A 2000 YEAR OLD SECRET REVEALED!

Sunday, November 12, 2006

A 2000 YEAR OLD SECRET REVEALED!

FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 1890 YEARS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE EXISTENCE OF AN AUTHENTIC SHROUD, LEFT BY JESUS AS A SIGN!
Whether the Shroud of Turin is that Authentic Shroud or a faithful copy, is open to research and further verification.

Below are selected copies of The New Testament, from both the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke), and the Gospel of John, extracted and placed in logical order which, given the information of my previous entry yesterday and today, 11/11/06 and 11/12/06, displays clearly my premise. This is an interesting case of arm-chair research, 1890 years after the writing of the last Gospel, that of John in about 92-110 AD. It is not the first time that an ancient and accepted document has been reinterpreted shedding light on a truth obscured by stale dogma. In recent years other authors (Principally Richard Elliot Friedman in his books, Who Wrote The Bible, and, The Hidden Book of The Bible, and The Hidden Face of God), have discovered in older documents, namely the Old Testament, things missed over a longer period, in his cases for over 3500 years.

“Here now, for the first time is the beginning of a complete retranslation and/or reinterpretation of segments of the entire New Testament according to what we believe were Private Revelations to Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo.”
David Elias, agent.

The above material is accurate, however, in the texts quoted below there were no retranslations. They are faithful and accurate translations from Catholic Biblical translations and Catholic Versions of the New Testament (The NT). I did, however, according to my assertion that in Private Revelation and visions there were given to me, the information I relate here, and although I faithfully copied the quotes below, I did also reinterpret their meaning, as cited above, according to directions given me in the Revelations.
Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo

© Peter Bagnolo, 1996. This material may not be copied without written permission of the author.
PETER AND “THE OTHER DISCIPLE” IN THE TOMB
Mark 15:45-47
“And when he heard of it from the centurion, he gave the body to Joseph (of Arimathea). Having brought a linen cloth, he took him down and wrapped him in the linen cloth and laid him in a tomb that had been hewn out of rock.”

John 20: 4-10
“So Peter and the other disciple went out and came to the tomb. They both ran, but the other disciple ran faster than Peter and arrived at the tomb first; he bent down and saw the burial clothes there, but did not go in. When Simon Peter arrived after him, he went into the tomb and saw the burial clothes there, and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial clothes but rolled up in a separate place. Then the other disciple also went in, the one who arrived at the tomb first, and he saw and believed. For they did not yet understand the scripture that he had to rise from the dead.”

Please note that the phrase: “… saw the burial clothes there…”, is repeated several times.
By way of digression, who was, “…the other disciple…”? John or James? Moreover, why is his name obscured? I will attempt to answer that elsewhere in this book and tell why I think the name was not mentioned.

Luke 24: 12
“But Peter got up and ran to the tomb, bent down, and saw the burial clothes alone; then he went home amazed at what happened.”

Mark asserts that Joseph wrapped Jesus in a linen cloth and placed his body in the tomb. In John, 20: 4-10, John specifies that, “… the other disciple…” “Bent down and saw the burial clothes there, but did not go in…”, then again Peter; “ … saw the burial clothes there and the cloth that had covered his head, not with the burial cloth, but rolled up in a separate place. Then the other disciple also went in, he saw, and he believed. For they did not understand that he had to rise from the dead.”

Luke says, “But Peter… ran to the tomb, bent down, and saw the burial clothes alone, then he went home amazed at what happened.” Why was that? Why was he “amazed” at seeing the burial clothes?

In each case they, “… bent down … “ , “ … saw the burial clothes there …”, “… saw the burial clothes alone…, then he went home amazed at what happened…”, “ … rolled up in a separate place…”,
“Then the other disciple…he saw and believed. For they did not yet understand that he had to rise from the dead.”

Think about this, because I have read a lot of the works of New Testament scholars, whether theologians or historians of the New Testament, and I have never before seen or heard, anything like what I am going to say next.

