Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:Bippy, Philip,
I hate to admit it, but I might have to look into this now.
I have read a little about the shroud, and I watched a YouTube video about how the 1988 carbon dating was done on a piece of the cloth that was woven into the shroud, and it wasn't part of the original. That video alone has peeked my interest enough that I want to do a little more studying.

And not to mention that I was disappointed with Hugh Ross' answers on the podcast. If I want to be honest, I must say that it seemed like he really had no idea what he was talking about in this case. I can usually spot it when someone doesn't know his subject, but is trying to make it sound like he does. Ross usually seems so knowledgable about the stuff he speaks about. I wish he had just said that he really hadn't looked into it, and declined to answer. He doesn't have to be an expert on everything.

If you guys have any suggestions on where to start, please point me to the right links or videos. I
really don't want to waste my time with links that don't have good info.

Thanks

What have I gotten myself into?

Hehe Rick, that's what most people say when they started looking into the shroud

As far as where to start , there is a blog by Stephen Jones, an evengelical Christian from down under, who has in my opinion one of the best shroud of turin blogs online, and he has started to garner attention among shroud scientists and researchers.

This blog will give u loads of upto date info on the shroud.
http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/

This is the peer reviewed paper from agnostic Chemist Ray Rogers that invalidated the 88 c14 testing that was published in the chemical journal thermochimica acta.

http://www.shroud.it/ROGERS-3.PDF

And this is another of Stephen jones site in which he has accumulated many years of information of shroud research.
http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/index.html

As for the 2009 duplicate made by an atheist scientist that was funded by an Italian atheist organization here is why this duplicate which Hugh Ross claims to have totally proven the shroud is a 13th century, lets take a look at the evidence of whether it was anything like the shroud.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... in_10.html

[Above: `Duplicate' of the `Shroud' by Prof. Luigi Garlaschelli: Sindonology.org, October 11, 2009. "More information about the tentative reproduction of the Shroud of Turin, made by an Italian researcher, came out in the last few days. Luigi Garlaschelli made public a few digital images of the result of his reproduction on the Web. The result is clearly not like the Shroud. Here are the major differences of this reproduction compared to the Shroud of Turin: *The anatomical details of the face and body do not have the precision of the Shroud. *The 3D effect does not have the precision found on the Shroud. On the tentative reproduction there are many locations where no image appears whereas one is perceivable on the Shroud of Turin. This is due to the technique used: an image made by contact. *The color of images of the reproduction has a red hue (images after washing red ocre) whereas on the Shroud of Turin it has a yellow-straw hue. *No microphotographies of the reproduction are provided. They should show that the images are superficial like the Shroud of Turin. Based on the technique used to create these images, we can infer that the images are not superficial. *In summary, the tentative reproduction of Luigi Garlaschelli is very far from being a reproduction of the Shroud of Turin."]

a ~4.4 x 1.1 metre sheet of linen. And as one commentator pointed out, "... the modern [Garlaschelli's] copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone" and is "completely inferior":

"As recently as October 2009 came yet another claim to have `reproduced' how the Shroud was faked. Luigi Garlaschelli ... Professor of Organic Chemistry at the University of Pavia in Italy, has made something of a speciality of debunking claims of religious paranormal phenomena. ... In the case of the Shroud, Garlaschelli's method was to place a linen sheet flat over a volunteer model, then rub this with a pigment containing acid. The pigment was then artificially aged by heating the cloth in an oven, then the cloth was washed. This process removed the pigment from the surface but left an image reputedly similar to that of the Shroud. Garlaschelli's claim, presented at a conference in northern Italy for atheists and agnostics, prompted a flurry of news headlines around the world. Yet even the most cursory comparison between his 'negative' ... and that on the Shroud reveals the former as hardly the 'definitive proof' of the Shroud's fraudulence that he has claimed for it. As remarked by one 'general public' commentator on the Reuters news story, `Why isn't anyone saying the obvious? Compare these two images ... the modern copy is garish, lacking any gradations of tone ... it's completely inferior, especially when one contrasts the faces and the chest areas.'"." (Wilson, 2010, p.29).
Moreover, Garlaschelli's `Shroud duplicate' is disqualified, because he applied the `blood' after he made the image, whereas on the Shroud of Turin, the blood was on the cloth before the image (which would be the case if the image was caused by Jesus' resurrection):

"Actually, the technique describes by Garlaschelli to reproduce the Shroud demonstrates that he did not reproduce it. For example, he added blood stains after he created the image. On the real Shroud of Turin, there is no image underneath the bloodstains. A basic fact known since 1978." Sindonology.org, October 9, 2009).

See also Thibault Heimburger, "Comments about the Recent Experiment of Professor Luigi Garlaschelli," November 2009.
http://www.shroud.com/pdfs/thibault-lg.pdf

This should help you understand both the c14 testing and the 2009 duplicate of the shroud.

