Evidence for God from Science

DRDS wrote:Thanks for the link Bippy,I'll certainly check it out. I tell you I was thinking, with evidence as good as this stuff is on the shroud it's such a shame that Christianity as a whole is not welcoming the shroud and the evidence that goes with it as they should.

I guess between the 1988 carbon dating fiasco, the fact that the shroud is considered by most to be a "catholic relic" especially by Protestants, and the nut fringe group Kent Hovind groupies who think Jesus had a Chuck Norris haircut in a time long before barbers were invented people I guess just wrongly consider the shroud to be spiritual taboo of sorts.

I really hope people will get a chance to be exposed to all this great new evidence and hope they have an open mind to accept it because if they do, we could see a flood of new people coming to Christ because of it.

The only bad thing is those groups of people I mentioned above try everything in their power to keep people away from studying the shroud with an open mind. They almost become as committed to their alternative shroud views as yecs and theistic evolutionists have with their views in the age of the earth/creation debates or as Calvinists and Armenians get in their debates.

I just wish they could put aside their emotions for a bit and try to just examine the evidence presented here in this thread with the same kind of sober mindedness like detectives view a crime scene. If that could happen that could spark almost like another second great awakening type of event. Or at least that's my take on it.

DRDS, when I read that Chuck Norris haircut post, I was laughing for 5 minutes
Your right though, that there is so much fear and misinformation about the shroud and as u stated it's sad to see that there are many Christians that haven't been informed about the shroud. Trust me many Catholics don't know this stuff as well. I mean even sober minded people like Hugh Ross still thinks the c14 test proves the shroud is a fake.

The shroud is for all Christians as well as agnostics and honest truth seekers as well, but it's not really for Atheists as they allready made up their minds and don't want to be bothered by the facts.

There is a short video from the worlds foremost expert on the flowers of jersualem, professor emeritus from the university of jerusalem Avinoam Danin. I'll post the link in my next message:)

Here is the link to the very short video from Professor Avinoam Danin.
He is the absolute expert in flowers of Jerusalem .




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nPde-j2X ... ata_player

You should see some of the atheist I've been battling with on the IMDB religious forums over this subject. Some them hit and run and never return. Others try to use blitzkrieg tactics. If you don't know what a blitzkrieg tactic is in computer terms. Its where you post blocks and blocks of information(C&P). Most of it irrelevant a But the purpose is to try and overwhelm you with information. One of them tries to do it all the time. The other night this atheist Copied and pasted a article claiming that the shroud was in fact painting and proceeded to mock. But if they had taken the time to read what they were posting they would have seeen the article actually refuted and debunked the claim that it was painted. How embarrassing for them.

I'm also amazed at the willful ignorance some of them displayed. However, my tag team partner so to speak in defending the shrouds authenticity was actually an atheist

Swimmy wrote:You should see some of the atheist I've been battling with on the IMDB religious forums over this subject. Some them hit and run and never return. Others try to use blitzkrieg tactics. If you don't know what a blitzkrieg tactic is in computer terms. Its where you post blocks and blocks of information(C&P). Most of it irrelevant a But the purpose is to try and overwhelm you with information. One of them tries to do it all the time. The other night this atheist Copied and pasted a article claiming that the shroud was in fact painting and proceeded to mock. But if they had taken the time to read what they were posting they would have seeen the article actually refuted and debunked the claim that it was painted. How embarrassing for them.

I'm also amazed at the willful ignorance some of them displayed. However, my tag team partner so to speak in defending the shrouds authenticity was actually an atheist

Swimmy, sounds like your having some nice clean fun with them there
Maybe I'll check it out on the weekend. It's good to see that you've experienced the typical atheist responses to the shroud's authenticity. This is the effect that it has on atheists.
I'm surprised they still respond at all concerning the shroud, and fun watching them abandon all reason, logic and rationality as well ad their supposed love for science and facts.

