Shroud of Turin

[bippy123]

Bippy, and everyone else here, I have a question for you. If some piece of evidence came forward that proved to you(let's assume this is a possibility for the sake of my question) that the shroud was not the shroud of Jesus Christ, what would that do to your faith?

my faith is based first on my understanding that Christ loved me enough to come down and willingly die for my sins. A love that is divine, but it certainly helped many people start on the road to belief. People like Mark Antonacci and August Accetta among others. They were unbelievers.

Rick, what do you say to people like them who came to faith first by their study of the shroud?
If Christ did leave it behind for an age of doubting Thomases then it does serves a purpose doesn't it?

The apostle Thomas himself was one of those people who had to put his finger through the wound to believe it was him.
Christ afterwords lovingly admonished him but he still let him out his fingers through the wound didn't he?

[bippy123]

So whether the Shroud is authentic or not, changes nothing for me. But it does appear to have the hallmarks of what I would expect the real deal to have. But then again, NO evidence is 100%, nor can it ever be. Because my faith is in God/Jesus, not in evidences. But the evidences also bolster my faith, and helped me to discover that what I first believed as a child was in fact true. Collectively, in times of doubt, I can think about these things and my doubt quickly dissipates. But, as a child, I took a leap of faith that God has validated in many ways, with experiences and evidences - yet without His Holy Spirit, many I likely would not have recognized as being true.

Correct Philip, there will never be evidence that is 100% on this earth. How could God allow that. Without some faith our free will is taken from us . Faith like love is a choice, but as you said God has left us miracles before in time of doubt to help us through those rocky roads. To doubt that would be to doubt miracles that have happened throughout the centuries.
If this is the burial shroud of Christ imprinted during his resurrection, you can chalk it up as yet another miracle that our most mercifull, loving lord left for us during those rough times. Isn't that why this whole message board was started in the first place by Richard Deem?

[RickD]

Philip, Bippy, those are exactly the kind of answers I'd expect to hear from one who looks at the shroud in its proper context. I believe your answers can help skeptics see that one can look at the shroud as a reassurance of one's faith, and not a basis for that faith. Even in the case of those who may have come to a saving faith in Christ through studying the shroud. God uses different ways to reach different people. Some people are more scientific, and need to see physical proof, which God uses to draw them to Him. God knows each of us intimately, and knows what we need to be able to come to faith in Him.

As has been said before, some may worship the shroud, but that doesn't mean all who see it as genuine, see it as an idol. Just like some may worship the stars. But that doesn't mean that all who see the stars as evidence of God's existence, worship them.

I just got through watching the Bethlehem star videos that were posted near the beginning of this thread. That was simply amazing. To see that God, who created the universe, and set the stars and planets in their specific motions, made all those signs come at the same time as Christ's birth and crucifixion, is nothing short of amazing.

[bippy123]

Philip, Bippy, those are exactly the kind of answers I'd expect to hear from one who looks at the shroud in its proper context. I believe your answers can help skeptics see that one can look at the shroud as a reassurance of one's faith, and not a basis for that faith. Even in the case of those who may have come to a saving faith in Christ through studying the shroud. God uses different ways to reach different people. Some people are more scientific, and need to see physical proof, which God uses to draw them to Him. God knows each of us intimately, and knows what we need to be able to come to faith in Him.

As has been said before, some may worship the shroud, but that doesn't mean all who see it as genuine, see it as an idol. Just like some may worship the stars. But that doesn't mean that all who see the stars as evidence of God's existence, worship them.

I just got through watching the Bethlehem star videos that were posted near the beginning of this thread. That was simply amazing. To see that God, who created the universe, and set the stars and planets in their specific motions, made all those signs come at the same time as Christ's birth and crucifixion, is nothing short of amazing.

Yea Rick, I enjoyed that video also . It causes great awe for me also, but nothing could ever touch my heart then to know what God did personally for us all, to come down from his throne in heaven and suffer for each of us the way he did is amazing.

