Sir Arthur Conan Doyle said: when you've eliminated the impossible, what remains must be the truth. I'm not sure why it's easier for people to perform complex equations rather than simple addition, but they often do. Early scientist proclaimed the world was flat; case in point they know as much as their understanding permits, they don't know everything.

In essence what they're saying is that the shroud gives considerable evidence of the gospels accounts, and it could quite possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus, but scientifically speaking, a Resurrection is impossible -- it's also scientifically impossible for matter to come into existence, it changes from one form to another, that being the case, how did life originate? Skeptics are never sure, but don't believe, cause scientifically( in their limited knowledge) God can't be proven to exist. --- Little men!

and it could quite possibly be the burial cloth of Jesus

That's highly unlikely... it's been tested scientifically and found that it couldn't possibly have been Jesus' death cloth.

It's even less likely that people would be shown a cloth and believe it to be the person in the flesh.

Actually, majority of the testing points to it being authentic. Only thing that really points it to being a forgery is the carbon dating is the carbon dating testing. But it's been discovered in the last decade that the sample used was taken from a rewoven portion.

ItIsWhat!t!s... It is very funny that you quote Doyle. As much as his Holmes character was dedicated to logic and reason, Doyle himself was clearly not. He believed in fairies and seances, etc. He was famously tricked into believing in a picture of fairies actually.

Bobby... That's simply not true. Almost every bit of evidence points to the shroud being a fake. The fabric itself is a complex twill pattern that is a type of fabric which was not available until medieval times.

420 Frees the Mind

AMEN AMEN....FINALLY, someone with a brain

StMiller: I think you are mistaken. Even Ray Rogers who was part of the STURP team who studied it in the 70s and thought it was a fake came to realize before his death that it's likely authentic. I like how this scientist explains it...

As discussed in the previous answer, all the attempts to replicate the body image on the Shroud were partially (often totally) unsuccessful. We must admit it is not easy creating an image that is negative, has 3D encoded information, is extremely shallow, with the color intensity is determined by the surface density of fibrils all having the same RGB value, and which does not fluoresce under UV illumination. Modern technologies seem unable to produce an image with the characteristics of the Shroud image, even using the most advanced tools like those used in our experiments. As a consequence, it is unlikely that a forger could have created this image using technologies available in the Middle Ages. In addition, we must consider the body image is not the only difficult-to-replicate marking. On the Shroud there are also stains of blood with high levels of bilirubin which would be consistent with a haemolytic process caused by torture, eg whipping (the bilirubin content being only visible by UV lamps, such as those used by policemen to detect organic traces), there is the absence of image under the blood stains, and many other forensic details unknown in the Middle Ages.

blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tomchiversscience/100126480/the-shroud-of-turin-forgery-or-divine-a-scientist-writes/

I know what Rogers thought and what he thought has been proven incorrect. The cloth samples that were taken were known and verified to be representative of the entire cloth. Only one maybe two of the STURP scientists even questioned that after the fact and that point of view while widely quoted by believers has been entirely discredited. As I said before the complex weave of the fabric is a twill pattern not invented until medieval times and was not even possible from a technical point of view until then.

This relic is highly representative of the myriad of religious relics that all appeared around the same time historically. Splinters of the cross, the blood of Christ, the foreskin of Christ, etc, etc.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091216-shroud-of-turin-jesus-jerusalem-leprosy/

You can add the french toast I made this morning to the list of looked like jesus. Just like I do at easter with the chocolate bunny, I ate the ears first, then the nose....

Before Rogers died, he sent the samples to Los Alamos which in 2008 confirmed Rogers' findings.

shroud.typepad.com/ohio_shroud_conference_me/

I've already read that article you linked. Conclusions are being drawn on speculation. Just like conclusions have been drawn on the Hungarian Pray Manuscript (shows same herringbone weave and burn marks).

The speculation that you refer to must mean the speculation over the sample issue. There is no speculation regarding the fabric weave and it's date of invention. A very thorough step by step history of Rogers "findings" is readable here..

http://www.csicop.org/specialarticles/show/claims_of_invalid_ldquoshroudrdquo_radiocarbon_date_cut_from_whole_cloth

So It was mentioned that ressurection was scientifically impossible.......Ever been on an ambulance run, and you find the patient's heart stopped, that would be dead. then you perform CPR and ....brought back to life. Or like when your bring your mother into the emergency room, and as she lays there hooked up to all the moniters, and her heart stops, and the code blue goes out over intercom, and you take her hand, and tell her it is not time yet, etc, then her heart starts beating. How about da's heart that stopped beating, EMT working on him 20 minutes and no heart beat, and you tell dad it's ok that he can finally let go, etc, and his heart starts beating again....tell me...is that ressurection?....No I do not believe in god...I found out, man and woman give life, they can take it away, and bring it back to life...been there...done that......the shroud...? Satin sheets are better!

Starsailing... We're not talking about a heart that has been briefly stopped while docs and nurses work to restart it... The resurrection in this case is supposed to be a guy dead for days and pops back up.

That speculation is that one shroud is 100% representation of all 1st century shrouds.

I take everything Joe Nickell says with a grain of salt. The problem with the Shroud debate is people are entrenched in their positions (myself included). There is "proof" for both it's authenticity and it's forgery. That's the problem. The other problem is people combine two issues that perhaps should be separated (is the shroud real and who is the man on the shroud).

The other question that comes into play (at least for me) is if it's a forgery, then who forged it? That person would have been an absolute genius, even by today's standards.

What I don't understand about shroud skeptics is that while they come up with refutations of different aspects of the shroud, I've never seen anyone come up with refutations for ALL aspects of the shroud simultaneously.

Occam's Razor: The prospect that Jesus really was "miracled" out of the shroud is simpler than the unknown alternative; many people forget how embarrassingly little we *know* about how this universe works. While skeptics have come up with close approximations of the shroud, none have solid theory on how the exact relic was created whenever said skeptics believe it was forged.

Personally, I believe it is authentic, but I don't allow my religion to rest on that belief (authentic, meaning real evidence of processes beyond our current comprehension).

ThaPyngwyn...
Explain how the prospect of Jesus being "miracles" out of the shroud is in any way simpler than the idea that a person or people forged a relic during the height of relic forgeries?! What you're saying is that divine intervention, read magic, is more simple than a man creating a hoax? We had many, many examples of the latter and none of the former. Occams Razor supports the argument with the fewest assumptions. Jesus being "miracled" out of the shroud as you suggest is riddled with assumptions; none of which have supportable examples in reality.

Bobby... I understand that it's difficult to figure out how this forgery was done, but just because we don't know doesn't mean that it isn't possible. I don't see many professionals speneding money and time attempting to replicate the shroud either. Many amateurs yes... A few experts pulled into the room for a sensationalist "history" channel documentary yes... But no true scientist, art historian, etc is going to waste their time on such an endeavor.

On a funny side note,,, the horrid inside of that new Marlins stadium tonight on ESPN seems to hint that there is no god. No god would allow such an abomination!! Seriously, who signed off on that lime green paint that made the stadium look like one giant movie filming green screen.

What I don't get about shroud believers is that they assume that just because the shroud may have actually gotten that image from having been used on a decomposing body that it must therefore have been used on Jesus even though carbon dating and weave analysis indicate that it couldn't have been woven during the time period of Jesus. There have been what, some 2-4 billion people that have lived on earth prior to the "discovery" of the shroud of Turin, and there's no reason it couldn't have been used with any of them instead of Jesus... but the assumption always jumps straight to "it must have been Jesus". Just like many of the other relics that have been found to be fakes, someone that craved money or glory probably got it off the corpse of their dead relative and claimed it was divine.

A lot of scientists have spent their life on Shroud research. I was fortunate enough to attend a lecture by the former president of STURP and all the data pointing to it's authenticity is amazing. Reading some of the original papers is eye-opening too (like the medical examination).

Again, if forged, the forger would have to be a genius (knowing forensics, Roman culture, etc). And insane.

My point is that is that since we can't explain how the Shroud of Turin was actually made, it is simpler to say that it was made by a method beyond our comprehension, rather than to make a tower of assumptions about how someone in the Middle Ages did something we can't replicate or even explain, and that whoever this forger was, only used this technique once, never divulged his secrets, and that no one else happened across the same techniques at a later date.

I never said anything about magic. Assuming intelligent design, do you think the creator of the universe, the *universe*, would be so unintelligent as to poot universes out its backside without knowing it was doing? There is no such thing as magic, only science we don't understand. And like I said, we understand almost nothing; all we really know about the world is that when one thing happens, another thing usually results. We didn't design the game, so we can only guess at the rules.

Again, if forged, the forger would have to be a genius (knowing forensics, Roman culture, etc). And insane.

Wrong. All they had to do is pull the fabric off a dead corpse.

My point is that is that since we can't explain how the Shroud of Turin was actually made, it is simpler to say that it was made by a method beyond our comprehension

It's not beyond comprehension that it was pulled off a real dead corpse. It is beyond comprehension to jump to the conclusion that the corpse it was pulled from must have been Jesus'. Even if it had dated back to the time of Jesus, which it doesn't, but even if it did, the odds that it would have been from Jesus instead of someone else are astronomically slim, ESPECIALLY if you believe Jesus ressurected instead of decomposed in the tomb.

Question:

Why is the picture of "Jesus" a perfect 2D representation of him, like a modern day picture (or painting in the old day) and not what would happen if you wrapped someones face with a blanket? Should his face not be distorted because of the blanket being wrapped AROUND his face?

