E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Antonio Calanni / AP file
The Shroud of Turin bears the faded image of what appears to be a Christlike figure. Italian researchers say they've come close to the shroud's coloration by blasting strips of linen with ultraviolet laser light.
Last updated noon ET Dec. 27:
Italian researchers have resurrected the idea that the Shroud of Turin's mysterious image of a Christlike figure could only have been created by a powerful flash of light — but skeptics still aren't buying it.
Scientists have tussled with believers, and with each other, over the origins of the centuries-old cloth for decades: Many believers think it's the true image of Jesus, left behind miraculously on his burial cloths after his resurrection. Analyses of the Shroud's chemical makeup, as well as radiocarbon dating of fiber samples, have led lots of researchers to conclude that the image was painted onto the cloth during the 14th century. But other researchers, sympathetic to the Shroud's cause, say those tests were faulty.
The Italian studies, conducted at the ENEA Research Center in Frascati, addresses a specific question in Shroud science: Could a burst of radiation have created the coloration seen on the linen? The answer is yes, although the results reported in the latest studies aren't a perfect match. So does that mean the Shroud image could only have been created by the flash of a miraculous resurrection? The answer is no, despite what you might read on the Web.
Five years of tests
"Sadly, we have seen many claims spread in the Web made by journalist/bloggers that discuss the content of a paper they never read," lead researcher Paolo Di Lazzaro told me today in an email. "It is obvious that a serious scientific work cannot prove any supernatural action. We have shown that the most advanced technology available today is unable to replicate all the characteristics of the Shroud image. As a consequence, we may argue it appears unlikely a forger may have done this image with technologies available in the Middle Ages or earlier. The probability the Shroud is a medieval fake is really low. In this sense, the Shroud image is still a scientific challenge."
Di Lazzaro and his colleagues based their conclusions on five years of tests, using an ultraviolet laser apparatus and strips of modern-day linen. They blasted the cloth with UV at different power levels, and reported that they "achieved a very superficial Shroud-like coloration of linen yarns in a narrow range of irradiation parameters." The best effect depended on laser pulses lasting less than 50 nanoseconds.
"These processes may have played a role in the generation of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," the researchers report.
They don't go so far as to claim a miracle. But the fact that UV laser blasters didn't exist in the 13th century, let alone in Jesus' day, strongly implies that they suspect something out of the ordinary was going on.
Di Lazzaro told me that the tests were not financed by ENEA, which is a government-sponsored research agency, and were conducted outside working hours. "The research was curiosity-driven, the attempt to replicate an image which is considered 'the impossible image' due to its very peculiar characteristics," he said.
Over the years, Di Lazzaro and his colleagues have published a long list of studies, including peer-reviewed papers (see below). The latest studies were presented at a May conference in Frascati and published in November as an ENEA technical report (with a disclaimer saying that the contents didn't necessarily express ENEA's opinion). But they didn't really get traction until this week, just in time for Christmas, thanks to a series of sensationalized British news reports.
Critiquing Shroud science
Shroud science, also known as sindology, usually percolates outside the scientific mainstream — but every once in a while a sensational claim comes into the public spotlight. Joe Nickell, an investigator for the New York-based Center for Inquiry, has been following sindology for decades. He noted that the Italian research revives a discussion going back to the 1980s, spearheaded by a group called the Shroud of Turin Research Project, or STURP.
"This is really nothing new," Nickell told me today. "This is a supposed vindication of STURP."
Nickell said Di Lazzaro and his colleagues started out with the assumption that the coloration on the Shroud couldn't have been created by applying pigment to the linen — which runs counter to the conclusions drawn by other studies. Starting out with the idea that the human figure shown on the Shroud is an "impossible image" stacks the deck in favor of a miraculous explanation, he said.
"Making the assumption of a miracle is a really, really, really, really, really big assumption," Nickell said. "That it's done in the name of science is just astonishing."
Nickell said the latest findings don't prove much of anything, even though they're dressed up in high-tech tests.
"It is made up of whole cloth," he said. "The pro-Shroud people start with the answer, and then they have to get some scientific evidence to back this up."
From 2008: An American researcher says the Shroud of Turin might be the real burial cloth of Jesus after all.
Some folks would suggest that the Shroud of Turin is a valuable focus for faith, whether it's real or not. What do you think? How much value is there in studying the Shroud, and how much impact do scientifico-religious debates like this one have on your own thinking? Check out the Web links below, give it some thought, and add your comments.
Update for 4:15 p.m. ET Dec. 22: Di Lazzaro sent a follow-up email calling attention to his group's publications, which I've added below, and he poses this question for Joe Nickell: "Was he (or anybody else) able to reproduce by chemical paint, acid and any other color a depth of coloration which is 0.2 micrometer thick (that is, one-fifth of a thousandth of a millimeter)? We are talking of this, because on the Shroud, the image has a coloration depth so thin that it is impossible to do with any kind of painting. I can quote peer-reviewed papers that show this is the coloration depth of the Shroud image.
"By the way, Nickell will be interested to know that using VUV photons we obtained this shallow coloration thickness," Di Lazzaro wrote.
I'll pass the question along to Nickell, who says he doesn't use email. I suspect the answer could go along two tracks: One is that it's a tough thing to try to reproduce a precise coloration depth under any circumstances. The other is that centuries of wear and tear might have had an effect that's not easily replicated by the contemporary application of pigments or other chemicals. But we'll see what Nickell has to say.
Update for 2:15 p.m. ET Dec. 23: Nickell responded to Di Lazzaro's question, and added a couple of questions of his own:
"Paolo Di Lazzaro claims the Turin 'Shroud' coloration depth is 0.2 micrometers, but surely he does not claim that that was uniformly measured throughout the cloth. The coloration indeed appears to be generally confined to the topmost fibrils (although the face image does show faintly on the back of the cloth). Using a two-part hypothesis I put forward in 1983, Italian chemist Luigi Garlaschelli has produced a replica shroud with such superficial staining. So let me ask Lazzaro a question in turn: Have you been able, using your high-intensity ultraviolet laser technique, to produce a replica shroud yourself? Until you do, shouldn’t you stop slashing carelessly with Occam’s razor?"
Here's a 2009 Reuters report about the Garlaschelli replica.
Update for 3:50 p.m. ET Dec. 26: Di Lazzaro sent this response to Nickell's questions via email:
"In 1978, several sticky tapes were used to sample the Shroud in different points of the body image. When the image fibers were pulled out of the adhesive, their colored coatings had been stripped off the fiber and remained in the adhesive. These coatings were independently analyzed by Profs. Alan Adler and Ray Rogers, and all of them were too thin to measure accurately with a standard optical microscope. This means the thickness of all coatings was smaller than the visible light wavelength, say thinner than 0.6 micrometer.
"Recently, these results have been confirmed by a direct measurement of another fiber, showing the thickness of the colored coating around the fiber is about 0.2 micrometer. As a consequence, there is quite a good probability most of the image fibers throughout the body image have a coloration depth smaller than 0.6 micrometers.
"Prof. Garlaschelli claimed he obtained 'a superficial coloration' without mentioning 'how much' superficial. Is it 100 micrometers thick? 10 micrometers? One micrometer? Nobody knows. I asked chemists [who are] colleagues at ENEA, and they told me it is impossible to obtain a coloration depth smaller than 10 to 20 micrometers with the chemicals used by Prof. Garlaschelli. This fact alone means the results of Garlaschelli are not comparable with the Shroud image. Mr. Nickell may be interested to know Prof. Garlaschelli refused to reply the letter sent to the editor of JIST (the journal that published his results) where several points of his work were criticized, including the lack of a measurement of the coloration depth.
"Coming to the question of Mr. Nickell: We never claimed to have reproduced the whole Shroud image. We were interested to gain a deeper insight into the physical and chemical processes that generated such an unusual image. And we were successful to find photochemistry processes that are able to generate a Shroud-like coloration of linen fibers.
"Concerning Occam's razor, I am a scientist, and when I wish to understand a phenomenon, seeking for a scientific explanation, I use microscopes, spectrometers, image detectors and other laboratory tools. I see Mr. Nickell prefers using philosophical instruments like the medieval Occam's razor, a theory proposed in the 14th century. Each of us is free to choose the most familiar tool to find answers."
Update for noon ET Dec. 27: And Nickell responds...
"Di Lazzaro equates the depth of colored coatings that were stripped from surface fibers (using adhesive tape) with the depth of penetration that might be determined by cross-sectioning of actual threads, then asserts that a single fiber’s examination (still apparently not cross-sectioned) has 'confirmed' the dubious claims. Given the tremendous evidence against the 'shroud' — its incompatibility with Jewish burial practices, lack of historical record, bishop's report of the forger’s confession, the still-bright-red 'blood' which failed forensic serological tests, the presence of pigments and paints throughout the image, three laboratories' radiocarbon dating of the cloth to the time of the confession (1260–1390), and much additional evidence — it would seem that Di Lazzaro is straining at a gnat and attempting to swallow a camel. Let him produce a shroudlike image according to whatever theory he can muster, and we'll talk again."
The chatter on the Shroud:
- ENEA: Shroud-like coloration of linen fabrics by vacuum UV radiation
- Int'l Workshop on the Scientific Approach to Acheiropoietos Images
- Telegraph: Study claims Shroud is Christ's authentic burial robe
- Daily Mail: The Turin Shroud DOES have miraculous powers
- The Independent: Scientists say Shroud is supernatural
- Center for Inquiry: Turin 'Shroud' called 'supernatural'
- Telegraph: The Turin Shroud is fake. Get over it
Earlier tales of the Shroud of Turin:
- Documentary looks at the face in the Shroud
- 'Jesus-era' cloth casts doubt on Turin Shroud
- Could new test settle Shroud of Turin debate?
