Religious choked, yet nobody talks of the burial shroud?
JTEM
So we have here a HISTORY group filled with
religious nutters -- all of the bible thumping
variety though, still no Hindus insisting that
we have to take their monkey god as a historical
fact -- and NOBODY started a thread on the
recently unearthed burial shroud, the one that
appears to completely refute the shroud of
Turin?
Strange. Very, very strange...
: The researchers believe that the fragments are
: typical of the burial cloths used at the time of
: Jesus.
:
: As a result, they conclude that the Turin Shroud
: did not originate from 1st Century Jerusalem.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8415377.stm
Funny, but I bet there's a lot of nutters thinking that
a sample of one is a bit, well, small to base so much
on.
Well, they would be wrong. I mean, because there
isn't very much based on it at all.
It has nothing to do with the Turin shroud. After all,
there is no evidence supporting the religious claims
surrounding the Turin shroud, and plenty of evidence
that it's a forgery.. dating all the way to the middle
ages when Pierre d'Arcis, Bishop of Troyes,
condemned it as such.
We don't require any new "Evidence," the case has
long since been closed.
igor
It is amusing watching you running from one group to another all
tarred and feathered. Hilarious!!!
JTEM
igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is amusing watching you running from one
> group to another
Running? How? What the hell are you babbling about?
I've been on usenet since 1993 with a maximum of
a few months rest, way back in the late 1990s.
Run? Where? How?
> all tarred and feathered. Hilarious!!!
I'm laughing at you. "Tarred and feathers," please.
I was flamed more competently back in soc.penpals,
16 years ago.
igor
> igor <inbellt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > It is amusing watching you running from one
> > group to another
>
> Running? How? What the hell are you babbling about?
>
talking about posters @ alt . prophecies . nostradamus were bitch
slapping you mercilessly
> I've been on usenet since 1993 with a maximum of
> a few months rest, way back in the late 1990s.
>
> Run? Where? How?
>
> > all tarred and feathered. Hilarious!!!
>
> I'm laughing at you. "Tarred and feathers," please.
>
> I was flamed more competently back in soc.penpals,
> 16 years ago.
"tarred and feathers" is your regular attire for 16 years now, gooood
job, kip it up for our amusement:))
Cormac
> So we have here a HISTORY group filled with
> religious nutters -- all of the bible thumping
> variety though, still no Hindus insisting that
> we have to take their monkey god as a historical
> fact -- and NOBODY started a thread on the
> recently unearthed burial shroud, the one that
> appears to completely refute the shroud of
> Turin?
>
> Strange. Very, very strange...
It is not strange. We are fed up with finds of so-called relics. We
are a history group but it is not moderated so we must put up with
doses of Da Thieringitis Codes
Cormac..
jerry warner
igor wrote:
More amusing than your frog-on-a-log expertise in
everything but nuclear physics?
myrmidon
>
> - Show quoted text -
hey, whats wrong with nuclear physics?
JTEM
Cormac <cormac.brada...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 8:41 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > So we have here a HISTORY group filled with
> > religious nutters -- all of the bible thumping
> > variety though, still no Hindus insisting that
> > we have to take their monkey god as a historical
> > fact -- and NOBODY started a thread on the
> > recently unearthed burial shroud, the one that
> > appears to completely refute the shroud of
> > Turin?
>
> > Strange. Very, very strange...
>
> It is not strange. We are fed up with finds of
> so-called relics.
I think you mean "Religious Relics," as archaeological
relics are quite relevant. And the point is that the
find is a genuine archaeological "Relic," and it has
been widely interpreted as "Proof" that the "Religious
Relic" (the Shroud of Turin) is a forgery.
The weave on the genuine relic is completely different
from the weave found on the "Shroud of Turin."
There's a number of reasons why this may be, but the
simplest and most obvious is that the two different
weaves came from two different periods or cultures.
Cormac
> Cormac <cormac.brada...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 24, 8:41 am, JTEM <jte...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So we have here a HISTORY group filled with
> > > religious nutters -- all of the bible thumping
> > > variety though, still no Hindus insisting that
> > > we have to take their monkey god as a historical
> > > fact -- and NOBODY started a thread on the
Yes, the word relic usually refers to religious relics.
Cormac.