It took me years to get up the courage to watch the passion of Christ movie, ur once I did it brought tears to my eyes.
What an incredible God we have. To spend eternity with him is my dream.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Bippy, and everyone else here, I have a question for you. If some piece of evidence came forward that proved to you(let's assume this is a possibility for the sake of my question) that the shroud was not the shroud of Jesus Christ, what would that do to your faith?

It would do absolutely bubcuss, my faith does not rely on the authenticity of a piece of cloth.

[Danieltwotwenty]

Tetelesti I am not trying to be rude in saying this and I do truly believe what I say. I think you have a lot of fear inside you, your afraid that satan is hiding under rocks waiting to jump out and capture you. Fear I have found from experience is a tool used by satan, because if we are afraid we are not trusting In God, he uses fear as a distraction and it will turn you into a wreak. C.S.Lewis goes into this in the Screwtape Letters, it is an excellent book on how satan influences our thoughts.

[RickD]

Bippy,

I found this podcast from Reasons.org, which Hugh Ross talks about the shroud. Could you give me your opinion of what he said? Apparently they have a book about the shroud at Reasons.org as well. Have you read it?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... d-of-turin

Thanks

[RickD]

How do you know the shroud isn't demonic???

Think about the absurdity of that question/implication. Why would Satan want to do anything at all to authenticate anything associated with Jesus' Resurrection or that would authenticate the accounts of that found in Scripture - ESPECIALLY a garment associated with Christ that would authenticate THE KEY foundation upon which the faith of ALL Christians everywhere is based - that Jesus lived, died hideously, and arose in THE miracle of miracles. Someone finds Jesus' supposed bones, "proof" that the Resurrection was faked, etc - I can see Satan getting behind such lies. But him getting behind something that authenticates the Resurrection? Absurd!

"And the scribes who came down from Jerusalem were saying, “He is possessed by Beelzebul,” and “by the prince of demons he casts out the demons.” And he called them to him and said to them in parables, “How can Satan cast out Satan? If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. And if a house is divided against itself, that house will not be able to stand. And if Satan has risen up against himself and is divided, he cannot stand, but is coming to an end."
(Mark 3:22-26 ESV)

Satan conspires to make the Resurrection appear a fiction, a most extraordinary lie. Atheists and agnostics obsess over trying to shoot down any evidence that might authenticate it. Making the Shroud appear miraculous doesn't exactly fit with that agenda, does it?

Philip, I can certainly see the other side of this. Let's assume for the sake of the argument, that the shroud is a Satanic/demonic deception, or even a man-made deception. If it seems so genuine, and thousands of people believe it's real and base their faith on the shroud, then what would happen if the shroud was proven not to be the shroud of Christ? Not really any different than people who claim to come to Christ because they see signs and wonders at a Benny Hinn crusade. If their faith is based on false signs and wonders, is their faith real? If one's faith is based on a false shroud, is one's faith real? These are real questions that need to be asked. What tetelesti is doing is the beginning of his search for the truth in this. Questioning the validity of the shroud should be encouraged, not frowned upon. If it's real, it will be shown to be real. If not, then tetelesti is flushing out something false. I haven't studied the shroud,so I really don't have a opinion one way or another right now. My initial reaction, however, was one of skepticism. That's just the way I look at anything like this. I'm skeptical at first, until proven otherwise.

[bippy123]

Bippy,

I found this podcast from Reasons.org, which Hugh Ross talks about the shroud. Could you give me your opinion of what he said? Apparently they have a book about the shroud at Reasons.org as well. Have you read it?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... d-of-turin

Thanks

Right off the bat, hugh has conveniently or out of lack of knowledge of the shroud failed to mention the 2005 peer reviewed research of chemist ray rogers of los alamos labs which shows from chemical analysis that the c14 test piece was chemically different then the rest of the shroud, plus on top of that he incorrectly stated that there were dyes found on the shroud that were consistent with 13th century dyes and thats why he leans with it being a 13th century forgery, when in fact Ray Rogers peer reviewed research shows that this dye was only found on on the raes and c14 test piece and no where else on the shroud where ray rogers had in his possession shroud sticky tapes from just about every area of the shroud. This is just an example of why the c14 test was invalidated. Its hard to imagine why Ross would make a comment like this. It leads me to believe that shroud isnt important enough to go into it further, and thats his right.


