Evidence for God from Science

TheQuestor wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very interesting indeed.

Yea Paul , it's just further evidence that just blows the forger theory out the window and if indeed the calcium at the tip of the nose area in both relics match with Golgotha ,what other conclusion can we come up with other then they both indeed wrapped around the body of Jesus.
Where there is smoke there definitely is fire , or maybe radiation in this case

There is no evidence that this piece of cloth ever touched Christ.............. However, you are free to believe, just as some believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

No evidence!!

I wouldn't even bother Bippy, don't let this nonsense get you riled up. Peace and love to you Bro

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

TheQuestor wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very interesting indeed.

Yea Paul , it's just further evidence that just blows the forger theory out the window and if indeed the calcium at the tip of the nose area in both relics match with Golgotha ,what other conclusion can we come up with other then they both indeed wrapped around the body of Jesus.
Where there is smoke there definitely is fire , or maybe radiation in this case

There is no evidence that this piece of cloth ever touched Christ.............. However, you are free to believe, just as some believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

No evidence!!

I wouldn't even bother Bippy, don't let this nonsense get you riled up. Peace and love to you Bro

There is also no evidence of what Christ really looked like in the first place. Or are there polaroid's too?

TheQuestor wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

TheQuestor wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very interesting indeed.

Yea Paul , it's just further evidence that just blows the forger theory out the window and if indeed the calcium at the tip of the nose area in both relics match with Golgotha ,what other conclusion can we come up with other then they both indeed wrapped around the body of Jesus.
Where there is smoke there definitely is fire , or maybe radiation in this case

There is no evidence that this piece of cloth ever touched Christ.............. However, you are free to believe, just as some believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

No evidence!!

I wouldn't even bother Bippy, don't let this nonsense get you riled up. Peace and love to you Bro

There is also no evidence of what Christ really looked like in the first place. Or are there polaroid's too?

Have you read all 72 pages of this should thread and have you read all the papers that have been written on the shroud?

[quote"Danieltwotwenty"]

TheQuestor wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

TheQuestor wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very interesting indeed.

Yea Paul , it's just further evidence that just blows the forger theory out the window and if indeed the calcium at the tip of the nose area in both relics match with Golgotha ,what other conclusion can we come up with other then they both indeed wrapped around the body of Jesus.
Where there is smoke there definitely is fire , or maybe radiation in this case

There is no evidence that this piece of cloth ever touched Christ.............. However, you are free to believe, just as some believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

No evidence!!

I wouldn't even bother Bippy, don't let this nonsense get you riled up. Peace and love to you Bro

There is also no evidence of what Christ really looked like in the first place. Or are there polaroid's too?

Have you read all 72 pages of this should thread and have you read all the papers that have been written on the shroud?[/quote]

Have you proof of what Jesus looked like in the first place, in order to make a comparison to Jesus and the shroud? No, there were no photos, and the shroud was not even found until, when? Are you saying that this thread is the holy word, that has to be believed? and can not be wrong, because there are some hints of grandeur in that thought.

You didn't answer my question, have you read all 72 pages in this thread and all the papers written on the shroud and sudarium?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:You didn't answer my question, have you read all 72 pages in this thread and all the papers written on the shroud and sudarium?

Google found 492,000 pages dedicated to the shroud, have you read them all? https://www.google.com/#q=shroud+of+turin has anyone? You miss the point, as there is no way to say that an image is authentic, if the real image of the person is not already known and can be used as a comparison. Thus from a scientific standpoint, the shroud could be 100 percent genuine, but have nothing to do with Christ. It can not be linked to Christ based upon an image of Christ, that was never painted or photographed, during his life. This is a logic theme, that will escape many.

Since you cannot answer a simple question I will choose to not continue.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Since you cannot answer a simple question I will choose to not continue.

You either continue, or fold and admit that there was no painting or photograph of Jesus made in his lifetime, that can be used to reference the image on the shroud. Thus logic denotes, that the image on the shroud can not be compared to an image that was never made, and that belief in the shroud amounts to pure faith, that disregards logic.

Note, that I am not saying that the image is not real, or even that it is not the image of Jesus. I am only saying that this can not be proved, based upon the image, as the true face of Jesus, is a unknown.

TheQuestor wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Since you cannot answer a simple question I will choose to not continue.

You either continue, or fold and admit that there was no painting or photograph of Jesus made in his lifetime, that can be used to reference the image on the shroud. Thus logic denotes, that the image on the shroud can not be compared to an image that was never made, and that belief in the shroud amounts to pure faith, that disregards logic.

Note, that I am not saying that the image is not real, or even that it is not the image of Jesus. I am only saying that this can not be proved, based upon the image, as the true face of Jesus, is a unknown.

Ok since you won't answer my question I will ask another question, do you think there are other scientific methods of determining the cloth's authenticity other than photography?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

TheQuestor wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very interesting indeed.

Yea Paul , it's just further evidence that just blows the forger theory out the window and if indeed the calcium at the tip of the nose area in both relics match with Golgotha ,what other conclusion can we come up with other then they both indeed wrapped around the body of Jesus.
Where there is smoke there definitely is fire , or maybe radiation in this case

There is no evidence that this piece of cloth ever touched Christ.............. However, you are free to believe, just as some believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

No evidence!!

