Shroud of Turin

[Philip]

I must admit, that the Pantocrator, while VERY interesting as to how so many early, iconic painted and other images of Jesus are so similar, and while I do see swollen like features on them, I don't consider that near the evidence that Bippy does. However, that said, Bip knows a lot more about that - in fact, about many details of the Shroud - than I do.

The easy 14th century dismissal is based upon highly disputed and questionable testing - and most particularly, as to WHAT portion, was actually tested. And the fact there are so many points of perfect correlation with the Sudarium head covering - with at LEAST, a KNOWN 6th century existence, that it makes the 14th century theory HIGHLY dubious. It needs retesting with the correct oversight, and in the correct portion. But, FAR more compelling, are the 3D spatial imagery, the correct nail patterns, the negative image, the exactly correct (then unknown) pollens - these are inexplicable and would not only been impossible to create (and can't be, even TODAY), but it is absurd to 1) think these were doable in the 14th century, 2) to believe that they COULD be done, and 3) beyond ridiculous to think such incredible lengths of such astonishing technical evidence, even IF it remotely would have been possible to create, that these incredible details would have been deemed necessary to fool people of the 1300s, as smeared blood on old linens, and during a time when reported holy relics - like "a piece of wood from the cross" or a "last supper's cup of Christ" would have been more than sufficient to fool simple people, told by the church and its leaders, that such things were authentic to Christ.

[Audie]

So when is a valid radiocarbon test going to be allowed?

[Philip]

You'll have to ask the pope!

[bippy123]

Philip here is a good link to all the features of the pantocrator. I only focused on the eye and cheek .
http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Histor ... rator.html

[Audie]

You'll have to ask the pope!

Until unless they allow a definitive test, the rest of this is
just blather, to those who are not already sold on the whole story.

One can find equally compelling and detailed arguments for ye flood,
and many another "science v bible" topic.

[Mallz]

Even if I concede that God uses a mechanism, or a process that is natural to Himself, to do something, how is it still not a miracle, by definition?
You're changing definitions and overthinking.
A miracle is something not explicable by natural or scientific laws.
Even if God has a "mechanism" to make a blind man see, or to turn water into wine, or for Jesus to walk on water, or for Christ to rise after 3 days, or for a virgin birth, etc., they are still miracles by definition.

I dunno, dude. I'm actually not thinking (dwelling on thoughts [got the rock thing figured out yesterday]), just responding. Isn't everything a miracle? Life itself? Your and I's existence? Don't get me wrong, I'm not down playing everything that Jesus did/does. The things He can do that we can't (that's part of the fun..). Mysteries are fun, too. Like, is it magic or a mechanism?

How am I changing the definition? I don't see that. If anything, I reject its reality.

A miracle is something not explicable by natural or scientific laws.

And I think there probably is a 'natural' explanation to it. I just don't know it. If you equate natural with physical/material, well I can't even go there. It's not a real statement. It's false. And once the nature is known, laws are revealed. YHWH can repeat His own miracles.. isn't that science?
See my problem?

[RickD]

Well,

Since natural means "existing in nature", and nature means "the physical world and everything in it", then I suppose you can just ignore the meaning, and claim it doesn't exist.

Is nature, or the physical world, all that exists? Do you really believe that?

[Mallz]

Well,

Since natural means "existing in nature", and nature means "the physical world and everything in it", then I suppose you can just ignore the meaning, and claim it doesn't exist.

Is nature, or the physical world, all that exists? Do you really believe that?

Um, the physical world and everything in it is composed of spiritual. There's no such thing as just a 'physical world'.
So, I see the term 'supernatural' to be a self contradiction. I believe we are physical and spiritual and there are different levels of spiritual essences expressed physically in different ways. So, supernatural should really be 'naturally expressed'? He is present, always. Some of His actions are more apparent than others. Some of them are miracles. But, again, I see a miracle as Him, kinda performing for us and Himself. Bringing Himself directly into something.

[RickD]

Well,

Since natural means "existing in nature", and nature means "the physical world and everything in it", then I suppose you can just ignore the meaning, and claim it doesn't exist.

Is nature, or the physical world, all that exists? Do you really believe that?

Um, the physical world and everything in it is composed of spiritual. There's no such thing as just a 'physical world'.
So, I see the term 'supernatural' to be a self contradiction. I believe we are physical and spiritual and there are different levels of spiritual essences expressed physically in different ways. So, supernatural should really be 'naturally expressed'? He is present, always. Some of His actions are more apparent than others. Some of them are miracles. But, again, I see a miracle as Him, kinda performing for us and Himself. Bringing Himself directly into something.

Mallz,

You are making up your own meanings again!

God is spirit. He existed before He created the universe.(please don't redefine universe too). Since God created the universe, He can't logically be part of it.

You are having all sorts of problems and contradictions, and need to redefine words because you're conflating spiritual and physical. And conflating natural and supernatural.

