Why Jesus Fails to Qualify as Neither a Sacrifice or Messiah

I’ve listed below some of the reasons why Jesus fails to qualify as a sacrificial offering or as the Messiah / Christ. To get Jesus to a point where he can be both a human sacrifice and a retuning Messiah Warrior-King (as in the book of Revelation); the Jewish concepts of both Messiah and sacrifice had to be totally degraded and forcibly hooked together.
It‘s little wonder St. Paul states:

“For the message about the cross is nonsense to those who are being destroyed, but it is God's power to us who are being saved. … For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not know God, God was pleased to save those who believe through the nonsense of our preaching.” (1 Corinthians. 1: 18 & 21)

Reasons to reject Jesus as a sacrifice:

A. The Roman method of crucifixion, which included the beating Jesus received before he was nailed to the cross, was done by non-consecrated pagan gentile men who were not set apart as holy in God’s sight, but Jesus’ beating and crucifixion generally was not any different from the thousands the Romans had made examples out of earlier (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2: Ch.308; Philo Flacc 72: 84 -85).

B. No animal in the Hebrew Bible was tortured and made to suffer as an atonement to God. The animal was ritualistically sacrificed with a knife, thus it bled to death very quickly. Afterwards, its whole body was brunt or only its fat and organs were burnt with the sweet smell in the form of smoke of the burning flesh rising up to God.

By contrast, Jesus was purposely made to suffer under pagan gentile Roman law (not the under God’s law as found in Leviticus 1-18 (see Jacob Milgrom’s excellent article “Old Testament Sacrifices and Offering“, The Interpreter‘s Dictionary of the Bible: Supplementary Volume (Abingdon Press,1976)pp.763-771) and was neither quickly killed by proper bleeding nor was he burnt.

Even the innocent women, children and babies who were slain with the sword at Jericho and Ai died quickly and then were burnt so Yahweh could enjoy it. As such, Jesus’ death failed to qualify as a consecrated sacrifice under any of the Priestly laws of the Hebrew Bible. Again, since Jesus was not burnt as a human sacrifice as required in the Hebrew Bible, Yahweh (God ) not could feast upon the smell of the smoke. Instead, the God of the New Testament is pattern after patriarchal cycle of Abraham who must offer up his son Isaac.

C. No sacrificial animal, be it human or beast, could still be alive (resurrected) after the act of sacrifice and remain a true offering to God. Its life (as carried in the blood) wase sealed in death to God forever in the heavens by the rising smoke from the burning sacrifice.

F. No one single offering atoned once and for all the sins of the Jews much less those of the entire future world (contra Paul’s theology in Romans). That Jesus is said to be sinless is only a relevant truth: To the educated religious Jews; he was blasphemer. To the Christians; he was the sinless lamb of God.


The problem of Jesus bleeding to death as he was crucified between two criminals crucified the exactly same way caused medieval artists to paint these two men as only being tied to their crosses as contrast to Jesus who was nailed to his cross to leave no doubt that it was only Jesus who shed his blood for sin.

To Summarize:
First, the theology and concept of Jesus as a sacrifice to God to atone for all the world's sin is a totally a foreign and perverted concept to the Hebrew Torah.

Secondly, the concept that the Messiah would be a Warrior-King anointed by God to deliver Israel from foreign rule, plus return Israel to its eternal covenant with God was totally abused by Paul and the Gospel writers in order to force a false thesis or theology on to this famous Jewish apocalyptic ideal. This can be even more understood by the fact that it was in the Greek Hellenistic world where this new theology gained most of its following and where the people who accepted this deformed theology were first called Christians in Antioch: Greek Asia Minor.

In conclusion, the whole concept of Jesus as either a sacrifice or the Messiah is a total perversion of both historical Jewish concepts. It’s little wonder the disciples really never could figure out just who Jesus was or what he was up to.

By contrast, it was Paul, a man who most likely never saw or heard Jesus in the flesh, who systematized the theology of the early church in order to save it and make it function. Thus, no “Plain of Salvation” can be taught from the Synoptic Gospels, but certainly from Paul’s letters (especially his final account of Romans) that are load with a systematic theology of salvation.

33 comments:

Atheist943 said...

Great article.

As said before, "One need look no further than Jewish apologetics to understand why Jesus isn't the Messiah."

If Christianity is true (which I don't believe it is), then Josephus is in hell :(

Anonymous said...

Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah due to his uncertain and contradictory geneology.

Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah because his life did not fulfill messianic prophecy .

Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah because his alleged ministry violated Deut. 13:1 and because Jesus was a false prophet. See Matt 16:28, 24:34, 26:64, Mark 9:1, Mark 13:24-30, 14:62, Luke 21:32, John 21:22.

The believer has faith that the divine Yahweh said "But the prophet, which shall presume to speak a word in my name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, even that prophet shall die. And if thou say in thine heart, How shall we know the word which the LORD hath not spoken? When a prophet speaketh in the name of the LORD, if the thing follow not, nor come to pass, that is the thing which the LORD hath not spoken, but the prophet hath spoken it presumptuously: thou shalt not be afraid of him." (Deut. 18:20-22)

Believer, obey Yahweh; kill Jesus. Since Jesus is already dead or never even existed, then the next best thing would be to destroy (debunk) Christianity.

Harry H. McCall said...

And the whole congregation of Israel said: AMEN!

Anonymous said...

It may be debatable, but it seems that John 3:16 is the most famous verse in the New Testament.

John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

This may in part be a source of the idea of vicarious atonement. But in the context of Abrahamic faith, is the notion of vicarious atonement in accordance with the teaching of Yahweh through Moses?

Compare Exodus 32:31-33 "32:31 And Moses returned unto the LORD, and said, Oh, this people have sinned a great sin, and have made them gods of gold.
32:32 Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sin--; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of thy book which thou hast written.
32:33 And the LORD said unto Moses, Whosoever hath sinned against me, him will I blot out of my book."

Here Moses offers himself as a scapegoat for the idolatrous Israelites. Yahweh will have none of that, however, as the deity is depicted as holding each individual responsible for their own sin.

If Yahweh is reality and is immutable, unchanging, and cannot lie, then there is simply no way any form of vicarious atonement can obtain. Christianity, therefore, cannot be true as its central doctrine of vicarious atonement can not be from Yahweh.

Innovative Defense said...

1) God knew Jesus would be killed for saying he was God in flesh by others who would not believe Him. Just because it wasn't any different in ritual of crucifixion, does not mean it was the same. Jesus was fully human, but also God in flesh. No other person who died on the cross was God. That is why it is a sacrifice.

2) It didn't matter how Jesus was sacrificed...your point is invalid. Jesus' sacrifice was not of a human or animal, but God in flesh.

3)Based on a medieval art, it does not prove only Jesus shed blood- although Jesus was only person who could shed blood for the propitiation of sins.

4) Your summary also does not conclude Jesus was not a sacrifice or that Jesus was not the Messiah. The Jews are still waiting for their Messiah, yet Jesus has fulfilled all the old prophecies about the Messiah - including some that can never be fulfilled again, such as: going to a temple (which since has been destroyed). I wonder how to Jews are going to have their Messiah come to a temple that no longer exists. Hmmmm....


3)

bob said...

apologist said - "No other person who died on the cross was God. That is why it is a sacrifice."

It is nice how he makes up his own qualifiers.
I wonder how coming back alive after a few days makes it a sacrifice? Hell, if I knew I could save humanity by dieing, then coming back to life shortly, I'd do it right now.

Harry H. McCall said...

Apologist: You are using “Circular Reasoning” to prove a subjective Christian doctrinal truth.

That is; how does the world know Jesus is the sacrificed messiah? Because the New Testament and the Early Church Fathers tells us it’s so (that is, when they agree and are not attacking each other as heretics).

Apologist, I attended the Mormon First Ward here in Greenville for 20 years. May I bear my testimony on Joseph Smith and the Book of Mormon?