- Public gets a look at the Shroud of Turin
Journal references from Paolo Di Lazzaro:
Peer reviewed Journals:
G. Baldacchini, P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, G. Fanti: “Coloring linens with excimer lasers to simulate the body image of the Turin Shroud” Applied Optics vol. 47, 1278-1283 (2008).P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, A. Santoni, G. Fanti, E. Nichelatti, G. Baldacchini: “Deep Ultraviolet radiation simulates the Turin Shroud image” Journal of Imaging Science and Technology vol. 54, 040302-(6) (2010).
Conference Proceedings
P. Di Lazzaro, G. Baldacchini, G. Fanti, D. Murra, E. Nichelatti, A. Santoni: “A physical hypothesis on the origin of the body image embedded into the Turin Shroud” Proceedings of the Int. Conf. on The Shroud of Turin: Perspectives on a Multifaceted Enigma, edited by G. Fanti (Edizioni Libreria Progetto Padova 2009) pp. 116 – 125. ISBN 978-88-96477-03-08 01-12.P. Di Lazzaro, G. Baldacchini, G. Fanti, D. Murra, A. Santoni: “Colouring fabrics with excimer lasers to simulate encoded images: the case of the Shroud of Turin”, XVIII Int. Symposium on Gas Flow, Chemical Lasers, High-Power Lasers, edited by R. Vilar, Proceedings SPIE vol. 7131 (2009) pp. 71311R-1 – 71311R-6.
P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, A. Santoni, G.- Baldacchini: “Sub-micrometer coloration depth of linens by vacuum ultraviolet radiation”, Proc. International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, edited by P. Di Lazzaro (2010) pp. 3 – 10.
D. Murra, P. Di Lazzaro: “Sight and brain, an introduction to the visually misleading images”, Proc. International Workshop on the Scientific approach to the Acheiropoietos Images, edited by P. Di Lazzaro (2010) pp. 31 – 34.
Technical Reports
G. Baldacchini, P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, G. Fanti: “Colorazione di tessuti di lino con laser ad eccimeri e confronto con l’immagine sindonica” ENEA RT/2006/70/FIM (2006).P. Di Lazzaro: “Wissenschaftliche Hypothesen zur Entstehung des Bildes auf dem Turiner Grabtuch” 30Tagen n.4 (2010) pp. 63-66.
P. Di Lazzaro, D. Murra, E. Nichelatti, A. Santoni, G. Baldacchini: “Colorazione similsindonica di tessuti di lino tramite radiazione nel lontano ultravioletto: riassunto dei risultati ottenuti presso il Centro ENEA di Frascati negli anni 2005 -2010” RT/2011/14/ENEA (2011).
Alan Boyle is msnbc.com's science editor. Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page, following @b0yle on Twitter and adding the Cosmic Log page to your Google+ presence. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
Well, if it isn't a fake then Jesus was not anatomically correct. As you've seen on the shroud the man is lying with his hands covering his groin area. Now try it for youself. Lay down and cross your hands. Where do they cross? If you're like the rest of us they cross just below your navel. If this is a true picture of Jesus then he had gorilla arms that are 20% longer than the average humans.
Hmm you must have:
a) short arms
b) huge belly
c) a desire to simply be a disbeliever
Maybe you're incorrectly constructed as my proportions certainly fit http://www.fas.harvard.edu/~loebinfo/loebinfo/Proportions/humanfigure.html and assuming a pose similar to that in the picture certainly mimics what is seen in there.
I think the most compelling evidence this is a fake (besides the fact that it has been reproduced time and time again with both pigments and with hot iron impression) is that neither the face nor body are distorted as you would find if a cloth was laid over a 3D figure...i.e. a body.
When you drape a cloth over your face, you do not get a nice pretty image of a face in perfect proportion. The cloth would wrap around the edges of the head, creating a panoramic, stretched image which would have certainly included the sides of the cheek and jaw, the ears, etc. Same is true for the body, you would see the outer tricep area of the arms, the outer thigh area of the legs, the outer ankles. It becomes very clear this is simply a 2D drawing or impression.
Yeah folks, it was a flash alright! Too much frigging acid by the Pope. Nitwits.
@Voter - that was a nice link you sent, but after looking at it I fail to see how it does anything to dissuade my argument. If you look closely at the diagram from that page you'll see that the average persons hands do hang down around the groin area when standing. However, when they're swung towards the middle of the torso while standing up straight or lying down, the hands move upwards (movement along arc since the arms are attached at a single pivot point at the shoulders) and join, as I previously described just below the navel.
But please, don't take my word for it, try it yourself.
Obviously I did try and then went looking to find out why my according to you ape-like length arms didn't end up crossing over my navel instead of in the same position as whoever was supposedly laying under the shroud. Also don't forget you're looking at the picture as a flat object whereas my body isn't flat; is yours or is that something peculiar to me also? Dimensions are going to be skewed when you flatten out the shroud.
I am no Gorilla. My hands cover my groin.
Sheep believe anything.
Actually, most assume this to be the shroud of Turin. It may very well not be. So to all who are making accusations that Christ didn't rise from the dead based on this shroud; may in fact be jumping to false conclusions.
Clearly this is another miracle that only seems to happen to catholics or joe smith,get a grip,read a King James Bible or other protestant Bibles and you will see that the shroud is just a money maker for the church, because the Bible makes it very clear that when Jesus was laid in the tomb,he was not covered with one cloth,when Mary and others came to clean Jesus's body as was done by Jewish custom at that time they found Jesus gone and the Angel said fear not as he who you seek is risen,and laying on the stone where Jesus laid was folded-cloth one for the body and a separate one for head,so please stop wasting our time.
There is a separate head cloth that has been held by a relic for many centuries at a church in Spain with vetting that goes back even further than the Shroud of Turin. I believe that while one cloth went around the body, the other cloth was specific to the head - not necessarily an inconsistency.
Now who do you think had that technology in those days? Maybe all aliens look alike? Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk.
Jimbo ! If you had been hanging on a cross, your arms would have probably been stretched like his you YoYo !
Jimbo
Some cultures would do that with the arms of the dead.
I suggest you look up laminin, both the model and electron microscope image.
Laminin is the protein that holds your body's cells together.
Wheeler - Quite often there was a separate cloth for the head and sometimes on wounds too.
wheelerdog, why would there be folded cloth? the Angel said, "see the place where they laid him" Mark 16
Jimbo-1004296
the man had the @!$%# beat out of him with all his ribs broken to speed up the drowning while crucified(hanging by your arms) that may have lead to a possibility he had abnormal arm structure. we can test it if you like,....you be Jesus and ill be a roman K? then we can see where you put your hands after the torment I have in store for you (under scientific testing of course) Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
p.s. ya got one left btw use it wisely,........
I had to participate, my hands cover my nutz. The rest of it I have no opinion one way or the other.
Interesting comments Jimbo...one poster said his hand covered his privates so you lose.
BTW, we don't need the shroud to prove Jesus resurrected. You believe or you don't.
Evidence that the Shroud is not a forgery:
1) Coins on the eyes are dated to Pontius Pilate (man who condemned Jesus to death)'s time
2) There are abrasions on the shoulders from carrying the cross
3) There are blood stains from the crown of thorns (the crown of thorns was not a typical Roman punishment, this was done by the soldiers as a mockery of Jesus. This is further evidence that the man in the image is Jesus.)
4) There is a heart wound, and a pool of blood from the wound (Roman soldiers would have broken the legs of the victim to ensure death, not pierce his side. Scripture says Jesus' side was pierced.)
5) Image is only on top of the fibers
6) Blood stains are under the image, and it is real human blood
7) All wounds are precise and correct (This would have been extremely difficult, considering all the scourge marks.)
8) Pollen from the Holy Land was found on it
9) The weave of the shroud is typical of the first century
10) The nose of the man in the image is broken - A forger would not have broken the nose because the Bible says "not a bone of his shall be broken" (this quote is from a prophesy of Jesus), so the forger would have done what was expected. However, the nose is not a bone, it is cartilege.
The results of the Carbon-14 testing are not valid because the piece of the shroud that scientists tested was taken from the outside, which was contaminated from being touched and handled for centuries.
I wonder what 2000 years of dust mites would look like?
wow..are you on crack?
i actually had to try out your theory jimbo. my hands cover my groin crossed while standing or lying and i'm 5-9 and my knuckles don't drag the ground. you must be one of those munchkins, not the dunkin donuts kind, just a little human being.
People who believe in the shroud will always believe those who don't won't believe. It's a thing about faith. I don't believe but I would never argue the fact with people who do.
GMR21 You crack me up. Where did you get the info that the coin images over his eyes have been dated?
I have read all the comments. It comes down to whether you believe or not. It has nothing to do with a shroud. You can either accept or reject the existence of Christ. You all have free will, but remember with free will comes responsibility.
There is a Holy Trinity. It is difficult even for Catholics to comprehend. That is why they call it faith.
My concern is for America. BJP had a very good quotation. "A nation that kills its own children, is a nation without hope".
Dockpete, a nation that stays wallowing in myth, is a nation without hope. A nation that needs the threat of a mean god and burning in hell to be good, that is a nation without hope.
Hey Silly, not to be rash but please name one civilization that wasn't founded on some sort of religious or faith principals. Also I don't think you can actually criticize a nation for its religious beliefs;faith has always under pinned the moral fabric of almost all civilizations, in all eras, at all times. You would not last long in a society without it.
Try this experiment yourselves.... Using body paint, paint your face from ear to ear and from the crown of your head to your neck and, while the paint is still wet, lay or wrap cloth over your head. Allow enough time for some of the paint on your face to transfer to the cloth. Then uncover/wrap your head and take a look at the image with the cloth lying flat. What you will see is a stretched and distorted image of your face, not a symmetrical/normal image as is shown on the "shroud".