They knew the tomb was empty, correct? Logically what could that mean? It could give rise in them, the same fears it had in Mary Magdalene, that they (the Romans or the Chief Herodian Priests) had removed Jesus' corpse during the night or early morning and buried him elsewhere. Worse, the Roman's might have thrown his body to the wild dogs, or into a lime pit, as they did to most of those they crucified. Remember that only the remains one crucified person has ever been found, because the others were either ripped to shreds by dogs, or disintegrated in lime pits.

But Peter and, “… the other disciple…” “… saw and …believed.” Or “… bent down … “ , “ … saw the burial clothes there …”, “… saw the burial clothes alone… then he went home amazed at what happened…”

They did not fear the worst, but why not? It would be an understandable, justifiable, fear, their ranks had already been breached by Rome and the Chief Herodian Priests, and the leader of the Apostles had been aggressively and violently, violated. Under such stress as having their leader, who appeared to be at least a prophet, yanked from their presence and summarily executed, they would have been under great stress and fear for their own lives. They probably, and with justification, wondered if they were next on the hit list. However, although they had deserted him earlier out of abject fear and horror, now, they, instead of fearing the worst, saw something in that empty tomb that made them understand, “Then the other disciple…he saw and believed. For they did not yet understand that he had to rise from the dead.”

What, under such duress, could banish their fears and make them believe that Jesus rose from the dead? Certainly not just the sight of an empty tomb or even of the burial clothes. These would merely confirm that he had been taken away. However, would those who came to get rid of the body, be enemies? Why would enemies, who so savaged him in life, carefully, respectfully, fold the burial clothes rather than either leave them on the body or toss them aside carelessly? Wouldn't the more logical explanation, be that someone had removed the body and hidden Jesus? Wouldn't such a thought have overwhelmed and depressed them? Instead the burial clothes, somehow seemed, in these gospels, to fill them with excitment, awe and good cheer.

The burial clothes are mentioned six or more times, counting the original wrapping of Jesus in them. Each time after Peter or, “ … the other disciple…”, "...saw the clothes and believed...", or were, “… amazed at what happened…”.

What did happen? Nothing happened when they went in, because the tomb was empty. That could have meant anything, as I stated earlier. Nevertheless, something did happen before they arrived, but they could not know that, could they? They didn’t believe Mary because, by the admission of the evangelist, and as Mary had complained, they thought that her story was “… nonsense…”. They thought either she was delusional, or hysterical or simply not telling the truth.

They also didn’t believe that Mary had seen Jesus, because she was a woman, and according to their cultural beliefs, women were of a status below men, so, in their minds, why would Jesus come to a woman and not one of the men? Moreover, certainly they did not believe that a dead man could be up and strolling about the countryside talking to the women, as Mary had claimed. They certainly would not believe a female eyewitness, so, they went and saw the empty tomb for themselves. They went in and seemed curious but not exhilerated, until they bent down saw the burial clothes, and then, only after a close look at those burial clothes, they were amazed and believed. However, what convinced them? They did not believe Mary’s story that their enemies had not taken him, what then? It had to have been the burial clothes, or what appeared on them. I think they saw his image burned into the clothes and that was a sign to them of his Resurrection.

Why didn’t they say anything about it directly in the gospels? They said it often enough indirectly as a clue or code-A living parable. They did not write it publicly, because they did not want outsiders to know. If the Chief Herodian Priests or the Romans knew, they would have confiscated the cloth, to stamp out any recollection/belief that Jesus was an authentic prophet, or more. The authorities would have taken the relic away in an effort to discourage the sect of the Nazarene. The Shroud was a sacred relic, a sign from God, not to be mentioned for fear of losing it. At that point they understood what Jesus meant when he cured people, asking them not to tell anyone about his healing or raising of the dead. This was part of the secret, like parables and prayers. Peter and, “… the other disciple…”, saw the Shroud of Turin, or something very much like it and they believed because the image was a miracle. One that proved that Jesus, even in death was thinking of them and had left them a sign, to ward off despair. Nevertheless, like all of his signs since his death, this one, was to those of little faith, ambiguous.

It may well have been that this previously unmentioned relic was the proof which gave the followers of Jesus the courage to face death. A courage they lacked before finding the tomb open and Jesus' body gone.