I KNOW that the Book of Mormon is TRUE!

I KNOW that Joseph Smith is a prophet!

I KNOW that THE TRUE CHURCH has been restored on the earth and is under the leadership of a living prophet!

Apologist: Please UNHARDEN your heart and accept God’s TRUE RESTORED CHURCH!

(Please read the Book or Mormon and prayerfully as God if it is TRUE.)

Our brother, Jesus the Savior is waiting. Remember, He loves you dispite your religious errors.

Don Martin said...

Honestly, I have had a wonderful time reading over the past comments from Apologist. Hey, A, have you gotten around to reading Joshua yet? You don't know what is in Joshua, yet it is the ONLY Old Testament book that supposedly contains a pre-incarnational appearance by Jesus (wh was The Captain of the Hosts of the Lord that Joshua met on the field before Jericho, and before whom Joshua knelt and worshipped)??? You don't know that book, and are not familiar with the bloodshed and genocide commanded by God to be perpetrated by the Israelites against the legitimate residents of Canann???

As I was saying, it is a hoot to read Apologists stuff. It is like reading a Dave Barry explanation of electricity. Honestly, I wonder...is Apologist for real?? I mean, obviously Jesus was a sacrifice, because he was killed by people who were pissed off at him for saying that he was God, and God knew all this, and therefore made him the Messiah. OK - the only messianic passage in the OT that Jesus fulfills as a sacrificial lamb is POSSIBLY (no, not really, but fundys interpret as such) Isaih 53. The Messiah prophecied in the OT was a powerful, political leader who kicked ass, took names, and threw the rest in the river of blood. The sacrifical lamb bullshit was the creation of Pauline apologists and whoever wrote Hebrews when he/she/it were on acid.

Apolgist, you should really quit. You are embarrassment to your kind. OK - I kind of take that back - you are funny in the pathetic and awkward way that Greg Kinnear was funny in "Little Miss Sunshine," a loser who was conducting self-help seminars. Not calling you a loser, dude...just saying if you gonna run with the atheists, you better sharpen your saw.

Innovative Defense said...

Jesus died on the cross, which was prophesied since the Old Testament times.

You fail to realize the most important part: Jesus was God in flesh. He wasn't just some normal person. He knew his death would be the sacrifice for sins, and he knew he had to do it.

Dear Harry,

I hope you realize the Jesus of Mormonism is not the same Jesus of Christianity.

Let me give you some facts:

1) Joseph Smith said he "saw" God the Father. This contradicts scripture when it says God the Father can not be seen.

2) Joseph Smith said the God is the offspring of a God and Goddess from another planet, making God an Alien (life-form from another planet).

3) Joseph Smith made many prophecies that were false. Here is a link:

(http://www.carm.org/lds/js_false_prophecies.htm)

4) For more on why Mormonism is false, check out these other facts. These are all done by a well known apologist.

http://www.carm.org/mormon.htm

Other than that, please email me Harry and we can discuss why you believe Mormonism is true.

quiet4no1@gmail.com

Innovative Defense said...

Brother Crow,

1) Joshua is not the ONLY book in the Old Testament with the pre-incarnate Christ. Genesis also when God is walking in the Garden of Eden.

2) Haha - I am trying to make sure Atheists, if they are going to argue against Christianity - that they are representing scripture in context, the way it was intended.

3) I do not know everything, still I am studying. I am also limited in these comments. This is all done from mostly memory when I write comments, so some parts are not as clear as they could be.

4) If anyone wants more precise answers - email me at quiet4no1@gmail.com. I do have quite a few to get to at the moment, and will get to yours all soon.

5) All of you take your information from Atheist sources that already hold the presupposition that there is not a God. Obviously my presupposition is that there is a God. Essentially, we are going to differ on whether Jesus was the Messiah or Sacrifice because your job is to try and dismiss the Bible as credible, while I do the opposite. None of us are getting anywhere.

6) BTW - On my blog, I posted a link to a podcast by a Christian Apologist of 28 years I believe, who is much more educated since he has studied at Universities and seminaries. Listen to his show. I have provided information to call in and ask him questions as well.

Grace

Atheist943 said...

Apologist, Jesus DID NOT fulfill all the Old Testament prophecies.

There are quite a few prophecies which he didn't fulfill.

You really should take a look at Jewish apologetics and see what they have to say. They have good refutations of Christian arguments of Jesus's being the Messiah, including the one about the temple (that you mentioned).

LOL @ you

BTW, don't try using the "Jesus fulfilled prophecy" argument as one for the existence of God. It's really old, plus it's circular logic.

Don Martin said...

Actually, historically the Genesis narrative of God walking in the Garden was not considered a pre-incarnate manifestation of Christ because...at that time...there was no sin. Therefore no separation from God and man, therefore no need for a "logos" to unredeemed (not needing redemption) humanity.

You are right, though. These communications are circular and meaningless. Keep sending your comments, though...they are funny as hell!

DingoDave said...

Apologst said:

-"Jesus died on the cross, which was prophesied since the Old Testament times."

I defy you to show me ANYWHERE in the old testament where it was prophecied that Jesus was to be incarnated, die on a cross, and be resurrected a couple of days later.

-" Haha - I am trying to make sure Atheists, if they are going to argue against Christianity - that they are representing scripture in context, the way it was intended."

That's rich. Since when have Christians been interested in the context of Bible passages? Show me one supposed prophecy about Jesus which HASN'T been ripped out of context, and mangled beyond recognition.

-"Joseph Smith said he "saw" God the Father. This contradicts scripture when it says God the Father can not be seen."

Exodus 24:
[9] Then Moses and Aaron, Nadab, and Abi'hu, and seventy of the elders of Israel went up,
[10] AND THEY SAW THE GOD OF ISRAEL; and there was under his feet as it were a pavement of sapphire stone, like the very heaven for clearness.

Exod.33
[11] Thus the LORD used to speak to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend...

-Deut.5
[4] The LORD spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the midst of the fire,

Gen.18
[1] And the LORD appeared to him (Abraham) by the oaks of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day.

Gen 32.
[24] And Jacob was left alone; and a man wrestled with him until the breaking of the day.
[25] When the man saw that he did not prevail against Jacob, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and Jacob's thigh was put out of joint as he wrestled with him.
[26] Then he said, "Let me go, for the day is breaking." But Jacob said, "I will not let you go, unless you bless me."
[30] So Jacob called the name of the place Peni'el, saying, "For I have seen God face to face, and yet my life is preserved."

Exodus 33:
[20] But," he said, "you cannot see my face; for man shall not see me and live."
[21] And the LORD said, "Behold, there is a place by me where you shall stand upon the rock;
[22] and while my glory passes by I will put you in a cleft of the rock, and I will cover you with my hand until I have passed by;
[23] then I will take away my hand, and you shall see my back; but my face shall not be seen."

Gen. 18
[20] Then the LORD said, "Because the outcry against Sodom and Gomor'rah is great and their sin is very grave,
[21] I will go down to see whether they have done altogether according to the outcry which has come to me; and if not, I will know."
[22] So the men turned from there, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham still stood before the LORD.
[33] And the LORD went his way, when he had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place.

-"All of you take your information from Atheist sources that already hold the presupposition that there is not a God."

We take our information from the sources who make the most sense, and who can back their arguments up with logic, reason, and evidence.

The only evidence you have are a bunch of stories in a dusty old book. Do you believe everything you read in dusty old books Apologist?

Innovative Defense said...

How is it circular logic by the way? Explain that to me. I'm guessing a presupposition you have makes you think that.

Other than that, can you give me some prophecies that Jesus did not fulfill about the Messiah?

Innovative Defense said...

Dear dingodave,

Like I said before: God the Father cannot be seen, but the pre-incarnate Christ can be seen (which if God is seen in the Old Testament physically, it is the pre-incarnate Christ). It's called "harmonizing" scripture.

