Monstropedia > Forbidden Archaeology

SHROUD OF TURIN

(1/1)

jong:
the SHROUD OF TURIN and the FACE CLOTH OF ORVIEDO are unique in the annals of archaeology as being two of the rarest examples of an artifact being associated with the actual life of a mythological character. as everyone knows, the shroud is supposed to be the burial cloth of JESUS CHRIST with the imprinted image of his dead, crucified body on it; the face cloth is lesser known but is supposed to be the wrapping for the face with the corresponding blood stains on it, as the so-called 'gospel of john' records was used for LAZARUS. few archaeologists have come forward in print to make a decisive statement about them, but anyone familiar with the burial customs of that time would be able to tell they are fakes. firstly, the jews did not bury their dead initially in a permanent form: they interred them simply until the bodies rotted ands then put the bones in ossuaries or "bone boxes". therefore, it was not usual to "anoint" them with oils and spices since they intended them to decay anyway; and reducing the stink was not necessary either unless they had to go back in for another burial a few days later. in that case they could have carried an incensor. but smart people had their tombs designed with an airhole. secondly, and most importantly which contradicts the accounts of both LAZARUS' and JESUS' burials in the 'gospel of john',  the jews would not have covered the face of the dead since they believed they had to allow the "escape" of the "nefesh" (soul) or "rah" (spirit) from the mouth; just as the "breath of god" had been instilled. this escape/release occured anytime between the death of the body and the beginning of its decay. thus,  the shroud, which clearly was double-draped over the figure not swathed around it, and the face-cloth are both FAKES!! so why would the 'gospel of john say' "according to the custom of the jews"?...

jong:
the gospel arbitrarily assigned by the church to the apostle JOHN the son of zebedee was not written by him, if he even existed. interestly, by the way, the dedication inscription on a column of the synagogue at caphernaum which the gospels claim was built by the roman centurion whose servant JESUS healed, states that it was paid for by a HANNAYA and a ZEBEDEE. he was definitely not the BELOVED DISCIPLE and no place that names him gives him this epithet. however, there are clues in that gospel to its writer's identity and thus who the BELOVED DISCIPLE really was. the accounts of JESUS' visits to martha, mary, and LAZARUS describe LAZARUS both before and after LAZARUS' death describe him as "the one whom JESUS loved." he is also the one the chief priests wanted to put to death with JESUS because of the resurrection miracle, and a close reading indicates that he along with peter followed to the high priests' house after JESUS was arrested and strangely allowed in at the gate "because he was known to the high priest." why would one of JESUS' disciples have been known to the high priest?! he is also the anonymous disciple who leaned back on JESUS' chest (like the LAZARUS character of abraham's bosom in the so-called 'gospel of luke') to ask who would betray him. his resurrection was the cause of JESUS' remark to peter about what was to become of the anonymous man (LAZARUS) who was following them at the lakeside in the end of the gospel. thus, it should be called 'the gospel according to LAZARUS'! but did LAZARUS really exist and did he write it? for that answer, compare the famous introductory verse in that gospel to a phrase in one of the apostle paul's epistles to his disciple timothy as well as the personal description of timothy.  which one do you think was the author?

Navigation

[0] Message Index