Try it (ladies), when you have a bunch of makeup on, just put your face in a towel and wrap it around your face. Take it off and see how it looks. I'll tell you this, it does not look like you just took a freaking picture of yourself that's for sure.

To me, it looks like someone cleverly painted this "portrait" on to the cloth.

I've long believed religions were created because people are afraid of death. It gives people something to believe in so they don't feel like everything is over when they die.

it is simpler to say that it was made by a method beyond our comprehension, rather than to make a tower of assumptions about how someone in the Middle Ages did something we can't replicate or even explain,

God of the Gaps is not a simple explanation. It's an easy one to make, but by no means is it simple.

So you're right, it's "simpler to say"... the act of speech requires less effort to say "God did it" than to provide an actual reality-based explanation.... it requires less thought to say it as well.... but the implications of "God did it" are far beyond simple.

A simple explanation is always one based in reality, not spirit-magic (magic, need I remind you, is entirely unproven). Magic-based explanations are immediately disqualified from being 'simple' by their vaporous and fanciful nature.

ThaPyngwyn...
You are ignoring the "tower of assumptions" in the fact that you assume an intelligent designer or god or... Pooter of universes as you say. That is a massive, massive assumption to even begin with. That breaks the rules of Occams Razor right away. You then jump immediately to assuming that the solution is simply beyond our comprehension.

And intelligent design does = magic. Neither are based in fact or reality.

I answered "None of the above," because I simply DON'T KNOW what the Shroud is. No one knows how it was created; carbon tests have been done but also disputed, as the cloth itself was "reweaved," which would skewer the data. I don't believe the Shroud is a "fake," since it's obviously THERE, people can touch it, photograph it, study it, etc. There are claims made about it that may or may not be correct.

The problem I have with this new theory (other than the fact that I personally DO believe in the Resurrection) is, if a decomposing body leaves that kind of imprint on a cloth, and the covering of a body was such common practice back then, then wouldn't there be alot of cloths with this vapor image on it? It seems reasonable to me that there would be, and if that's the case, how then could an image that is such a common occurrence inspire ANYONE to believe that Jesus was resurrected???

Every shroud believer I see here just reeks of delusion. It's comical that someone could actually think this is the cloth that was laid upon Jesus himself and his image is imprinted on it, and it's supposed to actually mean something to us now. I wish you believers could just take a step back and truly see how ridiculous of a notion this is. But then again, I wish you could do that for a lot of things that you do which is based on nonsense.

Be happy with your life and your religion if you must, but stop bringing up this kind of stuff as it if it could ever possibly prove anything about your hokey beliefs...because it CANNOT. 100% absolutely CANNOT.

Happy Easter.

Humans don't know enough about reality to dictate these ultimatums about what is and isn't possible. This universe shouldn't be possible according to us, but here we are. The current level of human scientific advancement doesn't set the cap on what is possible in our universe.

Now about the shroud: if it were a naturally occurring phenomenon, why is there only one recorded occurrence? (I read the "pee pool mattress" account on the link, and unless the urine of the person in the shroud pooled upward, or he was laid face-down, I don't see the relevance). Burial shrouds were common enough, why is it only this one that has an image on it?

If it was a medieval forgery, then why has the technique *never* been seen before or since? And did the forgers also travel back in time to forge the Sudarium of Oviedo?

Yes, I admit "God of the Gaps" seems like a cop-out to some; I see it more as the elephant in the room. As we learn more about the universe, we also learn there is more and more that we don't understand about it. To deem anything beyond our current comprehension magic and therefore nonexistent, is more than laughable.

This will never be resolved. The church will never release a swatch from the main part that could confirm the actual date or concur with any negative results because they have too much to lose if it is proven to not be authentic. As long as the authenticity can never be validated, believers will believe and doubters will doubt, and everything is in balance.

Did the shroud inspire the Easter story, or did the story inspire the creation of the shroud, or are they both original, or both fabrications after the fact? We'll never know, and it's in our best interest to never know.

The Easter story has no doubt been embellished several times over the years, so it can't be totally accurate regardless of when it was originally penned, but like any other myth, the value is in the message and not in the details.

P.S. The use of the word myth is based on Joseph Campbell's definition and not intended as a slam or inferring that it is untrue. One culture's myth is another culture's religion and visa-versa.

I have followed this story for years. It's vastly more interesting than any Tom Clancy book.

There really was no "debunking" of the twill used in the shroud. In the 1970's there were no records of a 3:1 twill being used before the middle ages. But more recent finds have found it in commin use in 1st century Syria and Israel.

The carbon-dating is in the 1200-1300 AD range. But it is difficult to rely on carbon dating in this case because of contamination. It is one thing to date something from an Egyptian tomb that has been sealed for 3000 years and quite another to date something that was continuously handled, especially in its earlier years of being viewed by the public from 1250 or so until about 1750 or so. There was also a fire that substantially damaged the shround. Each of these, and especially the kissing of the shroud as was done for centuries, pose a unique problem of contamination. So, in this case it is a little difficult to rely too heavily on just carbon-dating.

I have always it found interesting that a flower image on the shroud and pollen grains found on the shroud are tied to regions of Israel near the Dead Sea in springtime. And that dirt samples from the shroud are of a type of travertine limestone associated with tombs in Jerusalem.

But what makes me leave my mind open is that we have access to the internet and can check out a lot of things very easily. It was much different at the time the shroud was supposedly "manufactured." How would a person of that time known that the cruxifition woulds should be on the wrists, or know which pollens to place on the shroud, or which cloth weave to use, or even how to do negative or 3D-encoded images. Would a person in 1250 have known to use iron-based pigments to duplicate hemoglobin residue without knowing that there was iron in blood?

We also know that there was a flourishing business in "Christian artifacts" manufactured for the Crusaders to bring home from the Holy Land. Wood and nails from the "True Cross" and bones, lots of bones found their way into European church lore. But there was also, and still is, a remarkable amount of material associated with prominent persons of the age still extant. It was simply human nature of the times, in the absence of detailed descriptive art, photographs, books, etc for people to keep momentoes of important personages or events. Roman tourists, especially, liked to gather artifacts associated with important people, places or events.

I would think that this is a "fun" story to watch. Nothing great hangs on the outcome. And a lot of science is evolving that sheds more and more light on the matter. But it will never be disproved until the means of manufacture is understood. From a purely philosophical standpoint, science can never prove it is the burial shroud of Christ, but thus far it has failed to determine how the thing was made.

Why is the picture of "Jesus" a perfect 2D representation of him, like a modern day picture (or painting in the old day) and not what would happen if you wrapped someones face with a blanket? Should his face not be distorted because of the blanket being wrapped AROUND his face?

Probably because it wasn't wrapped around a corpses face? Probably because it was only draped over a corpse while it decomposed?

ThaPyngwyn...
The problem is your logic is that your are trying to apply Occams Razor in a way that is entirely inconsistent with what it means. You are saying that since we can't yet explain exactly how it was made therefore it has to be have a supernatural source. That isn't how it works at all. As a matter of fact that is completely the opposite of how it works. Occams Razor is useful because it helps you recogniz when you are replacing fact in your logic with assumptions, so it would never lead to a solution that is more assumptions!

You know it is acceptable to not yet have an answer rather than trying to jam a supernatural answer onto something. It's ok to be in that state where an answer isn't there yet. Do you know how the large hadron collider works? If not does that mean you would consider it supernatural in nature as well?

I'm not saying that it is supernatural, only that we can't explain it right now ("supernatural" is sort of a weird term anyway; an all-knowing universe-pooter, as it were, would not need to bend the rules/nature of its universe to get things done). *We* are not nature, so to label anything that doesn't fit with our current science as "supernatural" is a mistake made throughout history.

I argue that the shroud an occurrence above our current level of advancement, rather than below. Unless one is willing to say that humans are the most intelligent and technologically advanced beings in all existence, there is someone out there who knows more than us. If you apply the concept of infinity to to this, you have something that knows infinitely more than us (e.g. a "God"), but we might not even need to get close to that (close to infinity, ha) in order to explain the Shroud of Turin.

We at least agree that an 'all knowing universe pooter' is a funny phrase! :)

I'm not convinced the shroud is so much above our level as understanding, as much as simply not yet known. Just a good puzzle who's solution takes a bit of time to figure out.

It's at least very interesting to chat and debate about.

First you are pompous and ignorant simultaneously. HOW could the people that wrote the books in the New Testament have been "illiterate"? THAT WOULD MEAN THEY COULD NOT READ NOR WRITE - MORON!

Anyone reading the literature with a modicum of intelligence can not help but marvel at some of the truly great literature is part of the canon. The Gospel of John is brilliant in the use of the stories from the life of Jesus arranged for a specific purpose and you do not have to believe the stories to at least have a sense of the care and craft that went into writing it. (I do not believe in Hobbits, yet appreciate Tolkien.) Some of the writings are not at the level of John or Romans or even Revelations, but you can't dismiss it as the work of illiterates - it only demonstrates that you know nothing about which you write.

You want a philosophical debate? Here riddle me this: What mechanism is there for man as an evolutionary created animal to be able to exercise free will? If you think that man can make a choice between two viable options, what mechanism is there for that choice? How does something cause a chemical/biological path so that we can say, I chose to do that and not the other thing??

Jeff this stuff has been edited and repackaged ad nauseum over the centuries, Puleeeeezzzz!