Frankly, I find it amusing the way the worshipers of the new religion of science can make this argument. If science suggests something they agree with is true, then they will defend the findings to the death. However, when science can not disprove and actually lends credence something they abhor, in this case the existence of Christ, They come up with clearly unscientific results to do what science can not. The image is anatomically incorrect, when it is not. They duplicated it with dies and a flat iron, no they haven't. Even their lasers failed to "duplicate the image". Clearly no such devises existed 2000 years ago.
To those who believe, no proof is necessary. To those who do not, none will suffice.
In this time when "Special relativity" has been called into question, the very foundation of the physical laws, Is it possible that we mere mortals understand less than some would have us believe? I have two science degree and I have my faith, not to be confused with organized religion, Ergo, I can not be referred to a zealot on either side. A simple question to all those who hold the "Big bang" theorem as absolute truth Since all that is came into being from the explosion of a single super atom, somewhere in the pre-universe, tell me, Where did this super atom come from? It had to come from some where. Explain the basis of your truth, then perhaps I can look at it seriously.
It is strangely coincidental that the "Big bang" theory is oddly like the description of creation in Genesis. read it, from the beginning to the seventh day, if the similarity is not obvious to you, then you are thicker than I thought. A description written down long before your science exited. Science has tried without success to disprove faith. As to all the answers, say it with me, "We don't know".
look at all these atheist scientist wannabes with little to no background saying its fake. im laughing so hard right now. BTW if you look at the shroud of turin the head and body are way wide implying that it was lain over a 3 dimensional object (ie a person) if science cant disprove it going into the 21st century and its from the 13th or whatever century then its not fake you cant disprove it as fake cuz even if you did find a way to do it in the 30th century or some other time in the future you would still have to explain how it was done in the 13th century with their level of technology. if you cant do either of those two things then shut up. also to the whole atheist argument of ( religion causes all or most wars.) the truth its men with silver tongues use religion to manipulate stupid people into it. most religious people dont randomly feel the need to strap a bomb to their chest and go and meet their maker nor do i wake up and suddenly yearn to start a war with some ass-backwards country.
the usual religious person is an honest person who helps where they can pays their bills or gets help when they cant and is the kinda person you just want to shake hands with. End Of Rant..
Interesting facts, if science could figure out an insects capability to move about we would solve transportation..If science could decipher how a Monarch can travel as per wight ratio and distance we could solve space travel.
Everything is right here in front of us..I don't need a shroud to know that Jesus exists.
We seen the nations without faith..The Former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, etc...yeah, they are just so awesome...
GMR21 - In your point #6 of "Evidence that the Shroud is not a forgery":
6) Blood stains are under the image, and it is real human blood
-
So what you are saying is that the shroud contains the dried blood of Jesus, hence his DNA exists.
Therefore Jesus can be cloned and return to earth through the miracle of science...
Nickell clearly hasn't been up to date with his evidence. According to the many, many documentaries I've seen on the Shroud, scientists haven't been able to find any evidence of paint or artistic mediums on the cloth at all.
I still don't get why scientists fight like dogs over the Shroud when clearly, it is still a scientific mystery. Hell, if humanity invents time-travel in the future, someone could have gone back in time with new technology and made the Shroud.
@Stacey Peterson: Actually, if it is human blood, whether it be Jesus' or otherwise, the DNA would be far too degraded to do anything with but attempt to study and reconstruct, let alone clone the man back into existence. Hence, why scientists are having such a hard time trying to clone an 100-year-old-plus thylacine corpse back into existence.
GMR21, coins over the eyes was actually a pagan ritual for the dead so that they could pay their way across the river from life to after life. As a Christian, I do not see Jewish people adhering to this burial ritual, though I could be wrong.
Some very good comments on this thread (as well as some very ignorant ones). The above post is right on when it says "if you believe, you dont need proof and if you don't believe, nothing will ever satisfy your need for proof.
Also stated above is what I have noticed as well regarding the similarities of the "Big Band Theory" and the first 7 days in genesis. Those that say with definite that God doesn't exist are just as ignorant as those that say, because God does exist then the Big Bang Theory is obsolete.
Facts are facts. The facts prove that none of us know jack sh!t about the miracle of life.
I trying to get the big picture here. There's a whole bunch of stuff where God loves the humans but they keep doing bad stuff. He wants to forgive them but snapping his fingers and forgiving them would not be dramatic enough. So he gets the idea to send his son down here, live a few years, do a few parlor tricks and get crucified. The rise from the dead. Flash a poloroid on a cloth. Voila sins are forgiven and the lovable humans have a nice snapshot to pass around on the internet.
Ok I understand now. It is real.
I like your description BW. If you had never heard this story as a child, as I did, you would wonder at its veracity. After careful deliberation, at the ripe old age of 14, I decided I was being lied to. I am 61 and still can't fathom how a loving God would need humans to torture His Son and kill him. Human sacrifice, as in murdering someone, isn't acceptable to the very people who think God did it.
My children were taught a philosophy that is centered on the assumption that the purpose of human existence is to make the world a better place to live in. It was their choice if they wanted to believe in a God. Where my faith has never been restored, they both believe in a higher power. At 61, I find that my built in guidance system, based on my life experiences mirrors my philosophy and could have a divine component, but I seriously doubt it. The fact that I see so much animal instinct at play, in really everybody I know or have ever heard of, doesn't support a divine origin to life, in my estimation.
Let me spell it out for you. Most christians know of this story.
What if you are the judge and your child is brought before the court. He/she has broken the law and the punishment must be enforced. You also know that there is no way he/she is able to pay for what they did. What do you do? You can't let him/her off, because otherwise sin will be rampant everywhere and yet, he/she is your child. So what is a parent to do? A good parent would do this. The judge (which is yourself) would first declare the child guilty, and then you would come down and pay the fine for your child. Which is exactly what God did through is son Jesus.
Parents pay for their children all the time. It is not a new thing. So what makes you think that God would be any different.
I think you missed the point in Christian theology that says Jesus is God e.g. the Holy Trinity. God sacraficed Himself, as Christ Jesus, to atone for the sins of mankind. It's a difficult concept to grasp (The Trinity) but Jesus willingly went to the cross, according to the Bible. God didn't need humans to torture and kill His Son, we did. It was done for us, not God. I'm sure people will try and argue this, say it's a fairlytale or whatever, but the fact is, it's Christian theology that makes this point. Fact or fiction, that's for you to decide. If I'm wrong, God help me. If I'm right, God help those to don't believe.
The Human Race fell because they were goaded into disobedience. Indeed by the fatal error of not obeying him and trusting him, we deserved punishment and unless we are reformed (something we cannot do ourselves effectively) we should not be trusted.
How just would God be, if he didn't give us a chance to return. Notice, you aren't forced to come to him, like he is going to starve your or sofocate you.
You’re right Unhappy.
However I wish I could pay for my kids screw-ups in three days. God does
what he wants? Right? I rest my case.
Though the Bible does say that for God a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day... (What is "3 days" for you and me might very well be much longer for an "infinite being" who transcends space and time. BTW - I think the "shroud" is pretty much a "non-issue" - how does anyone know (for sure) what Jesus of Nazareth looked like? There is no real detailed description of Him in the Bible, so when they call it a "Christ-like" image, are they not just going off of traditional European art based ideas of what He looked like?
Hmmm... How old is the shroud? What type of "flash" equipment existed at that time?
It is well known, and documented, that people can spontaneously combust.
More likely than not, whoever was covered by the shroud generated enough heat to leave a lasting impression - in more than one way.
Sure unhappy and if the kid is sentenced to jail the parent can show up and go to jail instead? No, that is not justice just like a parent paying a kids fine isn't justice.
And lets say the sentence was death so the parent comes down and dies to pay the kids sin, then they take the body in back and do CPR and bring them back to life... Is the crime still paid for? If they execute a criminal and then bring them back would that be justice? Would everyone be ok with that?
No, if Jesus died for our sins he has to STAY DEAD, if he comes back then the sacrifice is null and void! And what kind of stupid deal is that? I mean he didn't DIE for your sins he had a @!$%#ty weekend and then he comes back as GOD? Heck let me make that sacrifice PLEASE! It's a ridiculous story and the world needs to get over these superstitions!
No offense, but that's pretty shallow thinking. I would suggest that you do an in-depth study of the New Testament -- not a readin, but a study -- and then come to a conclusion. But you won't do it.
If God created the universe (and you and me) and wants to provide a way to satisfy both His justice and His mercy - that's His option (His universe, His rules- he could have just left us to face His wrath and justice with no chance for redemption) - but like the Bible points out, we like to think that we are "god" and think that we should get to decide what rules God and the universe and everyone should have to operate under. Who says that if Jesus (being God in the flesh) died that he should "stay dead"? If He is an eternal being, and doesn't stay dead forever, so what? Since when do we get to make the rules? After all, the Bible says that even us humans won't "stay dead forever", but will stand before God after we die - so why should Jesus be treated any less than us humans? If we don't "stay dead forever", why should He?
The crucifixion of Jesus Christ, was a blood sacrifice for the sin of all of man kind. Before Christ the Hebrew people traveled to the temple in Jerusalem on the Passover, a celebration of their exodus from captivity in Egypt. Here they offered a sacrifice of their first fruit, in other word they offered their best. The lamb, dove an/or other blood offering had to be with out spot or blemish. Christ was the lamb of God. A sacrifice without spot or blemish. However his crucifixion is but one part of salvation, it is Jesus Resurrection on the third day where power over death had it's victory. See if Jesus would not have risen then he would not have been God in the flesh and we would still be dead in sin. However when Jesus raised from the dead he made us joint airs with him raising us with him as son's and daughters of God. The spiritual doctrine of Christianity is a complex belief. It is important that one study it to understand before trying to critique it. See nothing is understood until one study to know the depth of a doctrine or any written knowledge. This being stated know this, Christianity can not be understood by the carnal mind of man. It is spiritually discerned. In that doctrine it is written that God uses the simple thing of the world to confound the mind of the wise. So if you are truly inquisitive, study to show yourself approved unto GOD! a true workman who need not be ashamed rightly dividing the word of truth. II Timothy. 2:15 as far as the cloth, it is irrelevant. It can do nothing, save nor condemn. Some see the relics and the reverence they esteem as graven images and idolatry. Again the relics do nothing on their own, it is the actions of men and their behavior that go astray.
