Evidence for God from Science

By the way:

It probably is easy to reproduce it with all its characteristics, once you know how.

IF we use that as parameter then it should be easy to reproduce ANYTHING once we know how, right?
Cause that will set up a nice can of worms...

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how you can state that the nature of the resurrection is NOT important to Christianity when ALL of Christianity hinges on the resurrection.

I didn't state that, as you well know, I said that the exact nature of the resurrection is not very important, and it isn't. It doesn't matter whether Christ's body exploded into subatomic particles which reassembled themselves outside the tomb, or if he simply woke himself up, yawned and pushed the stone away from the inside, or any other scenario which explains the effect of the resurrection on the disciples. Christianity does not hinge on what happened, but on the effect of what happened. Indeed, some theologians now define the resurrection as the affect it had on the disciples, and the development of Christianity, leaving the mere 'resuscitation of a corpse' to one side.

And NO, no one has come close to replicating the shroud at all ( regardless of what some have SAID, the evidence is not there), even with 21st century technology and the closest has been with radiation

I beg to disagree. Garlaschelli and Berry have come quite close, and anybody with a paintbrush can reproduce many of the characteristics quite well. I suppose it depends what you mean by close.

it should be easy to reproduce ANYTHING once we know how, right?

No. Some things are very difficult to do even if you know exactly how to do them. Others much less so. With the Shroud, the answer may simply be a matter of parameters: such and such concentration of pigment at such and such a viscosity, heated to such and such a temperature - that sort of thing.

Let's be clear about several things:

1) IF Jesus was killed, buried and resurrected, as per Scripture, then we KNOW such a burial shroud once existed, per the well-known protocols for First Century Jewish burials. We have no reason to expect that a common burial shroud would not have existed. So, if you doubt what the eye witnesses said about the Resurrected Christ, knowing that all but one disciple and ex-disciple (Judas Iscariot) went to their deaths for testifying to the same thing that got Jesus so hideously killed (His claims of being God in the flesh), then why believe any of it? In fact, no one can be a Christian who doesn't believe the resurrection is true.

2) IF Jesus was God and that He returned in a physically resurrected body, and as so many hundred saw Him, per Scripture, for 40 days, post the resurrection, then why would anyone doubt God, in human flesh, Whom also has the power to create and resurrect life - why would you doubt that such a burial shroud once existed? Would those finding it have simply thrown it away - knowing fully that it was a tangible evidence of the greatest miracle in human history, post the creation of Adam, the birth of Christ? Of COURSE it would have been treasured and hidden. Why is that so hard to believe?

3) IF Jesus was buried, per Jewish tradition, and gloriously and physically resurrected, why would anyone believe a God capable of this not also be capable of: A) leaving behind an amazing piece of key evidence of the most incredible moment in which God on Earth fulfilled His mission? B) God has protected His word down through 3,600 years - 1,600 of them during the writings of Scripture, the rest since - so why would God not also be capable of preserving an important evidence of His most glorious work to man? C) Why would God NOT have seen it important to miraculously preserver and artifact that defies human understandings and scientific analysis? D) How could anyone but God have known to build into the Shroud properties which no ancient would have known about - much less as to how incapable he would have been of creating the inexplicable aspects of the Shroud?

Points above: If you deny the resurrection of Christ, I can see why no amount of evidence would convince a person the Shroud was produced by Jesus Resurrection - or that it even occurred. But if you look at the evidence knowing full well that God easily could have done what explains the evidences inherit in the Shroud - then you should realize that it is at least POSSIBLE that the Shroud is the real deal. We have a universe where before it there was NOTHING that physically existed. That's a miracle - actually, a phenomenal, incalculable series of interconnected and necessary miracles that produced a universe and eventual life that universe supports. So, why doubt such a God could preserve a mere cloth that once cloaked the God of the universe in physical form?

To me, for any Christian to even doubt that the Shroud MIGHT be the burial garment of the Resurrected Jesus, is to doubt the Resurrection was even possible, or that Jesus was God - because the asserted evidences for this have astounded modern scientific scrutiny, not only as to how it MIGHT have been created, but that also fails to replicate it. Now, this doesn't mean that the Shroud MUST be what many believe it to be, but to discount it impossible that such a thing could conceivably exist - well, to me, that's like doubting that the Resurrection could have even occurred. Because if there was a man named Jesus, Whom was also God, that was killed and physically Resurrected, then how foolish to doubt, at least the POSSIBILITY, that the Shroud could be the real deal. Because saying it is absolutely impossible is pretty close to saying that the Resurrection itself was impossible to have occurred. Because if it DID occur - the Miracle of Miracles - how does an artifact produced by that fact truly compare? No pure rationalism can account for our universe or God becoming man. We have neither the mind or abilities of God, nor the abilities to understand all He is capable of, or that He has done.