The shroud is like kryptonite to them as it strips them naked and exposes all their biases not only in front of everyone else, but within themselves also. The more intelligent atheists know better and just stay as far away from the shroud as possible, it's a losing proposition.

Sounds like your doing a great job on that board Swimmy, and how ironic that ur tag team partner defending the shroud
with u is an atheist. Who knows, maybe you exposing him to the shroud means that he is open for conversion.

What I find amusing is that they are still defending the painting theory.
He must think the earth is flat or the sun revolves around the earth

Ah yes the blitzkrieg tactic, Pierson on this forum tried that on me lol

I'm still chuckling about DRDS's chuck Norris haircut post loool

Very disappointed to see that Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe finds the Shroud a fake. Here is a podcast of him discussing it in detail: http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... d-of-turin

He is impressed with the Italian who "duplicated" the image of the shroud using 13 century technology. He never addresses the fact that the portion of fibers sampled may have been from the repair. He also references dye supposedly used.

He also addresses the Shroud in his book, "A Matter of Days."

Philip wrote:Very disappointed to see that Hugh Ross of Reasons to Believe finds the Shroud a fake. Here is a podcast of him discussing it in detail: http://www.reasons.org/podcasts/science ... d-of-turin

He is impressed with the Italian who "duplicated" the image of the shroud using 13 century technology. He never addresses the fact that the portion of fibers sampled may have been from the repair. He also references dye supposedly used.

He also addresses the Shroud in his book, "A Matter of Days."

Philip,I'm still in shock that Hugh Ross feels this way. I'm totally baffled because I love the rest of his stuff, but that replication was so totally debunked by all the major scientists that most of the hardened skeptic atheists don't even use it.
I'm almost at a loss for words (almost lol).

Anyways, I love the rest of his site, but I just wish he would have the good Doctor Kenneth Stevenson on his podpast just one time. I think Kenneth could get him up to date in a hurry:)

Bippy, the podcast was done in 2009. I'm not sure how much of the debunking of the supposedly duplicated results was done after his broadcast? It would seem that he is not totally informed on the issue - which is hard to believe. I know (through correspondence) a well-known scholar who told me that Hugh once told him that he and his staff spend a good portion of every week pouring over new data and scholarly journals.

While Hugh and the other RTB team members answers questions on his podcasts, perhaps it would be important for you to provide them with key questions and references to analysis that might cause Hugh and co to re-examine its position. If you mail them, I can guarantee you that Hugh would read it. But it would need to quickly address key points that refute his position - doubt he's going to comb through mountains of materials. Also key for Hugh, would be the credentials of those rebutting key aspects of what he has based his rejection of the Shroud on.

Keep up the good work. I'm so glad that my posting of the newspaper article generated so much additional commentary and information - especially from you.

Philip wrote:Bippy, the podcast was done in 2009. I'm not sure how much of the debunking of the supposedly duplicated results was done after his broadcast? It would seem that he is not totally informed on the issue - which is hard to believe. I know (through correspondence) a well-known scholar who told me that Hugh once told him that he and his staff spend a good portion of every week pouring over new data and scholarly journals.

While Hugh and the other RTB team members answers questions on his podcasts, perhaps it would be important for you to provide them with key questions and references to analysis that might cause Hugh and co to re-examine its position. If you mail them, I can guarantee you that Hugh would read it. But it would need to quickly address key points that refute his position - doubt he's going to comb through mountains of materials. Also key for Hugh, would be the credentials of those rebutting key aspects of what he has based his rejection of the Shroud on.

Keep up the good work. I'm so glad that my posting of the newspaper article generated so much additional commentary and information - especially from you.

Thanks philip:).
Hmm your right, as far as the c14 dating I'll just send them Ray Rogers peer reviewed thermochimica acts paper.
As far as the replica, I do remember a few scolarly critiques in shroud.com
It might take a week or 2 to put something together but I will have something good for them.