Didn't take long for the anti-Bible groupies to appear.

Freesthemind,

If you wish to come out and sound like you have any intelligence at least present your arguments better then a first grader. If you look at Luke and the detail of the gospel it is actually rather incredible how archaeology has backed up the stories presented in this gospel. One hundred years ago they stated the Bible was nothing more then fiction, but since then they have found Jericho, Sodom, Hezekiah's tunnel, inscriptions with both King David's and King Solomon's name. Along with this there are supporting archaeological digs and documents which strongly support the bible as a historical document. As far as the spiritual goes, this is between a person and their creator and is no different then evolution other then with evolution you have to believe millions of events happened against the laws of nature with the Bible you just have to believe that their is a God and everything else false into place. So what shows more intelligence, to believe in one thing that was supernatural or to believe in millions that go against the laws of nature?

In regards to the shroud, there was no mention of this item until after I believe 650 AD, but it could be earlier I would have to look it up, the earliest New Testament manuscript was written at about 70 AD, there is a large amount of time between the two so I would have to believe that if the shroud was that important would not have they mentioned it in the Bible, but then I guess we will never know.

420 (marijuana) does not free the mind. You are proof that it causes mental and pschyological disorders. Read your own response. Is that the thought of a rational mind? It's derranged babble. I bet you have a Pot Club Card too. Loser

Yes it was mentioned, it was called 'mandylion' not 'shroud'. Google it

AAJJ - if you would take a few moments to look up scholarship called textual criticism - you would see that it is interested in the reconstruction of the original writings of ancient texts. From it the New Testament documents can be validated to a remarkable degree of accuracy. There are ancient copies and ancient references to copies which attest to the accuracy of the record. I do not believe in the KJV as a received text, but appreciate the incredible scholarship which has enabled us to have a text (Nestle-Aland Greek Text) that is most likely 98% guaranteed to be authentic to the original. How? Check out textual criticism.

dreel the Mandylion is definitely NOT mentioned in the Bible. I don't need to google it I have read it. And I know the legends about the Mandylion. NOT in the Bible.

with evolution you have to believe that millions of events happened against the laws of nature

Would you care to expand on this, or are you too busy making up more "facts" to support you religious views?

So what shows more intelligence, to believe in one thing that is supernatural or to believe in millions that go against the laws of nature?

Evolution does not go against the laws of nature, it is defined by them. Do you understand what evolution is? Every "act of 'god'" or "miracle" in the bible is in direct defiance of the laws of nature, ie a flood that wiped out the entire earth, a burning bush that talked, a man who lived three days in a fish, a man that magically "parted" the Red Sea, a man who could walk on water, heal a multitude of afflictions and arise from death three days after kickin' the bucket are ALL DIRECT DEFIANCES OF THE LAWS OF NATURE!

And the bible has a lot more.

So using your measure, Tbenton, what would an intelligent person believe in?

Jeff Henderson, my mistake, misread his post. No, there is no mention of the mandylion in the bible. But I do know about the mandylion too

Id rather listen to the Climax Blues Band than endure a conversation here but then God is music..

Stonedog you beat me to it !!

These "morons" are pushing such a medieval archaic form of thought even in today's much more advanced theater of knowledge.

I find it funny that people today can still believe in stories of magical fruit, talking snakes, and Jewish zombies told by people who lived in an age where they didn't even know of germs or atoms or even round planets.

Please go away with your superstition. It truly makes you look so simple.

Stonedog34, Look up entropy. Basic physics. order goes to disorder, not the other way around. The biggest flaw in evolutionary reasoning is in the details. While it sounds great that surviving life forms were the ones that adapted best to their changing surroundings, let's look at what that really means. Evolutionists say that everything started from single celled organisms. How did the chemicals come together in the beginning to form the dna to make the first blueprint for the single-celled organism? We can get all of the chemicals found in an ameoba, in their exact same concentrations, and put them in a beaker and guess what? No ameoba. Can't do it with anything, plant or animal, and create life. If we could, all of our hunger probelms would go away.

Ok, let's accept that somehow, the single celled animals were created. Why become multi-cellular? How was that "decision" made? The dna just "decided" to modify itself to survive better? And why become a tree, or an insect or any other life form? Taking the idea that the fish somehow decided to grow legs and walk on land to get food implies that food was there to begin with. What food? How? It seems that once you start getting down to details, the same "belief" or faith concept has to be applied. The only real diference is that evolutionists put their faith in the concept of a billion random chemical reactions happening over and over at exactly the right time and in the exact right way to make all of the the creatures we have. In my humble opinion, it takes far less of a leap of faith to believe that some "higher power" created us and started this grand experiment we call life.

"Look up entropy. Basic physics. order goes to disorder, not the other way around."

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Didn't take long for the Bible groupies to appear.

just couldn't resist @ldo bible or no bible maybe Christians should look for god in their hearts & not in books or symbolism

@Tbenton so you need faith to believe in evolution ? evolution is a theory, & there's always the theory of gravity (which I encourage you to test out ) we have evidence for these theories they are not faith which lacks evidence & makes up supernatural causes

I don't have a reason why that "higher power" would make us. Can't wrap my arms around it. Can't wrap my arms around infinity either. I don't know anyone that can.Hawkings can't really do it and he is way smarter than the people on this forum.

I have had far too many experiences that defy explanation on scientific terms that can be explained on spiritual terms. My ex-wife has a twin brother. Out of nowhere, she spontaneously started crying, saying that something was REALLY wrong. Didn't know what exactly, but that something was very wrong. I checked the house and all around us, but nothing. After trying unsuccessfully for several hours to calm her down, we called her parents to see if everything was ok. We found out that her twin brother had fallen over a construction site wall just a few hours previously (he was drunk at the time) and had almost bled to death before help arrived. Her parents wanted to know how we knew to call because we were living in California and her brother was in SCOTLAND, 5000+ miles away. My ex was "feeling" his life draining away and that was the "bad" feeling. What form of communication is that? What energy source do we have that can transmit electrical impulses that far? Defies explanation on scientific terms but not spiritual ones. Connection via another dimension, if you will.

Is it not possible that, just as the most informed minds of Copernicus' time did not know that atoms existed, we haven't developed enough to "prove" that other dimensions exist, or that other forces are at work in our lives?

Organized religion has always tried to do 3 things: tell us where we came from, where we are going, and how best to get there. The message gets corrupted from time to time by power brokers and ego-centric rulers, but that phenomenom is not limited to religious circles. But if a "supreme being" existed and wanted us to survive and grow as a life form, for whatever reason, following the teachings given in most organized religions will keep you moving in the right direction. Our biggest problem is that everyone of them wants or claims to be the "one" true way to enlightenment. If we could just get over that hurddle and treat everyone with diginity and kindness, all of our social problems would get much smaller if not disappear altogether.

Sailcat, go back to school before you comment.

From an article on hyperphysics and thermodynamics,

"One of the ideas involved in the concept of entropy is that nature tends from order to disorder in isolated systems. This tells us that the right hand box of molecules (ordered) happened before the left(disordered). Using Newton's laws to describe the motion of the molecules would not tell you which came first."

In simple terms, if you throw a box of dominoes into a room, is it more likely that they will pile up uniformly or that they will spread out randomly? In order for evolution to work, you have to believe that random atoms and molecules spontaneously came together in just the right concentrations to form the myriad different structures needed to make a cell, i.e. the membrane, nucleus, cytoplasm, etc. And not just do it once, but billions of times. And that is for just one life form, one type of cell. Do the math. Odds are far more likely that you got a free rides at Harvard, Yale, MIT, and CalTech on your way to the Nobel Prize in physics. Since that didn't happen, I'm going to stick to my spiritual, other dimension, higher power creationism bend. It works for me better than a bunch of dominoes on the floor.

I would appreciate it if future retorts had a little more thought given to them. I am really open about debating concepts like this. I just like to do it with informed, thoughtful people.

Mono-Theistic religions were created to control mankind.

That implies that poly-theistic religions were not created to control mankind. Did you mean to imply that?

Your thermodynamics 'entropy' nonsense argument has been debunked a million times for decades now. Please....

One hundred years ago they stated the Bible was nothing more then fiction

Really? Scholars always knew the Bible was based on many actual places. I mean... just because someone writes a book based in New York - that doesn't mean everything in the book actually happened simply because he described New York correctly.

Let me ask this: What entity created your god that was able to create all this, in your opinion? I mean how did "your god" get to be the one, from thin air mind you..

The problem I have with people like "freethemind" is that they confuse snot-nosed putdowns for reason and logic. Even Stephen Hawking, in his recent "the Universe could have formed without a deity" argument, suggested some kind of similar, spontaneous "out of thin air" argument, that the Universe just came into being from nothing all on its own. Yes, I watched that show, no I don't buy it, but why is THAT thought so easy to accept when it's almost identical to GOD created the Universe out of thin air, even as you laugh at the GOD theory??? My answer to your snot-nosed question is this: GOD always was, and always shall be. Feel free to substitute "anti-matter" for GOD if that makes you feel better.

Bourlon,

Although the argument that God may be a misinterpreted aspect of reality is definitely worthy, it's disingenious in the religious aspect - because in religion God is more than that. God, in religion, is a conscious and complex active entity with characteristics, moods, likes, and well some pretty damn strange behaviour (to put it lightly).

Hawking's argument is only based on the fact that before the big-bang time and space, the universe as we know it, did not exist. If there was no time or space, God could not have existed, since time and space are intrinsic values of existence. Something cannot exist outside of time and space, because existing outside of time and space is quite literally 'non-existence.'