However, there is more to the story of the Shroud. From shortly after Jesus' death a rumor circulated concerning the Veronica, a myth that involved a woman, now known only as Veronica, wiping Jesus' face during his death march. The story goes that when she wiped his face, his image was somehow imprinted on the cloth, and that the church revered it until it was lost during some battle or was burned during the Iconoclast period.

Another myth which circulated concerning something like the Shroud was that while Jesus lived, King Agbar of Greece asked that him to come to Greece and heal him of a fatal disease. However, Jesus was unable to make the trip, so he wiped his face with a towel leaving his image thereon. He then sent the towel with the image on it to the King and the King placed it over the place of the illness and was immediately healed.

Later the church somehow retrieved the image in Greece, where it was kept and revered until it too was destroyed by the Iconoclasts. I believe that both of these legends were coded messages covertly alerting the faithful that such an image did exist, in the form of the Shroud. The mythological character of the stories were meant to sound silly, to discourage the authorities from taking them seriously-the stories were intentionally coded to sound foolish the enemy and hopeful to the faithful. The reason for the secrecy was a strategic one with a dichotomous message. One part to Christians, 'Yes, such and image exists, but it's true nature and location must be kept a secret to protect it from our enemies”. Truly motivated Christians needed only to surmount the many barriers thrown up by the fledgling church to weed out intruders, in order to have a secretive audience with the Keepers of The Shroud and to view the treasured relic.
All materials above are protected by USA copyrights to Professor Peter Bagnolo (Bagnuolo) 1996. Any use of the above material constitutes a copyright infringement and will be vigorously prosecuted under the law.


Posted by PETE BAGNOLO at 4:55 PM Links to this post




BELIEVE IT OR NOT?

Saturday, November 11, 2006
A TWO PART ESSAY ON THE SHROUD OF TURIN

PART ONE OF TWO PARTS
Copyright Professor Emeritus Peter Bagnolo (Bagnuolo) 1996
The Quest for Gnosis
A Work in Progress

Chapter XXXIII
MYSTERIES: THE SHROUD OF TURIN IS Its AUTHENTICITY CENTRAL TO FAITH?
Of course, it is not central to faith. However, is it an authentic relic? Perhaps it is authentic in the sense that the image is a phenomenon that is inexplicable by current scientific knowledge.

Let us look at the scientific evidence.

In 1988 after centuries of speculation concerning the age and authenticity of the shroud, Professor Edward Hall with (later to be Professor) Michael Trite, and a technician, Dr. Robert Hedges did carbon-14 tests on a piece of the Shroud material. They later determined that the Shroud was created by an artist between 1260-1390 AD. They believed that the Shroud’s raw flax was made into linen no later than about 1325 AD (+- 65 years). Chicago micro-analyst Dr. Walter McCrone had said all along that a clever mediaeval artist had painted it in iron oxide pigments in a gel base right onto the cloth.

A University of Tennessee forensic pathologist Emily Craig and Professor Randall Breese, a textile expert offered the theory that the figure was painted on paper then transferred to cloth in the era, 1260-1390, by burnishing the somewhat damp paint onto the linen.

In 1389, French Bishop Pierre d’Arcis wrote to the pope saying that the Shroud was a hoax, painted by an artist of his attestation.

In 1977, around thirty American scientists (STRUP team) did extensive testing of the Shroud including photographic and spectroscopic exams also doing sticky-tape pulls in more than thirty places of the Shroud. Their conclusion was that the image was somehow flashed onto the cloth not painted.

A professor from South Africa had the best science fiction story, that a mediaeval person photographed the material onto the Shroud making it the first photograph ever taken. Two British reporters claimed that, indeed, it was the first photo ever taken, back in the 1260 AD -1390 AD and it was taken by no less than Leonardo D’Vinci! The only problem is that D’Vinci wasn’t born until the mid-15th century-in 1452, and therefore would had to have taken the photo 63-200 years before he was born. Probably they believe Leonardo was covertly born in 1230, but failed to let his parents know until 1452, 223 years later.
These kinds of errors with centuries and dates must throw a bit of a hitch in their love lives i.e. (date line, November 2006)-"I’ll meet you Suzie, for lunch, on top of Mt. Vesuvius, to propose marriage at 12:00 PM, on November 21st, 3006 AD. See then. Thanks, Melvin.“

On the other hand, Mexican Professor Leoncio Garza-Valdes claims that the carbon 14 testing done by Hall, Tite and Hedges actually tested a surface coating of fungi and bacteria which began growing from about the 13th or 14th century.

