What did Jesus look like?

Soul Winner

Jonny7 wrote: »

Dude, if you believe in something that is invisible, why would you want "compelling" evidence?

I don't need the Shroud of Turin in order to be convinced that Christ rose from the dead as reported in the Gospels. I'm convinced of that already wholly separate from what the shroud brings to the table. What the shroud does for me is provide tangible evidence for what I already believe in as a fact. I say that because they cannot prove that it is a fake for one, and they cannot explain how the image got their into the bargain. Plus if the resurrection did happen as reported in the Gospels then it would have had to have happened whilst He was still wrapped in His burial cloth and with that being the case then a supernatural infusion of life into His dead body on the third day could conceivably produce an image like this - a radiation burst if you like. So until they can explain how somebody can fake such a thing then I am entitled to believe it to be the genuine burial cloth of Christ and let it have the boosting effect on my faith that I'm happy and free to enjoy.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

The problem is that the 'religious fanatic' has pointed out what John the Evangelist wrote - namely that Christ's head was wrapped in a separate cloth from His body.

So who should we pay attention to? The apostle who wrote the Fourth Gospel, or a piece of cloth of undetermined age with a blurred image of an unnamed person on it?

Strange... the Calvin quote in #44 states:

Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. (John 20:1-7)

So, if the cloth was still lying in its place the implication is that it was still in the place it was put before the tomb was sealed.

Oops.

What was the dear Calvin thinking of? No version of the Bible contains this line that I can find.

KJV

And the napkin, that was about his head, not lying with the linen clothes, but wrapped together in a place by itself .

DR

And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place.

Check any other version and the word "still" does not appear. Nor does any version imply that the head or face was covered.

Now, look at the Turin Shroud images. About the head in the vertical plane there is an image that comes down the both sides of the head and under the chin. This appears to be from a cloth that was holding the jaw shut, preventing the mouth from falling open and remaining so when rigor mortis sets in. As it can take 72 hours - 3 days - for this to pass off, and the intention was to return to the tomb on Sunday, before rigor had passed off, it would not make sense to leave the body with a gaping mouth so a cloth band was passed around the head to keep the mouth closed. There is only one way to achieve this and it does not involve covering the face.

This is the cloth that was about the head and folded and placed separate from the cloth that wrapped the body. It did not "cover" the face or the head but was set "about" the head.

I would suggest two things - 1, pay attention to the writings of St. John.
2. pay attention to those who are capable of attention to detail.

It would appear that neither Calvin, nor some other so called scientists are capable of attention to detail.

Regardless of ones opinion on the Shroud of Turin one cannot but wonder at the attention to detail it contains.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Strange... the Calvin quote in #44 states:


Then Simon Peter came along behind him and went straight into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen. (John 20:1-7)

Not quite sure what you're on about here. That isn't a quote from Calvin, it's a quote from the New International Version of the Bible, John 20:6-7.

Oops.

What was the dear Calvin thinking of? No version of the Bible contains this line that I can find.

Calvin wasn't thinking of anything. It was me that quoted from the NIV.

As for the fact that you can't find the NIV - I couldn't possibly comment.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Calvin wasn't thinking of anything. It was me that quoted from the NIV.

As for the fact that you can't find the NIV - I couldn't possibly comment.

THis is what I found in the NIV

Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Still can't find "still" in the quotation from this source http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/john/passage.aspx?q=john+20:1-7

but I can if I use this source

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:1-7&version=NIV

maybe you should check your sources before posting something incorrect.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

THis is what I found in the NIV

Then Simon Peter, who was behind him, arrived and went into the tomb. He saw the strips of linen lying there, 7 as well as the burial cloth that had been around Jesus' head. The cloth was folded up by itself, separate from the linen.

Still can't find "still" in the quotation from this source http://www.biblestudytools.com/cjb/john/passage.aspx?q=john+20:1-7

but I can if I use this source

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2020:1-7&version=NIV

maybe you should check your sources before posting something incorrect.

And, before you accuse anyone else of posting something that is incorrect, maybe you should check your sources.

You are quoting from the 1984 edition of the NIV. I was quoting from the 2010 version. If you had bothered to look more carefully at biblegateway.com you would have seen that it includes both editions.

Fanny Cradock

What is the significance of the word "still"? I can't see it altering the intended meaning.

PDN

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

What is the significance of the word "still"? I can't see it altering the intended meaning.

Neither can I.

Festus

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see

Revelation 22:18-19 (King James Version)

18For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:
19And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.