He then states if all the scientific evidence dates it back to the 13th century then why shouldnt we go with that? the facts dont state that at all as most serious shroud researchers have shown. In fact most of teheresearch shows it to be much older and this isnt even including Ray Rogers vanillin test. He doesnt even talk about the 3 way herringbone weave, the connection found through Jacksons light raking test to the mandylion , the connection with the sudarium as well as the hungarian pray codex which is dated to the late 1100's as well as the vignon markings. This is very unlike Hugh Ross to make comments like this despite all the evidence going against what hes saying. He is one of my favorite guys but I have to disagree with him totally when it comes to this podcast on the shroud.

The fact that hes also bringing up the 2009 replication shows me he hasnt read the evidence against it, that it doesnt even come close to replicating the unique characteristics of the shroud.it would be unfair to say that he wasnt aware of Ray Rogers paper since it was published in 2005. Its obvious that he doesnt really care much about whether the shroud is fake or not. He then says that all the people who have been on the side of authentication should really concede that it really s a 13th century forgery. I watched about 3/4ths of this podcast before turning it off, as it sounds like something I would find on the randi.org forum.

He is claiming to have duplicated all the amazing details of the shroud, which is not even close to being true, but then again we dont know if he actually studied the scientific critisism against that duplication, that it didnt even come close which is why most skeptics who have studied the shroud dont even use that argument anymore. If the guy really duplicated the shroud it would still be in the media and most scientific research into the shroud would have halted in 2009. He also claimed that the catholic church has distanced itself from the shroud, which is not entirely true

It could be that he is part of the crowd that may have something against the shroud, because its unlike Hugh to make comments like this without studying both sides of the argument in full detail. Its not a big deal to me as I love all his other research and I agree with most of what he says about other things, just not on the shroud.

Hope this helps Rick, the church has always taken a neutral stance on the shroud because it wasnt needed for Faith, and not because the church believed it was a fraud, in fact the last 2 popes believed in its authenticity and have stated it .

[bippy123]

Bippy,

I found this podcast from Reasons.org, which Hugh Ross talks about the shroud. Could you give me your opinion of what he said? Apparently they have a book about the shroud at Reasons.org as well. Have you read it?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... d-of-turin

Thanks

Rick, I have seen no book on reasons.org about the shroud, could you give me a link to it please?

[Philip]

Rick wrote: Not really any different than people who claim to come to Christ because they see signs and wonders at a Benny Hinn crusade. If their faith is based on false signs and wonders

Now, Rick, I've seen you, myself and countless others on here utilizing scientific evidences and other evidences to encourage belief. Obviously, as with most evidence, there is only a certain percentage of knowability about the accuracy of the data and conclusions. People, myself included, like to use the Big Bang as an indication of a Creator and a Beginning. I love talking about DNA, spatial data, the Cambrian Explosion, etc. But as one of the most skeptical people on the planet, I do pay attention to probabilities - and the more probable, the more data that suggest so, the more impossible the evidence is to fake/falsify, then, over time, the more I am to see it as likely being true - ESPECIALLY if it lines up with so many other evidences. Yet some things are never going to be knowable - and obviously meaning they are also not provable. And the Shroud, if the analysis is accurate, the extraordinary attributes of it are true, that no ability to accurately replicate such an artifact now, much less explain it, these things are incredibly impressive.

Also, if Satan has created this artifact, then it is of supernatural making, even if demonically so. And if Satan made such an extraordinary fake, then I would say he could see the future (which he clearly cannot), as he would have to have possessed the ability to look into the future to know of the development of photography, spatial analysis, DNA analysis, electron microscopes, spectrographic photography, fiber analysis, the science of pollen analysis - all of the current techniques of scientific analysis and it's relatively new (200-300 years) culture of peer-reviewed sharing of detailed information. This artifact well precedes the printing press and the mass sharing of detailed information. Could Satan have foreseen the future need to make a hoax able to not be discerned or detected by all of today's scientific sophistication? I'd say Scripture says only God knows the future.

