Wow! This part of the story was new to me! So there were mentions of the Shroud in historical records long before the 13th century? that destroys the argument that the Shroud is a late Medieval forgery. Thanks for sharing this.
Now, that we have got a strong case that an image of Jesus was making waves in Edessa, we can use this as a historical backdrop to what was happening with Islam. The image was in Muslim territory. Islam was winning. Leo's response? Iconoclasm. Icons are useless. Don't believe in them, guys. Certainly Leo's lack of belief in them would align with his political motive in disparaging them. Eventually, Iconoclasm took off in Islam - despite Islam being all about the signs (the ayas) - because flatly this pesky image was a proof of the Christian way. Might it's sale to the Byzantine emperor Lacapenus (what a funny name!) in the late 10th century have been a turning point when Islam began to deny the crucixion? After all, it would be hard to explain a miraculous image for a Christ substitute..
You might have the order wrong. Leo III’s iconoclasm might have been a response to pressure towards it from the Muhammadeans, rather than away from their icon practice. Iconoclasm was declared a heresy, with strong defense coming from Rome. Make sense with Islam seeming to come from a Unitarian/gnostic heresy common in the Syria at the time.
I highly doubt Abgar - ܐܒܓܪ was the actual name of the King of Osroene. It means father [of the] pilgrims, or alternatively father of the sojourners. Its more likely a title. Furthermore he was likely a Jewish/Judaised king, since he was married to Queen Helena of Adiabene, a famous Jewish convert. As a side note the Romans referred to him as the King of the Arabs. First and second generation converts to Christianity seem to have been mostly Jewish, or Judaised. But unrelated to the shroud, we find (again) an early link between Jews and Arabs.
Lovely link! Yes, and most of the earliest evangelisation was amongst Jewish areas so that fits like a glove. It is what we would expect. Good sleuthing.
@@IslamicOriginsjust out of interest, most biblical scholars agree that the Abgar letters are forgeries. This is from both Catholics, Protestants and atheist scholars.
@@daduzadude1547 Might be but the crucial thing is that it was attested as in Edessa and it was believed to be Jesus' shroud. I can't see how they determine it a forgery unless the criteria is forgery until proven otherwise.
@@daduzadude1547 There is a difference between a complete forgery with no basis in reality and texts that are heavily edited after the fact. It is more likely than not that King Abgar had insider knowledge of Judea, since his Queen was a convert and went to Jerusalem to aid the Judeans. He probably did exchange letters with several people in Judea, though most of them would have been from nobility, or some political weight. The letter exchange with Jesus seems unlikely, but not impossible. Though I doubt we have the original, even if it is based on some lost original. During the time Abgar was either a Jew himself, or Judaised. Note that it would be logical for the followers of Jesus to send a mission to a kingdom where the ruler has a favorable attitude towards Judeans, and Jews. It even might have been so favorable that important relics might have been sent there for (temporary) safekeeping. If the shroud was sent anywhere, the Kingdom of Osroene would be have been a top contender.
I do not know either way. Evidence is compelling that it HAS to be Jesus. I have grave doubts . Jesus would have followed the custom of the day as a man to have SHORT HAIR. Paul says it is shameful for men to have long hair. we are warned that many signs & wonders will occur that even the very elect would be deceived if it were possible
See Leviticus 19:27 The Law of Moses prohibited Jewish men from cutting their hair. Short hair was the style of the Roman occupiers of Israel. St. Paul was a Roman citizen. He did not like Jewish law and tried to move away from it. He had only seen a vision of Jesus and had never met him in person. He did not know that Jesus complied with the Jewish law about cutting hair on men.
The claim that Jesus had short hair because He was an observant Jew doesn’t disprove the Shroud of Turin. The Bible doesn't describe His hair, and while short hair might have been common, there was no Torah command about hair length. Also, Jesus being from Nazareth isn’t the same as taking a Nazirite vow, but it shows Jewish norms allowed for exceptions. The long hair on the Shroud doesn’t automatically disqualify its authenticity-cultural norms varied, and the Shroud’s dating and origins are far more critical issues in the debate.
