Evidence for God from Science

Philip wrote:Well, Hugh, then you clearly don't accept what much of the Bible teaches - and PROLIFICALLY so! Why even believe in the resurrection of Christ? What part of creating a physical universe that He began in one moment, which did not exist in the previous moment, eliminates God working miraculously? Really, you're arguing against foundational beliefs and teachings of Christianity, if you deny the miraculous workings of God. You do believe Jesus, fully spirit, became also a physical man, died, was resurrected - right? What do you call that but miraculous? Normal? Rational? What?

Not for the first time, you have failed to read what I said. The creation and sustaining of the universe is indeed miraculous in the sense of being without rational explanation. The creation and strengthening of faith by 'wonders' is miraculous in a different sense, which do not exclude rational explanation.

DBowling wrote:Do you believe that the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus as presented in the four Gospels represent historically accurate evidence regarding first century Roman crucifixion practices?

As we know so little of Roman practice, it is difficult to be sure, but I don't think they necessarily conflict with the few other descriptions we have. I say 'necessarily', because where they do conflict, that may be due to individual circumstances rather than general practice. The gospels say nothing about the shape of the cross, for example, or how the nails were applied, or even whether a "crown of thorns" was unique, unusual, or really quite common.

Kurieuo wrote:Let's keep this on the shroud.

Thank you.

The Epistle of Barnabas and the earliest art works on the Crucifixion state that cross was "T" shaped ( shape of the letter "TAU").

PaulSacramento wrote:The Epistle of Barnabas and the earliest art works on the Crucifixion state that cross was "T" shaped ( shape of the letter "TAU").

And why not. However, the Epistle of Barnabas was written about 100AD, after the mass crucifixions of 70AD, and is more of an interpretation of a mystic number than a historical account. The earliest art works mentioned in Wikipedia I can find are the famous Alexamenos graffito, the little Orphaeos Bakkikos seal, and the picture in the Rabbula Gospels, all showing a traditional cross with a bit sticking out of the top. Do you know of others? There is no knowing what any individual crucifixion cross might have looked like. Some people think it was literally a tree, others just a stake.

hughfarey wrote:

DBowling wrote:Do you believe that the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus as presented in the four Gospels represent historically accurate evidence regarding first century Roman crucifixion practices?

As we know so little of Roman practice, it is difficult to be sure, but I don't think they necessarily conflict with the few other descriptions we have. I say 'necessarily', because where they do conflict, that may be due to individual circumstances rather than general practice. The gospels say nothing about the shape of the cross, for example, or how the nails were applied, or even whether a "crown of thorns" was unique, unusual, or really quite common.

The point I am making is simple...
- We have four first century historical documents that describe the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth by the Romans (ie the four Gospels)
- The physical wounds on the body that was wrapped by the Shroud are 'consistent' with the description of the crucifixion of Jesus by the Romans as described in the four Gospels.

Therefore, there is historical evidence to support both the legitimacy and factual accuracy of the assertion that ...
the marks on the Shroud are “consistent with Roman crucifixion”

Oh dearie me. Of course the marks on the Shroud are consistent with the gospels. They're an illustration of the gospels. In so far as the gospels are consistent with what we know of Roman crucifixion, then the Shroud too is consistent with what we know of Roman crucifixion. However, if it is medieval, nothing that it tells us can be considered archeological evidence about Roman crucifixion. If it is authentic, of course, then the blood marks are very revealing, but one must avoid the argument which goes: the blood marks look like a crucifixion, therefore the Shroud may be authentic, in which case the blood marks show exactly how a crucifixion took place, which proves the Shroud is authentic. Not that you would fall into such circular reasoning, but many people do.

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:The Epistle of Barnabas and the earliest art works on the Crucifixion state that cross was "T" shaped ( shape of the letter "TAU").

