snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Glurge Gallery

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 07 June 2007, 10:58 PM
translatorWBT
 
Posts: n/a
Default The head-cloth showed the body wasn't there

If the Lord had meant the head-cloth to refer to the napkin custom, wouldn’t it have meant that He would be returning to the table He had been on? No way!

But actually the word “napkin” was poorly chosen by the KJV translators. The Greek term had nothing to do with eating a meal. Strong’s concordance says it really means “1) a handkerchief, 2) a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse.”

Also the Greek term for “folded” actually means “wrapped up.” The word “fold” in Greek is a different word. The Greek term used here does not at all imply being "neatly” folded.

The reason John points out the detail of the placing of the head-cloth is that it instantly caused him to believe that Jesus had overcome death. He didn't have time to work out some symbolic meaning about it. (And besides, how would a fisherman know the etiquette of the wealthy?) But he did know Isaiah 25:7-8a “On this mountain he will destroy the shroud that enfolds all peoples, the sheet that covers all nations; he will swallow up death forever.”

If the graveclothes were rumpled up together, with all the pounds of spices in them, it might look like the body were still under them. But the head cloth was “by itself” i.e. separate from them. It was immediately obvious that his head (and therefore his body) were gone—and death had been swallowed up forever.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 07 June 2007, 11:24 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by translatorWBT View Post
But actually the word “napkin” was poorly chosen by the KJV translators. The Greek term had nothing to do with eating a meal. Strong’s concordance says it really means “1) a handkerchief, 2) a cloth for wiping perspiration from the face and for cleaning the nose and also used in swathing the head of a corpse.”
You can't blame the translators of the KJV. In their era, "napkin" also meant a kerchief, a small towel or a linen cloth. They were not to know that today it would mean exclusively a table napkin any more than they could know it would at one time mean sanitary napkin.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 07 June 2007, 11:58 PM
callee's Avatar
callee callee is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 5,731
Default

TranslatorWBT, does the WBT in your name refer to Wycliffe Bible Translators by chance?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 07 June 2007, 11:59 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by callee View Post
TranslatorWBT, does the WBT in your name refer to Wycliffe Bible Translators by chance?
LOLLARDS! Run!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 08 June 2007, 12:05 AM
callee's Avatar
callee callee is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 5,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
LOLLARDS! Run!



Whenever I see this image I can't help but caption it with "dude, where's my car?"
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 08 June 2007, 02:24 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by translatorWBT View Post
. . . If the graveclothes were rumpled up together, with all the pounds of spices in them, it might look like the body were still under them. But the head cloth was “by itself” i.e. separate from them. It was immediately obvious that his head (and therefore his body) were gone—and death had been swallowed up forever.
All perfectly good and fine. But is it the "only possible" explanation that the body had popped like a soap bubble, or turned gaseous like Dracula, or beamed out like Captain Kirk?

If Jesus had stirred, sat up, and unwrapped himself, wouldn't all of the observations be equally well served? If the Lord had sent a valet angel to help Jesus be unwrapped, wouldn't that also fit the scriptural verses?

PeterK has emphatically stated that only the interpretation that the gravecloths were not unwrapped, but left in situ as the body of Jesus had passed immaterially through them, can satisfy the gospel. I see this as only one possibility among many, and that the Bible gives us no reason to favor any one supposition over any other.

The miracle was that the shroud was empty; the miracle was not that the shroud was or was not folded into some arcane origami shape. (Hell, it might have been: show me where the Bible says the shroud wasn't folded into "The Crane.")

As I said earlier, the miracle is sufficient unto itself. Going around and saying, "Yes, and a chorus of angels was singing a B-Minor Motet at the moment of the Ascension" is sacreligious. By adding...you subtract.

Silas (boiling oil...and crocodiles? Both? Seems a bit much, eh?)
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 08 June 2007, 03:32 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
By adding...you subtract.

Neatly said Silas - it sums up the problem with almost all glurge as well.

I mean, if there is a deity who has conquered death, then adding fiddly and pointless little word games is silly. A miracle doesn't get any more miraculous because it involves a pun or clever word-play.