Rick you got some heavy reading ahead of you my friend.

A good side reading Rick is Physicist John Jackson of the sturp teams cloth collapse theory .
Jackson's cloth collapse theory also predicted before hand a second more faint facial image on the backside of the cloth
Which was later discovered when the backsticthing was taken off by nuns during the 2002 restoration.
His theory seems to come closest to explaining the image but it requires us to use unconventional laws of physics .most skeptics never talk about that second facial image because it does so much damage to the forgery theory.

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/20 ... ional.html

Ok Rick , I don't want to bombard you with too much
Bippy

RickD wrote:Bippy,

I found some links on page 8 of this thread. I'll give them a look when I get a chance. The problem I have is that when I get interested in something, and start looking into it, I just keep digging deeper and deeper. I can see myself doing the same with this.

THANKS A LOT BIPPY!!!!!!

Hehe Rick, just dont get burnt out too fast
You should have seen me on the earlier posts here. Ill research so long that sometimes I look back at my old posts and I don't even remember what I posted lol. Talk about information overload

I ended up at a forum I never thought I'd be on in my life, a marijuana forum lol

Unfortunately, in my youth, I volunteered for quite a few marijuana "forums" - from which many brilliant ideas occurred to me. Problem is, I can't for the life of me remember what they were as unlike Brother Bill ... I did.

The problem I have is that when I get interested in something, and start looking into it, I just keep digging deeper and deeper. I can see myself doing the same with this.

Rick, you and me both. I can be quite anal, more than a little OCD, and ADD - a bad combination for some things, but a great combination for laser-focused while obsessively chasing down details and facts. And now that I work from home, this just gives me the flexibility to do that a lot more (I was born for the internet era! ). I'd say you, Bippy and I are very similar in that way. I have an absurd funny bone, and see crazy humor in things other people just don't seem to get. Rick, you and I are like that - crazy, absurdly silly but also intense and dead serious about things we're passionate about (my wife says "aggressive"). But when something really seems important to point out, somehow I just have to be that pedantic guy who is compelled to address the issue - I can't just ignore it. But I'm really trying harder to not be "that guy." My sister always tells me I'm a rebel, but I've never thought of myself in that way.

Rick, you and me both. I can be quite anal, more than a little OCD, and ADD - a bad combination for some things, but a great combination for laser-focused while obsessively chasing down details and facts. And now that I work from home, this just gives me the flexibility to do that a lot more (I was born for the internet era! ). I'd say you, Bippy and I are very similar in that way. I have an absurd funny bone, and see crazy humor in things other people just don't seem to get. Rick, you and I are like that - crazy, absurdly silly but also intense and dead serious about things we're passionate about (my wife says "aggressive"). But when something really seems important to point out, somehow I just have to be that pedantic guy who is compelled to address the issue - I can't just ignore it. But I'm really trying harder to not be "that guy." My sister always tells me I'm a rebel, but I've never thought of myself in that way.

Philip you just described me in a nut shell lol, are u sure we are not related ,
Can you imagine the chaos me u and Rick would cause lol

Unfortunately, in my youth, I volunteered for quite a few marijuana "forums" - from which many brilliant ideas occurred to me. Problem is, I can't for the life of me remember what they were as unlike Brother Bill ... I did.

Hehehe, those must have been some very interesting times Philip
Kind like 18 years ago when I went into a night club dressed in a sheep wool outfit and I was dancing with a lady and my outfit started to she'd lol

Looking back at those times it seemed like another person lol
Ahhh the memories

Philip wrote:
Rick, you and me both. I can be quite anal, more than a little OCD, and ADD - a bad combination for some things, but a great combination for laser-focused while obsessively chasing down details and facts. And now that I work from home, this just gives me the flexibility to do that a lot more (I was born for the internet era! ). I'd say you, Bippy and I are very similar in that way. I have an absurd funny bone, and see crazy humor in things other people just don't seem to get. Rick, you and I are like that - crazy, absurdly silly but also intense and dead serious about things we're passionate about (my wife says "aggressive"). But when something really seems important to point out, somehow I just have to be that pedantic guy who is compelled to address the issue - I can't just ignore it. But I'm really trying harder to not be "that guy." My sister always tells me I'm a rebel, but I've never thought of myself in that way.

Philip, that's funny. While I see some similarities, I also see some differences too. Take "anal" for example. I'm probably completely the opposite of that. I also would say that I'm the antithesis of OCD, too. Don't tell her, but my wife is certainly anal, and a little OCD as well.

But as far as ADD, I have some of those symptoms.