And why not. However, the Epistle of Barnabas was written about 100AD, after the mass crucifixions of 70AD, and is more of an interpretation of a mystic number than a historical account. The earliest art works mentioned in Wikipedia I can find are the famous Alexamenos graffito, the little Orphaeos Bakkikos seal, and the picture in the Rabbula Gospels, all showing a traditional cross with a bit sticking out of the top. Do you know of others? There is no knowing what any individual crucifixion cross might have looked like. Some people think it was literally a tree, others just a stake.

Works both ways really, which means there is no reason to think that it WASN'T a "T" shaped cross.

hughfarey wrote:Oh dearie me. Of course the marks on the Shroud are consistent with the gospels. They're an illustration of the gospels. In so far as the gospels are consistent with what we know of Roman crucifixion, then the Shroud too is consistent with what we know of Roman crucifixion.

I think you are missing my point...
The question is not whether or not the Gospels are consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion.
The Gospels are first century historical documents that contribute to what we know about Roman crucifixion.
The Gospels are part of the first century historical data!

However, if it is medieval, nothing that it tells us can be considered archeological evidence about Roman crucifixion.

If the Shroud is medieval, that in no way shape or form negates the Gospels as an accurate source of information about Roman crucifixion.
It would just mean that a medieval image on the Shroud is consistent with what historical sources (including the 4 Gospels) tell us about Roman crucifixion.

If it is authentic, of course, then the blood marks are very revealing, but one must avoid the argument which goes: the blood marks look like a crucifixion, therefore the Shroud may be authentic, in which case the blood marks show exactly how a crucifixion took place, which proves the Shroud is authentic. Not that you would fall into such circular reasoning, but many people do.

My reasoning goes like this...
1. The Gospels are historical documents that contribute to our knowledge of first century Roman crucifixion.
2. If the Shroud is consistent with the Gospels, then it is also by definition consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion.
3. Being consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion from the Gospels is a minimum requirement for authenticity, but by itself is not proof of authenticity. It just means that the Shroud is consistent with what we know about Roman crucifixion.
This is true, independent of whether the Shroud is of first century or medieval origin.

That's all perfectly true. I agree with you there.

And finally, then, to follow Kurieou's original suggestion to the end, the last of the Videos referenced in the OP.

Video 4. We return to the VP-8 image analyser, and by comparing the image of the Shroud with two other wholly unsuitable images, see that they do not compare. This is certainly not a fair test, and cannot be taken seriously. Next, we look at the negative/positive aspects of the Shroud image, where again, the facts are seriously distorted. The image on the Shroud can only be a photographic negative if the man it depicts had white hair - not impossible, but not generally believed. Of course there are aspects of the photographic negative which make it resemble a photographic positive, but one cannot take this analogy too far. The observation that the “shadows his limbs cast appear to be light” implies a light source which is wholly unjustified. There are no shadows. The reason is nothing to do with light intensity or shadow, but with an inferred relationship between image density and purported distance between the body and the cloth, or between image distance and the contact pressure between body and cloth. This is fairly easy to envisage, and does not require an advanced knowledge of photography to execute. It is not true that “the forger had to have created a complex photonegative image at least five hundred years before the invention of photography.” Incidentally, to claim that “this strange phenomenon has intrigued observers for hundreds of years” is difficult to reconcile with the first photograph of the Shroud only 120 years ago. “How is it possible?” asks Russ Breault - but the answer is obvious in terms of intensity/body-cloth distance, whether by natural causes or as envisioned by a craftsman.

The video moves on to the “radiographic qualities of the image, and here again, the inferences are not borne out by detailed observation. The overlay of the bones of the hand onto the image on the Shroud carefully puts the metacarpals of the diagram over the proximal phalanges of the Shroud image, thus completely misaligning the two images. John Jackson makes an ingenious attempt to demonstrate that the image is an X-Ray, but does not begin to explain the source of the X-Rays. In order to show the bones of the fingers for example, the X-rays cannot be coming from the bones. Nor can they come from the skin, since the skin overlays the bones. If you require X-Rays, you've got to at least speculate on their source: the heart? the liver? the brain? None of these are satisfactory, individually or in combination.

