Ramanisblog

Tag: Christianity

  • Shroud of Turin Not Jesus ‘,Tomb Discovery Suggests

    From a long-sealed cave tomb, archaeologists have excavated the only known Jesus-era burial shroud in Jerusalem, a new study says.

    Story:

    The Shroud of Turin, believed to have been used to wrap the body of Christ
    The Shroud of Turin

    The discovery adds to evidence that the controversial Shroud of Turin did not wrap the body of Christ, researchers say;

    Lost Gospel Revealed; Says Jesus Asked Judas to Betray Him
    What’s more, the remains of the man wrapped in the shroud are said to hold DNA evidence of leprosy—the earliest known case of the disease.

    “In all of the approximately 1,000 tombs from the first century A.D. which have been excavated around Jerusalem, not one fragment of a shroud had been found” until now, said archaeologist Shimon Gibson, who excavated the site for the Israel Antiquities Authority.

    Found in a first-century cemetery filled with priestly and aristocratic burials, the tomb was initially opened by looters, who left the shroud behind, apparently thinking it has no market value. Experts were able to retrieve the artifact before it began to disintegrate.

    The so-called Tomb of the Shroud is a rarity among Jerusalem tombs from the time of Jesus.

    For starters, the Tomb of the Shroud appears to have been sealed shut with plaster for 2,000 years, perhaps as a precaution against the spread of leprosy or tuberculosis, which was also detected in DNA extracted from the man’s bones.

    The tight seal apparently allowed the shroud—radiocarbon-dated to between A.D. 1 and 50—to survive the high humidity levels characteristic of Jerusalem-area caves.

    Archaeologists were surprised to even find remains inside the tomb. Traditionally corpses were removed from such tombs after a year or so and placed in ossuaries, or bone boxes. (Related: “‘Jesus Box’ Is a Fake, Israeli Experts Rule.”)

    Evidence Against Jesus Link to Shroud of Turin?

    Housed since 1578 in a Turin, Italy, cathedral, the Shroud of Turin is believed by many to have wrapped the body of Jesus Christ after his death in Jerusalem—but the cloth has been decried as a hoax by many others. Several studies have attempted to settle the debate.

    Carbon-dating studies by three different laboratories in the late 1980s, for example, suggested the shroud was made between A.D. 1260 and 1390, long after the time of Jesus. In 2005 another study asserted that the 1980s test had been based on a patch added in the Middle Ages and that the shroud is actually 1,300 to 3,000 years old.

    The weave of the Tomb of the Shroud fabric, the new study says, casts further doubt on the Shroud of Turin as Jesus’ burial cloth.

    The newfound shroud was something of a patchwork of simply woven linen and wool textiles, the study found. The Shroud of Turin, by contrast, is made of a single textile woven in a complex twill pattern, a type of cloth not known to have been available in the region until medieval times, Gibson said.

    Both the tomb’s location and the textile offer evidence for the apparently elite status of the corpse, he added. The way the wool in the shroud was spun indicates it had been imported from elsewhere in the Mediterranean—something a wealthy Jerusalem family from this period would likely have done.

    First Such Shroud, Second Such Textile

    Assuming the new shroud typifies those used in Jerusalem during the time of Jesus, the researchers maintain that the Shroud of Turin could not have originated in the city.

    That’s perhaps a big assumption, given that there are no other known shrouds from the same place and time for comparison—though in one case clothing had been found in a Jerusalem tomb.

    “There have now been only two cases of textiles discovered in Jewish burials from this period,” said archaeologist Amos Kloner of Bar Ilan University. And both appear to contradict the idea that the Shroud of Turin is from Jesus-era Jerusalem.

    As for the analysis of the newfound shroud, the researchers “checked their findings with the best experts, and this textile was found to be different [from the Shroud of Turin],” said Kloner, who was not involved in the new study, published today in the journal PLoS ONE.

    To Kloner, the most important aspect of the new find is that the shroud could be carbon-dated. Examples of Jerusalem textiles from this period—never mind burial shrouds—are so rare that their main importance is in providing organic material for such tests.

    The opportunity to compare the weave of this shroud to the weave of the Shroud of Turin is simply an added bonus, he said. “It is wonderful that they found this niche with the remains of a person, and even remains of hair,” Kloner said.

    Shroud Is a Picture of Health

    In addition to adding to the Shroud of Turin debate, the newfound shroud could help paint a clearer picture of the public health situation in the biblical era.

    Experts don’t know much about the origins of leprosy, and biblical references may well have referred to various skin conditions. The disease is believed to have originated in India and to have arrived in the Mediterranean region sometime between the fourth and second centuries B.C. These most recent findings in Jerusalem may be able to fill critical gaps in knowledge of the disease.

    The deceased’s apparently high status, right up to the end, indicates leprosy and tuberculosis crossed socio-economic lines at the time in Jerusalem—and that perhaps not all lepers were ostracized, as historical accounts often suggest, the study says.