[Mallz]

Mallz,

You are making up your own meanings again!

God is spirit. He existed before He created the universe.(please don't redefine universe too). Since God created the universe, He can't logically be part of it.

You are having all sorts of problems and contradictions, and need to redefine words because you're conflating spiritual and physical. And conflating natural and supernatural.

You don't think He isn't apart of the universe? Why/how?
How am I conflating spiritual and physical?

[RickD]

Mallz,

You are making up your own meanings again!

God is spirit. He existed before He created the universe.(please don't redefine universe too). Since God created the universe, He can't logically be part of it.

You are having all sorts of problems and contradictions, and need to redefine words because you're conflating spiritual and physical. And conflating natural and supernatural.

You don't think He isn't apart of the universe? Why/how?
How am I conflating spiritual and physical?

"Don't think He isn't"?

I'm not sure how to respond to a double negative.

No. Logically God cannot be a part of the universe. He cannot logically be a part of something He created.

One way I can show you are conflating physical and spiritual, is that God is Spirit. He created the universe. Therefore, He "existed" outside of, and before the universe existed.

Here, please don't redefine universe:

the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

[Mallz]

"Don't think He isn't"?

I'm not sure how to respond to a double negative.

No. Logically God cannot be a part of the universe. He cannot logically be a part of something He created.

One way I can show you are conflating physical and spiritual, is that God is Spirit. He created the universe. Therefore, He "existed" outside of, and before the universe existed.

Here, please don't redefine universe:

the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

What about Jesus Christ?
I don't think He existed outside of the universe. I think the universe exists inside Him.

[RickD]

"Don't think He isn't"?

I'm not sure how to respond to a double negative.

No. Logically God cannot be a part of the universe. He cannot logically be a part of something He created.

One way I can show you are conflating physical and spiritual, is that God is Spirit. He created the universe. Therefore, He "existed" outside of, and before the universe existed.

Here, please don't redefine universe:

the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm.

What about Jesus Christ?
I don't think He existed outside of the universe. I think the universe exists inside Him.

How does the universe exist inside Jesus?

[hughfarey]

I must admit, that the Pantocrator, while VERY interesting as to how so many early, iconic painted and other images of Jesus are so similar, and while I do see swollen like features on them, I don't consider that near the evidence that Bippy does. However, that said, Bip knows a lot more about that - in fact, about many details of the Shroud - than I do.

The easy 14th century dismissal is based upon highly disputed and questionable testing - and most particularly, as to WHAT portion, was actually tested. And the fact there are so many points of perfect correlation with the Sudarium head covering - with at LEAST, a KNOWN 6th century existence, that it makes the 14th century theory HIGHLY dubious. It needs retesting with the correct oversight, and in the correct portion. But, FAR more compelling, are the 3D spatial imagery, the correct nail patterns, the negative image, the exactly correct (then unknown) pollens - these are inexplicable and would not only been impossible to create (and can't be, even TODAY), but it is absurd to 1) think these were doable in the 14th century, 2) to believe that they COULD be done, and 3) beyond ridiculous to think such incredible lengths of such astonishing technical evidence, even IF it remotely would have been possible to create, that these incredible details would have been deemed necessary to fool people of the 1300s, as smeared blood on old linens, and during a time when reported holy relics - like "a piece of wood from the cross" or a "last supper's cup of Christ" would have been more than sufficient to fool simple people, told by the church and its leaders, that such things were authentic to Christ.

Tsk tsk, Philip; just when Bippy was begininng to recognise that there are truly two sides to the discussion, we get this "inexplicable" "absurd" "beyond ridiculous" harangue. Oh, well, if you can't beat them - join them!

1) There are NO points of correlation between the Sudarium and the Turin Shroud that are not common to any blood stained head.

2) When converting the image density to three dimensions the Shroud does not produce anything more than a flattish bas relief which is easy to achieve, even by accident, with a paintbrush.

3) There are NO historical, literary or archaeological clues to the 'nail patterns' used in crucifixion, other than a single heel bone, which tells us nothing about the hands.

4) Negative images were well understood and produced in their thousands via woodcuts in the middle ages.

5) The pollens found on the Shroud are not identifiable to anything exclusive to the Middle East, and the methodology which seemed to show that there are was seriously flawed.

6) The Shroud was not created to 'fool' anybody. It was an honest attempt to produce the sort of image a dead body might have left behind on its shroud, for the veneration of the congregation of a large church at Easter. Although divorced from its liturgical context, it continued to be displayed as such (albeit with a couple of warnings from the bishop and pope) until proclaimed genuine by the Savoy family a hundred years after its manufacture.

7) There is no astonishing technical coincidence with anything.

Actually, of course, some of these points are debatable, but if anybody can prove, or even demonstrate, that any of them are "beyond ridiculous" I'd love to hear their arguments.

[Mallz]

How does the universe exist inside Jesus?

Colossians 1:16