As far as being the guy who has to point out an important issue, I find myself being that guy at work. I don't know if as I'm getting older, I have less tolerance for B.S., but I find myself as the lone voice speaking out with all the double-standards, and other crap going on at work. Or, maybe I'm the only one speaking out because I think speaking out about what's wrong is more important than keeping quiet to save my job. I guess I've been out of work enough in my life to know that God has always provided, no matter what.

Bippy wrote:
Hehe Rick, just dont get burnt out too fast
You should have seen me on the earlier posts here. Ill research so long that sometimes I look back at my old posts and I don't even remember what I posted lol. Talk about information overload

Bippy, I'll try to take it slowly. Really I will.

Rick here is another one for you

http://theshroudofturin.blogspot.com/#para3
The blood clots are intact[33], not broken as they would be if the body and cloth they jointly adhered to became separated naturally[34]. This is a problem for all naturalistic theories of the formation of the Shroud's image[35].

33. Stevenson, K.E. & Habermas, G.R., "Verdict on the Shroud: Evidence for the Death and Resurrection of Jesus Christ," Servant Books: Ann Arbor MI, 1981, p.157. [return]
34. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, p.157. [return]
35. Stevenson & Habermas, 1981, pp.170-171. [return]

bippy123 wrote:Telesti, the shroud is believed by many to be the burial shroud of Christ. This is obviously why we have this thread here.
No one on this forum is worshipping it. Did you see any post on this forum that implied it should be worshipped?

This is the second time you've stated I said something...that I never said.

I Kings 6:23-36; 7:27-39; 8:6-67 - Solomon's temple contains statues of cherubim and images of cherubim
Last I checked these were Images, but cherubim were never worshipped. cheribum are angelic beings created by God.
If you take images too the extreme then we aren't even allowed to carry pictures of loved ones in our wallets.
As far as the shroud being biblical, it fits exactly the passion and crucifixion of Christ as it was in the gospels.
If it is the shroud of Christ, and it was caused by the resurrection then it's another witness to the resurrection.
As far as having no importance at all, maybe you can email mark Antonacci and August Accetta and tell them that they never should have studied the shroud in the first place, and then after that you can explain to It to Christ.

Your taking this all out of context....The shroud can be and has been used as an image of worship. Too not realize the implications of this is to not fully understand eschatology, the falling away, and the false image that we'll be what? Worshipped.

As far as it being from Satan, I could say that a picture of babe Ruth is from satan , would that mean that all images of babe Ruth should be banned because you have a fear of someone worshipping them, or worshipping images of Burt Lancaster?

The point being is that you really don't know who its from or where its going. So whats the standard that you gauge the shroud to be the image of Christ? Science???

If God allowed images of Cherubim in the most holy places of worship then images by themselves are not a sin, it's when we worship them , then it becomes a sin.

Has the shroud ever been worshipped?

I doubt you can find anything in scripture that says researching evidence for the shroud being a sin. If so maybe u can email
Bible believing Christians like Gary habermas, and pastor Kenneth Stevenson amongst others and explain this to them.

Here you go again taking me all out of context again...Never said that researching the shroud was a sin. Matter of fact I posted those two links from Gary Habermas, which gives support for the shroud. What I'm stating is purely my own conviction. Study it or don't study it...I'd rather study my bible.

Until then it's just a conspiracy theory with no evidence to back it up. You only have your own interpretation of scripture which obviously many Christians who have been studying the shroud disagree with.
God bless

A conspiracy theory? My own interpretation of scripture? Dude I'm not sure what the heck your even referring too... Answer me this then, have you held the shroud up to any biblical scrutiny? If so please explain.
God Bless you as well.

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

tetelesti wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

tetelesti wrote:I never stated that signs and wonders weren’t from God, I merely pointed out the fact that I don’t believe the Shroud is a sign. Why? Again because it can and did become an object of idolatry. If you reference the links I provided earlier you’d see a prominent figure bowing before the shroud. It's well documented that it did become an object of worship. Idols are a subject that scripture clearly forbids.

The shroud is not an idol unless you make it one, I doubt anyone here would be praying to a piece of cloth or worshipping it, this is just a curiosity and possibly a miracules sign that our beloved Jesus lefts us, nothing more and nothing less.

Hmm...I can just as easily say, the shroud is only a sign from God if you make it one.
Anyways we don't believe in curiosities and possible miracles...do we?

"In pointing out these things to the brethren, you will be a good servant of Christ Jesus, constantly nourished on the words of the faith and of the sound doctrine which you have been following. But have nothing to do with worldly fables fit only for old women. On the other hand, discipline yourself for the purpose of godliness"

If you find the cloth may become an idol for yourself, then run away from it and don't look back, but for the rest of us we can view it for what it is.

So what is the shroud? I ask this is all seriousness...

If you quote the bible, please provide book, chapter and verse.

Are these forum guidelines??? You know chapter and verse where after the fact.