I wouldn't even bother Bippy, don't let this nonsense get you riled up. Peace and love to you Bro

Thanks Daniel, and your right. It seems like questor is one of those Christians that has an emotional al problem with the shroud , and instead of posting nonsense maybe he should share his emotional problem with the shroud with all of us .you know questor ,the real problem with ur anti shroud bias.
Peace and love right back at you daniel
God bless u my friend

Have you proof of what Jesus looked like in the first place, in order to make a comparison to Jesus and the shroud? No, there were no photos, and the shroud was not even found until, when? Are you saying that this thread is the holy word, that has to be believed? and can not be wrong, because there are some hints of grandeur in that thought.

Proof questor ? Who is talking about proof here ? We are about induction through the most reasonable explanation.
The shroud itself fits the gospel account if the passion and crucifixion of our lord and savior almost to the letter.

Now we have soil samples that nearly match the rock of Calvary (Golgotha ) which is amongst the loads of evidence for authenticity . To anyone that approaches this without a bias it would be hard to deny the evidences produced here , but you questor knew it was a fake way before u researched it didn't u

All of the circumstantial evidence points to it being the burial,shroud of Christ, but I'm sure u haven't read one post of those 72 pages also .

No one is claiming this thread to be the holy word of God on the shroud , but at the same time we have looked rationally and logically at a lot of the evidence .
Have u looked at all of the evidences both historically and scientifically here questor ?

If not then why did u form ur opinion so quickly ?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

TheQuestor wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Since you cannot answer a simple question I will choose to not continue.

You either continue, or fold and admit that there was no painting or photograph of Jesus made in his lifetime, that can be used to reference the image on the shroud. Thus logic denotes, that the image on the shroud can not be compared to an image that was never made, and that belief in the shroud amounts to pure faith, that disregards logic.

Note, that I am not saying that the image is not real, or even that it is not the image of Jesus. I am only saying that this can not be proved, based upon the image, as the true face of Jesus, is a unknown.

Ok since you won't answer my question I will ask another question, do you think there are other scientific methods of determining the cloth's authenticity other than photography?

Daniel , ill and wet for questor .
He knows that there are many other evidences that help determine its authenticity but he won't look into them because he
Just doesn't want the shroud to be authentic. He reminds me exactly of a catholic I had a 5 page debate with on the catholic answers forum. He brought up refutation after refutation and I answered everyone of them. At the end of the debate I pmed him and asked him what his real problem was with the shroud and finally he answered me honestly .

He was afraid that too many Christians would put all their faith in the shroud and if by so me chance it was proven a fake these Christians would also lose their faith. I explained to him that most Christians don't base their faith solely on the shroud , but he wouldn't hear any of it so I left it at that .

So questor , what is ur real emotional problem with the shroud ?

TheQuestor wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Since you cannot answer a simple question I will choose to not continue.

You either continue, or fold and admit that there was no painting or photograph of Jesus made in his lifetime, that can be used to reference the image on the shroud. Thus logic denotes, that the image on the shroud can not be compared to an image that was never made, and that belief in the shroud amounts to pure faith, that disregards logic.

Note, that I am not saying that the image is not real, or even that it is not the image of Jesus. I am only saying that this can not be proved, based upon the image, as the true face of Jesus, is a unknown.

Questor inductive logic , reason and all of the circumstantial evidence points strongly to This being the burial cloth of Christ.
This image even corrects the medieval depiction known at the time of Christ's crucifixion such as nails piercing the wrist instead of the hands . Christ depicted naked .
The mandylion history itself takes the mandylion straight to the time if Christ and to Christ himself .
In a trial a photograph isn't needed to obtain a verdict beyond reasonable doubt and this is exactly how we approach the shroud . Your argument is not only irrational with how ur supposed to research the shroud , it's untenable , and it all points to your emotionally irrational extreme bias against the shroud. This is typically an atheistic tactic I've encountered , but what's ur excuse sir ?

Gary Habermas said that if this isn't the shroud of Christ ,then we have a major problem , and that is it seems like we now have 2 people that have been resurrected

Why don't you first research the info , and then your still free to post your emotionally charged biased posts against the shroud .

See how simple that is questor

TheQuestor wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

TheQuestor wrote:

bippy123 wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:Very interesting indeed.

Yea Paul , it's just further evidence that just blows the forger theory out the window and if indeed the calcium at the tip of the nose area in both relics match with Golgotha ,what other conclusion can we come up with other then they both indeed wrapped around the body of Jesus.
Where there is smoke there definitely is fire , or maybe radiation in this case

There is no evidence that this piece of cloth ever touched Christ.............. However, you are free to believe, just as some believe that the Earth is 5,000 years old.

No evidence!!

I wouldn't even bother Bippy, don't let this nonsense get you riled up. Peace and love to you Bro

There is also no evidence of what Christ really looked like in the first place. Or are there polaroid's too?

Actually questor we do have a Polaroid . It's the shroud if turin , or maybe someone forgot to tell u that this is actually a negative image on the shroud long before before photography was invented

Actually questor we do have a Polaroid . It's the shroud if turin , or maybe someone forgot to tell u that this is actually a negative image on the shroud long before before photography was invented

Good catch Bippy, that's why you are our resident shroud guru.