Here's a thought, perhaps you ought send Hugh Ross a few of your references Bippy and see what happens. Maybe he'll take a second look at it and reconsider his position. He would be a great asset to have on the shroud's side.

Thanks philip:).
Hmm your right, as far as the c14 dating I'll just send them Ray Rogers peer reviewed thermochimica acts paper.
As far as the replica, I do remember a few scolarly critiques in shroud.com
It might take a week or 2 to put something together but I will have something good for them.

Bippy, it sure can't hurt! One thing to remember is that RTB exists to trumpet powerful evidences to support its contention that the Bible is God's word. If an evidence isn't supported by a LARGE number of factors and independent, peer-reviewed studies, it may be something they believe wise to stay clear of. I don't know that I've ever seen them really do an about face on a position they've held. But that's not to say they wouldn't if they consider the evidence to be especially compelling.

A couple of things: I find it fascinating that the Bible actually mentions Jesus' burial wrappings - at least enough to know that there were two parts. And any force or energy released during the Resurrection might have easily incinerated the Shroud, much less have left an improbable image on it. Obviously, whether The Shroud is the real deal or not, the burial garments were intentionally preserved. But who might have retrieved them for safekeeping? How did the head portion get separated from the rest? Why would whoever retrieved the garments not have kept them together? The Biblical accounts show no one lingering at the grave, except Mary, who encountered Jesus Himself. Truly, with all of this drama going on, the burial garments would seem only important in its aftermath. It's also puzzling as to why there is no strong stream of oral history that the Shroud existed prior to the first known accounts.

Philip wrote:

Thanks philip:).
Hmm your right, as far as the c14 dating I'll just send them Ray Rogers peer reviewed thermochimica acts paper.
As far as the replica, I do remember a few scolarly critiques in shroud.com
It might take a week or 2 to put something together but I will have something good for them.

Bippy, it sure can't hurt! One thing to remember is that RTB exists to trumpet powerful evidences to support its contention that the Bible is God's word. If an evidence isn't supported by a LARGE number of factors and independent, peer-reviewed studies, it may be something they believe wise to stay clear of. I don't know that I've ever seen them really do an about face on a position they've held. But that's not to say they wouldn't if they consider the evidence to be especially compelling.

A couple of things: I find it fascinating that the Bible actually mentions Jesus' burial wrappings - at least enough to know that there were two parts. And any force or energy released during the Resurrection might have easily incinerated the Shroud, much less have left an improbable image on it. Obviously, whether The Shroud is the real deal or not, the burial garments were intentionally preserved. But who might have retrieved them for safekeeping? How did the head portion get separated from the rest? Why would whoever retrieved the garments not have kept them together? The Biblical accounts show no one lingering at the grave, except Mary, who encountered Jesus Himself. Truly, with all of this drama going on, the burial garments would seem only important in its aftermath. It's also puzzling as to why there is no strong stream of oral history that the Shroud existed prior to the first known accounts.

Philip, you brought up a good point about the energy released by the resurrection, but you have to remember that if God wanted there to be a resurrection do you think he would have created it in a way that would kill people. John Jackson's (my future professor ) said that if you want try to understand what happened on that image your going to have to change the laws of Physics. I believe this is where the information on the shroud will lead us to. Im sure that God knew of a way to do this without harming anyone else.

As far as the biblical accounts, that Peter and the other disciple were also there and one legend holds that Peter grabbed the shroud. Now he might of grabbed the sudarium of Oviedo or not, im not sure, but you have to remember that for the first almost 400 years after Jesus that being a Christian meant certain death for you. Peter however, wasnt afraid to die, but if I was Peter and I held something as precious as the shroud in my possession do you think I would want the Pharasees or the Romans to know about it? Common sense would say that they would most certainly have taken the shroud from him.

Its my opinion that Peter took both of them and gave the sudarium to someone else for safe keeping just in case they found him with the shroud and took it away from him. Remember that during and after the time that Peter died it was almost a crime to be a Christian and they had to be on the hush hush to be able to pass this down from generation to generation. The fact that Rogers Vanillin test showed this to be much older then the c14 tests and on par with other relics that tested negative for vanillin (like the dead sea scrolls) shows why they would want to pass this down.