It's a bit like a major research centre announcing a cure for cancer derived from honey and then calling it "Cancer-Bee-Gone"

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 08 June 2007, 04:08 AM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropbear View Post
. . . It's a bit like a major research centre announcing a cure for cancer derived from honey and then calling it "Cancer-Bee-Gone" . . .
Grin! You know, I can see somebody marketing it exactly that way! Punning is a human sin, and hard to imagine God engaging in.

To misbehave is human; to beehive, divine.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 08 June 2007, 05:04 AM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
All perfectly good and fine. But is it the "only possible" explanation that the body had popped like a soap bubble, or turned gaseous like Dracula, or beamed out like Captain Kirk?

If Jesus had stirred, sat up, and unwrapped himself, wouldn't all of the observations be equally well served? If the Lord had sent a valet angel to help Jesus be unwrapped, wouldn't that also fit the scriptural verses?

PeterK has emphatically stated that only the interpretation that the gravecloths were not unwrapped, but left in situ as the body of Jesus had passed immaterially through them, can satisfy the gospel. .
Good grief, I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. I repeat again, I did not state anything like this, "emphatically" or in any other way. Why do insist on refusing to read what I actually said? Are you trying to drive me nuts? Is this the only way you can create a debate, to put words into the mouths of others?
Quote:
I see this as only one possibility among many, and that the Bible gives us no reason to favor any one supposition over any other.
Really? Then what are we to understand by your assertion that your theory must be preferred over any other, and that the one I mentioned is impossible - you told me "you're reading more into the text than it can support"? In fact, unlike you, I have studiously avoided making any such absolute claims.
Quote:
The miracle was that the shroud was empty; the miracle was not that the shroud was or was not folded into some arcane origami shape. (Hell, it might have been: show me where the Bible says the shroud wasn't folded into "The Crane.")

As I said earlier, the miracle is sufficient unto itself. Going around and saying, "Yes, and a chorus of angels was singing a B-Minor Motet at the moment of the Ascension" is sacreligious. By adding...you subtract.
I repeat again, I have added nothing to what John said; it is you who added the valets, sitting up, disrobing, re-folding/rolling up, evaporation, dematerialisation, etc.

I'm afraid I have to say it again: on a website which I imagined would attract people who are honestly searching for the truth without self-serving fudging or misrepresentation, there are just too many here who too often seem to have contrary aims.

Last edited by PeterK; 08 June 2007 at 05:10 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 08 June 2007, 05:27 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,789
Icon105

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
I'm afraid I have to say it again: on a website which I imagined would attract people who are honestly searching for the truth without self-serving fudging or misrepresentation, there are just too many here who too often seem to have contrary aims.
We love you, too, PeterK!
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 08 June 2007, 06:14 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
Yes indeed there IS an extremely important reason why John goes to some length to explain the detail about the head-cloth. Up until he saw it, he and the other apostles refused to believe Jesus could rise from the dead, but with just one glance at the cloth, "he saw and believed; for previously they did not know the scripture, that he must rise from the dead". He instantly saw that no other explanation was possible. No, he didn't have time to work out some symbolic meaning about it. The head-cloth was still "folded" or "rolled up" in the place where Jesus' head had been, ("in its proper place, by itself") just as if it was still wound around Jesus' head, but there was no head inside! It was immediately obvious that it wasn't just a matter of someone having taken the body, or that they went to the wrong tomb; or even that Jesus had come back to life like Lazarus and he or someone else had then unwrapped the cloths (John 11:44). The only possible explanation for what he saw was that Jesus had risen through the cloths without unwrapping them.
Note that "the only possible explanation"...

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
If John does not mean that the head-cloth is where Jesus head had been, why did he bother pointing out the otherwise irrelevant and utterly trivial detail that the head-cloth was separate from the body-cloth? It was John who added this detail. I am merely repeating what is the most convincing reason I have seen why he added it. Don't scorn this explanation unless you can come up with a better one.
becomes "the most convincing reason I have seen"

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
You display an amazing lack of rigor if you have read this whole thread and have formed the opinion that I "developed" this theory, and that I have ever asserted, let alone "cling to" with "vigor", that it is "the only possibility". These accusations are all demonstrably false.
That's true actually - he has changed his story according to the circumstances and re-interpreted his words when what he put forth became untenable.