Now I don't necessarily agree with Hawking entirely. I agree with him on his point about spacetime, though. But who knows what the singularity was, or what came before it... spacetime as we know it definitely did not exist, nor did the universe as we know it. But the possibilities don't necessarily end there.

Your argument is essentially the 'watchmaker analogy'... wherein you argue that things just don't come from thin air. But what contradicts that assertion is your caveat that God "always existed". So if God gets a special pass on the 'things can't come from thin air" argument; then you must be reasonable and admit that other things are just as worthy of that exception. I can then argue that it isn't God that always existed, but nature itself. The Universe, governed by the laws of nature (known and unknown) has always existed, in one form or another.

'God' then basically then boils down to only one thing: The concept of infinity.

I love how there is absolutely no middle ground when it comes to this. The bible bashers use science to convince themselves that it can't be true, yet when someone of science doesn't agree, then that scientist is a moron.

The bible thumpers insist that they completely understand the bible and anyone that disagrees is damned.

Maybe, just maybe none of us have died or spoke to someone after they are dead so you don't know or understand @!$%#ees. Is it that scary for you to know that you simply don't know @!$%#ees? funny.

Oh boy, an evolution debate!

I like evolution. It's a simple concept; traits that are better for survival tend to propagate, as "bad" traits usually result in the death of the trait carrier. Micro-evolution has been proven, and macro-evolution must exist in some form.

However, I don't think five billion years is long enough for dust kicked out of a supernova to turn itself into, say, a giraffe or a giant squid or a duckbill platypus. I don't think fifteen billion years is enough time for that to happen by accident, regardless of the size of the universe. What is the statistical likelihood, really, that a base-4 programming language (DNA) would spontaneously generate in a pool of slime, a language that just happens to be able to create velociraptors and shrews and flounders, bacteriophages and blue whales? And that our planet would be kept safe enough, long enough for us to evolve enough intelligence to ask these questions?

I like evolution, but I think it lacks a little something special.

Now I don't necessarily agree with Hawking entirely. I agree with him on his point about spacetime, though. But who knows what the singularity was, or what came before it... spacetime as we know it definitely did not exist, nor did the universe as we know it. But the possibilities don't necessarily end there.

Who knows, indeed - neither me or Mr. Hawkings. There, I said it. I KNOW I can't "prove" my beliefs, but my ability to prove or disprove is irrelevant. On another thread (having to do with the SCOTUS) people are saying all sorts of preposterous stuff - and I don't know if they TRULY believe this, or if they are just angry and ranting (probably the latter). Proof seems to be irrelevant.

Your argument is essentially the 'watchmaker analogy'... wherein you argue that things just don't come from thin air.

Generally speaking, yes - at least on THIS planet!

But what contradicts that assertion is your caveat that God "always existed". So if God gets a special pass on the 'things can't come from thin air" argument; then you must be reasonable and admit that other things are just as worthy of that exception.

Sure, EVERY rule has its exception.

I can then argue that it isn't God that always existed, but nature itself. The Universe, governed by the laws of nature (known and unknown) has always existed, in one form or another.

Yes, you could - and in fact, that's how I personally reconcile with the theory of evolution - I just replace the phrase "natural selection" with "God." Maybe they really are the same thing - and maybe you and I really aren't that far apart, either.

Given enough time, everything that is not impossible, no matter how unlikely, will occur. One of the problems that evolution-deniers suffer from is a weak concept of the length of time involved. If the age of the earth, 4.5 billion years, were represented by the length of a football field, the entire written history of humanity, let's say 10,000 years, would be shorter than a grain of flour, 0.0008 inches. Do the math yourself. During the first half of that enormous span of time, 2 billion years, there were no multi-cellular life forms. That we don't know how the first combinations of pre-RNA came together is no proof that it is impossible or even unlikely, it's simply a statement of our ignorance: we don't know YET how the earliest self-replicating chemicals formed. Science, unlike religion, admits to ignorance, in that we have not discovered or figured out, in the puny amount of time we have been doing science, everything about the universe. But, unlike religion, which has all the "answers", all of them wrong, science is working to figure it out.

Actually, the base-4 language you mention is itself a very strong evidence for evolution. Every DNA on earth uses the same 4 sugars, G,C,A, and T. That is not really necessary - other sugars would do, my understanding is that there are about 20 sugars that could be used, but every DNA on earth uses those 4. Why? The simplest answer is that every DNA strand on earth, whether encoding a microbe or a tree or a wombat or a human, was at some time copied from a parent DNA.

Is it possible that some unknown agent or force was involved in first forming the self-replicating molecules we inherit as DNA? Yes, it is possible. What I refuse to believe is that a bunch of goat herders living 3000 years ago knew anything at all about what that might be, and so their myths are just that - fiction to fill in the yawning abyss of their ignorance, so their religion could pretend to be all-knowing.

Bourlon, the main problem with your entropy issue is that entropy refers to an isolated system. The Earth is not isolated. It is being acted upon by forces in the galaxy. The chemicals in your pools are not isolated. They are being acted on by the weather of the planet. These systems you flout are not isolated. They are being acted upon by other systems.

And to your question of how many billions of times a reaction has to occur to end up as life. It only has to happen once. Do you honestly think life is created anew with each and every baby born? That flies in the face of modern medical science. Once life was created it preferred to survive. That's not entropy or random chance. That's a biological system acting to preserve itself. And to think that out of all the planets these chemicals have coalesced on to think that it wouldn't happen is nuts. When you flip a coin and it comes up heads are you surprised if it comes up tails the next time? No. There's a given chance it will happen. Exceed that chance and the odds are overwhelmed.

As for Wise1's questions regarding why a single celled organism would "opt" to be multicellular - it doesn't. One of it's kids was "born" with an extra cell. This kid was better at processing food than the other kids and when it mated it's kids had two cells. It's called random genetic mutation and it happens all the time. It has been proven to happen and it continues to happen, even now. Look up natural human lactose intolerance. Lactose tolerance is an evolution that is pretty recent.

Precisely, Henry. It is embarrassing to read the benighted posts of refried jesus wheezers who call upon the second law of thermodynamics to protect them from the harsh light of reality but as I said earlier, these willfully ignorant cultists have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. If they are prepared to believe in a mythical deity, they are prepared to twist the laws of nature to make them conform to their bizarre religious fantasies.

I mean, damn.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; religion and science are not mutually exclusive. They have been at each other's throat from time to time, but that is due to human arrogance, not any inherent property of the two realms.

And I would argue that science only admits ignorance only up to a point. Science builds walls and declares everything within those walls to be truth. If something doesn't look like what we already know, and science hasn't yet been able to build a wall around it, then it must be untruth. This is nearly as bad as ignorance through religion, possibly worse, as it sits upon a card house of laws and theorems and proclaims "Only we possess knowledge, and none may acquire it except by us." And it can't even answer, nay, refuses to acknowledge, the simple question "Who made those cards?"

The truth is, science is built upon nothing but assumptions. Many people, especially atheists, will never admit this point, but it is the coldest, hardest fact there is. I said this in a comment above: we didn't create the game, so we can only guess at the rules. Guessing is a fun pastime, and has carried us forward for thousands of years, but guessing, no matter how accurate, is not equivalent to knowing.

"The truth is, science is built upon nothing but assumptions."

That statement may satisfy your fantasies, but for christians ignorance is a safer place than facts or knowledge and you have staked your claim firmly in the realm of fairy tales. Your statement is, therefore, a lie but if it makes you feel better about yourself, then so be it. The remark remains a lie, nonetheless.

A lie? Far from it. Science is an elaborate network of assumptions built upon assumptions that we hold to, dare I say, religiously. The alternative is insanity, so we accept as absolute truth our science lest we go insane. That is to say, we have to believe that the world operates by the rules we assume so we can go about our lives day-to-day without worry.

Once again, we did not create the universe (or maybe you did; are you holding out on us?). We can therefore only guess at the manner of its operation. Yes, ignorance tends to be safer than asking questions, and science makes "safe"assumptions; if we can observe it and explain it, it must be absolute truth, right? What about things we can't observe or explain? Do you argue that everything within and without the universe can be observed with our current sensors and explained with our current knowledge?

I question these assumptions; I think we see the world as we see it, but not necessarily how it really is. You are mistaking a test drive of the universe for the blueprints. I don't discount science, but I also admit that it is a comfort blanket woven by beings that crave order.

"Science is an elaborate network of assumptions built upon assumptions..."

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying the scientific principles that made it possible for you to post your childish fantasies on your computer and broadcast your wild ravings on something called the internet came about from scientists making an elaborate network of assumptions?

Good luck with that.

Yes. Even if we are wrong about how the world works, it still works. The Earth never cared that people once thought it was flat, the human body didn't know anything about these "four humors," and atoms worked the same way they did both before and after we realized they were divisible. Society still progressed scientifically and socially. Our assumptions will likely carry us to the figurative edge of the universe before they stop being useful, but what then?

