The Shroud of Turin? There's an app for that!

Before I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark in the theater (yeah I was that young: it was a weird weird childhood) and got hooked on archaeology, the Shroud of Turin had grasped my fascination.  All I knew at the time was that it might have been the cloth that Jesus was wrapped in after His death and that somehow, His picture got transferred into the material.  I've been reading every serious article and journal paper about the Shroud for most of my life and my curiosity about it has grown more and more.  Especially at this time of year.

What do I think of the Shroud of Turin?  Well, despite many attempts to reproduce it, those have always failed.  And then there is the forensic analysis: just this week scientists announced that the Shroud is almost certainly a product of the First Century.  When you figure in that pollen grains from plants found only in the region around Jerusalem have been extracted from the Shroud and well... if nothing else it is a historical relic of the utmost intrigue.

This being Holy Week, for the second time in history (the first was 1973) the Shroud of Turin is going to be televised live, beginning tomorrow.  And if you want a REALLY up-close look at the Shroud, you should check out The Shroud of Turin 2.0 for iPad and iPhone.

Haltadefinizione is the studio that did the high-definition photography of the Shroud five years ago.  It was the best photo documentation of the Shroud to date and now courtesy of those same folks it's all in the palm of your hand (or your lap). The Shroud of Turin 2.0 takes the 1,649 pics of the Shroud, combines them into a 12 billion pixel image weighing in at 72 gigabytes and streams it to your device (be still your heart: the actual app is only 50 MB in size).  You can download a free version, or pay $4 that gives you the option for even higher-resolution images.  If you want it, mash down here to find it on Apple's App Store!

Read More

U.S. Government spent $100,000 determining if Jesus died for the Klingons

Senator Tom Coburn from Oklahoma has been digging into the details of the federal budget. Among the things our government is spending our money upon: inventing roll-up beef jerky, the study of goldfish swimming patterns and an iPhone app for scheduling coffee breaks.

And then there's this: $100,000 of taxpayer money to look into the question of whether Jesus Christ died for the Klingon race. Yeah those ridge-headed alien warriors from the Star Trek franchise.

Incidentally, all of the above examples were found in the United States military's budget.

From the story by Heather Clark at Christian News Network...

An Oklahoma senator has released a report outlining what he believes is some of the Pentagon’s most wasteful spending. Among a number of odd items includes a workshop on how Christianity would be affected if aliens were proven to exist.

Senator Tom Coburn is known to be the “waste-watcher” on Capitol Hill, as he investigates unnecessary spending in various branches of the government. On Thursday, he issued what some consider to be a laughable list of Defense Department expenditures that have nothing to do with defense.

In addition to $1.5 billion being spent... was a workshop blending Christianity with the existence of aliens.

The event, entitled “Did Jesus Die for Klingons Too?,” focused on “the implications for Christianity if intelligent life were to be found on other planets.” According to the Global Post, actors such as LeVar Burton and Nichelle Nichols were present, and an “intergalactic gala celebration” was included, at which attendees were urged to don “starship cocktail attire.”

Klingons are are a group of aliens from the fictional sci-fi television and movie series Star Trek, which originated in 1966 and continues (at least in movie format) to present day. The series deals with a band of aliens and humans that seek to solve the problems of the universe, tackling topics such as imperialism, class warfare and racism. Some episodes are also said to have addressed sexism, feminism and religion.

And to think there are some who wonder why so many Americans lately want to secede from the federal government.

$100,000 to look into salvation for the Klingons. I don't care if it's only one dollar: that's our money which has been entrusted into the public treasury... and it is a sacred trust. Even a mere cent used on such a frivolous matter is inexcusable.

But just for humor's sake...

vaD joH'a' muSHa' qo'vetlh ghaH ngeHta'Daj neH puq vaj 'lv HartaH Daq ghaH dlchDaq yln reH

(Courtesy of MrKlingon.org)

Read More

Dude's BRILLIANT poem about why following Christ means rejecting religion

Wow.

Just... wow.

"So for religion, I hate it. In fact I literally resent it. Because when Jesus said 'It is finished', I believe He meant it."

I can think of any number of people who I would love to tie down and make them watch this video. This dude, well... he gets what it means to follow Christ.