Rick, before you go further, you need to watch some of Bippy's videos and sharpen what you know a bit. I don't blame you for being skeptical. A year ago I very much doubted the Shroud. But I sure don't see this "Satan hoaxed the data" on most other things scientifically analyzed or talked about on this forum.

As for Ross, I was familiar with his take on the Shroud and was very surprised - as it was clear he either didn't know of much of the stronger evidence and peer-reviewed studies, and seemed to only reference the same info so many atheist sites do concerning it. He truly didn't take it very seriously, almost as he would listening to a YEC talking about creation "days." But even Ross makes mistakes - this is one. If he had addressed the more technical, most up-to-date analysis, I'd not be so hard on him - but he did not. If it's not in the heavens, geologic record, or in Genesis or Creation-related Biblical passages, or about evolution, perhaps he's not completely up on it. I've been in touch with an academic that personally knows Ross, and he stated that Ross and his team spend much time weekly going through the latest peer-reviewed studies and research. But let's face it, the Shroud is not the hot topic that the typical RTB issues are.

[RickD]

Bippy,

I found this podcast from Reasons.org, which Hugh Ross talks about the shroud. Could you give me your opinion of what he said? Apparently they have a book about the shroud at Reasons.org as well. Have you read it?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... d-of-turin

Thanks

Rick, I have seen no book on reasons.org about the shroud, could you give me a link to it please?

Unfortunately Bippy, I don't have a link. I only heard about the book because they mentioned it in the podcast. It was probably mentioned in the last 1/4 that you didn't listen to.

[RickD]

Bippy, Philip,
I hate to admit it, but I might have to look into this now.
I have read a little about the shroud, and I watched a YouTube video about how the 1988 carbon dating was done on a piece of the cloth that was woven into the shroud, and it wasn't part of the original. That video alone has peeked my interest enough that I want to do a little more studying.

And not to mention that I was disappointed with Hugh Ross' answers on the podcast. If I want to be honest, I must say that it seemed like he really had no idea what he was talking about in this case. I can usually spot it when someone doesn't know his subject, but is trying to make it sound like he does. Ross usually seems so knowledgable about the stuff he speaks about. I wish he had just said that he really hadn't looked into it, and declined to answer. He doesn't have to be an expert on everything.

If you guys have any suggestions on where to start, please point me to the right links or videos. I
really don't want to waste my time with links that don't have good info.

Thanks

What have I gotten myself into?

[bippy123]

Bippy,

I found this podcast from Reasons.org, which Hugh Ross talks about the shroud. Could you give me your opinion of what he said? Apparently they have a book about the shroud at Reasons.org as well. Have you read it?

http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... d-of-turin

Thanks

Rick, I have seen no book on reasons.org about the shroud, could you give me a link to it please?

Unfortunately Bippy, I don't have a link. I only heard about the book because they mentioned it in the podcast. It was probably mentioned in the last 1/4 that you didn't listen to.

Rick , u mean I have to watch the last 1/4th of the podcast
Ross's info was very instrumental along with Stephen Meyer and Michael behe during the time I started questioning evolution. As Philip said they are more focused on the other main arguments they have, and when the paradigm shift in ID comes about it will because of the great work reasons and the discovery institute has put in.

I guess I'll go over the last fourth of the podcast tomorrow.

I was recently googling for forums that were discussing the shroud and I ended up at a forum I never thought I'd be on in my life, a mariujuana forum lol
It got pretty brutal there before I left the forum
Interesting experience lol

[RickD]

Bippy,

I found some links on page 8 of this thread. I'll give them a look when I get a chance. The problem I have is that when I get interested in something, and start looking into it, I just keep digging deeper and deeper. I can see myself doing the same with this.

THANKS A LOT BIPPY!!!!!!