Brother Crow,

It still is the pre-incarnate Christ - because God always existed in 3 persons: God the Father, God the son, and the holy spirit. Just because sin hadn't entered the world, does not mean God didn't know it would.

Harry H. McCall said...

Apologist, I am not a Mormon, but I have given two lectures on the five remaining Book of Mormon groups. For every “truth” you use to prove your Calvinistic Christianity, I can use the same rhetoric to prove Mormonism.

Dingo presented a lot of verses which proves Yahweh is a tangible figure. Please respond.

Apologist, exactly what educational back ground gives the ability to discuss the Bible on a scholarly level?

Can you read at least one: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek? Do you have a degree in Bible, theology, or some section of Christian theology?

Shalom,
Harry

Innovative Defense said...

I am working on Apologetics classes: presuppositional apologetics and studying the Greek in my spare time with a mentor.

After I finish my degree in Family Social Services, I will plan to attend a school where I can further my apologetics knowledge.

The reason I do this is to affirm that those who attest to "debunk" Christianity are at least taking the bible in context.

How many languages have you studied or how many times have you taken a CHristian apologetics class that is not based on the non-believer perspective? Before you accuse me of not being "knowledgeable" enough... then please tell me what experience you have to "disagree" or "contest" Christianity =)

Question: would you consider yourself Harry an atheist/non-believer - meaning that you "lack the belief" in the existence of God?

Atheist943 said...

Apologist,

When you use the "Jesus fulfilled prophecy" argument, you are using circular logic. Why? Because you're using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Here are some prophecies Jesus didn't fulfill:

-cause the wolf to lie with the lamb
-no world peace
-temple is not standing
-no temple service
-The messiah is from the House of David. Your house/tribe is inherited from your father. Your father is your BIOLOGICAL father- there is no adoption in Judaism to another father- if God is the father of Jesus- then Jesus cannot be from the House of David as God is not from the House of David.

Plus, the concept of the New Covenant contradicts the O.Testament where Yahweh says that this is your eternal/everlasting covenant/law.

Peace.

bob said...

Apologist said: "...how many times have you taken a CHristian apologetics class that is not based on the non-believer perspective?"

Jeremy, please turn it around on your self. You have mentioned several time now that you are taking or will take apologetics classes, which by definition means to speak in defence of. I wonder if you would consider taking a religious history class that offered a critical examination of Christianity from the perspective of non belief?

I do hope you understand that many of the contributors here are former believers who probably have more apologetic education than you will ever have.

Rotten Arsenal said...

Apologist likes to tout the importance of "context" in regards to understanding the Bible, but I contend that unless you are a first century Jew/poor oppressed Roman citizen, you really have no idea of the context of these writings. We can read the words and understand the culture, but I would expect that very few people have a deep enough understanding of the Jews of the late BCE/1st century to understand exactly what happened.
There seems to be a lot of non-Jewish, late 2nd millennium understanding being applied to a group of people and their society that existed a long time ago. Many of us think of South American tribes and their beliefs that existed 600 years ago (with no knowledge of Jesus) as foreign and difficult to relate to, but for some reason, a group of people 2000 years ago and their writings are just that easy to understand?

My point is, "context" is a bad argument to use unless you are an expert on the little nuances of the people who lived at the time words were written.

Rotten Arsenal said...

Apologist:
It still is the pre-incarnate Christ - because God always existed in 3 persons: God the Father, God the son, and the holy spirit.

It's odd, then, that Jews believe God to be "indivisible" and one being only... no Trinity. And since they apparently got dictation straight from God in the OT and they have, for thousands of years, NOT believed in this Trinity concept (which, oddly enough was pushed by non-Jews who followed Jesus), I don't understand how you can make this claim that the Trinity is real and not a complete misrepresentation or fabrication.

Check out whatjewsbelieve.org for some nice discussion on why Jesus doesn't fit the bill for Messiah. The Messiah comes to physically rescue JEWS from oppression, not save everybody's souls. Further, the Messiah wasn't divine.

Harry H. McCall said...

Points well made Rotten Arsenal!

The first Christians simply fabricated a Jewish Frankenstein monster: A non-functioning messiah; A criminal as a human sacrifice. A blasphemous man (Jesus) forced on the Jews as “Divine”; A liar who made promises he knew where false to get believers (a great politician); an if you don’t believe in this fabricated monstrosity, you’ll fry like bacon in Hell.

Speculation: So just where is Jesus’ body since it is not in a grave? It’s was literally eaten by his disciples. He had already told them what to do with it at the “Last Supper”…this is my body…this is my blood.

I think Jesus’ body was made into a stew which the disciples ate. Thus, Jesus never died, but lives in all that believed.

DingoDave said...

Apologist wrote:
-"Like I said before: God the Father cannot be seen, but the pre-incarnate Christ can be seen (which if God is seen in the Old Testament physically, it is the pre-incarnate Christ). It's called "harmonizing" scripture."

Where in the those verses does it say that Yahweh was the pre-incarnate Christ? You just made that up as you went along.
By the way, the phrase 'harmonising scripture' simply means attempting to get rid of obvious contradictions between the texts using sophistry and deception. In other words, it's called "baffling them with bullshit".

Please read the following passages. Where do any of them mention Jesus, or any other god-man saviour, or demi-god?
In fact the following verses specifically refute any such concept.

Exod.34
[14] for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God. (the Lord in this context means Yahweh, or God the father, not any so called son named Jesus)

Deut.4
[35] To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD (Yahweh) is God; there is no other besides him.
[39] know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.

1Kgs.8
[60] that all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD (Yahweh) is God; there is no other.

Isa.42
[8] I am the LORD (Yahweh), that is my name;
my glory I give to no other,
nor my praise to graven images.

Isa.45
[5] I am the LORD (Yahweh), and there is no other, besides me there is no God;
[6] that men may know, from the rising of the sun and from the west, that there is none besides me; I am the LORD (Yahweh), and there is no other.
[18] For thus says the LORD (Yahweh), who created the heavens..."I am the LORD (Yahweh), and there is no other.
[21] ...Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD (Yahweh)?
And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.
[22] "Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.

Isa.46
[9] remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like me,

There is no indication in any of these verses that Yahweh was prepared to share power with any other entity, whether it be one of his many sons, or any other upstart godling who might wish to usurp his position as God of gods, and Lord of lords.

Hell, even the gospel Jesus wasn't impertinent enough to presume such authority. Here is what HE had to say about his relationship with his 'father'.

Matt.27
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "Eli, Eli, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" that is, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

Mark.15
[34] And at the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, "E'lo-i, E'lo-i, la'ma sabach-tha'ni?" which means, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"

John.20
[17] Jesus said to her (Mary Magdaline), "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Matt.20
[23] He said to them, "You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father."

Matt.24
[36] "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only.

Matt.26
[39] And going a little farther he fell on his face and prayed, "My Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as thou wilt."
[42] Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, thy will be done."

Matt.26
[53] Do you think that I cannot appeal to my Father, and he will at once send me more than twelve legions of angels?

Mark.11
[25] And whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against any one; so that your Father also who is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses."

Mark.14
[36] And he said, "Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt."

Luke.22
[29] and I assign to you, as my Father assigned to me, a kingdom,
[42] "Father, if thou art willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done."

Luke.23
[46] Then Jesus, crying with a loud voice, said, "Father, into thy hands I commit my spirit!" And having said this he breathed his last.

John.6
[40] For this is the will of my Father, that every one who sees the Son and believes in him should have eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day."
[44] No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day.
[57] As the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats me will live because of me.

John.8
[28] So Jesus said, "When you have lifted up the Son of man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority but speak thus as the Father taught me.
[54] Jesus answered, "If I glorify myself, my glory is nothing; it is my Father who glorifies me, of whom you say that he is your God.

John.12
[49] For I have not spoken on my own authority; the Father who sent me has himself given me commandment what to say and what to speak.