Legalists, don't watch this if you hate squirming!

Read More

A response to a challenge on baptism

A few days ago the following e-mail arrived...

"Chris you are WRONG. Baptism is required for salvation! Acts 2:38 has Peter commanding that we be baptized FOR THE REMISSION OF SINS. Mark 16:16 commands baptism and without it we are damned."

There was more to it but that's the heartmeat of this individual's contention. I don't know what precipitated this correspondence. Maybe it was the "Meditation on Baptism" post nearly three years ago. Maybe it was one of the numerous posts I've had to make about a certain cult operating in this area: a group that has among other things harassed others who have met to worship in peace.

Okay, fine. I'll respond to it.

Here is Acts 2:38, as translated in the 1611 Authorized Version (AKA the King James Bible):

Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

For all the beauty of the King James Version, it is rife with problems. Those stem from two primary factors: that the Authorized Version was a project that King James used to placate the Puritan faction of the Church of England (i.e. it was a political stunt, plain and simple) and the fact that the primary source material of Greek manuscript for the Authorized Version was apparently the Textus Receptus of Desiderius Erasmus. Now, Erasmus was otherwise a brilliant scholar, no doubt about it. But the Textus Receptus was hands-down his sloppiest piece of work ever (he was rushing to win a contest... and he didn't have that many manuscripts to draw from to begin with). Combined with the aforementioned purpose of affirming in approved canon the doctrines and ordinances of the Church of England over all others and you get the idea of what is wrong with the King James Version (though I still love the overall beauty of its language).

But anyhoo, let's look at the passage that this reader (and others) have attempted to use to insist that water baptism is necessary for salvation: "Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins..." I emphasized the word "for" because in the Greek the original word is "eis". And "eis" does NOT easily translate into "in order to receive..." Rather, the more accurate rendition is "because of".

So let's translate Peter's statement again, this time with "eis" correctly translated...

"Then Peter said unto them: Repent, and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ because your sins have been remitted."

That makes much more sense. It also reconciles that bit of scripture with the story of Cornelius, the first Gentile to become a Christian (recorded in Acts 10) who along with his household had already believed in Christ. That Peter baptized them was outward affirmation that Christ came for all nations, and not merely the Jewish people (per the vision that he received as recorded earlier in the chapter). Here also, we find that baptism is not for salvation, but is rather for all of those who are already in Christ and His church.

That might seem a small matter today, but in those heated days of the early church the issue of non-Jewish converts to the Way (as Christianity was called in the beginning) was a serious controversy. Peter baptizing Cornelius and his family was a threshold moment for Christianity. They were baptized because they had faith in Christ and because of that faith, their sins were already forgiven. Hence, they were fully entitled to baptism, without any regard whatsoever for their nationality.

So that takes care of Acts 2:38. But what about Mark 16:16? Here is what that passage has Jesus telling His followers...

Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Y'all want the "nice" reason first why this verse doesn't mean that baptism is a requisite for salvation, or do you want the "nasty" reason?

Fine. I'll start off polite. Here it is: this verse does not say at all that the absence of baptism equals damnation. It only states that "whoever does not believe will be condemned". Downright obvious, actually.

But here's the biggest reason why Mark 16:16 can not be used to claim that baptism is a requirement for salvation...

Mark 16:16 doesn't belong in the Bible to begin with.

Feel free to read that again after you've come down from the initial shock.

The Gospel of Mark is apparently the oldest of the four gospels, perhaps composed only about 35 years or so after General Titus and his boys laid waste to Jerusalem and the Temple there. But of all the oldest manuscripts that we have for Mark's book, none of them contain verses 9 through 20 of Chapter 16! The last thing that can credibly be ascribed to the Gospel of Mark is that "...the women went out and fled from the tomb. They said nothing to anyone, because they were afraid." And if you only have the King James Version to go on, it jumps from there to a sudden re-introduction of Jesus and an ending that is wildly different from the context of the rest of Mark's writing.

Long story short: Mark 16:16 and everything else from 16:9 onward is a later addition. Much later. Perhaps by a century or so. I've tried to find anything that demands why these verses do belong in Mark but as of yet, such justification has eluded me. If anyone has something that I might have missed, leave a comment here or shoot me an e-mail at theknightshift@gmail.com.