Revelation 22:18-19 (New International Version, ©2010)

18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this scroll: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to that person the plagues described in this scroll. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this scroll of prophecy, God will take away from that person any share in the tree of life and in the Holy City, which are described in this scroll.


DR


18 For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. 19 And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.




NIV 2010 Why oh why another version if only to change the words and lead people astray

Bernice101

... if the modern day Palastinians and Isralies are anything to go by

TeddyTedson

Bernice101 wrote: »

... if the modern day Palastinians and Isralies are anything to go by

He looks REALLY angry, but I guess everyone did back then...

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

NIV 2010 Why oh why another version if only to change the words and lead people astray

Do you have a point regarding the significance of the word "still"? Or are you going to side step that and head off on some KJV only trail?

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Do you have a point regarding the significance of the word "still"? Or are you going to side step that and head off on some KJV only trail?

I don't rate the KJV either so you're way wide of the mark

Check #53. If there is something you don't understand I'll do my best to clarify.

"Still" is an unneccessary addition that adds ambiguitiy and confusion. It may not alter the meaning for you but it can lead to different interpretations.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

NIV 2010 Why oh why another version if only to change the words and lead people astray

Because, in seminaries and universities all around the world there are linguists, biblical scholars, historians and archaeologists who are continually increasing our knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and the ancient world.

Also, as we reflect on existing translations, we become aware of weaknesses and ambiguities in translation that can be corrected.

Therefore, as with any field of knowledge, we should be constantly revising and updating. Our devotion to God means that we should be constantly seeking to improve our understanding of His Word.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

I don't rate the KJV either so you're way wide of the mark

Well then why do you assume that "still" is an unnecessary addition. Have you studied the original manuscripts?

Festus wrote: »

"Still" is an unneccessary addition that adds ambiguitiy and confusion. It may not alter the meaning for you but it can lead to different interpretations.

It might be unnecessary but it doesn't change the meaning of the text - at least not to my mind.

"Bert is in the room"
or
"Bert is still in the room"

Both sentences say that Bert was in the room. The only difference is that the while the second sentence implies that he left at some stage, the first neither supports nor contradicts this claim.

Given that you are the one defending the idea that the shroud is genuine I would have thought that you would have welcomed the addition of the word "still" if for no other reason that it might, just might, give the faintest scriptural glimmer of hope to the idea that Jesus' burial garments were preserved.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Because, in seminaries and universities all around the world there are linguists, biblical scholars, historians and archaeologists who are continually increasing our knowledge of Hebrew, Greek and the ancient world.

Also, as we reflect on existing translations, we become aware of weaknesses and ambiguities in translation that can be corrected.

Therefore, as with any field of knowledge, we should be constantly revising and updating. Our devotion to God means that we should be constantly seeking to improve our understanding of His Word.

The NIV does not contain a nihil obstat or imprimatur and as such is heretical until proven otherwise.

If Zondervan wish to pursue that route it is up to them. Until is gets approved it is not valid in my opinion.

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Given that you are the one defending the idea that the shroud is genuine I would have thought that you would have welcomed the addition of the word "still" if for no other reason that it might, just might, give the faintest scriptural glimmer of hope to the idea that Jesus' burial garments were preserved.

The word "still" in this context implies that it was where it was left. This implies that it was not used in Christs burial and was removed before Jesus body was wrapped in the shroud.

If that is the case it contradicts theimage on the shroud which shows a cloth around His head.

It can say nothing about whether the linens were or were not preserved only that they were there when the tomb was entered.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

The NIV does not contain a nihil obstat or imprimatur and as such is heretical until proven otherwise.

If Zondervan wish to pursue that route it is up to them. Until is gets approved it is not valid in my opinion.

I think Zondervan would be more concerned at publishing as accurate a translation as possible of the Bible, rather than trying to get the approval of an organisation that has a history of burning people who translate the Bible.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

This implies that it was not used in Christs burial and was removed before Jesus body was wrapped in the shroud.

It implies nothing of the sort.

Festus wrote: »

It can say nothing about whether the linens were or were not preserved only that they were there when the tomb was entered.

I never said otherwise.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

I think Zondervan would be more concerned at publishing as accurate a translation as possible of the Bible, rather than trying to get the approval of an organisation that has a history of burning people who translate the Bible.

Of course there would be no anti-catholic sentiment in that statement now would there.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Of course there would be no anti-catholic sentiment in that statement now would there.