Then we move to the fact that the image appears not to depend on particles of a pigment lying on the cloth, but on the deterioration of the uppermost fibrils of the threads. This is remarkably easy to obtain either by brushing with a heated spatula or with a solution of acid, but does make one wonder why a craftsman should use such an unusual medium. There are, however, several possibilities. The portentous statement: “There is no known way of replicating such markings on a cloth” is untrue. I have done it myself in two different ways, and there may be others. Much is made of the stochastic nature of the image, in that adjacent fibres may or may not be discoloured, but I find this a feature of painting with acid, perhaps due to the individual resistance to the particular concentration used of each individual fibre.

Well. There it is. I have analysed all four of the "Shroud" videos, in considerable detail, and explained why I do not accept that the evidence for authenticity is overwhelmingly compelling. That's not to say that an authenticist conclusion is impossible, nor that the Shroud has been proved medieval. Some of the evidence can validly lead to different conclusions, and evidence that could conclusively demonstrate one side or the other is missing. Perhaps it will turn up soon, and my money's on the medieval - but I could be wrong!

If anybody can bring anything else to the table I'm very willing to explore it. As you know, my "invisible mending" project is in train, and I am happy to attempt to get to the bottom of anything else anybody suggests.

Here is a great new video on the shroud. Some interesting details in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCtDqCuhWNM

This is not a new video, appearing in 2015, and is a translation of an Italian version, which may account for the rather hesitant monotone of the commentary. It begins with a very impressive banner - the "ISTITUTO INTERNAZIONALE STUDI AVANZATI DI
SCIENZE DELLA RAPPRESENTAZIONE DELLO SPAZIO", at Palermo, Italy - but this appears to be the individual website of an engineer called Giuseppe Catalano. He has clearly spent considerable time putting together his ideas, and communicates them very well. So well, in fact, that it is easy to provide counter evidence for everything in the video, although fortunately this is hardly necessary, as plenty of devout authenticists will find the whole thing as objectionable as non-authenticists. Much of the 'evidence' appears to rest on an unexplained photographic analysis technique, which, it is claimed, has been applied to "very high resolution" images of the Shroud. Nowhere is this demonstrated, and in fact all the enlarged images of the Shroud on the video are blurred and unclear. There are ways of extracting genuine information by removing background 'noise' on photographs, but the same techniques, as very obviously demonstrated here, can produce apparent information from the noise itself, which is not derived from the subject of the photograph. Catalano's propensity for finding rings of various kinds is exactly this kind of pseudo-information. I have seen the entire video, and could produce a more detailed review if anyone wanted, but I hardly think it's worth the bother.

To be honest, I couldn't see what they were pointing out is this and that. And, if there were higher resolution pictures that showed what they were often pointing out, then they could have been easily included. So, I'm with Hugh here. Personally, I just couldn't see what they claimed was there. Some may believe, but feels like they would be doing so in a manner similar to the Emperor's new clothes.

Kurieo, notice how hugh left the invisible reweaving claim by Joe Marino and without a trace .
I find it amazing that Hugh made the claim that he never knew about this and the very company that was mentioned even though it was mentioned more then once on the shroud story blog . Why don't you go back and check on the shroud story blog and see if it was mentioned on the blog then ask Hugh how he could make such a ridiculous claim

If it walks like a duck , quacks like a duck ...
Well we know the rest

That's like me coming into this forum and claiming I didn't know it discusses things about Christ .

There is an extreme bias towards anything anti shroud .
Like i said many times I respect Hugh's amazing knowledge on the shroud but I just feel there is more to this then meets the eye .

Ps I haven't forgotten the Kenneth Miller copy and paste on chloroquine resistance either .i will address this at a later date

Just to be clear, the comments in my previous post was in relation to DRD's linked-to video:

DRDS wrote:Here is a great new video on the shroud. Some interesting details in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCtDqCuhWNM

No worries kurieo mine wasn't directed at your response but more towards hughs inconsistency in his research . My biggest regret is that I don't have the time to respond in a way that honors all the research that's been done on the shroud because of my current situation