Does that mean that your friend and humble blogger is committing sacrilege by ignoring part of the Bible? Nope, not at all. Indeed it is quite the opposite: I am striving for nothing more and nothing less than to understand what the Word of God does teach, in spite of all that man has inevitably attempted to do with it during these two millenia out of either well-meaning or malicious intent.

And however one chooses to adhere to the matter of baptism, it must be acknowledged by all that the endurance of the Word of God - the Truth of God, of which the verbiage of scripture can be but a rough covering - is in and of itself nothing short of a miracle.

Read More

MAD TV presents: TERMINATOR 3: THE GREATEST ACTION STORY EVER TOLD

Y'know, the sad thing is: this sketch from Fox's MAD TV is soooooo much better than the actual Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines and Terminator: Salvation, combined!

I think this was first broadcast before Christmas 1998. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Cyberdyne Systems Model 101 Terminator is sent back in time to protect Jesus of Nazareth in... The Greatest Action Story Ever Told!

Read More

A small meditation upon Christ and Christmas

Why do some people express such bitter disagreement about when exactly Jesus was born?

Seems the important thing is that Jesus was born at all.

But, that could just be me...

Read More

Disciples pigging out: Last Supper portions increased 69% over time

Two researchers have been using computer analysis on 52 of the most famous paintings of the Last Supper - the final meal that Jesus Christ had with His disciples on the night before His death on the cross - and discovered that the size of the portions of food depicted on the table have increased 69% over the past millennium. The biggest amount of super-sizing came after 1500, not long after Leonardo da Vinci did his famous rendition of the Last Supper...

From the article at USA Today...

The researchers used paintings of this event "because it is the most famous supper in history," which artists have been painting for centuries, so the paintings provide information about plate and entree sizes over time, says Brian Wansink, director of the Cornell (University) Food and Brand Lab in Ithaca, N.Y. One possible reason for the increase: Food may have become more available and less expensive, he says.

He did the research with his brother, Craig, a professor of religious studies at Virginia Wesleyan College in Norfolk, and a Presbyterian minister.

The three Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke), which include descriptions of The Last Supper, mention only bread and wine, but many of the paintings have other foods, such as fish, lamb, pork and even eel, says Craig Wansink.

The use of fish in the meals is symbolic because it's an image that is used to represent Christianity, he says. Among the reasons for the symbolism: A number of the disciples were fishermen, and Jesus told them "to be fishers of men," he says. Plus, he says, Jesus performed several miracles with fishes and loaves.

Thanks to Chad Austin for the great find (and Twitter-ing about it. Yes, he really did!)

Read More

Is a gift of the Magi a cure for cancer?

Frankincense, the precious fragrance that was among the gifts that the wise men from the East brought to the infant Jesus, is now being studied intensely for its cancer-fighting properties. There's something in frankincense that compels cancerous cells to "reject" nuclei and reset back to what the normal governing gene sequence should be.

It's a very educational and intriguing read, especially if you've ever read the Christmas story out of the Bible and wondered what the heck frankincense is supposed to be :-)

(And although that painting has nothing to do with frankincense specifically, I'll give props to whoever can tell me the name of it, who painted it and what its historical significance is ;-)

Read More

Michael Jackson's bed

The Mail Online has published a series of photos taken by the Santa Barbara Sheriff's Department during its 2003 raid on Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch.

This might be the creepiest photo I've ever seen associated with the "King of Pop"...

Jackson slept in this bed and on the wall over it hangs a rendition of The Last Supper. Except this version of the famous painting has Michael Jackson sitting in place of Jesus Christ. Elvis Presley and Abraham Lincoln are also depicted as being among the disciples.

I don't want to even try to imagine how such a "work of art" possibly comes into being.

Read More

Image of Jesus on my closet door?!?

This might be the stupidest post that I've ever made on this blog (and that's sayin' something). I'll let you, Dear Reader, judge for yourself.

It's sort of my friend Kevin Bussey's fault (even though he's a totally great guy :-). His blog, Confessions of a Recovering Pharisee, is one of my favorites: not just because he offers up a lot of terrific insight as a brother in Christ, but also for his fondness of posting about the more whimsical news of the world. And he especially enjoys sharing the occasional stories about "apparitions" of Jesus or Mary materializing in loafs of bread, lava lamps etc.

