Over 2000 yrs Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ found

Date: 05-08-2010 8:14 am (11 years ago) | Author: Gucci man
- at 5-08-2010 08:14 AM (11 years ago)
(m)
When Jesus dies,his body got missing  after 3 days, all was left in the tomb were he was buried was a piece of cloth he was tied and buried with,
Surprisingly .....a faint picture of his face and body was left on the cloths which the old Christians calls "Shroud of Turin"

This cloths is still exist, it is said to be over 2000 years old,According to the discovery channel, this cloth is heavily guided and kept in Italy, by the head of the church.

After watching this special program on discovery channel...I was left in deep thought...
i thought about Jesus, i was forced to give more thought to this piece of cloth which has (some blood and the faint picture of Jesus) on it
However, a lot of debate is going on about this piece of cloth,... its origin,...and the disappearance of Jesus by today science,..Then i discovered that....God is beyond science, He is beyond our thinking..he is just extra ordinary.

Today scientist are  trying to find out the true look of Jesus by recreating the picture that appeared on this burial cloth

WATCH THIS WITH ME ON YOUTUBE      Shroud of Turin -- Burial Cloth of Jesus Christ   
                                                                                     OR
                                                          Shroud of Turin (part 1)




.......Micheall



Posted: at 5-08-2010 08:14 AM (11 years ago) | Upcoming
- Micheall at 5-08-2010 08:18 AM (11 years ago)
(m)
With patience, you can watch  ( Part 1 to 4 of this program on Youtube)....Tx
Posted: at 5-08-2010 08:18 AM (11 years ago) | Upcoming
Reply
- bittersweet at 5-08-2010 08:19 AM (11 years ago)
(f)
Jesus is beyond any words and science!

Posted: at 5-08-2010 08:19 AM (11 years ago) | Hero
Reply
- justloveme at 5-08-2010 11:55 AM (11 years ago)
(m)
GOD Dey!
 if i talk now dem go sey i too talk?
Posted: at 5-08-2010 11:55 AM (11 years ago) | Upcoming
Reply
- blessedme at 5-08-2010 12:09 PM (11 years ago)
(f)
This is the kind of post we need in the blog
Jesus is the answer for the world today
Posted: at 5-08-2010 12:09 PM (11 years ago) | Hero
Reply
- cadanre at 6-08-2010 03:39 PM (11 years ago)
(f)
What a coincidence! They said that Jesus Christ was seen in Benin City also.

Posted: at 6-08-2010 03:39 PM (11 years ago) | Hero
Reply
- mubaji at 6-08-2010 05:31 PM (11 years ago)
(m)
Quote from: cadanre on  6-08-2010 03:39 PM
What a coincidence! They said that Jesus Christ was seen in Benin City also.
what shan't we here from peoples in confusion.
Posted: at 6-08-2010 05:31 PM (11 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- osasu83 at 20-09-2011 01:23 AM (10 years ago)
(m)
shot up u bunch of deceivers   
Posted: at 20-09-2011 01:23 AM (10 years ago) | Upcoming
Reply
- democrazy at 20-09-2011 02:35 AM (10 years ago)
(m)
For real???

how about another discussion........