Then you are being deliberately ignorant. Scientists didn't merely assume silicone would make a useful semiconductor for the purpose of building microchips, which were built upon knowledge gained from the careful, deliberate invention (not assumption) of transistors, which had replaced relatively sophisticated vacuum tubes. These discoveries came about from long research that expanded upon information that had previously been discovered by earlier researchers. Knowledge builds upon knowledge and begets more knowledge, in stark contrast to religious dogma which fights to remain static and immobile. If you choose to believe in an imaginary deity for which no evidence exists and yet you are comfortable pounding out your blithering ravings on a device that is many orders of magnitude more complicated then any machine in existence even a hundred years ago...never mind the huge advances in medicine, food production, energy, optics, metallurgy, genetics, aeronautics, etc. etc...then it is more than merely obvious that your fantasies are deeply rooted in blind hypocrisy and willful delusions. You are lying to yourself and not to me.

You can type your replies to defend the primitive myths of an ancient band of ignorant, lice-ridden nomads, but I will not pay any more attention to you.

LOL @ ThaPyngwyn

I've said it before, and I'll say it again; religion and science are not mutually exclusive. They have been at each other's throat from time to time, but that is due to human arrogance, not any inherent property of the two realms.

They are not more alike than the man in the moon. Myths are beliefs without a bit of evidence supporting it. Science is all about testing and observations. There is no theory of god.

Sailcat,

I'm sure you will agree this conversation was over long before we began it, but if you choose now to declare its end, so be it. I will say this in closing, though. Science, the activity of linking observations and results, rests solely on the *belief* that we know exactly what we are looking at when we look at the world. This is a belief that science can no more confirm or deny than the belief in a god.

Ignorance, then, falls on those men of science who claim nothing is believed, but everything is known.

The beginning of the equation: E = MC2

It was a message for future believers, the rest was faded. It started for "e-mail me".

Sorry, had to throw that in.

Yet on a more serious note, through the ages I am quite sure though you and others may claim my theories are mere speculation, that Jesus himself most likely had personal writings. A diary of sorts or a notebook, he was surely educated since he spent the tireless hours in the temples, reading and learning all the ways and doctrines of the faith of his people.

His mind was not one of loitering thought processes, obvious as to the goals achieved in his life. Yet any personal property of Christ was surely hidden or destroyed, as people of that era and especially now (ie: thousands traveling to the newest report of the shadow of Christ on the pillar of the church) would worship or give reverence to the article or book, more so than to the man and his achievements and what he stood for in altering the prejudiced and biased practices and beliefs of his nation.

It is probably a fact that even the Vatican itself has found far more personal items possibly belonging to Christ, or writings denoting his personal thoughts far more closely related to his daily mental train of thought than the altered personal viewpoints of the apostles, and in fear of people in mass adoring the articles more than the person, withheld their existence merely for that purpose.

To actually believe than a man so engrossed with the message he presented, it would be foolish to believe that he wrote nothing at all. Yet is is far easier to understand that those writings were withheld from the public group of his followers is believable.

On the other hand, critics would have picked apart any personal writings, and the presence of any possible words put to paper, would have drawn skepticism and doubters, and the periods of his distress and depression due to his path, journey and persecution would have allowed for some writings to be discovered that the Pope himself most likely would not want others to read.

As with the shroud, whether it is actually his or not doesn't matter. We can see the validity of my point in the present fact that people would hold the article more dear to heart than the actual words of his teachings for a righteously lived daily life.

djdrew, no I don't really believe Jesus wrote anything down. His father was a carpenter, and HE worked as a carpenter for a few years. Your average Jewish male, at that time, wasn't taught how to write (read, yes, but not write). I'm not sure why, maybe it wasn't considered important to carpenters and fishermen; maybe because paper was rare and expensive, or maybe (this was my daughter's idea) it was a form of control (you can READ the Torah, but you can't write anything about it). Writing was pretty much reserved to either very wealthy, educated people or the scribes, and the scribes were associated with the Temple, which was destroyed in A.D. 71. I believe THAT'S why there are so few accounts of Jesus' life outside of the Gospels - and most believe those were not written by any of the Apostles (even if two were named for them). The sons of fishermen wouldn't know how to write, either.

And you're right about the Shroud - it's a curious artifact, but ultimately it has no effect on whether you believe the Gospels or not.

Sorry, not so sure where you are getting your ideas from other than the type of explanations modern religion like to give their flocks for grey hole theories (as in black hole theories). Yet, lets not liken the act of learning to write with that of a child's mind. It is near impossible for an adult to not know how to write yet know who to read well unless there are mental handicaps present. Access to paper or any other form of writing instrument would have been walked around quite easily.

An although Jesus was a carpenter by trade, don't forget mention that he spent long hours at the temples with the priests who were impressed with the wisdom he had as a child, and there's no doubt the boy child would was quite more educated than your normal villager. Let's not belittle the facts just to prove a point. Also, not all the apostles were fishermen but then you knew that from the start. Yet even if handwritten by the apostles, any works would have been copies of said works today, as the originals would have long since gone to waste.

The same as the gospels, any works of Jesus would have been horded, far more than any works of the apostles. They too would have been copied and passed down. Of course this is mostly just speculation, "what if" principles but as I said, I doubt seriously if such works were present today (copies thereof) that we would be allowed to see them as they would either be glorified to much, or prove something detrimental to the faith.

The church was not built solidly on just what Jesus preached, thus the split sometimes between the apostles and the teachings, and thus the abundance of rules and regulations (doctrines) for the church after Christ's death. Of course we have the modern day church's insistence that such teachings and writings were divinely inspired, just as with the old Testament, but then again.....

They did and you are correct, the shroud is not old enough, though the margin of error does place it as a possible. That said, I've seem imprints on fossils that look like Mary and they are over 12 million years old. Who would have known they were going to invent Christianity?

Yeah, the catholic church, for obvious reasons is disputing that, but the science says it is most likely a medieval forgery of good quality.

John, Matt and ryoushi12:

How come the shroud has never been replicated even using today's technology? Same with the tilma of Juan Diego? Until they are replicated, the only plausible explanation for their creation is supernatural or divine intervention.

If you don't think so: replicate them. It would be in your best interests to do so. You would make gobs of money.

I actually remember a documentary about the shroud and some of the scientists who analyzed it said (in a direct interview) that at the end of the day, the results have been inconclusive as to weather it was medieval or older and the evidence that they gathered seems to suggest as they put it, both. So it is very strange indeed. Also it has been analyzed in modern times (60's or 70's) only once, and they were given only like a ten day period or something to do as many tests as they wanted on it. So really there is more to this than one might think.

How come the shroud has never been replicated even using today's technology?

Maybe for the same reason that not all medieval stained glass can be replicated with today's technology. We don't have the "recipe".

What I remember is that there is some dispute over whether the piece tested was part of a Middle Ages repair or part of the original. The cloth had been in a fire - most of it didn't burn. But there was some reweaving after that. Anyway, I do know there is valid evidence to support both the shroud being from the Middle Ages and from the time of Jesus. One of the things pointing to the time of Jesus was the discovery of polin from an extinct plant that grew in the modern day Israel area. How they know that polin is from that plant... beats me.

Gee, I wonder how come it burned, being the holy shroud of Jesus and all.

Guess God works in mysterious ways. VERY mysterious.

Great except below about Ray Rogers who was one of the scientists who originally studied it in the 70s. The thought it was fake until it was discovered the sample used for the carbon dating was from a reweave.

Rogers, a chemist from the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico, said: "I don't believe in miracles that defy the laws of nature. After the 1988 investigation I'd given up on the shroud.

"But now I am coming to the conclusion that it has a very good chance of being the piece of cloth that was used to bury the historic Jesus."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/5137163/Turin-Shroud-could-be-genuine-as-carbon-dating-was-flawed.html

The vast majority of historians say that Jesus was a real person. So, he's not fictional. Now...whether you believe he was God incarnate is up to you.

Exactly, tertertert. And not only did he really exist, but he was really crucified - I read somewhere that's agreed to by all or at least nearly all historians as historical fact. But like you said, what happened after the crucifixion is a matter of faith.

No, the vast majority of historians do not say that the biblical jesus was a real person. You are stretching things to the breaking point.

Interestingly, there have been many messiahs over the millennia, and many operated during the Roman occupation of Israel, including Judas of Galilee, Menahem ben Judah, Theudas, Vespasian, and John of Gischala. Most of these characters led rebel groups dedicated to overthrowing Roman rule in the area, and your jesus might have been just one more claimant to messiah-hood, or a perhaps a fictional character that is based upon an amalgamation of more than one person. The interesting thing is this: the miracles that were allegedly performed by your jesus cannot be corroborated by any contemporary texts. The middle east was a very literate place and people of the time were eager to document the history of their times. Romans, Greeks, Jews, and people of other cultures in the region made it their purpose to keep extensive records that detailed the current events of their time. It would stand to reason that a preacher who was roaming the area and raising the dead, multiplying fish and bread, turning water into wine, walking on water, and other supernatural feats of derring-do would attract the attention of local authorities. Amazingly, not a word that bespeaks of jesus as a divine character and a performer of miracles exists in contemporary documents, however. Not even second-hand references are mentioned in any records of the era. The only text that mentions jesus' miracles is the bible, and none of that was written by any of the eyewitnesses to his feats. All of the Gospels were put to paper well into the first century and on into the second century, after all of the supposed participants had passed away. To be blunt, none of the contents of the NT with regard to jesus has any secondary support to lend it even the slightest whiff of credibility.

In other words, the bible has no more claim to the truth than any other poorly written book of fiction, and jesus, as he was described in the bible, is just a collection of myths purloined from several local cultures to build a plausible deity who would be capable of hoodwinking the gullible, the willfully ignorant, and the weak minded.

Sorry, Sail, but you are just not correct with this one. Google around sometime.