I guess that would depend on whether you think burning people for translating the Bible is a good thing or a bad thing.

georgieporgy

PDN wrote: »

I think Zondervan would be more concerned at publishing as accurate a translation as possible of the Bible, rather than trying to get the approval of an organisation that has a history of burning people who translate the Bible.

Our hero John Calvin tried to have Michael Servitus beheaded instead of burnt, but the pro burning side won the day. The same folks made a mess of translating the bible too.

But you probably were referring to the RC people? Did the RC ever actually authorise burning someone for translating the bible?

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

It implies nothing of the sort.

Ok, lets take the statement

"He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen."

What does it imply in your opinion?

and if compared to

"...and saw the linen cloths lying, [7] And the napkin that had been about his head, not lying with the linen cloths, but apart, wrapped up into one place"

Not only do we have the cloth moving from being "about" His head but now it is "wrapped around" His head, implying front to back rather than from top to bottom.

If you can't see the problems here I can't help you.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

I guess that would depend on whether you think burning people for translating the Bible is a good thing or a bad thing.

Sources please.

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

Our hero John Calvin tried to have Michael Servitus beheaded instead of burnt, but the pro burning side won the day. The same folks made a mess of translating the bible too.

But you probably were referring to the RC people? Did the RC ever actually authorise burning someone for translating the bible?

Servetus was burned by order of the Geneva Council (of which Calvin was not, and could not have been a member since, being French, he was never a citizen of Geneva).

However, if anyone was foolish enough to try to derail a discussion about the accuracy of translations by suggesting a publisher should get a stamp of approval from Geneva City Council, then I would certainly raise the same objection as I did earlier.

The same folks made a mess of translating the bible too.

I'm not aware that the Geneva Council ever tried to translate the Bible.

But you probably were referring to the RC people? Did the RC ever actually authorise burning someone for translating the bible?

Usually the official reason for burning them, as with William Tyndale, was that of 'heresy'. But it would unwise to split hairs over that given that in 1408 the bishops of the Catholic Church in England had declared the translating of the Bible without approval from themselves as constituting heresy.

Unfortunately they were too late to burn another translator, John Wycliffe, when he was alive. They had to be content with ordering that his corpse be dug up and burned. That was at the Council of Constance - the same council where they invited Jan Hus to a debate, then decided that promises of safe passage were null and void since no-one should keep any promises made to heretics, so it was OK to arrest and burn him.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Sources please.

Sources are good. Have you any archaeological sources for your statement that it was common practice to tie people's mouths shut with a bandage?

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

Ok, lets take the statement

"He saw the strips of linen lying there, as well as the cloth that had been wrapped around Jesus’ head. The cloth was still lying in its place, separate from the linen."

What does it imply in your opinion?

To me it implies that you are very fond of implying things. It also shows me that you are predisposed to poo-pooing one translation while relying on another that at even the most magnanimous stretch could barely be seen as supporting evidence. You said yourself that we don't know what happened to the cloth afterwards, so I suggest that if you want to promote the shroud as genuine you will have to stick to extra-Biblical sources.

Anyway, as I don't think it possible that God could care less about the topic, I don't see much point in continuing the debate.

Enjoy!

Festus

PDN wrote: »

Sources are good. Have you any archaeological sources for your statement that it was common practice to tie people's mouths shut with a bandage?

John 11:44.

Now, present yours.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

John 11:44.

That says there was a cloth around his face, it doesn't mention anything about keeping his mouth closed for appearences sake.

The cloth around his face was, as Calvin realised, something very different. In fact we do have archeological insight into it: http://www.theworld.org/2009/12/16/shroud-reveals-evidence-of-ancient-leprosy/.

This particular shroud we did carbon date it and it came out to be the first century. And the shroud of Turin, as you probably know, is dated to the Middle Ages. So even though some true believers dispute that date, it does have the first century carbon dating, our shroud. But the weave is completely different from the Turin shroud. It’s a simple kind of double twisted weave, and the Turin shroud is quite different. Also, it’s several pieces. It has a head piece as well as a body piece, and you remember the Turin shroud is just one big cloth.

Now, where were those sources about a bandage being wrapped around the corpse's head to keep the mouth closed?

Now, present yours.

My source for the RC Church burning people who translated the Bible? Just look up William Tyndale in any history book.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

That says there was a cloth around his face, it doesn't mention anything about keeping his mouth closed for appearences sake.

Maybe when you're laid out you'ld prefer to have your mouth gaping open. That's your business.