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 08 June 2007, 01:09 PM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dropbear View Post
Note that "the only possible explanation"...
Just in case you honestly didn't understand what I was saying here, read post 31.

Quote:


That's true actually - he has changed his story according to the circumstances and re-interpreted his words when what he put forth became untenable.

Dropbear
I'm getting really sick of this. This has happened on multiple threads here now, and never on any other site I've been on. I get accused of saying something which I absolutely hadn't said, and in fact had explicitly denied. When I patiently explain my meaning again in different words, taking the charitable line that perhaps someone honestly didn't understand me the first, second, and third time, then I get "Aha, so now you've changed your story because you realise my argument is stronger than yours! You're now saying the same thing as me but you're not man enough to admit you were wrong!"
And simultaneously I get some wanker telling me I'm too pigheaded to ever change the opinion I started with no matter how much evidence is brought against it! What's the point?

I'll make no attempt to publicly psychoanalyse why some people here do this, but I can draw my own conclusions.

Last edited by PeterK; 08 June 2007 at 01:24 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 08 June 2007, 06:15 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
And simultaneously I get some wanker telling me I'm too pigheaded to ever change the opinion I started with no matter how much evidence is brought against it!
Calling other people names is not only not going to prove your theological argument, but is just plain rude.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 08 June 2007, 06:35 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
. . . but I can draw my own conclusions.
Your problem, alas, is that you are not very good at expressing them.

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08 June 2007, 09:53 PM
callee's Avatar
callee callee is offline
 
Join Date: 05 March 2004
Location: Ontario
Posts: 5,731
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Calling other people names is not only not going to prove your theological argument, but is just plain rude.
yes, especially since anyone who really knows me knows that at very least I am a huge wanker. can't say I appreciate the demotion.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 08 June 2007, 11:37 PM
Silas Sparkhammer's Avatar
Silas Sparkhammer Silas Sparkhammer is offline
 
Join Date: 22 September 2000
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 26,843
Whalephant

Quote:
Originally Posted by callee View Post
yes, especially since anyone who really knows me knows that at very least I am a huge wanker. can't say I appreciate the demotion.
As a friend of mine liked to say, "Gregor is not big weenie. Gregor has big weenie!"

Silas
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09 June 2007, 05:13 AM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chloe View Post
Calling other people names is not only not going to prove your theological argument, but is just plain rude.
Only "my argument" as you call it is not a theological one; and it took many rude posts directed at me before I allowed any rudeness to slip into my reply. And thirdly it was a general statement, not directed at a particular person.
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09 June 2007, 05:18 AM
PeterK
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Silas Sparkhammer View Post
Your problem, alas, is that you are not very good at expressing them.

Silas
No, it's just that I don't think it's fair to publicly impute motives to people whose character I can only guess at from a few posts to an internet forum. I don't see this as a "problem". In fact if some people started to debate the substantive issue rather than trying to make me and my supposed character and motivation the issue, I wouldn't have a problem.
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09 June 2007, 07:10 AM
Dropbear's Avatar
Dropbear Dropbear is offline
 
Join Date: 03 June 2005
Location: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Posts: 7,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
No, it's just that I don't think it's fair to publicly impute motives to people whose character I can only guess at from a few posts to an internet forum.
But abuse is okay.

Dropbear
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09 June 2007, 03:19 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PeterK View Post
Only "my argument" as you call it is not a theological one; and it took many rude posts directed at me before I allowed any rudeness to slip into my reply. And thirdly it was a general statement, not directed at a particular person.
Whether it is a theological argument or not, that doesn't excuse your name-calling. While responses to you have been brusque and frustrated on occasion, they have not been rude; you have cornered that market in this thread. You need to learn the difference between playing the ball and playing the man.

And you clearly meant callee.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Who Was the Historical Jesus? snopes Religion 4 11 April 2009 02:06 AM
Can you find Jesus in this pic? hambubba Inboxer Rebellion 48 10 February 2009 11:59 AM
Jesus in the Clouds JimW Fauxtography 21 27 August 2008 01:46 PM
Mail from Jesus KateJones Glurge Gallery 4 20 January 2007 01:47 AM


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.