[Misc] Christians seem to be really good people

[Commander]

This whole Shroud topic has led me to watching something about it on YouTube, and this video came up, and there was a point made 15 minutes in which is relevant to this post of yours. As you point out, the results depend on the temperature at which the cloth being tested has been kept at. Basically it appears that one thing is for certain, the shroud has to be considerably more than 700 years old according to the WAXS test. For it to be only 700 years old, it would have to have been kept in conditions of the highest temperatures on earth day and night 24/7 for all those 700 years.


There are quite a few other interesting things mentioned by Fr. Spitzer:

• The heights of the scourgers: apparently from the lacerations on the body, it is possible to ascertain that he was flogged by two men of different heights, one flogging him from one side and one from the other. That is quite a specific detail for a forger to have put into his work.
• The Sudarium of Oviedo has 120 points of congruence with the face of the image on the Shroud. Normally facial recognition software requires just 40 points of congruence for a positive ID. The known provenance of the Sudarium dates back to at least 616AD. It's been kept in Oviedo since 700AD, so if it is indeed the same person, the shroud must also date back that far.
• The image on the shroud is a snapshot of the moment of the resurrection
• The image on the cloth is a photographic negative image.
• It shows Jesus as he actually looked in 3D.
• It has x-ray properties.
• It's the most extraordinary image in the world.
• It's the most scientifically studied object in the world.
• Jesus's crucifixion was unusual in that there was the crown of thorns and spear in his side, and these are depicted in the image on the shroud.
• It's a photographic negative done before anyone knew about photographic negatives
• The 1988 radiocarbon dating test has been debunked by four different tests
• The 1988 test was supposed to be done on 7 different sample patches, but it was done on just one patch taken from one spot
• There was cotton in the sample patch and dye
• Mass spectrometry, sample not from the original cloth
• There is no image on the shroud under the blood. The image exists only on the areas where there is no blood.
• The ultraviolet light hypothesis would require 6 billion to 8 billion Watts of power for 2.5e-11 seconds (ie. a tiny amount of time) to account for the image on the shroud.
• There are 372 blood stains on the shroud.
• It is blood-type AB positive (universal recipient)
• He was whipped with a Roman flagrum
• The heights of the scourgers: apparently from the lacerations on the body, it is possible to ascertain that he was flogged by two men of different heights, one flogging him from one side and one from the other.
• There's evidence of blood and water, from the spear wound as described in the gospels
• Evidence of the man on the shroud having carried his own cross because shoulder dislocated
• Knee wounds visible from falling on knees, as described in the gospel

I don’t really understand the point of this. I don’t think anyone is questioning whether Jesus Christ existed, are they? It’s fairly certain he did, the argument is about whether he was something more than a human. Maybe the shroud is real, maybe it’s fake. What does it prove if it is real?

 

[kuzushi]

So after thousands of words of waffle, you still didn’t manage to answer my question.

It's funny how people get upset if I miss their question. I've asked plenty of questions here and got no answer to many of them.

I’ll try it another way. If you were born and raised in say Saudi Arabia, and brought up as a Muslim, you would be following the ‘wrong’ religion. You would believe that you were following the ‘right’ religion just as much as you do now. Presumably you accept that?

Such a person would be no more wrong than someone like you, who has been brought up in the secular west not to believe in God. At least Muslims know that God exists, even if the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified (Surah 4).

In which case, how would you know that you were ‘wrong’ and the Christians were ‘right’?

It's the same process as everyone goes through who ends up believing in Jesus. You start from one point, not believing, and then as you find out more and start to understand, you reach a point where you decide that it's actually true, and you repent and get baptised. It is the job of Christians to spread the message, but also there are many cases of Muslims seeing Jesus in dreams and renouncing Islam to follow him. https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=Dreams+and+Visions:+Is+Jesus+Awakening+the+Muslim+World?&crid=2LFBLNZ3ZT5TO&sprefix=dreams+and+visions+is+jesus+awakening+the+muslim+world+,aps,282&ref=nb_sb_noss

And how do you know the reverse isn’t true now?

Do you mean how do I know that Christianity is true and Islam is false? One reason is the one I've just mentioned in this post, the fact that the Quran denies that Jesus was crucified, that's how I know Islam is false.

Do you also accept that the Earth isn’t really 5,000 years old?