The fact of the matter is it was and is Jewish custom to close the mouth and keep it closed with a cloth. Be it for appearances or otherwise is moot.

PDN wrote: »

Now, where were those sources about a bandage being wrapped around the corpse's head to keep the mouth closed?

http://www.ethnicityonline.net/judaism_death.htm

https://sites.google.com/a/philandpatti.com/www02/thefoldednapkin

http://www.jewishmourningguide.com/after-death/first-things-after-death-detaile/

http://www.hse.ie/eng/services/Publications/services/SocialInclusion/InterculturalGuide/Judaism/care_dying.html

There are probably more if the Bible is not to your liking.

PDN wrote: »

My source for the RC Church burning people who translated the Bible? Just look up William Tyndale in any history book.

Ah, so because he translated the Bible and got burned you conflate he was burned for translating the Bible.

There's a term for people who do things like that to make a sectarian point. What is it now.... escapes me.

Most of the history books I've looked up implicate the King of England, also Head of the Church in England, in his betrayal, arrest and death and not any agent of the Vatican. It appears Tyndale made a hobby of collecting enemies, especially English ones. Other questions remain. Was he executed for treason or heresy. That he was strangled first before being burned would suggest he was executed for treason and burned for heresy.

However there is still little to go on that supports either your position or mine though more to support mine in the matter of Tyndale v Henry as opposed to your Tyndale v Rome, or is that Geneva.

Do you have a better example, someone with a more detailed biography perhaps rather than the favourite of sensationalist sectarian anti-catholic TV shows and atheist debaters.

It's up to you if you want to derail this discussion but digging up poorly recorded history conflated with something the Church has already apologized for (heresy) is bordering on sectarian bigotry. I sure that's not what you mean but it is how it is coming across.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Maybe when you're laid out you'ld prefer to have your mouth gaping open. That's your business.

I couldn't care less what anyone does with my body. They can throw me in the wheelie bin if they want. But, once again you are going off on an off-topic tangent. This discussion is not about what I want - it's about what they did in the 1st Century.

The fact of the matter is it was and is Jewish custom to close the mouth and keep it closed with a cloth. Be it for appearances or otherwise is moot.

What is Jewish custom now, 2000 years later, is hardly relevant.

You saying something is the fact of the matter cuts no ice. Where is any evidence that they did this in the 1st Century?

https://sites.google.com/a/philandpa...hefoldednapkin

Unfortunately a website by some people, apparently with no academic standing, saying they heard a nice story about a folded napkin does not constitute archealogical evidence.

There are probably more if the Bible is not to your liking.

The Bible is perfectly to my liking. But you haven't demonstrated anywhere that the Bible mentions a bandage to keep a corpse's mouth closed.

Ah, so because he translated the Bible and got burned you conflate he was burned for translating the Bible.

Where did I say he was burned for translating the Bible?

There's a term for people who do things like that to make a sectarian point. What is it now.... escapes me.

It gets rather tiresome that you keep accusing people of sectarianism when they disagree with you. I would say exactly the same thing about the Church of England, or any other organisation with a history of burning other human beings alive.

Most of the history books I've looked up implicate the King of England, also Head of the Church in England, in his betrayal, arrest and death and not any agent of the Vatican. It appears Tyndale made a hobby of collecting enemies, especially English ones. Other questions remain. Was he executed for treason or heresy. That he was strangled first before being burned would suggest he was executed for treason and burned for heresy.

And did those history books mention that he was executed in Belgium? Have a wee look at a map and familiarise yourself with the location of the English Channel. Tyndale was executed on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire, and several Catholic priests acted as his prosecutors.

It's up to you if you want to derail this discussion but digging up poorly recorded history conflated with something the Church has already apologized for (heresy) is bordering on sectarian bigotry. I sure that's not what you mean but it is how it is coming across.

No, you are the one who derailed a discussion about biblical translations by interjecting nonsense that any translation not approved by your particular denomination is heretical. That was the sectarian bigotry that derailed things.

Festus

PDN wrote: »

What is Jewish custom now, 2000 years later, is hardly relevant.

Oh, I forgot. Jewish custom is like Protestant custom - constantly being kept up to date and modern and with no regard for Tradition. Silly me.

PDN wrote: »

You saying something is the fact of the matter cuts no ice. Where is any evidence that they did this in the 1st Century?

You know something about Jewish Tradition I don't? This is 5771 after all.

PDN wrote: »

Unfortunately a website by some people, apparently with no academic standing, saying they heard a nice story about a folded napkin does not constitute archealogical evidence.