There are several non-Christian references to Jesus and the crucifixion of him - I think even Pilate's office kept records, for instance. Now of course the non-Christian references won't say anything about him being the Messiah or any of that. But he lived, and was executed somewhere around Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

Not that Wikipedia is the final authority, but here's an article on 'the historical Jesus,' which as the article notes, is not a discussion on the Jesus of faith.

There is only one weak contemporary historical reference to someone who may or may not have been the historical jesus with no mention of his divinity or any of his miracles. The quote, written by Josephus, said,"James the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ." Nothing else is said about a man who carries the reputation of being divine and a raiser of the dead. There is, however, a passage in the Testimonium Flavianum by Josephus that mentions jesus as holy person and that passage is universally regarded as an alteration by a later christian scribe. All other mentions of jesus in ancient texts were written well after jesus was alleged to have died.

...such as in the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus^[10] (see Josephus on Jesus and the Testimonium Flavianum) and various Roman documents...

A few modern writers, such as Earl Doherty, G. A. Wells and Robert M. Price^[191] question whether Jesus ever existed, and whether attempts to use the Gospels to reconstruct his life give the Gospels too much credit. This position, put forward in works such as the movies Religulous and The God Who Wasn't There, is not held by most professional historians, nor the vast majority of New Testament scholars.^{[192][193][194][195}

I just mentioned Flavius Josephus and he does not prove your point at all. Go back and read what Josephus wrote. He did not give a contemporary account of jesus' miracles nor any mention of his as a divine character. You are not paying attention.

Sailcat,

Good posts but... Pearls and swine, horses refusing to drink and all that. If the shroud were some evidence of the miraculous, you'd think that it would not be subject to fire nor other ravages of time, nor need mending...but so it goes.

culheath - that's hardly the discussion of this part of the thread.

Sail - yes, you mentioned Josephus, but conveniently ignored what I cut and pasted about how he wasn't the only non-Christian to also reference the crucifixion. Seriously, it sounds like you are so militant about your atheism that you're bending over backwards to stammer that Jesus not only wasn't a messiah but that he also was a completely fictitious character from literature.

You said any statements that historians mostly agree he lived and was crucified was a huge stretch. You were wrong. You said the only non-Gospel account of the crucifixion was from Josephus. You were wrong.

Most of these characters led rebel groups dedicated to overthrowing Roman rule in the area, and your jesus might have been just one more claimant to messiah-hood, or a perhaps a fictional character that is based upon an amalgamation of more than one person.

Makes me think of Monty Python's "Life of Brian" - I love how the Judean People's Front and the People's Front of Judea hate eachother more than they mutually hate the Romans.

Reg: [arriving at Brian's crucifixion] Hello, Sibling Brian.
Brian: Thank God you've come, Reg.
Reg: Well, I think I should point out first, Brian, in all fairness, we are not, in fact, the rescue committee. However, I have been asked to read the following prepare statement on behalf of the movement. "We the People's Front of Judea, brackets, officials, end brackets, do hereby convey our sincere fraternal and sisterly greetings to you, Brian, on this, the occasion of your martyrdom. "
Brian: What?
Reg: "Your death will stand as a landmark in the continuing struggle to liberate the parent land from the hands of the Roman imperialist aggressors, excluding those concerned with drainage, medicine, roads, housing, education, viniculture and any other Romans contributing to the welfare of Jews of both sexes and hermaphrodites. Signed, on behalf of the P. F. J. , etc. " And I'd just like to add, on a personal note, my own admiration, for what you're doing for us, Brian, on what must be, after all, for you a very difficult time.

I love that movie.

Jim

He was crowned with thorns.

Christ does not want you to put your faith in anything but Him. If the shroud is real or fake, either way we must believe in Him personally, because, things will not save us.

"God so loved the World that He gave his only begotten Son, so that whoever would believe in Him should not parish, but have everlasting life". John 3:16

Nonsense. If it was a fake it could be replicated using today's technology. It hasn't. If you think it is fake: replicate it. It would be in your best interests to do so. You would make gobs of money.

If it had been determined to be genuine, it wouldn't be ensconced in a backwater church in Italy. It would be the crown jewel of the Vatican's collection of relics, worshiped by pilgrims from around the world. The fact that the catholic church itself is lukewarm in its support of the shroud is quite telling.

The bottom line is, it's just a fake. Get over it.

I clicked the wrong button, but wrote a response on page 4. You're most likely incorrect that the Vatican would have the shroud brought there, regardless of whether they believe its authenticity or not.

I have no doubt if the shroud were determined to be genuine, and therefore the only existing physical evidence that jesus had lived and was resurrected, that the Vatican would have had it displayed as their most precious relic. Instead, it is hung in a truly second or third class church in Italy.

Your logic is not sound.

Sorry, but you just don't seem to understand how the Church thinks, nor have any understanding of Church phenomena, evidence of which is far more plentiful that you seem to realize.

It is far less plentiful than you would like to believe. There is no verifiable evidence of the existence of a god, much less a christian god. None.

Not that someone who is predisposed not to see could ever see, lol

When I speak of evidence, I am referring to the sort of proof that can be verified, and none exists to support the notion of a deity. I would welcome proof but none has been produced, and the Shroud of Turin is certainly not evidence of anything except gross fakery.

You seem to have a predisposition to ignore facts, because the hard fact is that there is no evidence of a god, and especially not a christian deity.

Sailcat, if it's a fake, replicate it; if you can't replicate you can't be certain it is a fake. Does it really matter where it is stored? What does where it is stored have to do with how it was created? Until you can explain how it was created and can replicate it based on your explanation, the only rational explanation is that the supernatural intervened to cause its creation.

Sailcat-2064101

When I speak of evidence, I am referring to the sort of proof that can be verified, and none exists to support the notion of a deity.

No deity? Then explain how the following events in human history happened if a deity with supernatural powers didn't intervene:

1. Padre Pio's ability to read the undisclosed sins of those going to him in the Sacrament of Confession.
2. The stigmata of Padre Pio and St. Francis of Assisi.
3. St. Bernadette being told during an apparition to dig for water in the ground. A spring came out that stands to this day in Lourdes. Unexplained medical cures occurred there shortly after the spring started and some continue on to this day.
4. The miracles that happened after people prayed to those who have died to aid in their cause of canonization and such miracles have been documented by the Vatican.
5. The fact that the Catholic Church has existed in its structure for nearly 2000 years. What other hierarchal institution has? It was also predicted to last and so far has come true: See Mt. 16 :13-20
6. People have been possessed by Demons. The movie the Exorcist was based on true story about a boy in St. Louis. Some power always beats the demon. That power is unquestionably God.
7. On October 17, 1917, 30,000 to 75,000 people assembled because 3 pre-pubescent children said the Virgin Mary was appearing to them. They said the Virgin Mary was going to show a miracle that day. An astronomical event so extra-ordinary happened at the time the children said the Virgin Mary said it would happen that no person using reason would say the astronomical event happened at that exact time and place by random chance. No reasonable person would say all 70,000 people were duped because they were primed to see a miracle. Many people who were skeptics like you showed up to make sure the world knew the children were frauds--and then the skeptics found out the children were telling the truth. The facts of what happened are not in dispute and any one using reason would admit something super-natural caused that event to happen at the exact time 3 pre-pubescent children said it would happen. I don't know what more evidence you need to convince you.
8. The tilma of Juan Diego has a picture of Our Lady of Guadalupe that has been preserved without decay for over 500 years? How? How come it has not been replicated even using today's technology.
9. Blessed Mother Theresa of Calcutta's order is flourishing--yet she never had more than the clothes on her back as her possession. How did she accomplish all that?
10. Mother Angelica, the main founder of the cable channel EWTN, legs were miraculously cured. Her leg braces were no longer needed. One day, she needed $600,000 to pay for her first television transmitter. She had no money. At the time it was going to be repossessed a gentleman read one of her religious tracts she wrote years earlier and asked if he could donate $600,000--the exact amount she needed for the transmitter. She asked if he could wire the money. He did.

11. Read also about near death experience: Heaven and Hell have both been described by people who have experienced them--the descriptions of both are very similar that nobody using scientific evidence would say random chance has caused the same hallucination to so many different people.

@shalom

Any time Christians present evidence, it is claimed by atheists to be lies and untrue, because God doesn't exist. It seems like circular logic. "I don't believe in God, therefore, I don't believe in the evidence, and without evidence, I don't believe in God." They want evidence. We give it to them. They don't believe it because it conflicts with their views. God could come down from Heaven and perform miracles, and they still wouldn't believe, because "God doesn't exist." If they did convert, they would say, "God is making us do what He wants, because He demonstrated His power to us, and nobody in thier right mind would go against Him."

They want evidence. We give it to them. They don't believe it because it conflicts with their views.

None of that presented by Shalom2U was verifiable evidence, just hearsay as valid as the fairytales of Grimm.

Since you have no verifiable evidence, ccmnxc, the logic is not circular. You have nothing and the shroud is less than nothing because it is an obvious fake. Your willful gullibility is astounding.

Sailcat-2064101 post 7.13 and culheath post 7.12:

None of that presented by Shalom2U was verifiable evidence

Since you have no verifiable evidence, ccmnxc, the logic is not circular.

The Shroud of Turin and the Tilma of Juan Diego exist. You can't replicate either of them with today's technology and you can't explain how they were created--supernatural is the only logical explanation. That is verifiable evidence until you replicate either of them-and then you would make gobs of money so go for it.