So yesterday Kevin had this item about what is supposedly a picture of Jesus in a car dealership's door. It reminded me of something that I'd promised to do for Kevin over the past few months. And seeing that picture well... I couldn't help but think "Hey, my Jesus is more Jesusy than their Jesus!"

So I might as well get this over with...

Here it goes: my old closet door has a very curious wood grain pattern in it, that many people over the years have said looks exactly like Jesus Christ holding out His hands.

On the right (click to magnify) is the best photo that I was able to take of it, over at my parents' house last night. But trust me: this looks much better in real life than it does in the picture. Even in subdued light, the visual signature is readily discernible. Several people who have visited my old room have said that they can make out the hair, brow, eyes, nose, and mouth of a male figure who seems to be standing. Most of the folks who have seen it swear that they can see the figure is wearing a robe or similar garment.

The most interesting feature of the pattern is that it seems as though, if indeed people are seeing a man (or Son of Man) here, that it/he/He is holding two hands out in front of him, in apparently perfect proportion to the rest of the figure.

So... what do y'all think: is this just a regular wooden pattern, or is it a bona fide photographic anomaly?

I'll have it be known here and now though: I do not want flocks of pilgrims lining up to see this! So far as I'm concerned, there's nothing supernatural about it at all. And it wouldn't be proper to come oggle this anyway: if the Bible teaches us that not even the angels are to be worshiped, then I can't begin to imagine how much worse it is to pay homage to an inanimate hunk of wood.

But all the same, I will confess a curiosity as to what others might be seeing in this picture.

Comments?

Read More

If you pray against Obama, consider Matthew 22...

I reported last April about the seething rage that a lot of "conservative Christians" were already venting against Barack Obama. And speaking of which, over the past few days I've heard even more thoughtless fury out of Ron Baity's WPIP... but there's gonna be more about stuff like that coming in the next few days, so I'll hold my piece 'til then. Well unfortunately, my guess then that this rancor would "get worse"... is rapidly coming to pass now that Obama is officially the President of the United States of America.

I could comment on any number of items pertaining to this. But for now I'm going to direct my thoughts toward what one prominent "Christian writer" is suggesting, because in the past several hours I've seen his very hypocritical gesture spread like wildfire across the Intertubes. Joseph Farah, founder of WorldNetDaily, is actively encouraging Christians in America to pray that Obama will "fail".

As much as I disagreed, even admit to have disliked the man, I did include George W. Bush in my prayers for the past eight years, for all the good that it did. When 9/11 happened, I held him up in prayer along with everyone else involved in the tragedy one way or another. 'Course, since then I've realized that it's a futile gesture to pray for God to grant wisdom to those who adamantly refuse to acknowledge that they require such wisdom... but that didn't stop me from doing it anyway. Just as I pray that the American people as a whole might seek that wisdom needed to govern ourselves. Just as I will also keep Obama in my prayers.

So let me tell you why Farah's stance is horribly wrong. Why it flies in the face of the teaching of Christ Himself. And that if the Christians of this land do harbor such bitterness in their hearts, then they do so at the peril of the America that they claim loyalty toward.

It's regarding what is chronicled in the Book of Matthew, chapter 22... and it has nothing at all to do with what most people think when they read this passage.

Matthew 22:15-22 tells us that...

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

That's one of the most quoted - and among the least fully understood - passages out of the entire Bible. It's been used to justify quite a lot of things over the years, from an overzealous desire to separate all things spiritual from anything pertaining to government, to the obscene notion that Christians must somehow "shut up" and let the state roll over them without apology.

But none of that has anything to do with the point that Jesus was brilliantly making to those trying to trap Him.

In Palestine of the time of Christ, there was nothing more hated among the people than how their country had come under the yoke of the Roman Empire. Pompey annexed the land for Rome in 63 B.C. and then a few years later the puppet government of the Herods began. Israel's dream of a Messiah came in the form of a military leader who would vanquish the Romans and return the country to the heirs of Abraham...