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how you can state that the nature of the resurrection is NOT important to Christianity when ALL of Christianity hinges on the resurrection.

I didn't state that, as you well know, I said that the exact nature of the resurrection is not very important, and it isn't. It doesn't matter whether Christ's body exploded into subatomic particles which reassembled themselves outside the tomb, or if he simply woke himself up, yawned and pushed the stone away from the inside, or any other scenario which explains the effect of the resurrection on the disciples. Christianity does not hinge on what happened, but on the effect of what happened. Indeed, some theologians now define the resurrection as the affect it had on the disciples, and the development of Christianity, leaving the mere 'resuscitation of a corpse' to one side.

And NO, no one has come close to replicating the shroud at all ( regardless of what some have SAID, the evidence is not there), even with 21st century technology and the closest has been with radiation

I beg to disagree. Garlaschelli and Berry have come quite close, and anybody with a paintbrush can reproduce many of the characteristics quite well. I suppose it depends what you mean by close.

it should be easy to reproduce ANYTHING once we know how, right?

No. Some things are very difficult to do even if you know exactly how to do them. Others much less so. With the Shroud, the answer may simply be a matter of parameters: such and such concentration of pigment at such and such a viscosity, heated to such and such a temperature - that sort of thing.

while I appreciate your qualifiers ( even if after the fact), the reality is that the EXACT nature of the resurrection IS important because if Christ was NOT resurrected by divine intervention christianity is, again, wrong.

No, no one has come close to replicating the shroud OTHER than the MOST SUPERFICIAL way and quite a bad job of that.
The distinct characteristics that make the shroud uniique have NOT been replicated.

Hugh, to be perfectly honest, you sound like a many trying to hang on to a view when evidence keeps point you away from it.

But to each their own.

Philip, your logic is no doubt crystal clear to yourself, but it does not make much sense when viewed objectively. Most of your post consists of questions to which you think you already know the answer, and the rest suggests that you have not read my previous comment at all.

1) What is this about? Does it apply to me? The Resurrection is a crucial theme in Christianity. Yes,I know.

2)

"Would those finding it have simply thrown [the shroud] away - knowing fully that it was a tangible evidence of the greatest miracle in human history, post the creation of Adam, the birth of Christ? Of COURSE it would have been treasured and hidden. Why is that so hard to believe?"

It is not at all hard to believe. It might have happened, although I doubt it on historical, sociological and theological grounds. The Jews were sticklers for recognising clean and unclean objects, and a discarded shroud was definitely unclean. And why keep a memento mori of a man who was alive and well and still amongst them? Jesus himself took a dim view of morbidity, saying that God was "not the God of the dead, but the God of the living."

3)

Why would anyone believe a God capable of this not also be capable of [...] why would God not also be capable of [...] Why would God NOT have seen it important [...] How could anyone but God have known ...

Eh? God could do what he liked, of course. My own belief is that the Shroud of Turin is not authentic.

Points:

If you deny the resurrection of Christ ...

I don't, as I have said.

you should realize that it is at least POSSIBLE that the Shroud is the real deal

I do, as I have said.

So, why doubt such a God could preserve a mere cloth

I don't, as I have said.

To me, for any Christian to even doubt that the Shroud MIGHT be the burial garment of the Resurrected Jesus, is to doubt the Resurrection was even possible.

I don't, as I have said.

to discount it impossible that such a thing could conceivably exist

I don't, as I have said.

how foolish to doubt, at least the POSSIBILITY, that the Shroud could be the real deal.

I don't, as I have said.

So what, really, is your point?

Paul:

the reality is that the EXACT nature of the resurrection IS important

Fine. So what was the exact nature of the resurrection? An explosion, an implosion, a dematerialisation, a simple revivification? Did the shroud collapse through a vacuum, or hover horizontally above the body? Was it affected by vapours, light, heat, neutrons or what other form of radiation? Who exactly moved the stone? And where on earth (or heaven) did Jesus get his new clothes from? If any of these are important, then what, exactly, happened? And if you don't know? How does that affect your view of Christianity?

No, no one has come close to replicating the shroud OTHER than the MOST SUPERFICIAL way and quite a bad job of that. The distinct characteristics that make the shroud unique have NOT been replicated.

Many of them have. As I say, "anybody with a paintbrush" can produce an excellent negative and 3-D appearing image in a few minutes. As I say, it's all a matter of what you call "close".

Hugh, to be perfectly honest, you sound like a man trying to hang on to a view when evidence keeps point you away from it.

To you, possibly; that doesn't make it so.

this has to be one if those Christ pantocrator moments . I think the best way to do away with that evidence is that someone should repaint the leftvside to look like the right side . This way we will all agree that there is no difference .