On October 17, 1917, 30,000 to 75,000 people assembled because 3 pre-pubescent children said the Virgin Mary was appearing to them. They said the Virgin Mary was going to show a miracle that day. An astronomical event so extra-ordinary happened at the time the children said the Virgin Mary said it would happen that no person using reason would say the astronomical event happened at that exact time and place by random chance. No reasonable person would say all 70,000 people were duped because they were primed to see a miracle. Many people who were skeptics like you showed up to make sure the world knew the children were frauds--and then the skeptics found out the children were telling the truth. The facts of what happened are not in dispute and any one using reason would admit something super-natural caused that event to happen at the exact time 3 pre-pubescent children said it would happen. I don't know what more evidence you need to convince you. That is verifiable evidence.

Type in Padre Pio and the paranormal. So many people witnessed supernatural or unexplainable natural events about him that no reasonable person would say his life doesn't verify the supernatural.

So people have had near death experiences to say that the human experience of heaven or hell isn't verifiable would be foolish.

The others, only a fool would say that they happened by coincidence or the person was lying based on how the person lived their lives.

Would you say the visions of Hindu masters and Islamic Imams are real, as well? I would reckon you don't, but most of the world is non-christian and your attempts to legitimize the bizarre fantasies of your religion are no more real than the hallucinations of any other religion's holy men. Therefore, your hysterical religious experience is not proof of anything except the gullibility of the faithful.

Fail.

sailcat

Evidence is in the heart of the True believers, Christ by the Holy Spirit, dwells in those that believe. True Christians do not need physical evidence. We believe by Faith, and that comes from God. The shroud of Turin is just an object, real or fake, it will not help our faith grow, because faith comes from God alone.

God knows those that are His, Sailcat you may be His, Paul the Apostle was choosen by God and He was a murderer.

His Servant

Sailcat-2064101 post 7.15

In your post you never explained how the events I mentioned in posts 7.10 and 7.14 happened if it wasn't for Divine Intervention. You are scared of making even an attempt. I am asking you again: How did those events happened without a Deity intervening to cause them to happen?

LOL..that's right. A Viking !

Rainlady & Mo-Pho,

Your points concern with my long assessment of the "Shroud" and other "images" of Jesus. A Herbrew carpenter of that era, would as RL points out be well under 6' tall. In addition, carpentry even today is labor intensive; in the Bronze & Iron ages any carpenter, Jesus included, would have had massive shoulders. In all of his European portrayals, he looks like a member of the Danish Olympic Cross-country team. Finally, consider all the "stigma" signs that show up on statutes, painting, etc.; they're on the palms of the hands, victims of crucification had nails driven through their wrists.

The earliest "evidence" that some guy named Jesus or Joshua or whatever "existed" post dates related events by at least EIGHTY YEARS, and refers to Joshua ben Jusef as the Christ, a title that POST dates St Paul.

You apparently have not read Jesus and the Eyewitnesses by Richard Bauckham. Plenty of evidence there.

Ther is NO evidence in ANY independent source that refers to a "Jesus". There are sources that talk about "christians" ONE HUNDRED YEARS after the fact, and DON'T try to bring up the Josephus quote - it is generally regarded as a forgery, and makes the BASIC mistake of refering to the followers of Jesus as christians, a term that was not used until well AFTER Paul opened up the belief to non-Jewish followers. The gospels themselves were written 50 YEARS after the fact, and the OLDEST copies we have post date the supposed existance of some guy named Jesus by 270 YEARS (about 300 CE).

I suggest YOU read The Jesus Myth by G A Wells.

Let's see Nero condemned and persecuted Christians in Rome and he died in AD 68. That makes the events and notice of the term Christians to at least within 40 years of the death of Jesus.

Concerning Josephus, I would probably agree - the mentions of Jesus are most probably interpolations as he seemed fixated on Vespasian. But we have portions of at least one of the New Testament writings that is within 100 years of the death of Christ as well as numerous other pieces and references from external sources that vastly predate your false claims.

Concerning the Gospels - by not reading Jesus and the Eyewitnesses you are arguing a point you do not understand. Many scholards CLAIM they were written late (AD 90 - 110), but Bauckman's book points to significant internal evidence that indicates that those subjective dates should be reexamined. There is much internal evidence in the documents to indicate that they were written in a time when eyewitnesses to those events were still alive and could still verify the claims. That evidence can be found if you would read the book.

I have not read the Jesus Myth - yet, but am certainly happy to. I have read a lot of similar books. By the way, the Jesus Myth I thought I heard that Wells changed his mind and wrote that Jesus actually was an historical person. And you cite that book as evidence that he was not - curious. Citing a book that claims He lived as evidence he did not exist - got me puzzled about your ability to reason ryoushi.

The Jesus resurrection myth is just repackaged Mithraism, which itself borrows from things like the cult of Horus.

By the way just did a count and there are 38 surviving New Testament documents which date before AD 300. When you compare the documentary evidence for the NT versus say - Homer, Virgil, Plato - the New Testament is much better attested than any other ancient writing.

Ryoushi - you also do not seem to understand when Paul existed. You seem to think he was after Josephus. His writings are the earliest Christian records and he was the apostle to the Gentiles, but that took place long before Josephus wrote, so how could the use of Christians be anachronistic in Josephus (out of hand)? Christians was in use already in at least Nero's day and that was before the destruction of Jerusalem, so Josephus writing after AD 70 could easily have used that term. (Again I say I do not think Josephus wrote those fragments, but I do not use stupid evidence to argue against the textual evidence.

skrekk - There are certainly features similar to all religions. Are you claiming you have evidence that Mithraism predates Christianity, because I would think you might share such PROOF with the world of scholars, who do not know of that. There are claims it predates Christianity and many scholars say Christianity predates Mithraism. So unless you have something more, the claim that it is "repackaged" is just intellectual dismissal on your part. You probably do not want to wrestle with TRUE evidence and think for yourself. Belief some snippet you heard and stick your head in the sand.

Jeff, I assume you've read Bart Ehrman. How do you respond to his work? Ehrman is a champion of the idea that Jesus most likely was a real person that inspired stories, but most of his work points to there being no other reasons to believe that the content of those stories are worthy of belief, with plenty of rational reasons as to why those stories came to be. How do you go from Jesus being real to suddenly he's been born of a virgin, died for the grace of mankind, and resurrected? It's not a short walk from a man existing to a man being a deity-incarnate. No?

But no one really cares how this fake artifact was made.

They did release it to the scientific community. The scientific community conducted C-14 radiometric dating techniques upon it and determined that the Shroud is no more than 8 to 9 centuries old. In addition, the bloodstains have been analyzed to determine blood type. Turns out the stains were red carmine dye, a common pigment from the Middle Ages.

Since then, the Shroud has been closed off to all but Church sanctioned investigation.

The reason for the lack of on-going independent scientific research into the shroud is because it continues to be a big moneymaker for the church in Turin, and for the immediate community surrounding the church. If independent analysis of the shroud were continuing, the inevitable conclusion that it is a forgery would dry up the money brought in by tourists and addled pilgrims.

The church of Turin is not operated by complete idiots...it's run by snake oil salesmen.

Sailcat-2064101

If independent analysis of the shroud were continuing, the inevitable conclusion that it is a forgery would dry up the money brought in by tourists and addled pilgrims.

I'll believe it is a forgery if you can replicate it.

But the first shot came from the grassy knoll. Back and to the left. ;-)

So simple but yet so profound !

If you're right, at least it's people are enslaved to make the world a better place. You don't seem to be contributing much. Tearing people down seems to suit you much better.

Considering atheists spend a considerable amount of time laughing at the primitive myths of an ancient band of ignorant, lice-ridden nomads, I'd say they have a rather highly developed sense of humor.

it helps them overcome their guilt since they have more than likely broken every one of the commandments.

How does contesting what Christians contend to be true make atheists "so angry and bitter"? Every atheist I know is neither, and I know quite a few.

Well veronica, I doubt that you know any atheists. I do not doubt that you know people who claim to be atheists. People who are angry and bitter often claim to be, but really are just trying to take out their misery on others.

It's sort of like most of the vociferous on newsvine, as shakespeare said, "Methinks they protest too much", roughly.

LOL the only thing we atheist are bitter about is when you theist try to enslave us with your medieval, magical fruit, pseudo moral judgements.

If you want to believe in talking snakes and jewish zombies go right ahead but don't drag us into it.

We have decided to use rationale and reason in our day to day decision making. Not fairy tails and fantasy.

Randy,

How do you know they have broken every commandment or are you taking a rather large, and presumptuous, leap to feel better about your own faith?

1. They can't have broke it as they don't believe in a God or gods.

2.They wont have carved images of gods. (see #1)

3. Have you never said, "Oh God!" when startled? (let's assume you haven't) The scripture says "thy God". Again atheists don't have a good so they can't claim a God to take in vain.

4. Do you cook on the sabbath? Go anywhere or do anything, like work perhaps?

5. You really think all atheists dishonor their mothers and fathers and have no love for them?

6. Do atheists get a free pass on murder? Because, as I recall, there have been plenty of "Christians" that have murdered.

7. Only atheists commit adultery? (Do we really need to list all those that profess Christianity while visiting their mistress?)

8. Again, I didn't realize atheists were cleptos! However, I do recall a fair number of Christian churches that have prosecuted for fraud. hmmmm

9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Sorry Randy, but so far, you are bearing false witness that Atheists are getting a free pass at this whole "they have probably broken all the commandments" bit.