Christianity Muslims Jews. All have some odd beliefs to them. I think religion in itself is Cult like.
That is not Jesus in that cloth. It is a fake. And if I want to talk to God i'll do what Jesus did and what Ghandi did. I go to the source. Not to some intermediary Priest or scholar. If we do not go within our own souls we go without. Humans can feel when they are doing something against their nature. Some just do not care to listen. Every religion has its good and bad in it. None is better than any other.
Plus was Jesus not a rebel. He was accused of unheard of crimes for saying he was the son of GOD. Then we all are gods kids. According to Jesus he is our equal.
Obviously, you don't understand the teachings of God. There is a trinity. God, Christ, and the Holy Spirit. All parts of the whole. God is not a human. Christ is God in human form. God had given mankind everything yet was disobeyed. He couldn't understand why these beings he had created acted as they did. He sent Christ(in essence, his human incarnation) to earth. Christ Jesus experienced everything as we humans do...temptation etc., etc., etc. In this way he embodied all mankind. When he gave his life for our sins, he symbolically represented all of us. If you have read anything of the Bible, you will know that God had made a promise not to destroy man again after the great flood. Anyway, don't just listen to others read the Bible yourselves. You can just read it as a pretty good yarn if you want. But if you take some of its lessons away and read it in the context of history and time, you just might learn something profound. I think the world needs a little moral teaching in this day and time.
I can most identify with the post by Softdude. I was raised in middle Georgia and we were in those pews on Sundays--every Sunday. Even as a child I questioned the existence of a god. I watched the politics within the church and knew everyone knew everyone's business--and talked about it constantly.
The accepted norm that I saw in the Baptist Church was the spoken word of racial biases. On a Sunday morning in 1966 there was a peaceful march that went right down past the church. The deacons were lining the sidewalk in front of the church with baseball bats. Someone with different color skin weren't welcome in their house of worship. Somehow I wasn't able to grasp how a church of people could call themselves "Christ Like" when their actions were contrary to everything I had read in that small gift bible with my name inscribed in gold. As I've aged I'm even more amazed by the acts that have been committed in the name of such a historically passive human.
I really don't think that simple man of the people would dig that "Pope Mobile", the pomp and ceremony, nor the robes and glitter.
I had this old dearly departed friend that was an attorney. He used this comment "It's like a fellow that kills his parents asking for the mercy of the courts due to his status as an orphan." He was a Christian and had the a philosophy about his spiritual life. Don't scream it out loud, put it in other people's faces--the "go unto thy closets and pray", translating to have your private relationship with your god.
Stop the banter of "We're a Christian nation", Jews are incomplete Christians, and the hatred of Muslims. It's contradictory to every word that I read of Jesus, the pacifist and Liberal that was 100% a 99% er. This is you folks time of the year---do some good.
Translation: You will stop doubting once the brainwashing has had it's time to reach full effect.
Ok Everyone. In unison say "Dogma"
That was nice, thank you
Actually I don't have a problem with God. It's the afterlife thing that's a lie. With no afterlife God becomes collateral damage.
Actually, Jesus' purpose here was to keep us from dying in mortal sin, By His birth is GOD's gift to a sinning world and by His death all men are saved if you accept the fact that GOD's Son is Jesus. God promised the Jews an eternal heir to HIS Kingdom. But the Jewish people turned their back on Him because some men in the temple said so. So then after Jesus' death, He comes back to tell His disciples to go out all over the world spreading in words what they learned from Him. If they believed His teachings were so, then it was so. Jesus gives us examples to follow. He said that when we pray to pray like He did to his Father. We are not suppose to be using His prayer, but to follow His prayer as a guide.
This brings to another thing. Islam and Lutheran Religions was set at the same time. Martin Luther didn't exactly believed like the Romans believed and Mohammad didn't believe that there is an eternal heaven, but he did believe that there was only one GOD to made all things. Both made their own religions. Both were scholars of the Roman Catholic.
About the shroud, it needs to be a fact as where the shroud came from as evidence to Jesus' death. If it came from Israel or a part of Palestine, then it may have been Jesus'. Jesus died in the year 28 a. d.. How this was calculated was from dates in the Bible of Kings and other events. He had to be born in 4 b. c. in February and not December. One has to remeber that our calendars were not around when Jesus was around. What if the shroud was found in Italy or Spain? The shroud could have belonged to one of the apostles, maybe Luke. If Spain, then it was possible of Paul (Saul). My opinion of Luke, because Luke was a doctor.
I beleive in Jesus as my personal Savior, who died for me and gave me the chance to have Eternal Life.
Captain Genevie - So it's more plausible that the human race evolved from single celled organisms and baboons. Yeah, that's much more logical.
oddly enough ive had the same issue for years, couldnt understand the concept of god, as defined by mainstream religion, it wasnt until i was able to shake that off, that i was able to experience true inner peace. After so much time studyin science, quantam mechanics, string theory, and the like, as ive delved deep into the inner workings of science keeping an open mind for the prospect of god, not as defined by men, but as defined by my own search for him or her (or it?) ive finally come to the conclusion that god is real, what he/she/it is or what he/she/it wants from us is still a mystery to me, but ive finally understood that god is real, not from blindly following what a man tells me, but from my own honest search for him/her/it. if you truly are willing to still your mind and listen for him/her/it you will find what you seek. proof of god is deep in the scientific details, only those scientists who dont want to find god are saying they dont see god. Einstein was right when he said "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
Shame
Shame you don't understand the science well enough to talk about it.
A bit of detergent and a 1/4 cup of bleach will remove those stains and make that shroud look good as new.
What, exactly, was Jesus guilty of?
Fudge: Jesus was NOT guilty and that's the main point of Christianity. Without the shedding of blood, there is no remission of sin. Therefore, if you read the Old Testament, you will see time and again how the people had to sacrifice a lamb, bird, whatever, in order to shed the blood. What sin was the lamb guilty of? Nothing! They took an innocent to accept the sin of the person being absolved. In this case, the Lamb that must be without blemish was God's own Son. He knew in order to absolve the sin of man once and for all, the Lamb used must be very special and the only One worthy of this was Jesus. You think He really wanted to go through that??? Absolutely NOT. He even said Himself if there is any other way, then let this pass from me. If Jesus was lying about who He said He was, would He take that lie all the way to the cross? I know people who wouldn't want to be locked in jail for the sake of a lie. Do you think Jesus would WANT to die in this manner for the sake of a lie? The most horrific manner of death at the time? Do you know anyone who would? Would YOU? I know I sure wouldn't! No lie is worth death, especially death on the cross, but He did it. He did it for everyone, including you, even if you don't believe it.
Religious belief is, by definition, a matter of faith. Meaning, of course, that it is built around things that can never be 'proven' via scientific investigation. The whole concept of God (or gods), creation, miracles, anything supernatural; these are all things that are outside of science (super-natural). In science, if a theory is not consistent with observation, the theory is discarded or perhaps revised. In religion, if observation is not consistent with the theory, you throw out the observations and continue to accept the theory on faith alone. They are mirror images of each other.
I do not personally understand why people always try to 'prove' religious dogma with science. Either you accept it based on faith, or you don't. Science will never be able to prove religious dogma.
Exactly. "To him who believeth, no explanation is necessary. To him who beliveth not, no explanation will suffice." Not a Scripture, admittedly, but quite a reliable "old saw".
Science cannot prove or disprove most religious claims, but it can prove something is not what it is claimed to be...like the shroud. Science showed it was made in the 15th century (or thereabouts) and thus 15 centuries or so too late to be what it claims to be.
Every battle where science and religion were on oppoiste sides, science wins.
But it is true that much of religion cannot be treated with science.
Science was never supposed to be a competition. Science can only adjust as when indisputable facts are ascertained. The problem with science today is the same as it has been for years. Humans are running it, and we are full of errors.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't, no proof is enough.
Amen to that! How many will quickly change their mind when at the crossroads? ....and he is a forgiving God.
For those who don't believe, no evidence to the contrary is necessary. For those who believe, no evidence to the contrary is ever, ever, ever enough.
Ferro, The earliest mention of the shroud was by Pope Stephen III (reigned 752 to 757 CE). It's been proven that the fibers used for the carbon-14 testing came from a medeval rewoven (repaired) corner of the shroud.
I don't have a strong belief of the origin of the shroud, but anyone who still believes the carbon-14 dating was accurate ought to belong to the Flat Earth Society.
Ironically, many early "scientists" worked under the assumption that if God is a god of order and created the universe, then that universe must operate by certain orderly principles ("laws" of nature, physics, etc.) and would therefore be able to be discovered and understood. After all, if the universe were truly chaotic and born of chaos, there would be no logical reason to assume that it would operate by any fixed "laws" or that it could be understood (there would be no "rhyme or reason" to how or why it operated as it did). Also of interest is the mention of carbon-dating, which is far from perfectly reliable.
A critical assumption used in carbon-14 dating has to do with the ratio of carbon 14 to carbon 12. It is assumed that the ratio of 14C to 12C in the atmosphere has always been the same as it is today (1 to 1 trillion). If this assumption is true, then the AMS 14C dating method is valid up to about 80,000 years. Beyond this number, the instruments scientists use would not be able to detect enough remaining 14C to be useful in age estimates. This is a critical assumption in the dating process. If this assumption is not true, then the method will give incorrect dates. What could cause this ratio to change? If the production rate of 14C in the atmosphere is not equal to the removal rate (mostly through decay), this ratio will change. In other words, the amount of 14C being produced in the atmosphere must equal the amount being removed to be in a steady state (also called “equilibrium”). If this is not true, the ratio of 14C to 12C is not a constant, which would make knowing the starting amount of 14C in a specimen difficult or impossible to accurately determine.