Many scientists put the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years old. This is based on geology and cosmology. I have no problem with this. I think scientists are sincere people who simply want to understand the truth about the world around us. There is the idea that the earth has to be much younger because of stuff in the Bible, but I'm not sure that the creation stories are supposed to be taken literally. St Augustine of Hippo said as much over a thousand years before Darwin. God doesn't require us to believe in Adam and Eve or the global flood to be saved. The only thing he requires us to believe in is the resurrection of Jesus, and that happens to be the part of the Bible that is easiest to find supporting evidence for. Bart Ehrman agrees that Jesus's disciples believed he had risen from the dead, but can't bring himself to believe in the resurrection, so he chooses to believe in a group hallucination. But St Paul couldn't have been part of a group hallucination.

 

[kuzushi]

I don’t really understand the point of this. I don’t think anyone is questioning whether Jesus Christ existed, are they? It’s fairly certain he did, the argument is about whether he was something more than a human. Maybe the shroud is real, maybe it’s fake. What does it prove if it is real?

Perhaps not you, but there have been quite a few people on here saying that it's all made up and we haven't a clue whether or not he even existed, which clashes with the serious scholarly view that Jesus lived, was crucified, and had disciples who believed that he had risen from the dead.

Christ myth theory See also: Francesco Carotta​

The Christ myth theory, which developed within the scholarly research on the historical Jesus, is, in Geoffrey W. Bromiley's words, the view that "the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology" possessing no "substantial claims to historical fact".[21] Alternatively, Bart Ehrman (who himself rejects the Christ myth theory) summarises Earl Doherty's view as being "that no historical Jesus worthy of the name existed, that Christianity began with a belief in a spiritual, mythical figure, that the Gospels are essentially allegory and fiction, and that no single identifiable person lay at the root of the Galilean preaching tradition".[22]

Virtually all scholars of antiquity dismiss theories of Jesus's non-existence or regard them as refuted.[6][19][23][24][25][26] In modern scholarship, the Christ myth theory is a fringe theory and finds virtually no support from scholars

Historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[kuzushi]

I don’t really understand the point of this. I don’t think anyone is questioning whether Jesus Christ existed, are they? It’s fairly certain he did, the argument is about whether he was something more than a human. Maybe the shroud is real, maybe it’s fake. What does it prove if it is real?

One obvious thing is that the shroud being real means we know what Jesus looked like, which is interesting in and of itself. It being real would mean it's the world's first ever photograph.

It would also imply a few things. For a start, there would be the question of how the image got onto the cloth. The ultraviolet light hypothesis would require 6 billion to 8 billion Watts of power for 2.5e-11 seconds (ie. a tiny amount of time) to account for the image on the shroud. How can one account for such a colossal burst of intense energy for such an infinitesimally small period of time? Is this something that only God could do? Could it be the energy involved in raising Jesus from the dead?

If it is real, it means that the cloth that was used to wrap Jesus's body is no longer being used to wrap his body. We know that his body disappeared from the tomb anyway, mind, since his enemies were unable to go to the tomb to show that his body was still there and that he was still dead, which would be the obvious thing for his opponents to do to debunk the resurrection claims of his followers. This is another problem with Ehrman's group hallucination hypothesis. Even if group hallucinations were a thing, it wouldn't account for Jesus's body disappearing. This is another point which makes the resurrection hypothesis stronger than Bart's group hallucination hypothesis, since it not only accounts for why the disciples were going around saying that Jesus had risen from the dead, but it also accounts for how and why the body had disappeared.

 

[BadFish]

One obvious thing is that the shroud being real means we know what Jesus looked like, which is interesting in and of itself. It being real would mean it's the world's first ever photograph.

It would also imply a few things. For a start, there would be the question of how the image got onto the cloth. The ultraviolet light hypothesis would require 6 billion to 8 billion Watts of power for 2.5e-11 seconds (ie. a tiny amount of time) to account for the image on the shroud. How can one account for such a colossal burst of intense energy for such an infinitesimally small period of time? Is this something that only God could do? Could it be the energy involved in raising Jesus from the dead?