So, it's a nice story. oy vey, get over it.

PDN wrote: »

The Bible is perfectly to my liking. But you haven't demonstrated anywhere that the Bible mentions a bandage to keep a corpse's mouth closed.

Ah, ignorance is bliss, isn't it.

PDN wrote: »

Where did I say he was burned for translating the Bible?

PDN wrote: »

My source for the RC Church burning people who translated the Bible? Just look up William Tyndale in any history book.

Or did I mis-interpret. Of course. That's what happened :rolleyes:

PDN wrote: »

It gets rather tiresome that you keep accusing people of sectarianism when they disagree with you. I would say exactly the same thing about the Church of England, or any other organisation with a history of burning other human beings alive.

so

PDN wrote: »

I think Zondervan would be more concerned at publishing as accurate a translation as possible of the Bible, rather than trying to get the approval of an organisation that has a history of burning people who translate the Bible.

wasn't meant to be provocative or sectarian?

PDN wrote: »

And did those history books mention that he was executed in Belgium? Have a wee look at a map and familiarise yourself with the location of the English Channel. Tyndale was executed on the territory of the Holy Roman Empire, and several Catholic priests acted as his prosecutors.

Yes they did, but who betrayed him and why? Did Henry not also want him dead for disagreeing with him over divorce?
You appear to refuse to accept that England under a Reformation King was the prime mover in his death. Your comments do carry a sense of anti-catholicism that is disturbing in todays Ireland.

PDN wrote: »

No, you are the one who derailed a discussion about biblical translations by interjecting nonsense that any translation not approved by your particular denomination is heretical. That was the sectarian bigotry that derailed things.

I made a comment. You picked at it when you saw an opportunity to indulge your favourite topic come up.

I made a genuine mistake by not reading the new updated and even more heretical 2010 version cover to cover. #44 gave absolutely no indication that the source was NIV 2010

You said NIV again and again but no mention of 2010. Very helpful.
So I found the 1984 version. What's so bad about that. At last you mention NIV 2010 and upon investigation I find changes to the text that you may welcome but I find somewhat disturbing.
I say so and mention my preference for authorisation and that if the publishers wish to seek it thats fine but until them I'll stick with texts known to be not heretical and you go off on one. If they don't want to that's fine to - I did not suggest that they should. Then you are straight in with the bible burners.

Let me know when it is okay to express an opinion on this forum. Please.

PDN

Festus wrote: »

Let me know when it is okay to express an opinion on this forum. Please.

Nobody's stopped you expressing an opinion. You are free to express an opinion, and I am free to express my disagreement with you.

Maybe you should accept that's how the internet works and stop pretending to be a victim of sectarianism.

You are the one who insists that your denomination is the only true one and keeps accusing others of being heretics. I am the one who is prepared to point out the failings of all religious movements, including my own.

Fanny Cradock

Festus wrote: »

Oh, I forgot. Jewish custom is like Protestant custom - constantly being kept up to date and modern and with no regard for Tradition. Silly me.

At the risk of cutting across PDN, I feel I have to interject here because of the repeated displays of bad will.

If I hear another bigoted peep out of you, festus, you are on holiday. OK?

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

Soul Winner

PDN wrote: »

That says there was a cloth around his face, it doesn't mention anything about keeping his mouth closed for appearences sake.

The verse in question:

"The dead man came out, his hands and feet wrapped with strips of linen, and a cloth around his face. Jesus said to them, “Take off the grave clothes and let him go.” John 11:44 (NIV)

But this verse can also be translated thus:

KJV with Strong's

"And he that was dead came forth bound hand and foot with graveclothes and his face was bound about with a napkin. Jesus saith unto them Loose him and let him go."

Both of these bound words mean to tie up or to bind in one way or another. In fact, the second of these words (Perideó) means to tie around or to wrap around. Now granted the verse does not say that the purpose for the tie-ing around was to keep the mouth closed which would result in preventing the mouth being left gaping due to rigor mortis setting in. But a bit of common sense will tell you that this must have been the purpose for this extra piece of cloth. They still use cloths for this purpose today. So why not make the jump that this extra piece of cloth bound around the face in New Testament times was used for the same purpose back then? Is there evidence that these extra cloths were used for any other purpose? We know that the reason they bound the hands and feet in place was because when rigor mortis sets in it is very difficult to position these extremities in a dignified manner for burial. I would bet that the face was bound for the very same reason.

According to the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia part of the next of kin duties after a death in the family included binding up the jaws of the deceased.