"would" have? Do you mean Torah? Bible says? Where in the bible? Exegesis is 90%. Plenty of observant Jews today with long hair, did they miss the mystery passage that you haven't cited?
See Leviticus 19:27. Cutting hair was forbidden to Jewish men. Short hair was the style of the Roman occupiers of Israel. St. Paul had disavowed Jewish law and subsequently made up his own law about hair length in order to distance himself from it. And he was a Roman citizen.
I can see what you are getting at.. A group made up of historians, anthropologists, and computer graphic experts compiled an image of what a man from Galilee, Nazareth in old Palestine, would have looked like.. Well, the image is on-line, he has dark skin, dark eyes, brown curly hair, and it would almost definitely have been short. Edited... What we see in the shroud image is definitely Byzantine, well after Jesus..
This suggests that the shroud did exist before the 14th century but it's hard to say whether it was preserved and is still the same one we have today. The one from the first century could belong to any Jewish prisoner who was given burial after the crucifixtion. Still, we need to keep in mind that burial was very rare for crucifixion victims, especially for someone like Jesus whom the Romans didn't really see as a threat because he was some Jewish Rabbi who was killed for treason, not the Jesus Christ that is mentioned in Christian mythology and which was also invented later after destruction of the second temple.
The shroud is legit!
New audio equipment being used. I will try to figure out why it is rising and falling. It gets better at 4:27. Apologies.
Greetings Brother Mel, the peace of our Lord be with you and all your relations. Thank you for your amazing work!
Wow! This part of the story was new to me! So there were mentions of the Shroud in historical records long before the 13th century? that destroys the argument that the Shroud is a late Medieval forgery. Thanks for sharing this.
Gospel of John mentions the burial cloth THREE times. Clearly, it was of great significance.
And what more The Shroud of Turin and Sudarium of Oviedo have the exact same Blood type and match perfectly the wounds and patterns with the Shroud...
Mel 😊✝️
I love King Abgarus.
Now, that we have got a strong case that an image of Jesus was making waves in Edessa, we can use this as a historical backdrop to what was happening with Islam. The image was in Muslim territory. Islam was winning. Leo's response? Iconoclasm. Icons are useless. Don't believe in them, guys. Certainly Leo's lack of belief in them would align with his political motive in disparaging them. Eventually, Iconoclasm took off in Islam - despite Islam being all about the signs (the ayas) - because flatly this pesky image was a proof of the Christian way. Might it's sale to the Byzantine emperor Lacapenus (what a funny name!) in the late 10th century have been a turning point when Islam began to deny the crucixion? After all, it would be hard to explain a miraculous image for a Christ substitute..
Which Leo was this?
@@abj136 in the early 8th century, Byzantine emperor.
You might have the order wrong. Leo III’s iconoclasm might have been a response to pressure towards it from the Muhammadeans, rather than away from their icon practice. Iconoclasm was declared a heresy, with strong defense coming from Rome. Make sense with Islam seeming to come from a Unitarian/gnostic heresy common in the Syria at the time.
how does any of this work?
I highly doubt Abgar - ܐܒܓܪ was the actual name of the King of Osroene. It means father [of the] pilgrims, or alternatively father of the sojourners. Its more likely a title.
Furthermore he was likely a Jewish/Judaised king, since he was married to Queen Helena of Adiabene, a famous Jewish convert. As a side note the Romans referred to him as the King of the Arabs. First and second generation converts to Christianity seem to have been mostly Jewish, or Judaised.
But unrelated to the shroud, we find (again) an early link between Jews and Arabs.
Interesting info. Thanks for sharing.
Lovely link! Yes, and most of the earliest evangelisation was amongst Jewish areas so that fits like a glove. It is what we would expect. Good sleuthing.
@@IslamicOriginsjust out of interest, most biblical scholars agree that the Abgar letters are forgeries.
This is from both Catholics, Protestants and atheist scholars.