If it is real, it means that the cloth that was used to wrap Jesus's body is no longer being used to wrap his body. We know that his body disappeared from the tomb anyway, mind, since his enemies were unable to go to the tomb to show that his body was still there and that he was still dead, which would be the obvious thing for his opponents to do to debunk the resurrection claims of his followers. This is another problem with Ehrman's group hallucination hypothesis. Even if group hallucinations were a thing, it wouldn't account for Jesus's body disappearing. This is another point which makes the resurrection hypothesis stronger than Bart's group hallucination hypothesis, since it not only accounts for why the disciples were going around saying that Jesus had risen from the dead, but it also accounts for how and why the body had disappeared.

The fact that it has been recreated suggests that even if the dating is confirmed (the study you have posted seems some way from confirmation of this) it seems the most likely explanation is a hoax.

Unless you need to add to evidence to fit a narrative.

Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

An Italian scientist says he has reproduced the Shroud of Turin, a feat that he says proves definitively that the linen some Christians revere as Jesus Christ's burial cloth is a medieval fake.

www.reuters.com

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

I am aware of that yes. My understanding though is that the gate thing is a myth.

eye of a needle gate - Google Search

Several articles here provide evidence for this. And this is why I used this an an example, because the interpretation of the point of a Bible story is used to change the meaning of its content.

Although I do concede that even when something is clearly stated like the 10 commandments they are also ignored.

Was the gate thing a myth or not? Part of the point of all this, for me, is that we are talking here about something which was written 2000 years ago, was not necessarily (or probably never) a first hand account, had people discussing it hundreds of years ago to decide whether it should ever appear in the Bible.

and speaking from experience, when you’re preaching about this stuff most people appreciate a thoughtful approach to things that might appear somewhat odd.

That‘s why I don’t like the certainty that comes out from some people from whichever side. For me it’s the ideas and values of it all that matter. The teachings, whether Old Testament or New, point people towards being good, generous, compassionate and caring people. You will find exhortations in the Old Testament to farmers to “leave something at the edge of the fields for the alien”. Jesus said if you feed someone who is hungry, clothe someone who is naked etc you do it for me.

 

[BadFish]

Was the gate thing a myth or not? Part of the point of all this, for me, is that we are talking here about something which was written 2000 years ago, was not necessarily (or probably never) a first hand account, had people discussing it hundreds of years ago to decide whether it should ever appear in the Bible.

and speaking from experience, when you’re preaching about this stuff most people appreciate a thoughtful approach to things that might appear somewhat odd.

That‘s why I don’t like the certainty that comes out from some people from whichever side. For me it’s the ideas and values of it all that matter. The teachings, whether Old Testament or New, point people towards being good, generous, compassionate and caring people. You will find exhortations in the Old Testament to farmers to “leave something at the edge of the fields for the alien”. Jesus said if you feed someone who is hungry, clothe someone who is naked etc you do it for me.

A very balanced and thoughtful viewpoint that is hard to argue with.

as you say the messages in the bible are awesome and when interpred in a sensible and balanced way they make a lot of sense.

As you also say the problem is when things are taken too literally or are twisted to fit someone's narrative. We. May have to disagree about the camel/eye of the needle bit though.

I guess this is how religions split.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Who decides what is supposed to be taken seriously?

i would encourage people to think for themselves and do their own reading about anything they find difficult. There are respected Bible commentaries and so on which will offer comments on what Jesus - for example - was thinking about when he said such and such…….. but you will be aware of such things, I would guess!

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

It's funny how people get upset if I miss their question. I've asked plenty of questions here and got no answer to many of them.


Such a person would be no more wrong than someone like you, who has been brought up in the secular west not to believe in God. At least Muslims know that God exists, even if the Quran says that Jesus was never crucified (Surah 4).



It's the same process as everyone goes through who ends up believing in Jesus. You start from one point, not believing, and then as you find out more and start to understand, you reach a point where you decide that it's actually true, and you repent and get baptised. It is the job of Christians to spread the message, but also there are many cases of Muslims seeing Jesus in dreams and renouncing Islam to follow him. https://www.amazon.co.uk/s?k=Dreams+and+Visions:+Is+Jesus+Awakening+the+Muslim+World?&crid=2LFBLNZ3ZT5TO&sprefix=dreams+and+visions+is+jesus+awakening+the+muslim+world+,aps,282&ref=nb_sb_noss


Do you mean how do I know that Christianity is true and Islam is false? One reason is the one I've just mentioned in this post, the fact that the Quran denies that Jesus was crucified, that's how I know Islam is false.