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of the carbon-14 dating method, assumed this ratio to be constant. His reasoning was based on a belief in evolution, which assumes the earth must be billions of years old. Assumptions in the scientific community are extremely important. If the starting assumption is false, all the calculations based on that assumption might be correct but still give a wrong conclusion.
In Dr. Libby’s original work, he noted that the atmosphere did not appear to be in equilibrium. This was a troubling idea for Dr. Libby since he believed the world was billions of years old and enough time had passed to achieve equilibrium. Dr. Libby’s calculations showed that if the earth started with no 14C in the atmosphere, it would take up to 30,000 years to build up to a steady state (equilibrium).
Dr. Libby chose to ignore this discrepancy (nonequilibrium state), and he attributed it to experimental error. However, the discrepancy has turned out to be very real. The ratio of 14C /12C is not constant.
What does this mean? If it takes about 30,000 years to reach equilibrium and 14C is still out of equilibrium, then maybe the earth is not very old.
But few who insist on evolution as a foregone conclusion have any desire to question such issues.
--The point being that so-called "faith/proof" issues exist on both sides.
I am sure that there is dna on that cloth, being said, get a dna sample off god and see if it matches. nuff said
Kozmonot:
The only way the earth is not over a billion years old is if you measure years as something other than one revolution around the sun. Oops, I forgot, the earth is the center of the universe.
Is the shroud the image of Jesus?? Really it doesn't make any difference to me whether it is or isn't. I don't worship a shroud.
Jesus is not my savior because I'm afraid of going to Hell. Jesus is my savior because God called me and I accepted Jesus as my savior.
Not everyone will accept His invitation. Scripture makes that very clear. Not everyone will be called either. There are plenty of people who die without ever hearing the Gospel. But, and this is the MOST important point: Just because I don't have, and never will have, all of the answers does not keep me from believing. That's what faith is based on. God never intended for us to have all of the answers while we're here.
So, while there are a million questions and ethical situations that I can't address, I just accept the fact that the reason I can not address them is because I don't have the knowledge of God.
As a Christian, I fail miserably on a daily basis to live up to the teachings of Christ. That doesn't mean that I don't try. But, I do understand that the bar is impossibly high and that no one will ever reach it. That's the way it was designed.
Many will use my failure (as well as the failures of other Christians) as an excuse to mock and degrade me... that since the messenger (those who profess Christ) is flawed, therefore the message must also be flawed. Nothing could be further from the truth. But that's okay, it doesn't have any effect on my faith, because God made it clear that it would be a cost of following Christ. I'm more than willing to pay that price.
Christians are liars, murderers, adulterers, thieves, hypocrites, and all manner of other vile human failings. But the one other thing that Christians are, that others are not, is forgiven. Again, that doesn't mean you just live your life the way you want based on that forgiveness. But it does mean that you do your best to work toward a life that is pleasing to God.
I always liked the logic of Pascal's wager: (paraphrased in my own words) If I follow Jesus all of my life and it turns out he was a liar, then I have lost nothing. If you reject Jesus and He is who He claims to be, then you have lost everything.
I continually see people referring to Jesus as "a myth", but I never see them explain how "a myth" was recorded not only in the Bible, but in Roman and middle eastern histories as well. They never seem to get around to explaining that detail.
I guess calling Jesus a myth is much easier than confronting the fact that He actually lived. (And still lives for those of us who believe.)
Wonderful post Conservativenotrepublican!! Amen!
your absolutely right but I bet you science will invent medicine to make you better when praying doesn't work & it's so easy to read at night with electricity, that's two benefits from science what are any for organized religion ? none just a way to excuse beastly behavior & have you throw this life away for an afterlife that does not exist - god does not write books ! man does so why would you look for a live god in a dead book ? that might piss off the real god
I understand the rift between science and religion. But I know, too, that both should be in agreement. Why is there such a division between the two? Most religions maintain that the earth was created in six literal 24 hour days. This is not what the Bible teaches, for if it were, the Bible would speak of the end of the seventh day (Gen. 1:31), which God proclaimed as a rest day, a sabbath. That sabbath will end when Jesus, enthroned in the heavens with those who are to be king-priests with him, at the end of his thousand-year reign, gives back to his Heavenly Father rulership of a then perfect human race. At that point, the universe will be balanced once more (John 4:23, 24).
While the many sects of Christendom have their eyes blinded by Satan (2 Cor. 11:12-15) and try to say that Jesus, the Son of God is God, this is far from what the Bible teaches about God (John 10:36). There is a people who believe God's Word of Truth, the Bible, as the authority on religious matters. The Bible does not claim to be a book of scientific facts, but does explain things such as the virgin birth of God's Only-begotten Son and how he, God's Son started a movement that is still alive in this day and time.
Thus, as the Author of the Bible (2 Tim. 3:16), God is not wishy-washy in what he proclaims. What is said at the beginning of the Bible harmonizes completely with the last book of the Bible and all books belonging to the Bible canon.
Now, if Carbon-dating is flawed, as many feel that it is, the dates of certain periods of time prior to the formation of man could well be as flawed as is Christendom's view of God. It will take someone far more intelligent than myself to say with any certainty that the science community is flawed in its method of dating prehistoric specimens and dates, but I do know what the Bible teaches about the origin of man, his fall into sin, and the role that Jesus plays in buying back for us sinful humankind the opportunity to gain eternal life on the global paradise earth.
In spite of what Re-"evolution" wrote above, and there are some great scientific breakthroughs in the field of medicine and technology, please do not write off as just a bunch of freaks those of us who strive to live by the Word of God. There is something much better than Christendom or mere science out there.
@kozmonot, some of what you wrote is certainly accurate, but other things you wrote came with very faulty assumptions. Yes, it was certainly an issue of debate as to whether radiocarbon dating (and more generally radioisotope dating) were accurate regarding whether decay rates were constant, and abundance in different materials from which they are later measured. The scientific community comprises many brilliant scientists who address these questions. Although I can't claim to be experts as they are, the scientific community does not espouse faulty assumptions or bad information. If you disagree with that last statement, I'm interested to hear examples where the scientific community strongly supported false theories with weak empirical support and later rejected them.
As for radio-carbon dating, it's been checked with other forms of radio-isotope dating, as well as historical data (carbon-14 has a half life of 5730 years, which is short enough to give better accuracy over several thousand years than, say U-235 because more of it decays). Carbon dating is calibrated against, say, an Egyptian pharaoh's sarcophagus where we know the date in advance. Or tree ring data from trees younger than 10,000 years old. Or cave deposits. So yes, empirical evidence shows us that it is quite accurate since it's been tested and calibrated.
The comment about the earth not being that old based on that statement is specious. The rate of decay should remain constant, but the creation rate is not constant. The constant rate of formation was an assumption the entire argument rested on. We know this because of radiocarbon dates taken from bristlecone pines. But that's not even why I would argue for the Earth being older than 10,000 years. We have much more powerful evidence: U-235, the radio-isotope dater of industrial strength.
How do we know U-235 can be relied on? John Wells of Cornell University performed a study that was nothing short of jaw dropping. He used corals from the Devonian period (~380 million years ago). Radioisotope dating showed they were 380 million years old. But we needed something to compare it against to accept that date, and by extension, gain confidence in U-235 dating. Well, according to the rate of slowing of the Earth's rotation caused by tides (2 seconds every 100,000 years), the earth would have had 396 days in a year, each day being 22 hours long. There actually was a way to tell the length of a day on these corals. They had daily growth rings caused by the friction of the tides as well as annual growth rings. The earth's revolution around the Sun, however, does not change. Thus, we can find out how many days were in a year and how many hours were in a day by counting the daily growth rings inbetween pairs of annual growth rings. Counting the rings in the Devonian corals, they had 400 days per year, or 21.9 hours per day. That kind of stuff is mind blowing.
Unlike C-14, we don't get anomalous U-235 production. Thus, U-235 can date without many of the problems of C-14. The oldest rocks on the earth date above 4 billion years (plate tectonics has proven problematic to finding the absolute oldest rock that exists). We get the most accurate dating from meteor fragments. I'm sure the moon has been dated as well. 4.6 billion, not 10,000, is the best estimate we have today for our solar system, and by extension, the Earth.
In summary, you took a bad model. Models are only as reliable as empirical evidence agrees. That's why astrology is pseudo-science and quantum mechanics is king. If what you stated agreed with other forms of dating which have been proved accurate, I would agree, and so would the scientific community. That is not the case, however.
I do not write off any person who chooses the path of religion over science. It is a personal choice, and I do not put religion down when I made the original post. It is simply a fact: the two philosophies (religion and science) approach reality from two different views. One uses observations to justify theories, the other uses theories to justify observations. Some people try to use science to prove or disprove that this fabric is really the shroud of Jesus. It really is a pointless exercise. No matter the evidence, there will always be people who believe that it is what they say it is. Any evidence to the contrary is automatically discounted.
Too many people claim the Bible is literal truth. It is not - it is treatise by many authors on religious matters. Accept it by faith as the word of God if you wish, but do not try to treat it as science.
Noah - I failed to clarify myself better. When I said that few care to question such issues, I was referring more to "average people" who take the word of researchers they don't know "on faith" (hence my comment about there being "faith/proof" issues on both sides (I would certainly hope that those doing actual research would regularly question whether their beliefs about their studies are in fact correct, and whether there are, in fact, other possible explanations, etc.). Also, my point in questioning C14 "assumptions" was that when geologic samples, fossils, etc. that are otherwise considered to be millions of years old, etc., are tested and show any measurable amounts of C14 (despite precautions against contamination) - that signals a problem, since there shouldn't be any significant measurable amount of C14 left at all in those samples after about 100,000 yrs.
