what if Christ left a personal sign for mankind?

[sciencefan]

We have quotes, in ancient Greek, from people who lived after the events, but no direct words.

There is no handwriting, or drawing or anything left from Jesus. His disciples, knowing what they knew, and witnessing what they saw, did not think to preserve something for posterity.

Christ, being God etc, could easily have arranged to have a sign left somewhere, and which could be used to ward of the evil one.

If such a sign was found, what would be the reaction of believers?

regards

m t

In my opinion, Jesus Christ DID leave a sign.
It is the Shroud of Turin.

http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud...negativity.htm
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://www.shroudofturin.com/
http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm


Strange that you say the disciples of Jesus did not leave anything for posterity.
The entire New Testament of the Bible is written by disciples who were eye-witnesses of the Resurrected Christ.

[JCamilo]

We have now drifted so far off the original problem, thank you, Earthboar for the stern beware, that we were in danger of the thread locking. Camillo, I was just trying to point out a comparison. I am sorry that you find it irrelevant, based on the fact that even if we knew for certain about Shakespeare we would still have the original problem with Matthew.

It was a very good reason. If I get a time machine and travel to find Mathew writing the gospels I would still unware of Shakespeare writting, in other worlds, I would have to travel to england to see Shakespeare writing. They are not related to serve as a fair comparasion.
But the worst part is that people doubt about Shakespare autorship so why would not any reasonable person doubt about the authorship of a text that had no signature, no original and was found decades after the supposed author was dead?
The "fact" that Mathews wrote the gospel is considerable more fragile than the "fact" Shakespeare wrote the Taming of the Shrew.

Earthboar, I would hesitate to say that no written work by Matthew ever existed. Having been a tax collector, he would have certainly been educated enough to read and write, since he would have been required to keep records.

Jesus was very likely able to write as well - read for most part - if we consider that he was educated in the study of the hebrewish holy texts. Yet, we do not have those texts. Also, Mathews text is not a journal writen down registering daily facts, as would be a eyewittness text. In fact, we can see lots of influence of OT texts, which make safe to believe the writer of Mathew's gospels was closer to be a poet than a journalist.

Oral tradition was something that was passed down, but the Scribes of the Levites were always at work copying new scrolls of the Old Testament. The scrolls were copied word for word, ready for the day when one wore out and needed to be replaced.

Yes, they duty, about their "sacred" function. But they are a minority (as the other societies back them) since the text production was slower, more expensive and materials more rare. That society still mostly a oral tradition society where the majority did not considered to left writings like we do.

A good point on that is when the wise men came seeking Jesus and asked Herod the king.

Matt.2
[1] Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,
[2] Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.
[3] When Herod the king had heard these things, he was troubled, and all Jerusalem with him.
[4] And when he had gathered all the chief priests and scribes of the people together, he demanded of them where Christ should be born.
[5] And they said unto him, In Bethlehem of Judaea: for thus it is written by the prophet,
[6] And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule my people Israel.

He knew where to look for the information, in the scrolls, and the scribes knew chapter and verse.

Yes, it shows the rarity of the scrolls and the scribes. Herodes, a rich, upperclass man had access to them and even so he needed one class (scribes) to perform the duty. It is good to show that not everyone wrote, had access to texts, etc.

I know from the KJV that at least one more book is missing, for Paul says

Col.4
[13] For I bear him record, that he hath a great zeal for you, and them that are in Laodicea, and them in Hierapolis.
[15] Salute the brethren which are in Laodicea, and Nymphas, and the church which is in his house.
[16] And when this epistle is read among you, cause that it be read also in the church of the Laodiceans; and that ye likewise read the epistle from Laodicea.

So the Bible I read seems short by one book. If the scholars read this and had that book, I wonder why they would leave it out?

Paul could not tell anything about the bible which was selected 300 years after him and we all know well several gospels are left out of the bible for several reasons. The epistles are just letters, writen by people who never meet Jesus, I can not see the importance of this information in this topic.

[Dark Star]

In my opinion, Jesus Christ DID leave a sign.
It is the Shroud of Turin.

http://www.shroudstory.com/
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/shroud...negativity.htm
http://www.factsplusfacts.com/
http://www.shroudofturin.com/
http://www.shroud.com/menu.htm

This Shroud of Turin myth is long debunked. It was sent by the Church to three different places for dating and all came up with the results of it being a fraud.