4. Duties of Next of Kin:

As soon as the breath is gone the oldest son, or failing him, the nearest of kin present, closes the eyes of the dead (compare Gen 46:4, "and Joseph shall put his hand upon thine eyes"). The mouth, too, is closed and the jaws are bound up (compare Jn 11:44, "and his face was bound about with a napkin"). The death is announced, as it was of old, by a tumult of lamentation preceded by a shrill cry, and the weeping and wailing of professional mourners (compare Mk 5:38 ff). More here

If you look at the picture below you can even see evidence of this type of binding. It looks as though there was some sort of knot tied at the top of the head. Can't be sure obviously but its curious all the same.

georgieporgy

PDN wrote: »

Servetus was burned by order of the Geneva Council (of which Calvin was not, and could not have been a member since, being French, he was never a citizen of Geneva).

However, if anyone was foolish enough to try to derail a discussion about the accuracy of translations by suggesting a publisher should get a stamp of approval from Geneva City Council, then I would certainly raise the same objection as I did earlier.

I'm not aware that the Geneva Council ever tried to translate the Bible.



Usually the official reason for burning them, as with William Tyndale, was that of 'heresy'. But it would unwise to split hairs over that given that in 1408 the bishops of the Catholic Church in England had declared the translating of the Bible without approval from themselves as constituting heresy.

Unfortunately they were too late to burn another translator, John Wycliffe, when he was alive. They had to be content with ordering that his corpse be dug up and burned. That was at the Council of Constance - the same council where they invited Jan Hus to a debate, then decided that promises of safe passage were null and void since no-one should keep any promises made to heretics, so it was OK to arrest and burn him.

I don't really want to derail the thread too much by going off on a rant about Calvin (nor do I want to offend the sensibilities of modern day Calvinists) but I'm posting this brief biographic note for the benefit of readers whose knowledge of history may be limited;

Geneva reformer

After returning briefly to France in 1536, Calvin left his homeland permanently. Traveling through Geneva, Switzerland, he met Guillaume Farel, a Protestant who asked him to stick around. In 1537 the city fathers
John Calvin.
Courtesy of the Library of Congress
.

in Geneva elected Calvin to the preaching office. A council operating as the government soon banned Catholicism and all immoral behavior. In 1538 a combination of Libertines (freedom lovers) and Catholics, opposed to the new rules, took control of the council. Calvin was banished and went to Strasbourg, France, where he married Idelette de Bure in 1540. Their only child died in infancy. Things went badly in Geneva after Calvin left. Disgusted with the behavior of the people, the council asked Calvin to return in 1541, promising total cooperation in restoring order. Back in Geneva, Calvin went right to work organizing the Reformed church. In 1542 the council approved his new regulations. The ministry was divided into pastors, teachers, lay (nonreligious) elders, and deacons. The pastors governed the Church, and their permission was required to preach in Geneva. To control public behavior, an elected group of pastors and elders were given the right to search people's homes; to banish anyone from the city; to force attendance at weekly sermons; and to ban gambling, drinking, dancing, and immodest dress. Criticism of Calvin or other church officials was forbidden, as were immoral writings and books about Catholicism. Punishment for first offenses was usually a fine. Repeat offenders were banished, and extreme offenses carried the death penalty. From 1541 until Calvin's death fifty-eight people were executed and seventy-six were banished in order to preserve morals and order.

Last years

Calvin's last years were spent criticizing his enemies and updating Geneva's laws and the Institutes. Geneva became a model of order and cleanliness and was admired by visitors. Men trained by Calvin carried his ideas all over Europe. He lived to see his following grow in the Netherlands, Scotland, Germany, and even France. On May 27, 1564, Calvin died after a long illness, having left a huge mark on the Christian world.



Read more: John Calvin Biography - life, death, son, book, information, born, time http://www.notablebiographies.com/Ca-Ch/Calvin-John.html#ixzz1A96iS7Mv

It would seem to me that Calvin was quite influential in the Geneva Council. I also remember reading somewhere that the reformer himself translated the bible and presumably this version was considered legit in Geneva.

As for the execution of Jan Huss I understand the rules of the day required that heretics be handed over to the State (secular powers) who punished them according to the law of the land; much like today's legal requirement that paedophiles be turned over to the State for sentencing (and some people would wish them burnt!). The Council of Constance was set up by the Emperor to sort out some problems of schism prevailing at the time.

