dseann said:

ehuffnsd said:

not really. the Church only allows small samples and the what they've figured out is parts of it were restorted during different times so it's still pretyt much a quesiton of faith.

Clearly you don't watch The Discovery Channel.

It's been proven a fake and the image is that of DaVinci wrapped in some kind of sheet. All the other traditional Catholic pics of Jesus throughout his lifetime are also portraits of DaVinci at different stages of his life. Not being funny here either. They found and showed his official portraits and they are identical.

I have never heard this...

dseann said:

ehuffnsd said:

not really. the Church only allows small samples and the what they've figured out is parts of it were restorted during different times so it's still pretyt much a quesiton of faith.

Clearly you don't watch The Discovery Channel.

It's been proven a fake and the image is that of DaVinci wrapped in some kind of sheet. All the other traditional Catholic pics of Jesus throughout his lifetime are also portraits of DaVinci at different stages of his life. Not being funny here either. They found and showed his official portraits and they are identical.

Shroud of Turin, carbon dated ...AD1260 and AD1390

Leonardo da Vinci ...Born, April 15, 1452 – Died, May 2, 1519

So, clearly your watching some fake ass discovery channel.... I hope you werent spouting that off the top of your head without doing some research...

.

[Edited 6/25/10 6:00am]

Oh, and one more thing....

Leonardo Da Vinci and the Shroud of Turin - Did Da Vinci produce the image?

Leonardo Da Vinci is one of the most celebrated artists of the 14th century. His workmanship of "The Last Supper" is known as one of the most extraordinary paintings of his time, and many people from the 21st century display this notable work of art in their homes. There is now much controversy that he is the painter or photographer of the man called "Jesus" on the Shroud of Turin, thereby claiming this shroud is a hoax. It is said that Mr. Da Vinci used his own image for the shroud. Let us look at this and decide for ourselves if the work of Leonardo Da Vinci and the Shroud of Turin are one in the same.

First of all, the image could NOT have been painted. There are no pigments and no brush strokes to be found. If it had been painted, there would be an outline on the image, and there is none. Also, a fire damaged the Shroud in 1532 so the flames would have made the paint crack if the image had been painted. There is no sign of any cracked paint.

A scientific discovery also proves the image was not painted. Let us look at how the cloth was placed around the man on the cloth. The cloth was placed on flat stone, and the body was placed on top of it with the other half brought over the head and down to the feet. It was then tucked around the body using bags of spices. The image is made up of many diffused smudges. Upon looking at the smudges, there is revealed, a body. The image can only be seen on one side, while the backside shows no image even when light is shown through the Shroud. The only marks shown are blood marks, which soaked through the cloth. When the first photographs were taken of the Shroud, it was found that the negative image showed positive coloration, and additionally, there was enough detail to show small to one inch lash marks. This kind of detail is invisible to the naked eye so the fact of this negative image alone is enough evidence to prove that the shroud is not a painted forgery.

Also, Leonardo Da Vinci would have had to ask for permission from the Savoy family in Chambery, England to release the shroud to him in or around 1492. Then, in one single attempt, he would have had to produce his own photographic image without making a mistake. The Savoy family paid 50 gold franks to claim their ownership of the Shroud and were busy at that time renovating the Church of Chambery for the purpose of housing the Shroud, so it would be difficult to imagine they would relinquish the Shroud to an artist living in Milan, Italy to tamper with their prized possession.

Another detail regarding Leonardo Da Vinci and the Shroud of Turin is that he was born in 1452, which is 100 years after what is supposedly the time the Shroud originated. There is also no evidence that any other photographic negative from that time in history was ever produced. As studies on the Shroud continue, there is evidence of much plant life as well as accurate detail of bodily injuries, pollen and dirt from Palestine which primitive photography or painting could not have produced.

So, we continue to ask ourselves, "Where did the man on the cloth come from?"

The most popular theory is the "scorch" or "thermonuclear radiation" theory. Advocates of this idea suggest that the intense light and heat generated by Christ's body at the moment of resurrection might have burned his image into the cloth, much as "permanent shadows" of men in Hiroshima were burned into walls and other surfaces by the atomic explosion in 1945.

The Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 15:35-38-"But someone may ask, 'How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?' How foolish! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. When you sow you do not plant the body that will be, but just a seed, perhaps of wheat or of something else. But God gives it a body as he has determined, and to each kind of seed he gives its own body."

ehuffnsd said:

dseann said:

Clearly you don't watch The Discovery Channel.

It's been proven a fake and the image is that of DaVinci wrapped in some kind of sheet. All the other traditional Catholic pics of Jesus throughout his lifetime are also portraits of DaVinci at different stages of his life. Not being funny here either. They found and showed his official portraits and they are identical.

i haven't had a tv in a year so i missed it. but for the most up to date on stories on the web is still inconclusive, contimated samples, pollen from the mideast, various other mysteries.

the Church doesn't say it's real, but also don't stop pious veneration, whatever makes people feel closer to the Divine.