Brisaber-
Actually, both sides look at observations and interpret them through their particular veiwpoints and mindsets.
A person who believes the Bible, interprets the world, etc. based on those beliefs (obviously starting with the assumption that any argument that "takes God out of the picture" is dismissed as "not valid"), and a person who doesn't believe in the Bible interprets the world, etc. according to their beliefs (obviously starting with the assumption that there is no God, so anything that might point towards that veiwpoint is necessarily dismissed as "not valid"). Both can look at a fossilized bone, or a point of human behavior and come up with plausible explanations for various things about it based on their starting veiwpoints and from their build arguments and find other "evidence" to support their explanations. It seems to ultimately boil down to the starting question of "Is there a Creator or not?"
Also, I'm curious to know by what standard, evidence, or assumption you decided that the Bible is not "true", but rather just a treatise on religious matters.
According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Definition of TREATISE
1: a systematic exposition or argument in writing including a methodical discussion of the facts and principles involved and conclusions reached.
(Note that a treatise involves discussion of the facts and principles involved)
The Bible claims to be the "Word of God" and includes verifiable historical narratives as well as quotes from many eyewitnesses.
If a treatise involves discussion of facts involved as well as principles, and there is a continuity of thought and general agreement between all those different authors from different places over an extended time period, there must be some credibility to the facts and principles they are discussing.
For instance, there are a number of "scientific discoveries" that the Bible mentions (before more modern people "discovered" them) - like the water cycle, ocean currents, the Earth being round, the Earth being suspended on nothing in space, the expansion of the universe, etc., Granted they are mentioned briefly and in rather simple terms, but the ideas and concepts are there. It's often said that the Bible isn't a science textbook, and that's true - the main purpose of the Bible is to explain man's relationship to God and why and how we need to be reconciled to Him. However, it does mention certain things about astronomy, nature, health, etc. that have been shown to be correct by later scientific discoveries (the fact that people didn't believe the earth was round doesn't change the fact it is described as being round in the Bible). Science textbooks need to be updated and changed every few years as new "facts and discoveries" replace previous "facts and discoveries" that are now considered "incorrect". In contrast, the texts of the Bible have remained basically unchanged from the earliest surviving manuscripts (I'm not referring to the various "versions" or "translations" - KJV, NAS, NIV, Women's Bible, Children's Bible, etc.) - the basic central message, themes, and historical narratives are still the same as the oldest surviving manuscripts (the earliest of which are dated to very near or within the lifetimes of the original writers).
I think there is room for both areas to co-exist (provided they aren't made to be mutually exclusive).- "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
- Albert Einstein,
"Science, Philosophy and Religion: a Symposium", 1941
US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)
The 'Shroud' was 'Carbon Dated' to somewhere around 1300 AD by several laboratories in the 1980s, so it cannot be from the time of Christ.
Let's get real - this is just one of those 'Urban Myths' that shows up before every Christmas.
I do not say there is no scientific validity to the Bible, only that the purpose of the Bible is not to describe the physical universe. The purpose of the Bible, and all religious texts for that matter, is to explain the spiritual universe and some people's interpretations on how to live in harmony with said spiritual world. In my opinion, for instance, the Bible does not expound on how the world was created, only that it was created by God. And the Bible therefore explains creation in terms people of that time could understand it. Science, on the other hand, is very much interested in the 'how' of things. It cannot postulate on the existence of a supernatural being that for some reason only known to him, decided to create the universe in some mysterious manner that is not detectable through forensic evidence.
I will agree that science, being performed by humans, does indeed filter things through the prejudices of its researchers. But science allows and demands that the evidence support the theory, not the other way around. Eventually, bad science is either tossed into the junk pile, or is refined into good science through further testing and observation. There will be no such process in testing the shroud if you intend to prove it was the actual shroud of Jesus. No matter the scientific evidence (or lack of it), this shroud will be believed by many to be the shroud of Jesus, or at the least something equally important to venerate.
if he was getting an x-ray wouldn't his hands be covering his naughty bits ?
They didn't think about that when they forged it.
As a question of faith, if the Most High were inclined to razzle-dazzle us with special effects like blasts of ultraviolet laser light, we would expect to see spectacles like that on a regular basis. We don't. The line of inquiry that these "Shroudists" are trying to lead us down would support a view that the Most High interacts with us in a significant way only on very rare occasions. The mystery of faith tells us that the opposite is true. Let's accept the fact that the Shroud is a hoax (though an appealing hoax, making it well suited for the purpose of temptation). It should be relegated to the basement storeroom along with the collected works of Marjoe Gortner and Simon Magus. (Marjoe Gortner, of course, honestly admitted that he was a fraudster.)
I'm with you Bob_109......this is some stupid dumb crap...like most of the archaic/primitive scare tactics of the Bible.....it is really stupid...
Bryce ! You are no doubt the"Village Idiot" ! You non-believer '"Athesist"! Maybe you will enjoy "Hell" better than you do the "Bible" !
Bob such apathy is covered in the Bible.
The Jews wanted a messiah and still do. But everyone who claimed to be the Messiah they persecuted and many they put to death. With a human record like that can you really honestly say that if god did something fantastic you would believe. What if you favorite uncle came back from the dead, or a parent? Would you then believe - Bible says no.
Bob_109--But Marjoe Gortner never admitted he was a bad actor! (LOL)
@DB Akron - My point is that the Shroud of Turin is a hoax. The Shroud of Turin is not in the Bible.
The Shroud of Turin. The eternal mystery. Lots of folks have noted the anachronisms in the image. Long flowing hair, not in fashion at the time of Christ. Short hair was more common. Images of Christ with long flowing locks appear in the middle ages.
No contemporary or near contemporary record of the shroud until the middle ages. Hmmm a pattern seems to be emerging.
Carbon dating puts the shroud in the middle ages. Yep a definite pattern.
All those things point to a clever fake produced in the 14th century. But how did they do it? Nobody has been able to replicate the image even with all our advanced technologies.
Fascinating, just fascinating.
I personally believe the image on the cloth was created when the aliens returned for Jesus and beamed him up to their space-craft. But of course I have no conclusive proof, just a theory.
Happy Holidays
I don't know how the image on the shroud was created but I have seen lots of television programs that pretend to be scientific but still make too many assumptions about the artifact. Even if you could be certain about the place and time from which the shroud came you still would have no way to tell whos shroud it was.
One thing I am sure of, that the image is in no way supernatural.
They have reproduced the image exactly using pigments, then fading those pigments as if they were 600-700 years old. They also reproduced the image with a flat, hot iron in the shape of a face which would singe the cloth.
I have to ask this couldnt this shroud be authentic BUT what you are seeing isnt Jesus but a man with long flowing hair? I mean it could very well be that this is a real shroud of a real life man who wasnt Jesus.
Hal - slam the "scientific" analysis and still say that the image is not superfiscial? I think people would want to see what you have that makes you so certain that it is not superficial.
So skip, someone in Europe went to the trouble to learn to weave a cloth in a weave that had not been practiced in hundreds of years, took the trouble to randomly brush in pollen found only in the middle east and paint a precise photographic negative several hundred years before some even figured out that photographic negatives are even possible?
Aside from it being 600 years old which supports a full fake. As if sprinkling middle easter pollen was not possible by taking it there, cross contamination or importing the cloth? Now people try this... Try painting your face, put a shroud over it, pat it nicely to your face to get a nice clear facial print and then pull it off. Watch how your own shroud looks all distorted because of the contours of your face stretch out in a 2 dimensional surface. Now before some of you start claiming that god uses radioactive lasers... To such claims, back them with proof. Not to mention that Jeebus there is clearly modeled after an European male.
False... Go ahead and try Vatican... Old trick... It is not working, not all of us are that stupid and the only miracle I have ever witnessed is how from the pope down, the covering up of child molestation and they are not in jail?
What I was trying to convey was about those programs on the so-called "History Channel" and others. They begin their "investigation" with an assumption regarding the results then work to make their findings fit the assumption.
I am not sure what you mean by "superfiscial" but regarding the image on the shroud, if it is there, then the only way it got there was nothing beyond ordinary, mundane means, because that is how things happen in the non-magical real-life world.
I think you should read the comments of Kozmonot posted above.
Everybody knows that Shakespeare and Michelangelo were behind all religion.. They wrote things and drew things in ways that are still mysteries today.
Yeah, it's funny how no one ever seems to mention that the image on the shroud looks nothing like a 1st century Palestinian Jew. It does, however, look a LOT like medieval images of Jesus, which have molded our own ideas of what he looked like - a very Scandinavian Jesus.
There is NO GOD thats all you really have to know.
You can't "know" that unless you are omniscient and omnipresent. And if you are, then, guess what? Mystery solved, you're it.
There is no God there is only Zuul!!!
PAQ that has really got to be a relief to you to get that off your chest. By the way, you just promoted yourself to the postion.
It may not be said that there is no god. However, it may be said that we have no reason to believe there is a god. -Hitchens.
PAQ, can you scientifically PROVE that?
Without proof, gods are just as real as Mother Goose.
It is impossible to prove non-existence of anything. Prove non-existence of the leprecaun I saw under a rock.
However, it is pretty irrational to base the meaning of your life on a message I claim I heard from the leprecaun.
If there was not one person on this planet that believed God exists that would not make Him any less real than He is.
You can not prove a negative that is true. But logically by definition the god of the bible does not exist any god that is said to be all powerful and ethical flies in the face of reality and cannot be. Don't give me you "free will" BS.
And if all seven billion people living on this planet believed in the existence of the same god, it would not make him any more real than he is (not).