PDN

georgieporgy wrote: »

I don't really want to derail the thread too much by going off on a rant about Calvin (nor do I want to offend the sensibilities of modern day Calvinists)

I don't think anything there will offend any modern day Calvinists (not that I am a Calvinist).

Calvinists are those who follow the theological system that Calvin developed. They don't worship Calvin, nor do they think he was infallible, so discussion of his failings is perfectly in order.

It would seem to me that Calvin was quite influential in the Geneva Council.

He was not in the Geneva Council, but as the most prominent figure his views certainly carried weight. He appeared as an expert witness at the trial of Servetus, giving his opinion as to whether his views were heretical or not. When the Council sentenced Servetus to death, Calvin appealed for the sentence to be by beheading as an act of mercy - this being quicker than burning. The Council ignored Calvin's plea - which indicates that Calvin was not the 'Pope of Geneva' as some would pretend.

Calvin certainly approved of the killing of Servetus, which in my book is a pretty huge failing in any human being.

I also remember reading somewhere that the reformer himself translated the bible and presumably this version was considered legit in Geneva.

No, I'm pretty sure Calvin never did translate the Bible. There was a 'Geneva Bible' but it was translated by William Whittingham and other English exiles who sheltered in Geneva as refugees during the reign of Mary Tudor. It was later suppressed by James I in favor of the KJV. It would hardly have been used much in Geneva itself since it was in English and most people in Geneva spoke French. So it would only have been 'legit' in the sense that Geneva never banned it or tried to burn its translators.

As for the execution of Jan Huss I understand the rules of the day required that heretics be handed over to the State (secular powers) who punished them according to the law of the land; much like today's legal requirement that paedophiles be turned over to the State for sentencing (and some people would wish them burnt!).

Funny then that in 1999 Pope John Paul II saw fit to apologise for the burning of Hus.

The role of the Church in Hus' execution was as follows:
1. Agents of the Church arrested Hus and imprisoned him, first in a clergyman's house and then in the dungeon of a Dominican monastery.
2. The King was irate that Hus had been arrested since he had promised him safe passage, but the bishops at the Council of Constance convinced the king that promises made to a heretic were non-binding.
3. The first hearing against Hus was conducted by 3 bishops appointed by AntiPope John XXIII.
4. Next Hus was imprisoned in chains at the Castle of the Archbishop of Constance.
5. Next he was imprisoned in a Franciscan monastery.
6. His condemnation took place in Constance Cathedral where, after high mass the Bishop of Lodi read out a report of Hus' trial. Then an Italian bishop announced that he was condemned as a heretic.
7. A high paper hat (like a dunce's cap) was placed on his head declaring him to be a teacher of heresy.
8. He was handed over to the secular soldiers to be burned.

I'm sorry, but it won't wash to say, "Ah, we persuaded someone else to pull the trigger so it wasn't us Guv!" As for comparing this to handing paedophiles over to the State for sentencing - that is possibly the lamest excuse I have ever heard.

georgieporgy

Thanks for that extra info PDN. Now that you mention it I do recall reading at length about Jan Hus a few years ago and it does seem his enemies carried the day (unfairly). Similar I suppose to the trial of Joan of Arc. I'm not that knowledgible in european history but would certainly concede that there were a fair amount of injustices and barbaric acts carried out by people on all sides during that period of religious warfare.

I would also concede there were bad catholic bishops (etc) in those days just like now.

Can we now get back to discussing the signifigance of the word "still" ?

Festus

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

At the risk of cutting across PDN, I feel I have to interject here because of the repeated displays of bad will.

If I hear another bigoted peep out of you, festus, you are on holiday. OK?

Ok. Perhaps then you could lend support to the statement:

PDN wrote: »

I think Zondervan would be more concerned at publishing as accurate a translation as possible of the Bible*, rather than trying to get the approval of an organisation that has a history of burning people who translate the Bible.

in particular to the historic veracity of people being burned for translating the Bible under orders from the heirarchy of said organisation?

I understand if this may require a thread of its own where this and other distasteful and controversial parts of Catholic history from 500 years ago can be discussed.

I would rather expose the alleged "lie", or more correctly, the misunderstanding, that the face or head of Jesus was "covered" rather than having a cloth "about" His head.

That the head or face was "covered" has little or no support in the Bible or elsewhere from Jewish burial tradition, whereas the existence of a cloth that went "about" the head is, as Soul Winner pointed out.

*[crossed out as I have no interest in derailing the thread with a discussion on the relative merits of an organisation that is owned by a company that among other things produces soft porn]

gbee

Jester Minute wrote: »

So, what do you think?