Strange that you say the disciples of Jesus did not leave anything for posterity.
The entire New Testament of the Bible is written by disciples who were eye-witnesses of the Resurrected Christ.

Incorrect. Paul never knew Jesus and the Gospels were written thirty to sixty years after his death by unknown authors and were named after the disciples, not written by them.

[Redzeppelin]

It's the question of whose words might we be second-guessing. Are they the writer's words, or Jesus' words? This isn't a discussion about faith, but that the earliest known accounts of Jesus don't seem to appear until about 60 C.E. Bringing the question back to the original post, were there no literate disciples among Jesus' followers to write down what he said at the time of his life?
Much of modern history is documented as it happens. What we have with the gospels is a different form of journalism. They are narratives that vary, one from the other, and written decades after the supposed event.
Martyrdom exists today, in cultures by people who have never witnessed a resurrected Mohammed, let's say, or some other prophet. The thought of the bravery of the early Christians to die for their convictions is as powerful today as it was to Constantine, who probably witnessed such martyrdoms and was impressed by their resolve. Yet, by 300 C.E., though many were willing to die for their belief, it is unlikely that all those that were martyred actually experienced a resurrection vision for themselves.

Paul had a powerful epiphany, which seemed true unto himself. He was obviously good at convincing others of the reality of his personal experience, and the reality of someone he had never actually known.

I'm not questioning that modern followers have equally strong convictions. I'm simply looking at the provenance of the record. To reiterate, I think the original poster was very direct about asking why there was no written record from the time of Christ. That gospels and epistles were plentiful by the end of the First Century is without dispute. That person pointed out--justly so, I think--that provenance goes no further back than about 60 C.E.

Why not?

The Qumran Community were still writing Dead Sea Scrolls at that time. We have Dead Sea Scrolls written at the time of Jesus! Not just scrolls, but inkwells with dried ink in them. Artifacts from 0-to-32 C.E. abound in the Judean Desert. They don't mention Jesus of Nazareth, however. Maybe he visited Qumran, maybe not, who knows? The Qumran community wasn't that far from Jerusalem, so it is conceivable Jesus might have visited them. The point is, people were writing during that period. Everyone, that is, but Jesus and his disciples. Maybe there are some primary sources that simply have not been discovered? Maybe there are primary sources that have been discovered, but are in private hands, and are being deliberately silenced, for some reason.

(see: The Jesus Papers, Exposing the Greatest Coverup in History)

Flavius Josephus, a contemporary, was also writing during that time. Even though his famous lines in reference to Jesus have since been discredited as very late European forgeries, his other accounts of the 2nd Jewish revolt stand, as does his description of the three sects of Judaism--Pharissee, Saddccee, and Essene.
Ok, well, whether that is so or not falls out of the scope of this thread. When I quoted Prof. Ehrman, I was doing so because he is a respected scholar in the field, and also happens to be a skeptic. I pulled his quote from an argument against the resurrection as history, but the statement I used directly applies to this conversation: The earliest gospels were narratives of uncertain origin written beginning in the third decade after the death of Jesus.

Rather than go point by point, I'll restate my position in a simple way: I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God; that means that I believe that what is written in it is from God - maybe not every specific word choice, but that the ideas, the concepts, and the episodes given are provided by God. As such, those assumptions require me to also believe that the Gospels were inspired by God and that they reflect an accurate portrayal of Jesus Christ, his words, deeds and actions. Once we treat the Bible as a simple historical document, it falls apart under textual scrutiny such as that you are suggesting. Fine - but that "falling apart" is made under the assumption that the Bible is a humanly conceived and exectued document. It's not. Once we establish the "frame" concept that God is behind the Bible, then many things that humanly conceived books suffer from, the Bible becomes immune to.

[earthboar]

Rather than go point by point, I'll restate my position in a simple way: I believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God; that means that I believe that what is written in it is from God - maybe not every specific word choice, but that the ideas, the concepts, and the episodes given are provided by God. As such, those assumptions require me to also believe that the Gospels were inspired by God and that they reflect an accurate portrayal of Jesus Christ, his words, deeds and actions. Once we treat the Bible as a simple historical document, it falls apart under textual scrutiny such as that you are suggesting. Fine - but that "falling apart" is made under the assumption that the Bible is a humanly conceived and exectued document. It's not. Once we establish the "frame" concept that God is behind the Bible, then many things that humanly conceived books suffer from, the Bible becomes immune to.