That verse is talking about folk lore and fables, not real and tangible arifacts.

So the supposed image of Christ on the shroud is what? a fact...

By your reasoning we should abandon all scientific inquiry. You have pulled that verse way out of context and twisted it to mean what you want it too.

So I'm I too understand that by your apparent reasoning I'm too believe in the shroud because of science?

You say we "believe" in the shroud, please don't put words in our mouths, no one here believes in the shroud, our beliefs are firmly in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. We may have reasons to have beliefs about the shroud but we most certainly do not believe in it. There is definitely a distinction between the two or else pretty much everything becomes and idol in your eyes.

The shroud is what it is, like any ancient arifacts we can study them and learn things from them about history, culture and events that transpired long ago.

What it is is unsupported in scripture...

Like I said if you find that these types of things could be a stumbling block for your faith, then run far away. For the rest of us, we honor God in all things we do, we praise Jesus' mighty name because he has justified us through his blood and convicted us with his Holy Spirit and I have not been convicted that the shroud has become an idol for me, no more than any other interest I hold, because I honor God in everything I do.

This is the best part of your post.

The shroud is what it is, like any ancient arifacts we can study them and learn things from them about history, culture and events that transpired long ago.

Tetelesti wrote:
What it is is unsupported in scripture...

Tetelesti, do you believe the earth is the planet third farthest from the sun, even though that belief is not supported by scripture?

Tetelesti, there's nothing wrong with skepticism. But, don't you think it's only fair to make an educated decision about the shroud's authenticity? Unless you are saying you have researched it, and have evidence that it's not real.

For me, I'll do some research and I may or may not come to a decision about its authenticity. It really has no bearing whatsoever on my faith. And anybody whose faith relies on the authenticity of the shroud, really has a weak or false faith.

Tetelesti, I really don't get what you're on about. Even if the Shroud is real, it can certainly be wrongly worshiped - as it can be if it is false. If you think it is inauthentic, fine. The BIBLE can be improperly worshiped as a holy object - which is one reason why I believe God let insignificant errors into the copies (spelling problems, word order issues, etc) - because He didn't want Scripture to worshiped, but they AUTHOR of Scripture to be. Some in Scripture wrongly/initially bowed down as to worship angels sent by God - does that meant that the angels weren't real or weren't sent from God? Authentic things can be wrongly worshiped just a can inauthentic ones.

But, clearly, Satan would have to have the ability to know the future and to have known it's eventual technology to have engineered the Shroud as it is. Can Satan make REAL blood, and not just a counterfeit? Do we have any Biblical evidence of Satan creating physical objects - REAL, examinable physical objects? I don't think so. Again, how unlikely that Satan would create an artifact that he well knows would encourage believe in Jesus death and Resurrection - that makes very little sense. And as the Shroud has now been so extensively analyzed and believed in by millions - if Satan had created such a deception, why has he not yet exposed it as being just another fake Christian relic?

Danieltwotwenty wrote:Tetelesti I am not trying to be rude in saying this and I do truly believe what I say. I think you have a lot of fear inside you, your afraid that satan is hiding under rocks waiting to jump out and capture you. Fear I have found from experience is a tool used by satan, because if we are afraid we are not trusting In God, he uses fear as a distraction and it will turn you into a wreak. C.S.Lewis goes into this in the Screwtape Letters, it is an excellent book on how satan influences our thoughts.

Whatever you say Yoda. Regarding "your afraid that satan is hiding under rocks waiting to jump out and capture you", maybe we should refer to scripture and see what the bible actually says about satan.

"And Satan entered into Judas who was called Iscariot, belonging to the number of the twelve"

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan has demanded permission to sift you like wheat"

"But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit"

"Among these are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan, so that they will be taught not to blaspheme

"Be of sober spirit, be on the alert. Your adversary, the devil, prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour"

"Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil"

"do not let the sun go down on your anger,and do not give the devil an opportunity"

"Put on the full armor of God, so that you will be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil"

Apparently satan is waiting to jump out and capture me....don't you think?

And remember, even if there are 1,000 false relics, that doesn't mean this one is fake too. It has to be studied on its own merits.

Philip, is there a possibility in your mind that the shroud is not really Christ's shroud, but something else?

And I just keep thinking that the next time he reaches for it, that miniature volcano is going to blow that apple into that clown's noggin.

Philip wrote:And I just keep thinking that the next time he reaches for it, that miniature volcano is going to blow that apple into that clown's noggin.

Wow Philip!
First of all, it's not a miniature volcano. It is a mixture of deadly pies, and the remains of a security guard who just happened to be in the wrong place.
Second of all, it was meant to look like a sundae, so it's a cherry on top, not an apple.

Don't tell me you've never seen Killer Klowns From outer space?