Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Yet another opinion about the Shroud of Turin

What is long hair? Paul didn't define it. The man in the shroud had shoulder length hair. That is long by today's standards but very short compared to the standards of women of the day who more or less never cut their hair in their entire lives. Further, there were several sects of Jews who wore hair of that length then.

As for Jesus looking like a hippy version, well, that is a standard depiction of Jesus going in iconography going all the way back to the 5th and 6th centuries at least. It is quite possible that it is a reflection of what he actually looked like as passed down.

Are there pictures of Jesus in the King James version of the Bible? If there are, they would have to be accurate, that being the version that God himself wrote.

"Why would you believe anything some mystical spirit might or might not tell you if you didn't have some authority, like the Bible, to tell you it could happen? "

There is a hell of a jump from believing in the Jesus of the bible and believing EVERYTHING in the bible.

Do you think Jesus requires the Pygmy to call him by the same name we know Him by before He will help him?

You and Ringman believe in an awfully small Jesus.

Hard to know something you've never known, friend.

These verses are not about a church, though they have been misappropriated to be, or knowing God. They are about who the Person of Jesus is and what He will accomplish with the foundational rock of that fact and understanding in the building of THE Church. Quite simple, actually.

A Protestant, and any Christian, "knows" God, through the Bible and, more importantly, through the leading of the Holy Spirit. A non-Christian only has the Bible for any knowledge of God, which by design is insufficient for a complete understanding.

He didn't say that either.

Too funny!

Yep! Ignorance is bliss.

Since the ONLY place Jesus is described with any detail is in the Bible how can one choose to believe in "...the Jesus of the Bible" without completely believing in the Bible? If you choose not to believe some of it or believe some of it is in error, why believe the part about Jesus and why can't the part about Jesus be in error as well? Do you just pick the parts you like and ignore the rest?

It is like saying a 2+2=4 because you read it in a certain textbook and then telling a friend that while you believe that 2+2=4, you are certain the book is wrong in many other places. And then when he asks you how you can be sure that 2+2=4, you reply, "Because the book says so."

", "Because the book says so."

That's YOUR line, not mine.

Ever watch a Billy Graham Crusade? Billy focused on Jesus, not a book.

If Jesus is dead, the book would be a lot more important.

He's not, and that book can't convince ANYONE that He is alive.

The Holy Spirit does that.

If your faith is grounded in a book, it might as well be resting on the authenticity of the shroud.

Faith that comes from a personal experience with Jesus is the only kind that will never fail.

How do you even know THERE IS a Holy Spirit without the book? How do you even know Jesus existed or exists yet still today without the book?

I missed this earlier.

The passage I cited says nothing about Catholics, popes, or Rome. It says that a knowledge of Christ's divinity comes from revelation, not from man.

The verses following those I cited have been used by some Catholics I've spoken to, to establish that the church would be built on Peter. I however, believe that the "rock" Jesus refers to is revelation, or receiving a knowledge of Christ from "my Father which is in heaven."

Let's just take this one step further. Even with The Book, how do you know?

Matthew:
16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

This passage is widely read, especially among Catholics, as Jesus crowning Peter the first Pope, and giving him the keys to heaven, i.e. granting authority to him and his predecessors over all of Christianity as Jesus's representative on earth.

"The Bible is the word of God. All experience, evidence, and whatever else that contradicts it, must be rejected. "

So how far do you take this?
How old is the earth?
World wide flood?

"the Bible is not a book that can be believed by intellectual capacity alone."

So, the Bible contradicts reason, but you must throw out everything that contradicts the Bible?

Curdog, I can appreciate that you do not believe all of the Bible. About what percentage of it would you say you believe?

How old is the earth? Does the Bible say? As far as I know it does not. Now, some people have counted the generations since Adam and come up with a figure, but it doesn't say how old the earth is. It could be that generations were skipped. That wasn't uncommon in the old genealogies. There could be lots of things. But because the Bible doesn't say specifically, I see no reason to be dogmatic on the issue.

As for The Flood, well the Bible says that there was a worldwide flood, so I'll believe it.

No, that is where faith comes into play? Does the intelligent dog understand how your car engine works? Does it contradict what he knows must be true? He can't say because he does not possess the capacity to understand.

I understand that there is a power and things beyond me and my comprehension. Therefore, if it seems to contradict reason, then it must be my reason that is faulty.

AS,

Seems you are making reference to an intgerpretation. There are other interpretations of this passage. Here is one:

And upon this rock ... - This passage has given rise to many different interpretations. Some have supposed that the word "rock" refers to Peter's confession, and that Jesus meant to say, upon this rock, this truth that thou hast confessed, that I am the Messiah and upon confessions of this from all believers, I will build my church. Confessions like this shall be the test of piety, and in such confessions shall my church stand amid the flames of persecution, the fury of the gates of hell. Others have thought that Jesus referred to himself. Christ is called a rock, Isaiah 28:16; 1 Peter 2:8. And it has been thought that he turned from Peter to himself, and said, "Upon this rock, this truth that I am the Messiah - upon myself as the Messiah, I will build my church." Both these interpretations, though plausible, seem forced upon the passage to avoid the main difficulty in it. Another interpretation is, that the word "rock" refers to Peter himself.

This is the obvious meaning of the passage; and had it not been that the Church of Rome has abused it, and applied it to what was never intended, no other interpretation would have been sought for. "Thou art a rock. Thou hast shown thyself firm, and suitable for the work of laying the foundation of the church. Upon thee will I build it. Thou shalt be highly honored; thou shalt be first in making known the gospel to both Jews and Gentiles." This was accomplished. See Acts 2:14-36, where he first preached to the Jews, and Acts 10, where he preached the gospel to Cornelius and his neighbors, who were Gentiles. Peter had thus the honor of laying the foundation of the church among the Jews and Gentiles; and this is the plain meaning of this passage. See also Galatians 2:9. But Christ did not mean, as the Roman Catholics say he did, to exalt Peter to supreme authority above all the other apostles, or to say that he was the only one upon whom he would rear his church. See Acts 15, where the advice of James, and not that of Peter, was followed. See also Galatians 2:11, where Paul withstood Peter to his face, because he was to be blamed - a thing which could not have happened if Christ (as the Roman Catholics say) meant that Peter was absolute and infallible. More than all, it is not said here, or anywhere else in the Bible, that Peter would have infallible successors who would be the vicegerents of Christ and the head of the church. The whole meaning of the passage is this: "I will make you the honored instrument of making known my gospel first to Jews and Gentiles, and I will make you a firm and distinguished preacher in building my church."

Following this interpretation, there is little basis for Catholicism to claim papal authority. And leaves much room for a Protestant view.

TF

Seems to me that JoeBob is correct. If one chooses to be argumentative he could interpret the "world wide flood" as covering the entire earth. However, if one sees that much of the Bible is poetry and filled with superlatives and metaphors, there is not a problem at all.

Think for a moment of all the superlatives the Bible places on David or Solomon? Are those poetry, hyperbole and metaphors or to be taken in a wooden way?

Similar to the idea that God desired to gather his children under his protective wings. And like Carman said years ago, only a simpleton would conclude that God was like a great big chicken.

TF

If you read the Bible, there are times when it is clearly authoritative. There are others where it is clearly being metaphorical. And there are others where it is more like a history book merely relating what happened.

TF, very good write up.

As you mentioned, according to modern Biblical Scholars, Peter and Paul did not see eye to eye on several issues. Much of Corinthians was also a rebuke of Peters philosophies.