That explanation satisfies me, believe it or not. Thanks.

[sciencefan]

This Shroud of Turin myth is long debunked. It was sent by the Church to three different places for dating and all came up with the results of it being a fraud.

Incorrect. Paul never knew Jesus and the Gospels were written thirty to sixty years after his death by unknown authors and were named after the disciples, not written by them.

It is easy to find a skeptic on any subject.

[Redzeppelin]

That explanation satisfies me, believe it or not. Thanks.

Whoa! Really? Wow. I'm kind of stunned into silence here. Thanks.

[Pendragon]

It is easy to find a skeptic on any subject.

Well, I would point out something about this. What has been debunked is that the Shroud of Turin could have ever been the cloth Jesus was buried in. It is simply not old enough. How the image was put into the cloth is more of a mystery, for the cloth is old enough to pre-date photography and it gives a positive image in the negative.

I would call it debunked myself, simply on the fact that it shows the face of Jesus as artists usually depict Him, and no one knows what He looked like.

Kudus to Red for a good explanation that did the job of helping the problem. I had wandered myself from the simple path into defense of authorship, instead of simple acceptance of God's word as that. Thank you for the reminder, Red.

God Bless

Pen

[sciencefan]

Well, I would point out something about this. What has been debunked is that the Shroud of Turin could have ever been the cloth Jesus was buried in. It is simply not old enough. How the image was put into the cloth is more of a mystery, for the cloth is old enough to pre-date photography and it gives a positive image in the negative.

I would call it debunked myself, simply on the fact that it shows the face of Jesus as artists usually depict Him, and no one knows what He looked like.

Kudus to Red for a good explanation that did the job of helping the problem. I had wandered myself from the simple path into defense of authorship, instead of simple acceptance of God's word as that. Thank you for the reminder, Red.

God Bless

Pen

It is the opinion of many, that the Shroud has NOT been proven to be of the wrong age. It is the C14 dating that was done wrong.

I would also like to point out that it is believed that the reason art looks like the Shroud is because some artists saw the Shroud (when it was known as the Mandylion) and copied it, not the other way around.

The Shroud is a photograph of Jesus before He resurrected from the dead.

I am glad that Red answered your concern for you.

I was responding to the OP- mike thomas-
but as of yet I have not received a response.

[Niamh]

C14 cant be done wrong, especially not by more than one group on one item.
C14 is one of the most acurrate forms of dating we have, and can bring any object that is being dated as close to its origin as possible, give of take 50 years. when you sre dating something that is over a thousand years old, 50 years either side of its dat is pretty good going.
http://www.livescience.com/history/0...in_shroud.html
Personally i dont think Jesus left any personal sign for mankind. The only written documentations about Jesus from the time of his death are Roman Annuls that, if i recall correctly, were written by Tacitus and portray jesus as an ordinary man, not the divine son of god.

[earthboar]

Well, I would point out something about this. What has been debunked is that the Shroud of Turin could have ever been the cloth Jesus was buried in. It is simply not old enough. How the image was put into the cloth is more of a mystery, for the cloth is old enough to pre-date photography and it gives a positive image in the negative.

Camera Obscura. Leonardo knew about them. They were first mentioned by Chinese philosopher Mo-Ti in the 5th Century.. The first known constructed camera obscura was by Muslim scholar Ibn al-Haitham in the 11th Century. How did the image get etched onto the cloth? Silver nitrate, or some other photo-sensitive chemical that alchemists would have been playing around with in Da Vinci's time.

Also, there was supposedly a second face discovered on the Shroud.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/3624753.stm

While some speculate, "Is that one Jesus' face?" More than likely it was the result of the cloth or subject outside of the camera obscura moving. In those days, for an image on an object like the Shroud to develop, it would have taken several hours of exposure. It is conjectured Leonardo used a cadaver.

If it had been a genuine shroud, it seems highly unlikely that a merry prankster would have tried etching another, bogus image on top of an authentic image, that notion just defeats reason.

[earthboar]

Earthboar, I would hesitate to say that no written work by Matthew ever existed. Having been a tax collector, he would have certainly been educated enough to read and write, since he would have been required to keep records. Oral tradition was something that was passed down, but the Scribes of the Levites were always at work copying new scrolls of the Old Testament. The scrolls were copied word for word, ready for the day when one wore out and needed to be replaced.