10. Only atheists covet or wish they had more money, a bigger house, a bigger bank account?

It appears that your statement is rooted in your dislike of a group of people and you are ready to use slander to prove a point.

I think Veronica's point is that many of the atheists posting here are jerks and are only here to feed their perverse desire to tear people down. If a Christian is telling you to change, they sincerely think they are doing good. The atheists here just seem to want to hurt people. Not all of them, but many of them.

ccmn,

I would challenge your assertion there. Simply because someone uses the excuse of "doing good" doesn't make the consequence of their actions any better. I challenge you to go to any discussion about gay rights, abortion rights, islam or any other type subject and see how "loving" the responses are.

Here is a truth. Boards like these will always bring out the nasty comments because of the anonymous nature of the beast. Yes, there are some jerks out there, from every belief system, but I can tell you that the "love" someone feels from Christians who don't believe as they do is not very fulfilling.

No atheist I know is angry or bitter, Uninformed-and-Defensive.

The former is a hoax, the latter is a forgery.

Hey Eileen47 and anyone else that actually still believes the made up nonsense about a resurrection. If you actually used your brains and questioned the damned clergy, you'd soon realize that as a Jew, it was the most important responsibility of any and all Hebrews, then, as well as today, to bury the dead within 24 hours or the next sundown, whichever came/comes first, excluding a death on Friday, which would mean not on Sabbath (Saturday for Jews). The bottom line is some good Jews got into the cave, removed the body and buried him. The damned religion didn't get a real start until about 80-100 A.D., so nobody was really around to tell anyone what happened; at least outside his family. So my friends, Christianity got it's start because you decided to believe something without another (totally logical) explanation. Have no fear, Judaism is an offshoot of Hinduism, which is polytheistic. Gee, wasn't Abraham a Hindu and he decided to follow just one and not all the gods? Intelligence and common sense, even without the need for Physics, tells a sane person that god is Santa Claus' brother; or was it Pinocchios' son?

Matt-2631617 post 15.2

Read John 11. Was the story of Lazurus made up as well. Read MT 16: 13-20. Why has the Catholic Church survived when no other hierarchal institution has and it was predicted to be so?

Hey how about Duet 21:18 -21 also ?

If you take the bible literally you have lost the battle of reason.

Man controlling man, nothing more.

Matt-2631617, you're saying that some good Jews managed to get past the Roman guards that were posted in front of the cave and steal the body of Jesus? And eleven of the disciples of Jesus were willing to be martyred for this hoax?

Rational not religious post 15,4

God is all-powerful and all-knowing. When humans don't listen to Him and intentionally ignore Him or, even worse, intentionally disobey Him, misery always follows.

Read MT 16: 13 - 20. If God is good, wouldn’t He make sure that humans can be confident that they can know what human actions He says are morally right and what human actions He says are morally wrong? Jesus founded the Catholic Church by appointing Peter as Her head. Jesus also sent the Holy Spirit to protect Her from teaching error. Jesus told Peter whatever you hold bound on earth shall be bound in heaven and whatever you hold loose on earth shall be held loose in heaven. When the Church exercises her Magisterial Teaching Authority through official Church documents on Faith and Morals humans can be confident that these are God’s pronouncements about what human actions are morally right and what human actions are morally wrong. If you disagree, where does your moral authority come from? Also, as proof, it was also predicted about 2,000 years ago that the Catholic Church would survive until Jesus Second Coming. What other hierarchal human institution has survived that long—and predicted it would be so? Given these two facts, what are the odds that the Catholic Church surviving as it has is just a “coincidence” or the reason it survived is because one set of humans is more successful at “pulling the wool” over the rest of humanity?
The Bible came from the Catholic Church. It really becomes a question of authority. Catholics believe that the Church is the authority on Faith and Morals. (Read 1 Timothy 3:15.)
But if I should be delayed, you should know how to behave in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of truth.
The Catholic church, and not the Bible is the foundation of Truth.

God is good. He not only revealed himself to Abraham, Moses and other Jewish Prophets, but also through Jesus and even now through the Holy Spirit. You follow God's laws you will ultimately prosper; you ignore it, you will collapse and be overrun by some other society. Catholics believe that the Holy Spirit protects the Church when it makes official pronouncements on faith and morals. It is the pronouncement that is protected; the person making them or working for the Catholic Church is human and therefore sinful. In other words, it is the Holy Spirit working through Man when these pronouncements on Faith and Morals are made. God, because He is good, won't let this institution be destroyed. Otherwise humans would have to look at another human being’s interpretation about what is moral and good. As such, what the Catholic Church teaches is not man controlling man, it is far greater than that--it is God leading man to happiness in this life and in the next.

Yeah, the guys that stole the body also willfully and joyfully died for the lie they created.

Does it make sense to you, because I don't get it.

None of those are "facts". They are improbable beliefs without any basis whatsoever.

Richard, you need your IQ resurrected.

Fact 1: the resurrection myth predates Christianity, and was borrowed from Mithraism and the cult of Horus.

@Shrek,

Horus didn't die from Crucifixion and Mithras wasn't resurrected. Like you post anything credible.

The myth is told that Mithras completed his earthly mission then was taken to paradise in a chariot, alive and well.

The results have, indeed, been conclusive. It is a forgery. Independent tests at three separate institutes determined that the shroud material could be dated to 1260–1390 AD, with 95% confidence. This dating matches the appearance of the shroud in the 13th-14th centuries. Pigment has also been conclusively detected, indicating the image was added to the fabric in a conventional manner.

Objections have been raised by a few church figures, but they cannot refute the results with any authority. It is clearly a fake.

I have seen the Shroud of Turin personally, when it was on public display in 2000. (During Jubilee)

I do not know its true origin, or how it was made, but it was neat to see it.

I'm also an atheist.

I have created an animation to show you what the transformation of JESUS looks like.
www.goo.gl/eGRRi

www.nk-inc.com/transformation/

Wow you really are off your rocker

sorry man you need help

Wow.

Thank you.

Have a Happy Easter!

"...but the sample was taken from a repaired section of the shroud..."

That statement has been refuted and it has been clearly established that the samples were taken from the main body of the shroud, away from the charred and patched areas. That allegation is a desperate attempt by the "faithful" to discredit the findings of the researchers.

It is important to understand that even the weave of the fabric is completely unlike anything used in the region surrounding Jerusalem in the period that jesus is supposed to have lived.

the repaired reweave show that it is cotton, the rest is a flax plant. It was peer-reviewed. Please research it before making such a ridiculous statement

Peer reviewed by whom? The catholic church or another cultish organization? The original experts who collected the samples took them from the main body, not the patches. These were scientists and they were smart enough to take samples that were not corrupted by fire damage or the patches.

You are much too gullible to be taken seriously.

The 3 scientists agreed with the findings that the samples was not representation of the whole cloth.

so tell me, how was the image created? Bet you don't know.

They agreed it was representative of the body of the fabric that composed the original shroud. They determined it was made in the 13th-14th centuries. The herringbone weave of the fabric was not used at the time jesus is alleged to have lived, either. The ruddy pigment with which it has been painted contains hematite, also used to make rouge. It is, quite simply, the sort of fake that was common during the middle ages. It possesses nothing so remarkable that it couldn't have been produced by a crew of skilled artisans.

problem with you, you are not well informed. It has already been proved by EVERYONE but Walter McCrone that it is not a painting. Paintings DO NOT create a 3D image. AND the negative photo you see of the image was not available to anyone BEFORE 1898!

It has not been proved by everyone, despite your all caps ravings. It is an ordinary fake, no matter how you desperately try to twist the facts to conform to your fantasies.

Read 'em and weep.

Dreel: Paintings don't create a 3D image? You haven't been to many art galleries, have you?

man, you are one stupid idiot. You have no idea what I'm talking about

ordinary fake? If its a fake, why is it still being studied by scientists? Are you a scientist? So tell me, how is it faked?

Um... good argument? ;-) Dude, painters create the illusion of 3 dimensions all the time. Which is academic, of course: the Shroud is not historically accurate (Roman-empire Hebrews used three cloths wound laterally, not one cloth folded longitudinally,) the blood is actually red pigment, the image does not match a projection of a face onto a cloth wrapped around it (wrap a sheet around a mannequin head covered with ink and see what the image looks like. Not like the Shroud, I warrant,) and radiometric dating of the cloth (which were deliberately taken from unburnt sections of teh Shroud to avoid precisely the complications that have been mentioned) place the Shroud at somewhere between 8 to 9 centuries old. But hey... if you want to ignore all of that because you can't possibly figure out how someone painted the face to look so good, be my guest. ;-)

wow, I guess the negative photograph was painted 9 centuries ago. One clever artist!

The image on the Shroud is not a photo-negative. You know how I know that? Look at the hair. It's black. A true photo-negative of the Shroud shows a man with white hair and beard, which hardly matches what Jesus supposedly looks like. the image on the Shroud is perfectly reproducible using bas-relief rubbing techniques available during the Middle Ages. No brushstrokes, no muss and fuss. Besides, you still haven't addressed the other problems I spoke to. care to try? ;-)

Martin Holt:

the image on the Shroud is perfectly reproducible using bas-relief rubbing techniques available during the Middle Ages.

Utter nonsense unless you can show me where it was reproduced. There are clearly bones shown in the original Shroud of Turin that no replication has been able to replicate.

if you use bas-relief rubbing technique, the image would be distorted once you lift the cloth off the body.