    The origins of leprosy remain hazy, but the researchers are hopeful that, as with the new study, a combination of archaeology and molecular pathology will help trace the evolution and distribution of this and other ancient diseases.

    “The medical research has been quite extensive and has shed enormous light on the inhabitants of Jerusalem,” study leader Gibson said. “This is the first time that DNA research has been done on the skeletal remains of human beings from the period of Jesus around Jerusalem.”
    http://digg.com/d31D3Rc

    Digg reports that this Link does not work now.

    Related articles

  • Questions on banning of Minarets by Swiss and Answers.

    Questions by BBC on air(30/11/09)
    ON AIR: SWITZERLAND AND MINARETS
    There are too many issues being discussed here for us to only focus on one. We’ll hear your reaction to the story whatever it may be, but looking online these are areas that are getting particular attention:

    – Have the Swiss done what the rest of Europe would do if there was a referendum?

    – Does Europe have a problem with Islamophobia?

    – Is ‘defending’ one’s culture necessarily discriminatory?

    – Is referencing national pride a way of disguising prejudice and intolerance?

    – Can such decisions be attributed to a post 9-11 fear of Islam?

    – Is this a justified reaction to Muslims’ perceived unwillingness to integrate in Western societies?

    1.Rest of Europe,even rest of the world,excluding Muslim countries, would have done what Swiss have done, though it might look wrong.There is a limit to tolerance and feigned ignorance of the Muslim community of the atrocious acts of brethern.If they really feel strongly about the terrorists, let them issue a fatwa excommunicating terrorists.

    2..Europe does not suffer from any phobia.When people are killed, you react.No fancy terms please.
    3.Defending one’s culture is discriminatory if killing with religious sanction is Holy.
    4.It is not a question of national pride, but an act of defense for survival.
    5.Yes, the reaction is delayed reaction ,nothing more.
    6.It is not perceived unwillingness but a willful act of transnational loyalty.
    No group of people have transnational loyalty, perhaps with the exception of Communists.
    In short the Swiss have done what others should have done long back,come what may.
    You may expect screams documenting Muslims’ loyalty to the Nation and how their Religion does not support Jihad of terrorists and that it is a very tolerant religion.
    So called secularists also subscribe to this view.

  • Atheism and Diversity: Is It Wrong For Atheists To Convert Believers?

    Atheists can try converting people into their school of thought.This is nothing new.This has been happening since 5000 years, as Indian Philosophy states.There is no harm in in it. It makes life interesting and a chance to note the fact that with out knowing that they are limited, human beings are arrogant enough to unravel the Universe which , as far as knowledge goes,is one a billion years old and Nature is yet to give up all Her secrets.
    If religious belief makes the world drab and dull by its attempt by imposing its doctrines, what exactly are the Atheists trying to do by converting Theists into Atheists?
    It is old wine under new label.
    Yes, what is said about Christianity id true,in terms of trying to convert and imposing nonsensical religious edicts that do not agree with our basic moral sense, especially the sanctions of Papacy and intolerance.Also the concept that you are not responsible for your actions ;it is Satan that makes you to do so;that your salvation is through one individual and others are doomed to Hell.
    Christianity is not the only Religion.
    Hinduism calls for introspection and analysis of oneself and self inquiry.
    It has included theism as school of Philosophical thought.
    By systematic logic it proves that the world and the senses we have are illusory and goes on to guide one to realize oneself.
    Religion ,according to Hinduism, is intensely personal and no dogma is allowed.
    What is Reality/Too big a topic.Please refer to some of my blogs under Religion/philosophy/Indian Philosophy)

    Story:
    Do atheists hate diversity?

    Is the very act of atheist activism (trying to persuade people that atheism is correct and working to change the world into one without religion) an act of attempted conformity? Are atheists trying to create a drab, gray, uniform world, where everyone else is just like them?

    It’s probably pretty obvious that I think the answer is a big fat “No!” (Probably said in the Ted Stevens voice.) But it certainly is the case that many atheist activists, myself among them, are working very hard to persuade religious believers out of their beliefs. Not all atheists do this, of course; many have the more modest goals of separation of church and state and religious tolerance, including tolerance of atheists and recognition of us as equal citizens. But a good number of atheists are, in fact, trying to convince religious believers to become atheists. I’m one of them.

    And since many believers see this as an intolerant attempt to enforce conformity — particularly believers of the progressive, ecumenical, “all religions perceive God in their own way and we have to respect them all” stripe — I want to take a moment to address it.
    http://www.alternet.org/story/144199/atheism_and_diversity:_is_it_wrong_for_atheists_to_convert_believers?page=entire

  • Irish Church accused of abuse cover-up-BBC.