Ok, proportions and everthing aside... the guy on the shroud is obviously European... which does jive with the Middle Age paintings that portrayed Jesus as a white man... and also supports the now well known fact that teh legend of Jesus was the creation of Romans and Greeks. The real Jesus, if he did exist (which is highly unlikely) would have looked more like a modern Middle Eastern Muslim cleric than John Lennon in the 1970s.
Why not, quite simply, a Jew? After all, that's what he was.
You sir are an idiot.
humble human
I took ancient history in College. Of course the question of Jesus and History came up. The professor put it something like this. There are numerous writings showing that Jesus existed. No one disputes that he was crucified. Records show that his resurrection was also attested to, but because this was only witnessed by only 500 people, that is not a significant enough number of people to substantiate his resurrection as fact.
DB Akron: Where on earth did you go to college? Was it a bible college or a real college? Pretty much everything that your professor supposedly said is demonstrably false. It makes a neat quip, though.
DB Akron has stated the historical evidence for Jesus accurately and succienctly. Don't know where you're getting your ideas, Arnold.
@HumbleHuman: see the following documentary from the History Channel: http://shop.history.com/detail.php?p=261203&SESSID=ca4b74d09464e2b7c27b9232b0ccdc35&v=history
The researchers answer your question there. The 2d image is actually a distortion, a flattening, of what the face would look like in 3D. You are correct. The 2D image appears European and older than Jesus would have been. However a 3D analysis shows a very different face.
The romans were notoriously thorough keepers of court records, even in their outlying areas. No record of the crucification of the Jesus of the bible has been found in Roman records. Many of the specifics, such as the killing of the firstborn, also have no historical record outside of religious texts. That does not disprove the moral and ethical message of the bible, but it is historical fact.
Regardless, accounts of feeding a multitude with a couple of fish and some bread, raising the dead, speaking with the devil, etc., kind of hurts use of biblical text as a literal historical document.
Josephus has a forged passage that mentions Jesus, but it was a later addition.
Justus of Tiberia was a contemporary of Jesus, and lived nearby, but he never mentioned him.
Philon of Alexandria wrote of the different sects, but did not mention Jesus.
Most of the earliest references were not of Jesus, but of early Jews who believed in a Jesus. It is the same as saying that Joseph Smith's magic tablets were real because people wrote of things Mormons believed.
It is entirely possible that a living, actual Jesus existed. It is just as possible that no living, actual Jesus existed. It is certain that a body of Jews several decades after the supposed Jesus lived started to be recorded reliably in the historical record.
So Primate Guy do you believe in Christmas and all the lights and gift giving. According to your statement, you can't. Why? Because Christmas means the Mass of Christ. I guess, your belief is in Santa Claus. That would be the old toy maker from Norway, who made toys for girls and boys, because he and his wife had no children, His real name is Nicolaus Claussen.
Wren-3837954
Probably because most modern Jews are Ashkinazi, and bear little genetic relation to Bronze Age Hebrews. The Aramaic speaking tribes of Biblical Palestine were all Semitic peoples, closely related genetically, and similar in appearance to modern Muslims living in Palestine.
Wow. and I thought a " Jew" was some one that accepted YHWH (yahweh.Jehovah) As their God, and an Israelite was a Hebrew that was Born in Israel, you never stop learning right ;-)
Benjoh,
So Primate Guy do you believe in Christmas and all the lights and gift giving. According to your statement, you can't. Why? Because Christmas means the Mass of Christ. I guess, your belief is in Santa Claus. That would be the old toy maker from Norway, who made toys for girls and boys, because he and his wife had no children, His real name is Nicolaus Claussen.
I do not believe in the necessity of human sacrifice, or in an anthropomorphic God. I believe in Christmas. It is a verifiable holiday, a syncretic blend of Christian and Pagan cultural traditions, and is well documented in the historical record. Although many Christians find it hard to accept, I think holidays serve important social functions, and spread a feeling of fellowship in the community.
Although you seem to imply that I should have to sit out the holiday because I do not accept Jesus as my personal savior, I am not overly concerned. I am already going to suffer eternal burning flames of hell, so missing a couple of presents is not going to convince me to convert to Christianity.
Although many do not accept it, I also have a well defined ethical system that I try to live by, but it is not underwritten by an invisible man in the sky. If ethical actions and moral actions do not stand on their own merit, then they are pointless and arbitrary; even if they are spoken by divine power. I support much of biblical morality, but I do not gain respect for Abraham, for example, because he was willing to kill his son because a divine voice told him to. It has been said that religion has caused more wars....etc. etc. I do not accept that piece of militant athiest propaganda, but I do contend that blindly following a God who somehow changes the ethical rules based on historical circumstance, never turns out well for anyone.
So, Merry Christmas to you. I can, and will, celebrate any holiday I choose.
Based on following this story for years...
Sure. I can choose to venerate the blue rock I found on the creek bank one time, if I choose. I suppose a better question is, can it be the object of legitimate veneration, i.e., could it have actually have been the burial shroud of a man who was buried almost 2000 years ago. Like you, I concluded that the answer is almost certainly 'no', which proves or disproves nothing of Christianity, but says a lot about human vulnerability, gullibility and the need to see something physical, the New Testament passage about how "faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen," to the contrary. Still, it's quite interesting, even mysterious, about the way in which it seems to have been forged so long ago. But, aren't there other, presumably equally authentic "Holy Shrouds"? Enough cloth to rig a sailboat when all put together. It reminds me of the old line about how if all the shards of wood ever claimed to have been "relics of the True Cross" were assembled in one place, they would constitute enough wood to rebuild Noah's Ark instead.
Likewise, the object of my veneration is the meatball sandwich. By far the tastiest thing that has ever been upon this earth, and a hell of a lot more useful than a forged blanket.
Don't you just love it when the sauce isn't watered down?
This will never come to closure. The church has refused to allowed other than extremely small samples of the actual material to be tested, so any evidence of the material being more recent is countered by it being repaired or of contamination or an inaccurate sampling. The church can never allow a conclusion of it being a fake to happen. They have too much vested in it being a priceless holy relic and if it fails to be true, then the rest of the stories may also start to unravel (metaphorically).
Even if scientists found an exact way to replicate its creation with existing technology of the time, the argument will still be made that it was created as a miracle regardless. If turning water into wine (or rather the third party telling of the story many years after the fact) is considered a miracle and making wine at that time was no great technological feat, then the ability to make the shroud is still no proof to the true believers that it is a forgery.
What is interesting to me is that beyond the image, the shroud is not very miraculous at all. It has aged and has been damaged, so most of its physical properties are not very special at all. It also hasn't been proven to have any special healing, curative, or protective powers. The image itself is two dimensional and not distorted as it would be if it was an actual impression wrapped around a body. It was obviously crafted (physically or miraculously) to be an art object to be viewed stretched flat.
I believe it must be a forgery, but who ever did it was a master puzzle maker by being able to not leave behind or to remove all traces of how it was done. Someday someone will figure it out, but it will still never convince the true believers that it isn't the holy relic that they claim it to be.
That is some interesting observation on your part Mike. I think the scripture at John 19:40 makes it obvious that the shroud is not of Jesus since his body was wrapped in linen cloths. So your comment is right in line with the scriptures. And even if it was made miraculously it does not mean we should venerate it. The bible warns us to guard ourselves from idols not to give them importance(1John 5:21) 2Corinthians 5:7 and John 4:23, 24 add to the fact that our faith is not based on relics or any other item that may or may not be linked to Jesus. The only way is to find the truth that the bible teaches just like Jesus said at John 17:17. Thanks for the comment Mike. I love when someone uses sound reasoning.
Honestly the whole Christlike comment is a loaded commentary since no one really has any idea what Christ looked like anyway.
Why in the world do we need this cloth to prove anything? So what if it isn't the cloth Jesus was buried in? There is much evidence to support that he walked on this earth and died on this earth and there were many witnesses that saw Him after He rose from the dead. Please people, do not be afraid of the truth. Face it, realize we are all sinful people and that we need a Saviour.
We are all sinful people.
We need a saviour.
That is not evidence that a savior ever existed, or ever will.
Primate guy. Is that a play on words? Anyway here goes. I like your comment. And I like it because you are correct. And I take it that you are not someone with a faith in the bible. What most people do not realize is that the bible does not want people to be gullible. Even though you most likely don't think the bible is from God I think you can appreciate these scriptures. They show that God does not approve of people blindly believing anything. Job 40:7; Proverbs 14:15; John 4:23, 24; John 8:32; John 17:17; 1Timothy 2:3, 4; Hebrews 11:1. After checking those out - Acts 17:3, 11. God commends people for making a thorough examination.
I have, and do, read the books of the bible. Some of the most profound moral messages are found in the bible. In the bible also reside instructions for the manner in which the chosen should kill all the men in conquered villages, and everyone else in some circumstances. Like all great literature, it is a mirror. Those that bring introspection find meaning, those who bring hate come away with a divine mandate.
Mark, from your post, I am sure the bible, for you, provides a glimpse into your best self, and it is obvious that self is possesses a temperament both humble and aspiring to the finest moral character.
Thanks for your suggestion. I will read the passages soon.
Jimbo is correct. One has to bend ones legs at the knees to easily cross the hands over the groin. The Shroud image is seen undistorted on a flat piece of linen. Yet, a cloth wrapped or simply draped over a body while an image is "flashed" onto it will become distorted when the cloth is removed and flattened for display. Additionally, the lines seen from the chevron pattern of the twill remain absolutely straight through the entire image, front and back. This feature can be seen best while. holding the image at a low angle. Difficult to explain if an image was formed on a draped or wrapped shroud.
