Shroud of Turin isn't at all convincing. It could literally be anyone who was crucified, of which there were thousands and thousands. It's also only convincing to people who believe already. Nothing about it points to a resurrection.
The RC Church differentiates between Icons and Relics, They classify the Shroud as a Icon a religious piece of art as opposed to a relic. An icon is a religious artistic representation (usually a painting) of a saint, Biblical character, or event (such as the Crucifixion) that is used to enhance worship or to act as a focal point for one's devotions to God. A relic is either the remains of a saint's body (such as a piece of bone, mummified heart, lock of hair etc) or an inanimate object of veneration (such as the arrows that killed Saint Sebastian, a 'nail' from the original cross or some other object connected with Christ or a saint, again, used as a focus for devotion. https://www.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_difference_between_a_religious_icon_and_a_relic
That a Jewish preacher named Jesus existed seems fairly reasonable to me. The idea that he was the Son of God is just the way the Gospel writers wanted it to be. There is no reason to suppose that he was anything more than a 'Billy Graham' of the time. The writers of Matthew's and Luke's gospels make a mess of their own nativity stories, of their genealogies and trial/crucifixion stories. If the prophecy of Jesus going to Egypt is from Hosea 11:1 then the name has been changed from Israel to Jesus, and then Jesus must have turned away from his Father and worshipped idols etc. Read the Chapter through. Jesus may have been from the house of David (if he existed) but David was 1000 years in the past. Bethlehem Ephratah had long been ravaged by nations and people taken into captivity. The relevance of it being David's birthplace was long past relevance. Besides, there was no rule that Joseph had to go there, let alone take Mary. He had no property there - as Matthew implies. Nazareth was too far away, and his birthplace was where his business was - the reason for the census was tax on property. There was no 'Massacre of the Innocents'. Matthews reference is to the OT. Rachel weeping for her children. And, interestingly, we have a real miracle. Jesus is in Egypt and Nazareth at the same time. Think about this. David was 1000 years before Joseph. David had at least 20 sons that we know and daughters we don't. Given a generation was 40 years we have 25 generations. Families were large. We end up with many tens of thousands of people all making their way to Bethlehem. Not only Bethlehem would have been inundated but the surrounding villages and even Jerusalem. Herod would have heard about this. It wouldn't have needed Magi to arouse his interest. Give that Luke says this census was of the whole world 'Roman', the whole Middle East would have been in chaos.Greeks, Egyptians Syrians and the rest of the world going to their birthplace. Nothing in history compares with this. It's simply nonsense. Regarding the trial and crucifixion. Isaiah 53 has nothing to do with Jesus. It is one of 4 suffering servant songs found in Isaiah - which, incidentally, is all about Israel. Isaiah 42:1-9, Isaiah 49:1-13, 50:4-11 and 52:13 - 53 12. It looks forward to when the Jewish Messiah will come and lead the Hebrews against their enemies and to victory. A time when the nations will acknowledge the suffering of the Jews. While the preacher Jesus was crucified it was because he showed the religious leaders to be hypocrites, and the people agreed with him. The 2 stories, written decades later, is full of contradictions.
Thank you for that story Bippy, I have that in the back of my mind.. but I forget it up front. So there are now 45 pages of debate for people to mull. I am about done here, mainly because I'll just be repeating what has already been presented. Keep in touch, I'll be around,, God willing!
Another one bites the dust and I still don't know how Jesus was in Egypt and Nazareth, at the same time. Still, I shall just have ask someone else.for the answer.
I find it odd that people get excited about an obvious hoax that in no way supports the claim of a risen Jesus. Well maybe not that odd.
There is no way, and never will be, to prove that this is the shroud of Jesus himself. The steps that Jesus walked up in Pilates palace were miraculously found 200 years after the destruction of Jerusalem and transported to Rome. They are in the Vatican today where people were recently allowed to kneel their way up them. It's a joke, relying on the gullibility of the faithful.
Todd don’t be so sure my friend . Remember there are also seekers and agnostics lurking around that aren’t signed up on these forums . I stumbled onto the shroud through atheists myself when they came and parades on our forum saying that the Luigi replication debunked the shroud . I didn’t know what the shroud was until they brought it up . Ironic huh I had a 6 month long debate on the shroud with an atheist who had a Christian girlfriend. It was a 6 month long debate that was very intense .he’s a great person and has worked in charity for many years feeding the poor and helping the sick . One day I his signature post change from a typical atheist sky daddy post to a post about Marcus arellius bear this is lunacy you realize that your going against all historical scholarship . That’s like me saying I’m not sure Alexander the Great , Julius Caesar , genghis khan and all historic figures existed . In other words ancient history itself doesn’t exist . Bear we do have evidence , when I have shown you how biased you are in the standards of evidence against atheists as opposed to against theists you start switching the subject . Now you switched it again to saying we don’t have evidence linking it to Jesus when we haven’t even talked about that yet . Why not be honest and say you don’t want thete to be any evidence for God . Now you accuse me of being close minded because you are holding onto a loony conspiracy theory that no serious scholar holds to . Even Richard Dawkins admitted that he was absolutely wrong in his book when john Lennox accuses him of being a Jesus mythicist . That’s like saying unicorns exist despite scholarly historians not having any evidence for unicorns . I’m actually being serious bear, this is how I look at Jesus mythicist . Even the anti Christian textual critic Bart erhman thinks it’s completely ignorant to believe that Jesus didn’t exist . He laughs at them despite being an anti Christian who doesn’t believe in god . He even talks about how he doesn’t even know a historical Scholar that takes this ignorant position . To even believe this you would have to ignore all of historical scholarship . Here Bart educates and refutes am atheists for being this ignorant
Trevor for you to make that claim definitively means you have studied all the historical evidence for the shroud . I sincerely doubt you have because if you did you know that you can’t make a definitive statement one way or another . There is indirect evidence for the shroud existing way before the already refuted 1988 carbon 14 tests . If your sincere in trying to find the answer try doing a simple google search for Stephen Jones shroud of Turin tetradiplon This is Just one of many evidences that only someone doing a deeper search for the shroud would know . I have studied the shroud for over 10 years now and it’s only been recently that mybresearch has slacked off because of my situation of losing my home and living in my car for the last 3 years has caused me to focus more on lifting myself out of this situation I’m in . If your sincere in researching the shroud I would start with this
Trevor your comparing the shroud to some supposed steps jesus walked on ??? There is much more evidence for the shroud then there is for some steps Jesus walked on . As I said I can’t comment on those steps but I can comment on the shroud because my knowledge of it is pretty vast . As I said before I have never taken a definitive stance on the shroud . My view on it depends on which day of the week you catch me on . Some days I’m 80-90% sure of it and on other days I’m 50-60% on it . This is the best way of going into shroud research , on a percentage basis . Like I said in order for you to have an intellectually honest view don’t you think you should at least throughly study it first ???? If you wanna see an atheist take an honest position on a subject check out the professor john McWhorter Michael behe interview on blogging heads tv . McWhorter is a PhD linguist from Columbia university and formerly of Berkeley who even admutedbto behe it was his book edge of evolution that almost made him leave atheism But he is still an atheist despite it .