John.14
[16] And I will pray the Father, and he will give you another Counselor, to be with you for ever,
[24] He who does not love me does not keep my words; and the word which you hear is not mine but the Father's who sent me.
[28] You heard me say to you, `I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I.
[31] but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go hence.

John.15
[10] If you keep my commandments, you will abide in my love, just as I have kept my Father's commandments and abide in his love.
[15] No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you.
[24] If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have seen and hated both me and my Father.
[26] But when the Counselor comes, whom I shall send to you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will bear witness to me;

John.20
[17] Jesus said to her, "Do not hold me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brethren and say to them, I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God."

Here are some additional passages which demonstrate Jesus' inferiority to his father Yahweh.

Eph.3
[14] For this reason I bow my knees before the Father,

Eph.4
[6] one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all.

Col.3
[17] And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him.

1Thes.3
[11] Now may our God and Father himself, and our Lord Jesus, direct our way to you;

Phil.2
[8] And being found in human form he humbled himself and became obedient unto death, even death on a cross.
[9] Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name which is above every name,
[10] that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
[11] and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

Rotten Arsenal said...

I like Jeremy the Apologist... can I get a Bobblehead of him?

Walk said...

In response to Jesus not qualifying as a sacrifice, you have to remember that the other office of Jesus was that of High Priest. In Jesus' High Priestly ministry he was the High Priest of his own sacrifice. This High Priest entered into the true most Holy Place in heaven not an earthly copy, and he entered by his own blood.

And just like the exit of the high priest from the earthly temple was a sign that God was satisfied with the sacrifice, so the resurrection was Jesus as high priest coming back from the true most holy place in heaven as a sign that God was satisfied with the sacrifice and his work was finished. Unlike the other high priest who eventually died and were replaced, Jesus lives forever and therefore his High Priestly ministry continues forever and his sacrifice was once for all.

Harry H. McCall said...

Thanks for your comments Walk. However one need the book of Hebrews and faith to follow this logic.

Shalom,
Harry

Anonymous said...

dingodave, in your point about God only being Savior and no one else,
you quoted,

Isa.45
[5] I am the LORD (Yahweh), and there is no other, besides me there is no God;
[21] ...Who told this long ago?
Who declared it of old?
Was it not I, the LORD (Yahweh)?
And there is no other god besides me, a righteous God and a Savior;
there is none besides me.
[22] "Turn to me and be saved,
all the ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.

in Isaiah 9:1-7, it appears God is offering a new plan for the world. it's like a new act in a play, complete with shifting scenes and a new direction, with an introduction of a new character.

"Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by the way of the sea, along the Jordan-
The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of the shadow of death
a light has dawned.

You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as men rejoice
when dividing the plunder.

For as in the day of Midian's defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.

Every warrior's boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.

For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the increase of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David's throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the LORD Almighty
will accomplish this."

note a few things from these verses. the land of Zebulun and Naphtali are some of the nothernmost tribes of Isreal/Judah and they were ransacked and pillaged and taken captive by the Assyrians, futher East.

God is stating through scripture that "in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by way of the sea, along the Jordan."

This honor came in the person of Jesus, who was from Galilee. (actually Nazareth in the district of Galilee thanks to Mary and Joseph who had previously fled from Herod) and it seems that Jesus even begins his preaching in Galilee.

Jesus could have fulfilled some scripture directly as a man but not his own upbringing in a particular city.

another thing is that already God is revealing that this child, this son will also be called "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" thus equating in no uncertain terms that this offspring will also be called God, and will be God.

this is the beginnings of the understanding of the concept of the Trinity. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) with the Holy Spirit arriving later, after Jesus' resurrection.
by the way, youtube a video called Fabric of Time Shroud of Turin pt. 1 (it's a 6 part series) very interesting science used in new understanding of the resurrection.


you also didn't mention isaiah 49:5-6
And now the LORD says—
he who formed me in the womb to be his servant
to bring Jacob back to him
and gather Israel to himself,
for I am honored in the eyes of the LORD
and my God has been my strength-

6 he says:
"It is too small a thing for you to be my servant
to restore the tribes of Jacob
and bring back those of Israel I have kept.
I will also make you a light for the Gentiles,
that you may bring my salvation to the ends of the earth."




nor did you mention isaiah 53:2-12

He grew up before him like a tender shoot,
and like a root out of dry ground.
He had no beauty or majesty to attract us to him,
nothing in his appearance that we should desire him.

3 He was despised and rejected by men,
a man of sorrows, and familiar with suffering.
Like one from whom men hide their faces
he was despised, and we esteemed him not.

4 Surely he took up our infirmities
and carried our sorrows,
yet we considered him stricken by God,
smitten by him, and afflicted.

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all.

7 He was oppressed and afflicted,
yet he did not open his mouth;
he was led like a lamb to the slaughter,
and as a sheep before her shearers is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.

8 By oppression [a] and judgment he was taken away.
And who can speak of his descendants?
For he was cut off from the land of the living;
for the transgression of my people he was stricken. [b]

9 He was assigned a grave with the wicked,
and with the rich in his death,
though he had done no violence,
nor was any deceit in his mouth.

10 Yet it was the LORD's will to crush him and cause him to suffer,
and though the LORD makes [c] his life a guilt offering,
he will see his offspring and prolong his days,
and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

11 After the suffering of his soul,
he will see the light of life [d] and be satisfied [e] ;
by his knowledge [f] my righteous servant will justify many,
and he will bear their iniquities.

12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, [g]
and he will divide the spoils with the strong, [h]
because he poured out his life unto death,
and was numbered with the transgressors.
For he bore the sin of many,
and made intercession for the transgressors.

doesn't this sound like the Jesus portrayed in the NT, written about 600 years later??

DingoDave said...

King Solomon wrote:

-"doesn't this sound like the Jesus portrayed in the NT, written about 600 years later??"

No.

Apart from the fact that these verses are speaking in the present and past tense about someone who seemed to be already living or already dead, which of these things were fulfilled by the gospel Jesus?

For starters,

-"Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress."
-"You have enlarged the nation and increased their joy;"
-"you have shattered the yoke that burdens them, the bar across their shoulders, the rod of their oppressor."
-"Every warrior's boot used in battle and every garment rolled in blood will be destined for burning, will be fuel for the fire."
-"For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders."
-"Of the increase of his government and peace there will be no end."
-"He will reign on David's throne and over his kingdom,"
-"establishing and upholding it with justice and righteousness from that time on and forever."

Which of these events did Jesus ever fulfill?

-"God is stating through scripture that "in the future he will honor Galilee of the Gentiles, by way of the sea, along the Jordan."
This honor came in the person of Jesus, who was from Galilee.

Only in your vivid imagination Solomon.

-"Jesus could have fulfilled some scripture directly as a man but not his own upbringing in a particular city."

Nazareth didn't exist in Jesus time. Anyway, the gospels describe Jesus as being 'Jesus the Nazarene', not 'Jesus of Nazareth'.
The word Nazarene describes a member of a cult, not a resident of a town. Read the article and comments on this blog entitled, 'The Earliest Witnesses', dated Aug 14, 2008.
You can find it here. -
http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/08/earliest-witnesses.html

-"another thing is that already God is revealing that this child, this son will also be called "Mighty God" and "Everlasting Father" thus equating in no uncertain terms that this offspring will also be called God, and will be God."

Ancient kings were almost always referred to as gods, or sons of the gods (including the Israelite kings). So what?

-"this is the beginnings of the understanding of the concept of the Trinity. (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) with the Holy Spirit arriving later, after Jesus' resurrection. by the way, youtube a video called Fabric of Time Shroud of Turin pt. 1 (it's a 6 part series) very interesting science used in new understanding of the resurrection."

These verses have nothing to do with concept of the trinity, except in your imagination.
And the only thing which scientific analysis has proved about the shroud of Turin, is that it is a 14th century mediaeval fake, which was painted using all the commonly used dyes and pigments of the time.
Read this.
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html

As for the rest of your proof texts,

-"the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,"

What peace?