...but the people of Israel would have never lost their land to begin with if they had stayed a people faithful to God, instead of putting their faith in worldly politics and their own military might. It was a brief but bitter civil war between the Hasmonean rivals Aristobulus II and Hyrcanus II that so weakened Israel as a nation, that after a century of independence there was practically nothing to stop Pompey and his boys from taking over.

Had the people of Israel not fallen for the lusts of political power, they would have most likely had solidarity enough as a nation to stave off Roman rule.

That is the harsh lesson that Jesus was teaching. He reminded the Pharisees - who shared much of the blame for the civil war - that it was their own fault that they had chosen to "render unto Caesar", and sought the institutions of this world, rather than put God first in all things.

As we know well, the lesson was lost on the Pharisees. And it so incensed them that they all the more sought to destroy Jesus.

And so it is, that what this passage (the same story is also shared in Mark 12 and Luke 20) is telling me as it applies to our own day...

...is that the same Christians who are bitter and angry about how they have "lost power" in America really have no one to blame but themselves.

And it also tells me that they aren't going to win anything by trying to "over-compensate".

It was wrong for the Christians of this land, in the name of God, to seek after political power. It is still wrong. And I believe that it is more than accurate to say that after all this time, we should realize that God has not blessed our efforts. The Republican Party is not the anointed vessel of the Lord, George W. Bush was not divinely appointed to be President (to believe so invalidates the concept of free will) and so-called "Christian leaders" like James Dobson and Pat Robertson stand revealed as wanting nothing more than to "sit at the king's table".

In none of this have I seen it recommended at all that perhaps what this country needs, if there is to be an America to pass on to our posterity, is for those who most loudly boast of following Christ, to surrender their lust for power, to cast themselves down in humility and penitence, and sit among the proverbial ashes and finally, at last, and for real, turn their hearts to God!

But that is not what I am seeing Joseph Farah and other "Christian authorities" telling us to do. What they have in mind, is the furthest thing there can possibly be from coming humbly before the Lord, and asking Him not only for forgiveness for seeking after our own hearts but also for the sin of pursuing the folly of our own "understanding".

The "conservative Christians" of America are the ones who have the least excuse to complain about whatever they believe might have happened to this country. They looked to the idols of worldly affluence for their deliverance... and God only played fair by handing them over to their lusts.

Hey, He's done it before. He didn't want Israel to want a king either, but when they clamored for one He instructed Samuel to accede to the will of the people.

But as we also know from that particular tale, sometimes God has a way of taking our own iniquity, and making it work to give Him all glory and praise.

Those who claim to follow Christ in this land, might have just such an opportunity before them...

...that is, if they want it. If they are willing to do what is necessary.

Well... are we?

Read More

McCain "kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross" says GOP state chair

Sue Everhart, chairlady of the Georgia Republican Party, has said that John McCain is comparable to Jesus Christ...

Georgia Republican Party chairwoman Sue Everhart said Saturday that the party's presumed presidential nominee has a lot in common with Jesus Christ.

"John McCain is kind of like Jesus Christ on the cross," Everhart said as she began the second day of the state GOP convention. "He never denounced God, either."

Everhart was praising McCain for never denouncing the United States while he was being tortured as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

"I'm not trying to compare John McCain to Jesus Christ, I'm looking at the pain that was there," she said.

What's worse in my mind is that Everhart is ascribing divinity to the United States: basically saying that America is like God.

So between a South Carolina church trying to connect Barack Obama to Osama Bin Laden and a Baptist minister declaring on the radio that Obama is "Antichrist", we are now supposed to believe that John McCain is like unto the Son of Man.

And some people wonder why I've grown tired of politics.

It's looking like so far as "the two major parties" go, it'll be the proverbial Hobson's choice between McCain and Obama for President this November. I won't be voting for either one of them.

And once again, I have to wonder how many self-professed Christians are going to spin this election as "a vote for Obama is a vote for evil" thing. You'd think that after two elections of voting for "God's anointed man" that most would have learned better.

Probably not. Mark my words: you'll still see Pat Robertson, James Dobson and their kind shilling for McCain and saying it's one's "Christian duty" to support him.

They had more than enough opportunity to do what they could to turn America around spiritually and intellectually. Instead they prostituted their principles so they could sit at "the king's table".

Screw 'em.

Read More