Wow just wow lol Do you know of any image of a crucified victim that has a crown of thorns on it ? I don’t know if any . Like I said I’m beginning to think I’m gonna be wasting my time with the pseudo sceptics here as none of you have any knowledge of the evidences for and against the shroud anyways . Hopefully you won’t be making fun of any flat earthers dude because you know less about the shroud then they do about the earth . It’s like having a conversation about physics with someone who doesn’t even know about the double slit experiment . I feel sorry for my fellow theists here . Good luck guys , my head is starting to pulsate with frustration trying to converse with these folks . No wonder why I left atheism 8 years ago . Gone are the days of the open minded atheists who actually research what they don’t believe in . People like AJ ayer, john beloff , Roger penrose , Bertrand russel . I need an aspirin lok
Jet I don’t think anyone is making a god of the gaps argument . We are trying to make an argument from the best explanation or inductive argument . I never made a conclusive argument one way or another , but your argument is even more foolish as your making an argument from ignorance as you haven’t even studied the shroud .
Now see whose making assertions with no evidence to back it up . You just made anclaim to knoqledge Jet . So please by all Means show us how you know it’s an obvious hoax as even the more knowledgeable shroud sceptics aren’t making such a bold claim . Show me what I’ve missed in studying the shroud for over 10 years please . I’m very open to being taught jet . What’s amazing is that your accusing people of something they aren’t doing but your doing it yourself .
You think the only possible explanation for a few blood drops on the top of an old piece of cloth is that someone was resurected from the dead??? That that person must of been Jesus from the bible? I can give 10000 more likely explanations. The only reason you believe that it must be a crown of thorns is because you already believe the original story. Nobody who didn't know the crown of thorns story would come to the conclusion that there was a crown of thorns based on the shroud of torin. People who are tortured to death, like millions of people throughout history have been, bleed from their head. What the shroud of torin proves, if its not just a medieval fake, is that someone was crucified within a 600 year time frame. That's all it proves. It could literally have been any of hundreds of thousands of people but you think it had to have been Jesus? That makes no sense at all.
My claim is there is no evidence to support your claim that the shroud cover Jesus. The propensity of hoaxers to generate fake Jesus artifacts during the middle ages alone suggests the shroud is a fraud. Stop deflecting, attacking me and present your evidence connecting the shroud to Jesus.
What are your credentials as an investigator or scientist? What scientific tests have you personally conducted? What peer reviewed scientific journals have published your research from 10 years of study.
Wow , your really getting emotional now . Do you actually think when I said I researched the shroud that I meant I am a scientist . Since you have a hard time with this let me spell it out in a simple to understand fashion . I have studied the evidences for and against the shroud since 2009 , and you haven’t studied them at all yet your the one making the definitive assertions while I am not . I find this incredibly ironic and since this subject is obviously very emotional to you we can change the subject. Sounds fair ?
Again this is your argument and logic in a nutshell . Many people in Middle Ages created religious hoaxes to fool people therefore the shroud is a hoax . Do you know how silly that argument is , especially in light of all we do know about the shroud and some of the evidences that point to an older date ??? These are blanket assertions which basically tell us we should ignore studying any religious relic based on the fact that people made religious hoaxes in the past . What we should do is be cautious but still look into the evidences and ask ourselves if there is anything that separates the shroud from all those hoaxes . The fact that 21sy century science can’t replicate it still should make us think that this relic is different from every other relic out there . Your argument is ignorant and basically just flat out dismisses any relic without studying it . Your logic wreaks of one thing :EMOTION We can come back to the shroud after you’ve done some serious research but this is just a waste of time both my time and your time
I’ve been producing evidence and you’ve been ignoring it . Like I said we can come back to this subject when you’ve been throughly verses in it. Right now your making assertions from ignorance . I’m not gonna intellectually hold your hand and put that pacifier in your mouth I don’t have the time or patience to waste at this point in my life
The Shroud that covered Jesus would certainly be an inanimate object for veneration, while at the same time an icon as well since it is a depiction of Jesus - albeit a negative.