Christ the baby was born to an apparently average woman at the time. She'd be of Arab extraction and dark if not black. Leaving aside the Angel's artificial insemination, the baby Jesus had to have been part Arab.

If given Christ's daughter's description later on is a clue, Christ's genetic father was of lighter colour or even white.

If one postulates the two he would certainly have been different and would have stood out a bit ~ but not so much as to alienate people.

georgieporgy

gbee wrote: »

Christ the baby was born to an apparently average woman at the time. She'd be of Arab extraction and dark if not black. Leaving aside the Angel's artificial insemination, the baby Jesus had to have been part Arab.

If given Christ's daughter's description later on is a clue, Christ's genetic father was of lighter colour or even white.

If one postulates the two he would certainly have been different and would have stood out a bit ~ but not so much as to alienate people.

That's really interesting and something I hadn't heard before. I thought Christ's father was not just light but actually invisible!
But I never heard about his daughter before. Was she half Irish or something? (and are you aware we have recently been discussing burning heretics? )

gbee

georgieporgy wrote: »

That's really interesting and something I hadn't heard before. I thought Christ's father was not just light but actually invisible!]

Well my story says that the Angel of the Lord came to Mary, so I'm not contradicting you, but I believe the Angel was visible and made Mary pregnant without corruption [for the Lord].

Sgt.Peppers

i think your ugly n belive in god because you wanne go to heaven n have some new teeth or somtin to tell yea the truth

Fanny Cradock

Sgt.Peppers wrote: »

i think your ugly n belive in god because you wanne go to heaven n have some new teeth or somtin to tell yea the truth

Incomprehensible drivel. Read the charter, Bub.

Festus

georgieporgy wrote: »

(and are you aware we have recently been discussing burning heretics? )

Infairness now we were discussing "the burning" of heretics because "we" didn't actually do the burning. "We" decided if they were heretics or not, and that's all "we" did. The secular authorities decided if they were to be burnt or not and carried out the sentence.
Just a point of clarity and no intention do derail the thread but some people do have it in their heads for some strange reason that the Catholic Church carried out the burnings and that simply is not the case.

Burning as a form or execution has a long history as it provided for a much longer entertainment than hanging or beheading - the latter being far too quick in the days before the Premiership and Sky Sports

Apologies of the off topic - no need to reply.

irishconvert

gbee wrote: »

Christ the baby was born to an apparently average woman at the time. She'd be of Arab extraction and dark if not black. Leaving aside the Angel's artificial insemination, the baby Jesus had to have been part Arab..

Arab's are not black, or dark. Many of them are as white as Irish.

irishconvert

gbee wrote: »

Well my story says that the Angel of the Lord came to Mary, so I'm not contradicting you, but I believe the Angel was visible and made Mary pregnant without corruption [for the Lord].

What is your biblicial source for this belief?

prinz

Festus wrote: »

Infairness now we were discussing "the burning" of heretics because "we" didn't actually do the burning. "We" decided if they were heretics or not, and that's all "we" did. The secular authorities decided if they were to be burnt or not and carried out the sentence..

Or 'washing off the hands' if you will. I have heard that occur somewhere before.

gbee

irishconvert wrote: »

What is your biblicial source for this belief?

Br. Pious and Bishop Lucey circa 1966 before I got the slap on the face.

Soul Winner

Festus wrote: »

The secular authorities decided if they were to be burnt or not and carried out the sentence.

Just a point of clarity and no intention do derail the thread but some people do have it in their heads for some strange reason that the Catholic Church carried out the burnings and that simply is not the case.

According to Jesus, the ones who handed Him over to the Roman authorities have the greater sin. So even though the Jewish authorities didn't actually carry out His crucifixion, according to Jesus they were more guilty than the Romans.

"Jesus answered, “You would have no power over me if it were not given to you from above. Therefore the one who handed me over to you is guilty of a greater sin.” John 19:11

Same goes for any execution of innocence. The secular authorities, although they carried out these burnings, for the most part were not the ones who charged the victims of heresy and handed them over to be executed. The real accusers will not be able to pass the book on their judgments come the real Judgment day, their lame excuses will not fly with God. And God knows what their real motives were at the time just like He knows that the real motives of the Jewish leaders had nothing to with serving God but rather holding onto worldly power. They knew that had they left Jesus alone the people would have made Him king over them. Anyway very OT at this stage, lets get back to discussing what Jesus might have looked like shall we?