Do you honestly believe the church will be honest about the shroud's authenticity? Does the church ever give an honest account of anything? Don't think so.

tinaz said:

dseann said:

Clearly you don't watch The Discovery Channel.

It's been proven a fake and the image is that of DaVinci wrapped in some kind of sheet. All the other traditional Catholic pics of Jesus throughout his lifetime are also portraits of DaVinci at different stages of his life. Not being funny here either. They found and showed his official portraits and they are identical.

Shroud of Turin, carbon dated ...AD1260 and AD1390

Leonardo da Vinci ...Born, April 15, 1452 – Died, May 2, 1519

So, clearly your watching some fake ass discovery channel.... I hope you werent spouting that off the top of your head without doing some research...

.

[Edited 6/25/10 6:00am]

I could be wrong. It might have been NatGeo.

This thread gets one big, giant

Over 300 posts mainly arguing whether a GREEK woman was black or white. Really? Really now. Really?

At some point, Americans have to come to grips with the fact that the world isn't just black OR white. Some of us...actually MOST of us...are somewhere in between.

PurpleJedi said:

This thread gets one big, giant

Over 300 posts mainly arguing whether a GREEK woman was black or white. Really? Really now. Really?

At some point, Americans have to come to grips with the fact that the world isn't just black OR white. Some of us...actually MOST of us...are somewhere in between.

I think Americans who are non-white came to grips with that a long time ago...we're just waiting for our white counterparts to catch up. You have to bear in mind that the majority of the U.S is still of european descent and with the exceptions of math and science (which have no racial angles) educational subjects like history, literature, social studies and geography are still taught in today's schools from a European perspective. It's about seeking truth.

DesireeNevermind said:

PurpleJedi said:

This thread gets one big, giant

Over 300 posts mainly arguing whether a GREEK woman was black or white. Really? Really now. Really?

At some point, Americans have to come to grips with the fact that the world isn't just black OR white. Some of us...actually MOST of us...are somewhere in between.

I think Americans who are non-white came to grips with that a long time ago...we're just waiting for our white counterparts to catch up. You have to bear in mind that the majority of the U.S is still of european descent and with the exceptions of math and science (which have no racial angles) educational subjects like history, literature, social studies and geography are still taught in today's schools from a European perspective. It's about seeking truth.

i agree some people here are still living in the past

DesireeNevermind said:

PurpleJedi said:

This thread gets one big, giant

Over 300 posts mainly arguing whether a GREEK woman was black or white. Really? Really now. Really?

At some point, Americans have to come to grips with the fact that the world isn't just black OR white. Some of us...actually MOST of us...are somewhere in between.

I think Americans who are non-white came to grips with that a long time ago...we're just waiting for our white counterparts to catch up. You have to bear in mind that the majority of the U.S is still of european descent and with the exceptions of math and science (which have no racial angles) educational subjects like history, literature, social studies and geography are still taught in today's schools from a European perspective. It's about seeking truth.

You wouldn't know it by reading some of the posts on the Org. Were you here during the "is Halle Berry a black woman" era? It got really nasty at times.

PurpleJedi said:

DesireeNevermind said:

I think Americans who are non-white came to grips with that a long time ago...we're just waiting for our white counterparts to catch up. You have to bear in mind that the majority of the U.S is still of european descent and with the exceptions of math and science (which have no racial angles) educational subjects like history, literature, social studies and geography are still taught in today's schools from a European perspective. It's about seeking truth.

You wouldn't know it by reading some of the posts on the Org. Were you here during the "is Halle Berry a black woman" era? It got really nasty at times.

Are you kidding me? They actually had a thread like that? And I thought the arguments about whether Prince was black bordered on ridiculous. Ahh....whatcha gon do?

Did anybody get a chance to read Kola Boof's article online? She's an Egytian-Sudanese writer. This is her opinion on Hollywood's version of Cleopatra. I've been asked to put another link up again.

http://www.womanist-musin...patra.html

jeami said:

Did anybody get a chance to read Kola Boof's article online? She's an Egytian-Sudanese writer. This is her opinion on Hollywood's version of Cleopatra. I've been asked to put another link up again.

http://www.womanist-musin...patra.html

aside from the fact that the Greeks of the Mionan and Mycene Kingdoms spoke what is termed Linear A and Linear B Greek which is the oldest versions of the Indo-Aryan languge we know today as Greek, and 98% of the Greeks in Greece families have been in the area for thousands of years and the oldest known civilzations in Greece come from Turkey.. i don't see where she would be able to say Greeks were black as we understand it today.

Also since Ptolomies were from Macedonia and we have plenty of statues and paintings of Alexanders armies there would be no doubt on what race they'd be today.

