Evidence for God from Science

bippy123 wrote: Interesting, I know the Greek Orthodox believe in weak panentheism also , it's not heretical . I'd like to study this a bit more as well . My curiousity is peaked

Having a hard time coming up with resources for palamite panentheism from the usual sources (I can find panentheism, though). I'll have to pay the Mt. Angel Abbey a visit, they have an extensive library built by Alvar Aalto (I've even got to be in their old book vault before ). If you ever come up for a visit Bips I'll take you there, it's really cool.

Edit: This could be interesting: Divine Essence and Divine Energies: Ecumenical Reflections on the Presence of God in Eastern Orthodoxy


Aaaand I'm totally done derailing this thread, sorry all.

Mallz, if I'm ever up in your neck of the wewoods it would be awesome to take a trip there .
I grew up in a Greek/Italian neighborhood in queens Ny and my mom used to go to Greek Orthodox mass because there was no Catholic Church near her by walking distance . She actually used to pray in Greek . She was Melkite Greek Catholic and I believe that our ancestors were Greek Orthodox a long time ago .

I would also like to learn more about this type of panentheism if I ever get the time to research it .

Back to my tetradiplon sandwich

I watched a movie yesterday entitled, 'Risen". It is a story about the investigation of Jesus' resurrection from the eyes of a non-believing Roman centurion played by Joseph Fiennes, actor Ralph Fiennes younger brother. Jesus is played by the actor Cliff Curtis from Fear the Walking Dead.

The shroud is shown in the tomb and later confiscated as evidence. I found it really cool how the shroud was portrayed as to what it must have looked like 2000 years ago compared to what it looks like today.

Though the movie is not Biblically accurate, I did find it to be one of the better Biblically based movies I have seen in some time. If you get a chance to watch it, you should.

Katabole wrote:The shroud is shown in the tomb and later confiscated as evidence. I found it really cool how the shroud was portrayed as to what it must have looked like 2000 years ago compared to what it looks like today.

Well sort of, Katabole. At least two Shrouds are used in the film, one quite realistic, but the other is actually the negative image, cut out and put on a white background. On the negative image, the bloodstains, which are dark in actuality, appear white, and sure enough, there are white bloodstains over the dark areas of the face and hair. Go to the YouTube "Official Trailer #2", at point 1:19 for a closeup.

Here is a cool new shroud video link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_fSgPQYxkk

I don't think we as Christians should put the Shroud of Turin forward as evidence for the resurrection. We have the gospels which are plenty of evidence for the resurrection!

swordfish7 wrote:I don't think we as Christians should put the Shroud of Turin forward as evidence for the resurrection. We have the gospels which are plenty of evidence for the resurrection!

May I ask why not?

Swordfish, God indeed give us other evidences to believe!

"But if I do his work, believe in the evidence of the miraculous works I have done, even if you don't believe me. THEN you will know and understand that the Father is in me, and I am in the Father."
(John 10:38)

"So Jesus said to him, “Unless you see signs and wonders you will not believe." (John 4:48)

So, God knows many need extraordinary evidences to believe. This is why every prophet and apostle of God was able to do miraclous signs, so people would realize their words and message were not just their own. And the study of the creation, which God calls His additional "testimony," has brought many to belief in Him!

swordfish7 wrote:I don't think we as Christians should put the Shroud of Turin forward as evidence for the resurrection. We have the gospels which are plenty of evidence for the resurrection!

I think you should go through this entire thread about the shroud and I bet you'd change your mind. I don't understand why some Christians think our faith is blind,it is'nt although not all of the bible can be proven and must be believed by faith there are many different examples of evidence we have discovered for our faith in God and his word and the shroud is one of many examples of evidence.

The fact is,is no sceptic of the shroud has ever been able to prove or show that the image on the shroud can be produced by man and Ray Rogers spent years trying to show it could be made by man but he failed and all of the other sceptics too. So that we can take the historical evidence we have plus the shroud for evidence Jesus existed,performed miracles and rose from the dead. I think there should be a shroud image posted right by Jesus deniers like Richard Carrier and Robert Price every time they speak.

We really have no idea where the shroud came from. During the middle ages there were all kinds of con men who would create artifacts purported to have come from Jesus giving evidence to the resurrection or used by Jesus in some way. To say we really know this is from Jesus is grand speculation and would hurt the cause of Christ if it was a forgery. Scripture warns us of idle speculation.

I think Swordfish's advice is wise. Although it is by no means proven that the Shroud is a forgery, it is equally not proven that it is authentic, in spite of the firmly held convictions of people on both sides. If anyone relied on the authenticity of the Shroud for their faith, and it was later incontestably proved medieval, that would be a pity. As an illustration, or corroborating evidence, of course, that would be fine, as the bedrock of one's faith would not be affected either way.

I don't know for CERTAIN that the Shroud is authentic proof of the Resurrection, but I do believe it reveals attributes that, certainly collectively, are what one would expect of the real deal. And if it is not, it makes no sense that 1) it would have the attributes that it does, 2) nor would an ancient forger have the knowledge base to create and assemble such an artifact (of things like the correct pollens, nail placements, negative imagery, correct weaving, etc.), 3) nor the technical expertise to pull it off, 4) nor the motive to go to such incredible lengths, at a time when extremely easy to fake artifacts not only would have sufficed to fool the gullible, naive masses of the time, and 5) less we forget, we STILL cannot replicate the details it exhibits. Do we really think it would withstand so many modern experts if it were a mere medieval forgery? To me, to easily dismiss it as inauthentic, one must exlain away my five points - all of which I've seen NO one in this very long thread come close to CREDIBLY doing!

hughfarey wrote:I think Swordfish's advice is wise. Although it is by no means proven that the Shroud is a forgery, it is equally not proven that it is authentic, in spite of the firmly held convictions of people on both sides. If anyone relied on the authenticity of the Shroud for their faith, and it was later incontestably proved medieval, that would be a pity. As an illustration, or corroborating evidence, of course, that would be fine, as the bedrock of one's faith would not be affected either way.

There is a lot more reason to believe the shroud is authentic than to believe life evolves. I don't see how you can accept evolution,yet reject the shroud as authentic seeing that it cannot be made or produced by man and the closest man can come to producing an image requires powerful equipment that no medieval person could have.

abelcainsbrother wrote:

hughfarey wrote:I think Swordfish's advice is wise. Although it is by no means proven that the Shroud is a forgery, it is equally not proven that it is authentic, in spite of the firmly held convictions of people on both sides. If anyone relied on the authenticity of the Shroud for their faith, and it was later incontestably proved medieval, that would be a pity. As an illustration, or corroborating evidence, of course, that would be fine, as the bedrock of one's faith would not be affected either way.

There is a lot more reason to believe the shroud is authentic than to believe life evolves. I don't see how you can accept evolution,yet reject the shroud as authentic seeing that it cannot be made or produced by man and the closest man can come to producing an image requires powerful equipment that no medieval person could have.

An anti-evolution post in a Shroud thread?

Hey ACB, you also forgot to mention the Gap Theory and Donald Trump!

Hey ACB, you also forgot to mention the Gap Theory and Donald Trump!

Yes, that boy's just a tad obsessed on those. My theory is that Trump has one heck of a hairless gap under that squirrel rug he wears. He must use industrial strength hairspray on that thing.