediately after death was taken from the cross, covered and then immediately taken to the Tomb? …I gotta read this paper!
Once more Greek words do have a meaning in Greek.Just ask late antique koine Greek best specialists about John 19:40 (Greek version). In John’s gospel, Rabbi Yeshua’s body was not just draped over or even wrapped, but “fastened/tightly wrapped”. Therefore, allow me to agree with late antique koine Greek not with you, Ron.
How come you say “my interpretation” is NON-SENSE? Once more I am asking you.
correction: Therefore, Ron, allow me to agree with late antique koine Greek SPECIALISTS not with you.
John was there not me. Just guess what he wrote…
You do realize Max that no early Koine Greek text (papyri) exist of the New Testament….Right? Any version of koine existing today would be an interpretation twice over!! Koine existed for 600 years with several dialects, even one with a mixture of Aramaic (most probable dialect used by the original Gospel writers). Also although you make a strong statement by saying “antique koine Greek specialists” it is well known that even the experts are confused with the Koine syntex and with other difficulties. Even the experts must choose their own interpretation of Koine Greek words. So not so simple is it Max? …that is why I say your comment was nonsense.
What rain do you talk of Yannick? Scriptures do not mention any rain that day whatsoever, just darkness! Amongst other things such as wind, an earthquake etc; depends on which Gospel you read,…but no rain. Infact if I remember correctly the sun came out after the 9th hour. I think it unlikely any of the narratives would leave out a detail as dramatic as rain, don’t you?
ON “JESUS”‘ BURIAL DAY, what earthquake do you talk, Ron?
It’s mentioned in scriptures Max. look it up.
In the 4 gospels relating Rabbi Yeshua’s crucifixion, only Matthew’s gospel mentions an earthquake. Matter of fact, he just used here a literay device (called dramatic emphasis) and combined Rabbi Yeshua’s crucifixion day with his ressurrection day. Neither Mark/Peter, Luke or John mentioned any EARTHQUAKE on that very day!
Ron, you better stop believing in Wikipedia!
Too bad you cannot discriminate between a literary device and more reliable written testimonies.
The Khamsin or chamsin is also called “The black breath” (of the desert of Judeah). It is a dry, dusty wind which plunged the city of Jerusalem into darkness on Rabbi Yeshua’s crucifixion. Hope the information is useful to you Ron so as you could start getting a CLEARER picture of it all…
Rabbi Yeshua’s body HAD TO BE DRIED UP just because his shed innocent blood had to be purified (his Shroud or inner linen sheet had been soaked with purifying waters so that his blood could also be kept with his body). Have you ever heard of the Halakha, Ron? Do you really think you or any serious researchers can keep neglecting ritual data just because they do not fit in your pseudo-intellectual reconstruction of the event?
Yes Max it is Talmud, AND actually, it is also an ‘interpretation’ of the laws of scriptures LOL.
I do have some very close Jewish friends Max. ;-)
Max it is not my reconstruction of events, it is of scriptures. I don’t think anyone is neglecting ritual, but I think it’s understood that it was not completed and I have a strong feeling in your mind you think it was completed, whereas scriptures clearly state it was not. Hense the woman returning on the first day of the week.
Or else, is the khamsin still blowing on Chrsitian exegesis?
Where do you get this stuff?
Ron, YOUR IGNORANCE just baffles me! Just because you just never have heard of it, it just cannot be! The Khamsin wind does blow in your mind, my ignorant friend!
…Much more so than it ever blows in Spring in Jerusalem!
The point is not that I haven’t heard of theses winds, or whether they exist, but where do you get the idea that they were present on the day Jesus was crucifed? Where are they mentioned in scriptures?
…Again; Where do you get this stuff?
IT JUST SHOWS HOW IGNORANT YOU REALLY ARE, RON. Ever heard of text genetic?
The Koine Greek used in the Gospel is 1st century. It is specific of translators translating from Hebrew and/or Aramaic into more or less hebraicized or aramaicized Greek. Just ask serious specialists…if you know any. Ever heard of text archeaology?
OMG and your calling me ignorant?? In your statement alone you state Koine as we read it today has been translated twice over, (It’s actually probably more), yet you still believe it’s interpretation can be flawless. LOL Max…think about it.
And how can you be so sure the Koine Greek IS first century dialect? When there is absolutely no trace of 1st century Koine writings in existence?….none Max, there are some writings from 300-100BC old testiment. But nothing from the 1st century or that particular dialect as of yet to be been found.
So, how do you read/understand John 19:40, RON? Give me “your interpretation”, “Your translation”! Justify your choice PLEASE since mine in NON SENSE!