    These are a part of the system that has refused JFK’s kin Communion!.
    Story:
    A damning report into child abuse in the Dublin archdiocese has criticised the Catholic Church hierarchy for covering up the abuse.
    The report investigated how Church and state authorities handled allegations of child abuse against 46 priests.
    It found that the Church placed its own reputation above the protection of children in its care.
    It also said that state authorities facilitated the cover-up by allowing the Church to operate outside the law.
    Reacting to the report, the current Archbishop of Dublin Diarmuid Martin said “no words of apology would ever be sufficient” and offered “to each and every survivor, my apology, my sorrow and my shame for what happened to them”.
    He added that the “many good priests of the archdiocese” shared his sense of shame.
    The “Report of the Commission of Investigation into the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin” covered a period from 1975 to 2004.
    It has laid bare a culture of concealment where church leaders prioritised the protection of their own institution above that of vulnerable children in their care.
    Victims
    The report said the avoidance of public outrage, which would inevitably follow high-profile prosecutions, appeared more important than preventing abusers from repeating their crimes.

    Instead of reporting the allegations to civic authorities, those accused of horrific crimes were systematically shuffled from parish to parish where they could prey on new, unsuspecting victims.
    The report stated: “The Dublin archdiocese’s pre-occupations in dealing with cases of child sexual abuse, at least until the mid 1990s, were the maintenance of secrecy, the avoidance of scandal, the protection of the reputation of the Church, and the preservation of its assets.”
    It also said that the archdiocese “did its best to avoid any application of the law of the state”.
    It found that four archbishops – John Charles McQuaid who died in 1973, Dermot Ryan who died in 1984, Kevin McNamara who died in 1987, and retired Cardinal Desmond Connell – did not hand over information on abusers.
    The report said that authorities in the Dublin archdiocese who were dealing with complaints of child sexual abuse “were all very well educated people”.
    It added that, considering many of them had qualifications in canon law, and in some cases civil law, their claims of ignorance were “very difficult to accept”.
    Above the law
    Civic authorities in Ireland, especially the police, were also criticised for their cosy relationship with the Church.

    Irish Justice Minister Dermot Ahern: “Persons who committed these dreadful crimes…will continue to be pursued”

    The report states that senior members of the force regarded priests as being outside their remit and it claims some police officers reported abuse complaints to Church authorities instead of carrying out their own investigation.
    The commissioner of the Irish police, Fachtna Murphy, said it made for “difficult and disturbing reading, detailing as it does many instances of sexual abuse and failure on the part of both Church and State authorities to protect victims”.
    He added: “The commission has found that in some cases, because of acts or omissions, individuals who sought assistance did not always receive the level of response or protection which any citizen in trouble is entitled to expect from An Garda Síochána (the Irish police).
    He said he was “deeply sorry” for the failures.

    Cardinal Sean Brady said he was ‘deeply ashamed’

    The Irish Minister for Justice, Dermot Ahern, whose department commissioned the report, called it a “scandal on an astonishing scale” where the “welfare of children counted for nothing”.
    He vowed to bring those who had carried out the abuse to justice, regardless of the amount of time which had passed.
    The Commission’s work concentrated on a “representative sample” of complaints made by 320 children against 46 priests, 11 of whom were convicted of sexual assaults on children.
    The number of complaints of abuse made by boys was more than double those submitted by girls.
    The Commission said it was satisfied that “effective structures and procedures currently in operation” and that all complaints of clerical child sexual abuse are now reported to police.
    Thursday’s report comes six months after the publication of the Ryan report in May, which took submissions from 2,000 people who said they had suffered physical and sexual abuse while in the care of Catholic-run institutions.
    The Ryan report, also known as the report of the Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, found church leaders knew that sexual abuse was “endemic” in boys’ institutions.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8381119.stm

  • JFK’s nephew barred from communion: Report

    Who are these jokers to decide on who should have the communion?
    Communion by the clergy is not sacrosanct and it is an interpolated concept.On the basis of religious qualification only Jesus is qualified.
    The office of Papacy as a temporal power was a creation of Constantine.
    If strict moral laws are applied, majority of Popes are unfit to to receive Communion because of their debauchery.
    As to the concept itself, if all of us are the children of God, why should I receive permission from a joker to Commune with my Father?
    God does not need brokers.
    Story:
    The nephew of ex-president John F Kennedy, a US lawmaker, has been barred from receiving communion at his Catholic church due to his

    US Representative Patrick Kennedy, son of the late senator Edward Kennedy, was told of the move by Roman Catholic Bishop Thomas Tobin, according to The Providence Journal newspaper in the US state of Rhode Island.

    Kennedy represents a district in Rhode Island in the US Congress.

    “The bishop instructed me not to take communion and said that he has instructed the diocesan priests not to give me communion,” the paper quotes Kennedy as saying in a telephone interview.

    Kennedy said the bishop had explained the penalty by telling him that he was not a good practicing Catholic because of the positions that he had taken as a public official, particularly on abortion, the report said.

    The congressman declined to say when or how Tobin told him not to take the sacrament or whether he had obeyed the bishop’s injunction, the report said.

    Tobin, through a spokesman, declined to address the question of whether he had told Kennedy not to receive communion, The Journal noted.
    http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5257835.cms