Yeah, sorry, I gave the wrong impression. I believe it very likely that disciples, apostles and others wrote down Jesus' communications. Where they are now, who knows? So many writings have turned up over the centuries, a periodical was named for it, called "Discoveries of the Judean Desert", which began publishing excerpts from the Dead Sea Scrolls in the 1950s. Another question is whether such writings may, in fact, be in the hands of some private collectors or organizations, but have not risen to publicity level, or perhaps remain untranslated. You know, when the Nag Hammadi codices were first discovered, many of them were burned as kindling before a light went off in the Egyptian fellow's head that these might be valuable. There are a whole range of options as to why we don't know about such provenance, but I agree, it is not justifiable to say there are no such writings or artifacts, only that we don't know of any.

[JCamilo]

Reggarding the shroud, it is also false that it portraits Jesus face as the artists did it, during the middle age it was very commum a Jesus without beard as well. It was the popularity of the renascense authors that defined "jesus face" because a beard is a genuine way to portrait a middle aged man. Just like Maria Magdalena portrait have similarities or the long bearded God - those are images that turned popular (besides the obvious influence of the shroud image).

I think it must be obvious when I - and that was what I thought earthboar was talking - that when he says left no writing is not that never wrote anything, as even sailors may write down their commercial trades, is a reference to a document such as the gospels or letters and that obviously we are talking about documents that we are aware of.

[Pendragon]

Reggarding the shroud, it is also false that it portraits Jesus face as the artists did it, during the middle age it was very commum a Jesus without beard as well. It was the popularity of the renascense authors that defined "jesus face" because a beard is a genuine way to portrait a middle aged man. Just like Maria Magdalena portrait have similarities or the long bearded God - those are images that turned popular (besides the obvious influence of the shroud image).

I think it must be obvious when I - and that was what I thought earthboar was talking - that when he says left no writing is not that never wrote anything, as even sailors may write down their commercial trades, is a reference to a document such as the gospels or letters and that obviously we are talking about documents that we are aware of.

One flaw in the equation is that this prophecy from Isaiah 50:

[4] The Lord GOD hath given me the tongue of the learned, that I should know how to speak a word in season to him that is weary: he wakeneth morning by morning, he wakeneth mine ear to hear as the learned.
[5] The Lord GOD hath opened mine ear, and I was not rebellious, neither turned away back.
[6] I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to them that plucked off the hair: I hid not my face from shame and spitting.
[7] For the Lord GOD will help me; therefore shall I not be confounded: therefore have I set my face like a flint, and I know that I shall not be ashamed.

would seem to indicate that along with the beating, they also pulled Jesus' beard out, common enough in those days to shame a man.

II Samuel 10:

[4] Wherefore Hanun took David's servants, and shaved off the one half of their beards, and cut off their garments in the middle, even to their buttocks, and sent them away.
[5] When they told it unto David, he sent to meet them, because the men were greatly ashamed: and the king said, Tarry at Jericho until your beards be grown, and then return.


<Camera Obscura. Leonardo knew about them. >

As did I Earthboar, but my mind slips from time to time. Quite correct.

And now, the biggie. This shroud being true or false will not be what decides my faith. My faith in God is already decided as true, and in Jesus as true. What did He leave for me? Forgivness for my sins. That is plenty.

God Bless

Pen.

[Dark Star]

It is easy to find a skeptic on any subject.

So, explain to me first of all, why no one in the realms of theology or history would take the claim that the Gospels were written by the folks they were named after seriously, why you think Jesus' disciples would live to between sixty and ninety in a time where people were lucky to hit thirty five...and what has to do with me being a skeptic.

I'd also like to know why three different uses of Radiometric dating on that piece of cloth all said it was from the 13th or 14th century if it was the cloth actually on Jesus.

This has nothing to do with skepticism, you were simply wrong.

The only written documentations about Jesus from the time of his death are Roman Annuls that, if i recall correctly, were written by Tacitus and portray jesus as an ordinary man, not the divine son of god.

The Roman Annals, like every non-Christian source (unless one considers the Gospel of Thomas to be a non-Christian source ) on Jesus weren't written until post 100 AD and tend to contain second and third hand hearsay.