Also remember that the shroud was most likely known as the mandylion, and if you recall in the accounts of the mandylion (which are historically older then the shroud's history) only the head part of the image was shown to people, and historical accounts of the mandylion show that it was folded 8 times to be able to get it just to show the face. Sure enough, shroud experts found creases that showed that the shroud was folded over 8 times and when folded in this way the shroud shows only the face part of the image.

Remember also that the sudariums history is indesputable going all the way back to the late 500's, and the sudarium is a perfect match with the shroud as far as blood point congruent points. It also has much of the same pollens found on the shroud from the jerualem area, but this is where it gets shocking. They also found microscopic pollen from areas of the world that were different then the shrouds. When Max frei took his sticky samples of the sudarium , he didnt even know a thing about the sudariums history, but the pollen found on the sudarium perfectly matches the history of the shroud (the geography of where it has been through its indesputable history).

The shroud is the "sexy" relic as it has an image but its a grave error for any shroud researcher to ignore the sudariums importance in this. The sudarium and the hungarium pray codex were important in understanding why true shroud researchers initially objected to the dates found on the c14 tests.

There is also the legend of akbar that says that the king of eddesa was gravely ill and asked for Jesus to come there to visit him. Jesus refused but promised to send someone in his place. Soon after Jesus was crucified one of his disiples (maybe one of the lesser known, not sure as I havent researched this fully) brought the shroud to the king and he was instantly healed and converted to Christianity. This is the legend of Akbar.

Byblos wrote:Here's a thought, perhaps you ought send Hugh Ross a few of your references Bippy and see what happens. Maybe he'll take a second look at it and reconsider his position. He would be a great asset to have on the shroud's side.

Your right byblos, but I have to pick out the info very carefully as from what I know about him, Ross is a stickler for peer revewed research, but yea he would be an awesome asset on the shroud's side.
Or better yet ill just mention to him that Kent Hovind thinks its a fake (just kidding ).
I wouldnt waste Professor Ross's time by bringing Hovind up lol.

Also remember Philip that no one fully understood the image like scientists and experts do now. No one would have imagined that the image on the shroud was actually a photographic negative, or that there is xray information on it and all of the other unique characteristics of the shroud, Plus when the 2 relics became seperated no one hundreds of years after Christ could have known about the pollen matches and the blood congruent points between the shroud and sudarium.

Segunda Pia almost dropped his negative plate in complete shock when he saw a positive image where a negative image was supposed to appear.

All these things werent known to the early Christians hundreds of years after the disciples but probably knew it was important through the oral tradition that was passed down to them. Im sure glad they perserved it for us to see now.

Ok guys I found another great documentary that goes into detail about the shroud with Jewish burial cerimonies, an actual live person having his head wrapped to show how the sudarium was likely wrapped around Jesus's body, the historic trail of the sudarium, and technical detail of why this image was most likely some form of columnated radiation, plus some talk of the xray detail found on the shroud image.

This documentary was probably done before 2005 , so it showed all of the information combined with the multiple congruent matches between the sudarium and shroud allready had most of the shroud experts doubting the c14 tests before Ray Rogers destroyed the validity of the tests.




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=786CXXQf ... ata_player

Say Bippy, I've got another question, by any chance have you ever heard of the "Veil of Veronica"? It's apparently a head cloth with somewhat distorted image of Christ on it. I don't really know much about it since I just found out about it earlier today. Here is a link to what it looks like.



The main reason why I was wanting to ask you about it is I saw on youtube recently that some people (I guess they are atheists) are claiming that this was some sort of middle ages photo development technology that only a few people knew about. And that the same people and technology that was used to make that also helped make the shroud. Let me know what you take is on this. Thank you for your time Bippy, God bless.