In 2000, M. Sue Bedford and Joseph G. Marino wrote an abstract which gave strong logical and mathematical evidence that the 1988 radio-carbon Tests and evidence asserting Mediaeval dates of 1260-1390 were skewed and inaccurate, and "...spurious...".

Recently, Mechthild Flury-Lemberg, an expert on ancient weaving, stated after examining the Shroud, "The linen cloth of the Shroud of Turin does not display any weaving or sewing techniques which would speak against its origin as a high quality product of the textile workers of the first century." Further, the design of the weave was particilarly unique to first century Judean weaving.

I found Garza-Valdes experiments interesting along with the other many logical and some of the quite bizzare explanations of the case for or against the authenticity of the Shroud. However there is none more logical and elementary than the one, which I am about to pass on to you. It does not establish, nor intend to establish that the Shroud is a miraculous, authentic relic, but does establish that if it was a painting, it was not painted in the time before the Renaissance, according to the time-line indicated by the 1988 team. (1260-1390).

I am an artist, a painter, and an Anthropologist, with strong anatomical knowledge, and strong recognition of the painters throughout the history of art. The Sistine Chapel was designed and constructed in about 1475-1483. Prior to the fifteenth century and the High Renaissancce, among those artists most talented were:
The School of Coppo di Marcovaldo, (13th century) P. Cavalini-1273-1321, Giotto di Bondone 1266/67-1337, F. Traini-1270-1300/05 Fra Angelico-1387-1455. Their art was charming, but primitive, with none approaching the complexity and accuracy in anatomical and drawing skills exhibited in the figure on the Shroud.

During the period of anytime before Leonardo's birth in 1452 and his professional career beginning about 1468, followed by Michelagnello's (Michelangelo) birth in 1475 and his beginnings in 1487 as an artist, there existed no artist who could draw and paint with the natural style, the anatomical knowledge combined with the skilled, loose and natural interpretation of surface and interior anatomy displayed by the figure represented in the Shroud.

The work of the artists in the period suggested by the scientists (1260-1390), were far too primitive in all of the necessary disciplines to have created such a painting as the figure on the Shroud. That level of skill did not appear until the 1470-1520's era, during the High Renaissance, with the advent of work by Leonardo, DaVinci, Michelagnello and Raphael.

The drawing style of the figure on the Shroud, even if it were a painting, lie even further into the future than the High Renaissance.

If someone had painted the Shroud at that time (1260-1390), he would have been the most celebrated Pre-Renaissance-Man or woman of all-time, equaling or surpassing, the combined astounding interdisciplinary knowledge of even Michelangelo or Leonardo.

His combined medical and forensic knowledge as well as the artistic skills shown by the representation of the figure in the Shroud would indeed comprise such a rare intellect as to be celebrated by church and state, to say nothing of the medical profession, such as it was in 1260-1390. If such a man existed, where are his writings concerning pathology, forensics? (Even Pasteur would have benefited from such prior Knowledge.) Leonardo’s great anatomical publications were riddled with errors, and he began work 80 years beyond the 1390 AD date and 210 beyond the 1260 AD dates given by the 1988 team.

In addition, human blood samples of type AB have now been have been identified on the Shroud. Moreover, particles of flora indigenous to the area of the crucifixion have been identified. So, have wood particles and slivers, mixed with blood in the cloth.

However, all of the above aside, the most ancient attestation of the possible authenticity of a cloth of miraculous manifestation is hidden in the New Testament itself. That information follows in the next chapter, and if true, what you are going to read next is the most amazing and deepest secret of the New Testament and has been hidden for 2000 years, only to be revealed for the first time since the death of Jesus, here next week.
To be continued...

Posted by PETE BAGNOLO at 4:06 PM Links to this post

Nov 14, 2006 Nov 10, 2006 Home
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)