-"He was oppressed and afflicted, yet he did not open his mouth; he was led like a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is silent, so he did not open his mouth."

Read the gospels. Especially the gospel of John, according to which Jesus had a great many things to say as he was 'led to the slaughter'.

-"He was assigned a grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death, though he had done no violence, nor was any deceit in his mouth.

According to the gospels Jesus was with the wicked in his death, and assigned a grave with the rich after his death. Exactly the opposite of what these verses claim.
Also, according to the Bible Jesus had done violence, except if you dare to claim that whipping people with a homemade scourge was not violent.
Also, according to the gospels Jesus did tell lies.

John.7
[1] After this Jesus went about in Galilee; he would not go about in Judea, because the Jews sought to kill him.
[2] Now the Jews' feast of Tabernacles was at hand.
[3] So his brothers said to him, "Leave here and go to Judea, that your disciples may see the works you are doing.
[4] For no man works in secret if he seeks to be known openly. If you do these things, show yourself to the world."
[5] For even his brothers did not believe in him.
[6] Jesus said to them, "My time has not yet come, but your time is always here.
[7] The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify of it that its works are evil.
[8] Go to the feast yourselves; I am not going up to this feast, for my time has not yet fully come."
[9] So saying, he remained in Galilee.
[10] But after his brothers had gone up to the feast, then he also went up, not publicly but in private.

John.18
[19] The high priest then questioned Jesus about his disciples and his teaching.
[20] Jesus answered him, "I have spoken openly to the world; I have always taught in synagogues and in the temple, where all Jews come together; I have said nothing secretly.

-"he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the LORD will prosper in his hand.

Since when is Jesus supposed to have seen his offspring? And how does being ignominiously executed at the age of 30 constitute 'prolonging his days'?

-"12 Therefore I will give him a portion among the great, and he will divide the spoils with the strong,"

What spoils? What strong?

-"because he poured out his life unto death, and was numbered with the transgressors. For he bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors."

Past tense.

Now, about the book if Isaiah. Please read the following.

" According to 6:1, Isaiah received his call "in the year that King Uzziah died" (742 BC), and his latest recorded activity is dated in 701 BC. Only chapters 1-39, however, can be assigned to this period. Chapters 40-66 are much later in origin and therefore known as Deutero-Isaiah (Second Isaiah). Sometimes a further distinction is made between Deutero-Isaiah (chapters 40-55) and Trito-Isaiah (chapters 56-66).

Chapters 1-39 consist of numerous sayings and reports of Isaiah along with several narratives about the prophet that are attributed to his disciples. The growth of the book (1-39) was a gradual process, its final form dating from perhaps as late as the 5th century BC, a date suggested by the arrangement of the materials and the late additions.

In spite of the lengthy and complicated literary history of the book, however, Isaiah's message is clearly discernible. He was much influenced by the cult in Jerusalem, and the exalted view of Yahweh in the Zion traditions is reflected in his message. He was convinced that only an unshakable trust in Yahweh, rather than in political or military alliances, could protect Judah and Jerusalem from the advances of their enemies--specifically, in this period, the Assyrians.

Deutero-Isaiah (40-55), consisting of a collection of oracles, songs, and discourses, dates from the Babylonian Exile (6th century BC). The anonymous prophet is in exile and looks forward to the deliverance of his people. The destruction of Babylon is prophesied and the return of the exiles to their homeland is promised. The servant-of-Yahweh songs in Deutero-Isaiah (42:1-4; 49:1-6; 50:4-9; 52:13-53:12) have generated animated discussions among scholars, but the ideas reflected in the songs suggest that they were written under the influence of the ideology of the king--the anointed one who, through his righteous rule, had the power to effect his people's deliverance.

Trito-Isaiah (56-66), coming from a still later period, reflects a Palestinian point of view, with the latter chapters in particular addressed to the cultic concerns of the restored community. The diversity of materials in these chapters suggests multiple authorship. How the three "Isaiahs" came together is not known."
- Encyclopedia Britannica

So in summary, these passages remind me of the gospel jesus only in so far as the New Testament authors dishonestly hijacked them in an attempt to bolster some credibility for their newly appointed cult leader Jesus. However a close inspection of these verses reveals what a poor description they really are of the events supposedly surrounding their newly invented demigod.

I'm afraid that you like so many others, have been taken for a sucker by these mis-attributed passages.

Anonymous said...

dingodave,
first of all since, admittedly, what is hinged upon the faith of Jesus as the Christ, the eternal Servant, and the "resurrection and the life" is nothing greater than the event of Jesus' resurrection itself, i'll start by addressing your dismissive notion of the shroud of turin.

you said,
And the only thing which scientific analysis has proved about the shroud of Turin, is that it is a 14th century mediaeval fake, which was painted using all the commonly used dyes and pigments of the time.
Read this.
http://www.skepdic.com/shroud.html

you need to update your magazine subscriptions by about 20 years.

lots of information have been brought forth since the carbon 14 dating done in 1988.

please read
http://www.shroudcentersocal.com/home.html

http://www.ocregister.com/news/shroud-accetta-image-1898912-body-jesus

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2008/02/28/shroud-of-turin.html

http://www.shroud.com/obtain.htm

also watch the youtube video (6 part series of fabric of time shroud of turin)

also watch youtube video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgKIxlTfUJk
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXEE9OWXFZg
and
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8KLjxFCpXw

as you piece together the information and evidence, you will find that the shroud is most likely 1st century Jerusalem/Palestine region, due to chemical tests, pollen samples and the craftsmanship and style of the herringbone weave pattern of the linen. the carbon 14 tests which are by now considered just plain bad science, and at worst wrong altogether, used an expertly woven repair patch done in the middle ages, with the test done 3 times on the same piece of linen, instead of three different samples, which should have been done. (national geographic, 2004, and los alamos lab, 2005)

the linen also has the counterpart, the head cloth which has a much older and confirmed history and aligns physically and exactly in terms of blood stains with the shroud, with the blood type confirmed that they belong to the same person.(Sudarium of Oviedo)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/SoT/YH990804.html

also, no pigments or substances have been found, only the reverse
negative effect found on the top most and bottom most fibers of the linen, and due to the complexity of the fibers at the microscopic level, no medieval artist could have painted throughout the weaves on a cloth 14 feet in length, painted as a reverse negative, a concept known only in the development of photography several hundered years later.

what you are holding on to is ignorance and ego if you continually dismiss this as a painting from the middle ages.

even if the shroud is true, and of a crucified man from the 1st century, how do we know it is of Jesus?? that would be a good question, and that can be answered by watching the pathology report given in the videos i mentioned (fabric of time) as well as the findings of two possible widow mite coins placed over the eyelids as found in the imagery "burned" into the shroud. these coins were native to the region and the time of Christ.

also, what could have caused this imagery?? well after observation, high res scanning, and 3-D modeling, of which 3-D data is unbelievable obtainable from 2-d photos of a 2-d surface(linen itself) there exists the undeniable imagery of a crucified man that exhibits clear evidence of rigor mortis with no evidence of decomposition of the body, suggesting the body image occurred no later than 36 hours after death. (keeping right in step with the crucifixion on fri evening and resurrection on sun morning)

in addition,
The Shroud image exhibits anatomical structures clearly not in contact with the cloth, e.g., thus suggesting a type of autoradiograph (X-Ray).

you will find no stretch effect on the cloth as one would normally expect from a cloth draped over a person or object.

using nuclear imaging is the best way to come close to a reproduction but a duplicate is impossible at this point.

however using nuclear imaging using a person has brought,
Density shading giving the same VP-8 bas relief
Soft tissue to bone ratio corresponding to the same on the Shroud
Lack of body outline
Lack of light focus
Pathology
Flat pixel surface yet encodes the volume data as stated above.

while we can argue theology, who borrowed what beliefs from what sects or cultures, etc etc, we still have to answer this question, was Jesus really the Word in human form and was he really the "resurrection and the life" and what seemingly unanswerable event "burned" the image of the crucified man into the cloth?? could it truly be the radiance of the resurrection??

are we too arrogant to dismiss it, by citing Scripture out of context or holding onto preconceived notions of how our universe should behave, and all of its laws, just to fit our comfortable lifestyle or what we think we know??

we can argue the validity of Jesus' claims, we could argue about the crap man has brought in the name of religion and likewise in the void of religion, but it could all come down to a simple piece of 14 foot linen, couldn't it??

we live in a world where everything has to make perfect sense, especially to understand or accept new or contrary opinions and ideas. we like to reason everything before we believe, but yet there are many who will see and still not believe,
and for some the cloth, no matter what is found, will still be dismissed, never to be good enough for good old numero uno, not gonna pull a fast one by me.

sure go ahead, but we cannot for one minute begin to think we know everything. when we think that we can have the universe in our hands and dare to disbelieve even into complete and bitter arrogance, we only look silly and stubborn.