It's a pesky little Fresco isn't it ?
I can't help to think our lord has a sense of humor

hughfarey wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote:I am not sure how you can state that the nature of the resurrection is NOT important to Christianity when ALL of Christianity hinges on the resurrection.

I didn't state that, as you well know, I said that the exact nature of the resurrection is not very important, and it isn't. It doesn't matter whether Christ's body exploded into subatomic particles which reassembled themselves outside the tomb, or if he simply woke himself up, yawned and pushed the stone away from the inside, or any other scenario which explains the effect of the resurrection on the disciples. Christianity does not hinge on what happened, but on the effect of what happened. Indeed, some theologians now define the resurrection as the affect it had on the disciples, and the development of Christianity, leaving the mere 'resuscitation of a corpse' to one side.

And NO, no one has come close to replicating the shroud at all ( regardless of what some have SAID, the evidence is not there), even with 21st century technology and the closest has been with radiation

I beg to disagree. Garlaschelli and Berry have come quite close, and anybody with a paintbrush can reproduce many of the characteristics quite well. I suppose it depends what you mean by close.

it should be easy to reproduce ANYTHING once we know how, right?

No. Some things are very difficult to do even if you know exactly how to do them. Others much less so. With the Shroud, the answer may simply be a matter of parameters: such and such concentration of pigment at such and such a viscosity, heated to such and such a temperature - that sort of thing.

It is only close if you want it to be.We already know it was not painted on,so this is the wrong approach of trying to show it was man made. Once a person starts painting with whatever substance they are already going to be wrong with what they produce.This is the thing that makes me know it cannot be made by man because no skeptic has shown it can be and yet despite their efforts to show it was have failed. The only thing that has come close is modern equipment that produces high levels of radiation and light and the image is not produced immediately also,but over time,which means the image may not have even been on the shroud when Peter grabbed it out of the tomb.For you to claim it is close while overlooking that it was not painted on the real shroud just shows that you're not very good at examining evidence.

Hugh: So what, really, is your point?

Hugh, for one, you mistakenly understood my post above to have been addressing YOU. No, it was meant to address anyone whom believes in the Resurrection of Christ, and yet they find it impossible that such a shroud might exist. And, I'll take you at your word that you would be open to that, but that you just don't believe the Shroud of Turin could be it.

But what I do find puzzling is that many other Christians doubt 1) that such an artifact could even exist, and 2) they often find it irrational when others assert that inexplicable aspects of the Shroud, at least appear, miraculous. It's almost as if they don't WANT the Shroud to be authentic - which is another matter entirely. Because, for the sake of argument - whether this artifact or one long gone - Christians do (or should) know that such a shroud (whatever it's attributes) did once exist. And my question would be why would they not expect miraculous evidences to be connected to such a miracle (the Resurrection) by God? If God's fingerprints were on the original shroud, why would anyone be surprised that it exhibited miraculous evidence? And certainly, as God was and IS in the miracle business, and as He definitely wants people to believe in the Resurrection, why would it be hard to believe that He miraculously preserved a tangible artifact from a far greater miracle, and for those in the modern era? If fact, modern science is what has revealed it's amazing attributes - things that wouldn't have been possible until our time. That's what I don't get - why would people expect, if the Jesus' burial shroud exists, for it not to have miraculous aspects? Why would they think it impossible for it to still exist? And if the Shroud is indeed evidence of a great miracle of God, no rational arguments will ever explain it away. But what I see that people think are rational arguments against the Shroud, typically are not terribly so.

I'm going to propose a radical new proposal to all the orthodox churches . My plan is that they get a graffiti artist to white out the that pesky Christ pantocrator image so we can wipe out any possible connections to any relics we have today .

Guys !!!! Can I count on your votes ?

It seems to cause anxiety to some folks
Guys are you in ??????

I think we can do this

Abelcainsbrother, you do not further the cause of authenticity, nor argue scientifically, simply by telling people they're wrong, or not very good at examining evidence. We certainly do not know that the Shroud wasn't painted, and both observation and experiment shows that it might have been. That there is iron oxide on the Shroud is not in dispute, although the exact quantity and distribution certainly is, and whether it is particulate or incorporated into the threads, and whether there is sufficient to create an image. Many researchers think that the anomalous colour of the blood shows that it was at least 'touched up', if not painted outright. Garlaschelli and Berry, using different methods, have explored the discolouration left behind after a painted or otherwise discoloured coating is washed off, and Duncan has produced an interesting image simply by 'painting' cloth with a hot soldering iron. The Shroud may or may not be a painting, but arbitrary statements like "We already know it was not painted on" are inaccurate and misinformed.

