Don't confuse the skeptics with a bunch of facts. Why don't the skeptics just reproduce the shroud, I mean science has come a bit further than what the Medieval 'forgers' knew, right? As Bippy123 has said, no scientist has successfully come up with a natural explanation for how that image got on the shroud. Amazing how the skeptics constantly asking for evidence shut up and disappear when someone like Bippy123 presents such evidence.
If B is true, where is Jesus' body, or even a tradition of His burial place? We know where the founders of other religions are buried, but not Jesus, why is that? Wouldn't ONE person have betrayed this 'conspiracy'? What your post sidesteps is that there is much more than evidence involved with a decision to reject Jesus, many people did exactly that who personally witnessed His miracles. Satan and a third of the angels rejected God despite being quite aware of His power and attributes.
The little I read of your links cite the faulty Walter McCrone 'paint' conclusion and the radio carbon dating of 1988, which has been refuted by the latest radiocarbon dating.
I believe the Shroud is extraordinary evidence. You agree there are aspects of it that aren't 'ordinary', correct? That would make it extra-ordinary.
Obvious is that you love the out of context misrepresentation for use as a cheap shot? Is there anything about being Christian that suggests that you not be indulging yourself in any sort of dishonesty?
I stand by what I said, you dislike facts, and will add that you prefer insults to debate. You can shut me up by answering where, for instance, that travertine stone from Jerusalem got on that medieval European 'forgery', and then answer the rest of Bippy123 points. - - - Updated - - - Exactly, most of the athiest arguments here boil down to "I've never personally seen a miracle, therefore they must have never happened."
Many scenarios are quite plausible. If Jesus' followers thought he was the son of god and would be the messiah they hoped for, its quite a blow to have him put on display as a corpse in disgrace. How to salvage the thing? By spiriting the body away they could claim that he came back to life. Snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, a really good move. Why didnt he just go back to preaching, challenge Pilate to try it again? If that happened, it would be tough to find a non chrisstian today, dont you think so? None of the people who swore they saw the gold books of J Smith ever recanted and gave up the secret that there were no books. Too, the legend of Jesus didnt really get much traction till a good many years later, long after witnesses were gone. The existence of illiterate witnesses in a day when few travelled more than 20 miles from their homes would be very different from todays world, anyway. People might say they were there, or heard differently, but who would be interested, where would their words be now? I know people are committed to belief that all is as it is presented. They could even be right. That there are other explanations that are more plausible does not mean that the story is nsot correct; many implausible things happen. I think tho that if committed Christians never even consider that there are plausible reasons to not accept the Jesus story, they are being unfair to the intellectual integrity of people who dont see things as they do.
So where is your evidence for this conspiracy theory, and why would the disciples die for this 'lie'? You just can't throw out conspriracy theories with no evidence, while ignoring recent scientific evidence that supports the Shroud. As you demonstrate, continually preaching to someone determined to reject God does little good. Jesus simple sadly walked away from such people. Perhaps you should locate a supporter of that legend before you bring up that red herring. There are major differences between the miracles of Jesus and what you cited. Actually, the miracles were never questioned until after the witnesses were gone, after about 100AD. You think the physician Luke or the Apostle Paul were illiterate? Do we prevent people who are illiterate from testifying in court? Sometimes the obvious answer is the right one. We're still waiting for a plausible alternative theory to the facts Bippy123 presented that support the idea that the Shroud is the burial cloth of Christ, with an image on it that matches a supernatural source for its imprint. You are good at asking questions, not so good at answering them. What is your opinion of the Shroud and its origin?
I think that you illustrate well here some characteristics that cut deeply into the credibility of anything you say. You simply made up a string of falsehoods about me and then stated them as fact. I've stated many times that I have great respect for the intellectual integrity of many of the Christians that I know. I will say it again, here. Your bit about "label all" is no better than lying calumny, and a disgrace to the faith you claim to champion. My father in law is a geologist, and a Catholic. No blind faith non science there. Why do you feel comfortable making things up? As for "dogmatic assertions", that makes no sense even. There is no dogma to atheism. Look up what a dogma is! I simply do not believe there is any god. I could be wrong; who knows. You dont, I dont. Think if you have only "dogmatic assertions" for your presumed non belief in an alien base on the moon, and that may help see how an atheist really views things. Again, lying about me; not nice, not Christian. Why do you do it? That is precisely the behaviour of all fundies when presented with things like geological time or the theory of evolution. Do you wish to say whether you reject geological time and the ToE or avoid responding? It would be a very simple thing to say yes or no, but oh so revealing. "pot meet kettle" btw is about equals. As in you considering yourself as much a liar as you consider me. As all your complaints about me are based on falsehoods, maybe you dont really have anything to say?