DingoDave said...

Dear King Solomon,

This Dr. Accetta guy who you referred me to is nothing more than a demented crank.

He is a 48-year old 'urogynecological surgeon'. He's not a chemical or mineral analyst, nor a radio-carbon dating expert.

Here are a few excerpts from the article you referred me to concerning Dr. Accetta.

"Since 1996, Accetta has written four research papers in support of the linen cloth's authenticity, journeyed to Italy to view the shroud and injected himself with radioactive particles to test his theories of how the faint shroud image formed...
Skeptics and many mainstream scientists have called it a fake, perhaps the work of a Renaissance artist such as Leonardo DaVinci. Radiocarbon testing in the 1980s indicated it originated in the 13th or 14th century...
But Accetta has a rebuttal for all the evidence casting doubt on the shroud's authenticity. He argues the carbon dating was inaccurate because nonoriginal parts of the fabric were tested. Or perhaps, he says, the test samples were contaminated with microbes on the shroud...
Although some of the shroud's early skeptics have said the image must have been painted by a medieval artist, modern analysis indicates there are no traces of pigment on the cloth...
Accetta's theory, supported by a handful of shroud researchers and religious scholars around the world, is that at the moment of Jesus' resurrection, the body in the tomb turned to light, emitting a radiance that created a head-to-toe likeness of Jesus on the shroud...
His theory is a stretch even by biblical accounts of the Resurrection. The Gospels never say the resurrected body changed physical form. However, as Accetta says, no one was in the tomb to see what happened...
Accetta is reluctant to talk about how his personal beliefs fit into his scientific findings, but he acknowledges his faith in the shroud drives his work...
Accetta says only a miraculous event fully explains the image's sophistication. He thinks that when Jesus' body turned to light, the shroud that had been covering the body began falling through the body by gravity. As the cloth dropped, Accetta theorizes it picked up corresponding energy – and corresponding 3-D information...
Accetta's biggest hurdle is getting his research recognized. His speaking engagements are generally limited to shroud conferences – where few in the room need convincing – and he publishes his work in religious journals, not peer-reviewed scientific journals...

So, he can't get his work published in peer reviewed scientific journals because they reckon that he's a crackpot?
Doesn't that set alarm bells ringing in your head about how competent he is to pontificate on such matters?

For a thorough and scholarly dismantling of Ray Roger's, and STURP's claims about the Shroud of Turin, please read the following article which is entitled;

A Skeptical Response
to
'Studies on the Radiocarbon Sample from the Shroud of Turin'
by Raymond N. Rogers - Thermochimica Acta 425:189-194, 2005
by
Steven D. Schafersman
Science Consultant and Administrator
The Skeptical Shroud of Turin Website
http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/
February 8, 2005
Latest revision: February 22, 2005

You can find it here; - http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

But for starters, please read the following excerpts from this excellent article. However I strongly urge you to go back and read the entire thing.

Rogers' Analytical Methods: Deception and Illogic

"In his paper, Ray Rogers relies on papers that were neither peer-reviewed nor published in legitimate scientific journals for his belief that the radiocarbon date was taken from a patch ingeniously rewoven into the Shroud linen so that its presence could not be detected. The authors of these papers, M. S. Benford and J. G. Marino, claim that a patch of 16th century material with a weave identical to the Shroud's was undetectably spliced into the 1st century Shroud to give it a 13th century date. But this is nonsense. It is certainly a remarkable coincidence that, according to these authors, their claimed rewoven patch--when combined with "original" Shroud cloth in the proportions subjectively determined by unnamed "textile experts" looking at photographs!--just happens to give an early 14th century date, the same as the date actually measured by radiocarbon dating! Amazing. But in fact the mixture of 16th and 1st century cloth would give a date much younger than the 14th century (about 7th century). The date obtained by the separate university radiocarbon labs exactly matches the date obtained by independent historical analysis, i.e. the early 14th century date when the Shroud first appeared and is believed by Shroud skeptics to be created by a late medieval artist, thus mutually supporting both dates. Benford and Marino submitted their ridiculous speculations in a paper to the scientific journal Radiocarbon, but it was justifiably rejected after peer review. Now, Rogers uses the same mistaken and incompetent speculations to support his conclusions in a paper that was published in a different scientific journal, Thermochimica Acta. I conclude that peer review failed this time for this journal."

"As pointed out by Antonio Lombatti (personal communication), editor of Approfondimento Sindone, the skeptical international journal of scholarship and science devoted to the Shroud of Turin, only after one month of careful study on where to cut the linen samples for dating were the samples removed from the Shroud. This process was observed personally by Mons. Dardozzi (Vatican Academy of Science), Prof. Testore (Turin University professor of textile technology), Prof. Vial (Director of the Lyon Ancient Textiles Museum), Profs. Hall and Hedges (heads of the Oxford radiocarbon dating laboratory) and Prof. Tite (head of the British Museum research laboratory). There is no way these scientists and scholars could have made such an error and failed to see that the cloth samples they removed was really from a patch, "invisibly" rewoven or not..."

"Detailed photographs of the area from which the sample was removed clearly reveal that there was no patch there. (How could Benford and Marino's unnamed "textile experts" observe the correct proportions of 1st century and 16th century threads from the "patch" using photographs, while the legitimate experts named above--using both photographs and personal examination of the actual Shroud!--miss seeing that there was a patch there in the first place?) There is no 16th century patch in the area from where the 14C samples were removed; patches can be found only where the fire had burned the linen in 1532, and of course there is the Holland backing cloth. Both the patches and Holland cloth have weaves completely different from the Shroud's distinct herringbone pattern, which was easily identifiable by the radiocarbon dating scientists when they processed the cloth sample. Benford and Marino laughably publish a photo of a historical Shroud replica that they claim shows a missing corner section that was later patched; but this photo is a low-resolution JPEG image and the "missing corner" is really an artifact produced when low-resolution JPEG images are magnified beyond their true size! This anecdote just further illustrates their incompetence..."

"Now, here's where the story really gets good. McCrone frequently complained that anyone with a simple polarizing microscope (an essential tool of forensic microscopy and visible with him in many photographs) could easily see and identify the abundant (millions) of tiny red ochre pigment particles that coat all the fibers in the image and blood areas. Undoubtedly, STURP members did see these abundant and colorful orange to red particles on the Shroud image and blood fibers--but never on the Shroud non-image fibers--but, against all reason and evidence, decided they were naturally-occurring alkaline iron precipitates and then ignored them! To this day, STURP members continue to ignore the pigment particles, just as Aristotelian geocentrists ignored the moons of Jupiter in Galileo's time. McCrone and even STURP published abundant photomicrographs that clearly show these particles, but only McCrone took the next essential step and identified them as red ochre, an iron oxide pigment made from the mineral hematite (blood rock). This is the pigment that forms the Shroud image, and it along with vermilion pigment (the mercury sulfide mineral cinnabar) and rose madder pigment make up the blood images on the Shroud. Red ochre/iron oxide/hematite is easily identified by its color and by crossing the polarizing filters of the polarizing microscope and examining the refractive index of a particle. Hematite has a very high refractive index, blood low, and they are easily distinguishable using the proper technique. This technique is known to every forensic microscopist, optical mineralogist, and rock petrologist (I am an expert in the last category, and studied optical mineralogy to become a petrologist). But STURP members never used this simple and powerful technique. They apparently never observed the Shroud sticky tape sample fibers with a polarizing microscope; if they had, they would have no trouble identifying the bright orange and red particles as red ochre/iron oxide/hematite, not "blood sherds" or "alkaline iron precipitate," which is what they called them..."

