Who was Jesus?

[naomi24]

Any idea?

[Khandro]

naomi; I think you will find the book of interest, as I said earlier, I would be pleased to learn what you think of it. I have slight acquaintance him through my son, they collaborated in the production of a film for TV. He is a level-headed academic (terribly handsome!), certainly no new-agey weirdo. As this site has no private messaging option, and this thread seems to be running out, I give you the first half of my email address, if you want to note it; ( lawhit@ ) when you have the book and are embroiled, let me know, and I'll give you the last bit on another thread somewhere (if you want it!). I didn't follow your suggestion to go on the other thread; I'm tired of hearing the "But you can't prove it" argument endlessly repeated. Signing off, K.

[naomi24]

Khandro, I've made a note of the first half of your email address, but don't you think the book might be worth discussing here?

As for the 'Shroud' thread, no one can 'prove' anything - but discussion is good.

[birdie1971]

Khandro -

You have gone very quiet on the old shroud front. You seemed so certain of your evidence just a few days ago that you resorted to swearing at me and accusing me of obduracy. Would you care to continue the debate about the shroud's authenticity on the other thread below?

http://www.theanswerb...uestion1111033-2.html

[Khandro]

Birdie, I've no wish for a public slanging match, but you say;
"you resorted to swearing at me and accusing me of obduracy."
I didn't swear at you directly, I made a general statement. Regarding, obduracy; (Editor; why oh why can we not have numbered posts?) go back through yours and you will see that you entered stating that you knew little on the subject of the shroud, and proceeded to argue with me about it. Non of which is as bad as you, on another thread accusing me of mendacity. The last person to do that was my mother, I was about 6, she was correct, but you are not!

[vetuste_ennemi]

God bless mothers, Khandro.

[birdie1971]

Khandro - “... I've no wish for a public slanging match ... and you will see that you entered stating that you knew little on the subject of the shroud, and proceeded to argue with me about it...”

As you rightly say, at the time I first commented on this thread, I didn't know a huge amount about the shroud. However, I knew enough to know that the evidence for the shroud was highly controversial. So I did what most sensible people do – I started reading up about it – just as you have done. I spent several enjoyable hours reading all about the debate regarding the shroud's authenticity. I read accounts from scientists on both sides of the debate and finally reached the conclusion that I posted at 00:54 on Thursday, 1st March 2012 here...

http://www.theanswerb.../Question1111033.html


I have no wish for a slanging match either. I would prefer a debate. Something that you clearly don't want to have. So be it.

[jomifl]

Khandro, you suggested that people who know very little about a subject should not 'argue' with those who have read up on it an are very well informed about it. It does occasionally happen that someone who does not have a particular interest in a subject (and may not have any detailed knowledge on a particular subject) may just have an area of expertise or an insight which throws new light on the subject and allows it to be understood more fully. People argue a lot about the minutiae of the Turin shroud then someone comes along and says that the weave of the cloth wasn't invented until 1000 years after the death of Jesus. This is an example of how the whole argument can be turned on it's head by a non-expert in religion but an expert in technology.
Let's not be too incestuous in our discussions, who knows who may be able to shine a light in the shadows of ignorance.

[mibn2cweus]

I question how a burial cloth can reasonably be argued to belong to someone whose very existence is shrouded in mystery, when at best there remains the possibility of establishing that its existence is inconsistent with the time period in question thus excluding the possibility that it could have been the burial cloth of Mr. J. son of G. thereby confirming its sole purpose, to serve as a smoke screen to turn the investigation away from the suspect at hand. I would expect the illustrious Miss Marple herself would be prepared to throw in the towel under the circumstances of available evidence in a cold case that will beyond all reasonable doubt only be solved when hell freezes over.

[naomi24]

//I would expect the illustrious Miss Marple herself would be prepared to throw in the towel under the circumstances of available evidence in a cold case that will beyond all reasonable doubt only be solved when hell freezes over. //

You called? ;o)

Actually, the television programme I spoke about on Chakka's thread seems to offer about the most rational explanation I've heard to date. I don't think it can be too far from the truth. Not saying Leonardo da Vinci was necessarily the culprit of course, but the dating of the cloth along with the proposed method employed to produce the image makes good sense.

[mibn2cweus]

Chakka!? http://www.theanswerb...2.html#answer-6736362