My problem is the lack of proof of any claims that this is the shroud of Jesus. Even your claim that the shroud and mandylion are obviously one and the same (previous post) cannot be proved. I understood the mandylion to be a 'facial' cloth which were not unusual. Much of the history is questionable. John 19:5-6. Was Jesus completely covered in a shroud, or did he have a seperate head burial cloth? Again you claim that no-one was crucified like Jesus. I assume you're referring to 'the crown of thorns'. Can you prove that? It is just an assumption because we have no record of anyone else being so crucified. The Romans crucified many thousands and subjected them to ignominy of various types. Jewish families would be anxious to claim the bodies and give them a burial. This could be the shroud of anyone. We don't even know what Jesus looked like to be able to say that it was him. The tomb that Jesus was laid in would have only been a temporary one, over the 2 days festival. Joseph would not have put Jesus body permanently in a tomb meant for his family. Had the body been removed earlier to another permanent tomb before the women got their? We have different versions of the story. Only John (the other disciple/gospel writer) was there and reports what he saw through the opening. Peter arrives and goes in, followed by John. They see the 'strips of linen' lying there. Matthew, Mark and Luke record 'linen cloth', but their information comes from other sources. John was there. Blood. This is a difficult one. There are varying rituals for bathing, or not, the body of a Jew depending on how he died. What is the truth? One makes up ones own mind, and mine is not convinced. My study has not been as deep as yours as I do not consider it an important point. It will never be proved to everyones satisfaction. UNLESS of course someone finds a note dated 1CE 'Receipt for 20 shekels in respect of the sale of shroud to Rabbi Joseph by Isaac Levi Strauss, 15 Oy Vey Street, Jerusalem.'
The image of Eddesa, in my opinion does not have a chain of custody acceptable to be considered "Proof" of age or divine production. If one is predisposed to accept the Shroud of Turin as a religious relic they will likely find the various theoretical explanations as proof if only because they wish it to be so. There are many possibilities of explanation, but none compel scientifically to be accepted as truth.
Exactly Paul, and this was the main reason I posted here about the shroud. Instead of admitting that they didn't know enough about it and that they would go back and research my posts to see if what I said was true or not, they either dodged, ignored or ridiculed the shroud . They did everything but address the evidences that were brought up. It was a perfect trap to expose them for the hypocrits that they are and they fell right in hook, line and sinker . Paul, they won't address the rare travertine aragonite limestone because that would force them to admit that no forger on earth could either make this image or would need to in order to fool the people of the Middle Ages. They would rather say that little green men from mars did it then admit to where all of these evidences would lead them to. This is exactly how dogmatic cult leaders act.
The travertine aragonite limestone alone debunks the medieval European forgery theory. Note that samples were taken from 13 parts of Israel and this particular stone was only found in the Jerusalem area. Perhaps we should take their failure to answer your substantive points raised as surrender?
Paul correct Actually the wiser atheists would have ignored these posts by now, but obviously Taikoo is to vain and proud to go that route. He would rather sink deeper and deeper into that hole of hypocrisy and denial. That is perfect because now that the seed of doubt has been planted in Taikoo , he won't be able to get rid of it until he forces himself to honestly research the shroud thoroughly and he will be forced to come face to face with his greatest fears And if he doesn't I'm sure there are other open minded atheist and agnostic lurkers here that will see these posts by you paul and mine also that will start to have doubts about their atheism and agnosticism. There was one very cool and very honest atheist that I once discussed the shroud with. By the end of that discussion he was no longer an atheist but an agnostic with future possibilities. This is why atheists like Taikoo fear the shroud so much. Mark Antonacci a Missouri lawyer was the same way as Taikoo is now when he set out on a mission to prove to his Christian Girlfriend that Christianity was a fairy tale and he started with the shroud . What he thought would take a week or 2 to debunk took him 25 years of research, and at the end of that research not only couldn't he debunk the shroud as a forgery but he ended up converting to Christianity himself, and wrote a book titled the resurrection of the shroud. He is also spearheading a new request to the Vatican in order to test the shroud for neutrinos, and if as he suspects they are still on the shroud, this would prove a radiation event took place on it, but since part of the tests would involved destroying some of the blood on the shroud , the Vatican might only approve half of those tests.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your grim determination to believe foregone conclusions doesn't constitute any kind of evidence. Sorry. The majority of those who have examined it do not agree with you. You have latched onto one ambiguous study with fanatical determination, after interpreting it to say what you believe anyway. You are confusing science with religious faith. Believe what makes you comfortable. Rest assured that no conceivable evidence can shake your faith.
As previously noted about starting with lies and then building on them. - - - Updated - - - We've seen that often enough with the flood and the 6 day poof.
I thought this was a thread about the Shroud. Are you really going to turn it into an opportunity to take cheap shots at atheists based on your (poor) interpretation of the behavior of one or two? And how does this really say anything about atheism? Calling atheism a worldview seems to indicate that you don't really understand what it is. The kind of junk in your post above detracts from an entertaining, if not particularly well reasoned, thread about the Shroud.
Rather than attack taikoo (female by the way), one would hope you might use your five years of research to provide a compelling case that the shroud is indeed an impression of the dead Christ. Should you manage to do so it would be amazing and historic, as the many scholars, scientists, and professionals from multiple fields of study have not done so as of yet and are in fact undecided due to the confused and often counter evidences. As an Atheist (go ahead and insult me further), I would be quite thrilled and exited to see authentication of this holy relic...though even then I would need some further data that confirms this dead man came back to life and ascended to heaven.
I guess it was poor form of me to point out that it was the actual behaviour of all fundamentalists that he described. Its OT,