I can cross my hands like that without bending anything other than my arms. As far as the cloth draped, who said it was draped? maybe it was stretched flat over the body using boards or something, and they were just trying to make a polaroid like someone else mentioned :) It's definitely from the middle ages though, or maybe it's just some hippie from the 1960s :)
Why does it even matter? You believe what you believe. Was there a man named Jesus and did he die? Ok. Perhaps in honor of the man, regardless of your beliefs we should let him rest in peace. Just go on believing what you do. The shroud was buried with the man and what gives us the right to unearth this and disturb what was clearly ment to be a sacred part of his burial. Maybe someone or some entity can make some money off this.There are a lot more things we as humans need to concentrate on.
Seriously doubt this "shroud" was buried with Jesus or anyone else. Gives indications of being a manufatured "relic". No relic could ever "prove" Christianity, and no fake relic "disproves" it.
The ignorance and stupidity of human beings never ceases to amaze me. It's the 21st century for crying out loud, and folks are still arguing whether or not unicorns can fly and pixies have wings. People mistake words for reality, thinking that if they can put it into a sentence, well, hell, it must be real. Outside of so-called "holy" books, where are the miracles, the magic, and the mystical god-men?
I believe everything on the internet... :) not really.
Craig..... You'll find out in the "after-life" depending on where you end up
but how funny you mention 'hell' in your posting. Scary!
Craig, you cannot argue against miracles with someone who has personally experienced them. If I tell you that God has done numerous miracles in my life -- that I have lived them and experienced them -- what are you going to say to that: "No, he didn't"?
Craig, maybe you just need to open your eyes wider. Not every "miracle" is walking on water or raising the dead. Some things that we can't explain now will be explained by science in the future. Some may not. What is a "miracle" anyway? Something that we can observe but not explain, given all of the KNOWN "facts", by KNOWN natural laws and behaviors. I would say that "entangled photons", where one INSTANTLY knows the state of the other, even though hundreds or thousands miles apart (faster than light) is pretty miraculous. It's a fact, without explanation.
@Mike... I don't know about Craig but I would say what you perceive as being "miracles" performed by "god" were in reality just the results of a series of choices you made and/or actions you took. So if these results were in fact "miracles" it was you that created them. Do you believe you are (a) god?
So Mike-558003, "God has done numerous miracles in my life" Let me ask this: Why has your god done numerous miracles in your life yet allow many, many of his "believers" be raped, pillaged, and murdered. allow thousands of innocent people die horrible deaths? What makes you so important? If miracles can happen, when was the last time someone grew an arm or leg back after being amputated?
Suffering wasn't a part of the plan of God , but He will turn it into good. But you tell me, let's say for the sake of argument that what God has promised is true. By believing in His Son you acquire eternal life. Living perfectly at peace with God, His angels, and in perfect love. In a perfect Heaven with immeasurable blessings at all times. Now who sounds like a whiner when he complains about the paltry years we spend here, as if the suffering is too much compared to the glory afterwards. No, you don't really care about peoples suffering the way you pretend to. You just use that as an excuse so that you can blame God and don't have to do anything about it yourself.
But I thought "god" was perfect. How did something occur that "god" did not cause or even plan for? Is "god" perfect or not?
You are an excellent example of Gods perfection, in allowing the likes of you to exist, we all are learning, free will cannot be free, if we could not make errors and learn from them, No logic can exist, without the ability to take ALL vectors into consideration, including Negative ones, but i see that you have a lot to learn, and Blame God, instead of thanking Him, for Your freedom.
Well, in the first place, the "church" has never claimed the Shroud was genuine. They have said it MIGHT be, but never said for sure it was. So let's just treat it for it is. An unsolved mystery as to how it was done, and then if it turned out to be miraculous, great. If not (probably) it would still be an interesting story as to how it was done and by whom.
As it is with gambling, the uncertainty principle is more lucrative than any fact. Uncertainty, which is the first cousin to Fear, is every bit as powerful as a tool to control the masses. The Church would have been stupid to either affirm or refute the Shroud. It is a perfected trick, exactly as it is.
Duke.. If the church is indifferent as to it's being authentic, that 'it might' be genuine then why not allow a thorough scientific test instead of passing out remnant edges? It seems to me that if it were then found legitimate, the church could crow and if found as fake, well.. as you said, "they never claimed it was genuine" thus they wouldn't lose face.. Sounds like a win-win situation to me.. yet..... The only unsolved mysteries that I can determine is why their coveting it so closely? Refusing to allow a more significant (minute) area be tested and analysed and allowing rumors and innuendos to multiply among the believers. Proving the Shroud is authentic will definitely bolster their coffers, disproving will in no way effect the current tithes..
If this artifact can be scientifically proven to be genuine. It would be the greatest find in history. However, I suspect that it is just a fake from the middle ages. Very interesting though.
It's also been proven to be just a fake from the middle ages. That pretty much covers all the bases.
My opinion is worthless and will never alter anybody's belief.
Golly, I am a perfect candidate for a higher-level politician job!!!
A lackey figurehead for the ruling elite and corporate USA.
"The government that governs least governs best."
I agree!!!
Vote for me so that I win and I won't even show up; just collect my pay and spend it locally to assist my community that way.
Hurricane Katrina was an example of the government that governs least.
That is the most honest campaign pitch anyone has ever given, You Got my vote now dont back peddle like most demagogy and show up after your elected obbop.
Heck you got my vote to!
Religious people will grasp for anything for anything as the sand of reality slips through their fingers.
Now THAT is funny. How could one even think to write such?
A believer.
Don't you mean atheists, when they are on their deathbed?
You assume that "religious people" even believe it to be true....
"Us religious people" don't need relics or any other "tangible" item in order to believe in Jesus.
Unhappy-1583758
Don't you mean atheists, when they are on their deathbed?
Actually, in my work in nursing homes I find that the people most afraid of death are religious people who have been taught that hellfire awaits those who have not met some requirement or other that their faith says is a prerequisite to being "saved." They are deeply fearful that they will prove to have been inadequate in this regard and will be condemned to eternal suffering as a result. People who have been indifferent to religion (as opposed to atheists) are often disturbed by the prospect of their death, because they are thinking seriously about it for the first time. Serious atheists, who have generally contemplated this question a lot and have arrived at conclusions with which they are comfortable, are usually very much at peace.
Is it possible to do a facial reconstruction with what they have?
They already have. Check out "The Real Face of Jesus?" on The History Channel.
I have a very firm grip on reality, thank you very much. For me, God is a reality and the Shroud of Turin is the real deal. I hope that drives a few of you crazy.
Taking pleasure in the disomfort of others isn't very christian of you Curt. Jesus must be very disappointed in you.
sounds like your grip is slipping mr curt
Curt:
Synonyms of crazy: mad, insane, deranged, irrational.
Definition of irrational:
a. Not endowed with reason. b. Affected by loss of usual or normal mental
clarity; incoherent. c. Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound
judgment:
By most definitions, reason is incompatible with irrationality. It follows that a person believing something irrational is more likely to be crazy. Believing in a:big magic all powerful perfect being who creates imperfect beings and punishes them for being imperfect then kills his magic son who is him, but is not him but is also a ghost and is not really dead, because that somehow makes them equal to perfect but not all of them, only those who gratify his ego by being his slave. The others are now double imperfect, is, by any system of logic irrational.
Therefore, Curt, if you are driving us crazy, it is because we are following you, and you have the route to Crazy memorized. Take a left at the shroud of Turin, pass 3 splinters of the one true cross, left at the drop of Jesus' blood, and park next to Jesus' foreskin. It must take 10,000 years to drive that far....wait, that can't be right, because the earth was formed in 4004 BC.
A friend of mine and I were talking about the shroud today and she said something that I never thought of. For anyone who is Christian isn't your source of beliefs supposed to come from the bible? Well she said that the shroud could not be of Jesus for a very simple reason. The body of Jesus was wrapped in bandages or linen cloths. The image on this shroud is in no way showing a wrapped body. It is showing the image of someone that the cloth was simply placed upon. The scripture is at John 19:40. Just like the star that led the astrologers to Herod and then to Jesus it may well have been made supernaturally, but that does not mean that it is from God. Scriptures like 1John 5:21 and John 4:23, 24 and 2Corinthians 5:7 come to mind. Is this shroud important? If it is important to someone they may need to examine why?
This shroud is not important to the majority of Christians. Maybe a few Catholics.....
It's interesting that this subject came up today. The History Channel re-showed their 2 hr. documentary on re-creating the face of the man from the Shroud of Turin, using sophisticated 3d computerized video software techniques ("Is this the Real Face of Jesus?"). They addressed several objections raised above in the show, including that from Mark 315734. There is a strip of material sewn onto the side of the Shroud (maybe 2 strips) that was originally part of it. The narrow strip of material was used to wrap, tie, and secure the body that was inside the Shroud. The strip of material was used to "bundle" the Shroud. So the body WAS wrapped.
Nobody knows, nor could they prove, that the body image on the Shroud was that of Jesus. Even if it is not, there are some serious science questions that are raised by the Shroud. The Shroud image contains 3D information about the body, the way a hologram does. It is not just a "negative image". Further, the image is only on the top molecular layer of microfibers on the weave. It is not blood. It is not pigment.(No pigment could be applied so finely, nor could one degrade to an absolutely uniform color and color depth along the entire Shroud). Because it is a negative, it appears that image was formed by a radiation ("light") burst from WITHIN the Shroud. Yet the light was neither coherent light like a laser (it would have sharp edges) nor diffuse light like a light-bulb source. Once the History Channel researchers had arrived at a 3d image, and a mold of the face, they tried to "reverse engineer" it - create an image from 3d mold (Death Mask). The way they found they could do it was by "scanning" with a "bar of light" - like a printer. What 14th century hoaxer could arrange that? Whether 1st Century or 14th Century, we are barely able to analyze it with 21st century technology!
Don't assume all Christians believe this to be real.
It think the question would be how the body was prepared. The may have wrapped him in the shroud and then bandaged over it.