Many scientists put the age of the earth at 4.5 billion years old. This is based on geology and cosmology. I have no problem with this. I think scientists are sincere people who simply want to understand the truth about the world around us. There is the idea that the earth has to be much younger because of stuff in the Bible, but I'm not sure that the creation stories are supposed to be taken literally. St Augustine of Hippo said as much over a thousand years before Darwin. God doesn't require us to believe in Adam and Eve or the global flood to be saved. The only thing he requires us to believe in is the resurrection of Jesus, and that happens to be the part of the Bible that is easiest to find supporting evidence for. Bart Ehrman agrees that Jesus's disciples believed he had risen from the dead, but can't bring himself to believe in the resurrection, so he chooses to believe in a group hallucination. But St Paul couldn't have been part of a group hallucination.

Ironically, the flood myth is found in nearly every early pre civilisation, which of course are pre Christian . It’s accepted that flood did happen, linked to the earth exiting the glacial ice age around 10,000 BCE. But not down to God having a sad on with man.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

@kuzushi. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?

 

[kuzushi]

@kuzushi. Who are you trying to convince? Us or yourself?

I'm already convinced.
The evidence points to the resurrection.

 

[Deportivo Seagull]

Was the gate thing a myth or not? Part of the point of all this, for me, is that we are talking here about something which was written 2000 years ago, was not necessarily (or probably never) a first hand account, had people discussing it hundreds of years ago to decide whether it should ever appear in the Bible.

and speaking from experience, when you’re preaching about this stuff most people appreciate a thoughtful approach to things that might appear somewhat odd.

That‘s why I don’t like the certainty that comes out from some people from whichever side. For me it’s the ideas and values of it all that matter. The teachings, whether Old Testament or New, point people towards being good, generous, compassionate and caring people. You will find exhortations in the Old Testament to farmers to “leave something at the edge of the fields for the alien”. Jesus said if you feed someone who is hungry, clothe someone who is naked etc you do it for me.

I'm already convinced.
The evidence points to the resurrection.

It doesn’t. To use a legal term it’s circumstantial at best. The point is religion is belief based which lacks the need for proof so why bother trying to convince yourself or anyone else it’s fact when it isn’t.

 

[Gabbafella]

I have a rock in my flat that is over 50,000 years old, 44,000 years older than the bible claims the Earth to be.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Do dogs go to hell? Do dogs that believe in Jesus go to heaven? How about hamsters? Goldfish? Seagulls?

Ooof, can no one answer a simple question? My question was whether or not the disciples went out proclaiming that Jesus had risen from the dead.

Ooof, can you not answer this simple question?

 

[kuzushi]

It doesn’t. To use a legal term it’s circumstantial at best. The point is religion is belief based which lacks the need for proof so why bother trying to convince yourself or anyone else it’s fact when it isn’t.

Yes, it does. That's why Bart Ehrman agree about everything except the explanation. He chooses to believe that it was a group hallucination that made the disciples think that Jesus rose from the dead, whereas I believe it was the resurrection, which is a better explanation in my opinion because it also explains why Jesus's body disappeared while Ehrman's group hallucination explanation does not.

 

[Insel affe]

I'm not saying it can be proven. Can you prove where you were born? No, you can't.

Eeerr yes I can, I have a photo, and a birth certificate

But we can look at the evidence, which is what scholars do, and the likes of Bart Ehrman and other scholars are pretty sure about quite a few things.

Yeah, yeah

 

[Insel affe]

I'm quoting one of the leading New Testament scholars, and you're quoting a comedian.

Pretty much on a level playing field then aren’t we.

 

[kuzushi]

Ooof, can you not answer this simple question?

I don't know, but let's put it this way: I wouldn't rule out the possibility of there being some dogs in heaven. I don't see why not, if someone has a pet that they love, I'm sure God could organise something.

 

[kuzushi]

Eeerr yes I can, I have a photo, and a birth certificate

Sure, but you can't prove that they are not forgeries.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Yes, it does. That's why Bart Ehrman agree about everything except the explanation. He chooses to believe that it was a group hallucination that made the disciples think that Jesus rose from the dead, whereas I believe it was the resurrection, which is a better explanation in my opinion because it also explains why Jesus's body disappeared while Ehrman's group hallucination explanation does not.

Not true. You pick and choose what Ehrman says. He says there is no god.