"I visited Walter McCrone's laboratory in Chicago several times over the years. In 1980 and 1981, I was able to observe several Shroud fiber samples using one of McCrone's polarizing microscopes. While not trained in forensic microscopy, I am an expert sedimentary petrologist and skilled with geological, biological, and micropaleontological microscopy; much of my academic research involved the study of microfossils, I currently consult in the petroleum industry using sedimentary petrology, and I assist my biologist wife with her zoological photomicrography and image analysis; I have six microscopes of various types in my house and access to several others at the local university and geological consulting lab where I work. Using crossed polars and Becke line movement, I quickly and easily identified the thousands of tiny particles I saw as the mineral hematite using its characteristic color and high index of refraction as criteria; this was a mineral I had observed hundreds of times before. Hematite is finely ground to make the pigment red ochre, which has been used throughout human history as the most common red pigment. The particles are definitely not blood shards or alkaline iron precipitates (such as iron sufide, iron carbonate, or iron nitrate); they are unquestionably iron oxide. I also observed some vermilion pigment particles, the mineral cinnabar; McCrone told me this was often used by medieval artists to represent blood. I saw no pollen grains on the slides I examined (I only studied a few), and McCrone told me they were rare. There were other particles in addition to the abundant linen fibers and red ocher particles which I could not identify; McCrone told me these were other pigments, wax, soil, and other particles."
http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

As P.T. Barnum once famously quoted, "There's a sucker born every minute".
And if you believe any of STURP's, or Ray Roger's, or Accetta's claims about the shroud, then I'm afraid that you my friend are one of those to whom he was referring.

Anonymous said...

dingodave,
you said
"This Dr. Accetta guy who you referred me to is nothing more than a demented crank."

it's nice to see you using such complimentary language to discuss your points.

your stance for the existence of pigments/dyes is complete nonsense.

first of all, let me guess, you didn't watch any of the youtube videos, did you??

first of all dr. accetta is not the foremost authority on the subject of the shroud, but is rather a passionate doctor helping the advancement of learning about the shroud.

you said,
"So, he can't get his work published in peer reviewed scientific journals because they reckon that he's a crackpot?
Doesn't that set alarm bells ringing in your head about how competent he is to pontificate on such matters?"

no, and i would be careful to call him a crackpot, as you will soon find out, because according to these same peer-reviwed scientific journals, you yourself would be considered, and i quote, "part of the lunatic fringe."

i'll explain.

It was not until 2005 that things changed. An article appeared in a peer-reviewed scientific journal Thermochimica Acta, which proved that the carbon 14 dating was flawed because the sample was invalid. Moreover, this article, by Raymond N. Rogers, a well-published chemist, and a Fellow of the Los Alamos National Laboratory, explained why the cloth was much older. It was at least twice as old as the radiocarbon date, and possibly 2000years old.

Immediately after the publication of Rogers’ paper, Nature published a commentary by scientist-journalist Philip Ball. “Attempts to date the Turin Shroud are a great game,” he wrote, “but don't imagine that they will convince anyone.

Later in his commentary Ball added, “And yet, the shroud is a remarkable artefact, one of the few religious relics to have a justifiably mythical status. It is simply not known how the ghostly image of a serene, bearded man was made.”

Ball, who understood the chemistry of the shroud’s images, rejected a notion popularized by many news accounts that Leonardo da Vinci created the image using primitive photography. He called the idea flaky. He also debunked the sometimes reported speculation that the image was “burned into the cloth by some kind of release of nuclear energy” from Jesus’ body. This he said was wild.

(but this isn't so wild anymore, as nuclear imaging is the best form of science to reproduce the uncanny characteristics of the shroud image)

Almost all serious shroud researchers agree with Ball on these points. When flaky and wild ideas appear in newspaper articles or on television, as they often do, scientists cringe. Rogers referred to those who held such views as being part of the “lunatic fringe” of shroud research. But Rogers was just as critical of those who, without the benefit of solid science, declared the shroud a fake. They, too, were part of the lunatic fringe.

chemical tests have already proved without any doubt that the linen is much older than the middle ages, actually pointing much closer to 2000 years ago.

dingodave, what part of that don't you get??

the carbon 14 dating is no longer valid, yet skeptics like yourself continually bring it up. even skeptic Philip Ball who wrote the peer-reviwed article
and who was familiar with the evidence, had confirmed what all shroud researchers had been saying for years: the images were not painted.

if anything they could be a natural process due to burial practices and linen manufacturing of the 1st century in the Jerusalem area. but even that does not explain several unexeplainable features.

first of all, about this process, a 2003 article in the peer-reviewed scientific journal Melanoidins by Rogers and Anna Arnoldi, a chemistry professor at the University of Milan, demonstrated that the images were in fact a chemical caramel-like darkening of an otherwise clear starch and polysaccharide coating on some of the shroud’s fibers. They suggested a natural phenomenon might be the cause. If this could be proven, the images could be explained in non-miraculous, scientific terms.

in addition, the already proven existence of carefully reweaving, done in the middle ages, confirms the reason for such a difference in chemical properties in the small areas of the linen and the majority of the linen.

if you could see samples, you would note using a Photomicrograph of fibers from the center of the radiocarbon sample in water that gum material is swelling and detaching from fibers. Chemical tests show that dye is yellow alizarin from madder root complexed with alum, a common mordant. Several cotton fibers are also visible. Cotton, alizarin and gum are only found in the C14 sample area of the shroud.

The carbon 14 area tests positive for vanillin (C8H8O3 or 4-hydroxy-3-methoxybenzaldehyde) when tested with phloroglucinol in concentrated hydrochloric acid. The rest of the cloth does not. Vanillin is produced by the thermal decomposition of lignin, a complex polymer, a non-carbohydrate constituent of plant material including flax. Found in medieval materials but not in much older cloths, it diminishes and disappears with time. For instance, the wrappings of the Dead Sea scrolls do not test positive for vanillin. Quantitative counts of lignin residues show some large differences between the carbon 14 sampling areas and the rest of the Shroud. Where there is lignin in the sample area it tests positive for vanillin. Other medieval cloths, where lignin is found, test positive. The main body of the Shroud, with significant lignin at the fiber growth nodes, does not have vanillin. The Shroud's lignin is very old compared with the radiocarbon sampling area.

and dr.accetta isn't the only one suggesting a bodily change into light at the time of possible resurrection.

you can refer to
Historian and biblical scholar N. T. Wright in The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003) on his thoughts based on evidence.

"The beloved disciple came to his new belief, the text wants us to understand: not simply on the basis of the emptiness of the tomb (which had been explained by Mary in verse 2 in terms of the removal of the body to an unknown location), but on the basis of what he deduced both from the fact that the grave-clothes had been left behind and from the position in which they were lying. He, like Thomas at the end of the chapter, saw something which elicited faith. The fact that the grave-clothes were left behind showed that the body had not been carried off, whether by foes, friends or indeed a gardener (verse 15). Their positioning, carefully described in verse 7, suggest that they had not been unwrapped, but that the body had somehow passed through them, much as, later on, it would appear and disappear through locked doors (verse 19)."