@@daduzadude1547 Might be but the crucial thing is that it was attested as in Edessa and it was believed to be Jesus' shroud. I can't see how they determine it a forgery unless the criteria is forgery until proven otherwise.
@@daduzadude1547 There is a difference between a complete forgery with no basis in reality and texts that are heavily edited after the fact.
It is more likely than not that King Abgar had insider knowledge of Judea, since his Queen was a convert and went to Jerusalem to aid the Judeans. He probably did exchange letters with several people in Judea, though most of them would have been from nobility, or some political weight.
The letter exchange with Jesus seems unlikely, but not impossible. Though I doubt we have the original, even if it is based on some lost original. During the time Abgar was either a Jew himself, or Judaised.
Note that it would be logical for the followers of Jesus to send a mission to a kingdom where the ruler has a favorable attitude towards Judeans, and Jews. It even might have been so favorable that important relics might have been sent there for (temporary) safekeeping. If the shroud was sent anywhere, the Kingdom of Osroene would be have been a top contender.
I do not know either way. Evidence is compelling that it HAS to be Jesus. I have grave doubts . Jesus would have followed the custom of the day as a man to have SHORT HAIR. Paul says it is shameful for men to have long hair. we are warned that many signs & wonders will occur that even the very elect would be deceived if it were possible
See Leviticus 19:27 The Law of Moses prohibited Jewish men from cutting their hair.
Short hair was the style of the Roman occupiers of Israel. St. Paul was a Roman citizen. He did not like Jewish law and tried to move away from it. He had only seen a vision of Jesus and had never met him in person. He did not know that Jesus complied with the Jewish law about cutting hair on men.
BS
Just your opinion. noted.
jesus would have had short hair like the thora commands. As the bible clearly states he was an observant jew and long hair was an absolute no no
The claim that Jesus had short hair because He was an observant Jew doesn’t disprove the Shroud of Turin. The Bible doesn't describe His hair, and while short hair might have been common, there was no Torah command about hair length. Also, Jesus being from Nazareth isn’t the same as taking a Nazirite vow, but it shows Jewish norms allowed for exceptions. The long hair on the Shroud doesn’t automatically disqualify its authenticity-cultural norms varied, and the Shroud’s dating and origins are far more critical issues in the debate.
"would" have? Do you mean Torah? Bible says? Where in the bible? Exegesis is 90%. Plenty of observant Jews today with long hair, did they miss the mystery passage that you haven't cited?
See Leviticus 19:27. Cutting hair was forbidden to Jewish men. Short hair was the style of the Roman occupiers of Israel.
St. Paul had disavowed Jewish law and subsequently made up his own law about hair length in order to distance himself from it. And he was a Roman citizen.
I can see what you are getting at..
A group made up of historians, anthropologists, and computer graphic experts compiled an image of what a man from Galilee, Nazareth in old Palestine, would have looked like..
Well, the image is on-line, he has dark skin, dark eyes, brown curly hair, and it would almost definitely have been short.
Edited...
What we see in the shroud image is definitely Byzantine, well after Jesus..
"Short" by the standards of the time probably meant shoulder length.
This suggests that the shroud did exist before the 14th century but it's hard to say whether it was preserved and is still the same one we have today. The one from the first century could belong to any Jewish prisoner who was given burial after the crucifixtion. Still, we need to keep in mind that burial was very rare for crucifixion victims, especially for someone like Jesus whom the Romans didn't really see as a threat because he was some Jewish Rabbi who was killed for treason, not the Jesus Christ that is mentioned in Christian mythology and which was also invented later after destruction of the second temple.
Because so many of those interened in shrouds left perfect photographic images of themselves on those shrouds it is impossible to say who is who.
Sure, Jesus is a myth. And my left foot is a unicorn. Try listening to REAL historians, not those pseudo-scientific Christ Mythicist clowns.
@@jeffreyerwin3665 😁
Occams razor is for sale, buy it
@@jeffreyerwin3665 , LOL!!! Yeah, photonegative images left on burial shrouds were SOOO common. Desperate skeptics will grasp at any straw.