It is clear from the Bible and from Jewish burial customs that several pieces of cloth bound Christ at His burial — not one large sheet like the shroud.
In John 20:5-7 we find there was a separate piece wrapped around Christ's head. Yet the Shroud of Turin depicts a face on the sheet.
In December 2009, archaeologists announced the discovery of a shroud-like cloth in a cave in Jerusalem that dated to the time of Christ. Unfortunately, it was made with a simple two-way weave — not the twill weave used on the Turin Shroud, which textile experts say was introduced more than 1000 years after Christ lived.
The size of the shroud is 14 feet 3 inches by 3 feet 7 inches (434 centimetres by 109 centimetres). But the Bible says linen strips bound Jesus, not an enormous cloth (see John 19:40).
The Bible is the authoritative record of Christ's death, burial, and resurrection, and the Bible mentions nothing of a shroud.
Walter C. McCrone, head of a Chicago research institute and a specialist in authenticating art objects, examined the shroud. He found a pale, gelatin-based substance speckled with particles of red ochre on fibres from the part of the cloth that supposedly showed the figure of Christ. He also found that fibers from the “wounds” had stains, not of blood, but of particles of a synthetic vermilion developed in the Middle Ages. He said the practice of painting linen with gelatin-based temperas began in the late thirteenth century and was common in the fourteenth.
McCrone concluded that a fourteenth century artist had forged the shroud, and defended this view right up until he died on July 10, 2002.
In the 1980s, Jesuit priest Robert A. Wild expressed surprise that the bloodstains showed no trace of smearing after all the movement and transport the body would have endured. Wild also noted that the hands of the body masked the genitals. He said this couldn't be right. No matter how you arrange a body after rigor mortis, he said, the hands cannot cover the genitals unless you prop up the elbows on the body and bind the hands tightly in place. Yet this is not what the shroud's image shows.
The first record of the shroud's appearance was in 1353, when Geoffrey de Charny presented it to the small local church in the French town of Lirey. Three years later, in 1356, the bishop of the region wrote to the pope, in Latin, telling of his annoyance that certain people wanted this “painted” cloth displayed as the burial cloth of Christ. The bishop added that his predecessor, Henry of Poitiers, “after diligent inquiry and examination,” had found the artist who painted it. The artist testified that “it was the work of human skill and not miraculously wrought.”
Interestingly, this date accords with the carbon-14 tests, which dated the shroud to about the first quarter of the 1300s — although some information suggests that this is the date the cloth was repaired, and the repaired cloth was the part that was carbon-dated. The date agrees with art expert Walter McCrone's estimate of the age based on known painting styles (see 6th point above).
The verses that tell of Joseph of Arimathea's wrapping Jesus in linen cloth are Matthew 27:59, Mark 15:46, Luke 23:53, and John 19:40. Look in Vine's Expository Dictionary, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, and the Ryrie Study Bible. They all tell us the Greek words used in Matthew, Mark, and Luke (entulisso and eneileo) mean “to roll in, wind in”, “to twist, to entwine”, “to enwrap”, “to wrap by winding tightly”. Winding, twisting and entwining imply wrappings, or strips of bandage, rather than a single shroud.
But if they did mean a single sheet, then Matthew, Mark, and Luke would conflict with John 19:40, which is clearer by using the Greek word othonion, meaning “linen bandage” (Strong's concordance). If the Bible writers had meant a single linen sheet like the shroud, the word used should have been othone (a single linen cloth, a sail, or a sheet). From this, it seems that all four Gospel writers were telling us that normal long strips of linen covered Jesus.
In 2005, N.D. Wilson, a fellow of literature at New St. Andrews College in Moscow, Idaho, showed it would have been easy for a medieval to create a 3-D photonegative. Wilson painted faces on glass, put the painted panes on linen, and left it in the sun for various lengths of time. The images Wilson produced look remarkably similar to the Shroud of Turin, although Wilson was the first to admit that this in itself did not disprove the Shroud's authenticity.
The Catholic Church itself does not officially accept the shroud as authentic. When we last checked, in May 2008, the Catholic Encyclopedia's article on the Shroud of Turin admitted a number of reasons to doubt its authenticity. These included:
the awkward fact that many similar shrouds existed which their owners claimed showed the genuine image of Christ
a pope in the 1300s issued a pronouncement that when the shroud was exhibited, the priest must “declare in a loud voice that it was not the real shroud of Christ”
the admission that “no intelligible account, beyond wild conjecture, can be given of the previous history of the Shroud” before it appeared at Lirey around 1353
this shroud, like the others, “was probably painted without fraudulent intent to aid the dramatic setting” at Easter
witnesses in the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries said the image was then so vivid that the blood “seemed freshly shed.” But the blood is now dark and hardly recognizable.
On the supposition that this is an authentic relic dating from aroound the year AD 30, “why should it have retained its brilliance through countless journeys and changes of climate for fifteen centuries, and then in four centuries more have become almost invisible? On the other hand if it be a fabrication of the fifteenth century this is exactly what we should expect.”
Even if the Shroud of Turin proves to be 2000 years old — and it hasn't — you can see there are strong arguments against its being Christ's burial cloth.

Posted: at 20-09-2011 02:35 AM (10 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- jaykay123 at 20-09-2011 06:28 AM (10 years ago)
(m)
Thank i democrazy. Satan has been put to shame as he was using Michall to post rubbish and deceive pple here. But God has used u to open their nyarsh. Lack of knowledge is a big problem dats y pple wil belive evry rubbish they come across. It is a previledge to b used by God. Remain blessed. & u Michall, be careful wat u belive.
Posted: at 20-09-2011 06:28 AM (10 years ago) | Upcoming
Reply
- CammyWhite at 20-09-2011 01:55 PM (10 years ago)
(f)
Thank you for that, Democrazy, you saved me the bother.
Posted: at 20-09-2011 01:55 PM (10 years ago) | Gistmaniac
Reply
- PreciousA at 20-09-2011 04:56 PM (10 years ago)
(f)
^^^
I'll third that thank you.
Posted: at 20-09-2011 04:56 PM (10 years ago) | Upcoming
Reply