Can you prove your interpretation/translation of John 19:40 is RIGHT and mine is just NON SENSE, or can’t you, Ron?
No I can’t just as you cannot prove yours is correct and mine is wrong. The difference my friend Max? You claim your interpretation IS correct. Or you believe so in your mind. My use of the word nonsense stems from this errogence you have that your correct and anyother interpretation is wrong.
IN case you just cannot, it just would just prove you are A DUMMY!
Sorry typo error above should read; ARROGANCE!
Ron, YOU WROTE: “How can you say ‘for sure’ that the corpse was “tightly wrapped”? Because the scriptures say he was buried according to Jewish customs? …Sorry but that is nonsense.”
Actually, I just said “Rabbi Yeshua’s corpse was “TIGHLTY WRAPPED” into the linen sheets because the Greek word used by John (JN 19:10) “déo” DOES MEAN “tighly wrapped/fastened” (any serious exegetical experts knows it). Period.
Who is NON SENSICAL here Ron? YOU!
Now when you told me “that is non sense”. Who do you think is arrogant here? YOU! All the more so as YOU HAVE NO ENOUGH KNOWLEDGE TO BE ARROGANT, RON which means YOU ARE DOUBLY ARROGANT here.
I am quite conscious I MAY Have LOOKED ARROGANT (actually I just overdo it) with PEOPLE LIKE YOU RON WHO ARE DOUBLY ARROGANT as they are both IGNORANT AND ARROGANT
At times ALLOW ME to have the feeling to give my pearls to…DUMMIES.
You can keep your pearls Max, hold them, play with them, I don’t care. But keep them!
Sorry typo error above should read: John (Jn 19:40)
More correction: ..At times ALLOW me to have the feeling I am;giving my pearls to… DUMMIES
Sorry typo error should read: The Greek verb “déo” DOES MEAN “To tightly wrap/fasten”
Sorry RON, you are wRONg!
Now who’s the child here?
Ron you aslo wrote: “The point is not that I haven’t heard of theses winds, or whether they exist, but where do you get the idea that they were present on the day Jesus was crucifed? Where are they mentioned in scriptures?
…Again; Where do you get this stuff?”
How then do you explain the following line in the Gospels: “Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour…”?
I personnaly lived twice through a similar experience (“the Black Breath” of the desert). It was in the Middle and Near East….
Still not getting it, Ron?
Well Max there’s several things that could cause ‘darkness over the land’ but like all things we’ve talked about here; It’s speculation if one assumes a cause, sure what you say ‘could’ be one cause but so could just heavy dark clouds. Point is it’s just conjecture at this point….Get it?
…or still sticking to your aged old pseudo exegesis?
Ron, as a Christian, have you ever read the Gospels or haven’t you? As a free thinker, I have (and more than once in different versions).
Since childhood Max, and you?
Was it a ready-to-think version?
Ron, are you free to think or are you jsut religiously prejudiced?
Well Max, I freely thought it over and I’ve come to the conclusion that; I am a free thinker and I freely think I’ll stay scripturally prejudiced!!….and…
I freely think this conversation, is over.
Thanks for the debate, Max.
You are free to be wRONg RON and still not admit it (John used the Greek verb “déo” meaning “to tightly wrap/fasten” (19:40). THIS IS NOT NON SENSE as you called it. This A FACT). Too bad you can discriminate between Fact and YOUR fiction.
See Max that’s what I mean about you being arrogant. The word “deo” has also been translated as “bound” or even “wound”. Bound or TO BIND being the most ‘preferred’ reading by experts. As for your interpretation; It has been translated as “fasten” or “wrapped”, but I have never seen “tightly” being in the translation, from what I have studied.(This is not fiction!) …AND that FACT, again, strengthens my point that even where ever you perceived your interpretation, it is still an INTERPRETATION.
Still waiting for those papers Max.
You better look up in a late ancient Greek dictionary, Ron. There are more than you know in it.
By the way to be BOUND in linen sheet DOES NOT MEAN just to be draped over or even wrapped. YOU TOLD “my interpretation” WAS just NON SENSE. I am still waiting for you to justify SUCH AN ARROGANT COMMENT OF YOURS.
Because you have not seen the word “tightly” being in the translation, you just cannot think BY/FOR yourselk it may be IMPLIED in the Greek verd “déo”. Do yo REALLY think BY YOURSELF, Ron. I very much doubt it!
Are you used just to bind loosely, Ron?
I am just wondering what you really mean by CLEARLY…. I just think you are ignorant of the Judean burial pratice of the Second Temple period. Period.
Comments are closed.