Also Cleopatra is a Greek name.

dseann said:

ehuffnsd said:

i haven't had a tv in a year so i missed it. but for the most up to date on stories on the web is still inconclusive, contimated samples, pollen from the mideast, various other mysteries.

the Church doesn't say it's real, but also don't stop pious veneration, whatever makes people feel closer to the Divine.

Do you honestly believe the church will be honest about the shroud's authenticity? Does the church ever give an honest account of anything? Don't think so.

the Church doesn't approve or disapprove relics. it's up to personal belief of the believer what they feel about them. the only think they is state whether there may be some validity to it or not.

ehuffnsd said:

dseann said:

Do you honestly believe the church will be honest about the shroud's authenticity? Does the church ever give an honest account of anything? Don't think so.

the Church doesn't approve or disapprove relics. it's up to personal belief of the believer what they feel about them. the only think they is state whether there may be some validity to it or not.

Churches keep folks in the dark about truths that run counter to the church's agenda for centuries. In some cases, they outright lie. Come on!

dseann said:

ehuffnsd said:

the Church doesn't approve or disapprove relics. it's up to personal belief of the believer what they feel about them. the only think they is state whether there may be some validity to it or not.

Churches keep folks in the dark about truths that run counter to the church's agenda for centuries. In some cases, they outright lie. Come on!

since the calling to religious life runs deep in my family, i'm the most recent though unothrodox to recieve it, i'm a bit more of a mystical nature of the Church.

DesireeNevermind said:

PurpleJedi said:

This thread gets one big, giant

Over 300 posts mainly arguing whether a GREEK woman was black or white. Really? Really now. Really?

At some point, Americans have to come to grips with the fact that the world isn't just black OR white. Some of us...actually MOST of us...are somewhere in between.

I think Americans who are non-white came to grips with that a long time ago...we're just waiting for our white counterparts to catch up. You have to bear in mind that the majority of the U.S is still of european descent and with the exceptions of math and science (which have no racial angles) educational subjects like history, literature, social studies and geography are still taught in today's schools from a European perspective. It's about seeking truth.

I have avoided joining in on this thread due to its pure stupidity, but Europe has realised the world isnt black/white a long time ago, our education system for the majority includes numerous forms of cultures/views within it (if America hasnt managed this its a shame for them). Europe is full of different cultures and ethnicities, and may I also point out the Greece is part of Europe (so to wind the situation up just a little bit more someone could suggest that Cleopatra was European!).

It's a pity that people try to bring some subjects back to the colour of someones skin, does it really matter whether the actress playing Cleopatra is black, white or any other colour. To be honest I couldnt care less if the actress who was picked to play Cleopatra was blue with yellow spots if the film was good. Maybe I am just lucky to live in a part of the world where it has never been an issue, it wasnt until I started coming on to this forum that I was exposed to people who do like to make it a point. Sure there maybe situations where something happens which is only due to the colour of someones skin, but really do people think someone decided that they only wanted a white actress to play Cleopatra because they would be better?. Surely its more likely someone decided on Angelina Jolie due to the fact she is a popular actress that is known for pulling in audiences.

b3xy said:

DesireeNevermind said:

I think Americans who are non-white came to grips with that a long time ago...we're just waiting for our white counterparts to catch up. You have to bear in mind that the majority of the U.S is still of european descent and with the exceptions of math and science (which have no racial angles) educational subjects like history, literature, social studies and geography are still taught in today's schools from a European perspective. It's about seeking truth.

I have avoided joining in on this thread due to its pure stupidity, but Europe has realised the world isnt black/white a long time ago, our education system for the majority includes numerous forms of cultures/views within it (if America hasnt managed this its a shame for them). Europe is full of different cultures and ethnicities, and may I also point out the Greece is part of Europe (so to wind the situation up just a little bit more someone could suggest that Cleopatra was European!).

It's a pity that people try to bring some subjects back to the colour of someones skin, does it really matter whether the actress playing Cleopatra is black, white or any other colour. To be honest I couldnt care less if the actress who was picked to play Cleopatra was blue with yellow spots if the film was good. Maybe I am just lucky to live in a part of the world where it has never been an issue, it wasnt until I started coming on to this forum that I was exposed to people who do like to make it a point. Sure there maybe situations where something happens which is only due to the colour of someones skin, but really do people think someone decided that they only wanted a white actress to play Cleopatra because they would be better?. Surely its more likely someone decided on Angelina Jolie due to the fact she is a popular actress that is known for pulling in audiences.

well said

ehuffnsd said:

dseann said:

Churches keep folks in the dark about truths that run counter to the church's agenda for centuries. In some cases, they outright lie. Come on!

since the calling to religious life runs deep in my family, i'm the most recent though unothrodox to recieve it, i'm a bit more of a mystical nature of the Church.

kpowers said:

I'm still upset about George Clooney playing me