Philip, I do not know anybody, even people who think Jesus didn't exist at all, who denies that shrouds did not exist in the 1st century, or that at least one them could be preserved today. However, for this particular Shroud, the radiocarbon dating is a major factor in many of them committing themselves to the 14th century, as there is such poor evidence that it could be incorrect. Nevertheless, the most hardened cynic would not deny that, if the radiocarbon dating were shown to be incorrect, then the Shroud could be from the 1st Century. I think you are shooting Aunt Sallies here.

Bippy, the pantocrator painting you have been referring to is only one of thousands, and almost certainly not the first such image to be painted. If you want to maintain credibility, you need to face my comments more seriously, and explain why they are wrong.

Hugh it's from 550ad and it matches the shroud in those key areas . The reason I'm
Not taking you seriously Hugh us that you aren't taking the pantocrator seriously .

I even showed it to my ultra orthodox 15 year old Jewish friend who is anti Jesus and even he recognized that it looked like he was docked in the face .

Hugh your view is so rigid dogmatic and the pantocrator shows this perfectly .
What's amazing is that you can look yourself in the mirror and say you can't see the difference .

How can you possibly expect me to have a serious conversation with you if you can't even admit to the obvious .

I shown it to quote a few non Christians and so far not even one person says they can't see the difference

Hugh no wonder why you don't devote much time on the pantocrator

Even Dan porters who runs the blog you used to post on admits to this .first Hugh wrongly claims that he can't see the difference in the icon. Hugh how about admitting your wrong
Then you can move on to the next excuse .

I believe in my next post I'm
Going to create a song called pantocrator fever . It will be based off of the paceman fever song of the 1980's

Hugh hows your kareoki ?

Hugh let's try this one more time , and I don't think I'll bring in Dan porters own article .
Hugh here is the pic one more time . This one is from 550 ad . Shall I add 800 more years to it to take the anxietY off Hugh ?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_ ... or_(Sinai)

Everyone will also be able to view this and let's see if everyone else can see the difference between the left and right eye .

Hugh you can't admit to this even if you know I'm right on this , cause it would do serious damage to your 14th century theory .

Guys I need you all to take a look at the pic to see what I mean
And just for you guys I'll post porters article , even though I'm not going to discuss all those other differences

http://greatshroudofturinfaq.com/Histor ... rator.html

bippy123 wrote:Hugh it's from 550ad and it matches the shroud in those key areas.

It is tentatively dated to the mid-6th century largely because of comparison with another 'Justinian' icon, the Enthroned Mother of God. Apart from the fact that both are pictures of bearded men, it does not match the Shroud well at all.

The reason I'm Not taking you seriously Hugh us that you aren't taking the pantocrator seriously.

If this means anything, it isn't true.

I even showed it to my ultra orthodox 15 year old Jewish friend who is anti Jesus and even he recognized that it looked like he was docked in the face.

So what?

Hugh your view is so rigid dogmatic and the pantocrator shows this perfectly.

This doesn't make sense.

What's amazing is that you can look yourself in the mirror and say you can't see the difference.

The difference between what and what? This is becoming incoherent as well as senseless.

How can you possibly expect me to have a serious conversation with you if you can't even admit to the obvious.

I no longer expect you to have a serious conversation with me whatever I say.

I shown it to quote a few non Christians and so far not even one person says they can't see the difference.

Nobody can't see the difference between what and what? This is what you said before. What does it mean?

Hugh no wonder why you don't devote much time on the pantocrator.

While it is true that I have not spent much time on the Pantocrator, it seems apparent from your recent postings that what time I have spent has been considerably greater and more worthwhile that your own investigations.

Even Dan porters who runs the blog you used to post on admits to this .first Hugh wrongly claims that he can't see the difference in the icon. Hugh how about admitting your wrong

Wrong about what?

Then you can move on to the next excuse.

Excuse for what? Really, Bippy, your comment has become an incomprehensible harangue, as I'm sure every reader of it, however devoted to the Shroud, will recognise.

Next comment!

Everyone will also be able to view this and let's see if everyone else can see the difference between the left and right eye.

At last! Some explanation! The difference between the eyes! Yes, I can see that. So what?

Can everyone see what Hugh just did . He changed his answer without admitting that he changed his answer and wrote a long post in the process .
When I first asked him about the swelling in that area he said no he doesn't see it . Now he says he sees it and replies" nope I can't see it .

Hugh now I can understand that your not doing this on purpose . You really aren't .


On Monday may 23rd Hugh stated this in response to the pantocrator

"Back to the Shroud, and no, the Pantocrator image does not show injuries nor look like a boxer to me."

Well Hugh like I said before your the only one I've seen so far that doesn't believe this .
Every person , even an ultra orthidox teenage Jewish kid who wouldn't want this to be true had said the guy on the image looked like he received some shots .

Look Hugh I now truly believe that your being sincere here and you don't even know what your doing . My younger brother does the same thing when he sees that an argument isn't going his way
I got the answer I was looking for
God bless



""