The Shroud of Turin...what do you think about it?

Well, that's one opinion. Why don't you explain the dating of the shroud for us.

 

You will note that NONE of my argument claims anything about the dating of that piece of cloth. So, you don't need to know about how dating works.

MY point is that at the VERY best, the shroud shows no more than that Jesus died.

In fact, it is evidence that Jesus did not come back to life after three days. You have to invent magic to force your preconceived notions about that.

And, there is significant agreement that Jesus died.

 

Isn't this quote taken from your post #50? "Yes, you can simply ignore ALL aspects of what we know today concerning dating objects,..."

 

The world has great confidence in dating methods that we have developed. There are LARGE numbers of such methods, and NO dating project would consider using only one such method. There would be a serious investigation of which of the methods would be most appropriate (due to estimated age, content of the material, etc., etc.). Then, SEVERAL dating methods would be applied. The dating would be considered successful if the several methods confirm each other. Dating and dating techniques is a HIGHLY serious area of constant study.

But, I don't see that as the important part.

The important part is that dating CAN NOT add meaning to the shroud. (Of course, dating could totally invalidate the shroud, but that's a separate issue.)

>> The full meaning of the shroud is that Jesus died.

Dating can not add to that. And, there is significant agreement concerning Jesus having died.

 

It was just a few years ago that an ossuary was found with the name of Jesus carved into it. I remember the same crowd was saying that it proved Jesus' existence, but if so, that means Jesus was a mortal man and whatever bones that were inside it were those of a dead person.

I can understand why that story fizzled out.

 

True.

And, I wonder how many people had that name at the time.

 

We can't even be certain it's the shroud of Jesus at all, could very well be someone else who was crucified in that time period.

 

Surely Christianity is neither weakened nor strengthened by any finding concerning the shroud.

I know there are some who believe that a location or storage place of a relic takes on significance as being a sanctified location.

But, god has to be accepted on faith.

 

Fancy way for you to discredit the science around the dating of this shroud. Seriously, that was good.

Then saying the shroud has nothing to do with it, is foolish.

 

The newest dating method suggests that a flash of light 1/900,000,000,000 of a s created an image on the cloth. Not too long that it would incinerate it, and not to quick that it wouldn't.

Explain that.

 

Dating is the application of technology to determine the age of a substance.

That has nothing to do with the supernatural.

 

Dating doesn't have anything to do with supernatural flashes of light.

It has to do with determining the age of a substance.

Please cite evidence of this flash of light.

 

I usually give people the benefit of the doubt when they say dumb things, but you're repeat offending now so you're either slow on the uptake or trolling. If the latter it's a 3/10, no style or substance and not even witty.

Tell me what branch of science deals with "supernatural"?

You do know that religion is largely based on historical facts, and faith of a belief in something higher. This historical fact corroborates some of the faith that the religious have in the resurrection. I didn't know you needed that spelled out for you.

 

Yes, the Bible points out that God must be accepted on faith.

Yes, science does not deal with the supernatural.

I'm sure you are aware I've stated that every so often on this board, including this thread.

Still, the shroud confirms a death of someone, not a resurrection.

And, the claim of resurrection after 3 days does not leave time for the body to leave such an imprint on a piece of cloth.

Now, I realize that some just claim there was a miracle to cover for that problem. But, that doesn't make the shroud evidence of a resurrection. It is still just evidence of a death.

 

The dating method suggested that a very short burst of light could have imprinted the image. Of course there's not double blinded CRT study that proves it. DUH!

"Wide-Angle X-ray Scattering" (WAXS).
https://aleteia.org/2022/04/22/new-technology-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old/

Jesus said this. In the Old testament, and also in the New, there were plenty of times that evidence was provided.

How hard is it for you to connect the dots that something like the shroud, with the facts we know about it, can enhance someone's faith? Really hard, a little hard, not hard at all? So far it seems like the former.

You know what else wasn't proven, that anyone walked on water, or that anyone was raised from the dead. Do you always try to confound what people believe on faith (like what some called science in this pandemic) with what they're supposed to accept as fact?

Really?

In a religious thread?

Can stuff like this be made up?

Ok you are dumb.

 

As I pointed out, there are LOTS of dating methods. The conclusion that carbon 14 is not appropriate for this sample means NOTHING. There are numerous methods that use radioactive decay where the method is chosen based on age range, the sample substance, characteristics of the location, etc.

Your guy called out one method as if that substantiates HIS credibility and somehow discredits science.

Far from that, it shows he's trying to pull one over on you.

As for the shroud, your guy is working to show that the shroud came from the right general time frame and area.

However, lots of people died in that general time frame and area, right?

And, I would say that all of them were dead long enough to leave a mark on a shroud. - EXCEPT for Jesus!

But, that doesn't detract from Christianity.

Your faith is safe!

 

I say artistic fake:

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-religion-shroud-idUSKBN1K81NF

https://escholarship.org/content/qt6x77r7m1/qt6x77r7m1.pdf?t=nus03r

The bibliography in the following entry relates the studies associated with the shroud:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shroud_of_Turin#cite_note-AhneJ-109

 

You're really so thick to not understand that this discussion never was about dating, but about faith and why a finding like the shroud confirms their belief in the pillar of their faith?

Geez Louise dude, I hope you get a lot of exercise walking in circles.

 

The "pillar of faith" of Christianity is the existence of God and the resurrection of Jesus.

The shroud has highly questionable providence and doesn't address either of those pillars.

 

Thank you immensely for this insightful comment and for more information on this fascinating topic and ancient artifact.

https://aleteia.org/2022/04/22/new-technology-suggests-shroud-of-turin-is-2000-years-old/

 

First it was that the shroud could not add anything to Christianity. Now it's proof that Jesus died.

Not only does the resurrection have another association to this shroud, but there are multiple eye witness accounts to it. The shroud adds to the faith, and still 10 pages later you can't make that connection. Strange.

 

I said that AT MOST it is evidence that Jesus died. And, I pointed out that doesn't add to Christianity.

I haven't seen you make any connection between the resurrection and the shroud other than to declare that there was a miracle that caused the imprint. Declaration of a miracle is not "evidence". It's what is done when there is no possibility of evidence.

 

That is evidence. You just don't accept it.