This resonates with the collimated appearance of the images on the Shroud of Turin and the topographical spatial information that can be plotted as three-dimensional images. It is also consistent with something that forensic experts tell us. The body images show no visible signs of decomposition and the linen fabric is not damaged by any bodily decomposition products. It is also consistent with a baffling observation about the bloodstains. Dried blood, in acting like weak glue between body and cloth, should have cracked and broken apart if the body was unwrapped by convention physical means. Small fibers of blood-soaked linen should have pulled apart. Yet this not observed in the bloodstains.

and don't forget the long and known history of the head cloth, which matches and can be used to justify the older existence of the shroud because they match perfectly with the blood stains and blood type.

did you overlook that??

and you are quoting supposed "research" of some kind of presence of dyes based on polarized microscopr findings from 1980 and 1981??

get with the program. it's 2008 and i'm offering you evidence based on research and documentation within the last 2-4 years, not nearly 30 years.

that's even back tracking from your viewpoint of a 1988 carbon 14 dating that is already no longer a valid discussion point and is "off the table."

To understand the pictures we need to understand how the cloth was made starting with the thread of the cloth.

The threads are made from flax fibers that are but one-fifth the thickness of human hair. They were spun together by hand. Scientists now know that these fibers -- there are between 70 and 120 fibers in each thread -- hold the key to how pictures of Jesus were recorded on the cloth. Look carefully at the picture shown here. This is a single thread from the Shroud of Turin. It is on the fibers of the thread, cellulose vegetable matter from a flax plant that the pictures are recorded.

Notice a golden caramel color on some of the fibers in the above picture. That color is a bit of the picture of Jesus. In fact, this specific picture is from the tip of the nose. It is not paint, dye or stain. That is a proven fact.

i could go on and on, but if you want more proof, including some of the points i already put here for easy reference,
go to
http://www.shroudstory.com/art.htm
and also any of the other pages on the site.

DingoDave said...

Dear Solomon,

I have watched the youtube videos, and find myself completely underwhelmed by them.
One of the guys who was interviewed even makes the allegation that the shroud samples were deliberately switched in order to give false results.
What a bunch of cranks and crackpots!!

"USA Today reports on a "documentary" broadcast on PBS portraying the Shroud of Turin as genuine:"Secrets of the Dead: Shroud of Christ ... presents evidence that narrator Liev Schreiber says is "making it possible it was indeed the shroud of Christ": Textile historian Mechthild Flury-Lemberg suggests the cloth's weave resembles material from a first century A.D. ruin in Israel. Photographer Barrie Schwortz of 1978's Shroud of Turin Research Project says ultraviolet photos show that the carbon-dating sample came from an unrepresentative area of the shroud.
But experts expressed surprise that anyone considers the shroud anything more than a faked Renaissance relic. "I am utterly unconvinced by these new charges," says Harvard's

Joseph Greene. "They are not the results of serious scholarship." Joe Zias of Hebrew University of Jerusalem calls the shroud indisputably a fake. "Not only is it a forgery, but it's a bad forgery." Zias says the shroud depicts a man whose front measures 2 inches taller than his back and whose elongated hands and arms would indicate he was afflicted with gigantism if it were real."

Anatomically perfect???
One arm of the image is visibly longer than the other! Was Jesus a deformed hunchback, or was the artist who made the shroud a little bit careless with his proportions?

-"chemical tests have already proved without any doubt that the linen is much older than the middle ages, actually pointing much closer to 2000 years ago. Dingodave, what part of that don't you get??"

The only chemical tests which have been done on the shroud indicate that it is a 14th century fake. If you beg to differ, then please provide some credible evidence.

Have you read the article I referred you to?
If not, then here is the address again.
http://www.skeptic.ws/shroud/articles/rogers-ta-response.htm

This is also a good article written by Walter McCrone himself.
http://www.freeinquiry.com/skeptic/shroud/as/mccrone.html

Here is a quote from Walter McCrone himself;

"Nearly 20 years ago the Catholic Church invited me to determine chemically what the image is on the Shroud of Turin.

I obtained 32 samples from the shroud: 18 from areas where there are images both of a body and of bloodstains) and 14 from non-image areas (some from clear areas that served as controls, others from scorch and water stains caused by a fire in 1532). The samples were taken with squares of sticky tape, each of which exceeded a square inch in area and held more than 1,000 linen fibers and any materials attached to the shroud. They were excellent samples. I used standard forensic tests to check for blood. I found none. There is no blood on the shroud.

To determine what substances are present in the shroud images, I conducted tests based on polarized light microscopy. I identified the substance of the body-and-blood images as the paint pigment red ochre, in a collagen tempera medium. The blood image areas consist of another pigment, vermilion, in addition to red ochre and tempera. These paints were in common use during the Middle Ages.

The paint on the shroud was dilute (0.01 percent in a 0.01 percent gelatin solution). I made up such a paint and an artist friend, Walter Sanford, painted an excellent shroud-like image (see photo at right and my book Judgement Day for the Shroud [Chicago: Mccrone Research Institute, 1996]. pp.145.149). Known as grisaille, the style of the painting, with its very faint, monochromatic image, was also common in the 14th century.

Based on the complete absence of any reference to the shroud before 1356, Bishop Henri of Poitiers's statement that he knew' the artist, the 14th-century painting style and my test results, I concluded in two papers published in 1980 that the shroud was painted in 1355 ('to give the paint a year to dry"). A third paper in 1981 confirmed these results with X-ray diffraction, scanning electron microscopy and energy dispersive X-ray determination of the elements present (iron, mercury and sulfur) in the two paints. Eight years after my published results, the carbon-dating results were reported as 1325 ± 65 year - thus confirming my date of 1355."
http://www.shroud.com/bar.htm

-"the carbon 14 dating is no longer valid, yet skeptics like yourself continually bring it up."

Why aren't they valid? Because you don't want them to be? Once again, please provide some credible evidence for why 3 independant labs came up with the same result.

-"and dr.accetta isn't the only one suggesting a bodily change into light at the time of possible resurrection. you can refer to Historian and biblical scholar N. T. Wright in The Resurrection of the Son of God (London: SPCK, 2003) on his thoughts based on evidence."

Don't you mean N.T. Wrong? What evidence?
Wright is a longwinded blowhard with no evidence to back him up beyond his own idle speculations.

-"and don't forget the long and known history of the head cloth, which matches and can be used to justify the older existence of the shroud because they match perfectly with the blood stains and blood type. did you overlook that??"

There IS no blood on the shroud. There is however plenty of paint.

-"get with the program. it's 2008 and i'm offering you evidence based on research and documentation within the last 2-4 years, not nearly 30 years."

3 independant labs carbon tested the cloth. They all reached the same conclusions. Walter McCrone examined it and found abundant traces of iron oxide and vermillion in a tempura medium which was used to paint the image. This evidence has never been refuted, so why is the carbon 14 dating "off the table"?

DingoDave said...

Dear Solomon,

Further to your claims about the shroud's authenticity, we even have testimony from around the time that it was painted, that it is a fake.

"...The earliest record of the shroud is a report in which a bishop condemned it as a forgery and said the forger had confessed. The report was sent to Pope Clement VII by Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes, in 1389. This was some 35 years after the shroud appeared in France - inexplicably and with no account of its earlier whereabouts.

The bishop's text began: ''The case, Holy Father, stands thus. Some time since in this diocese of Troyes, the dean of a certain collegiate church . . . falsely and deceitfully, being consumed with the passion of avarice, and not from any motive of devotion but only of gain, procured for his church a certain cloth cunningly painted, upon which by a clever sleight of hand was depicted the twofold image of one man, that is to say, the back and the front, he falsely declaring and pretending that this was the actual shroud in which our Savior Jesus Christ was enfolded in the tomb.''

After telling how the shroud had been exhibited as genuine, and how ''pretended miracles'' were staged to promote belief in the shroud's authenticity, d'Arcis said: ''Eventually, after diligent inquiry and examination'' - an earlier bishop of Troyes -''discovered the fraud and how the said cloth had been cunningly painted, the truth being attested by the artist who had painted it.''
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=940DE4D9143FF930A25752C1A96E948260